Sasol Limited (SOL) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the 42nd Annual General Meeting of the shareholders of Sasol Limited. My name is Sipho Nkosi, Chairman of the Board of Sasol. Please allow me a moment to introduce my colleagues, and I'm not going to ask them to stand. If they could just wave wherever they are, that would be great. Mr. Fleetwood Grobler, who is our Chief Executive Officer, and he's also present here in this venue; Mr. Paul Victor, Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Vuyo Kahla; Ms. Michelle du Toit, this is the Group Company Secretary; Ms. Trix Kennealy, Chairman of the Audit Committee; Ms. Mpho Nkeli, Chairman of the Remuneration Committee; Mr. Stephen Westwell, Chairman of the Audit Committee; Ms. Mpho Nkeli, Chairman of the Remuneration Committee; Mr. Stephen Westwell, Chairman of the Capital Investment and Digital Committee; Ms. Muriel Dube, Chairman of the Safety, Social Ethics Committee; Mr. Manuel Cuambe; Ms. Kathy Harper; Mr. Peter Robertson; Ms. Nomgando Matyumza; Mr. Moses Mkhize; Mr. Stanley Subramoney; and virtually, we have Dr. Martina Floel and Mr. Johan Potgieter, who's representing our auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers. I would like to ask our CEO, Fleetwood Grobler, to present the safety moment before we commence with the session. Fleetwood?

Thank you, Chairman. We tragically experienced 2 fatalities during the financial year '21 and are deeply saddened to report that we have had 5 more fatalities in our current financial year, arising out of 3 incidents. We are gravely concerned about our current safety performance considering the significant improvement in performance in FY '21, where fatalities reduced from 6 to 2 with only 1 other high severity incident. The improved performance in FY '21 was during a major organizational restructuring. Safety is a matter close to the hearts of everyone at team Sasol and is an area we will never stop working to improve so that we eliminate workplace fatalities. Our commitment to our people and the communities around us is that we will continue to promote and develop a deeper understanding of human behavior. At Sasol, safety remains our top priority, and we are fully committed to turning the tide on our recent safety performance to make sure our people return home to their families at the end of each day. We take our safety performance very seriously and acknowledge that one fatality is one fatality too many. Rectifying our safety challenges starts with understanding what went wrong and understanding how to prevent this from happening again. For our incident investigations, we appoint appropriate independent external chairpersons supported by both internal and external subject matter experts, and we continue to follow a rigorous incident management process. Potential high severity incidents are also investigated to learn from near miss experiences to better unpack the potential impact and consequence of control failures. With regards to the multiple fatalities, which occurred on 26 October '21, we have instituted an independent external investigation to determine the root cause of this tragic incident. Our Board visited the Bosjesspruit Colliery last Monday -- or this week, Monday to engage with our mining staff and their supervisors and to have firsthand conversations with them regarding their experience of safety. Management is taking steps without preempting the findings of the independent investigation to ensure that all operations are being conducted with the due regard for our overarching principle of safety first. Following completion of the fatality investigations, we arrived at 5 additional themes and a corresponding focus areas, which if implemented successfully, will ensure we improve our current safety performance with the necessary due diligence and care. These augment our current high severity incident program and informs the conversations we have across our businesses and teams as they navigate their specific safety journeys. Our leaders are part of these conversations. And from here, we shape our safety culture. Good progress has been made in certain areas to date, where we track the progress and can see a marked improvement in the safety performance. We acknowledge that more can be done to improve and will focus our efforts on stepping up our safety efforts starting immediately. To actualize our themes in these areas, our capabilities -- to actualize our themes and our capabilities regarding SH&E risk and incident management, assurance and humanizing safety remain critical. Our priority is to embed learnings from previous incidents. Humanizing safety is a leadership imperative to enable mindfulness and ensure a balanced approach between caring for our people and ensuring operational discipline and compliance. Humanizing safety links strongly to the tone being set by our leaders while also ensuring a fair and accountable safety culture across the organization. Let me end off by reiterating that a safe working environment is non-negotiable. We as leaders and employees remain committed to 0 harm and safety remains our top priority. Before commencing with today's proceedings, I would like to ask that we all take a moment to remember those colleagues who lost their lives and to share our heartfelt condolences with their families, friends and colleagues. Thank you for this, and let's have a moment of silence.

Thank you. Thanks for sharing that safety moment with us, Fleetwood. On behalf of the Board and all Sasol's people, allow me to also take this opportunity to convey our sincerest condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of those who tragically passed away, both in workplace incidents and from COVID-19. Let's all observe this moment and think about it all the time, and we have done that one in terms of observation. So any loss of life in our workplace is unacceptable. And as the Board, we will continue to set appropriate parameters to ensure management meets our 0 harm aspirations. In fulfilling our promise to keep our people safe. The Board holds management accountable for providing a safe working environment to all our people, espousing the health, well-being and safety of the people as a top priority, must translate into 0 fatalities, and we know we have much to do to realize this objective. In this regard, the Board remains dedicated to the effective oversight of safety at Sasol and supports the heightened focus and systematic approach to prevent the recurrence and limit the severity of accidents and incidents. Consistent with this oversight committee, as Fleetwood has pointed out, on Monday, the 15th of November '21, the Board visited the Bosjesspruit Colliery to receive management's presentation on the latest tragic fatality incident and to interact underground with the miners and their supervisors to enable us to gain some appreciation of their attitude to safety at literally the coal phase. Culture remains a key enabler to embedding improved safety standards, and we are encouraged by the progress that management has made in nurturing a culture of care and humanizing safety. At this point, I would like to share my reflections of the past year. I will then ask the CEO, Fleetwood, to share Sasol's business overview, provide a strategic update, reflect on Sasol's financial results and its future financial framework. We will then go into the formal business of the meeting, including voting on resolutions and responding to your questions before adjourning. So let's start. Let me now take a few moments to share recent changes to the Sasol Limited Board of Directors. The broad diversity and experience of the Board is vital to support the delivery of our strategy and creation of value. Ensuring the Board has an optimal mix of skills and experience is key to fulfilling our fiduciary duties in the best interest of all stakeholders. This past year, we welcomed Stanley Subramoney. And of course, you saw him waving a hand today, as Independent Nonexecutive Director and a member of the Audit Committee with effect from March 1, '21. Stanley, a chartered accountant and a highly experienced director and business executive, brings significant audit experience to the Board, and we are already benefiting from his knowledge and skills. Upon the retirement of Colin Beggs as Independent Nonexecutive Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee, Trix assumed chairmanship of the Audit Committee on 1 September 2021. Trix is a highly respected director who qualified as a chartered accountant in 1982 and is a seasoned finance professional. Indeed, a worthy successor to Colin. So on behalf of the Board, I convey our sincerest appreciation to Colin for his outstanding contribution of more than 12 years. He served the Board and our shareholders with distinction, and we wish him all the best for the future. The Board also beats bids farewell to Moses Mkhize and Peter Robertson, who have, during their 10 years as directors and chairing committees of the Board and through their many years of industry experience, complemented the depth and diversity of experience on the Board. I wish to convey our sincerest appreciation to Moses and to Peter for their invaluable contributions of more than 9 years. We wish them all the best in their so-called retirement. At the end of the financial year '22, Paul Victor will step down as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Director. Hanre Rossouw has been appointed as CFO Designate and Executive Director Designate to succeed Paul. Hanre will join Sasol on 4 April 2022 and will assume his position as Executive Director and CFO on the 1st of July 2022. An external evaluation of the effectiveness and performance of the Board, its committees, the directors and the Chairman was conducted by a global management and leadership advisory firm. We also asked them to benchmark the ideal size of a Board against our peers. Given the key skill set and competences identified and taking into account, among other factors, Sasol's international footprint and complexity, the Board agreed that the ideal size of the Board is between 12 and 14 directors, that is including the executive directors. In the near term, we need to bolster our business leadership and sustainability competencies to enable the delivery of the strategy of future Sasol. To this end, we will be looking at appointing to the Board a director meeting that profile. The Board keeps a watchful eye on the promises we commit to deliver. Notwithstanding our much improved financial position during the past financial year, we must continue to act prudently to ensure we can withstand any potential fallout from the global uncertainty. For this reason, the Board decided to pass on paying a dividend. We will restore dividend payouts once our next debt position is below USD 5 billion, as I said, and our net debt-to-EBITDA cover is 1.5x. We are committed to creating value for all our stakeholders and sustainably decarbonizing our operations to reach our net 0 emission ambition by 2050. Of course, these remain a view that we must transition quicker -- there remains a view that we must transition quicker. We acknowledge and in fact appreciate these perspectives. We, as the Board, have reflected deeply on what is achievable, taking into consideration the constraints that range from capital and technology to human capital, skills and capabilities and believe our plans will progress at the appropriate pace to ensure a just energy transition. We will continue enhancing areas required to ensure we remain true to our strategic direction. And the Board will provide the necessary steer and bring independent, informed and effective judgment and leadership to bear on material decisions and ensure all considerations are effectively integrated and appropriately balanced. Since our last AGM in 2020, Sasol's people have upheld their endeavor to meet our commitments to stakeholders by being responsive and solutions focused. In this regard, we identify, assess and monitor stakeholders' expectations together with significant issues that could have a bearing on our operations and strategy. Management tracks and provides regular feedback on our commitments and the issues that stakeholders raise. Two of the material matters on which we engage stakeholders that I would like to highlight today are those of sustainability, and more specifically, climate change, as well as the issue of executive remuneration and nonexecutive directors' fee. From a reward perspective, we held a series of engagements with approximately 25 of our largest investors between March and October '21. We also held engagements with several NGOs, groups and investors on the nonbinding advisory vote on climate change. You will be aware from the AGM notice that we are tabling our first say on climate resolution at today's meeting. On the matter of climate change, let me briefly address the reasons why we declined to proposed shareholders' resolution filed by Aeon Investment Management and Just Share in September and October of this year. On the first proposed resolution, these parties requested that we provide details of our membership of climate-related industry associations and membership fees payable, their lobbying activities, our alignment with their objectives and circumstances under which we would terminate our membership. They also requested that we provide information with respect to actual lobbying undertaken by such associations. We reviewed our climate change report for the year ended 30 June '21 for alignment with the request and informed them that our '21 climate change report already complies substantially with the requirements spelt out in the resolution and as set out in the report we have committed to further enhance our disclosures taking into account, among others, the matters raised in their proposed nonbinding advisory vote. We also declined a second resolution filed by these parties on 7 October on the basis that we have already committed to enhance our reporting on climate-related advocacy in future disclosures. The second resolution effectively sought to request shareholders to require the company to make additional disclosures it may have already committed to give in its climate change report for 2022. Sasol has also committed to further engage with Aeon Investment Management and Just Share in the lead-up to the 2022 report. It needs to be noted that we have met with them twice this year in June and again in September, and we'll continue engaging them on these critical matters. The Board thanks all our stakeholders for their willingness to engage with us and their recognition of our commitment to transparency. We incorporate feedback into our decision-making processes as we consider it vital that we adopt an outside-in view to ensure that our governance remains robust. In a few minutes, Sasol's President and Chief Executive Officer, Fleetwood, will again address you for his presentation. He will provide a business overview and strategy update as well as reflect on our financial results and future financial framework. From the Board's perspective, we are very pleased that Team Sasol met all the short-term targets for FY '21 and exceeded expectations on several. This has resulted in a deleveraged balance sheet and avoiding the need for a rights issue. Sasol is now on a much stronger footing to tackle our future opportunities and challenges. With a fundamentally reset balance sheet, new operating model and focused portfolio of assets to drive value creation, we have a robust foundation in place to deliver future Sasol. Looking longer-term, with the Board's oversight, Sasol's management team has updated the strategy for the organization. Our commitment to shareholders is to ensure value creation well into the future, and we believe we now have a credible pathway to realize future Sasol, a competitive, relevant, and above all, greener company. Central to future Sasol are our plans to accelerate the decarbonization of our business. The CEO will address this and the other topics I mentioned earlier as part of his presentation today. On that note, I now hand over to Fleetwood to address us. Fleetwood?

