Good afternoon, this is the CORSCO conference operator. Welcome, and thank you for joining the Buzzi Full Year 2024 Results Conference Call. As a reminder, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Pietro Buzzi, CEO of Buzzi. Please go ahead, sir. Hello, good afternoon to everyone. Thank you for being with us. It's a little late, so we'll try and keep it as short as possible, being also a Friday. I hope that we can provide some interesting information to you. I assume that you do have either in front of you or in your hands, let's say, the presentation that was published on the website before the conference. I will mainly follow that. If we look at 2024 financial year, I think we can be quite happy about the achievement and the accomplishment of the group. We were able to maintain and actually slightly improve the profitability, both in absolute term and even more remarkable, in my opinion, on a percentage basis. You see the EBITDA margin going up almost 1%, but particularly the absolute level continues to be quite good. In terms of, let's say, balance sheet figures or cash flow, CapEx went up quite significantly, but nevertheless, we were able to remain basically at the same net cash position of last year. This morning, the board decided to increase the dividend per share by approximately 17%. This, coupled with the buyback that we carried out during the year last year and, let's say, this year, we believe that the shareholder return was overall, and we can see the figure later, quite increased during 2024 and 2023, the last, let's say, 12 months. If we move to the second page, you can see that 2024 and also 2025, the beginning of 2025, since we are already in the new year, we can mention that, and these are public information, were affected or in any way influenced to a significant extent by some extraordinary transaction. In particular, we can mention the acquisition of the remaining 50% stake in Brazil. The full line-by-line consolidation of the company started from the fourth quarter, which also enabled us, in a sense, to maintain the same profitability level in absolute terms that we had last year. On the other hand, we had a negative change in the scope of consolidation, so a decrease of scope associated with the closing of the agreement to sell the assets in Ukraine. This also occurred at the same time. Basically, the new scope of the group started to become effective in the fourth quarter. In January 2025, this is not a huge thing, but anyway, it does have an impact on the Italian business. We sold to Alpacem, the Wittelsdorf or Alpacem-Dorffer group from Austria, our cement plant in France, which is, for those that are from Italy, let's say, in the northeast, Pordenone province. In a sense, we exchanged that sale with a 25% stake, minority stake, in the overall Alpacem group, which includes we already have, let's say, this 25% position in the Slovenian asset, the so-called Alpacem Slovenia. Now we are also shareholders in the entire, let's say, Alpacem organization, which has a position in Austria, Slovenia, and also Italy. Together with FANNA, they already had some Italian operations, always in the northeast region. We are now, let's say, together with them, a minority partner across this entire group of operations. Very, very recently, we entered into this deal to acquire Block Trade in Gas Cement Company Emirates, Alzheimer. We are in the process of this mandatory tender offer, which was triggered, let's say, by this block trade. We should be able, we think, quite likely that we would be able to gain a majority at the end of the tender offer. Exactly which stake, we do not know. We will know, let's say, later. There are very high chances to become a majority. If we move to page three, you have a good description of what happened at the net sale turnover level, which remained, as we said, basically the same as last year, but with different dynamics and trends across the geographies. In Italy, basically, volume is slightly down, but completely offset by a favorable price trend. Stable volumes and greater profitability, as we will see later. In Central Europe, which includes Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, suffering. Not good, the volume trends, as we all noticed and acknowledged, let's say, during the year. Pricing basically flat. Some improvements at the beginning of the year, but the price curve trend was flattened due to the difficult volume environment. Small changes in scope associated with a sale of the ready-mix that we used to have in Luxembourg and France across that area. Eastern Europe, much better, let's say, than Central Europe. Inside here, we have Poland, Czechia, Ukraine, and Russia. Favorable price environment and also overall favorable volume environment. Also, after, let's say, including, let's say, the decrease associated with the Ukrainian deconsolidation, the only favorable effect is coming from the Czech krona. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian currency, they all suffer some kind of devaluation. The scope changes are associated with the Ukrainian deconsolidation. USA, volume a little bit disappointing. We are already now two years in a row with a negative volume trend, which is not different from the overall market trend. Yes, it's true that we do not cover the entire 50 states or 51 states, but we do cover those states which have most of the cement consumption in the country. The decline is basically the same that the industry suffers overall in the entire country. Positive price environment, not fully able to offset a stable exchange rate. The average exchange rate was very, very similar in 2024 versus 2023. Brazil is an addition to the turnover, and the fourth quarter contribution is EUR 86 million, and it's helping us, as we were saying before the beginning, to maintain the same turnover for the full year despite some other deconsolidation moves. Page four is addressing the EBITDA bridge, showing an interesting, I think, showing an interesting view and an interesting analysis. Our volume were not great. Certainly, the impact of the slowdown in Central Europe is the one that most affected us in terms of volumes, but also some other markets, including Italy, did not perform better than the previous year. Pricing overall able to offset, not fully, but to a significant extent. Again, with different mix, not all countries really contributed positively to the price development, but some of the important ones, yes. Growth from the variable cost. Certainly, both power, fuels, partly the logistics, and also raw materials to some extent. We enjoyed really significant tailwinds coming from the main variable production cost. Fixed cost, instead, they are reflecting more the inflation trend. Here we have mainly staff maintenance cost, and there we did see some we did, let's say, had to somehow include in our books and in our profitability higher fixed cost. Other items are a mix, including inventory changes that were somehow affecting us in a sense of decreasing versus the previous year. Another advantage, if you wish, coming from the lower production level, is the fact that we didn't have basically