Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to MOL's Second Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. I am Márton Teremi, Head of Investor Relations. The speakers on today's call are Dr. György Bacsa, Chief Strategic Officer, Dr. Ákos Székely, Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Zsombor Marton, Executive Vice President of Upstream, Mr. Gabriel Szabó, Executive Vice President of Downstream, Mr. Péter Ratatics, EVP of Consumer Services, and Mr. Csaba Bozóki, Director of Institutional Waste Management at Circular Economy Services. Before giving the floor to the speakers, let me highlight some technical details. We will use Microsoft Teams as a platform to hold our conference call. The presentation is accessible at our website at molgroup.info, slides will be shared in Teams during the call as well. There will be a Q&A session after the presentation, where you will have the chance to ask questions by using the Raise Your Hand function on Teams. Very important that please keep yourself muted throughout the call, except when asking a question. I would now like to draw your attention to the cautionary statement on slide number two. Now we can start the content part with Dr. György Bacsa taking us through the highlights of the second quarter. Good morning. Let's start with an overview of MOL Group's results. Broadly, we have seen increasing volatility in the environment, which eventually resulted in an outstanding market environment, especially for the Upstream and the Downstream sectors in the oil and gas business generally, in more regions specifically as well. The group clean CCS EBITDA reached nearly $1.3 billion in this quarter. It's heavily supported by the elevated oil and gas prices, it's represented or it's reflected in the Upstream and the Downstream results, also in the margins, which touched in several product lines, historical high area. The results were also helped by the resumption of crude oil deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline system at the end of April. We, however, faced serious operational bottlenecks, mainly due to the AV3 fire from last year. The reparation of the AV3 unit is still ongoing. It's on time, according to schedule, we expect to put it back to operation by late September. Also in this quarter, one of the steam cracker in the Hungarian petrochemical unit was also damaged. There was a very tragic accident, the result of it also our Downstream production volumes are constrained. In respect of the retail segment, however, the region is shaped by price controls, governmental interventions, definitely a constrained situation on the retail margins, of course, secondary supply issues, which is not only just the pricing, but also the summer, practically the summer temperature and the low level of the rivers created a lot of logistic issues and secondary supply questions in many of the countries. The Consumer Services segment suffered negative impact due to the price controls spreading around the region, they posted 23% decrease in their EBITDA year-over-year. Some few operational developments. I think one of the most interesting one is that how we stand with the NIS transaction. We announced the latest developments that not just extended the general license for negotiation and closing the deal, but we concluded the Serbian government now the full package of our shareholders agreement, which is practically a precondition to the transaction itself, to formulating a joint venture with the state, with the host country. With the seller, we also reached very close to final position. We submitted all the documents to OFAC, and now we are waiting for the execution license, as close to execution license to be able to sign and conclude the transaction documents as well. At the other developments, MOL also completed landmark Polish Zloty bond issuance, which was first of its kind in the group history, and we extended the Hungary-Croatia of revolving credit facilities. Regarding the fire incident that happened last year, that we also reported that we received the first tranche of compensation from the insurance company at the magnitude of $100 million. Regarding the shareholder structure of MOL, two developments during the summer. MOL New Europe Foundation was dissolved, and the 10.5% shareholding will be returned to the founders, so namely half of it to the state, half of it to MOL treasury. The Mathias Corvinus Collegium foundation shares will be transferred to the Hungarian state. The Corvinus University Foundation is still working, and according to legislation, 27 September, the foundation model is kept for the universities. Finally, we just announced last week that we signed an SPA with Shell to acquire BG Cyprus Ltd, which holds 35% non-operated interest in the Cyprus offshore Block 12, containing the Aphrodite gas field in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the Upstream part, Mr. Zsombor Marton will tell you more details about the transaction and its rationale and its strategic importance. Let me jump to the sustainability performance and the TRIR. MOL safety ratio was 1.28 in the first half of the year, showing a minor improvement year-over-year. Despite, as I mentioned, we experienced tragic events this quarter in the Petrochemical unit. Our expectation for the full-year figure is to be around 1.25, with the continuous effort to improve awareness. Let me share a few details about the Olefin-1 unit incident that happened on May 22, and which resulted in one fatality and nine injuries. Preliminary results of the investigation suggest that the hot section piping was exposed to low temperatures, and that resulted in an explosion. We are undertaking actions to avoid such incidents from happening again. Procedures regarding start-up activities are reviewed, and stronger and more reliable preventive safeguards are to be implemented. With that, let me pass the floor to Ákos to discuss the financials. Thank you, György, and good morning, everyone. Clean CCS EBITDA reached $1,297,000,000 In the second quarter, marking a material increase year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter as well. The segment EVPs are going to discuss their business performance in detail. As usual, let me have a few words on the three