Thank you, Sipho, and good day again, once again from my side, ladies and gentlemen. Before commencing this part of today's proceedings, I must bring to your attention our safe harbor provision regarding forward-looking statements and definitions as it relates to the contents of the presentation I'm about to share. In his opening remarks, our Chairman mentioned that we met all our financial year '21 targets and indeed exceeded many of them. So I am delighted to have the opportunity to update you on the considerable progress Sasol has made over the past 12 months. I will do this by sharing a summary of our results for the financial year '21 as well as a brief recap of the key messages we shared at our recent Capital Markets Day on our future Sasol strategy and decarbonization road maps. I will also update you on Sasol's broader contributions to society, especially the leadership role we are playing in helping South Africa transition to a greener energy system. Let me start with some highlights for the financial year '21. It is worth recalling that the pandemic posed very significant challenges to us. Not only the demand for some of our fuel products collapsed as people stopped traveling, but prices also weakened significantly. At the same time, we experienced a record-breaking hurricane season in the U.S.. Recognizing the role we play in the lives of our employees and communities, we continued to provide wide-ranging support to ensure the safety and well-being of our people and communities through these challenging times. We have committed to accelerating our transition to a low-carbon world. And in doing so, we have tripled our 2030 Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emission reduction target from an initial 10% for our South African operations to 30% for our energy and chemical businesses of a 2017 baseline. We have also committed to a future ambition to be at net 0 emissions by 2050. Another consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and our associated recovery is that our greenhouse gas emissions increased from financial year '20 to '21. In 2020, 2 shutdowns were undertaken, taking advantage of the depressed production during COVID-19, which allowed for additional maintenance. As a result, a maintenance shutdown was not required in 2021, and we operated for the full year and producing more product as well as associated emissions. This resulted in an unforeseen increase in our emissions, which is still lower than our 2017 baseline, but our commitment remains to reduce our emissions in line with our road map, and we will continue to transparently report on our journey. Turning to our '21 financial results. This was characterized by a remarkable turnaround of our financial position despite the headwinds we faced. Although it is a while ago now, you will recall that in response to the critical challenges we faced in early 2020, we announced a USD 6 billion response plan. I'm pleased to report that we've delivered on this while also significantly exceeding our $1 billion cash savings target for the past financial year. We also progressed our asset divestment program in line with our strategy with the majority of the USD 3.8 billion proceeds banked. Lastly, net debt to EBITDA decreased from 4.3x in FY '20 to 1.5x, as we strengthened our balance sheet. The decisive actions we took meant that we did not need to call on our shareholders for support through a rights issue. Our next priority is to bring back the dividend. Let me now focus on the first quarter of financial year 2022, which concluded on 30 September this year. Our operational performance during this period was hindered by some challenges experienced in our South African operations. In the mining business, the implementation of a new model called the Fulco system, is having a slower ramp-up than anticipated, and our safety performance is below the high standards we set ourselves. This created disruption within our mining operations. Our Secunda operations have been impacted by both planned and unplanned issues. This also had a knock-on effect on the chemicals volumes from our South African value chains. We are confident that these issues will be resolved, and we are taking a number of measures to do so. We will provide a more detailed update on these matters at our interim results in February next year. During quarter 1, our Lake Charles ramp-up was also impacted by unplanned outages at both ethane crackers in July, but all units are now online and ramping up in line with expectations. The planned shutdown of our Sasol-owned east cracker is progressing well and is expected to be back online at the end of November. Overall, Chemicals revenue was higher than the prior period, mainly as a result of improved demand, higher oil prices and market dynamics as a result of COVID-19-related supply chain challenges. Our business did, however, managed to benefit from the stronger macroeconomic environment and the ramp-up of our Sasol 2.0 initiatives. A focused approach to cost, capital and working capital management continue across all areas. You will recall that the crisis last year, not only required us to put in place an immediate response plan, we also needed to make Sasol more competitive to ensure that we could drive profitability to deliver on our long-term strategy even in a lower oil price environment. We named this program Sasol 2.0, and set ourselves some clear targets that we need to achieve over the coming years. I am pleased to report that we have completed the first critical steps to achieving this by restructuring the business and in the process, substantially reducing our cost base. The run rate benefits, of which we will be realizing in the financial year '22, is on track. In restructuring the business, the organization is now more agile and the new operating model enables us to make decisions closer to our customers. So we have taken the difficult steps needed to put the business back on track, and now we need to focus on moving forward at our Capital Markets Day held in September this year. We set out the vision for the business, focusing on a strategy that delivers across our triple bottom line outcomes for people, planet and profit. I talked then about our commitment to a 2050 net 0 ambition and our tripled GHG reduction targets by 2050. Guiding us on this transformation journey is our purpose, innovating for a better world. For Sasol, our purpose means doing things differently, and it spans across all areas, our technologies, products, how we run our plants, partnering, working with customers, supporting communities and realizing the full potential of our people and business. It is about reinventing ourselves over time. In short, growing shared value while accelerating our transition. As a global society, we cannot continue to function as we currently do if we do not make more sustainable choices. Sustainability is the defining topic of today and, of course, was front and center at COP26. In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the pressure to decarbonize businesses and adopt more sustainable technologies, whether from investors, regulators, civil society, employees and customers. While the trajectory and urgency to reach a global net 0 is clear, the pace and the economics of this transition remains uncertain. It will depend on the factors difficult to predict, in particular, enabling technology breakthroughs and the global community's ability to cooperate to set consistent and effective policy and regulations. Progress was made at COP26 even if these achievements fell short of what some would have liked to see. But we also know that whatever the imperfections of these global processes, they are not an excuse for inaction. We know we have to move fast to transition to a new Sasol, but to do so in a responsible manner. Against this backdrop, our strategy is built on the dual approach. Firstly, we must preserve shareholder value from our current business while decarbonized and transition to a lower-carbon feedstocks suite. Secondly, we need to invest in new sustainable businesses and access attractive future value pools that leverage our capabilities. Given the uncertainties, our strategy is also adaptable and can respond to changes in the external environment and customer needs. The energy transition presents unique challenges for South Africa, given that it is among the world's highest per-capita greenhouse gas emitters. At the same time, we have a deep belief that there is a huge opportunity for a green hydrogen economy in this region. Strong endowments in wind and solar resource, platinum group metals and access to unique technologies such as the Fischer-Tropsch process on which Sasol has been built, can be a strong catalyst for growth. We also believe that our South African -- that South Africa can grow its export market for low-carbon products given our advantaged geographic positioning. But to achieve this, we will require collaboration between governments and the private sector as well as a clear road map. At COP26, just over a week ago, we saw countries committing to net 0, recognizing the urgency to transition. South Africa's efforts in this regard were welcomed and USD 8.5 billion just transition funding facility was committed to from several major economies. Also acknowledged was the need for coal to be phased out, all of which is well-aligned with our thinking that has shaped Sasol's decarbonization and just transition approach. Our targets have been set both up to 2030 and 2050. Our ambitious 2030 target can be delivered with our divestments and offsets through the direct decarbonization of our existing assets. It will be done through a mix of energy and process efficiency, investments in renewables and a shift to incremental natural gas as a transition feedstock for our Southern African value chain. Our plans to 2030 will leverage known solutions and technologies and can be delivered with optimal capital investments. Our first Scope 1 and Scope 2 reduction milestone, we aim to achieve by 2026 and is a 5% reduction in emissions for our energy business and a 20% reduction for our chemicals business. These milestones are over and above the 10 million ton reduction already achieved since 2004, where we pursued and are close to exhausting our low-hanging reduction opportunities. We now require capital investments and time to execute projects at scale to further progress our reduction objectives. This will allow us to achieve an approximate 19 million ton carbon dioxide equivalent emission reduction by 2030. Beyond 2030, we have more than one viable pathway to get to our net 0 ambition with different options to transform our Southern Africa value chain, progressively shifting our feedstock away from coal towards more transition gas and then green hydrogen and sustainable carbon over the longer term as their economics improve. We expect to see a rapid evolution of the cost of green hydrogen and direct air capture of carbon dioxide in the next few decades as renewables and electrolysis come down the cost curve. Depending on identified -- depending on how the identified signpost play out, particular pathways will be pursued to achieve our net 0 ambition by 2050. Today, we are uncertain of the exact combination of levers we will be pursuing to achieve net 0 and are, therefore, not yet in a position to set mid-term milestones. As our journey unfolds over the next few years and greater clarity is obtained on the technology landscape, Sasol has committed to provide more detail on our interim milestones to enable visibility on how we will achieve net 0. Net 0, for us, is non-negotiable. We are making clear choices on key aspects of our business to enable this strategy. First, we are transitioning away from coal to meaningfully decarbonize our Southern Africa value chain and therefore, will not invest in any new coal reserve. While our in-state is a move to green hydrogen and sustainable carbon feedstocks, we believe gas has a very important role to play as a transition feedstock given its significantly lower GHG footprint relative to coal. Our plan is to incrementally integrate more gas into our value chain, supplementing with 40 to 60 petajoules of LNG imports towards 2030. Future Sasol strategy does not envisage us constructing gas infrastructure in South Africa. That said, we do believe that there are private and public sector participants that are willing to play a key role in enabling the gas economy. This could take the form of LNG terminals and/or pipeline infrastructure. To achieve the optimal gas supply configuration for South Africa, options will be assessed against key investment and risk criteria, such as price, minimizing methane emissions and avoiding the risk of stranded assets and carbon lock-in. We are also making significant strides in integrating renewables into our operations to reduce our electricity emissions. For the energy business, we plan to procure 1,200-megawatt in [ tranches ] by 2030 in partnership with Air Liquide. And in chemicals, we are aiming for 100% purchase renewable electricity by 2026. The newly formed Sasol ecoFT business will focus on sustainable aviation fuel opportunities as a start, which has the potential to become a substantial part of our business post 2030. In Chemicals, future growth resides in the development of tailored solutions for our customers, helping them address sustainability challenges and providing specialty solutions leveraging our unique chemistry. Finally, we see green hydrogen playing a major role in transforming our South African value chain. Given our experience as a scale producer and user today, we intend to play a leading role in the development of the future green hydrogen economy in Southern Africa. Let me now spend a few minutes talking you through how we are going to deliver on our future ambitions. Last year, we recognized our structure around 2 core businesses of energy and chemicals. Our energy business aims to lead the energy transition in Southern Africa. Our Fischer-Tropsch or FT technology positions us well to decarbonize through lower carbon feedstocks and to ramp up the production of cost-competitive, sustainable fuels and chemicals. Chemicals is focused on growing through our unique chemistry. Our Lake Charles plants are fully operational and we have a path to a very attractive cash flows as we ramp up to extract the full value of these world-class assets. Finally, in September, as I just mentioned, we introduced a third business, Sasol ecoFT. This will focus on building new sustainable businesses, leveraging our advantage FT technology. We believe that FT is uniquely positioned to thrive in the fossil-fuel-free world. One of the first applications for the technology is likely to be sustainable aviation fuels. Here, new regulations are driving demand and existing technology and feedstocks have limitations that FT can address. The energy transition is going to disrupt our industry, shift value pools and impact the job markets, requiring diverse skills and capabilities in different geographies. It is critical that we anticipate and mitigate this change, both within Sasol and at a country level to ensure a just transition. We are committed to a just transition and will continue to actively engage and partner with our local communities and various stakeholders in Southern Africa to support these objectives. South Africa has fantastic potential for renewables and low-cost green hydrogen production, which positions us well for export opportunities as they unfold. We will be working with industry stakeholders and the government to establish national plans to develop opportunities and ensure we can localize as much as possible, creating jobs and economic wealth in South Africa over the next few decades. While the workforce impact is likely to be largely after 2030, this needs to be anticipated now with the right long-term human capital plans, managing a natural transition of the workforce involved in fossil fuels and investing in reskilling for the needs of a low carbon economy in the future. In terms of the technical road map refinement to 2050, community and employee consultation will form part of the work of our just transition program. The next phase of our work is to start rolling out our just transition programs. We are exploring job creation opportunities in hydrogen and renewable energy, skills development and redirecting bursary schemes, and CSI programs towards shared value creation opportunities, to name a few. In this regard, a critical component of our process is co-creation and consultation with affected stakeholders, including our employees and communities. Now that our target announcement have been made the work and engagement begins on our just transition plans. In conclusion, let me reiterate why we are confident that we can achieve our future Sasol objectives and become a more resilient, greener and competitive business. Firstly, Sasol has a unique portfolio of advantaged assets, leveraging differentiated technologies. We have a leading position in South Africa with a well-invested kit that is highly cost-competitive with value chain integration. We can also adapt that infrastructure to meet our new sustainability ambition by 2030 with modest capital using our proven technology. Our newly commissioned chemicals complex in Lake Charles has a clear pathway to ramp up to full profitability and a prime location with space that provides many opportunities for the long term. Second, we have a clear plan to deliver both a step-change in greenhouse gas reduction and competitive sustainable returns with a return on invested capital above 15% through this transition. As part of this, the Sasol 2.0 transformation is already well underway. This gives us confidence that we are closer to a position of financial strength that will allow us to restore and step up dividends. We have already identified a number of viable pathways to get to net 0 by 2050, which makes for an exciting future ahead of us. Future Sasol is not built on the promise of new businesses away from our core, but builds on our advantaged and differentiated FT technology as well as today's strong customer relationships and market positions. We are best positioned to lead the development of the green hydrogen economy in Southern Africa and to bring FT to its full potential internationally to supply a unique product range of sustainable fuels and chemicals. We are already progressing key partnerships in support of this with recent collaboration with other Southern African partners for greenfield opportunities. This concludes my presentation for today. And on that note, I will hand back to the Chairman. I thank you.

