Welcome to the Capital Markets Call to discuss strategy of the ORLEN Group until 2035. We are sitting here in the ORLEN Warsaw office with board members, Mr. Ireneusz Fąfara, CEO and President of the Management Board, Ms. Magdalena Bartoś, CFO, and Mr. Marcin Wasilewski, VP for Technology. We also have the supporting team, among others, Konrad Jar, Executive Director for Strategy, Przemysław Wasilewski, Executive Director for Strategy to Finance, and the IR and Strategy teams. My name is Jakub Frejlich, and I'm Head of Investor Relations. Let me first thank you for taking the time to meet us today. Just to let you know, we have on the call our sell-side equity analysts, our buy-side, our shareholders, but also rating agencies, debt investors, as well as bankers supporting our group on a daily basis in managing our financials. So this is a truly capital market call. Just a brief overview of the agenda. I will soon hand over to Ireneusz Fąfara, who will take you through the rationale of the strategy on the ORLEN Group vision until 2035. We will have Konrad Jar speaking on strategy pillars. Last but not least, Magda will give us a deep dive into financials. Then we will hand over to you, to your questions. So without further ado, Mr. President, the floor is yours. Hello. Good morning, good afternoon. It's a big pleasure to be here. My name is Ireneusz Fąfara, the CEO of ORLEN. I will present you the introduction to our strategy that we presented today to the investor groups in Warsaw. The ORLEN Energy Group 2035 strategy, The Energy of Tomorrow Starts Today. At the beginning, well, we will say something about our position in the Europe, in the Central Europe. You know it probably very well, but it is worth to come back to this issue and repeat once again. We are located in the center of Europe. Seven countries, you know, the supply, the upstream. These countries is more related to our business, and we are delivered natural gas for the Polish economy, 20 billion cubic meters, and nine billion cubic meters from them. This is our upstream. Almost 40 million tons of crude oil processing in the seven refineries, more or less 3,500 retail stations in this country. What you see on the map, only Norway is excluded from this point. Seventy- Terawatt hours? Terawatt-hour, sorry. 9.3 GW from the other, and 5 million clients who are using our products, using the platform of VITAY. And when we are thinking. Oh, okay. Well, you know, Europe, or Central Europe, where we are located, our approach was very, very simple. We are one of the important parts of Europe, but what, like we see, like when we look on the numbers, we are a bit different than West Europe. Different because Central Europe is the very growing part of Europe, and our growth is significantly higher than in other countries in Europe. But from other side, Central Europe is different because the demand for the products are quite different than in Europe, especially when you look on the slides. Gas, we still see that demand for the gas is growing, and we expect that it will grow till 2030, more or less, and after that, it will be some still demand for the gas at significantly higher than the, in the other parts of Europe. Quite similar situation we expect will be in the transport sectors. Of course, the demand for the biofuels and for the electricity in the transport will be still grow, but still, we high demand for the traditional, conventional fuel, fuels. And like in the all part of Europe, we think that need for zero-emission energy sources will be still grow due to regulation and due to all issues like, like, you know, especially taking under consideration the climate. We should have answer for this situation. Actually, additionally, additionally, this number about the demand for the natural gas consumption, 550 cu m 800 L of the fuel consumption, almost 2,000 MWh for the power consumption. But the profile of the clients is different from year to years, because the clients are needed in a bit cheaper the sources of the energy. There still is the growth of the electricity, of the transportation. And people in the household, they are looking for the possibility to use energy produced by sustainable energy sources. And on the end of this, clients are moving to the digital way of buying products or using the products. Based on this assumption, and based about the future of the market, we defined fundamental principles and guides of transformation. There are four pillars. The first of this is Upstream and Supply. We are thinking that gas as the transition fuel will be used during this fast to 2050. It will still be demand for the gas in the Europe. We are thinking that will be some of the possibility for us to increase our first upstream on the use of from Poland, Norway, and America, the gas, and will be possibility to deliver by the other sources, the gas to Poland. We are expecting that in 2035, we will be able to deliver to Poland 27 billion cu m of natural gas. The moving towards of the decarbonization transport will be very important, and will be very important for our Downstream, that we are preparing, and we are sure that in 2023-2025, we'll be ready to produce 25% of renewable energy in our fuel mix. The need of zero transition, zero emission is very important, and we are ready to buy from today till 2035, almost 13 GW of RES capacity. And additionally, we are looking of possibility to BESS development. And very important, we are involved in the SMR technology since 2021, and we are thinking that we will deliver this, this minimum two SMRs in Poland. Taking under consideration the trends of consumers, we expect that it will be very important part of our activity, that we will have almost 10 million users, loyal consumers, offering the products by the by the some cyber ways. This is our view on the whole pillars and two fundamentals. The most important fundamentals, especially important for for the board and especially for me, corporate governance. Because the corporate governance, the lack of... How to say, maybe? I will say that corporate governance is important for our for our. High quality, you mean. High quality, yes. I'm making about the quality. The high quality corporate governance is absolutely needed in our company. We see the lack of the, this, it will be the foundation for, for the growth in the future and base of the, these four pillars: bringing the cash home, transformation for the future, de-risking the model, and finding the right capital structure. Few words about the de-risking of the model. The company now is very big, with many, activities. The most important for us will be to, to concentrate for the core business. Core business means and the, these four pillars that we talked previous: Supply, Downstream, Energy, and Client. This is very important for us. If they thinking of this, we are half of what- of all issue that not needed in our company. Okay, thank you. Konrad, please. All right. Good afternoon and good morning to everyone on the call. To continue, how we're actually gonna deliver this strategy. And we are a business that's undergoing, you know, significant transformation as any other businesses in this industry. We also have a very wide asset span. And you know, this is quite a big company with exposure to several different markets. So first of all, how we want to organize this business is in four segments: Upstream and Supply, Downstream, covering