segments that fall outside their scope. Starting with Gas Midstream, the EBITDA marked $37 million in the second quarter, slightly lower than the last year. Reasons are as follows: The transmission volume decreased by 4%, and the regulated tariffs levels were also lower than the last year. On the other hand, these negative impacts were partly offset by the favorable FX effect. Regarding the corporate and other segment, please note that the last year's figure was impacted by the one-off accounting effect of the Technical University of Budapest transaction, amounting to almost $98 million. In the second quarter of 2026, central cost of $40 million were broadly in line with the quarterly average. Finally, the inter-segment elimination. This had a positive effect of $41 million, mainly due to the lower oil price, resulting in a positive EBITDA inventory elimination as expected. Organic CapEx amounted to $592 million in the first half of 2026. This translates to a 33% increase year-on-year, which rather reflects the low spending of 2025 than a high spending in this current period. The increase was mainly due to higher growth and efficiency CapEx, which rose by over $100 million and amounted to $382 million in the first half of the year. The set amount of invoices related to the Rijeka refinery investment finished in March, and other ongoing Downstream investment made up a significant portion of the spending. CapEx in Upstream also increased due to the ongoing field development works in Croatian offshore, and also ACG CapEx contributed significantly. Clean CCS EBITDA amounted to $1,923,000,000, Almost $2 billion in the first half of the year, which resulted in the net income of $908 million. Regarding the components of the bridge, let's see the details on the next slide. As usual, starting with Clean CCS effect, it showed a gain of $177 million in the second quarter, with most of the positive effect came from operational commodity hedging results amounting to higher than usual gain due to the declining commodity price environment. We invested into the margining in Q1, we gain back in Q2. The DD&A amounted to $472 million in the second quarter of 2026. This means an increase year-on-year and quarter-on-quarter, which is due to the asset impairment amounting to $47 million. The impairment happened due to the need to reflect the depreciation in the fleet management business we have. So it reflected in the balance sheet, which currently records our interest in the fleet management business under the category of held for sale. While the Hungarian Forint marking a massive appreciation during the quarter, the net expense on the financial line was rather moderate at $24 million. Income from associate was $22 million, with incomes from interesting companies operating in Khor Mor field, the Azeri pipeline company, BTC, and the Kazakh gas field counting to contribute the most. Tax expense reached $154 million, translating to an effective tax rate, roughly 15%. This is due to two one-off items impacting the tax line positively, leading to a better profit after tax. The first is a revision of local tax in the Circular Economy Services that had $23 million effect. The second is the deferred tax. The deferred tax expense decreased substantially, largely due to an accounting technical reason. Effective tax rate assumption used for the valuation of our Hungarian Upstream, mainly Hungarian Upstream relevant deferred tax assets were revised after the transition to the new holding structure in April. This leads to a decrease of deferred tax assets by roughly $64 million. Adjusting for those one-off effects, tax expenses would be $87 million higher, and the effective tax rate would have been around 24%, much closer to the long-run average for the group. Let's move to the cash flow. The cash flows for the first half of the year reflect the favorable trends as well as the volatility of our operating environment. The operating cash flow before the working capital came in at a healthy $1,898,000,000, almost $2 billion. Net working capital, however, marked build over $1.5 billion. Let me remind you that the first quarter showed a working capital build of close to $1.4 billion. The change in the second quarter was rather really positive in terms of cash flow to the tune of $242 million. Why was the release of Q2 small relative to the build in Q1? Although some of the one-off pressures leading to the working capital build in Q1, namely Druzhba disruption, extreme high crude oil price environment, eased in Q2, rigorous seasonality effects leading to the build up receivables also had an effect. Looking at the net working capital from the first half of the year amounting to $1.5 billion, the inventory volume effect was broadly neutral while elevated prices left roughly $700 million effect on working capital. Around $300 million-$400 million is due to the seasonal factor, as I said, especially reflecting the higher trade receivables. Overall, operating cash flow, including the working capital, reached $763 million in the first half of the year. Let me proceed to my final slide with the balance sheet. The total net debt level deteriorated over the first half of the year only by $374 million, which fully reflect my earlier statement about the excellent operational performance resulting the simplified free cash flow above $1.3 billion, part of which was offset by the net working capital build due to the volatile environment and also the seasonality, and finally, the acquisition closed in the beginning of the year as well, the tax payment. Considering the higher last 12 months EBITDA, the net debt to EBITDA ratio practically stay flat at the comfortable level of below 0.5. With the dividend payment, however, we expect to see an increase roughly 0.2. This is yet to come when the dividend is going to be paid out. Overall, the balance sheet of the group remained really robust. The in-depth net debt, as well as the available liquidity level of around $5 billion, provides ample financial headroom for the group to meet its dividend obligation first, and second, also to have some firepower for the further potential acquisitions. Well, after the financial summary, I would like to hand over to Gabriel to discuss the Downstream results. Thank you very