Thank you, Fleetwood. Ladies and gentlemen, we now turn to the business of the AGM. I am comfortable that the Notice of Meeting has been delivered to shareholders in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act, that the electronic attendance register has been duly completed and verified, that the required quorum of shareholders is present and that the proxies that have been handed in are in order. This meeting has, therefore, been properly constituted. The register of shareholders of the company is open for inspection, either electronically or physically, at the offices of our transfer secretary, JSE Investor Services. The minutes of the previous AGM were approved by the directors and signed by me as a correct record of the proceedings. These minutes will, upon request, be available for inspection either electronically or physically by appointment at our registered office. As allowed for in Sasol's memorandum of incorporation, I hereby declare that all resolutions will be voted on by way of a poll. The following matters have been placed before shareholders today. Full explanations have been provided in the Notice of the AGM. And I will, therefore, not read out the full text of each resolution. Receipt of the audited annual financial statements on the company and of Sasol --of the Sasol Group for the financial year ended June 30, '21, together with the reports of the directors, the Audit Committee and the external auditors to endorse by way of advisory vote the company's remuneration policy; to endorse by way of an advisory Board the implementation report of the company's remuneration policy; to endorse by way of -- we keep on going back. Yes, this is another one, to endorse by way of the advisory vote the company's 2021 climate change report; to reelect each by way of a separate vote the following directors: Mr. Cuambe; Ms. Dube and Dr. Floel; to elect Mr. Subramoney, who was appointed as a director during the course of the year; to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers as the independent auditors to the company and the group; to elect each by way of a separate vote, the members of the Audit Committee, and I've gone through them before. They are Kathy Harper, Ms. Kennealy, that is Trix; Nomgando Matyumza, Stanley Subramoney and Stephen Westwell; and then to approve the remuneration payable to non-executive directors of the company. So now Mr. Andrej Vladar, from Lumi, will explain to us how to ask verbal questions and post written questions as well as vote on all the resolutions. Mr. Vladar, please, if you are here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to the Board, the directors, the executives and to the shareholders and guests present at the meeting. As the Chairman said, for those of you that are online and present, you would have received your username and password and would have logged into the Lumi AGM platform. Once locked into the platform, you would see a control screen. And on top of that screen, you will have 3 tabs, namely home, messaging and voting. The home tab has the information required to join using a virtual microphone or dial-in facilities to ask a verbal question. [Operator Instructions] Lastly, when it comes to voting, the voting is currently open on all the resolutions. If you click on the voting tab, all the resolutions will appear in an electronic ballot format. Please just click on the option that you wish to make against each of the resolutions. There is no final submit button. It is an open ballot, so you can change your mind at any point during the course of the meeting. You will get a message to notify you what your current selection is and the last selection that you have made when the voting closes is the selection that will be entered into the system. If you do struggle, there is a support e-mail address on the home screen that you can contact, and we will gladly assist anybody with any technical difficulties. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir. I think that's clear enough. Ladies and gentlemen, voting is now open on all resolutions, and you can vote on any resolution at any time until the voting is closed. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to open the floor to shareholders to ask questions. [Operator Instructions] We are anticipating many questions. So I request that as a courtesy to all shareholders, you ensure your questions are concise and are posted in English. We'll do our best to ensure that everyone's questions are answered. We'll be taking questions in batches of 4, that is 2 written and 2 verbal. To expedite the process and the chairs of the RAM and nominations and governance, audit committee and safety, social and ethics committees of the Board and the members of the group executive committees are all available to answer your questions. Given the virtual format of this meeting, Mr. Elton Fortuin from Sasol's communications team will read out your written questions. I can see him, already he is now moving. Mr. Fortuin will read out the name of the shareholder who wishes to ask a question, and Mr. Vladar will activate that shareholder's microphone. You can change any vote you have cast at any time during the voting process, by the way, until the voting closes, which will be in 5 minutes time. So the clock starts now. [Voting]

Once the voting closes, you will not be able to change any vote cast in respect of any resolution. If you have not yet cast your vote, please do so now. Administrators will advise me once all the votes have been cast. So now we move on to the question session, isn't it?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first questions are from the Lumi platform. So these are written questions. And the first one is from Grant Alexander [ McGillan ]. The question is, "Chairman, what have you been doing this year to justify having paid a huge fee of $450,000? We noticed that you never appear to do anything to justify this. Are you too busy at Exxaro? Please leave. We need the funds to run the company." The second question is from the same shareholder, Grant Alexander [ McGillan ]. "Vuyo Kahla, VP Strategy Sustainability and Integrated Services. Last year, you mislead the AGM when you stated that no investigation occurred concerning the previous CEOs. And in fact, it was you who made every attempt to stop the investigation. Please note that CDH confirmed the Sasol investigation in writing to me and held meetings with me concerning the misappropriation of ZAR 400 million to the ill managed and hugely important CT FT project at Secunda Operations. Please resign." Those are the 2 written questions we'll take for now.

Well, I -- on -- I can respond to my question. And I appreciate the question, although I think Grant Alexander might have the wrong information. So I will try and assist him. Firstly, I have no business at Exxaro as he is currently saying, and neither -- I don't serve on the Board of Exxaro and I retired Exxaro in 2016. So when he says that I'm busy with the activities of Exxaro, I think that information is misplaced. And I would like to help him to understand the situation better. Insofar as the Chairman's work is concerned, I wish he could join me and be part of this business and join the directors and see how we work in this organization. Let me just also add on this question of the Chairman and the executive or the nonexecutive directors. Quite frankly, if you look at the amount of meetings that we had last year, working hard to turn things around in this organization, if you were looking at the situation objectively, I guess people would be saying today, "You guys made a great sacrifice." Secondly, we serve at Sasol because we love Sasol. And we believe that it's a very important organization in this country, and therefore, we give our best. For all I care, the $450,000 that is mentioned here could not move a needle in my life, but I do this one for the love of the business. I could serve this company without even being paid, if I may just assist him on that one. So I know that people feel bad about the situation, but we work hard and I'm very proud of this Board in the way they work and the way they execute their duties. And if it were not for the sacrifice that they made over a period of time, we wouldn't be here today. So -- but I would like to have a conversation with Grant Alexander whenever they are available. Thanks.

We'll move on to the next question, Mr. Kahla.

Thank you so much. Grant. [ Mr. McGillan ], I must indicate firstly that I'm quite puzzled that you considered me to have communicated a misrepresentation there. You recall at that AGM, I was -- I gave a retort in relation to the questions that have been posed essentially advising you that, that investigation in relation to the coal tar filtration project, as well as I then had discovered further follow-up factors that had been raised on it had been referred to independent investigation. That independent investigation has confirmed to us that the allegations made had not been substantiated. There is no truth that all that I had any attempt at stopping the investigation, nor do I actually have the power to stop any investigation once it has been properly assigned for inquiry by the independent service providers. As you well know and indeed have yourself indicated, you had engagements with [ CD8 ]. And so it is quite clear that there had been no stopping of that investigation. In fact, it was carried out to conclusion and it's reported to us that the allegations that have been made have not been substantiated and reinforced the information that had been provided in an earlier investigation by our forensic services. So to the extent that I may have come through as misrepresenting anything, certainly, it was not any intention of mine and hence, the retort towards the end of that meeting. I trust that, that now settles the matter. Thank you.

Thank you, Vuyo, and thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll now move to take 2 verbal questions from Chorus Call. So I'll hand over to the operator.

The first question comes from Ian Erasmus with -- a private shareholder.

Hi. This is for the CEO. Mr. Grobler, is the Sasol's policy to protect their whistleblowers according to your own personal public statement where you say no employees should fear speaking up? Or is it Sasol's policy to ignore and silence whistleblowers like I was by management for years with the same culture of fear tactics exposed at Lake Charles? Sasol issued a new whistleblower policy in July 2020. The same month I, as a whistleblower, was forced to resign or face bogus disciplinary hearings, where our charged for allegedly harassing the same manager who is responsible for the incorrect disposal of vanadium at the Benfield unit? Mr. Grobler, are you aware that it is illegal to suspend a person, according to the NEMA Act the Companies Act Section 159 and the Labor Relations Act 1 -- [ 66.2.D ]. And also Sasol's own Ethics Code, Code of Conduct and Sasol so-called Anti-Retaliation Policy?

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. I will just start off, and before I ask Vuyo also to weigh in. Sasol has got very focused, clear robust processes in terms of whistleblowing. We have an independent assessment of all of these allegations. We've got a robust team that look at all these matters. And all I can say that each case will have to be treated on its merits. And I'm also going to ask Vuyo to weigh in on this approach.

Thank you very much, Fleetwood. As you're well aware, Mr. Erasmus, the issues that you had raised concerning complaints and in fact, even a grievance in relation to how you were treated were subject to an independent investigation. That investigation, in fact, looked to issues that you had raised concerning into earlier grievance. It pointed out, in fact, quite the contrary, just the inappropriateness of your conduct and indeed made the point that the management concerns were extraordinarily over accommodating in relation to your matters. However, with all of the issues that have been raised, including consent around how you are making -- how you're impeding an effective work place, not just in relation to the people you dealt with from a management perspective, but also your own colleagues, ultimately, we got into an agreed mutual separation arrangement with yourself. You had the benefits in the negotiation of that mutual separation arrangement of reputable -- of a reputable law firm, which had provided assistance to you on a pro bono basis. And we added into that, mutual separation agreement, and we've honored its terms. However, following your persistence that there had been issues that you've raised of concern relating to our treatment, you're dealing with obligations on the environmental front, we again instructed a new law firm. And we asked that law firm to investigate every one of your complaints and that we were prepared to waive the terms of the agreement with you to allow for the free ventilation of the issues that you had raised, which is quite a puzzle to ask that despite all of that accommodation, you have again repeatedly refused to participate in that process. I must emphasize, this is an independent process run by that law firm that would investigate each of these issues and determine what, if any conduct of the company has been improper. We, of course, equally participated in investigations by the South African Human Rights Commission, both making submissions orally and in writing, and no adverse findings have been made against us in relation to the claims that you had made. Thank you. I need to just emphasize -- I think one thing that I may have left out. You are correct in relation to each of those points you've made around our whistleblower policy, our policy in relation to non-retaliation. And indeed, we're comfortable that we had -- we have complied with those and I've already addressed you in relation to the basis upon which we had taken -- we had raised disciplinary issues on you, totally unrelated to the accusations you had made. Those accusations, as I've indicated, will remain open to them being properly investigated by independent lawyers. And our invitation remains extended to you, and I do know that, that extension has been communicated further with you. But we have a clear process around ensuring that we do not allow for retaliation against users or whistleblowers. But of course, as you would appreciate, that is not -- that does not provide a basis for ill-discipline in the workplace and essentially not complying with the very values and the discipline of the company. And the issues that have been raised with you related to that, not the claims that you had made and those claims, as I've indicated, will remain open to the proper ventilation and investigation.

Thank you, Vuyo. Operator, we'll move on to the next verbal question. Thank you.