any CO2 cost or zero CO2 cost. Remaining within, let's say, the range of the minus 15%, we also did not lose any free allocation for the following year, but there was no need to buy CO2 rights. Here we are talking clearly about the ETS countries, so Italy, Germany, Poland, Czechia, and Luxembourg. They were all able to produce what was needed by the market, by our customer last year without the need to purchase CO2 rights. Effects slightly negative due to Russia, Ukraine, Poland mainly, also Brazil to a little extent. Scope, this is a net 28, is a net between the positive contribution of Brazil, which is clearly much more significant, and the negative contribution coming from the deconsolidation of Ukraine. Overall, we end up with not a great improvement, but anyway, an improvement and an improvement versus something that was already very, very positive, very remarkably, let's say, high in 2024. To be able to confirm this level, I think I do consider it a very good result. On page five, we see some other important, let's say, figures or trends. Operating cash flow improving versus last year. CapEx going up mainly due to programs that are partly maintenance and partly expansion. Within the maintenance, sometimes within the expansion, we include also all the roadmap or the decarbonization project that we are in the process of carrying out according to the so-called our journey to net zero roadmap. What I was mentioning in the beginning, return of cash to shareholders, looking at the dividends and the buyback, we arrive at about EUR 258 million for the year. Now, moving to the trading and market condition in the different areas, starting from the U.S., which continues to be for us the main contributor. It represents more than 50% of our results. You can see that the year was at the end pretty similar to the previous year, thanks mainly to the tailwind that I was mentioning before on cost. Also the positive price environment, both. Because thanks to the positive price environment, net revenue remained very, very close to last year's level, considering a volume effect, a negative volume effect. We basically offset the negative volume effect with the pricing. Margin is strengthened due to lower cost. Fuel and energy saving were more important, like we see here, than other increasing cost items like raw material, labor, et cetera. Foreign exchange effect was very minor, and overall, the performance went up to a very high level, which is, I think, to my knowledge, to my remembrance, let's say, the highest ever. In Italy, we continue with a very solid and strong performance following the results of last year. Similar story if you look at the net sales. Declining volumes, but some price improvements able to keep the turnover at the same level of last year. EBITDA helped by the variable cost decline, fuel. Also energy to some extent. Price over cost definitely improved, and you see that also from the margins that moved from 22% to 24%, which is something that for Italy, we have not been seeing since a very long time. We are not at the same absolute and relative level of the pre-financial crisis period, but clearly, we are talking about the volumes that are 40% or 50% below those levels. To achieve a 24% EBITDA margin in a country where the capacity utilization is still relatively low, I think that can be considered a very good result. In Central Europe, that is the weak spot certainly for this year. Already last year, it was not great, but last year, pricing was stronger, and the impact on our result, 2023 versus 2022, was not as negative. Meanwhile, this year, we are losing. I would say not in a very significant way, but yes, the economic situation, the fact that volumes were being affected by low demand, the fact that capacity utilization went down in a significant way translated into what you see in this number nine page. A decline of EBITDA from 2014 to 174 and - 2% approximately in EBITDA margins. This includes also not only Germany, but also Benelux, where I mentioned before, it is not a great impact, but anyway, it does have an influence on the number. We also had a negative scope change on net sales and EBITDA. The market in the Netherlands for ready-mix was also particularly affected this year with a challenging, let's say, demand and economic situation and margins that were definitely lower than usual. This is the, I would say, let's call it the negative spot in 2024, which we hope will mark, let's say, an end to the decline, and hopefully, we will be able to see, if not a clear recovery, at least some stabilization for the next year in this area. Eastern Europe on page 10, relatively well. We have certainly a strong business in Poland and Czechia. You know that these two countries have always been somehow performing at a high level of capacity utilization. They enjoy high fuel substitution in terms of alternative fuels, so relatively low fuel cost compared to other areas, compared to Italy, for example. They also enjoy, particularly Czechia, a very strong ready-mix business, so very strong vertical integration and ready-mix business, which is, I would say, above average in terms of profitability if you compare with other countries. There is the impact of the Ukrainian deconsolidation, but it's not so significant. The performance of Russia was fairly good. At the end, they suffered certainly some on the volume side, but the pricing was pretty strong. In terms of local currency results, they were absolutely at very good level. After translation, we are accounting for some negative areas, but I would say that the help, at least in the consolidated figure coming from Russia, the contribution remained pretty steady and quite favorable. In these countries, as opposed to other countries that I mentioned before, the impact of energy expenses, energy cost, was sometimes the opposite way. We suffer from higher power cost, particularly in Poland. This is related to their local market and also sometimes to the hedging or the fixing of prices, depending on which time and which period you have been, let's say, hedging or fixing the power prices. When this fixed price ends, the effectiveness of the hedging comes to an end. It can be reflected, like in this case, it was reflected into higher energy expenses. On page 11, Brazil is not totally a new entry because anyway, we've been involved in the country as a joint venture since 2018 already. The performance, I think we consider it in a positive way, in a favorable way, particularly because it was able to improve the profitability of the country. Let's say our local business was able to improve profitability even in a situation where prices did not show any improvement. Yeah, okay, volumes, yes, they did improve some, around 2%-3%, but prices remain under pressure. All the improvements actually came from better cost management in part, and as in other countries, by some kind of general deflation concerning or related to power and fuel cost. I think there is potentially a lot to improve in the country. Certainly, it will depend on the local economy, on the demand, on the trends, and particularly on the price level, which today, if you