both refining and petrochemicals, Energy, and Consumers and Products. And we understand there's a fair bit of divergence when it comes to the energy transition, and I think what we want to do as a company is be very pragmatic and very flexible about how we transform this business. So first of all, we've created an ecosystem, and I appreciate it's not easy to show this on one slide with the size of the company. But creating an ecosystem means that we want to use the range and the span of our business to actually squeeze out the maximum value out of our energy transition projects. The way we think about this is that we try to logically connect those energy projects between different segments. So they're not only delivered within one segment, they actually create value between those segments. So first of all, if we think about renewable power, it also helps us to decarbonize downstream. This is part of the value that's not easily created by, you know, pure energy groups. And then downstream companies alone would probably not have the opportunity to also create value from renewable power. We're trying to create an ecosystem. Hydrogen is another great example. We have flexibility in how we use hydrogen across these different segments. We can focus on areas that create the most value out of green or low-carbon hydrogen. Now, the slide doesn't show the principles that will guide us in the energy or in the transformation of our business or our own energy transition. But we have defined what we call a pragmatic. Let's come back to slide. Sorry. We have defined certain principles for a pragmatic and flexible energy transition of our business. So first of all, any sort of energy projects will have to fit this ecosystem, so we're really trying to create maximum value out of any project. Scalability, so, you know, starting small with certain investments or certain technologies that are not yet commercialized or fully commercial. We think about optionality. HVO is a great example where, you know, adding hydrogen in sort of the longer term also helps us decarbonize further. So we think of these projects more as flexible. And then, beyond... So a lot of the projects are also being developed beyond 2035, so beyond our strategy horizon, which is quite important. So we want to make sure that we have projects pre-FID that are well developed, in case, you know, the energy transition or the pace of the energy transition accelerates, we're gonna be ready for that challenge. If it conversely slows down, we live in an uncertain world, so we will be able to to stop and go, depending on regulations. That's this flexibility that we've mentioned. And also one other important element is partnerships. So, a lot of these technologies in the past have been developed by ORLEN or have been attempted by ORLEN on a very standalone basis. We want to change that. We want to go. We want to focus more on partnerships, and I think this also reflects what the industry as a whole is doing to de-risk a lot of these transformation projects. All right. Now, when it comes to the actual commitments, and our targets in reducing emissions, we have defined this. We think it's very realistic. This is not an ambition. This is backed by actual projects that we are developing. So our absolute emissions, we have revised this target. And this is a target for Upstream and Downstream. It's -13% by 2030 and -25% by 2035. In emissions intensity, this is in our energy segment, so this is mainly in power generation. This emission intensity decreases quite quickly. That's because we will be developing our renewable power assets.... We're also stepping away from any use of coal by 2030 in power generation and in heating by 2035. And then when it comes to net carbon intensity, and this is a metric where we think is the basis for comparing ourselves to other peer groups, having in mind what our CEO just mentioned around the specificity of Central Eastern Europe. Our net carbon intensity, our target for 2030 is -10%, and for 2035 is -15%. Of course, our long-term aim is achieving net zero. All right, I don't wanna get into the details of our EBITDA just yet. I think our CFO will handle most of the financial presentation. But what I wanted to say is that, first of all, this projection is based on a very rigorous view of projects that we want to deliver. It's also what's probably not visible here on the slide is that the composition of that EBITDA does change over time. So you might have noticed the increase in our gas demand, especially in Poland, which is quite a big opportunity for us. That will drive our growth in the short term, but in the long term, we see a very significant growth in power demand and power coming from renewables. Now, this implies that we and we are announcing a very attractive and progressive dividend with an additional upside as well. But I'll leave that maybe towards the end of the presentation. Now, when it comes to our targets within the segments, and we sort of define key themes for each of the segments. In Upstream and Supply, we do pretty much control the short or own the short of the local market. So we're in a very comfortable position to grow our upstream supply. We have, you know, access to demand. So growing in upstream supply is more about securing the supply and securing it profitably to deliver into the local economy. And when it comes to Downstream, we want to emphasize that we are responsible in our energy transition, so we're very pragmatic and very flexible in the pace of that energy transition. And we do appreciate the fair bit of divergence in the market and uncertainty around regulations, but we are getting ready for this energy transition. In the Energy segment, we will be growing our renewable power generation, combined with BESS, so storage systems. But we also see other means of power generations, and I'll come back to that in a few minutes. Also what our CEO mentioned around the changes within our consumers, we see those changes, and we are a customer-facing business as well. So we actually see quite a lot of value in integration of our services, of our products, and digitalizing them. Now, when it comes to actual KPIs and goals within our Upstream and Supply business, we see... And again, I'm coming back to the macro situation. We do see a significant increase in gas demand. This has to do with backing away from coal and switching to gas and the role of gas as an energy transition fuel. So we do want to back integrate from that short into gas production, into gas upstream. We still see increases in local production of gas, but where a lot of that gas is gonna come from is we are looking at a number of opportunities elsewhere, Norway, and potentially entering the North American market as well. Part of that, so we are a gas importer, so a part of our gas portfolio is balancing this gas demand. So we're also looking at contracted gas supply. This is mostly LNG. So we do see that step change in gas supply. This is a trading business. It's not CapEx intensive. This is, you know, quite a big opportunity for us in terms of meeting the spike in gas supply. Long term, we do see the gas demand stabilizing. So in 2035, we see this demand stabilizing, and we're not planning to increase gas production or contracted gas supplies beyond that point. At the same time, we're also looking at introducing carbon management or CCS, CCUS-... Part of that