The next questions comes from Thandile Chinyavanhu from Greenpeace Africa.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to pose this question. My question relates to Sasol's compliance on what is required by science and by law to avoid the catastrophic impact of climate change. With Sasol's 2030 emission reduction road map detailing only 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, your plan is to increase the use of gas as a transition fuel, which will continue to exacerbate the climate crisis and the veil of your plans to address key questions, including the impact of Sasol's activities on human rights of the past, present and future generations. How will you change your business model so that you can avoid stranded assets, protect your shareholders and communities and limit the increase in global average temperature to the politically endorsed scientific consensus on the necessity to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Thank you for that question. I'll hand over to Fleetwood. Thank you.

Thank you for that question. And I'll also ask Shamini Harrington to weigh in on that question that you raised. So I do think we have extensively set out our approach in terms of -- we are fully aligned with the 1.5-degree trajectory with our net 0 ambition to 2050. So that is 100% in line with the 1.5% degree climate change approach. Furthermore, we have indicated in our climate change report, very extensively, the road map we would be following to implement our greenhouse gas reduction targets. And I think that is very important that we are tripling the reduction target from the 10% we had before. And that this is very, very, very clearly described in the road map how to implement that, and we are committed to the net 0 by 2050 as well. So can I ask Shamini, is there anything you would like to weigh in on?

Thank you, Fleetwood. Thank you, Thandile, for the question. In relation to the science-based approach, we certainly have applied a science-based approach. In fact, we've applied a number of them. There isn't one approach that really says whether one is Paris-aligned or not. So what we've actually done is applied a very robust process that looked at top-down approaches as well as bottom-up approaches. In terms of top-down, we actually looked at absolute contraction. We looked at fair share. And we can confirm that our targets are between 1.5 and 2 degrees for 2030. And as Fleetwood has indicated, very much in line with the Paris agreement of 1.5 degrees. You spoke about the business model and switching that to something that's sustainable. We are certainly doing that. You'll see in our climate change report, we have proposed a fossil-fuel-free vision that really looks at a very different business model, and it looks about producing sustainable fuels, sustainable chemicals, well suited for a low carbon future. We believe that, that is in alignment with the Paris agreement. Thank you, Fleetwood. Thank you.

Thank you, Shamini. We'll move on to the next 2 questions posted on the Lumi platform. So these are written questions. The first one, again, from Grant Alexander [ McGillan ]. CEO, please explain why a replacement CFO has been notified, who has no -- I assume this is related -- industry experience and is another white Afrikaner male? What due process was followed? And can this be stopped? Surely an internal candidate exists. The next question also from Grant Alexander [ McGillan ], the ZAR 4 billion CT FT project remains unproductive. Why?

Can I take the first one on the CFO? We have a process that we follow at Sasol whenever we are replacing someone, any employee of the company. And therefore, I am satisfied that proper processes were followed in identifying and announcing the candidate and the replacement CFO. Insofar as experience is concerned, we can make his CV available to Grant Alexander [ McGillan ] because you will -- once you've looked at it, you'll satisfy yourself that he has all the necessary attributes of becoming a CFO as well as the knowledge of this industry. And thirdly, let me, therefore, say that at Sasol, we have a great succession process that we follow whenever someone leaves or joins in the organization. So we're very proud of that. And that is -- it's always available and is transparent. But just on the last question of Hanre being an Afrikaner and being white. I mean, as a Black South African, I go back to the founding document of this constitution, which is the Freedom Charter. And it contains that these profound words, "South Africa belongs to all who live in it." And I'm baffled by your question, particularly the fact that even your name is not an African name, if you are looking at it. It's a different name. I could be questioning that one. But belong -- because you belong -- we belong to the same country. I wouldn't do that. I embrace you because Sasol is an inclusive organization, and we'll continue doing that. Thanks. Can we do the other one?

Thank you, Grant. In terms of your second question relating to the coal tar filtration project, that project is ongoing, and I'm going to ask Bernard to weigh in, in terms of where we stand at this stage.

Thanks, Fleetwood. Yes, the CTF plant was actually commissioned earlier this year in the first quarter. It's a complex plant, as you all know, and there's a number of technical issues that are being resolved. Test runs are still being conducted, and we target to achieve beneficial operation early in the new calendar year.

Thank you, Bernard.

Thank you. We'll move over to the next question on the Chorus Call system. Thank you. Operator?

The next question comes from Ilham Rawoot, who is a private shareholder.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. My question concerns the -- I represent Justica Ambiental/Friends of the Earth Mozambique. And my question regards the Pande/Temane into mine project in Inhambane Province. On a macroeconomic and national scale, the project has not benefited the country. In fact, the Inhambane province has had a yearly increase in electricity access that is less than the national average increase. This is a fact. Furthermore, locals around the Pande and Temane plants have been protesting for years about the lack of skilled jobs. In June this year, there were protests blocking the country's main North-South Highway, the EM1, because people had not received skilled jobs. These protests, as you all know, continue to today. Please can you explain why the increase in electricity access has not happened in Inhambane as well as nationally as Sasol repeatedly promised with these projects? And what does Sasol plan to do differently in its renewed contract to ensure electricity access in Inhambane naturally increases. How many people from Inhambane province are currently employed by Pande and Temane projects? How many of these are skilled and permanent? And how many skilled jobs will Sasol provide to locals under its renewed contracts?

Thank you. Thank you so much, Imran (sic) [ Ilham ] . I will just indicate to you that we are very excited to continue to work and to collaborate with the local communities in Mozambique and the investments we've made over the last couple of decades is testimony of the economic activity that is activated through our investments in the area. And we continue to engage with government with local communities, with a province, the governor of Inhambane as well as many other players in that region. With respect to the investment, we are busy within the PSA project. There are well-defined local content plans that we are pursuing that will create economic activity in Mozambique. And as far as we can, we would promote that further. I would also like that Priscillah Mabelane, weigh in on some of your other parts of the questions. Priscillah?

Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks, Fleetwood. Just to add to what Fleetwood has actually said, I'll just give some few highlights on what we've done and what we plan to do. I think, first of all, as we all know, we have already, with our partners in CTRG supplied electricity to the whole of Mozambique through the 300 megawatts plant that we've built. And as part of the PSA, we are going to add an additional 450 megawatts. The plans for that are ongoing, and that will be announced very soon, but it's actually progressing very well with our partners, [ Global AG ] as well as EDM. Further to that, as part of the PSA as well from an energy perspective, we intend to replace 75% of the current cooking gas in terms of LPG with production from our plant in terms of PSA, and that's about 30,000 tons per annum. We do believe that this contribution to the energy sector in Mozambique will continuously provide the energy required for Mozambique. Just to highlight as well, PSA provides the cheapest electricity for the country as well and it will be prioritized in terms of the Mozambicans. From a local content perspective and starting first with CPF. We currently employ 99% of our operators, artisans and all of our CPFs are run by Mozambicans. We only have 1 or 2 expatriates at this particular stage. We continue to have intensive programs to transfer skills. And as we start ramping up to the PSA, we're expecting that 3,000 jobs will be created during the constructions, and most of those would be a combination of semi-skilled and skilled labor that will create. And we will also have more than 700 people employed post that. And as part of that, we are already building an ITC, which is a training center. It's ongoing, but we have a temporary one, where we're actually training approximately 419 youth in terms of temporary to make sure that we get skilled labors in Mozambique that we can deploy in terms of our processes going forward. And there are other number of activities, including as part of our local content, we're already identifying companies in Inhambane that we are working with that we've already launched an SME fund that will enable them to be able to meet our obligations in terms of the local content. I just want to say that Sasol, we really pride ourselves with the work that we are working with the communities on the ground and we're continuously committed to ensure that we are remarkably changing the lives of the Mozambican.

Thank you, Priscillah. We're going to move on to 2 more written questions from the Lumi platform. These are both from Grant Alexander [ McGillan]. The first one, "Please drop all this distracting green hydrogen PR and get the company sorted up, i.e., our CCP is not fully productive." And his next question. "Paul Victor is leaving on what terms? As he is subject to the class action case, where damages will likely be awarded, what forecast damages do you expect? And will they be recovered from Paul Victor?"

Thank you. Elton, I'll take the first question, and then I think Vuyo can weigh in on the second question. So first of all, green hydrogen is a reality. If you look at the global answer for decarbonization and you look at most countries' hydrogen strategies, you would realize that it is central to the hard-to-abate industries and that green hydrogen is going to happen, whether we speculate or where you think it's not a reality, I can assure you that I attended also the recent COP26, and it is no doubt in anyone's mind that green hydrogen will play a role to decarbonize the globe. So that's the first point. The second one. We have to prepare and work with our talents. Fischer-Tropsch is agnostic whether the feedstock is coming from any source to be able to make the product. So whether the hydrogen comes from coal or gas or green hydrogen via water electrolysis, it still make the Fischer-Tropsch process happen. And therefore, green hydrogen is not a PR stint that you referred to here and a distraction. This is core to our decarbonization journey that we are pursuing. There's no doubt about that. So we have to look at the options. We need to assess the opportunities. We need to watch out. The green hydrogen cost curve is developing so that we can capitalize and use that as a lever as part of our decarbonization journey. So that is very clearly a must-do for us. And it's definitely not a distraction, but actually a building block to reach our end state of net 0 by 2050. And then just to correct Grant, the LCCP is fully operational. We are making tons of money at that facility right now. So that is an investment that is now returning cash flows. We are still ramping up, and that is no secret. We, from the get-go at the investment decision, indicated that some plants will ramp up over a 3-year period, some plants over a 5-year period and our very specialty Guerbet alcohols will ramp up over a 7-year period. That is still on track. We are busy ramping up that facility per the original plan, and I think we're in a good [indiscernible] day.

Thank you, Fleetwood. Vuyo, will you deal with the next question?

Thanks a lot again, [ Mr. McGillan ]. In relation to the point you've raised concerning Mr. Paul Victor leaving the company, as indicated, of course, it would be him leaving on the basis of resignation. The following point again is whether there would be any damages that if there were damages potentially awarded against the company and him other co-defendants in that class action, those damages, indeed, all of the matters -- the matters relating to that case are subject to indemnification by the company. So there isn't any loss that would be suffered by him arising from that, strictly because, as I've indicated, the company has indemnified him as an officer and director of the company. And that indemnification is consistent with the law, the Companies Act in South Africa. And indeed, the company has intend, been further indemnified by the insurers of the company, and that includes the indemnification in respect of the directors and officers of the company. So in short, there would not be any claims that would be raised against Paul arising from this indemnification. Thank you.

Thank you, Vuyo. Operator, we'll take the next 2 questions on the Chorus Call platform. Thank you.

The next question is a follow-up question from Ian Erasmus.

This is to the CEO. Again, I asked why was the Benfield chemical sewer valve replaced 2 weeks after I testified at the SAHRC Commission about them being broken in an open position. Why were valves replaced which you and Mr. Anderson said was false. Why was I called a liar?

Thank you, Ian. I think it is in part as we have talked in the earlier question that you asked, and I'm also going to ask Mr. Kahla to weigh in on that.

Thanks a lot, Fleetwood. I think as I've indicated earlier, Mr. Erasmus, if there remains any residual issues concerning the claims that you had made in respect of the Benfield side, we have appointed [indiscernible] to investigate those and they will establish if there's any veracity to any of those claims. And once that has been done, the company will take appropriate actions. It is unfair for you now to ask the CEO to be addressing issues that he has referred for investigation by independent investigators being a law firm. And so we do believe that -- let's allow that process to take its course, that -- let all of the issues we probably ventilated through that process. And being an independent service provider appointed to investigate, they're not appointed to advise the company. They are appointed to investigate the claims so that they may come up with their own report in relation to these claims once they've been investigated. So we remain open. And as you've been informed of that, I think by our Mr. James [ Mueller ], we would encourage you to participate in the investigation being carried out by [indiscernible]. Thank you.

Thank you. Operator, we'll take the next verbal question, please?

The next question is a follow-up question from Ilham Rawoot.

I have another question regarding Pande and Temane. So considering the losses that Mozambique faced with the initial contract, where Mozambique received millions less in revenues than Sasol had promised, what has Sasol done differently in its renewed contract to ensure the government receives a higher percentage in revenues than in the initial contract? In particular, how will Sasol ensure that the situation where the Mozambique government loses millions due to, "liberalization of fossil fuel prices" does not happen again? Has Sasol included any conditions in the new agreement that will protect the Mozambique government from these potential losses?