much, Ákos. So good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before reporting the business performance, I would like to address the accident we reported at Olefin 1 steam cracker, as Mr. Bacsa mentioned. On May 22nd this year, 8:36 A.M., during the startup of the Olefin 1 steam cracker unit, an unexpected operating condition appeared. Equipment were exposed to the temperatures beyond their design limits. This led to the pipeline rupture, hydrocarbon release, resulting in explosion and fire. The incident resulted in one fatality, as it was mentioned, and there were nine injured colleagues, and also extensive damage to the process equipment was reported. The injured colleagues are safe at home and recovering. We provided for all the personnel, to the injured colleagues, and also to the indirectly impacted colleagues, mental and recovery support, target actions took place on the production site to professionally manage this crisis situation. This major and sad incident has triggered serious investigation and revealed gaps in both asset and organizational operation. As a learning and response to it, a massive process safety program has been launched for gap closing, not just there at the Steam Cracker 1, but across the whole group. Process safety will be strengthened across the whole Downstream, across the board by enhanced risk analysis, asset improvements, where needed also design improvements. Training program, internal academia is going to be revitalized, and internal protocols and technological instructions are being reviewed and strengthened. We are engaging also external professionals to support and accelerate the program execution. Also, of course, internal resources are dedicated solely for this. Let's discuss the economic impact. Based on the early assessments, the unit is unlikely to be started up this year. Expected startup is either Q1 or Q2 next year. This is heavily depending on the long-lead item deliveries. Financial effects are dependent on the macro environment, but as we learn in few minutes, taking into consideration the current macro environment, the expectation is that it won't be material. But after the closure of Q3, then I will be able to share more because then we will have, hopefully, the AV3 unit in Százhalombatta Refinery up and running, and we will see what kind of impact the Olefin 1 steam cracker shutdown will be. Now let me turn your attention to the first slide. At the latest meeting, when we discussed the Q1, you might remember that I referred to the first quarter of the year as a perfect storm for Downstream, with the most prolonged Druzhba disruption ever, almost half of the capacity in our Hungarian refinery down, and the havoc in crude and product markets due to the both conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. All those impacts our results unfavorably at the same time. Nothing reflects the current volatility in the oil and gas industry better than comparing it to the second quarter, where the impact of the operational and macro environment was totally different, and Downstream could reach a clean CCS EBITDA amounting $679 million. These results were supported by better performance in both refining and petrochemicals. On the volume size, process crude in Q2 was still below the levels seen last year due to the ongoing AV3 outage, as it was mentioned, but thanks to the resumption of crude flows in the Druzhba, it was notably higher than in the first quarter. Petrochemicals volumes were affected by the continued low-demand environment and also an unfortunate incident I reported. Total product sales were correspondingly below last year by around 10%. Now let's look the macro factors, which were the main triggers behind the development of our Q2 result. Looking at the ref margins, they were about $220/bbl for the quarter, supported by bottlenecks in Europe due to the conflicts in both in the Middle East and Russia, impacting product markets more intensively. Although Urals were traded at a premium, as you can see, compared to Brent in India in the second quarter, it was fully compensated by relatively high Brent-based refining margins. Petrochemical margins reacted also intensively to this crisis and more than doubled year-on-year to EUR 548 spreads on average. Looking at July figures, it is apparent that the volatility continues. Crack spreads continue to widen, and our preliminary figures indicates that margins average close to $40/bbl for the month. I can also share with you the first days of August, where the ref margin is still a bit above $30/bbl. However, the petrochemical markets we serve have seemingly adapted to the special circumstances already in July, and margins have returned to the sub EUR 200/ ton level. Now let's take a look at my last slide. EBITDA change decomposing is clearly seen, and you can read it based on my comments. The margins environment was decisive in explaining the year-on-year increase, both in the refining and the petrochemical side. Volumes contributed negatively, as you can see, by over $200 million, in line with the lower processing and sales activity during the quarter. With that, let me hand over to Péter to comment the Consumer Services financials. Thank you. Thank you, Gabriel. Good morning to everyone. The Consumer Services EBITDA amounted to $190 million in the second quarter, a 23% decrease year-on-year. Looking at the waterfall chart, on the right-hand side, it is quite clear that what was the main cause of this result. The fuel prices environment drove the negative year-on-year change, contributing close to $60 million to the fall in the results. Our estimates shows that this full difference or even more than this amount is fully attributable to controls on the retail fuel prices by the governments, which have been introduced across all markets without exception. While such losses are definitely not cheerful, no reason for celebration for us, we can take comfort in three developments, at least. The first one that we have been using this environment to acquire new customers by leveraging our brand and network size. Since the prices are equalized on the discount network and the premium network, more and more customers are turning into our shops and trying our services, which we really believe that some of them, or