Sasol Limited (SOL) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

[Audio Gap] 17th of November 2023 could not take place due to disruption by protesters. I'm pleased to welcome you to the reconvened 44th Annual General Meeting of Sasol's shareholders. I am Stephen Westwell, and I will be chairing the meeting today. The directors joining me today are Ms. Muriel Dube, Chair of the Safety, Social and Ethics Committee; Dr. Martina Floel, Chair of the Capital Investment Committee; Ms. Mpho Nkeli, Chair of the Remuneration Committee; Ms. Trix Kennealy, Chair of the Audit Committee; Mr. Fleetwood Grobler, President and Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Vuyo Kahla, Executive Director; Mr. Hanre Rossouw, Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Manuel Cuambe, Ms. Kathy Harper, Ms. Nomgando Matyumza and Mr. Stanley Subramoney. Next to me, I also have our Group Company Secretary, Ms. Michelle du Toit. As is a customer at all meetings in Sasol, we will start with the safety moment. And I would like to ask our CEO, Fleetwood Grobler, to present the safety moment.

Thank you, Steve, and good day, ladies and gentlemen. Safety and operational discipline forms the foundation what underpins Sasol Zero Harm aspiration. To reinforce our safety culture, Sasol engagements routinely open with a safety moment as we are doing for this AGM. For today's safety moment, I will reflect on our recent safety performance including the tragic fatalities experienced in 2023 and the actions we are taking to arrest this trend. It is with a heavy heart that I must report that we tragically experienced 6 fatalities during calendar year 2023, arising from 3 incidents at mining and 3 incidents at energy operations in Secunda. In this regard, we mourn the loss of our colleagues, Mr. [ Kawthar Mathlaba ], Mr. [ Stephen Glovu ], Mr. [ Sifiso Maduna ], Mr. [ Gift Matlobu ], Mr. [ Dumisani Dumile ] and Mr. [ Julani Dube ]. As a management team, we are gravely concerned about the recent safety performance. Any loss of life or harm is unacceptable, and we remain resolute in our commitment to creating a caring, sustainable and zero-harm workplace. Before continuing with today's proceedings, I would like to ask that we all take a moment to remember our employees and colleagues who have lost their lives and to again express our heartfelt condolences to their families, friends and colleagues. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We have taken steps to double down on our efforts to further enhance our high severity incident program with specific focus on embedding the right safety culture through emphasizing humanizing safety. A key focus area to enhance our HSI program is our life-saving rules where we are streamlining and simplifying these to focus on the nonnegotiables. Furthermore, fit-for-purpose, leading indicator monitoring and reporting anchored on the 5 elements of our HSI program were introduced and serve as a predictive lever to effectively manage our SHE risks. Our approach to humanizing safety is group-wide, acknowledging each team member as a person with their own context and surrounding circumstances, both private and at work. Humanizing safety is centered on our key values of be safe, by always placing the safety of people first, be caring, by caring deeply for our people, planet and communities and be accountable by owning our results. In practice, this means our entire workforce relentlessly pursues the identification and remediation of hazards and employees at all levels are equally comfortable stopping each other when risky behavior is observed. The tone of a safety climate is set through leader behavior. And we are paying specific attention to visible felt leadership at the shop floor or coalface. Humanizing safety assist us in driving a safety culture that looks beyond safety statistics and systems towards safe and productive work in a caring environment where discipline is fairly applied. The recent tragic fatalities again remind me that our journey to zero harm is a continuous one. Every action we take, every decision we make must be aligned with our commitment to zero harm. Let me end off by reiterating that a safe working environment is nonnegotiable. For us, safety remains our top priority. Thank you for listening. I will hand now back to our Chairman.

Thank you for sharing that safety moment with us, Fleetwood. As communicated last year, Mr. Sipho Nkosi decided to step down as Chairman and Nonexecutive Director of Sasol Limited. Mr. Nkosi came to the conclusion that while he was comfortable that he would be able to comply with the conflict of interest requirements of the companies act and of the company, he was concerned that some of his business units may be perceived to place them in conflict with the interest of Sasol. The Board subsequently appointed me as Chairman of the Board for the time being. The Nomination and Governance Committee will, in due course, nominate successor for the role of Chairman in line with its formal succession plan. The board has a well thought through direct to succession plan in place, underpinned by the objective of ensuring an appropriate mix of skills and experience on the board to advance the strategic interest of the company. In accordance with this plan, new directors will be appointed to the Board in the course of this year to the vacancies created by the 2 director resignations of last year and the director resignations coming up in the course of the -- director retirements coming up in the course of this year, which include me. Last year, we announced the appointment of [indiscernible] Executive Officer of Sasol with effect from [indiscernible] ability to lead Sasol, and we believe that his strategic outlook excellent leadership skills, technical and business acumen and deep experience of our operations will stand him in excellent stead to take over the helm. Sasol's President and Chief Executive Officer, Fleetwood Grobler's term of office comes to an end in December this year. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Fleetwood, who is celebrating his 40th service anniversary with Sasol this month for his dedication and commitment to the company over his illustrious career. Fleetwood will work closely with the newly appointed CEO to ensure a smooth transition. I am comfortable that the director and executive leadership transitions that I've referred to will be carried out in a way that effectively ensures continuity in pursuit of the best interest of Sasol. The past year was one of significant volatility across the world. In addition to the impact of the global developments on South Africa's economy, its weak performance was exacerbated by intensifying power shortages, deteriorating logistics and geopolitical and socioeconomic upheaval. Sasol was not immune to the impact of these challenges, many of which have the potential to affect our ability to create and preserve value over time. Our immediate priority is to reset our foundation base and build a resilient company. However, there is no doubt that the challenge of our time is to reshape the energy sector, while maintaining the supply of affordable and sustainable energy to meet the needs of society. These needs have to be met in a way that safeguards the planet from environmental degradation. About 3 years ago, we presented our first say on climate vote. As with every other matter that impacts on Sasol, the Board encourages interactions with the company's stakeholders to better understand their expectations in respect of resolutions of this nature, especially for companies undergoing significant energy transitions as is the case with Sasol. Our commitment to Sasol's decarbonization pathway is only equivocal, as is our commitment to meaningful disclosures as reflected in our climate change report. The Board is seeking to confirm shareholder support of the company's commitment to and progress on a decarbonization pathway towards achieving the 2030 target and 2050 net zero ambition that balances a long-term sustainable transition and the ability to create value. Furthermore, the company seeks to confirm Sasol's long-standing commitment to report in accordance with the task force on climate-related financial disclosure requirements on progress and the challenges faced along its decarbonization journey. This is the most opportune time to undertake this vote while the company continues to progress the emission reduction road map and prepares for mandatory climate change reporting. We will take on board proposals that have been made by some of our shareholders on the future structuring of this resolution. I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the Board and management's commitment to climate action remains unwavering. Before I hand over to Fleetwood and going to the formal business of the meeting, including voting on the proposed resolutions and responding to your questions, we will watch a video on Sasol in society. [Presentation]

Thank you for watching, and I now hand over to Fleetwood.