compare it to the, let's call it, international price, as far as much as the comparison can be done, because any country has its own market and feature and cost, but remains quite depressed. If with a depressed price, we are able to achieve a margin which is 25-26%, if the prices somehow will go up, which is possible because there is certainly a competitive situation that may become, let's say, more rationally in the future. The margin or the scope for improvement, in our opinion, is very significant, but we will see. In the meantime, I think we are managing well on the cost side and also on the safe side to be able to do better even in a, let's call it, muted price environment. On page 12, Mexico. Mexico is not fully consolidated. It is equity accounted, and it remains, let's say, a star in our group if you consider the EBITDA and EBITDA margin, extremely positive. Really very, very remarkable performance. Last year was not a year of growth. The economy suffered a bit mainly from the, let's call it, uncertainties and also some local political decision uncertainties coming from the relationship with the U.S. and some political decisions that have not been particularly friendly towards foreign investors. Also the fact that some of the large infrastructure projects that began with the election of AMLO four years ago basically came to an end before the end of its mandate, before the end of 2024. There are some uncertainties about the future development of volume, like we mentioned also in our outlook. Overall, the country remains, let's say, a great contributor to our net result and keeps going very well. If we go to the outlook 2020, what can we see? What we have seen so far also clearly two, three months are not very meaningful. You know the seasonality, the cold, rain, winter in the continental area of our group. I think we have a view that has been basically confirmed by the, at least initially, by these three months that we have behind us, that sees the possibility to increase volume not very high, not very likely to be able in neither of our geographies to see a clear improvement in volumes. Maybe with the exception of Brazil, where we do see an improvement in volumes, but limited to maybe 3%-4% and not much more. In the rest of the geographies, difficult to imagine a clear recovery. In the U.S., potentially, there is support and there is a pent-up demand coming mainly from the infrastructure project, but we haven't seen it so clearly so far. Beginning of the year is not really great. We think it's mainly due to weather, but there's no clear rebound yet versus last year. We consider more likely a year which will show similar volume. Pricing is a bit of a question mark. As usual, it depends on the area and the market. I think there are good chances to be able to make some improvements locally, but also on average, not very significant in terms of percentage or absolute value. Without a clear, let's say, recovery of the volumes that is not really showing, that is not so far, it can be challenging. It can be tricky. We have to see also what is the impact of some of the changes that occurred lately in the industry structure, like the merger or acquisition, more than the merger of Summit by CRH. There are some changes in the market that can affect and can have an impact both on volume and on prices for us. Italy is okay, let's say. It doesn't seem to be declining really, shouldn't be declining versus last year. It will depend a lot on the public works, on the civil works, the implementation of the infrastructure plan, the European recovery funds, and residential doesn't look really strong. Also renovation, residential renovation, even if it's not so important for us and not so much cement intensive, is going down after the period of the tax abatements. Also here, if there is a deployment of the recovery plan, we will likely see stable results, but not much more. On the other hand, we have to consider what I was saying at the beginning, the fact that we are anyway losing a plant within our scope, which will have an impact on volumes, not necessarily, let's say, on result, but yes, on volume, yes. Central Europe likely to stabilize. We think that the decline that we experienced in the last two years was quite significant. There is a change in Germany, not so immediate, but let's say maybe in terms of psychology and potential recovery coming from the recent political election, recent change in the leadership. We think that we can remain where we have been in a better case, which we do not rule out completely. We see the possibility to start and to go back to a higher level of capacity utilization. We are more confident on the Czech Republic and Poland, where we see difficult to imagine also a great improvement here because we are running close to full capacity. We are also working in Poland, for example, to improve our capacity and Czechia in a way that also to make, let's say, more cement with less clinker, which is part of the decarbonization roadmap. We are substantially positive on these two countries, and we do see the possibility to confirm or maybe improve some of our results versus last year. Brazil, I already mentioned, I think it will depend a lot on the price level, on the internal industry dynamics, but on the volume side, we are quite confident. Mexico, we may see a further decline in volumes, not huge, but in general, the country is suffering from the uncertainty from the tariff war. Let's see how this settles, let's say, between Mexico and U.S. In general, it's unlikely that 2025 will be for Mexico, at least Mexico construction industry, any area of growth. We will have to manage carefully on the cost side and on the price side. On the cost, again, generally speaking, what we see for 2025 is a more difficult environment versus 2024, where we explain how important was the tailwind coming from the fuel and power and sometimes some other cost too. We think that this trend is basically over. We have seen it already, for example, in the price of petcoke moving up. Of course, when the petcoke moves up, there is always a delay in our books because we do have a certain inventory to be depleted. The trend, for example, for petcoke recently has been clearly more costly petcoke. Energy too. I mean, there's a lot, particularly in Italian newspaper complaints about the power cost. Yes, this is true. It is going up. At least we are not enjoying any more an advantage on that side like we had last year. It will be challenging. I mean, as usual, pricing will play a role, a very important one. How much we will be able to offset this situation of weak volumes and probably rising cost with a price improvement is a bit of a question mark. We will see. It will depend, yeah, the geographies, capacity utilization level, demand, industry behavior. We'll try. I mean, we'll try clearly. The idea is to make it to maintain as much as possible this level. I cannot be positive about that, but we'll try our best. Overall, we think that including the scope difference or the scope variance coming from Brazil, there are good chances to be able to maintain these results. We have, in our idea, in our