is, of course, our NZE industry targets, and but we also see a business opportunity here. So part of that is storage of CO2 for our own needs. A part of that is actually making it a commercial business. So we do have, we do see demand from other industries, CO2 intense, that where we could potentially support with capturing, or storing and transporting that CO2. Moving on to the Downstream segment. The Renewable Energy Directive III is, of course, widely acknowledged as an ambition target. We have currently identified what we see as identified levers to to meet those targets. Of course, our ambition, and this is the flexibility that I mentioned, we, there is a gap between what we think is achievable, but we are working on looking at other opportunity. But of course, we are looking at commerciality of a lot of these technologies, a lot of these projects. So right now, we sort of defined internally that we have levers to meet 21% of that renewable energy in our fuel mix. This increases to 26% by 2035. A big part of this is also building partnerships, especially when it comes to bio feedstock. The market is extremely short, and so we are working on trying to identify those sources that meet Renewable Energy Directive III. But we also see this as an opportunity. The fuel mix, as you've seen on previous slides, is in Central Eastern Europe. Conventional fuels are still strong. That demand is not gonna go away suddenly. We wanna still continue, and of course, in that business, but we also see an opportunity in developing our offering around new fuel, new fuels or new low carbon fuels. We also have an opportunity to decarbonize our Downstream segments, and I know this is often a contentious point, as it's seen as meeting regulation, but we look at it long term. We wanna ensure continuity of the Downstream segment of our refinery assets. So we view this as an opportunity, and we are looking at adding a renewable or low carbon hydrogen into our refinery production. These are significant goals in terms of volumes. Our own production sources, we're not announcing a huge, you know, program to build renewable hydrogen. We do see that we see the need to import hydrogen and to support development of hydrogen infrastructure. So a lot of the hydrogen does depend on external sources. Now, operational availability, so we still see a potential to increase our effectiveness or the efficiency of our Downstream operations, so we have to find an additional target for operational availability of our refinery infrastructure. In petrochemicals, and I know this is a business that's come under a lot of pressure globally, but we do see some positive developments in this business, especially in Europe. And we do see premiums for products with renewable or circular feedstocks. We wanna be active in this market as well. We want to grow our circular and renewable feedstocks to 8% by 2030 and 10% by 2035. This is not a regulation that's only, you know, that's pushed on the industry. That's it's actually on the packaging and FMCG companies to change their portfolio. Where we benefit is actually the higher premiums for products with recycled content or with circular content. So we want to enter this market, hence the target for recycling capacity. We still believe, in addition to this, we still believe that polymers in Central Eastern Europe is an attractive market. We do see higher GDP growth, and a lot of the petrochemical demand does correlate with GDP. So we do see still an opportunity to capture some of the market, but we will be smart about this, and we're planning to go further or into more complexity of some of the chemical chains. Again, this is very selective. You know, there's a lot of smaller transformational projects, not any huge investments. Okay, move on. In renewable power, we have defined a target for increasing our footprint in this business. The significant change is, we're not only looking at the Polish market, we are looking at the regional market mostly. We are active, as you may know, in offshore assets. So we do want to develop those, some of the offshore assets that we have access to, and grow our renewable energy portfolio. Along with that is, or this will need to be, also optimized by development of energy storage. So we see this as a critical technology to maximize value from our renewable power. We also see a Low Emission Energy segment. So this is mainly power generation through CCGT. And I'll come back to again to that spike in gas demand in Poland. This is again reflection of that market opportunity. So we have CCGT projects ongoing. We see space for another one project or so. So we will be growing that capacity, but again, not long term. This is our opportunity for the next few years. We're still committed to developing and deploying SMR technology. We see this as an important element of the energy mix, but more in the long term. So we're now more monitoring the development of this technology rather than announcing any big scale ambitions here. So we do see an opportunity for 0.6 GW capacity in SMRs. And we see this as an element that would also help us decarbonize our own assets, so providing energy to our own production plants. We do need to decarbonize our heating assets. So we're also defining a progressive step away from coal and reduction in emissions from our heating assets. In the Consumers and Product segment, and I think for a lot of energy companies, this sometimes doesn't get a lot of attention. I think we do have a significant opportunity. We have quite a big customer base. We want to integrate that customer base across our different energy products or our fuel products. So we truly want to create a platform for allowing us to market both fuels, low carbon fuels, as well as renewable power and gas to households. So we see a tremendous opportunity to integrate how we communicate with clients, how we develop our offering, and to integrate those customer bases. This also means supporting our clients in their energy transition. As other CEO mentioned before, we see those changes in customer behaviors. We see the step away from conventional fuels. We see the focus on cost of efficiency or cost competitiveness. We do want to be active in having an integrated energy offering to our customers. We also wanna take a bigger share of the power market for EV. And our ambition here is to grow to 30% by 2030, 30% share of the market, and 33% of the market by 2035. This is backed by where we see as our assets being competitive in delivering power to EVs. This is mainly transit charging hubs. So developing charging hubs along largest roads or routes. And we think we're one of the most dominant players in that space. And additionally, we see a growth opportunity in energy as a service. What I mentioned before about, you know, significant platform for integrating our offerings to our customers, is also backed by, you know, a new line of business, whether it's providing or developing an offering around EV chargers for households or public buildings and places. Whether it's energy storage systems or small energy storage systems, heat pumps, we do see an opportunity to combine that offering. All right. I'll come back to this and a concept of organizing our targets within different pillars and different fundamentals. So all of these targets, all these KPIs that you've just seen, they're also organized within these pillars of growth. They