majority of them, hopefully will then stay with us on longer term too. The second, the non-fuel part of the business, which is still expanding both sales and margin. The third one, that the simplified free cash flow level on Consumer Services is still very positive. Let us turn the page to the next one, where you can see deeply the fuel margin or the components of the fuel margin. You can see that all in all, our total volumes rose by 4% year-on-year, which is again, the results of the mentioned price mechanism or the governmental interventions, which would be very hard to explain in one or two minutes since all countries are introduced a bit different interventions. Some of them decrease more the VATs or the excess duties. Some of them are trying to calculate, based on a formula, the applicable margin for the retailers, or some of them are trying to combine the refinery margin, the wholesale margin, and the retail margin in total as an allocatable margin environment. It is kind of a chaos. Obviously the fuel unit margins are showing a different trend compared to the volume trends. I really hope that in the upcoming period it will somehow stabilize. We can turn to the next slide, to the non-fuel part, which is more stable and solid and more resilient to the governmental interventions. Well, on this part of the business, I think the fundamentals are quite solid and stable year-on-year dynamic of the growth is also quite robust. You can see that the sales, the turnover part is increased by 5% by the margin overpaced this growth. Altogether it is 6%. Thanks very much for your attention, and let me pass the floor to Zsombor. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. The Upstream EBITDA amounted to $375 million in the second quarter of 2026, marking an increase of 8% compared to the first quarter. Higher hydrocarbon prices had a positive effect on the results as average crude oil and gas quotations rose by 28% and 13% respectively compared to the first quarter. One-off items had an overall negative impact on our results to the tune of $34 million, which I will discuss shortly in detail. With regards to the unit economics, that reflects the favorable price environment, which we were able to harvest with average prices reaching $93 in the second quarter and simplified free- Of the EBITDA, change in volumes contributed negatively by $12 million. As mentioned to you at our latest call in May, the Iran conflict affected the production in Iraq and was the main driving force in the negative volume contribution. The other category had a higher than usual negative impact of $34 million quarter-over-quarter. There are two factors behind this. One is the claim on receivables on earlier royalty payments in 2023, for which impairment was recorded in line with our group accounting policy. This had a pure $21 million effect and the rest of the changes, the underperformance of the oil field services unit, which is primarily due to different work program scheduling. This is expected to be temporarily as a timing effect. Year-over-year, the drivers of changes were rather similar. If we move on regarding the evolution of the production volumes, we managed to keep the production rate flat on the group level above 95,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in the second quarter. Again, just let me reiterate that due to the Middle East conflict, the Shaikan field in Iraq was shut in for most of the second quarter, and missing volumes amounted to 2,500 barrels of oil equivalent per day. This was made up by higher production in Hungary, Azerbaijan and Pakistan. Mid-July, the re-emergence of hostilities in the Middle East led again to a temporary shutdown of Iraqi assets, and production decreased to 9,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. While the production of Pearl resumed on 28th of July, the Shaikan still remains shut in, weighing on August production figures as well. Let us move to the evolution of OpEx and our investment. The unit OpEx increased by 11% year-over-year on group level. This is due to weakening of U.S. dollar, while the missing production of the Shaikan field also had some cost increase effect on a per barrel basis on the unit OpEx. Turning to the CapEx, the spending increased by $52 million year-over-year in the first half of 2026. Increase was driven primarily by ACG in Azerbaijan as well as continuation of the Croatian offshore development program. Finally, a few updates with regards to the inorganic expansion. In Central Europe, we have made moves in the past month to expand portfolio both in Croatia and Hungary. Croatia, two exploration blocks were awarded to INA, and we also completed and closed the farming of Vermilion's remaining 60% share in the Sava-07 block. Furthermore, we also moved to expand our E&P portfolio in Hungary. Again, a key transaction acquired a range of Upstream assets from O&GD at the end of April. This acquisition would add around 900 barrels of oil equivalent per day production to the group, and we see high potential to develop these fields and increase production further in the coming years with potential exploration acreage. As an update to our earlier announcement, we have signed PSA with consortium partners, Repsol and Turkish Petroleum in the 07 block offshore Libya mid-June. Finally, let me also discuss another key transaction in the Mediterranean we signed just last week with a little bit more detail. As we informed you, last week we signed SPA with Shell to farm in into the Aphrodite gas field offshore Cyprus. Although the transaction is not closed yet, if it is finalized, we believe that this is a major strategic step for MOL E&P. We have been successful in maintaining high success rates in some of the very mature fields we operate. Our reserve base have been depleting nonetheless, the 2P reserves decreased by around 15% in the last 5 years since the end of 2020 when we acquired the ACG, and now it is around 300 MMboe. The best estimate of the total contingent resources at the Aphrodite field is around 640 MMboe. Again, this is gross total volume. This is before the host country share deducted because it's a production sharing contract. We just wanted to demonstrate the magnitude of the acquisition and the field, meaning that the 