budget, the goal to possibly improve them. We are not so certain. We think that there are more potentially downward risk than the opposite, but we'll try our best. Clearly, everybody knows, I mean, it's been discussed on the newspaper, that we are living in a moment which is not helping. The degree of uncertainty and volatility is increasing, and we have to keep our direction, let's say, our route very stable as usual without being too much concerned by the external environment. The tariff war, let's call it for cement, has a relatively low impact in the sense that, as you all know, cement is, in most of the market, a local product that doesn't travel too much. In the U.S., where there is more dependency of the market from import, I don't know. Apparently, maybe on Canada, there will be some tariffs. This could actually, for the local producer, represent, let's say, a chance, a more positive chance than the opposite, because if some of the imported cement, which is needed for the country, becomes more expensive in this area, in those areas where the imports are, they do have a significant stake, our domestic prices could also go up. In other countries, difficult to imagine really a significant impact on our business. The impact will be more on the general economy, on the, let's say, on the business board of certain countries, which can be affected and postpone certain CapEx because of the uncertainty about the tariffs. That's the way we see so far 2025, and we believe it will be, again, I think another good year, but difficult to imagine a year of significant growth. We have a page on sustainability, which I will just comment briefly. Actually, if you will be willing to go through the entire CSRD new report, it's, I don't know, 100 pages or even more. There is a lot of data, very difficult, in my opinion, to understand, to assess. It is really questionable this way of presenting the data. If we look at the main key driver or key indicator for us, which is the kilogram of CO2 per ton of cementitious product, we can see that our trend, let's say, our direction is at least so far going in the way we were assuming. It means that the assumption that we have made in the roadmap were at least so far correct, and we are moving in that direction, at least as far as 2030 is concerned. Later on, clearly, it will become more difficult, but there are a number of other impacts and other decisions to be made, which is difficult to advance today. For what we can do so far, I think we are a good friend, and we are fulfilling, let's say, the expectation or the announcements that we made back in 2022 when the roadmap was disclosed for the first time. Maybe I spoke too much, but I would let you go through the following pages, which have a lot of details, interesting information without commenting right now on them. I would now move to the Q&A session. Please, operator, let's open the Q&A session. Thank you. Thank you. This is the Carlsberg Conference operator. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchstone telephone. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star and two. Please pick up the receiver when asking questions. Anyone who has a question may press star and one at this time. The first question is from Brijesh Siya of HSBC. Please go ahead. Hi. Good afternoon, Mr. Pietro Buzzi. A couple of questions from my side. Starting with the price increment in the U.S., you talk about flood pricing at this point in time. At the same time, you say that there is a risk that if the tariffs are being put on cement, then there is a chance that domestic prices will go up. I have two questions on that. One is, what proportion of your cement comes as an import, i.e., from Italy or elsewhere in the Middle East? Maybe in Algeria, you might be getting something. If you can tell us what proportion of your cement you sell in the U.S. comes from other markets. The second question is, there's a kind of renewed interest for the investment in oil well cement. I know in the past, you used to have a higher oil well cement sale, but that probably would have kind of dipped down. If you could remind us where the sale is, and if I recollect, that used to be priced at a higher level. There could be a chance that that number would be kind of significant as we move towards 2026. The second question is more on the kind of pricing in Germany. You're talking about pricing will be, what do you call, the demand will be stabilizing at a lower level. That's understood. In the last two years, we're seeing a decline. I know there was some small price decline last year, but we haven't seen anything material as such. Yeah, that was supported by energy cost inflation as well. When you are looking at a stabilized volume this year and a potential recovery towards the second half, what kind of, what's the risk you see that really there could be a pricing decline in Germany as well? Let's start from the first one. Imported cement, for us, the one that we manage directly, we did have some, let's say, I think the very maximum we achieved was maybe no less, what was 7%-8% of our sales at the time when we were really fully utilized, which is not so much, which is not the case of the last two years. Already in 2023, it went down, the share of imported cement. In 2024, we will continue to have some, but probably in the range of 5% of our sales, something like so. That's something that we need, particularly in the Texas market, the Houston-San Antonio market, because otherwise, we will not be able to serve our customers in full. In oil well cement, it's been a good driver, let's say, of our profitability. Certainly, we are, I think, since two years in a growing trend. How much was it? 9% of our sales, a little less. A little less. A little less. 5%, more or less 5% of the total U.S. sales, and slightly more just for the Russian market. Yeah, okay. The Russian market, the Russian market is another story. Yes. The Russian market, the share of oil well cement has always been very significant. We do have in our budget further growth of this product, which is certainly, relatively speaking, more profitable than gray cement. In this respect, the Trump policy, let's say, should help us in a sense that if really the drilling increases and no more restriction, let's say, on this industry, we can see an improvement in our oil well cement sales. And also maybe prices. I mean, pricing oil well cement is much easier in a sense to manage because you deal with companies, a limited number of companies, and companies that certainly are interested in, they're able to pay more if you provide the right product. It usually is a kind of tailor-made product, even if you fall under certain specific categories of oil well cement. If we are talking about Germany, well, Germany, yes. I mean, you can see the curve. There was an effort to increase prices at the beginning of last year. Due to the weak demand and the fact that we were having the feeling, let's say, of losing market share more than we should or than we would like, it was necessary clearly to adjust the prices. There was not a vertical fall, absolutely. I mean, it was a kind of flattening