Thank you, and good afternoon again. I will take you through a brief overview of our business and ESG progress in the past year. And following from the video you just saw, I would like to take you through some of our highlights that we've achieved in addition to what you've seen. Sasol remains unequivocally committed to our future Sasol strategy shared at Capital Markets Day in September of 2021, where we defined a path to realize '50 net zero ambition along 3 horizons, reset our business to enable a transition and ultimately, reinvention to a more sustainable company. We welcome robust and constructive debate on our decarbonization efforts, as it enables continuous improvement in the shaping and implementation of our plan. Some recent views about Sasol's approach have regrettably being inaccurate, and it was important for us that we set the record straight. In this regard, towards the end of November last year, we published an open letter to all stakeholders. This is still available on our website. Let me reiterate that there is no retreat from our 2030 greenhouse gas targets or our 2050 net zero ambition. Our 2030 emissions reduction road map indicates key interventions that we are progressing to achieve a 30% reduction. I will speak about some of this progress a little later on. As a responsible corporate implementing a decarbonization and value-creation strategy, we are actively tracking, reporting on and incorporating some of the key global macroeconomic changes from the recent months that will inevitably impact on our journey. As such, we have been transparent and kept you informed of the risks and opportunities we foresee, and we will continue to do so into the future. Disclosure of these risk factors should not be seen as Sasol conceding to not meeting targets, but rather the opposite. We are actively looking for solutions to address the challenges along our path of transition and are doing so transparently. There is no silver bullet to climate change, and this journey, we are on, requires us to be open in an effort to find solutions across an ecosystem. As indicated, we have made steady progress on our emission reduction road maps that support achieving our 2030 target. Our 2030 levers are unchanged, integration of renewable energy, greater energy and process efficiency across our operations and transitioning away from coal as a feedstock. Sasol has concluded a number of power purchase agreements for more than 600 megawatts for Secunda, representing 50% of our 1,200-megawatt commitment by 2030. It is expected that these renewable energy projects start to become operational from end of financial year 2025 onwards with the normal and typical conditions precedent. There appears to be some confusion in the market around our commitment to integrating renewable energy. I want to assure you that Sasol is currently progressing ahead of our original 40% renewable energy commitment for the end of financial year 2026. We are very proud to announce that Sasol produced our first green hydrogen in June 2023 in Sasolburg. This green hydrogen will be used to support our partnerships with Anglo American Platinum, Toyota South Africa and BMW South Africa to prove that our hydrogen mobility ecosystem can operate successfully in the country. The 69-megawatt Msenge Emoyeni Wind Farm under construction in the Eastern Cape expected to come online in 2024 and will support our Sasol project -- Sasolburg project to reach commercial scale. We are executing a suite of studies and projects to unlock energy efficiency benefits, some of which involves innovative solutions being explored by our research and technology team. And we will turn down our boilers in a phased approach once sufficient renewable energy is online. Turning to gas supply. Our gas drilling campaign in Mozambique becomes increasingly important to facilitate production uplift and support our transition. We've made positive progress in securing gas flexibility to FY '30, and we are advancing the initiatives to formally extend the plateau beyond financial year 2028. The recent onshore gas discovery in the PT 5C block also has potential to provide further optionality beyond 2030, should this become a viable supply in the future, together with any other exploration prospects that we have in Southern Mozambique. Understandably, our mission reduction levers are not without risk. There are some factors which are outside Sasol's control, which rely on regulatory processes and decisions and global supply chains to progress. For these risk factors, we are working with a wide range of partners on mechanisms and alternative plans to mitigate uncertainties as we continue to pursue possible avenues to ensure a stable and sustainable business. We remain committed to prioritizing an affordable and sustainable transition for our business. Energy security continues to be a source of great concern across the globe. We are also faced with what is commonly known as the energy transition trilemma, comprising sustainability, security and affordability. It is imperative that we invest in the energy transition itself, but simultaneously also consider our commitments to today's energy needs. Consistent and effective policy and regulation is required both to encourage investment and reward risk for the transition. Some of the more recent developments in broader South African business have added to the challenges of investing with confidence towards transition. Our triple bottom line strategy of people, planet and profit remains intact, and we are committed to our decarbonization and value creation for future Sasol. I will now talk you through a few highlights from our continued contributions and commitment to driving a positive change in our communities. Sasol remains a significant contributor to society and a key investor in our communities. I am very proud of the leading role we continue to play to be a force for social good. In financial year 2023, we spent approximately ZAR 35 billion in wages and benefits for our employees and organized labor, as we strive to continuously improve our employee value proposition. We spent over ZAR 38 million developing suppliers and increasing our spend worth 100% black-owned small, medium and micro enterprises by more than 40% in Secunda and Sasolburg. We delivered approximately 54 million barrels of liquid fuels and over 6 million tons of chemical products to customers around the world. Our spend this year on majority black-owned businesses in South Africa was approximately ZAR 42 billion, almost 25% higher than financial year '22 spend. Spend on black women-owned businesses also increased by 32% to approximately ZAR 29 billion. We remain committed to the broad-based black economic empowerment through sustainable transformation. Sasol also remains one of the largest corporate taxpayers in South Africa. Sustainable returns to our shareholders is a key priority. Despite continued volatility over the period, the Board declared a final dividend of ZAR 10 per share, equating to a total financial year dividend of over ZAR 10 billion. As you've seen in the video that we shared earlier, our commitment to social well-being in our communities remains strong. We actively contribute to community upliftment initiatives evidenced by over ZAR 850 million we have spent globally. I would like to draw your attention to a few highlights in this area. We've invested in multiple education initiatives to support the development of technical and vocational skills to address the shortage of skills needed in workplaces. Our Sasol for good program encourages our employees to get involved in their communities through various volunteer schemes donating their time, skills and resources to social development causes, which you saw in the video earlier. Lastly, let me say, I take great, great pride in Sasol's new performance in the 15-year sponsorship of the South African's Women Football Team, Banyana, Banyana. The team's successes on the global football stage is testament to their skill, hard work and dedication. Well done, Banyana Banyana. Sasol is transitioning our business in a just and equitable manner. This is imperative if one considers the value generated by our Secunda and Sasolburg facilities, which contribute materially to SA's economy and society from making everyday products to significant socioeconomic contributions. As one data point, a recent Sasol commissioned economic study confirmed our direct, indirect and induced employment contribution to be in the order of 500,000 people. We also contribute around 5% to the country's GDP. In terms of our just transition road map, we are following a 4-phased approach as is illustrated on this slide, which lays the foundation for the programs and plans we embark on either independently or in partnership with others. Our just transition office and center for shared value management our leading Sasol's just transition approach and related socioeconomic activities. I will now provide a high-level financial overview for the past financial year '23. In the past year, we committed to stabilizing our business through our operational mitigation plans and have seen good progress in this regard. A pivotal focus of our endeavors for 2023 was to improve the quality and productivity of coal supply in our Secunda operations. At Sasol Mining, we are continuing with our focused initiatives to provide sustainable improvement across all our Secunda collieries and remain confident that our full potential program will deliver. In SA, we stepped up reliability at both Secunda operations and Natref through a range of technical interventions and our teams ensured a successful total shutdown of the East Factory at Secunda. The performance of all our U.S. units improved in the second half of the financial year and the Ziegler unit reached 100% available capacity by the end of quarter 3. Looking at the business environment, a combination of a few material factors continues to pose near-term challenges to our business. This includes global economic volatility and in South Africa specifically, an uncertain regulatory environment and other business challenges. All this taking place against the backdrop are far-reaching policy shifts, such as the recalibration of relations between the U.S. and China and the move towards more muscular industrial policy, as we are seeing with the Inflation Reduction Act or IRA in the U.S. Although I think it is important to be specific about these areas of uncertainty as we move forward, it is also important to keep them in perspective. I would firstly reiterate that we have constructive dialogue around these issues across a range of stakeholders. And secondly, we are progressing well in making our business more resilient through our Sasol 2.0 program to mention 1 example. We also proactively reduced some of our operating rates in our U.S. and European businesses in response to weaker market demand and pricing pressures, and we'll continue to do so to mitigate financial losses until we see a recovery in the market. Given the factors I've outlined covering both internal and external dynamics, I will touch on just a few final financial measures now. Our adjusted EBITDA reduced by 8% to around ZAR 66 billion, earnings for the period was significantly impacted by the write-down of our Synfuels liquid fuels refinery cash-generating unit. Our current net debt of USD 3.8 billion decreased slightly compared to the comparative period, and we continue to work towards a goal of further reducing debt levels. Our commitment to maintain shareholder returns remains intact with a total dividend of ZAR 17 per share that was paid in the financial year 2023. In conclusion, I want to emphasize the importance of our employees. In recent years, we had to adapt to existential challenges, forcing us to reset our organizational culture and the way we conduct our business. I would like to thank team Sasol for continuing to rally around objectives to recalibrate and reset the business and forge ahead towards a sustainable future Sasol, your unwavering support and dedication propels us forward on this remarkable journey. Thank you for listening. I will now hand back to our Chairman.

Thank you, Fleetwood. Ladies and gentlemen, we now turn to the business of the AGM. I'm comfortable that the notice of meeting has been delivered to shareholders in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act that the attendance register has been duly completed that a quorum of shareholders is present and the proxies received 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 as a correct record of the proceedings. A copy of these minutes can be obtained from the group company secretary's office. Mr. Andrej Vladar from Lumi will now explain to us how to ask verbal questions and post written questions as well as to vote on all the resolutions, over to Mr. Vladar.

Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon to yourself, to the Board members, to everybody present. Welcome to the AGM. As the Chairman said, my name is Andrej and I am just briefly going to take you through the Lumi platform that will be used for today's virtual meeting. So for those of you that are online and are in a shareholder capacity, so you logged in with access credentials. You will have the ability to vote to post messages as well as ask verbal questions. So if you look at the platform, depending on the device that you have, you'll either have 2 side-by-side screens, as I'm currently sharing. Or if you have a smaller device like a phone or a tablet, you'll have a single screen with a floating webcast button. For those with the smaller screens, to see the webcast, just click on that webcast button, and you can toggle the webcast in and out as you need to, during the meeting. For those with the larger screens, you'll see that you have the webcast on the right and your control panel on the left-hand side of the screen. Firstly, to deal with the control panel. When you logged in, you would have logged in and seen the info screen. And on the info screen, will be all the information that you require to participate at this meeting, including our support details in case anybody is struggling. Next to that, you'll have the voting button. And if you click on that, you'll see that the voting is open. You'll see that there are 17 items that need to be voted on, which can be shown at the top of the screen -- the mount will be shown at the top of the screen. You can choose to vote in one direction for all resolutions or you can vote on each resolution separately. You'll see that once you voted, you will get a received message also stating what option you selected. You can change your vote at any time during the meeting by just selecting your new option. Our system will take the last entered vote when the voting closes. You can obviously also cancel your votes and start from the beginning again. Moving on from the voting, we then have the messaging tab. And in the messaging tab, this is where you will post any written questions that you have for the Board. To do that, you will first select a category. You'll see there's various categories, including a platform support. So if you are struggling with anything in the platform, you can use that category to connect with us, and we will respond to those messages. So you'll connect -- choose a category. You'll then ask a question bar, type out a question, and then you'll hit the send key, which looks like a little arrow to the right of your message to send the message. You'll see a received response and your message will appear in the list of messages that are there. You'll see that next to it, you have a my messages button. These are any of the messages that have been sent from you as well as if you get any replies directly to that message, you'll see that there as well. And the last tab is the documents tab, and this is where you'll find the notice of the AGM. And if you click on that, you will be able to get a PDF version of the notice that you can view through while the meeting is in progress as well as being able to download it. As mentioned, most -- all of these functionalities are specifically for shareholders, guests are in a purely observer mode with regards to participation. Then on the right-hand side, you'll see the webcast that is currently running. You'll see that you have any usual toggles for a webcast. You can pause and play the video. You can mute and unmute the audio as well as increase or decrease the volume as you need. You can also go full screen on the webcast by clicking the full screen button in the top right-hand corner. You'll notice that your control panel disappears. So if you wish to return back to your control panel for messaging or voting or anything of the like, click the cross and you will then go back to the control panel view. If you wish to ask an audio/video question, either on the top or the bottom of your screen depending on your device, you'll have a request to speak button. So if you click on that, you'll see that the broadcast briefly disappears, but then reestablishes very soon. Just click on the unmute button to keep listening to the broadcast while you're connecting to an operator, and you will then see your system pick up your current camera, your microphone and which speaker you're using. You are able to change these if need be. And once you are ready, you can then click on the green tick button to connect to one of our operators, who will then just test the functionality of your microphone, your camera and your speakers, make sure that you can hear them that you can see them and that they can see you and hear you. They will then place you into a queue. And when the Chairman or one of the members in the room call out your name, you will then be directed to stage by one of our operators. That can take 2 or 3 seconds to get you on stage so please be patient and wait until you can see yourself and the Chairman or whoever is answering on the screen. And then you can begin with your question once the Chairman acknowledges you. Please stay on the call with the Board for the duration of your interaction, just in case the Board requires any further clarification on the question or if they require a follow-up on the question. Once you are done in your entirety with your interaction with the Board, please click on the return to broadcast, which will take you straight back to the broadcast, and you can then just click on the unmute button again to unmute the meeting so that you can then view the meeting once again. As mentioned, if you do have any issues, there are support details on the info tab and please feel free to reach out to us for any support that you may require. And with that Chair, I will hand back to you.

Thank you, Andrej. As Chairman of the meeting, I'm charged with maintaining order to facilitate the business of the meeting, as prescribed by the Companies Act and set out in the notice of the AGM sent you on the 18th of December 2023. As allowed for in Sasol's memorandum of incorporation, I hereby declare that all resolutions will be voted on by a way of a poll. Voting is now open on all resolutions, and you can vote on any resolution at any time until the voting is closed. I will give you a few minutes warning when voting is about to be closed. We are anticipating many questions, so I ask as a courtesy to all shareholders that you ensure your questions are concise and are posed in English. Please do not repeat any questions already asked. We will do our best to ensure that everyone's questions are answered. However, please note that where Sasol is dealing with litigation, any instruction or conversation between the client and its legal counsel is protected by the principle of legal privilege. This protection ensures that instructions and confidential communication pertaining to legal advice is safeguarded by law. Sasol will not waive any of these rights and therefore, will not answer questions aimed at a discussion of the merits and strategy adopted in relation to any ongoing litigation. To expedite the process, we'll be taking your questions in batches of 4, 2 written and 2 verbal from the electronic platform. Given that the meeting is virtual, Mr. Elton Fortuin and Ms. Tiffany Sydow will read out the written questions. They will also read out the name of the shareholder who wishes to ask a question online, and that shareholders microphone will then be activated. Now turning to the resolutions. The following matters have been placed before shareholders today. The full text and explanations have been provided in the notice of AGM, and I will, therefore, provide a brief summary only. Annual financial statements. The annual financial statements for the financial year ended 30th of June 2023, the reports of the directors, the Audit Committee and the external auditors as well as the report of the Safety, Social and Ethics Committee. Nonbinding advisory resolutions. The nonbinding advisory resolutions are: number one, to endorse the company's remuneration policy; number two, to endorse the implementation report of the company's remuneration policy; and number three, to endorse Sasol's commitment to and progress on its decarbonation pathway towards achieving the 2030 target and the 2050 net zero ambition. And to further endorse the company's 2023 climate change reports, consistency with the task force on climate-related financial disclosure requirements. The ordinary resolutions, ordinary resolution #1, to reelect by separate votes, the retiring directors Mr. Manuel Cuambe, Ms. Muriel Dube, Dr. Martina Floel, and Mr. Fleetwood Grobler and Ms. Mpho Nkeli. All director CVs were provided in the notice of AGM. Ordinary resolution #2 to appoint KPMG as independent auditor. Ordinary resolution #3 to elect by way of separate votes, the members of the Audit Committee. Ms. Muriel Dube, subject to her reelection as a Director in terms of ordinary resolution #1. Ms. Kathy Harper, Ms. Trix Kennealy, the Chairman; Ms. Nomgando Matyumza, Mr. Stanley Subramoney. The special resolutions. Special resolution #1, on to approve the remuneration payable to nonexecutive directors of the company for their services as directors. Special resolution #2 to authorize the Board to approve the general repurchase by the company or by any of its subsidiaries of any of the company's ordinary shares and/or Sasol BEE ordinary shares. Special resolution #3, to authorize the Board to approve the purchase by the company as part of special resolution #2 of its issued ordinary or Sasol BEE ordinary shares from a director and/or a prescribed officer of the company and/or persons related to a director or prescribed officer of the company, I will alert you when voting is about to close. Ladies and gentlemen, I now open the floor for questions in the relation to the resolution proposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will be aiming the questions from our participants today so that we can deal with related topics as close as possible to one another. Today, we will start the questions with the ones relating to remuneration that we have received so far. The first question is from William BT. First, I find the level of remuneration of executives to be way too high. They are exorbitant and excessive. I would recommend putting a cap on these high levels. Will Sasol consider my suggestion and come back to me. Related to that question, also from William BT. It is to be noted that South Africa is the most unequal society in the world, the excess of pay gaps that exist in Sasol simply adds to the gap that exists between the reach and the poor. I suggest better disclosures around remuneration and Sasol consider my suggestion of disclosing the ratio of the highest to lowest paid worker as well as the rand value of the lowest paid worker, if Sasol will come back to me on this. I find it unfair if executives alone have share options, and this should be expanded to other much lower paid workers than Sasol, take a leaf out of the book of Tesla regarding this, will Sasol consider my suggestion and come back to me? I'll read one more question on remuneration since numerous questions were posed by William BT. The next question is from [indiscernible]. Remuneration implementation report indicates that performance against safety was met yet as per the CEO's opening remarks, the company experienced fatalities. We have previously raised this issue about using LTIFR instead of using the fatalities as a measure. One fatality is a fatality too many and commitment to zero safety should be indicated by using zero harm/zero fatalities as the measure. Why is RemCo not taking this into consideration in line with other mining companies and international standards? Thank you, Chair. Those are the questions for now.

Thank you, Elton. Mpho, would you like to take this?