all tend to have a slightly different investment thesis. So, for example, when we talk about our existing business, gas production, LNG, they're in this value maximization pillar, which means we want to maximize that opportunity, focus on cash generation. At the same time, as I mentioned, we are a business in transition. We're in an industry in transition. So a lot of the goals are around transforming for the future. We are part of the regulatory framework within the EU. So we do have targets and goals to adjust to future market and regulatory needs. We do see the scope for asset optimization. There are businesses or assets that have been developed in the past where we do not see that strategic fit, and we will be focusing on optimizing that asset base. And lastly, capital stewardship or finding the right capital structure. A lot of our, especially from developing an innovative and sustainable product portfolio, we will be doing that in partnerships. We do want to de-risk this, but also access more innovation at the same time. And of course, part of those goals that you've just seen, they also fit into a wider theme of corporate governance, of decarbonizing our assets, and energy transition, or supporting the energy transition. All right. Thank you very much. I'll pass it on to Magda, our CFO. Thank you, Konrad. Well, having heard everything about our strategic priorities and the trends and the evolving needs of our clients, I will now summarize the financial framework and provide you with a bit of more deep dive into our investment plans, into our capital allocation strategy. But before I go there, I still would like to take a moment to summarize on a higher level that working on a strategy, on our strategy, we've been looking for ways to deliver a framework that builds a coherent and integrated business. I think that's been very clear with the fundamentals that Ireneusz and Konrad introduced. That increases resilience and flexibility, flexibility through the cycle, and I will talk about it more, a bit, in a bit more detail, describing how our EBITDA evolves, but then also delivers value to shareholders. This, we will cover in our updated dividend policy. Now let's talk about the EBITDA evolution and composition. We are committing our integrated business model to ensure stable and growing returns, with an average annual growth of 5.5%, and an average annual EBITDA to grow from the current levels of expected PLN 33 billion, to a range of PLN 53 billion-PLN 58 billion in 2031. But it's not only the absolute level of EBITDA growth, that we are looking for. We are also looking to working on the composition of the EBITDA. That actually follows all the strategic priorities that we've just talked about. And having said that, in the first five years of our strategy, it's Upstream and Supply business that delivers largest contributions to the EBITDA, while over time... And that is driven by volume, by the way. You're probably looking for the key value drivers here as well. So, volumes growing with our upstream in Norway and Poland, and increasing demand in the region, allow us to maximize value from Upstream and Supply division. But then over time, it's the Energy segment that delivers significant increases in EBITDA, and at the end of our strategy term, it's the energy business that contributes most to our EBITDA. And that clearly is driven by the investment plan. So it's the gas-fired turbines that we are currently working to deliver, but it's also renewables and the growing scale of our business over the term of the strategy. And just to illustrate that, we expect the Energy segment to triple its EBITDA over the strategy term. Downstream, as I typically call our home turf, is currently in quite a massive transition as well. So while we are still seeing very solid and very healthy demand for traditional fuels, and that allows us to maximize value from the current, current setup of the Downstream business, we will need to transform into alternative fuels and address all the decarbonization needs and regulatory demands in this division. This comes also with the opportunity to combine the sales of traditional fuels and leverage on our existing asset base and competencies, and build the competencies in alternative fuels, decarbonizing our asset base. And we expect that to allow us to double EBITDA delivered by the Downstream division. And so to close it up, but it's also a bit of a loop, as Konrad mentioned in our ecosystem page. Consumers and Products, this segment delivers stable and growing EBITDA, but it is not the money terms of the consumers, or the money returns of the Consumers and Products that truly drives value for our group. It's the changing and evolving needs of our customers that actually drive the transformation of all the other business segments. So that's where real value of our segment lies. Just to remind and probably underline, we currently transact with probably every consumer in Poland, being a large consumption market. Let's move on and discuss CapEx. I've got a few pages on our investment plan. First, I'll talk about business needs and composition and how we want to address them, but then we will also cover capital allocation strategies and how we are evaluating our investment projects. So please bear with me, and let's first focus on the business management before we go to capital management. On this page, we're seeing CapEx meaning, and that's probably the first thing to define here. We're talking about investment expenditure, which is CapEx and M&A. We typically, in our financial reporting, show you CapEx or investment as CapEx only, so the capital expenditure. But given the fact that we might, over the term of our strategy, decide to choose different paths to deliver on our strategic priorities, we decided to combine the two and show you investment expenditure in total, discuss investment expenditure in total. Also, please bear in mind when comparing to the historical financials. But our investment expenditure and our investment policy clearly follows and is derived from the strategic priorities and trends that both Irek and Konrad talked about. The structure of those outlays, however, is evolving or is expected to evolve over the strategy term, and our CapEx is also... or investment expenditure, is also significantly front-loaded. So when you look at the profile of our investment expenditure, you should expect in the first five years of the strategy, the strategic expenditure, the investment expenditure, sorry, to be at their peak, and then and then slightly decreasing, or actually quite quite significantly decreasing to the level of below PLN 30 billion in 2030, and roughly at PLN 15 billion up to PLN 18 billion of Polish zloty at the end of the strategy term. What matters, obviously, is what we're going to to spend the money for. And at the very first... And in the nearest term, the investment expenditure is aimed at Upstream and Supply division, in order to leverage on the opportunity of gas being our transition fuel, and making sure that we deliver 27 bcm of gas to the regional market. And then, obviously, Downstream division, where we've got the new chemistry project, so the new cracker in Płock, but also and most importantly, decarbonization initiatives and alternative fuels production infrastructure. The Energy segment that consumes most of the investment expenditure in the second half of our