35% stake will be material still addition to the group's reserves after the FID. Again, this is fully in line with our strategic ambitions as reserves replacement has been an explicit strategic goal for MOL Upstream, and our expectation is that the Aphrodite transaction is part of the solution to secure upstream, and we can still grow beyond 2030 as well. Again, the Aphrodite gas field ticks a lot of boxes on our strategic agenda. We always reported to you that we are looking selectively and with a very focused approach into opportunities. This is one of that becoming the reality. Again, it's a giant deep offshore gas field, one of the largest discovered but undeveloped gas field in the European Union with a world-class operator, Chevron. We also see East Mediterranean becoming a gas hub for not just production, but potentially export as well beyond 2030. Although the project is still in pre-FID phase, the reservoir is well appraised, and the monetization negotiations are also well underway. Again, the Aphrodite transaction also fits well into MOL Group's financial headroom. Financial risk is moderated by the contingent payment structure of the transaction with Shell. Most of the agreed purchase price dependent on key project milestones coming together in the next five years. Together with the CapEx, our estimate is that the project will burden MOL's cash flow by around $2.2 billion over the course of the next five years, which is comfortable in light of the group's current strong balance sheet. Now, with this, let me pass the word to Csaba on the Circular Economy Services financials. Thank you, Zsombor. Good morning, everyone. Circular Economy Services delivered on EBITDA of $ 16 million in the second quarter, representing a notable improvement compared to the same period last year. The performance was mainly supported by three factors. First, the regulatory framework has become more balanced. As discussed on previous calls, the changes to the extended producer responsibility to the EPR fee structure now better reflect the full scope of waste management activities performed under the concession model. Second, the efficiency program launched last year is continuing to deliver tangible results through improved operational performance and cost control. Third, it is important to note the seasonality of the business. The first half of the year is typically characterized by a more favorable earnings profile than the second half. Turning to investments, capital expenditure was lower year-on-year. The comparison is largely explained by last year intensive spending related to the rollout of the DRS system. In contrast, current year CapEx has primarily reflected normal business operations. Looking ahead, our main strategic investment remains the planned waste-to-energy facility. Project preparation is progressing according to the schedule, final investment decision may be taken later this year. With that, let me hand over to Márton. Thank you very much. That completes the formal part of our presentation. I would like to now open the floor for the Q&A session. Please indicate if you'd like to ask a question by using the raise your hand function on Teams. Yes, Anna, please go ahead. Thank you very much for the presentation. A couple of questions from my side, starting with the Danube water levels. Can you please let us know what impact would you expect on the financials, both from the lower water levels, but also because you are cutting the electricity consumption during the peak hours? My second question would be around the Aphrodite gas field, and you mentioned that the deal payment structure is contingent on the achieved milestones. Can you quantify what drag on the cash flow do you expect next year? What would be the portion paid next year comparing to the remainders? The final one would be around the guidance. You did not include the guidance slide this time. I assume that's because of the volatility, but maybe you can comment on the second half outlook and what are your estimates there. Thank you very much. Gabriel speaking, let me address your first parcel of your question. Regarding the Danube level. I would like to address the whole heatwave situation and the impact to our operation. As you might know, that the drought in Hungary has caused the level of Danube to decrease up to a level at which the country's nuclear operation is very much limited, so the operation had to be reduced drastically. For this reason, we were asked by the government to revisit our power usage, and as it was also mentioned at the press conference, 31st of July, when the Prime Minister Péter Magyar visited our refinery in Százhalombatta, but we can contribute up to 65 MW to reduce the consumption or the total impact will be 65 MW. It can be done in two ways. One is to reduce the consumption of electricity. This is done on the units which are not affecting our fuel production. I do not assume that there will be any material impact of it. This is the first side. The other, that we are also able to run our own gas turbine and with this to help the supply of electricity to the market. All in all, the impact can be, once triggered, it can be more than 60 MW. Regarding the heatwave, the operation, definitely it's impacting all our personal and assets. Of course, that we would like to keep our personnel safe, protected, but also engaged. There are plenty of measures we implemented. Regarding the effect of heatwave on assets, our Downstream production operation in extreme ambient temperatures is being continuously reviewed. The good news is that we have a robust water intake system at our production sites, which provides stable operation even at these lower water levels. In particular, the Danube refinery, which is the most vulnerable, we have installed mobile pumps to Danube River. With this improvement, now all production sites can tolerate further 1.5 to 2-meter lower water decrease. Generally, the high temperatures do not have any bad negative impact to what technologies. Actually the specific energy consumption is lower. Of course, there are instruments, electronics, where higher frequency of small malfunctions is experienced. What is the impact? We see some negative impact. This is mainly on condensers, heat exchangers where read and quality