Thank you very much for the questions. I'll begin with my response to William's questions about rem and there's quite a few there. William, I'd like to say that rem or executive rem is not excessive. Why do I say this? Because we do benchmark our rem against South African, European as well as U.S. pay levels for senior executives. And our policy says we want to pay our executives in line with the median, which we do. So no, they are not excessive. But your question about the cap. Do we cap our remunerations? Yes, it is capped, particularly on incentives, any formulaic worked out incentives, they put a cap to it. And in terms of the pay gap that you mentioned here, we saw that Sasol pride itself of actually reviewing pay gaps between race and gender and levels across all the markets that we operate on an annual basis. And we can proudly say that our lowest paid employees are paid above the living wage. And let's not forget that the levels of pay that we have at senior level, as rem is meant to do, is to attract, retain as well as pay for performance. And we are well within, we believe, in the policy that we believe is also in line with best practice and in some areas, better than best practice. And in terms of our disclosure, I see you've got concerns about a level of disclosure. Sasol prides itself once again with the level of disclosure, not only just on rem but on many, many issues above market in this instance. But if you have any further questions, please feel free to engage management directly through Investor Relations. And in terms of share option participation, yes, top executives up to senior management level participate in share options. But over and above that, we do have a share plan purchase plan where all employees actually can participate as indirect shareholders. So that actually works quite well. And occasionally, we track to see the level of employee participation, which is a good thing that employees are willing to buy shares on their own basis. And then I will respond to [ Mesude's ] questions about your safety targets. [ Mesude ], we do not only use the LTIFR target, as you mentioned in your question here. We also have other safety targets, including the fatality. And our fatality is used as a modifier -- final modifier on the incentive calculation, which is quite a punitive way of managing compliance to safety. Fatality -- zero harm is what we aim for and it's reflective in the nature of the punitive nature of the fatality penalty so we do have strong targets against safety. There's another question that was raised by [ Mesude ] if you want me to answer Chair about restricted shares?

If you could answer it, thank you, Mpho.

[ Mesude ] also raised that we have restructured shares of 35% of LTIFR for leadership that we have reduced to 30%, but we do intend to retain restricted shares because we believe it's an important part of the rem mix. I do have to just point out to you that our restricted shares have a longer vesting period, which is 5 years, which is higher than most companies in South Africa, and we are proud of that. Over and above that, we do benchmark as I mentioned, our rem, again is not only SA but U.S. and U.K., Europe, all the areas, markets [indiscernible] sometimes they go up as high as 70%. So 30% we believe is practical for what we do. And let's not forget that the improve shareholder alignment between management and shareholders. So thank you for raising that point. But at this point in time, we believe we want to retain the restricted shares, but we do review this on a regular basis as RemCo. Thank you.

Thank you, Mpho. Further questions to be read out, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next question I'll read out is from Kwanele Ngogela. Good afternoon, Chair. I'm Kwanele Ngogela from Just Share. Sasol states that the company analyze its vertical wage gaps using the methodology proposed in the company's amendment bill. However, the specific pay ratios resulting from these analyses have not been disclosed. While the company commit to disclosing these pay ratios and the entry-level salaries of the South African workforce voluntarily. The next question from the same participant. Sasol mentions that in South Africa, the company's minimum wage aligns with the living wage for a family as determined by trading economics. This figure is not stated in the company's reports. Could you please disclose the amount Sasol considers to be a living wage. The last question we currently have on remuneration is from William BT. Benchmarks are always mentioned by companies, but I don't buy this argument. Why is it only capped on incentives and not other elements? Those are the questions for now, Chair.

Thank you. And Mpho, would you like to answer, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. William, benchmarks are used and will always be used because it's the best way that we can attract and retain talent in the market. So I'm afraid we'll continue using benchmarks. What's important is who you benchmark yourself against it, and we do benchmark ourselves against companies our size, who operate in multiple markets, with similar or sized companies. So we will continue to do that. And we do cap not only just incentives, but other elements as well. We do benchmark benefits too. And in terms of pay gaps, we know that the company has not been signed off as yet, but the fact that we do disclose to some degree in our rem report is an indication of level of disclosure, I mean, if we're not being requested to do so by the Company's Act. And the living wage, I think it's about ZAR 12,000, Am I correct? And we are -- our lowest employees are paid above that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mpho. Further questions, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are now moving on to the questions under the theme financial. The first question is from William BT. Please comment on Sasol oil -- sorry please comment on the oil price. What is your estimate of the average dollar oil price in 2024, comment on the impact of oil of war in the Red Sea. Do you still work on a $60 oil price for planning and budget purposes? The next question is from the same shareholder. The Sasol share must surely be one of the worst large cap performers on the JSE. One reason for this, I suspect, is the environmental questions that exist around Sasol's operations. Our share buybacks a possibility or our debt levels and CapEx requirements simply too high, kindly comment. I'll leave it there for now, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Hanre, could you take those questions, please?

Thanks a lot, William, for those questions. William, in terms of the oil price, we do incorporate our own estimate on the outlook for short and medium as well as long-term planning forecast. The ones that are externally disclosed are the numbers that incorporate -- are incorporated into our impairment assessment. So those, you will find in the annual financial statements. Just for reference that -- for the 2023 number that was $88 a barrel. In terms of planning forecast, those are not publicly disclosed, but we do benchmark those against consensus and panel of external metrics to check that they are reasonable. But on top of that, we do excessive -- and a lot of stress testing in terms of up and downside scenarios to check the robustness of our planning. In terms of oil price itself, I think there we do -- again, we do not comment specifically on the spot price. But I think there, you would be able to find a lot of commentary in the market around the impact on the oil price from supply and demand disruptions. I think just in terms of the -- again, the share price, your question around the buybacks as well so we, as a management team, certainly can't comment on the share price level itself. But I read from your question that you're asking effectively to the extent that we are asking permission for a share buyback, whether we are actively considering that. Again, as we've referenced in the past, that specific resolution is a very standard authorization that we request so that we have experience in the instance that we decide to buyback shares. So I would urge you not to read anything into the fact that we're asking for that resolution. Yes. So just in terms of -- just being reminded here in terms of the rate -- impact on the rates here, again, as I've noted, we do not comment specifically on the movements in the short-term oil price, but I will urge you that in terms of capital allocation, we look at a range of pricing for the short, medium and long term.

Thank you, Chair. We'll now take an audio question from a shareholder, Zahra Omar.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Zahra from the Center for Environmental Rights. I have 2 questions today. The first one is in relation to the resignation of Sasol's former Chairman last year and the conflict of interest. We understand that at the time of the Chairman's resignation that a relationship between Sasol and the gas exploration company Kinetiko had been established. Will Sasol therefore, reconsider its gas deal with Kinetiko since it's tainted by that conflict of interest? And if not, how will shareholders know that any gas project arising from that deal is in the best interest of Sasol and its shareholders as opposed to private interests? And then I have a second question on Sasol's Corporate Governance. As we understand, Sasol's Executive Vice President are accountable for the management of any risks in their respective areas of responsibility. And our view based on the qualifications of the relevant Vice President is that their expertise is not sufficient to address climate-related risks. So given the recent pushback by shareholders on Sasol's big decarbonization blueprint, its slow progress and associated climate risks, does the failure to ensure that these Vice Presidents are climate competent, not present a significant governance risk to the Board, especially in relation to meeting its fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of Sasol?

Zahra, thank you so much for your questions. Could you please repeat your first question? Unfortunately, there was a delay with audio in the room.

Sure. So the question is in relation to the resignation of Sasol's former Chairman last year due to the conflict of interest. We understand that at the time of the Chairman's resignation, a relationship between Sasol and the gas exploration company, Kinetiko, had been established. . Well, Sasol then reconsider its gas deal with Kinetiko since it's now tainted by that conflict of interest? And if not, how will shareholders know that any gas project arising from the deal is in the best interest of Sasol and its shareholders as opposed to private interests?

Thank you very much, Zahra. I will read out 2 more questions around financial, and then we'll defer to the Chair and the other Board members to respond. The next written question is from William BT. When do you see so-called peak oil happening? And from the same shareholder, what is the quantum of targeted debt levels. You state the net debt is $3.8 billion. Those are the questions for now Chair.

Thank you. So I will take the first one on Kinetiko. I'll ask Muriel to take the second one on the perceived competence of the executive. And I'll ask Hanre to do the last 2 financial questions. So Zahra, thank you for the question. As you have no doubt seen, Mr. Nkosi resigned as Chairman of the Board and as the Director of VP because while -- sorry of Sasol, while there was no conflict of interest in respect of Companies Act and appropriate legislation. He did feel that there was a risk of his future business interest, possibly causing problems for Sasol and himself. So he resigned. So the issue around the conflict of interest of Mr. Nkosi is no longer with us. The Board had never discussed Kinetiko, so at the level of the Board, Mr. Nkosi was not party to any conversations in respect of Kinetiko. And so going forward, I don't see the risks that you have raised vis-à-vis the relation -- in future relationship between Sasol and Kinetiko. Muriel?

Thank you, Steve. Just on the question about the Board's comfort level with the competence of the Climate Skills on organization. I can say that the Board is comfortable with the level of competence. Climate Change Management is a multidisciplinary discipline. And so in dealing with our climate risk in the business, we draw multidisciplinary skills across the organization to fulfill that undertaking. And as a Board, we're comfortable that across the board, we have the requisite skills to adequately manage our climate risk.