strategy term, and here, we expect to invest both in terms of organic growth and inorganic growth into renewables, into electricity generation based on gas and other zero emission sources, namely small modular reactors. A few things to underline here and few things to take away. While CapEx requirements or investment expenditure requirements are front-loaded, we've got very clear division by business segments that allow us to either address the most critical business needs or leverage on the most significant business opportunities, like in the case of Upstream. What this page doesn't talk about is the flexibility and our requirements towards the investment projects. We will cover that in a moment. But before we go there, I also would like to talk about leverage. Obviously, with significant investment plan being delivered, we are going to take up more leverage on our balance sheet. We expect to reach roughly 1.4 of net debt to EBITDA in 2027, so in approximately 3 years' time. There is a very clear limit that we've set in our financial framework, and that is also a commitment of the management team, not to go beyond the 2.0 of net debt to EBITDA. There's also a very clear deleveraging profile with increasing business returns and lower needs for investment. We expect to deleverage to roughly 0.5 of net debt to EBITDA at the end of the strategy term. And now let's move on and talk flexibility, because while financial stability and the strength of our balance sheet is clearly a top priority for us, it is also the flexibility, adaptability, optionality that we've been repeating like mantra when preparing this financial plan, making sure that it's well embedded in the financial framework. So we're showing you a different feature on the expenditure, on the investment expenditure on this page, while covering different baskets of our investment expenditure, so more talking about capital management than business management. There are two baskets of our investments that we deem or consider to be sort of committed, so pretty much unavoidable during the year. So one is maintenance CapEx, so obviously that investment, expenditure that is required to keep our assets in the right shape and form, and sometimes required by the regular turnarounds or scheduled works. And while we're working, and it is a priority, that is also embedded in our strategic framework on the efficiency of that maintenance, we expect roughly PLN 7 billion-PLN 8 billion on average annually to be required to be allocated, in order to keep our assets in the right wear and tear. And then, another basket that we also deem to be committed, that's investment related to regulatory assets. We've got, as you know, distribution, energy distribution grid, and gas distribution grid. Both those assets or both those groups of assets are being remunerated through a regulatory framework, and part of that remuneration, a formula is return on capital invested. Therefore, we deem this investment as not only necessary in terms of what our clients and what our environment needs, but also in terms of providing stable cash inflows and stable fundamentals of our returns, therefore, assets we rather treat it as committed as CapEx. And then there are two other baskets. One is the typical flexible growth CapEx, so CapEx that either hasn't been committed yet or hasn't been contracted yet, apologies, or CapEx that we believe or we consider to be manageable in terms of either scope or timing, and that's the largest part of our CapEx, especially for the next three years, that's 2021-2023 years. And then also partnerships and M&A. This also... This investment outlay is purely discretionary. So until there is, there's no transaction, there's no commitment for the CapEx. Obviously, we are seeking for ways to deliver on our strategic objectives and priorities committed to our shareholders and stakeholders, but in terms of optionality and in terms of flexibility, this is purely on our end. And now let's move on to another page that talks about CapEx, but a page that's supposed to provide you with a clear indication of how we are going to work with our investment projects, evaluating those investment projects, regardless whether it's an M&A or whether it's a capital expenditure. For the first time in the group's history, we've clearly defined and approved hurdle rates that are aligned to specific categories of the projects, but also that are driven or differentiated by their emission impact. And I couldn't be proud to present this to you, because it's a very simple tool, but a tool that was missing. And we, in having said how disciplined and focused we want to be around CapEx when it comes to the business needs and when it comes to flexibility and making sure that we find the best timing, it's obviously also about the financial impact of each of the projects and the discipline when it comes to the minimum returns on each of the investment projects is critical to us as well. So let's take a look at the detail here. For the projects within the volume optimization category, so you might remember Konrad and Ireneusz mentioning projects that we want to deliver in order to bring the cash home, in order to maximize value on the current asset base. Here, the hurdle rates are highest, so we expect most from those projects, and we expect those rates to be in very double digits, low double digits, namely 10%-12%, depending on their impact on emissions. We are less demanding when it comes to innovative and sustainable product portfolio. Here, we invest into the future. These are the innovative products that allow us to either transform our Downstream division or invest in the Energy business. And we believe these are going to build the fundamentals of the balance sheet and so, and business operations beyond the strategy term. Therefore, we are also interested in supporting those projects as well. So the hurdle rate is in high single digits, namely 7%-9%. And then asset optimization projects, here, we've got expectations, depending on what the project support, of course, and how they fit strategically. But in terms of financials, it's 8%-10%, depending on the impact on emission. And now another angle, when talking about capital allocation policy. We are fully aware what's ahead of us and how demanding the task will be, how focused we will need to be when it comes to portfolio management, when it comes to evaluating the investment, both in terms of financial requirements and strategic fit. And we want to acknowledge that it doesn't all necessarily need to be done alone. In partnerships and working with partners internationally, in order to deliver on our strategic priorities, is one of the key pillars of our capital management policy. Where and who are we going to look for when it comes to partners or who we are going to team up with when it comes to partnerships? There are three key areas of our business where we are seeking for partnerships. One is Upstream and Supply. And here, just a reminder that we already have got significant experience working with partners in Upstream and Supply, specifically in the Norwegian Continental Shelf, where each of our projects is done together with one of the key established players in Norway. But we are also looking for... to diversify when it comes to Upstream operations. Seeking for potential opportunities in North America, and we consider those to be good opportunities to team up