of the curve. I agree with you. I don't see really a reason for the prices to collapse or going down in a significant way, particularly this year due to the fact that we should see some volume stabilization. With the volume stabilizing, I think prices will also tend to stabilize, and costs are, I think, increasing for everyone, not only because of, let's call it, inflation, but also because of lower capacity utilization, so less operating leverage. I think we can expect a fairly stable to slightly positive price environment for this year, assuming that the volumes will not decline further, which is our, let's say, main case. Thank you. Just one last one on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Have you had any discussion through your association with the EU whether that's still coming from 1st of January 2026? There are discussions going on. Certainly, as of now, there are no changes, let's say, really envisaged. We can expect our, let's say, our plans, the way we are preparing in a sense is based on, yes, on the introduction, initial introduction started for 2026. Is this really the way to protect the European industry? Probably not. I mean, it's not such a great idea, even if theoretically it could stand. I think there will be discussions. Certainly, in this year, there will continue to be. I think probably automotive today is more under scrutiny and is maybe more important than cement. Also, the cement producer and maybe the steel producer, other heavy industry with a high level of CO2 intensity will start to push in a certain direction because I personally do not think it will be the solution. It will not really have an influence on lowering the CO2 for either for Europe or for the world. Just lastly, on the recent trends, sorry, on Germany infrastructure, I know you have this 8 billion ton out planned, and the utilization is probably roughly slightly more than 50% at this point in time. Would it be fair to assume when the volume starts picking up, you will probably say, probably get a disproportionate operating leverage on your EBITDA and bottom line? I would choose. We should certainly know there's a big step up in the margins when you reach, when you go above, let's say, two-thirds of capacity utilization, which we're not right now. If the volume really picks up and we exceed, let's say, two-thirds of capacity utilization, this is when the impact of the fixed cost on the following, let's call it, third or 10% or 20% is almost zero. Yes, this can be a game changer. The cost of CO2, the CBAM, and all this stuff associated with the, let's call it, ETS scheme is something different. It can maybe somehow not give you the same advantage that you would have in a business-as-usual environment because today we know that our marginal cost, including CO2, and assuming that CO2, you have to pay for it or you have to buy it. When you go above a certain level of production, your marginal cost increases instead of going down. Everything has been equal. On one side, you do better because you increase operating leverage. On the other, your marginal cost goes up because you have to pay for CO2. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you. I mean, that's clear. Thank you. You're welcome. You're very welcome. The next question is from Ephrem Ravi of Citigroup. Please go ahead. Thank you. Just two very quick questions. Firstly, can you give us your thinking behind the acquisition of Gulf Cement? Is this an isolated kind of plant acquisition, or is it indicative of a broader push into the Persian Gulf region or Asia in general? Secondly, I kind of get the EBITDA guidance, but specifically looking at volumes, do you see sort of 2024 as a trough for the volumes, or are we looking at another year of declining volumes, excluding scope impacts? Thank you. Yes. The United Arab Emirates is a kind of, how do I call it, opportunity. We hope that it will be an opportunity that came about. We were not looking really actively to it for a number of reasons. It came about, and it seems something that could be interesting to us, mainly because we see the potential to restructure, let's say, or to improve significantly the profitability of the company in a relatively short time because today is not really great. It will depend in part from the local market. Clearly, today there is an overcapacity in the region. If the local market improves, which is also our base case, it will be easier. Even if we remain at this production level, we think that there are some levers that we can activate and transform somehow this company from, I don't know, today EUR 7 million or EUR 8 million EBITDA, at least to EUR 15 million, maybe to EUR 20 million in two, three years' time. We saw that kind of, let's say, opportunity. Second, we also consider that somehow it would be a kind of insurance against CBAM or other strange European decisions which may force somehow more longer-term horizon. Anyway, to the industry to either shut down plants or really shrinking because of the too high cost associated with the CO2 and the ETS scheme in general. We may also, it could also be considered a potential, the plant is very well located for the loading of big ships. It is an extremely favorable capacity or loading capacity for big ships of cement of 30,000 tons-40,000 tons. Not today, because we mentioned before, there is not a big need currently in the U.S. With the potential recovery in the U.S., a growing market in the U.S., and tariff, despite, I do not know, despite or not despite, we will see the tariff or not tariff, but the costs are low in the area. Even with tariffs, you could be able to export to the U.S. directly managed from us. What we have been buying in the past, for example, from Italy, could come in a much more competitive way from this plant. Does this mean that there will be further growth and changes, internal growth in the area? I don't think so in the next, let's say, two, three years. I don't know. It will depend how happy we are, how we are able to manage, let's say, in an effective and, let's say, favorable way this company. Kind of more opportunistic move, and these are the most important strategic reason behind it. The next question is from Alessandro Tortora of Mediobanca. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi. Hello. Good evening, Mr. Pietro. Let's say three short questions, okay? Very, very brief, if I may. The first one, it's a follow-up with your discussion on the carbon border. Let's assume that it will be a topic under discussion for your sector in the coming months. What is, let's say, the best option for you? Coming back to the ETS, maybe with a declining rate, a faster declining rate. Just to understand what is a realistic proposal, for instance, the sector could do instead of the CBAM? I would. I'm personally always against this kind of, let's call it, guided or economy that is somehow driven by politicians, by political direction versus, let's call it, free market. I think the idea would be, in my opinion, to make probably if there should be a political help, like the CBAM wants to be in a sense, I think it should be more the direction of industrial policy in the European country, which makes the decarbonization or the lowering of the CO2 easier. For example, gas, if you use gas instead of petcoke, you are down in CO2 almost 50% versus burning petcoke. But why? We cannot use gas today because it is extremely costly. If gas would somehow become much cheaper, which is not easy to understand, for example, this could be a goal of the European industrial policy. You could reduce significantly CO2 burning gas. Alternative fuels, again, we have a tough time in achieving or in getting the permit to burn alternative fuels. If there would be more openness of the public administration towards alternative fuels, we can reduce CO2 significantly. For the rest, I think that, yeah, the cost of CO2 is, I understand that it is somehow making the difference. It is mainly the item that is making the difference with the Turkish cement that is coming in. I think that the CBAM, let's say, together with the gradual or eventually total cancellation of free CO2 rights will continue to make the European cement, the end, more expensive. We will have to raise prices. This is not good for the consumer or for the customers. The price of cement coming from Turkey, for example, even with the tariff, the tariff associated with the CBAM will continue to be lower. The key, I think, or the mistake stays in the ETS scheme. At the end, at the end of the ETS scheme, like it is today, is too penalizing and will make anyway a country without such kind of scheme able to compete effectively, even with the CBAM in place. Okay. Okay. Thanks. The second question is, considering again these regulations or, let's say, under discussion, under test and so on, if we need to think about any possible carbon capture storage project for you, should we think about a company maybe in a kind of wait and see or standby and see what happens? Or you believe that maybe in the coming, let's say, by 2030, you could do maybe a test in a single two plants in terms of this technology? No, I don't think we can consider ourselves a standby. There are significant hurdles to overcome before being able to really launch a project today. This is clear from what you see across the industry because at the end, beside the famous Brevik or what it's called, there is really not much going on. First of all, you have technological hurdles. You do not know if the technology is working or not or the way which it is working. That is why we are testing. Of course, we are testing on a smaller scale, but for example, the cash for climate projects will be a relatively significant, let's say, scale. At least from this project, we will understand whether the oxy fuel can be an option or cannot be an option or it is too expensive or what are the drawbacks, et cetera. Second is the surrounding, a little bit what I was saying before, the surrounding environment, the fact that it's not easy to receive, let's say, funds for this transformation, which is a nonsense in my opinion because all the funds that are going into the ETS scheme that are being raised, let's say, by Europe through the ETS scheme should flow somehow back to the big CO2 producer if you want them to be able to decarbonize in an economic way. The infrastructure is not ready because even if you have the technology, the willingness, and the money to do it, the following step, which is transportation and storage, is not ready. It's hard. It's hard to imagine something without a view which goes beyond really the view of the single producer. The single producer can have its really best effort or best willingness to do something in that direction, but you would be able to do it only where these external conditions are fulfilled. Probably the Doynak case is one of it, which is the one we are thinking of. There are the external conditions, at least in terms of logistics, say, transportation, not so much in terms of subsidies or so it will be more, again, kind of research and project to understand whether the technology works on a large scale. Elsewhere, we have a ranking, let's say, an internal ranking of plants where it could make sense, where it could make more sense than other. Each one of them today is missing something. They're missing something to be able to give really green light to a project which anyway costs you EUR 200 million, EUR 300 million, or EUR 400 million. Okay. Okay, Mr. Pietro. Thanks. The last two questions. Sorry. The first one is you mentioned before quick read, let's say, consolidation and so on. Can you remind us, let's say, how important is this client for you in terms of, let's say, U.S. volumes? Number one. Sorry. Number one. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. From what you see, let's say, today, it remains, let's say. Yeah. Today, they are busy with the closing, so. They are not yet, let's say, managing some directly. Yes, it's number one. Okay. Okay. Good. Sorry, the last one is I see, let's say, a very low tax rate, okay, in last year. Maybe there are some activation of a tax. There are. There are. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Can you help me understand, let's say, a normal level, a reasonable level of tax rate? You have to deduct EUR 90 million approximately. Even more, I think. A little bit more. It is EUR 90 million of the first tax factor which was booked this year following basically the impairment calculation. The plants associated with the impairment calculation. Until last year, you probably remember that due to the difficult, very difficult times in Italy, we accumulated a significant amount of tax losses carried forward. Until last year, the plants were not showing, let's say, high chances of being able to recover them. After the results of 2023 and 2024, our plans are more optimistic going forward. We have room, and we must do it. I do not want to say unfortunately because it is simply a booking, an accounting, let's say, entry. We must recognize this kind of deferred tax asset which should be recoverable. Without that, income tax would have been EUR 90 million more. Okay? [Foreign language], Mr. Pietro. [Foreign language]. The next question is from Gregor Kuglitsch of UBS. Please go ahead. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. I have a few questions. The first one is I think you were thinking about potentially constructing a new plant in the US. I want to understand what your latest thinking on that is or what maybe the plans could be and where you are in that thinking process. I do not know if you mentioned already what you so that is question one. Question two is can we get a sense what kind of price increases you have gone out with in the U.S.? Maybe I missed it earlier. The third question, which is easy, hopefully, in your guidance, what is the net scope M&A? There are obviously a few disposals, a few acquisitions. Just what's the net assumed in EBITDA that you're assuming? Thank you. Yes. Starting from the last one, more or less, is Brazil, let's say, the difference because Ukraine is relatively minor. Brazil is worth in one year EUR 90 million, EUR 95 million maybe. Depends on the exchange rate, but in euro could be EUR 90 million-EUR 95 million. That's the real significant one. Price increase, there were very, very not significant movements so far. I'm talking about the U.S. Very minor in certain and also, it's always difficult to identify or to move from the so-called announcement to the actual realization because the announcement can be $4, let's say, $5. You really understand two, three months down the road whether this $4 or $5 will stick or it will become, I don't know, $2 or $3 or zero. The idea for the moment in the U.S. is to, but also in some other countries, is to increase not to or, let's say, to avoid a decline because if you do nothing, there is clearly a risk of prices or a continuous erosion. If you do something, you might be more or less successful, but you are less likely to face some kind of price erosion. The volumes have been not so supportive in these first three months. Also in some area, some announcements have been postponed. Maybe the initial idea was, I don't know, March 1st, and then it can become April 1st. On the construction of a new plant, it's not really a new plant. The idea is to modernize completely at least one plant because in our framework, let's say, in our structure, there are certainly one or two plants that are becoming a bit too old, and they are suffering from low operating efficiency, low cash flow generation, et cetera. The idea is to compact and to modernize completely one plant with the goal also to, in this case, move cement a little farther away, so use more distribution channel and in perspective shut down the obsolete plant. We have not taken a decision to build a new line yet. I think we will start; we will do it gradually. The idea is to, first of all, increase the grinding capacity, so the finish mill department. Later on, maybe two years down the road, two things: finish grinding and rail spur in the sense of having the possibility to ship the additional cement by rail, which we do not have right now. We are speaking about the San Antonio plant, just to make it clear, where today we do not ship by rail, and tomorrow we would like to be able to ship by rail. Increase grinding capacity first, give more distribution channel to the plant, and maybe two years from now start the construction of a new line. Okay. This would then, you would shut Oklahoma. Is that right? Is that the plant you would shut down? Yeah. Yeah. This is one. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Coming back to the scope, 95, obviously, is annual. You sold one plant in Italy, and you sold Ukraine. Net, what are we saying? Maybe 30-40 net? Is that right? I would say 50. As I think about the disposal or more? I would say at least 50. Okay. 50-60. The plant in Italy last year was performing pretty well. It was about more than 20. Okay. 20 million. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The next question is from Yassine Touahri of On Field Investment Research. Please go ahead. Yes. Good afternoon. Just a question on the U.S. You were mentioning a little bit of issue with import being competitive, and QuickRite is your biggest client. Is it fair to assume that QuickRite might be like 5%-6% of your sales in the U.S.? I cannot tell you. Okay. My question would be, when I look at your footprint in the U.S., you've got cement, you've got a little bit, you've got some concrete in Texas, but you don't have aggregates. A lot of other cement producers see vertical integration into aggregate as a way to have more control over their market, over import, and to have more bargaining power with their clients. What do you think about vertical integration? Is it something that you could consider? It's come from our story, really, the fact that we have always been busy also growing our cement plants, our cement capacity. If If you look back, starting from 2009, we replaced completely Festus, then there was Merrill. We just focused on our cement assets mainly. Yeah, we didn't have enough, if you wish, maybe today we would, but enough willingness, let's say, to diversify into that. Anyway, we do have some. I mean, it's not so evident. It's not a clear line of business versus others. For example, in Texas, in Austin, San Antonio, where most of our ready-mix plants are, we do have basically 100% vertical integration upstream to aggregate there. Two Two important quarries, one in San Antonio and the other one in Austin. I mean, they help us a lot clearly in managing also the aggregate pricing and making ready-mix business more profitable in that area. I think that if we look forward at the strategic drive, I believe that if there is a choice, we would be more interested in some area in increasing the vertical integration into ready-mix than in aggregates because at the end, it's what drives or helps you maintain a high degree of capacity utilization or maybe improve a lower degree of capacity utilization in your cement plants. We are not looking, let's say, today actively at the aggregate sector in the US. By the way, it can be also very expensive. You buy a lot of, I mean, you buy upfront a lot of reserves that can be very valuable. I agree with you that usually it can be a good business in the U.S. Elsewhere, more questionable. In the U.S., it can be. When you look at the company like five years from now, how do you think about the European business? Would you say that, would you see prices, would you see much higher prices, better volume, or is it just like you're struggling because it's too difficult with the uncertainty on the policies? No. I mean, we are here. We cannot really complain about today, at least about the results of the European business. So far, we have been able to manage it fairly well through at least the first period of the ETS. We will see with the season coming what's happening. Yeah. It's not a business where you want to invest for increasing capacity or modernize capacity like we are planning, for example, in the US. The effort, the CapEx effort, will be more in the direction of the decarbonization, for sure. There will be some kind, I think, some kind of concentration going forward, less fragmented industry structure. It is highly fragmented, but let's say even less fragmented, especially in some markets. This could be an opportunity to, yeah, improve capacity utilization in your plants, focus on a lower number of assets, and devote more time, effort, and effort, both technical and then financial, into a fewer number of assets. I think I hope so. I mean, I think cement, even 20 years from now, will continue to be produced in Europe. If not, we will remain with the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil, and that's it. The Emirates, maybe. Maybe a last question. You had some nice energy cost deflation in 2024. Do you have a view based on the current price of coal, petcoke, electricity? Do you have a feeling of what could be the energy cost inflation in 2025? Is it something like a couple of percent, 2%, 3%, 5%? Is there an order of magnitude that's good? Across the scope. With differences clearly, but I would say 5%, yes. The idea is that you would try to offset that by prices, but it's not possible everywhere. It will depend on the volume. That's it. Correct. Yeah. It might be possible, but it's too early to say, and it would depend on whether volume or better. Totally, totally agree. Pardon? Totally agree. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you so much. Thank you. The next question is from Simon Chiu of Scheer Rowlett & Associates. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks so much for taking the question. Pietro, can you comment more on the outlook for U.S. imports and its impact on competition in the local market? I know tariff would be a benefit, but just setting that aside because I know there's a couple more sort of independent import terminals that's either constructed in the U.S. or will be constructed. Maybe just your outlook on import competition in that context. It is again mostly a local issue in a sense that there are areas of the country where imports play a significant role and increasing role. You can see from the Texas cement tax statistics what happened, let's say, in the last few years. Last year, they also suffered at the end because anyway, with the decline in the overall market, clearly this buffer works well for the importers when there is strong demand, a little less well when the demand is declining. I think apparently the tariff impact, if it goes into effect, is not yet clear to me, but let's say will affect mainly the trading between Canada and the U.S., which for us really, well, can have an impact on the plant we have in Pennsylvania because this trading between Canada and the US occurs mainly in the Great Lakes area. For example, there is a big plant at the exit, as you say, of the St. Lawrence River, which is shipping towards, let's say, the Northeast, the Boston and New York area, which is also a market for us from Pennsylvania. If this plant or the product coming from this plant becomes more expensive, there is an opportunity, say, for the plant in Pennsylvania to gain in terms of pricing. On the other hand, except for, okay, California is not a market for us, but in the Southeast, Southwest is mainly Turkey, Greece a little bit, Vietnam, but Greece is mainly Titan itself. Okay. They are also shipping to the Northeast, and they ship to Florida where they are. These countries are unlikely to be, let's say, subject to tariffs. Most likely they will continue to ship cement as they have been doing so far. Again, the impact on prices can be significant if the demand is not so strong and if the pricing power of the domestic producer is not as high because of lower demand. If we believe that the demand can go back to the 2022, 2020, or exceed, let's say, the 2022, 2023 levels, yes, they may be able to gain a larger market share of the demand in certain areas, but without a major impact on profitability. I don't think so. Just to follow up on that, is the independent import terminals becoming a bigger threat? Because in the past, a lot of the terminals are owned by the local sort of cement players as well. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There are some. There are some new that are independent. You're right. Yes. They are already a bigger threat. They have been one of the reasons why also last year in Texas, cement prices did not move up, or if they did, it was in a very minor way. Got it. Thank you. Just one quick question on the share buyback authorization. I think the authorization is for EUR 400 million. Is the intention to use some of it, half of it, most of it? What's the intention behind the authorization? We will have to discuss. The idea is now to have the AGM authorization in May. We will discuss it at the level whether to activate the buyback when it could be done like you're saying also in different branches. Absolutely. It could be a way. Now, clearly, and we are all happy for that, I think the share price had a very good rally. I'm not saying that this price is too high. Anyway, let's say it makes it less compelling versus last year to activate a share buyback program immediately. We will see. We are certainly, let's say, open to discuss it within the board and decide which way to go after having received the shareholders' authorization. Got it. Thank you very much. You're welcome. The next question is a follow-up from Yassine Touahri of On Field Investment Research. Please go ahead. Yes. Yeah. Just a quick follow-up on the import cost in the U.S. We see that there might be some reconstruction going on at some point in the Middle East and in Ukraine. In this context, if you start to see a big increase in price in Turkey because Turkey is busy exporting cement to Syria or to Gaza or to Ukraine, what would be the impact on your operation? Would it be something that would be positive on pricing in Texas? Do you think it's going to have any impact because you can also source from Vietnam? No. I think it should be positive, certainly. I mean, Turkey, yes, is very competitive. Anyway, for them, like I believe in Vietnam too, I know a little less. For them, if there is a chance to sell closer with less logistic cost, it's certainly advantageous. They will target this kind of market first. I guess that not so much in terms of pricing towards the U.S., maybe not changing too much. Also because they have hyperinflation. I mean, they have the need in a sense of selling to a stronger currency environment. In terms of the product availability, maybe this will work in a sense of favoring a lower, smaller, let's say, import flow toward the U.S. versus other countries where they can ship in an easier way and they are closer. Should we see, let's say, a $10—if we see a $10 increase in the FOB prices in the Mediterranean region, how would this impact your operation in Texas? Would you be able to pass, let's say, would you think the independent importer would have to increase prices, and then you would be in a better position to increase prices and margin? Or is it more complicated than that? No, no, no. It's always not like this in a sense that you have to be able to achieve it. It's not so immediate. At least thinking some area where the import has been putting a lot of pressure and assuming it will depend a lot on the volumes because if the volumes are stronger and there are not too many alternatives of supply in the market, it's easier to move in one direction. If the volumes are weaker or not really showing a strong improvement, even maybe without a competitor like the export that can be aggressive, a customer could always be able to find a different supply, maybe at a competitive. It is really a question of demand and offer with the export or the import in this case being, yeah, a potential cause or reason for a price challenge, let's call it. Okay. Thank you so much. For any further questions, please press star and one on your telephone. Mr. Buzzi, there are no more questions registered at this time. Okay. Thank you. Sorry for being late, but okay, we did what we could, and I think it's important to be able to answer to any one of you when you ask a question. Yeah, good evening. Have a nice weekend, and we'll stay in touch. Bye-bye. Ladies, and gentlemen, thank you for joining. The conference is now over. You may disconnect your telephones. Thank you.