Thank you, Muriel. Hanre, do you want to take the next 2?

Thanks. So in terms of our debt levels, the $3.8 billion that you referenced was the end of financial year '23. Our capital allocation policy specific debt levels for our dividend payment, so beyond below $5 billion, we introduced a dividend, and we've done so historically and beyond below $4 billion, there's a further step-up in the dividend. So those are the specific absolute debt targets we've got. In terms of your question around peak oil, again, referencing that to the extent that we do not provide specific market commentary. I'm not going to venture Sasol's view on that, but other to say that in general, you would see commentary in the market talking about 2030 plateau that starts peaking off below that, but I've got a caution that one has to be very specific around the various demand trends in specific markets.

Thank you, Hanre. Elton, further questions.

Thank you, Chair. Dealing with the theme financial, we move on to shareholder Grant McGillan. Question is on debt levels. Page 20, directors report states that debt is being proactively managed and continue to work towards reducing levels. Next paragraph states debt increased from ZAR 105.1 billion to ZAR 125.6 billion. Clearly, debt is not being proactively managed. Why would such misleading statements be placed in the report, does the Board agree with me as such? Next question also from the same shareholder class action case. At last year's AGM, the matter was discussed and it was agreed to reflect the $24 million award in this year's results where it is indicated, having capitulated against 700,000 pages of defense documentation. That is the full question. I'll read out 2 more questions. The next one from shareholder, William BT. The question is around the breakeven oil price. And the next question from the same shareholder, Sasol has an extremely poor record of capital allocation, just consider Lake Charles. Please provide the latest operating update on Lake Charles. What lessons have you learned from Lake Charles? And will you improve capital allocation decisions going forward? Thank you, Chair. Those are the questions for now.

I'll ask Hanre and possibly Vuyo to respond to Mr. McGillan's 2 questions. And then the last 2 questions, back to Hanre. Thank you.

Thanks a lot for those questions. In terms of the debt levels, just to note that the -- we disclosed debt levels in rand and in dollars. So to the extent that we are managing to -- we're actively managing to reduce -- aiming to reduce debt levels that is consistent with what we are doing. The debt levels are disclosed in dollars and in rand so you would see that in dollar terms, we've reduced debt to the end of the financial year '23. Of course, there's a translation impact when one looks in rand terms. I think the -- just in terms of the class action, kind of you are correct, we did settle that and that is fully disclosed in the financial statements and the $24 million that you referenced that was paid through the insurer. So that matter was concluded and included also in our financial statements as well as a disclosure around that. Just the breakeven, there was a question around the breakeven oil price. And that is effectively an outcome of our operational performance. And I guess the question there is whether it relates to South Africa? That is a number that we're actively managing. I think in terms of EBITDA breakeven, that is a number that you can calculate yourself, but depending on the assumptions that you include that number sits around $60 a barrel oil for the '23 financial year. And it is actually a key number that we do focus on in terms of the operational efficiency and effectiveness of our operations. Another key focus in terms of capital allocation, your question around Lake Charles, I think to the extent that we are in close period. You will have to wait for BPM in terms of the latest operational performance as well as the half year results for the financial performance of Lake Charles. And I would reference otherwise, the financial year '23 results for the previous financial year's performance. Perhaps other to say that in terms of capital allocation, of course, there are certainly lessons learned throughout kind of all our investments, and we've got a very robust framework of not only allocating capital, but also doing post-investment reviews to continuously learn to enhance the process. Thank you.

Thank you, Hanre. Further questions?

Thank you, Chair. The next question, still under the theme of financial from William BT regarding auditors. Does Sasol follow a policy of mandatory audit firm and audit partner rotation? If yes, please elaborate on your policy. Those are the only written questions on financial at this time, Chair. So I'll leave it there.

Thank you. Hanre?

Thank you, Chair. So even though the Supreme Court has overturned the mandatory audit firm rotation requirement in line with the urban recommendation we have and you would see that in the resolution, we have elected to appoint KPMG with the ask for shareholders to endorse that appointment in resolution 3, if I've got it correct. So that is included in our strive for good governance. Just in terms of further aspects of that policy, we do have a mandatory rotation of partners as well every 5 years. So in terms of the right auditors and an independent audit firm, it is a matter that the audit committee takes very seriously. Thanks for that question.

Thank you, Chair. We will now move on to the questions deemed under operational. The first question is from shareholder, William BT. I have a question -- I have to question the time that directors have available to Sasol. Do you limit the number of companies that they can be a director of? If not, why not? And will Sasol consider my suggestion of having a policy that limits the number of boards that a director can sit on? If there is such a policy, please provide info on the policy. From the same shareholder, why is the Sasol meeting only held on an electronic basis, surely both an in-person and electronic method is the best. We'll leave it there for now, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll ask Vuyo to respond to both those questions. Thank you.

Thanks a lot, Chair. Firstly, in relation to the restrictions in terms of members of -- number of boards that directors of Sasol may sit on, currently, it's in addition to the Sasol Limited Board, it is -- sorry, in addition to the Sasol Limited Board, it is 4 other directors -- directorships in listed companies. Now of course, we've been listening to some investors around that number, that they maybe need to reflect more fully, whether it is indeed appropriate that it be the 1 plus the 4. And so that is a matter that the Board remains open to considering. But it is important to emphasize that the Board makes a full assessment of each director in respect of their availability, their competence as well as their independence. And so even in relation to all of this, one also makes an assessment around the ability to contribute to the company and to dedicate the requisite time in respect of the needs of the company. And I think that's equally reflected in their attendance register in respect of their participation on the Board. And so we do believe that once we're open to considering any amendments to the policy as currently stands, there are already measures to ensure effective participation and contribution by all of the directors of Sasol. Thanks.

Thank you, Vuyo. And if you could do the next one about electronic basis.

I think it's known by everyone that the last meeting of -- the meeting that was intended to be held last year, November of the AGM was collapsed due to others who prevented other members of the company or shareholders of the company from participating. And it was therefore important that in order to ensure equity in respect of participation that we put in measures that would enable all members of the company to make their contribution. And so we believe this electronic measure that's been put in place enables us actually to attain that very objective. Of course, this is a matter that continues to be assessed, and we'd look at whatever measures may be available to enable us to ensure effective participation of members of the company, the shareholders. And we do believe that even the use of the electronic process enables effective participation that direct shareholders may speak where they need to speak on any matter. They're able to submit any written questions, those who desire to do so. And so we do believe that there is no prejudice imposed on any shareholder arising from the use of this mechanism, which, of course, as I've emphasized, was elected in order to safeguard the fullest participation of shareholders of the company. Thanks.

Thank you, Vuyo. Elton, more questions?

Thank you very much, Chair. We will now move to a video question from Tracey Davies of Just Share.

Good afternoon, Chair. It's Tracey Davies here. Can you hear me?

We can hear you clearly, Tracey. Thank you.

And I have 2 questions to you. The first one is only institutional shareholders were invited to a question-and-answer session hosted by the Sasol management team this week to address any questions ahead of the AGM. Last year, Sasol split the attendees at your Climate Change Roundtable into institutional investor and NGO or attendees, even though many NGOs are also shareholders of the company. Why is the distinction made between shareholders in this way when company law provides the shareholders are categorized in terms of their rights as in the MOI and not their financial interest and is based on the common law and statutory principle of equality between shareholders? What common law rule or company's act provision is Sasol using to make the distinction? And where has the information provided in the Q&A session be made available to all shareholders to prevent [indiscernible] in the financial market's act, not just by Sasol, but also by the institutional shareholders who were invited to the private sessions of management. My second question relates to the social and ethics report. In the opening paragraph of the social and ethics report in the sustainability report SSEC chairperson, Muriel Dube, notes that various actions taken by Sasol contributed to its inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Elsewhere in your reporting suite, however, you comment that it is Sasol's aspiration to be included in this index. Please clarify what the status is regarding Sasol's inclusion in the index and why there are contrary disclosures about this in your reports?

Thank you, Tracey. I'll ask Vuyo to take the first question, and I will ask Muriel to take the second of your question. Thank you.