with an already established player there. When it comes to Downstream, we've talked a lot about our transformation from traditional fuels to alternative fuels. Well, we've come to a very clear conclusion. We've got experience and very solid competencies in traditional fuels, but we will be looking for support when it comes to know-how and technology in alternative fuels, in feedstock acquisition for alternative fuels production, and in technologies related to hydrogen or infrastructure or infrastructure related to imports and exports resulting from the need of the transformation of the Downstream segment. Within the Energy segment, we've got some experience with in working together with a partner. But our Baltic Power offshore wind farm is being delivered with Northland Power, so, an external partner. And obviously, we will be seeking for partners to join us for all the other offshore projects. But not only that, battery energy storage here is an area where we probably have the less of an expertise, and, we'll be happy to team up with established players, but also offtake agreements or renewables projects in order to de-risk the balance sheet, given the size and the scale of the challenge here, we will be looking for other partners as well. To close up with, I started with our first financial ambition, so I don't know if you can say first or last, but with one of our key financial ambition, which is provide solid pace of EBITDA growth over the term of the strategy. I will close out with our second or another financial ambition, deliver attractive returns to our investors. There is a very clear reason why we decided to update our dividend policy. We want this dividend policy to be transparent, to be credible, and to be real. Therefore, we link it to real business performance, which is operational cash flow. But before I go there, let me start. Let me make sure that we all understand what the base for the dividend is. In our previous strategy plan, we also had a base for the dividend, which was PLN 4.30 for 2025. We are upgrading the base to PLN 4.50 per share. And then we progress that dividend by PLN 0.15 each year, growing to PLN 6 at the end of the strategy term. So that's the base. That's the downside protection for our shareholders. That's what we committed to. But then we also decided to link our dividends to business performance, to make sure that there is enough of an upside for our investors to have a dialogue with us about the business performance. And we offer, or we are, we have that possibility of recommending the payment of a higher dividend of up to 25% of our operating cash flows, less financing. And I started with the fact that there is a reason we updated our dividend, and the reason is that we want to be very clear with our message. We are committed to sharing the business results with our investors. We know that there's a very clear expectation out there for us to do so, but there is also a very clear intention on the management team to pay attractive, transparent dividends to our shareholders. That's it from me now. Thank you so much. I will now go back to Jakub and invite everyone to join our Q&A session. I'm joined here technically by our IR team. Ireneusz is still here with us. Konrad will also provide us with some strategic updates with... sorry, with strategic insights. We've got one more management team member with us, Marcin Wasilewski, who leads our Downstream team, Downstream division. He will also join us in the Q&A session. Thank you very much for the presentation. I'll turn over to you on the call. With the same token we've always been doing, I'll guide you through the questions by you raise hands. First, I will turn to Anna Kishmariya, please. Yes, thank you very much for the presentation and taking my questions. I have three, if I may. First, if I can refer to page 64 in your presentation deck, which is macro assumptions. To some and to ourselves, it may look a bit on the bullish side. So I wanted to check if you did the stress test and test analysis, and if you can provide us with some sensitivities around the key lines of this table. That would be my first question. Then on the CapEx side, thank you for the clarification that it also includes the M&A inside. But you put that to PLN 70 billion-PLN 90 billion, is flexible nature. In which circumstances could you decide not to go for this high investments or CapEx spending? Finally, on the divestment side, you didn't provide any timeline or potential scope of the divestments. Maybe you can give us some idea of what is planned for this next few years. Thank you very much. Let me start with... Apologies. Let me start with flexibility of our investment plan. I will then cover the divestment timeline and scope, and I will ask our strategy team to comment on the macro assumptions and the sources and sensitivity. So flexibility. In terms of when and under what circumstances we would decide to revise our CapEx plan, I think it all depends on the situation and the macroeconomic environment, the geopolitical environment, and changing circumstances in the market. So our strategies have been defined and calculated on the basis of the assumptions as we see the future now. But obviously, we're talking about quite a long-term scenario, so we're talking about a 10-year scenario. We've seen in the past five years how dynamic the market changes can be, and we also want to provide for this flexibility and optionality. Another point to consider here is leverage. We are fully aware that the business we're working in is or the business we're active in might be quite volatile, and we want to be conservative on the side of our leverage. If there is any expectation of us breaching the 2.0 of net debt to leverage, that would be another indication for the CapEx revision as well. We will be also changing our internal policies and planning procedures, implementing not only a long-term strategy and then simply annual business plans, but we will have annual strategy reviews with three years plans and annual operational planning, so that we constantly revise the quality of our CapEx assumptions and our financial standing, in order to make sure that our CapEx plan remains relevant and is also under control when it comes to the absolute numbers. And divestment timeline and scope, I understand, Anna, that you're referring to our optimized optimized asset-based pillar in the strategic framework, in the strategic house. We indeed have got several areas of our business where a deep dive and optimization exercise is required. We spoke in the past about the non-core activities, that's an obvious one, and a lot of work has been done around it, but there are some other areas as well. One clearly in the Downstream division petrochemicals, where we are also mentioning there is an asset optimization exercise ongoing. Another one is also Upstream. So we clearly communicate today in our strategy that we focus on exploration and upstream in Poland, Norway, and we're open to North America. You all know that we've got other areas where we upstream and where we've got upstream operations, so clearly there will be a deep dive and an optimization exercise performed in the Upstream division as well. We're not communicating anything materially yet or anything in terms of numbers. As we've got our preliminary estimates, we believe it's a bit premature to communicate numbers to you. In SLPS, we