Thank you, Imran (sic) [ Ilham ]. Thank you for that question again. I think what is very clear, there are always a willing buyer and a willing seller. And in that regard, you would come to a commercial agreement that will reflect the outcome, having regard to all considerations. And I trust that from a Mozambican government perspective, they have had ample considerations that they had brought to the table. And in the end, there was an agreement reached between the parties to buy or to sell gas. I cannot think about any situation where that has taken place with an unwilling seller of gas and only a willing buyer, so I think that is very important. And the same holds true for any other agreement that is struck between any 2 parties in terms of a procurement process. So I must say, I find it interesting that you are indicating that Sasol alone has got the power to determine the commercial conditions under which gas is sold. I'm not sure Priscillah, if there's anything further that you would like to weigh in on this question specifically.

[ Have at it ], Fleetwood.

Thank you. We'll move to the next 2 written questions. The first question is from Thandile Chinyavanhu. "With the rise and success of climate litigation worldwide, most notably the recent decision against Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands, in which the court used principles of international law and human rights applicable to Sasol to determine that Shell had to reduce its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 45% by 2030 throughout its value chain, how does Sasol intend to fulfill constitutional, national and international obligations to limit the increase in global temperatures to below 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the risk of similar litigation? The next written question from Daiyaan Halim. The production of green hydrogen is extremely energy intensive and requires considerable renewable energy. Will Sasol's targeted procurement of 1,200 megawatts of renewable energy be sufficient to support the development of green hydrogen production? If not, what is Sasol's plan to increase procurement of renewable energy in support of the transition to green hydrogen? Thank you.

Thanks a lot, Ms. Chinyavanhu. We do take our constitutional and human rights obligation seriously as a company. Indeed, if you look into our sustainability report, you'll see our 3-phase approach in relation to business and human rights. You will have noticed that as already have been disclosed by Fleetwood, that the company has been responsive to the challenges that it faces. And that much is clear from the tripling of the 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target from the 10% to 30% of the 2017 baseline. But equally, and of course, if that number, as you'd be aware, is well below the 2 degrees -- but equally, has already been said by Fleetwood, our ambition and commitment to gun for net 0 by 2050 is itself within that 1.5 degree focus. And so if one looks into that and having regard to the overall commitments we've made, we're comfortable that we've been dealing with this matter responsibly. We are live to the developments in other jurisdictions and we have reasonable comfort that we are attending to our responsibilities appropriately. Thank you.

Thank you. To Daiyaan, in terms of the question with respect to production of green hydrogen. So yes, green hydrogen can only produce -- be produced if it's coupled to do electrolysis with renewable energy, resulting in the split into hydrogen and oxygen. That is correct. So I must make just this clarification, Daiyaan, to understand that our decarbonization target for 2030 does not include green hydrogen to reach that. We've clearly articulated the components that will be required for us to be delivered on. Those are very clearly articulated on Page 14 of our climate change report. What are the key contributing factors to reach the 30% reduction. So I would refer you there just for clarity again, how do we achieve the 2030 target. But you are right. when we do pursue green hydrogen, it will be coupled with also renewable energy. And each project where we will participate or where we will endeavor to bring in green hydrogen into our facilities will have to have the commensurate green energy that will go hand-in-hand with the electrolysis of water to produce the green hydrogen. So I just want to clarify that we've got no intent to use the 1,200 megawatt we've announced to produce green hydrogen.

Thank you, Fleetwood. We will continue with written questions for the time being. The next question, again from Thandile Chinyavanhu. "On behalf of Greenpeace Africa's constituents in Secunda, I would like to ask why is Sasol dragging its feet on doing air quality education and awareness in its host communities, namely in Secunda?" And the next question from the same shareholder, on behalf of Greenpeace Africa's constituents in Secunda, I would like to ask, in 2017, the Secunda local newspaper, Ridge Times, I guess, quoted Bernard Klingenberg, Sasol's Vice President of Operations reported that sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide pose no harm to humans. Can Sasol provide proof of where they've got such information?

Thank you, Thandile. And I'm going to ask Bernard to weigh in on the alleged statement he made in the paper, but let him contextualize that by himself. I think it is very important that Sasol has got regular engagement with local communities. And in Secunda, the same holds true. There is a program where we engage. We've been very active in the retrofitting of combustion stoves in the community in Secunda. And there's been a program at that time that we engage with them to give the information why this is important, why -- what will be the result of implementing not to use open fire -- coal fires in terms of cooking opportunities, but rather to look at other methods of cooking because of the particulate matter that's associated with coal or wood fires. And so we've been engaging extensively for many years with the communities in terms of these type of initiatives. And as I've indicated also in my address earlier today, as we go through the just transition, we will, of course, continue, and we will have a comprehensive engagement plan to realize our 2030 ambition as we have articulated that. Bernard, I'm going to hand over to you.

Thanks, Fleetwood. Just to conclude on the point of exposing or training people about quality or air quality as part of our air quality offset program, the Phase 1 of that, we exposed 37,000 learners to air quality topics. And as you've said, we welcome and continue to engage with communities on the topic. With regard to the article in the Ridge Times, the statement that if it was stated as you've reported it in this question, that would certainly be a misquote. The point is that there are internationally accepted norms and standards in terms of the concentrations of SO2 and HGS, below which, health is not impacted or it's not considered to be an issue. And what we said then and what we will say today, we have a number of air quality measuring stations in the air shed around Secunda. We monitor the levels of these pollutants -- of these components and the levels that we measure are below the internationally accepted standards and norms that constitute health issues for people. That's what we would have said at that time and is also true today.

Thank you very much for that response, Bernard. We'll move on with the written questions again. The next question is from Imran Rawoot (sic) [ Ilham Rawoot ]. "Good day, Mr. Chairman. This question regards Sasol's concessions for Area A5A in Angoche and PT5-C in Zambezia in Mozambique. Even though Mozambique has been a power producer for many years and hosted projects led by mostly international companies like Sasol, apologies. I think we've already asked this question.

I think we got -- the verbal version, we've addressed.

That's correct. Thank you. We'll move on to Emma Schuster from Just Share. "Good afternoon. My name is Emma Schuster, representative of Just Share. We note that Fleetwood probably is the Chairman of the newly established Energy Council of South Africa. On what basis does the Energy Council claim to represent "the unified collective voice," of the energy sector, when its founding participants are small group of predominantly fossil fuel entities and there's no renewable energy participation at all?" The next written question comes from Daiyaan Halim again. "Sasol has asked shareholders to endorse a binding a nonbinding advisory basis, its climate change ambition, strategy and actions contained in the company's 2021 climate change report. There are multiple concerns with Sasol's plans, among them, the continued use of fossil fuels to transition from coal, its intention to dramatically increase its use of fossil gas with methane emissions 80x more potent than carbon dioxide and its lack of clear and time-bound commitments towards phasing out coal mining and coal use. Shareholders should vote against this endorsement."

Thank you, Elton. I will address the 2 questions. So first of all, Emma, thank you for raising the question with respect to the Energy Council of South Africa. I do want to just give you context why the need for the Energy Council was identified and why we have -- with the founding members, which is not only fossil fuel producers. There are the chair of NAAMSA, the Automotive Association from South Africa. There are the mining companies that's part of that and energy company, Exxaro is both the energy, green energy and a mining company in that area as well as Eskom that's an electricity provider. But the concept here was that as we go into the future energy needs of South Africa to decarbonize by 2050, we realized that there are areas which is not accounted for in the energy space. So whilst there is SAPIA for refining and petrol and fuel producers, there's also dealing with gas and electricity areas. But there's nothing that address green hydrogen. There's nothing that is really, on a comprehensive energy basis, address the renewable energy space, the battery storage of energy as well as all of those aspects that you can put under one umbrella called Energy. And I think that was the starting point. It was not about fossil fuel companies that want to lobby for a counsel. That's not the issue. And what we've done in our terms of reference is to include, not the producers of energy, but the ecosystem of energy users. That means the users of energy, that producers, the second derivative of that. So that's why the automotive industry is presented there and many others. So I believe it is not correct to put it in that context. And we are very clearly opening any membership to renewable energy companies, companies that play into the renewable energy space. Hydrogen would be welcomed. And all of those with respect to storage, battery storage, solar, wind, and everything associated with that. So I think that is the intent. And we will, as the company or the council now gets traction and employ its permanent workforce to pursue the goals that will be further developed with respect to membership. And you would see definitely a much more representative council towards the end goal that we have seen as we set as a target. So Secondly, I want to move on then to the second question, where we talk about the just transition. Let me just make sure.

It's the question from Daiyaan Halim regarding the nonbinding votes on Sasol's climate ambitions.

Goodie. Thank you. So there's concerns with the plans. The first point that I would like to make is that we've set very clear tangible targets for 2030 that comprise a 25% reduction in our coal usage. Yes, we have to introduce gas, but the reason why is that gas has got a 50% to 60% reduction footprint compared to the same gas out of coal. I think that's at the heart of it. So when you move from coal to gas, you immediately reduce your greenhouse gas footprint by 50% to 60% for the same products that you make, point #1. Point #2 is the transaction to net 0 in the end, we've very clearly articulated will comprise a fossil-free fuel feedstock world. That's the end state. So at that stage, the transitory, and I think we've emphasized it in all our reports on climate change, et cetera, is that gas will only play a transitory role. It will be used because the benefit is immediately, it reduces our footprint for the coal equivalent gas by 50% to 60%. And then as we get access to cost affordable other sources of renewable carbon such as biomass gasification, such as direct air capture of carbon monoxide or dioxide, and all of those become cost affordable, then we will transition away from gas. So it's first coal, then gas and then fully sustainable renewables. And that is a journey where the one is reducing, the other one's coming up. That one is reducing, and then in the end, it's only sustainable input as feedstock that we pursue. That's at the heart of our journey towards 2050 net 0. So I think it is not correct, as you say here that it's now only going from one fossil fuel to the other, and it's got an equivalent impact on the journey. It is not the right context to understand how we transition.

Thank you, Fleetwood. We'll continue with written questions at this time as there are no other verbal questions queued on the system. The next question is from Robyn Hugo at Just Share. "I have 2 questions regarding Sasol's emissions. One, despite the urgency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis, Sasol's emissions have increased in both years, 2020 and 2021, since it set its first emission reduction target in 2019. As Sasol has no measurable emission reduction target until 2025, can the company confirm that there will be no further emission increases between now and then?" Second question from Robyn Hugo. "why does Sasol not disclose methane emissions from its Mozambique operations? And when will it do so?" I'll ask the next question just then from our platform. "Is there a committee within Sasol that deals with matters related to 4IR with a view to improving performance, safety cost-cutting/profitability? Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Elton, and thank you, Robyn, for the question. I will deal with the first one, and I'll ask Priscillah to weigh in on the second part of the question. So the request or the question that you pose is why there are no measurable emission reduction target until 2025? I think we have indicated and again, I want to refer you to Page 14 on the climate change report, which you have seen. And the first tranche of renewables, we are currently busy with the procurement process of 600-megawatt renewables in partnership with Air Liquide. The Sasol 200-megawatt of renewables will realize before 2025, and that reduction will show up as a measurable target of electricity emission reduction by that time. The fact of the matter is, is that it takes time from you make a decision to get renewable energy and you've got a procurement contract that would deliver that on the terms that you've agreed until it's implemented. So that period can anything be between 24 and 36 months to see the electricity. So we drive clear measurable triggers to start the procurement process. Once that procurement process is signed, you need to get the execution, the build and the finalization of that renewable energy. And only then do we have it available in our facilities to see the electricity reduction in emissions. So that is clearly articulated in our pathway of the climate change report, and I think that's the nature of it. So there's not -- we can't accelerate the procure and build of renewables. It takes a certain amount of months, and that we can't accelerate. It's not possible. And those are the milestones that we plotted out, and that's how it will come into fruition. Priscillah?