parameters has to be carefully observed. I believe we can manage the situation without a material effect, to answer your question. We have to be very cautious, and we are monitoring the situation carefully. Thank you for your question. With regards to the Aphrodite payment structure, that is a detail I cannot fully share with you, but what I can share is that the majority of the agreed maximum, $ 720 million purchase price, is contingent on the key project milestones. We see realistic Final Investment Decision mid-2027, and first gas in 2031. We see that this payment structure enable in line with the project de-risking, so it will help us to see the project progressing while the transaction is closed. Thank you, and finally regarding the guidance. Yes, this time as in the mid-year, we didn't put management guidance. I think it is obvious that at the highly volatile external environment, the highly active governmental I would say actions in the region, in European level, regional level, country level as well. Of course, it is also affected by the change in the consensus that whether we have to calculate it, prolonged conflicts, because now it is multiple global conflict that we have to deal with. The short-term, mid-term, and long-term effect, if these conflicts are prolonged, and because of the ceasefire couldn't last long enough to solve the Middle East situation, and the situation is now also spreading to the Red Sea area as well and affecting the Red Sea cargoes as well. That is why the jet and gasoline constraint, et cetera. I think I wouldn't go into now to say about the supply and demand effects, and practically all business is heavily affected by these macro KPIs. Regarding government actions, which is trying to counterbalancing, first of all, to secure energy for energy and fuel for their economies and countries, also trying to minimize the price increases or practically a little bit counterbalance the price increases, which definitely it's a political logic, but it has economic effects. We experienced it during COVID. We experienced it in 2022. It can have also major impact on our performance. Based on that one, I think the main question is that definitely for the second year, if you have to calculate with foreign conflicts and supply disruptions, I think these factors will work against each other and will pull all business or oil and gas sector and energy sector definitely in a very fragile situation. Lot of unpredictability and lot of volatility. Otherwise, as you could see, now the supply security is a primary target for every countries, it has a lot of costs that will slow down economies. I think how fast economies will slow down, how it will be affected, that, of course, it's also a question of prediction. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah. Oleg Galbur, please go ahead. Yes. Good morning. Thank you for the presentation, and congratulations on the results. I have three questions. First relates to the Consumer Services. You mentioned that the segment's results were impacted by price and margin caps in various countries. Could you please help us quantify the impact in Hungary and other markets with material impact? Please update us in which countries these price and margin caps are still in place in the third quarter. Second question relates to refining and more specifically to the shutdown and repairment of AV3 unit. Could you help us quantify the lost earnings due to the unit closure since the beginning of this year? At least provide a hint how could we estimate the magnitude of the compensations that MOL could receive from the insurance. Lastly, I would like just to listen to your opinion about the hedging of gasoline and diesel crack spreads. Do you have any hedges in place? If not, would you consider hedging at least part of the production? In general, what's your view on this topic? Thank you. Thank you. Let me start with the Consumer Services related mainly around the regulation question. At the moment, regulation is in place in Serbia, in Romania, in Croatia, in Slovenia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. The magnitude or the impact, I think you saw on the slide, and I mentioned that the fuel volume and margin, the drop of that mainly came from this. I can estimate the value around $60 million. I hope this answered your question, but please follow up me if not. Yes. Sorry. What I'd like to understand maybe more is what level of impact should we expect in the third quarter? My understanding is that some countries have changed the regulation. If the main impact comes primarily from Hungary, then would you say that it's fair to expect a comparable level of impact on the third quarter results for the segment? I understand your question, I don't have the crystal ball. If you can make an assumption for me that what will be the forecourt diesel and gasoline prices in the upcoming two months, then I can probably have a better judgment what the politicians will or might think that they need to intervene. It's very hard to really answer to this question. But still, if I would like to give you some guidance on this, then I rather would say that most probably after the season, the demand for the petroleum products, but also the maintenance issues and hopefully the logistic issues on the river because of the low water levels, will somehow ease up the situation and then we can get back to a bit of a normal price levels. Once the price levels get a bit lower compared to this very high level that it was in the recent days, then I think the need for the political interventions would also decrease. All in all, my estimate or my expectation, I rather would say, educated guess, if you wish, would be that the impact will be lower in the third quarter than it was in the second quarter. Thank you. That's very helpful. Yeah, Oleg, let me answer your second question or part of it. Regarding the AV3, we are following our initial schedule for reconstruction. So far, there is no delay reported. Planned completion and startup is end of September this year. All the major equipment has been already installed. The technological piping, the instrumentation, and the installation works are currently ongoing, so they are in progress. Upon completion of the installation works, we will