feel we need to make sure there is a transaction in sight or a plan in sight so that we communicate what that value might be. Konrad, over to you- Yeah. with the macro assumption. Of course. So first of all, we do use external sources for our macro assumptions. The key provider in terms of our oil and gas analysis is S&P, so these are, you know, objective third-party assumptions. We do use other external forecasts for our Petrochemical segment as well as... But we do make the step to ensure there's consistency on the underlying macro assumptions. We do model our own energy market dynamics, just because of the specificity of the local market. In terms of the base case scenario, and this goes for the fundamentals and for the pricing assumptions, we always rely on the base case view, which for us is sort of in line with stated policies, with IEA's stated policies assumptions, so the current pledges. Same thing with S&P's, you know, base case outlook. This is typically, you know, close to the stated policies or current pledges assumptions. We do have to caveat that these are in nominal, so you may actually see that there is, you know, an increase in the petrochemical and refining margins. But this is also in line with the market view that we are currently in a downturn cycle, especially in the petrochemical business. So we do see that recovery along the way as well. Maybe just one thing on the sensitivity. So we internally do look at a couple of additional scenarios, but I think what's important here is that this is not, you know, one big investment. It's a transformation program that has a number of different projects, different avenues, and they're flexible. As Magda showed in the slide with our capital expenditure, a lot of that is flexible. So we have this optionality to adjust to current market situations and to changes in the macro environment. We're not committing to just, you know, one or two large mega projects. It's actually a transformation program built with quite a lot of flexibility, quite a lot of elasticity, and especially when it comes to the energy transition projects. As I've mentioned, this is fairly flexible and also we want to make sure that those regulations are in place before we actually pull the trigger on some of these projects. On the sensitivities, we look at that on the individual projects, so I think on the big numbers, we're probably not ready to show that just yet. But we are looking at our strategy and our investment in, you know, resilience of this program in different scenarios as well. But the base case is, as I mentioned, sort of stated policies or current pledges. Understood. Thank you very much. If I may just ask for two clarifications. First, on the optimization and divestments, you cannot comment on the scope, which is numerical, I mean, but maybe you can provide us some color around timing. Should we expect something to be announced this year or 2026? And how soon can we, can we expect some announcement there? And on the sensitivities, I meant more at the sensitivities of EBITDA, and maybe you have, like, internal stress test scenario, and then what would where your EBITDA would go in that case, like in, in near term? Maybe it's like 2026, 2027, if we are in weak macro environment. Thank you. ... For a point about timing of the divestments, so we, I think what we can share is you should expect several announcements in 2025 related to non-core assets. Here, I think we are closer to some final decisions to be shared. With regards to our review of Upstream and Downstream assets portfolio, I would rather expect announcements to be shared, so in 2026 and beyond. When it comes to sensitivities and potential EBITDA scenarios, I think I will follow on what Konrad just said, that while we're testing sensitivities and different macro scenarios for a shorter period... Sorry, not for a shorter period, but for the project, on a project financial model level, we're not sharing those scenarios with the market. Something probably to be discussed internally, so let us think about it. But I still would like to provide you some color on how a different macro environment might impact our EBITDA generation. When you think about or my comments, that we're building a more resilient organization through the cycle, we're also thinking about how complementary our business segments are. So, if the gas prices drop, that is obviously a negative impact for the Upstream and Supply division, but provides for a positive impact of our Downstream and Energy division. So there is no very clear answer on an impact on the front, on that side. Obviously, electricity prices when lower provides for lower revenues in the energy business, but then on the other hand, we've got own consumption of electricity and heat for our Downstream operations, and that is a benefit on the Downstream side as well. So that resilience through the cycle and how complementary our businesses are is also a fundamental of our value delivery. We will... And again, we're not ignoring the question on the sensitivity. We typically provide some color within the annual reporting as well. But if that I hope that that is a bit helpful, and we can take it from here. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Łukasz Prokopiuk, the floor is yours now. Yes, thank you. This is Łukasz Prokopiuk. Thank you for the presentation. I got a few questions. First of all, the CapEx for 2025-2027, which you target at PLN 37 billion-PLN 41 billion, is it, page 48, I believe. Is it the CapEx we should... Is there any optional CapEx in this, in these targets, or should we treat this level of 37, 41 as a highly probable CapEx? That's the first question. Can we flip over, Martin, to the next page? Because that actually provides some flexibility idea for 25, 27. So you, you're right that we are expecting an acceleration in the investment expenditure over the 25, 27 period with our investment in 2027 peaking. So clearly it is a very relevant question asking, "Okay, what's the flexibility here?" But that's exactly the picture that we're showing on 2025, 2027. Out of that investment expenditure there is a significant amount of expenditure related to M&As and partnerships, and these are purely discretionary. Going to decide on each particular investment at the time and we are considering the financial standing and performance of the business when we make those decisions. So here, we've got full flexibility. When it comes to the growth CapEx, as we call it, part of the CapEx is indeed already contracted, but also with the CapEx that's already contracted, we can always amend the scope, and we can always amend the timing, which I think, we also, have proven in the past, when evaluating the projects and their impact to our strategy and business performance. What we would rather not change is the regulatory framework CapEx. So regulatory, or sorry, CapEx related to regulatory assets, as those CapEx have got attractive returns, very stable returns, and provides for the fundamentals of our EBITDA generation in the energy business as well. And maintenance, we are currently having quite a few initiatives related to maintenance CapEx reviews and efficiency of maintenance CapEx. There are some expectations and objectives for the team, to deliver savings on maintenance CapEx, but in general, on a high level, you should expect PLN 7 billion-PLN 8 billion, or sorry, PLN 8 billion-PLN 9 