Thanks. In terms of methane, what we're actually currently doing before I come to when are we going to report, is that I just want to assure shareholders that we have designed operations, particularly the CPF is designed in line with best practice in top quartile. And we have the right redundancies in terms of our operations. What we're currently doing, as we move forward, is that there's hardly any methane emissions, but we do now and then [ flooring ]. And as we do that, we investigate all of the incidences and ensure that we're taking learnings going forward. In terms of our flow lines, we have continued to deploy technology to ensure that we identify opportunities where there could be methane emissions, and we have recently also enhanced that with digital technologies such as drones and we'll continuously do that. So I just want to assure that our designs and our practices and [ units ] are in line with best practices. Where the exceptions, we investigate those. What we've now done is that we are looking at doing a baseline assessment of our methane impact for all our end-to-end operations. And we intended that by the end of the financial year 2020/'22, that baseline will be finalized and we'll have clarity on what the target would look like going forward.

Thank you, Priscillah.

The next question was from Jeremiah [ Mthimkulu ] regarding whether Sasol has a committee that deals with matters related to 4IR.

Thanks a lot, chair. [ Mr. Mthimkulu ] is correct. Sasol does. The Sasol Board has a committee focusing on, amongst other things, capital investment as well as information management and digital, which, of course, 4IR would be within that scope of the digital focus of the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Bria. We'll move on to the next set of questions from the Chorus Call platform. Thank you, operator.

The next question comes from [ Ayanda Simelane ], who's a private investor.

Chair, I would like to address the issue of the prior period era. I just -- I would like the CFO to -- just to indicate why were there errors, especially for 2 years. I realized that the financial statements have to be reinstated for 2 years. I think for me, it's very important to know what went wrong there. And secondly, I would like to know what measures are in place to make sure that it doesn't reoccur okay. Because I think, for me, that is very concerning. And then the last question, if I may, is that may you just please share, if I may, just maybe remind your agencies the importance of the POPI Act, which all of us need to comply with. For us as shareholders, to be requested to provide our ID numbers in a public email address is very concerning, especially if we have requested -- if we have provided our contact details, so that, that information can be obtained in a private -- in a very respectable manner. Maybe the third one, if I may, if I'm the last one, I would just like to address the issue of the rotation of auditors. If you can just maybe address as, I think PwC, how long has PWC been the auditors of Sasol. And if you will be answering -- if you'll be considering the rotation of auditors.

Thank you. Paul?

Thank you very much for the question. You're 100% right. Any restatement of financial results does raise concern. And we have, 2 years ago, raised the material weakness as part of our SOX controls due to the fact that we've made errors in assessing the impairment write-downs of some of our assets. Now as you can imagine, impairment assessment or fair value assessment of our assets does take into account a significant amount of assumptions. And in a volatile environment, those assumptions do move quite significantly and one needs to take a view on those in a very complex and integrated value chain. Unfortunately, the assumptions that have been made and applied were found to be incorrect. And that the controls over those were found to be ineffective. We effectively consider the quantum of these errors, and they were found to be larger than the materiality threshold that auditors, except for us, in making the adjustment in that particular financial year. And hence, we had to make the retrospective adjustments. In terms of corrective action, as I've said, we do view this in a very serious light. And having said that, this is the first time in the past 10 years that we had to restate the financials. And I do believe, overall, that the overall health and diligence and the competency and capability of the financial staff globally is world-class. But unfortunately, we had to deal with this issue. We had to present a corrective action plan to the Audit Committee with detailed action steps in how to correct it. And effectively, the root cause is that our processes are still very manual based and that we need to apply more digital systems to help us to rule out or not to rely so much on manual processes, but more on automated processes, which most companies are currently doing. I can actually report back to you that over this past month, we have effectively converted to the new system, [ OneStream ] that does take into account us using more digital based big data systems to actually generate answers that we will then ultimately use for our financial results. We're also, before half year, year-end and year-end, will deploy a digital solution for impairments that will rule out most of these manual interactions and really make sure that we get system-generated answers based on the assumptions that we feed into our models. So we do believe that we understand the issue. We're sorry that it happened. But we do feel comfortable in -- for this financial year that we will not have a repeat of those situations. In terms of your second question with regards to auditor rotation, PwC have been our auditors for the past 8 years. We have, after the first 5 years, assessed the effectiveness, which is aligned to our policy. The effectiveness were found by the Audit Committee as sufficient. And hence, the extension for another 5 years was approved by the Audit Committee 3 years ago. But as you know, in terms of the mandatory auditor rotation, we will be soon approaching a process in terms of considering other auditors to bid for the Sasol account. That will happen in the next -- over the next 2 years, so that we do fulfill the 10-year requirement of doing a rotation to another set of auditors. The Audit Committee Chair, myself, have discussed it quite recently and a proposal will be taken to the Audit Committee in February and in May to get the process kickstarted. Hopefully, that answers your question.

Thank you, Paul. The third question that [ Ayanda Simelane ] asked was in regards to POPI Act compliance.

Ms. Simelane, I think you raised an important point, and we continue to look into how best to -- how we can improve our controls to take into account the issues that you've raised. We'd look into what already we have, bearing in mind the requirements to verify our shareholders, but still do so in a way that gives comfort from a POPI Act perspective. So we'll certainly take up that.

Thank you, Vuyo. Operator, we'll take the next question on the platform.

The next question is a follow-up from Ilham Rawoot.

Mr. Chair, sorry, but you didn't actually answer my last written question, which was not about Pande and Temane. It was about Angoche and Zambezia, which are 2 completely different projects, as I'm sure you know. So I'm going to repeat this question and I'm going to split it in 2 so that -- the next one, I have already put it in the written questions and you can answer later. Please note that, that one is also not answered. So again this question regards Sasol's concessions for area A5-A in Angoche and PT5-C in Zambezia in Mozambique. Even though Mozambique has been a power producer for many years and hosted projects led by mostly international companies like Sasol, still only 30% has access to electricity. And it remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Why does Sasol believe the A5-A and PT5-C projects can benefit the country on a macroeconomic basis when this has not happened through fossil fuel extraction in the country before? Please, can you undertake to provide the documentation, assessments and consultation that [ shows this ]?

Thank you, Ilham. I think we have addressed definitely part of the question. I'll ask Priscillah to weigh in again. I think it's also part of the written question that we received with respect to Area 5-A and PT5-C and what is the financial status of these projects, et cetera, et cetera. Priscillah, would you help me to weigh in on that matter?

Thanks, Fleetwood. Just to think in terms of the A5-A. We are quite still further out in terms of this. So this is one of the discoveries that we think is going to be quite exciting for Mozambique, so the potential for material finding, but as we all know, it's actually situated further up from where we have our current processing facilities, so it will require a significant investment in infrastructure to enable this business case to be sound. So where we are, the plans are we will be drilling a few wells next year for both A5-A and PT5-C. And that will then inform the field development plans that will then support us in terms of finalizing our FID and the financial models that we need to support these investments. I just want to highlight that, if you look at the FDP that we've agreed on with Mozambique in terms of PSA, you'll see that the risk and rewards are quite balanced in terms of ensuring that the Mozambicans are equally benefiting from the gas findings in the country in a systemic way going forward, where Sasol is able to [ commercialize the -- ] I guess, in the region. The same expectations are -- or the same requirements are expected in terms of A5-A and PT5-C. As the plateaus start to decline going into 2026, 2028, we believe that these 2 opportunities will play that role. And as such, we will have a similar FDP as what will be engaged and negotiated with Mozambique. The other part I just want to highlight. I think [ there are ] comments around Sasol's role in terms of the macro [ plays ]. We are a -- one of the -- we are the biggest tax player in Mozambique and we continuously do that. We have operations in the country and we will continue to do that. And again as a good corporate citizen, we continue to make sure that all our social investments beyond what I've already mentioned in terms of the LDAs are actually implemented and will support Mozambicans on a continuous basis.

Thank you very much for that response, Priscillah. We'll move to more written questions from the Lumi platform. The next question is from Just Share, Ayabulela Quzu. It appears that Sasol expects the South African government to fund the development of the new pipeline capacity and fossil gas infrastructure required to support its 2030 ambition. What are the estimated costs of such capacity and infrastructure? How will they be financed? And what impact will this have on South Africa's achievement of the lower range of its updated nationally determined contribution? I'll read out the next question, which is also from Just Share, and this time from Emma Schuster. In relation to the Energy Council of South Africa, will the council make public the minutes of its meetings with government? If not, why not? If so, by when, where and how regularly?

Thank you. Thank you, Elton. So I will start off with Mr. Ayabulela's question from Just Share. So the pipeline capacity that's at stake here: Remember we've got a pipeline coming in from Mozambique, the ROMPCO pipeline, that brings in gas into our operations in Secunda and in Sasolburg -- to Sasolburg. And so we are pursuing a number of optionalities. The one is to look at additional gas of LNG via Maputo. And we are dealing with the Matola Gas Company and the LNG suppliers in that regard. And so the investment that has to be made is to do a line from the port of Maputo to the ROMPCO pipeline to get that connected. And that will be an investment that would be part and parcel of the agreement that we're busy talking with or discussing with the relevant parties, so it's premature to divulge any costs, et cetera out of that pipeline. Suffice to say we do not intend to invest into the pipeline to enable the reaching or the connection to our ROMPCO pipeline that exists and that can carry the adequate amount of gas as LNG into our operations in South Africa. The second part of it is we're also looking at gas via Richards Bay. And of course, there is an existing pipeline that goes down to Richards Bay, which is called the Lilly pipeline, and that is the existing infrastructure. The area that we are now partnering with the Central Energy Fund -- and we've announced an MOU to discuss the role of being the gas aggregator [ would save ] Sasol. As you know, that there are other demands for natural gas. The government is looking at the various initiatives to bring in more gas to help with electricity demand -- or supply, rather. And that is also part and parcel of the aggregator of gas. So not everything is for Sasol, but we will play that aggregator role. And in that process, there are various parties, again multinational companies and others, that we collaborate with to bring in gas via the Richards Bay system. Of course, there need to be connections from that gas or from a -- is that a floating regasification ship into bringing in the LNG to the existing pipeline infrastructure? All of those studies are progressing, so again it is premature to divulge any detail around that, suffice to say that the LNG gas that we would bring into South Africa is integral and part and parcel of our 30% reduction target. And it is also reflective of our national determined contribution into which this was taken into account of the impact that, that would have. And actually, to bring in gas has got a positive impact because that helps us to reduce the targets as we have articulated. I hope that answers your question.

[ The council ]...

Then the second question, with respect to Emma Schuster. Emma, we have just launched the council. The final constitution need to be adopted and settled; and all the ways of working in terms of how we will go out our business, what are the priorities. Those would be part of the work program that will unfold in the next months. And of course, we will take due consideration of your request and how to deal with that going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Fleetwood. We will take more written questions at this time. The next question is as follows. "Mr. Chair, my name is Lorena Pasquini, and I am in shareholder activist organization Just Share. What are Sasol's plans and relevant time lines to overcome the grid capacity challenges in relation to our renewable energy ambitions?" And then the next question, which is -- apologies. The next question is from Greer Blizzard. Given that Sasol's emission reduction strategy relies heavily on its access to affordable and adequate supplies of fossil gas as yet unavailable, what plans plus time lines has Sasol made to cater for the eventuality that it does not secure the fossil gas supplies necessary for its emission reductions?

Thank you, Elton. Thank you, Chair. I'll deal with the questions and also ask Priscillah to weigh in. First of all, the plans with respect to grid capacity and that risk around grid capacity. Yes, you are correct. When you look at -- to evacuate renewable electricity from the Northern Cape area, there is not enough current transmission infrastructure to evacuate the full potential out of that region to where it's needed elsewhere in the country. However, having said that, the renewables that we are in the procurement process of does not necessarily have to come from the Northern Cape. There are many other well-endowed wind and sun areas within Southern Africa, and those areas do not have the risks of the transmission to our facility in Secunda. And that is where we would focus and facilitate the procurement processes such that we do not have to wait for another factor to play out before we can get the renewable energy into our system in Secunda. So I think that there is -- there are ways around how to mitigate that specific issue. And we are not fully only -- we are not only exposed to the Northern Cape where that infrastructure [ is wanting ]. As a matter of fact, we believe that the areas that the IPP will be bringing the electricity [ from ] will not have any great restriction or great capacity challenges to the extent that we should be thinking that our ambition is at threat. With respect to the second part, Chair, from Greer, where he (sic) [ she ] indicates that the reduction strategy relies heavily on the access of affordable and adequate supply of fossil gas, what are the plans? And what has happened? What happens if we can't secure it? It's a very valid question. It's part of our risk mitigation framework, to ask what are our plan B, C and D if we can't secure that, but I think I'm going to ask Priscillah to give you a flavor of where we are in the process. And I believe we have made tangible progress to realize our ambition with respect to gas. Priscillah?