start the system checkups or the testing with the nitrogen, and then hopefully we will start the unit up in September. Regarding the financial impact, so you might know that the AV3 capacity is 10,500 tonnes per day. Of course, you can multiply it by a factor. As you might learned before, that the first $ 100 million from the insurance company were transferred to our accounts in July, it will affect the third quarter. To judge the whole amount, this is still the close analysis and discussion with the insurance company. Of course, there are two periods. First is when we were affected by Druzhba interruption. The feed intake was limited on our side. Of course, this is now in the second quarter, the situation is a bit different when we are fully supplied. I don't know, Ákos, would you like to add something to this? Thank you, Gabriel. Yes, as we already discussed several times, there are basically two type of damages. One is the physical damage, the other one is the opportunity loss. Also according to our contract, well, the first two months should be fully covered by MOL. This has already happened, and this is already in our balance sheet and P&L of 2025. As Gabriel mentioned, yes, the good news is that the first $ 100 million already received. This is already with us. You cannot see it in the first half of the result because it happened in July. While this covers the first quarter lost opportunity and looking at the refinery margins development, you can easily calculate that the second quarter was much favorable than the first one. The assumption is that for the second and the third quarter, we are going to have a higher figure. I think this is reasonable. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yes, sorry. Also with regards to the hedging, well, we have our hedging policy in place and I think it definitely worked very well. Partially we already covered that in the first quarter, yes, we saw really a high cost of margining, but in the second one, we were in the sunny side of the story. We are looking at the hedging policy as a good tool for the stability. This is actually targeting stabilizing the activity and at the moment, we just don't really see why to change it. Well, I think that's what I can disclose with you. Excuse me. Should I understand that currently you have some hedges in place or not? I'm referring to the product cracks. Very limited. As Ákos mentioned, we look it at the stability rather than any speculation, so we do not open the position. Understood. Thank you. Just because of the highs and lows of the market. We keep our hedging policy rather conservative, or our hedging policies is aiming the stability and is rather conservative. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Jonathan, please go ahead. Good morning. Can you hear me? Hello. You answered my question on insurance. I hadn't realized it was in July. There's one thing bugging me about the Upstream results. We had much higher oil and gas prices, the Upstream EBITDA didn't actually grow very much, I'm not quite sure why it didn't grow in line with the higher prices. Can you give us any more color on that? Thanks. The two one-off items amounting to $38 million, that is actually the reason of the potential growth in the Upstream, which you could have assumed. With that, the Upstream would be above $400 million for the quarter. Okay. Thanks. Okay, thanks. Mr. Tamás Pletser, please go ahead with your question. Yes, thank you very much. Good morning. Just two questions from my side. First of all, do you have any rough back-of-the-envelope calculation? What would have been your quarterly EBITDA without these bundle issues? I mean, the AV3 accident and the fuel cap regulations in the region and the TVK accident. I'm just wondering, because I was just estimating around $ 1.6 billion-$1.7 billion. I'm very much curious about your opinion. The second issue is that looking your very juicy profit, do you see any risk of additional taxation from your key governments like Slovakia and Hungary, or hopefully, this idea is not on the agenda at the moment. Thank you. Gabriel, could you please answer the first one? Frankly, Tamás, I did not do this analysis, a good point. We could have done it. As I mentioned when there was a question about the insurance, my mathematics would be simply to multiply the missing capacity of AV3 by a refining margin, adjust it in first quarter and the second quarter. Of course, that there is some absolute number we can guess based on the regulation or the request of governments to be really cautious and responsible of pricing. It would not be a very complicated mathematics, but, frankly, I haven't done it. With regard to the taxation, Ákos Székely speaking. Tamás, your question is whether we expect a new taxation or not, let me also summarize that, yes, unfortunately, we have an additional increase in Brent-Urals. Far, we lived in an environment when 95% of the spread above $5 was the taxation. As of August 2026, there is another tax layer added to this Brent-Urals spread. Between $2 and $5 /bbl, there is a tax rate of 50%. Yes, I do consider it as a new element. Also it has been already covered by Péter that there are several other governmental measures with regards to the final motor fuel prices. This is different country by country, but this is also something we consider as a kind of governmental action. György, would you like to say a couple of words about the taxation as general? Tamás, I think your question is really about the question to what status the budget of the countries are in this situation, in this prolonged conflict scenarios. Whether some of the countries we are running into very low GDP growth because we experience definitely negative signs, for example, in Slovakia. It's not a Hungary-specific question. I would say every country by country, we have to look at the stability of the government, the stability of the budget, and their willingness to put government actions, let it be regulation, let it be taxation. For the time being, I think during the summer, we closely monitored these developments. I think most of the countries were definitely mainly focused on the supply security and the stability of the supply and the logistic issues. I think in the second half, of course, when the