Thanks a lot, Chair. I think the point to make in respect to the first question, part of the assessments we make around the engagements that we've had has always been around being able to provide a mechanism for the interactions that sought by any of the shareholders. And so there have been instances included where NGOs have sought meetings with us, and we provide 4 meetings with NGOs. And indeed, we equally make the same in respect of investors that are seeking any engagement with us. We don't believe that results in any prejudice to any of our shareholders especially because it is the same information that is shared in whichever meeting that we are engaged in. So there is no asymmetry in relation to the information shared. And the point you've made, for example, in respect of the session we had with NGOs as well as with institutional investors, it is the same information that was shared in all of those engagements. And the meeting that was held this week was again a meeting arising from requests that have been made by some investors for -- to ask any questions that they may have in respect of the resolutions. Again, there was no new information that was going to be provided. All of it was dependent on the information already disclosed and it was just purely for convenience that we set up -- the platform that we set out to address any questions any director may have and -- rather I'm saying any shareholder may have. This is something we have available to any shareholder. If any shareholder requires an opportunity to interact with us, we look into means of enabling that. And in that way, there isn't any prejudice affecting any shareholder rather. And so we are comfortable that even in instances where we meet the requests in respect of any individual that we do not result in either information being shared unequally or any forms of disclosures that are not equal to every other shareholder. All of the information that's dealt with is information that's already available, all relating to information that has already been disclosed, and we take extra measures to ensure that there's no asymmetry in respect of that information shared whichever mechanism in place in order to [Technical Difficulty] shareholders.

Thank you, Vuyo. Muriel, could you take the second of the questions?

Thank you, Steve, and thank you, Tracey, for the question. Both statements are correct in relation [Technical Difficulty] so we are part of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, but we're not part of the Leadership Index. And that is the distinction that needs to be made. So I hope that clarifies it. We have an ongoing program of looking at ways in which we can up the areas where we -- there is a lag. And so our quarterly assessment of our progress in relation to our road map towards the leadership part of the index is aimed at improving those areas where there's a lag.

Thank you, Muriel. Elton, any further questions?

Yes, Chair. We have another video question on the line and -- or rather audio only, that's come through the system. And this is from Kwanele Ngogela also from Just Share.

This is a follow-up question to our initial question, Chair, if I may. What we are saying is that Sasol stated that the company analyzes coverage gaps. And the specific pay ratio as a resulting from this analysis has not been disclosed. So just forget about the companies since it has not been promulgated that we understand. Our question relates to voluntary disclosures of these pay gaps. So the question, if you may repeat it, will the company commit to disclosing these pay ratios and the entry-level salaries in South African workforce voluntarily in its annual reports. That's the question. I do have another question now that I am on the platform. I don't know if you will take that question or should I proceed with the second question?

Yes, please proceed.

This one is on gender diversity. Chair, we know that Sasol has included the achievement of gender diversity targets in its short-term incentive scorecards. And this integration is highlighted in the company's SDG index for 2023. However, the company has not disclosed what its gender diversity targets are. How can shareholders assess the outcomes of short-term incentive that being provided with the information on which those incentives are based? Thank you, that was my second question, Chair.

Thank you very much, Kwanele. Chair, if we could take one more video and audio question for this round? And it is from Leanne Govindsamy. And if I could also just advise our shareholders to please mute once they have asked their questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Good day, Chair. I hope that I am audible. So in relation to Sasol's green hydrogen plans, which are highly dependent on subsidies and support through South Africa's just energy transition investment plan and the development of a broader green hydrogen economy to make such plans competitive. Experts, policymakers and so society are now recognizing the risks associated with developing a broader green hydrogen economy. These risks include significant safety risks, particularly related to green hydrogen infrastructure, uncertainty around local and global off-takers, massive land and water impacts and quite simply, a growing recognition that green hydrogen is useful for very limited applications for specific uses such as making green steel. So therefore, appears that those companies which require green hydrogen may need to co-locate wind and solar plants to make green hydrogen and to obtain their own financial support to do so. So while we note the recent memorandum where MOU signed between Sasol and others at the Green Hydrogen Summit or last year's Green Hydrogen Summit as well as pilot projects, there has been an admission by Sasol that those plans could take a decade or more to be realized. So I have 3 questions. Would you say that Sasol's green hydrogen plans are still highly speculative with a number of prefeasibility studies still to be done and not in the advanced stage, as was claimed at the Green Hydrogen Summit? What are Sasol's views on receiving funds mobilized under South Africa's JETP? Which funds could instead be used to decarbonize the electricity sector, support local coal affected communities and address our electricity crisis? And what alternative finance and other plans does Sasol have in place or have should the company not receive JETP subsidies for green hydrogen? That's my question. Thank you.

Thank you. So Mpho, if you could take the first 2 vis-à-vis disclosure on remuneration. And also, I think if you could take the second one on gender diversity as well. And then Fleetwood will take the green hydrogen question.

Thank you, Chair. In terms of voluntary disclosure of the pay gaps, there is -- companies use too many different methods right now of calculating the pay gap and therefore, because there's no standard that is followed by companies, it's not going to make sense for any company route to voluntarily disclose because you can't even compared from company to company. So until such time that an agreed methodology of calculating the pay gap is agreed by the country, at that time we will disclose. But I want to really give you comfort that as a RemCo, we look at the pay gap trend on an annual basis and make sure that the gap is looked at as well as closed where there is need. The same goes for the living wage. Will we disclose that until such time that it is mandated and everybody does it the same way. I don't think it will make any sense for us to do so. But it does not take away our commitment for making sure that our employees are paid fairly. I think that's the -- and then in terms of the gender target, that is disclosed in the -- I think it is in line with the 5-year plan that we submit to the Department of Labor, which on its own is publicly available information.

Thank you, Leanne, for your question with respect to the green hydrogen. So first of all, Sasol, today, uses 2 million tonnes, thereabouts, of gray hydrogen in our processes in Secunda. And so with respect to the understanding, the safety risks, et cetera, we have got a very good track record over the last 70 years to understand how to work with hydrogen and how to operate safely our operations and facilities with the hydrogen component that's part and parcel of the process. With respect to our long-term carbon -- decarbonization journey, hydrogen is an important factor in the long term that we would like to introduce into Secunda to replace the gray hydrogen. Of course, that is not going to be feasible because of the high cost of green hydrogen currently. And therefore, it is a 10-year plus horizon for that to become economically feasible. It has to be standing on its own feet. It has to be a business case that is project financeable and that is economically viable. So therefore, we are not targeting JETP funding for our long-term decarbonization plans to be successful. The conversion from gray to green hydrogen is going to be a business case as part of our reinvention phase of our ambition. Secondly, Sasol is currently producing green hydrogen, and it is going to be used in the improvement of eco mobility system to prove that hydrogen can also be used in fuel cell electric vehicles for propulsion and mobility. And I think we are doing that on our own accord, and there's no other financing that is focused on that. The studies that we are doing is because our knowledge of hydrogen is apparent, and people and entities in South Africa when the opportunity presents itself for looking at hydrogen in other industries or even export, we are looking and partaking in those studies, but that is not imperative for us to do in the near future in terms of the own decarbonization plans that we have. Thank you.

Thank you. Elton, further questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next question is from [ Grant McGillan ]. I will advise shareholders that it is a rather long question, which is also a combination of a statement. The full question/statement can be read on the system, which shareholders are currently following. So I will not read through the full statement, but rather ask that the question related to the appointment of the CEO be addressed. As Mr. McGillan has asked and as he indicates in his view, the process must be rerun so that all candidates can enjoy a fair and clean process. Do you agree to this adherence to a company standard and human rights fairness? The next question -- we will go to Ian Erasmus. This question is to Simon Baloyi, the new CEO. Sasol has put out a media statement in 2023, where it stated that it did not receive the approval of its 12-day application for their SO2 emissions, then Sasol will be forced to cut production in order to keep SO2 emissions then below limits. Sasol spent north of ZAR 200 billion between 2015 and 2019 to build the Lake Charles facility on another continent in the U.S.A. with the money, which Sasol's cash cow Secunda facility provided. And now Sasol wants to use an economic tantrum or economic extortion reveal in order to force government to align to bend and break the emission laws here in South Africa at the Secunda facility. Do you think it was a wise decision for Sasol to waste all that money on a massive project in another country with the money from its cash cow Secunda site instead of getting Secunda's facility in fighting shape for the emissions limits, which Sasol knew about 2015. In fact, Sasol helped determine these limits before they were established in 2013. So what exactly are you as the new CEO planning to do in order to get the Sasol Secunda facility in fighting shape with regard specifically to emission limits? Can you please explain without using the Sasol favorite word, robust or synergy? The next questions we've responded to through the platform regarding the format for how future AGMs will be conducted, so I will not reference those questions. I will move to one more question at this time, also from Ian Erasmus, and this question is to Vuyo Kahla. Vuyo, you state that all shareholders are allowed to ask questions without constraint on this electronic-only AGM. And why do you and the Board, dodge questions posted on the messaging format? You did exactly the same thing in 2022 AGM as well, and I have the screen grab to prove this. If you are really transparent regarding answering our questions, shareholders' questions, then we can expect all questions to be answered here today. The fact of the matter is that the Sasol Board members present today is being paid obscene amounts of money, and these AGMs are but once a year. So surely, the Board can stay until the job is done. Those are the questions for now, Chair.