Thanks, Fleetwood. Just on the previous comment regarding renewable energy, just to give tangible milestones to it. So if we look at these first 600 megawatts that we're intending to source, of which 200 megawatts will be on stream by 2023, we've already [ gone out on an RFP 1 ]. And now we are out on an RFP 2, which went out in September. Closure is early in December. We've done an analysis of all of the projects in line with what Fleetwood [ has said ]. What's been quite encouraging is that we've -- already have identified a number of projects that are already shovel ready and also have great connectivity in terms of [ codes ] from Sasol -- sorry, from Eskom. So we're busy finalizing that, and we'll select the best. So the fact that most of these were oversubscribed and gives us an opportunity to optimize costs is [ quite ] helpful for us. And for the first [ tranche ], we'll be focusing more on solar opportunities; and then wind as well, which comes back later in the second tranche of 2025. As far as the gas is concerned, just to give some highlights in terms of where we are. As Fleetwood has actually mentioned, our gas -- GHG reduction plans are significantly reliant on gas. And as such, we're not necessarily just looking at one source for our gas going forward. We've got a number of risk mitigations and strategic initiatives that we are driving. Just in terms of where we are today: PPA is expected -- the plateau is expected to start declining in 2025. In the last AGM and also during our previous discussions when we released financials, we spoke about the [ medic ] campaign which is intended to ensure that we're extending the wells of our existing -- sorry, the life of the existing wells. We're also drilling an additional 3 wells as part of this and also [ plucking ] and abandoning some of our old wells with -- that program is on track. And we're expecting that we will be able to start delivering gas going forward in line with the plans we've put forth. At the same time, we are continuing with PSA, which is the announcement that the Board made following the February Board meeting; and that's also progressing very well. [ The two on a P50 level ], we'll probably extend a plateau to about 2027, 2028. At the back of that, we are working on a number of opportunities. We've discussed a number of those, A5-A, PT5-C as well as tranche 3. We're working with partners to say how do we develop those going forward. At the right time, we'll disclose the level of resources that we think we'll get, but to make sure that we are mitigating this in line with our GHG reduction, we're also working on LNG, as Fleetwood has actually articulated. We are quite encouraged with the progress that we've made in terms of LNG. For Matola, we've almost now finalized our [ commercial ] terms with our partners. There are a few [ CPs ] that we still need to close. And we'll be able, as we announce our financial results for FY 2023, to be able to give a comprehensive update on where we are. Thank you.

Thank you, Priscillah.

Thank you, Priscillah. Thank you, Fleetwood. I'll move on to the next written question, and this is from [indiscernible]. What is Sasol's emission reduction plan for its plants, i.e., Mpumalanga, Sasolburg? And what levels will they reduce? What is Sasol's just transition plan to move away from fossil fuels, to renewable energy? How is Sasol going to upskill workers who will lose their jobs because of the just transition plan moving to renewable energy? And what is Sasol's plan in regard to their gas installation in lake Parish in the United States in regards to compensation for black communities' burial grounds? I'll leave it there for now and given the number of questions.

Thank you, Elton, too. If I may answer [indiscernible]: So there are a number of areas that is already addressed in our greenhouse gas reduction road map that we've got for the South African value chain. That includes Sasolburg, and so Sasolburg is part and parcel of the outcome of this assessment. So with respect to the just transition plan, we have announced that we have put in place a just transition office that is now getting final terms of reference to get the landscape defined and to really start preparing a holistic framework of how to go about our just transition to reach our targets of 2030; and to deal with all the socioeconomic, community, societal as well as other stakeholder impacts that we have to consider. So that is -- as we speak, will be progressed, and we will also report on a transparent basis how we are making progress with our just transition initiatives. So that will be ongoing. Part and parcel of that would be, of course, workers that may be at risk of coal jobs that may be now at risk when we transition to renewables, but keep in mind South Africa is a mining country, so there may be other mining jobs that the country can grow in for the minerals of tomorrow in a future energy world that also can take up jobs that is growing. So there's that option and many other options that we will investigate. We will collaborate with other partners in this area. Eskom is in the same area of Mpumalanga, very active with their mining activities. There are other mining companies, so we will collaborate with all of these so that the just transition takes into account the broader industrial needs of South Africa, not only the Sasol [ lens into that ]. So I think that is quite clear. With respect to the question in lake Parish in United States, I'm going to, well, ask Brad to weigh in; and if applicable, also to call on [ Kim ] to give us update. Brad?

Thanks, Fleetwood. Maybe just to correct the impression there. We're talking about -- Calcasieu Parish, I believe, is the -- is what the question is. And this is where our facilities are in Louisiana. And so it's a chemicals installation that we've been there for more than 50 years. Sasol is very proud of our engagement with the community of Mossville. We've been engaging with them for decades. And we engage with them to keep them informed of our plans; solicit their input; really to make a positive difference in the community; and to understand their desires, their interests as the community develops. In particular, our engagement with the community of Mossville has been well recognized as a model for community engagement by local, state and federal authorities. And so we continue to engage and make a positive difference in their lives. Again to correct a misunderstanding: There was no impact to the burial grounds or the so-called Morning Star Cemetery in Mossville. So actually there was no compensation because we actually enhanced the facility, enhanced access to the cemetery and have worked on -- with the community on beautification projects as well as improved access to the cemetery. And in particular, with the severity of the hurricanes that we saw in 2020, we worked closely with the community to undertake the debris removal and to ensure that their neighbors would be able to access this historical site. And I would ask you to please look at our community websites, our sasolnorthamerica.com, where we outlined so many of the engagements that we do with Mossville, Westlake and Lake Charles. Thank you.

Thank you, Brad.

Thank you, Brad. I'll move on to the next written question. "I am David Le Page, shareholder and coordinator of the divestment campaign Fossil Free South Africa. Why should stakeholders take Sasol's GHG emission reduction plan seriously when, as a report on Moneyweb in 2019 by Patrick Cairns outlines and your own climate change report described in respect of your most recent effort, Sasol has failed to meet all its own previous targets in this category?" Does Sasol agree with the characterization of the climate crisis as an emergency? Sasol has built its fortunes in and through South Africa, but South Africa faces more than twice the average level of global warming, with large parts of our country facing 6 to 8 degrees of warming by 2100, on current global emission trends. Given its historical debt to South Africa, why is Sasol not taking climate actions that far exceed global minimum standards for GHG emission reductions? United Nations has made it clear that, to meet the objectives of the Paris climate agreement, very rapid GHG emission cuts are required before 2050, so how can Sasol plan to support the objectives of Paris while deferring most of its planned capital expenditure on emission reductions until after 2030?

Thank you, Elton. Thank you. Chair, I would respond to David and ask also Shamini to weigh in on the latter part of some of his questions. I think, first of all, we've indicated very clearly at our Capital Markets Day and in my address today that we take climate change as center to our strategy and the existence of this company. So we have to deliver on the targets that we've set. And so far, I think, to put it in context, David, we haven't set targets that we haven't met. And as a matter of fact, the target we set a year ago of 10%, we've tripled now to increase that target to 30% instead of 10%. And we've got plans to address and to deliver on that target. So I do believe that you look at the situation a bit prematurely in that sense, but I want to really just again emphasize we've got tangible plans. We've articulated the road map in our climate change reports. We've got our commitment as we've given through at the Capital Markets Day. And the Board is also very, very much aligned; and actually guided management to make sure that we do not compromise and that we are delivering on our targets, our remuneration policies, our incentives. All of those are aligned so that we can make progress on the delivery of these targets that we've set. Shamini, may we ask you to weigh in?

[indiscernible] Fleetwood. So with regards to your question on Patrick's article, I'd just like to correct a misconception. We did not "not meet targets." It was actually a closing out of an intensity target. Those targets were set from a base year of 2004. And in fact, as we developed and changed our strategy, those targets were not applicable anymore. That does not mean since 2004 we did not reduce emissions. As Fleetwood indicated right at the get-go, we have already reduced emissions by 10 million tons since 2004. It was simply that we closed out an intensity target at that time that was just not working well for the company anymore. We've actually adopted a more stringent approach. We've taken the approach of putting an absolute target in place that makes more sense for a company we're -- like ours. We're a large emitter. You want to see absolute reductions. So if you take the 10 million tons from before plus the [ 19 million ] that we are aiming to achieve by 2030, that's a substantial reduction that we're looking at. So to your question, are we taking serious the climate crisis, certainly. We are moving with speed. And we are certainly supporting the South African government meet their new NDC which is a "close to 1.5 degree aligned" target, so our targets are very much supportive of the Paris Agreement. Thank you, Fleetwood. Thank you, David.

Thank you, Shamini. Thank you, Fleetwood. We will move on with written questions that we received. The next question is from Zahra Omar from the Centre for Environmental Rights. In the CCR 2021, that's a climate change report, Sasol has committed to no investments in new coal mines. If Sasol is serious about its transition energy -- transition strategy, rather, will the Board make a similar commitment to no investments in expansion of existing coal mines, or the development of new coal infrastructure for power generation and the CTL process? I'll read out another question, which also comes from the Centre for Environmental Rights, this time from Leanne Govindsamy. "Chair, your 2021 CCR states that Sasol will not invest in new mines and the company expects a steady reduction in the volume of coal mined. The road maps indicate a reduced reliance on coal; assess and incorporate renewable energy, fossil gas, biomass and fossil-based hydrogen as part of transition plans. When will Sasol make concrete coal phase-out commitments to close plants, mines and other coal infrastructure? Will these coal phase-out plans include a -- clear timetables for individual facility closures to ensure that workers, communities and governments are aware of the timing by which the transition plans need to be adopted?"

Thank you, Elton. Thank you, Chair. I do believe that -- in terms of the first question that Zahra Omar asked with respect to the decision on coal. So yes, we have a very clear trajectory to an end state that we pursue for the ambition of net 0 by 2050. We have indicated that the 2030 target would comprise or entail a reduction of 10 million tons of coal mining activity. And of course, that will have to take place by the 2030 time frame, so it means that there is still coal beyond 2030. The details, we have already indicated we've got many pathways that we consider to take us to net 0. That may entail further ramp-down of coal activities. It may entail quick ramp-up of hydrogen or other sustainable carbon activity or feedstock that we will bring in the fold. It is too early to speculate right now how exactly that will play out in the time frame by 2030 and beyond. The important part is you can rest assured that, over the next 2, 3 years, this is our priority, to look at techno-economic pathways, to evaluate those to get to further clarity, to look at how the cost curve on renewable energy and electrolyzers respond, so that we can have more tangible road maps that we can share with you how that plays out over time. So until that time, we will still rely on coal as a feedstock. And so whilst we will not need any new coal reserves, if we get to end of a section that is now mined out and we need to develop a new shaft to mine the reserve, of course, we'll have to do that because that is part and parcel to sustain the ongoing business. It is not that we can stop and do no investment to access the coal reserve and to provide feedstock to the facilities in Secunda. So I just want to also leave you with that context because I think that's very important. So we would not go and find new reserves to add new electricity generation or in the CTL process, but we will work with our existing reserve. And we will deploy the optimization of our infrastructure to access that reserve and to use it in terms of our process. So second question, Chair, if I may, with respect to what was asked by Leanne, that we will not invest in the new mines: I think we've indicated that. And I think it is only going to come to clarity. And we will be very transparent of the road map beyond 2030 but once we've got the detail. We're not going to speculate today what those details are.

And that position is the Board position as well. I just want to emphasize that one as well.