year-end figures will become more and more obvious, and of course, the GDP growth and the inflation figures will affect most of these countries. I think it won't be a general statement that every country will have measures. In some of the countries, we can expect that they won't. I would like to, however, make a strong statement that, of course, margins are high, but in the oil and gas sector, of course, these results are not extraordinary that we are now talking about. Costs are high, but the results themselves will not justify extraordinary measures, and we have to focus on two other elements as well. One is that the CapEx needed for growth, CapEx needed for sustainability, and CapEx needed for diversification, which certain extent are on the agenda, even if the commission is now a little bit postponing the diversification or the repowering programs. Practically, these are not actions which does not need further efforts or investments. I think it's true for the entire energy sector itself. I don't think that the energy sector taxation or alleviation for budgetary reasons would be practically a win-win or a zero-sum game. It can create definitely high detriments for future investments. Thank you. Yes, that's fair enough. Thank you very much. Please, Piotr, go ahead with your question. Hi. Good morning, everybody. Piotr Dzięciołowski from Citi. I have two questions, maybe. One, when MOL reported numbers together with you, they recognized something, what they call a historical crude oil layer. Essentially, that comes on top of a LIFO effect. Do you have anything similar in your Downstream numbers, whereby the blend of crude that you processed is differently processed than based on the proper CCS measure? The second question I wanted to ask you was about the Urals-Brent differential. The overall, how would you assess at the moment, a mark-to-market discount or premium that you pay for your crude across the whole three refineries? Thank you. Thank you. Well, after the start of the Hormuz crisis, really the physical deliveries were well above the quotations we see as the paper markets. I mentioned several times that the premiums went up to $20/bbl, really the physical market uncoupled from the paper one. Currently, it's getting to be more stabilized, still we see some premiums, but they are below $10/bbl. Excuse me, what was the second part of your question? No, I was asking what's the- Yes overall Urals pricing. Yeah. As you know, we try to help the understanding with providing you the benchmark pricing for the Urals crude, which is DAP India, so delivered to India. Of course, this should be adjusted by the logistics cost. The reality is that there is some volatility in terms of the logistics cost as the attacks on the shipping lines also increased. There is also some volatility there. I would still keep it up India as the benchmark. Thank you very much for your question. Okay. The second. Go on. Sorry. Ákos Székely speaking. With regards to your question, the CCS methodology, I can confirm that there are no changes, so apple to apple. We did not show different figure than in the previous period. I'm not aware of any kind of changes in the methodology, so you can count on this. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Please, Ricardo, go ahead with your question. Hello. Good morning. For me, just to follow up on the insurance payment from July, just to double-check, was that only related to the missed profits, correct? Have you already received, or are you close to receiving anything related to the damages? Then on the second point on the repairing works in the refinery, we've seen some other companies in the region that also went through a similar experience, coming back with a bit of a higher capacity than they had before any incident. Would that be the case for you as well? Thank you. Thank you for the que--. Yeah, go on, Ákos. Yeah. Sorry. The first question is on me. Out of this $ 100 million, really very small part is the property damage. Really the big part is going into the category of the lost profit. I wouldn't like to quantify it, really the big part is for the lost opportunity. Yeah. In terms of the operation pattern of our refinery, actually we really try to run the refinery at the max performance, there is no change. I do understand your comments. I also saw that some refineries, mainly in Western Europe, especially in the case where the refineries were not really used or run at the max performance, now they would like to use this high-margin environment and to run higher if possible. This is not our case. Very good also. Hello. Yeah, no, sorry. I was asking on the fire incident as well. If when the refinery is fully back online, would it have the same capacity as before the fire or? Yes. Okay. We are aiming the very same capacity. Actually, the pumping station of before the distillation column was damaged, this is limiting. What we are doing, all the reconstruction works are on the feed to the distillation, which was not impacted by the fire, we will keep the very same capacity there. Okay. That is clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Finally, Ildar, please go ahead with your question. We can't hear you, Ildar. I think you're muted. Yes. Sorry. Can you hear me now? Yes. Sorry for the background noise, but can I ask you, when are your contracts for the Urals supply up for renewal next time? I'm sorry, could you repeat? Yeah. Yes. When are your contracts for the supply of Urals via Druzhba up for renewal next time? Thank you. We got a long-term supply contract, this really goes beyond the kind of short-term reporting term. I do not have concerns because of the contractual conditions, but definitely it can be very affected by the sanction regime. This is on the critical part. Rather the sanction regime, our capability first, then the other capability to be fully supplied by the alternative routes to Urals. This would be the second. In terms of the contractual base, I do not see that as a critical point. Thanks for the question. That's clear. Thank you so much. If there are no more questions, thank you for your participation on today's call, please reach out to us at Investor Relations if you have anything to follow up with. Thank you very much and have a nice day. Goodbye