Thanks, Elton. I'll take the first 2. And then the question directed to Vuyo, I will -- let Vuyo take. As I said in my opening remarks, any issue, which is subject to a legal process, we won't discuss at the AGM. Section 12, as you're all aware, is currently subject to a legal process. So it wouldn't be appropriate for us to answer any questions to do with 12a. The second question on CEO appointment. I don't recognize a lot that is in the statement or the comments. We went through a very rigorous transparent process over an extended period of time to identify and appoint a CEO, and I'm totally comfortable that the process was fair and got the right result. Thank you.

As I indicated earlier to Chair, we do believe that the process we have is aimed at enabling us to have an effective interaction with the shareholders. And of course, there are questions that are coming through, there may well be instances where questions are repetition to what has already been answered. And I don't think there is much value to simply repeat the same answer in relation to that. But I think the focus is around ensuring every matter that's been raised. It's appropriately dealt with. And so that would be the focus. The objective is not to avoid dealing with any of the questions raised. But as you'd appreciate, there is no benefit to anyone to simply ask the same question and get a repetition of the answer. If the question has been answered, I think we will indicate that the answer to that question is what has already been communicated earlier. Thanks.

Elton, further questions?

Thank you, Chair. We move to another question from Grant McGillan. CTFE project. At the public participation meeting in the Secunda July 2023, the representatives from Sasol could not update the public present as to the operational status of CTFE project and/or how it is improving air quality for the country as a ZAR 4 billion investment, which has remained a catastrophe since 2008 inception. Current air share data validates that the CTFE has done nothing to improve air quality, which remains constantly unacceptable. Can the Head of Group technology explain why this is failing, which I have reported against in AGM since 2019 and initially since 2016 is not improving as he has failed to over the last two AGMs, i.e., 2021 and 2022? Those are the questions for now, Chair, under operational.

Vuyo, could you address the question on CTFE? Thank you.

Thanks a lot, Chair. I think it's a question that we've answered a number of times in relation to CTFE. And that question is it's important as we address it now again to indicate that, actually, that construction in relation to CTFE has now been completed and that -- and there's operations in respect of that facility. And again, the fundamental point in respect of that was really to deal with VOCs, volatile organic compounds, which is the focus of that. So we do believe that we've taken onboard learnings that we need -- that need to be taken onboard in respect of putting together that project and bring it to finality. And so it is now operational. The issues that have been raised around it before have been previously investigated, and those investigations have cleared the company in respect of the conduct of its executives on it. And so I don't believe it would help to repeat what has already been said at least by two investigations independent of Sasol that looked into the Coal Tar Filtration East project. Thank you.

Thank you, Vuyo. Elton, further questions?

Thank you, Chair. At this time, we'll move over to questions under the theme of social. The first question from [indiscernible]. We have previously raised issue of safety and the company continues to experience fatalities and moments of silence at each AGM. Sasol continues to subtly pin the blame on workers' behavior instead of critically interrogating its safety program. One fatality is a fatality too many. And if Sasol is committed to zero harm, the company should refrain from offering lip service, moments of silence and glossy reports while workers continue to lose their lives. Advise how much has been invested in improving the company's safety program and to what extent each fatality is investigated to ensure the program is working effectively. The next question from [ Malik Dasoo ]. The people you're speaking about, Vuyo, are the very people impacted by your operations. It was also made up of people who were speaking on behalf of poor people around this country. It was a necessary intervention because you've neglected their concerns for the past 2 decades. Chair, the next question from Ian Erasmus. Again, I will remind shareholders that the full question and/or statement is available on the platform, and I will just reference certain aspects of the question. And in this particular instance, it's related to culture as referred to during the Lake Charles matter and comments that was made by our CEO, Fleetwood Grobler, at the time. Related to this, I will read from the statement as follows. So I'm asking you today to please explain what your strategy is going to be to ensure that Sasol whistleblowers, such as myself, are not only heard and the disclosures acted upon but also protected by Sasol for making protected disclosures. I would like to hear what you are planning to do to ensure justice for whistleblowers like me in Sasol as a company. Or are you also likely to going to gamble and wait for the results of my high court litigation against Sasol and the criminal case against Sasol for unlawful disposal of Benfield hazardous waste to lay bear the evidence to the public and my imminent protected disclosure to parliament and media? Do you think it would be in the company's best interest to save face now and accept this failure to address a bad culture? Or do you think it wise to gamble and risk greater future embarrassment to Sasol when the evidence does come out? And it will come out. I would suggest requesting the docket from your legal team and have a look at what evidence there is for yourself. I mean it's Sasol's own lab results, log books and other files, which prove the case. I offered help since 2019. Chair, those are the questions for now under social.

Thank you. So the first question on safety and safety investigations, I'll ask Fleetwood and Muriel, as appropriate, to respond to that. The second question from Malik wasn't a question, it was a statement. So I don't think there's anything we need to respond to on that one. And the last question as Mr. Erasmus is very much aware, Benfield is currently the subject of a legal process. And as I said to the last question, we are unable to answer or discuss matters which are subject to litigation. So I'll ask Fleetwood and Muriel, as appropriate, to respond to the first one.

Thank you, [indiscernible], for that question. And as I've indicated in the start of the safety moment, we are deeply concerned about fatalities and safety incidents that we have experienced over the last year. We have a very focused root-cause analysis program where every incident, every fatality that we experience is investigated. We prefer to do it through an independent service provider. And in many cases, we have used a company that is well known in this field where they have given us also a very clear indication of what were the root causes from all the elements that comprise such an investigation and what would be the remediation steps to mitigate that from repeating itself. So I can say that the last number of fatalities are still -- a number of them are subject to that root-cause investigation. We have found that there are areas where we need to reinvigorate, refocus, make sure that we stay vigilant in our safety program. Safety is a thing that you cannot leave any time and by not focusing, reinvigorating, making sure that it remains top of mind. We've also seen that if we don't do that for programs throughout the company every 3 years to really look at the past learnings and really share, make sure that the people that has been onboarded understand those learnings and be exposed to that. It is also important to continue reinvigorating the workforce with those learnings. So all of these are being dealt with, and we will never give up to improve our safety performance and our strive for zero harm.

Thank you, Fleetwood. Muriel, would you like to add anything or not?

Thank you, Steve. Just to say that -- I mean, we remain steadfast in our commitment to zero harm. I have to say that, as Fleetwood has indicated in relation to investigations, we really have left no stone unturned in terms of understanding what the root causes are. As a Board, we meticulously manage and get updates and we track the implementation of corrective measures. And so this is really based on our own responsibility to provide the right label of oversight, and we believe that oversight is being provided by the Board. Thank you.

Thank you, Muriel. Elton, any further questions?

Chair, we had a question earlier from Ian Erasmus regarding protection for whistleblowers, and if we could just address that.

It is correct that we have focused around ensuring protection for whistleblowers within Sasol. And again, the emphasis always around whistleblowing is about good faith whistleblowing. People who raise issues properly are dealt with properly within the company, and those issues are probably investigated. In certain instances, we even bring in external players to have those matters properly investigated. We do not -- we've got a clear policy against retaliation in relation to any person who has raised the matter. That, however, does not provide license to any person simply on the basis that they have raised any issue as a whistleblower to undermine the discipline of the company and to operate on a basis that would be inconsistent with the rules that already exists in relation to any person in the company. So you've raised issues, Mr. Erasmus, in relation to your own issue where you allege that you have been unfairly dealt with in respect of having been a whistleblower. Of course, as you are aware, we deny that. You've raised those matters. They're going to go before the court. It is proper that they'd be ventilated before the court, and no benefit will be gained by us seeking to litigate them in this forum with -- they're far better in the hands of the charges that would deal with them. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. We will move on to further questions under the theme of social. Next question is from Temlandvo Mathebula from Aeon Investment Management. Regarding gender pay gaps that is equal pay for equal work. Is Sasol tracking this information? And if so, is the company looking to disclose such information voluntarily? There are two further questions from Ian under the theme of social. What is the strategy to address -- Fleetwood's failure to address the inherent Sasol culture of fear, noting that Sasol's empty propaganda on speaking up or say something if you -- see something, I presume is what is meant, and regular e-mails has not addressed the Sasol culture of fear 2.0? What is Sasol's strategy to eradicate this Mafia-like mentality in the company? And then from the same shareholder, Sasol changed the scope of these "outside entities", which Sasol appointed in 2021. Why are you lying to the shareholders here today? Those are the three questions for now, Chair.

I'll have Fleetwood deal with -- sorry, I'll come back to -- I have Mpho deal with the question on gender pay gap. I'll then have Fleetwood deal with Mr. Erasmus' first question, and Vuyo will deal with his last question.