Thank you, Fleetwood. There are a number of questions that Mr. Ian Erasmus has posed on the platform. These will be visible to all shareholders that are on the Lumi platform. So we're going to group them together at this time and I will read them out. The first one is regarding the independent investigation, which Ian says never included him. So how exactly did we determine the veracity of the claims? The next question, are we going to properly investigate the contents of his e-mail which was sent this week? And again asking of the CEO, "Why was I not protected by Sasol as a whistleblower?" So we've combined all those questions from Mr. Erasmus. I'll pass them on to Vuyo at this time to close out the matter. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Elton. I think the critical point to make and, I hope, just to close off this point. Firstly, perhaps let me make it clear that, according to the advice we have, Mr. Erasmus were never suspended but for [ operational ] reason were required not to be [ there set in site ], which is very distinct from the process in relation to suspension. In respect of the investigation, we've indicated that we've always been open and invited you to go through an independent investigation. You know very well that, in April 2021, [ Gwina Attorneys ] wrote to you, emphasized to you that it is critical that you avail yourself for this investigation, you provide all the information required to enable the investigation to be carried out. And you did not do any of that. You then in November and about the 9th of November directed a letter to our CEO raising again the claims that you've made. And you have again been advised through our internal legal services team to engage with [ Gwina Attorneys ], who have got the fullest mandate to inquire on all of the claims that you've made and will then give a report to us. We have instructed [ Gwina Attorneys ] that, if you have not responded to them within 10 days of the communication that our legal services had sent to them, they must themselves reach out to you. I don't think there is anything fair that we could do to properly deal with this matter. I think it would assist you and assist everyone if you would now move on, engage with [ Gwina Attorneys ] and allow for this matter to be probably investigated. Thank you.

Could I [ also use ] this time just to encourage the shareholders to continue voting? The -- it's still open, so please vote, but we will close at some point. So please continue voting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Vuyo. I'll continue with the written questions, as there are no verbal questions at this time. And this question is from Thandile Chinyavanhu. "1.5 is the politically endorsed scientific consensus. This was affirmed at COP26. Again you failed to address the concerns of the impacts of Sasol's activities on human rights of past, present and future generations. Sasol is a multilateral company. Its operations impact the world." And I'll move on to the next question as well, which is from [ Mohammed Bakas ]. "Due to large amount of debt, should the entity not consider noninterest-bearing loans or Islamic finance to ease the debt? As I oppose to interest-bearing debt."

Yes. So basically we do acknowledge that -- from a debt perspective in managing a balance sheet as deep as ours, that you do rely significantly on funding and funding structures from a great and large variety of corporate banks. That's how most corporates globally manage their balance sheets. Those are usually based on a basis of interests bearing, either fixed or variable; and we are very much applying that methodology. I will say that, when one think about Islam finance, in society it really has a very significant role to play. And the benefits are broadly in terms of creating economic growth. I will say it does reduce [ polity ], and it does drive a shared prosperity. In the context of Sasol, I will say that we have already engaged relationships with our banks that has a deep ability to fund our operations, that has also specific requirements in terms of disclosure and guarantees. If I'm focused on Islam finance, then effectively: It does bring about a different set of rules. It does bring about a different set of disclosures and it does bring about different set of cost structures. If you weigh the two up against each other, on the one side, you do sit with the interests, but on the other side you do sit with the disclosure and the transaction costs as well as the fundability of your balance sheet. And if you weigh all of those things up, we do believe that it's more beneficial for shareholders to effectively go with the system that we currently use to manage the balance sheet. Hopefully, that answers your question broadly.

Thank you. I'll move on to the next written question, again from Ilham Rawoot. This is a follow-up question regarding Pande and Temane. "While it's obvious there is a [ willing buyer, willing selling ] agreement, in the last contract, Sasol used [indiscernible] of fossil fuel prices to benefit. Again is there a protection in this contract that will not allow for Sasol to use this excuse again?"

Thank you. I'm not versed, fully acquainted if there's -- what are the specific clauses in the contract, but I do think there are due consideration by both parties at all considerations in any contract. And I would still remain at what we've declared or mentioned before and I've got nothing to add.

Thank you. Then next question, again from Thandile Chinyavanhu: "I believe there is misalignment within your team in the 1.5-degree -- or between 1.5 and 2 degrees, yes, are not being the same thing." I'm not sure if that's something we want to address.

I think, Elton, Chair, if we can address also the previous question from Thandile at the same time within the 1.5 degree and 2 degree. And I'm going to ask Shamini to weigh in because we have been very clear in our climate change reports how we look at this, what we recognize or what we acknowledge and how we think about that. Shamini?

[indiscernible] Fleetwood. So Thandile, 100% correct. I mean 1.5 is 1.5 degrees, and we are certainly endorsing the same. It is the political basis. It is the scientific basis. We have committed to a net 0 ambition. We have a fossil fuel-free vision. That is very much within 1.5 degrees, so certainly I want to say it again. We reiterate with you we are supportive of the Paris Agreement and what it enshrines in terms of the temperature goal. Thank you.

Thank you, Shamini. I'll move on to the next question, again from the same shareholder, Thandile Chinyavanhu. "Are you implying the air quality issues in Secunda are purely from burning biomass, so your Secunda plant is compliant with the minimum emission standards?"

Thank you again, Thandile. Definitely that is not the, quite, case on biomass. We are burning fossil fuels. That's part of the emissions that is impacting the environment. And I'm going to ask Bernard to weigh in here as well to give the context what is the actual situation at our Secunda plant.

Thanks, Fleetwood. Thanks for the question. So we as a company were -- had to comply with the new plant standards by April 2020. Across our operations, we -- 98% of our emission sources, in fact, do comply and did comply by April 2020. For the remainder emission sources, we've been provided an extension by way of postponement applications. Those postponement conditions are captured in our air emission licenses for our different facilities, and we comply then with those air emission licenses. We are on track. The postponements are until April 2025. And we are on track to -- with projects and implementation of various road maps to comply by 2025 for all emission sources, except for the steam plant in Secunda where there is work ongoing to chart the way forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Bernard.

Thank you, Bernard. I'll read the next question, which is again from Imran Rahoot (sic) [ Ilham Rawoot ]. "As you have not answered, I ask the question again. This question regards Sasol's concessions for Area A5-A in Angoche and PT5-C in Zambezia. The consortiums leading the Mozambique LNG and Rovuma LNG project have set up tax structures in Dubai. And since Mozambique and Dubai have a double tax agreement, Mozambique will lose $5.3 billion in withholding taxes, which would have been paid to the government with the consortiums paying tax under the Mozambican fiscal regime. Does Sasol plan on paying all taxes in Mozambique for A5-A and PT5-C? And how much revenue does Sasol estimate these projects will bring the Mozambican government? Can you make available all documents showing the models used to reach these estimates?"

Thank you. Thank you, Elton, Chair. I'm going to ask Priscillah to elaborate again because we've already contextualized that we are in early economic feasibility assessments of these 2 areas. And of course, there's a lot of water to flow into the sea before you will come to actually outcomes and viability assessment and commercialization of these areas. And all of these matters, as you now highlighted, will be part and parcel of the process to finalize the agreements with the relevant authorities. Priscillah, I'm not sure if there's further anything to add.

Just maybe 2 points, Fleetwood. I think the first one is the fact that we follow a very rigorous EAI process as well as FDP, which is public documents. And consultation will happen. So as I mentioned, we're expecting this [ field ] to come on stream in '28 -- sort of 2028 and 2030. At the right time, there will be processes led by government, which I think all interested parties will be able to engage on that. The second point, again to reiterate, we are a compliant and contributor to Mozambique economic contribution and development. And it's very difficult to make comments on [ matters of other firms ], but as we have demonstrated over the years, we continue to comply with the legislation. We'll continue to make meaningful contribution in country.

Thank you, Priscillah.

Thank you, Priscillah. Thank you for that response. I'll move on to the next question, and this is from [ Grant Alexander McGillan ]. "Mr. Nkosi and Mr. Kahla, I will meet with you, as you requested, next week. It is unfortunate that my friend, Mr. Peter Robertson, suggested to me during last year to sort out the catastrophic CTFE project. It wasn't acted on. Please confirm."

Mr. Vuyo Kahla will confirm. Please -- the vote is about to close. Please continue voting. Thanks. Yes, I think you just -- yes, we will reach out...

Yes...

[ Go ahead ].

We will certainly organize the meeting for next week, as you've answered -- as you've asked, [ Mr. McGillan ]. Indeed I would have thought -- if you had wanted the meeting earlier, we would have afforded that. You know you and I even connected on LinkedIn. And I would have thought that, that kind of information would have come through, but we certainly will meet with you. Thanks.

Thank you, Vuyo. Another question from [ Grant Alexander McGillan. "The Secunda representative ] again telling us that the 4 billion [ CTFT ] project does not improve air quality. So why was it committed to? As he just said, he is compliant with the regulations." And then I'll ask the next question, again from Ilham Rawoot, regarding Angoche and Zambezia. How did Sasol receive the concessions without completing the consultation process?

[ Maybe we have to stop ] [indiscernible].

So thank you, Elton. I think we've addressed the whole coal tar filtration. And Bernard has given a -- quite an update on where we stand, what is the next steps and when do we anticipate the project to be concluded and contribute. I think it's important maybe, Bernard, if you can weigh in, in terms of the impact of this project with respect to our compliance matters.

Thank you, Chair. If I understand the question: I certainly didn't say that the coal tar filtration project does not improve air quality. It forms part of an ongoing project to reduce the amount of volatile organic compound emissions in that part of the plant. And that's why we continue to focus and get it operational, because it certainly will improve the air quality or the emission profile for that part of the plant. And we have in place other mitigation actions until the plant is in fact operational. So I hope that clarifies it.

Thank you, Bernard.

Thank you for that response. Just to mention that [indiscernible] did ask his question on the Chorus Call platform. So that issue has been addressed. And we know that it does appear on the Lumi platform. And just the last question then, again from -- yes.

Just before the last question. You have, call it, 5 minutes to cast your vote or change your vote, so if you could do so, please. [Voting]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just again I'm not sure if there's further feedback to provide on this: How did Sasol receive the concessions without completing the consultation process regarding Angoche and Zambezia? And that again is from Ilham Rawoot.

Thank you, Elton. Priscillah, if you want to weigh in on that. I think there's already a framed approach in terms of how we got to the -- to those concessions. And I think that is all part and parcel of what we have landed, but it's early stages to do further work to see what's the potential going forward. I'm not sure if you want to add anything else, Priscillah.

Thanks, Fleetwood. The concessions were granted with conditions, as we all know. And it's part of a consultation process that was rigorous. It took a number of years. The next step, as I've mentioned, to reiterate, will be doing the seismic assessments, drilling few wells so we can understand the scope and quantities on the ground. And once we understand the scope, we will then prepare necessary documentation for an FDP, which is a full development plan. That again is a public process which will then be available going forward, and that will inform the conditions and terms for the development.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, there are no further questions, either written or questions in the queue from the Chorus Call platform.

Thank you very much, yes, colleagues. I hope we used all the time to answer your questions. Should you feel that your question was not adequately answered, please reach out to us in a written form. Or e-mail us or go to the website. And then we will answer your question because it is our intention to do our best in answering all your questions. So before I move forward, maybe I request Peter Robertson to say a few words...

I don't have many words to say, Mr. Chairman, but I just want to -- this is my last meeting of the Sasol -- in Sasol. And I saw my name on the screen there, and I object strongly to the way it was quoted on the screen. I am not his friend. I have never met him in my life. If everybody from Scotland is my friend, that's fine. But we have some common background, but I have never been asked to try and resolve this problem. I have no basis for resolving the problem. And I would hate to leave here with somebody thinking that I was in any way responsible for this what I consider irresponsible activity. Thank you.

[indiscernible].

Thanks, Peter. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your questions once again. The polls are now closed, and all votes have been counted and verified by our transfer secretary. The results are now showing on the screen. Now I'm supposed to read all of them, but I will just go through quickly. Resolution 1, we scored 86.9%. Resolution 2, 86.1%. Resolution 3, 96.63%. Resolution 4.1, 99.47%; resolution 4.2, 99.31%. Resolution 4.3 is 99.53%. Resolution 5 is 99.46%. Resolution 6, it's 99.63%. Resolution 7.1 is 99.22%. Resolution 7.2 is 99.53%, and resolution 7.3 is 98.01%. Resolution 7.4 is 97.84%. Resolution 7.5 is 96.05%. And finally, resolution 8 is 86.46%. Thank you very much, yes. We can continue looking at that, but ladies and gentlemen, as for me, this concludes the business of the 42nd Annual General Meeting of Sasol Limited. From me and my fellow directors, we hope that you remain safe and healthy and look forward to seeing you all at the next annual general [ meeting ]. Thank you very much. The proceedings are complete.