Thank you, Chair. My response is similar to the question that was raised earlier on pay gaps. We do, as REMCO, on an annual basis, look at the pay differences against race and gender and level across all the markets that we operate in. And we are comfortable that there are no gaps between genders across the different markets. Are we going to voluntarily disclose this? As I mentioned earlier, no. We are not going to do so until compelled by law, but we keep track of it as REMCO. And the reason why we will not disclose this is because different companies use different methodologies, and therefore, comparisons are not going to be valuable in any way. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ian, for your question regarding fear of speaking up. I must say I totally disagree with your assertion. I'm not sure on what grounds can you put forward that there is a fear of speaking up. To the contrary, we've got annual surveys to assess in the company through surveys, the progress on employee engagement, the culture of open and clear speaking of what is right and what is to be made known. We understand the progress we've been making there. And I must emphasize, I totally -- from your assertion in that regard because with the data that we have shows that we have a different culture than what you assert.

Thanks a lot, Chair. And in response to this question around us having changed the scope of the investigations that was carried out by independent players on our behalf, and this again was informed by what I already dealt with earlier, the fact that we defer to the courts. The moment the same issues that were to be dealt with by our internal investigations were equally sought to be addressed by the court, it was important for us to defer to the court process and not run parallel processes to deal with the same issue. So the matters that you've raised with greener tenants, for example, that have dealt with, but equally, we're also being raised for adjudication by the courts, it was important for us to defer to the court to deal with that. So we have the criminal case, as you've indicated. We are waiting for the state to put through that case. It's not been forthcoming. And we are ready to deal with it and provide our defense equally in relation to the civil damages that have been raised. We are waiting to go through the process and have the courts make determinations on them. So it doesn't help us to have issues that are already before courts equally ventilated through different processes. And that is the reason that informed the change of the scope. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I will move on to further questions under the theme of social. Another question again from Ian Erasmus in relation to the whistleblower policy. I will just read part of the question. Shareholders can read the full statement on the Lumi platform. Could you please state here to all your shareholders, your employees, on the ground in Secunda and the media what exactly changed in Sasol with regards to the protections of an employee who speaks up with Sasol's new whistleblower policy? Because I sure can't see any change whatsoever in the way Sasol treats whistleblowers like me. That's the summary of Mr. Ian Erasmus' question. The next question from shareholder, Grant McGillan. At the previous AGM, uncontrolled protesters were at the 2019 AGM, where some were removed. There's a typo in the question. Who made a stand on stage without intending to collapse the meeting were not attended to by security, but had the Board stand by after leaving the stage and watch ER take complete control. If the Board had engaged with ER since the aborted AGM, the understanding would have been realized that all shareholders would not be prejudiced to an online meeting. Why did the Board not sort this out as ER wanted to meet you? ER being extinction rebellion, Chair. Those are the questions for now, Chair.

Thank you, Elton. Vuyo, do you want to take both of those? Thank you.

I think the question in respect of the whistleblower policy, I think I've emphasized it, and I don't think it much would be said by repeating what I've indicated. We have a policy. We protect whistleblowers and would take action against anyone who retaliates or, in any way, treat inappropriately any person who's raised a matter through whistleblowing. And indeed, if anyone were to raise that an instance where that's happened, we would institute an appropriate investigation. I've indicated in relation to yourself, Mr. Erasmus, that we dispute that. Your employment was terminated on the basis of you having been a whistleblower. That matter now will be coming before the court, that the courts make a final determination on that. Thanks. The one around the meeting having been collapsed, and I think it is -- the people who attended that meeting had very clearly that there had been attempts to, firstly, as we would have noted -- as we noted, firstly, extension rebellion was allowed to protest, to get his voice heard, but it was clear what we could not allow is that it'd be only that grouping's voice that is heard. Every other shareholder had the same entitlement to be heard, and it was important that we protect them as well and have them heard. We will continue to look at measures around how we can balance all of this because we're not against protest action. We do believe it is proper in an open and democratic society for protest to be heard as long as they are within the bounds of the law. But it's equally important that if you are running a corporate event like an AGM that you enable all other participants to find that they've also been treated accretively and they too can have their issues raised. And it was for this reason that we believe that this platform that we put in place could help us address that. We have not come to a conclusion that this is the only platform, and we'll continue to work and see how best we can deal with this. But as I indicated, we are comfortable that this is a reasonable measure and it allows effective participation in respect of anyone who wants to deal with matters concerning the conduct of the business of the AGM. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. We will now move on to questions themed under environment. The first question from the platform is from [ Andrew Kenny ]. It's more of a statement rather than a question. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is wonderful clean, safe, living giving gas upon which plants depend. In 550 million years, CO2 has never been seen to have any effect on the climate. The present slide warming is perfectly natural. It was much warmer in the past warming period when CO2 was lower than now. Above 150 PPM CO2 does not capture any more IR. There has been no increase in weather extremes, which happens in all ages. Climate alarm is the folly of our age without any banking in science. I request that Sasol immediately end its decarbonization campaign and its quest of Net Zero, which would be a disaster for mankind and the environment. The next question is from Itumeleng Mphake. Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Itumeleng Mphake from the Center for Environmental Rights. Mr. Grobler mentions in Sasol's 2023 integrated report that the implementation of an integrated air quality and greenhouse gas reduction solution is dependent on SO2 emissions from the boilers at the steam plants at the Secunda operations being regulated on an alternative load-based emission limit from 1 April 2025 onwards, referencing Page 24. Sasol has had almost a decade to prepare for the reduction of notorious pollutants such as SO2, and prior to that has been intimately involved in multiyear collaborative processes to set pollution standards. There is now substantial risk that the DFFE made mostly appeal in relation to Sasol's SO2 MES appeal. My question is twofold. Do you not regard these risks as a substantial risk to your operation and therefore to shareholder value? Are you able to provide detailed information on how you will ensure you have the necessary finance to ensure SO2 combines and avoid further health impacts for local communities? Respectively, I think this question should be answered as it was reported in the 2023 integrated report. Therefore, refrain from saying it is under legal process. Thank you. Those are the two questions for now, Chair.

Thank you. As you say, the first one was a statement, not a question. So I don't think we need to respond. The second question is phrased. I just conferred with Fleetwood, and Fleetwood will answer your two questions as you phrased them there. So thank you.

Thank you, Itumeleng. So I think we've made it publicly clear that there is a substantial risk to our operations, and therefore, shareholder value implicitly implied if we have to stop operating our Secunda facility. So therefore, we are well aware of the risk, but we're also well aware of the merits of our case that is put forward to deal with the matter. Secondly, the information that you mentioned in terms of our finance to ensure the compliance, we've got an extensive emission reduction road map that is being implemented. We have, a number of times indicated in our financial reports that we have allowed to have all our decarbonization and emissions be implemented through our capital allocation. That varies from the annual license to operate capital spend, which we declare as well as the tranche of money between ZAR 15 billion and ZAR 25 billion -- ZAR 17 billion to ZAR 25 billion that will be necessary to implement the emission reduction road map. And in that road map, as we propose, it will also address in the SO2 given the proposals we've made that is currently under review.

Thank you, Fleetwood. Elton?

Thank you, Chair. The next round of questions are from Malik Dasoo. It is a fairly lengthy statement, which includes several questions. I'll remind shareholders that they can read the full statement on the platform. I will just be referencing certain questions as posed by Malik Dasoo. And I will do that now. The statements from Mr. Dasoo are related to testimonies from people living in and around our operations. They were asked about issues regarding toxic air. They want to know what solutions do we know about or rather to the demand of Sasol. Further questions regarding toxic air and references to children who have been hospitalized. And I'll just summarize the very last statement from Mr. Dasoo related to air pollution, sound pollution, water pollution and soil pollution contributed by Sasol burning fossil fuels. Environmental injustice is a health issue. Communities who share their fence with Sasol and the [ violet ] large don't have proper health systems in their areas. Most people are suffering from asthma, eyesight, TB and leads to unemployed in the area. Agriculture is suffering a lot because of the soil that is polluted. Food is becoming expensive because now it is expensive to produce food under these conditions. Climate change is happening. We really need to change the way we do things, especially the fossil fuel industry. Mr. Malik has asked for a response from the Board regarding to these testimonies. The next question also in the environment is from Ian Erasmus. Sasol does not currently pay the full amount for carbon tax in South Africa. Do you achieve this by lobbying? And if so, what would Sasol's future look like, if Sasol were to be forced to pay the full amount of the prescribed carbon tax, which everyone else has to pay? Government companies like Eskom excluded, of course. I mean, private for-profit companies like Sasol. Would Sasol still be profitable in such a world where it paid its fair share in carbon tax? Chair, I'll leave it there for now.