billion in the first phase, in the first three years of our plan. So now, does that, Łukasz, address your question about flexibility? Do you have a better think on- I mean, partly, but if I understand correctly, I understand this is like a top CapEx. The numbers PLN 37 billion-PLN 41 billion in these years are like a top CapEx target if you do M&As, partnerships, and so on. But what I'm saying is, it's possible that- That's correct The CapEx will be like a five... That's correct. That's correct, yes? That is correct. I will ask Konrad to supplement my previous answer, but in short terms, you are right. Yes, and may- Okay. Maybe just to make a little- Just if I may ask a question connected to this topic. So what is the confirmed CapEx that you know you will spend in the next two-three years, per annum? But I think, Łukasz, and I will first, I'll pause this question. I'll get back to it. But I know that Konrad also wanted- Mm-hmm ... to supplement my previous answer. So, Konrad, please go on. Maybe just to make a distinction between, you know, our the previous or historical approach to CapEx, this is we do have a significant short-term growth in our Upstream and Supply business. We have mentioned this huge gas demand. So if you look at the slide that's earlier on and it shows you the amount of CapEx in the Upstream segment, we have access to, you know, a huge opportunity in the spot market. We're not developing a huge, you know, project or anything like this. We want to capitalize on this opportunity that's in gas demand. So it's very different investment thesis than previously when it came to, you know, spending money on large petrochemical projects and so on. I think here we're looking at opportunities that are in the market where we have access or control a lot of the importation into the country. And it's a very different investment thesis than previously. Yep. And now, to your question about CapEx certainty, so what we are certain we will spend. I think, I will again follow on, what Konrad said. We've got a different approach to CapEx now. So even if, so what we know we will spend is exactly the maintenance CapEx, and it's exactly, the regulatory assets related CapEx. What we want to spend in order to deliver on our strategic priorities is the growth CapEx, and M&A, and partnerships. That's our intention. While some of that growth CapEx is already contracted, we know that those amounts are partly unavoidable, or outlays are partly unavoidable. We spoke about Nowa Chemia in December. Until 2030, we expect an additional PLN 21 billion of CapEx related to Nowa Chemia projects or New Chemistry projects. And part of that is already contracted, and it simply would be economically not viable to withdraw from that spend. Thinking about 2024, CapEx and M&As in the low 30s. In 2025, you probably should expect more, given the fact that we are very serious about our strategic priorities. Mainly, mid-30s is a minimum and probably in the higher 30s of 2025, and then gradually growing up until 2027, when it peaks. That's probably the best guidance I can give you, Łukasz. Yeah, that's fine. You say mid-30s are confirmed, yes? PLN 30 billion, 30, PLN 35 billion. It's not confirmed. I can't say it's confirmed. I say what I would rationally expect. If there is anything happening this year that would change our point of view on the evolution of the market, we obviously would avoid doing M&As in the related area. So it's not confirmed. We don't have a commitment to spend, but that's what I would rationally expect. Okay. Okay. Second question on CapEx, on the European funding, the KPO, European funds. How much- Yeah ... do you want funding in the strategy? Is it extra to the CapEx, or is it included in the CapEx targets, the PLN 350 billion- That's a- ... PLN 300 billion? We're not targeting any funds in any support mechanisms or funding structure in our strategy. So that's a potential upside. We've got two main areas where we are working on the KPO financing. One is offshore wind farms, and the other one is electricity energy grids. So that's what you may expect to support our leverage profile and our funding strategy. Okay. To have it clear, so because, you've written you expect, I think, PLN 60 billion of CapEx in distribution, gas distribution and energy distribution. And the PLN 60 billion CapEx you target is without any European funding. Yes? That is correct. In our strategy framework, yes. In reality, we're also obviously working on acquisition of that support funding. Yeah. Okay. Because it would be a very big boost if you actually acknowledged how much funding you may obtain, because- Yeah ... it's a very, very, very strong upside, possibly. Okay, Totally. Third question, short question. How much EBITDA of petrochemicals do you expect in 2027 and in 2035, if I may ask? Łukasz, we've got a very bad line. How much what do we expect? EBITDA of petrochemical. Petrochemicals, EBITDA. Yes, EBITDA. Łukasz, we will provide. With our segment financial reporting change, we will provide you with a set of KPIs that will also support modeling of each of the segments. Today, however, we are aggregating the business lines of the Downstream division, so the refining, petrochemicals and wholesale of the Downstream segment product into one, as we believe that that describes the value of our business. Petrochemicals are well integrated within refining with refining within the Downstream segment. Therefore, we decided to change our disclosure policy, and we will be talking about business drivers for the Downstream segment instead of business lines of the Downstream segment. To provide you with a bit more color, though, because I think there is one comment in our strategy, and also throughout the kind of transcript or our comments to our strategy. We believe we are rather at the bottom of the cycle when it comes to the petrochemical, and we expect in the 2030s the situation in the macro environment for petrochemicals to improve. Hence, that expectation as well, that with our work and investment on the decarbonization of the segment and change in the product mix for the petrochemical, there is, I think, a very rational expectation for the Downstream segment to double the EBITDA over the term of the strategy, from the current six-seven, I believe, to low teens in 2035. Okay, thank you. So the growth in EBITDA in the Downstream is probably attributed to the Petrochemical segment, yes, more or less? Most of the- I would rather avoid an indication here. Again, we're looking at an integrated segment. We've got initiatives that support performance of both business lines, refining and and petrochemicals. So please stay tuned for the business drivers that will support your modeling. But, but I think, I'm unable to, to comment on the what delivers the value here, other than the, the, the business performance of, of each segment. So not in numerical terms, but more in- Okay. Okay. Business terms. Thank you. Thank you very much. One last question. Your DPS growth is 3%, roughly, based on the, or the growing form of, increases. Yes? But your EBITDA growth per annum is 5%, 5.5%, almost 6%. Why isn't your DPS growing as fast as your planned growth in EBITDA? One clarification, Łukasz, it's not our DPS that grows at 3%, it's the guaranteed EPS- Guaranteed. Yes. At 3%. And I think that also is a very clear indication that the upside and the opportunity on the additional EBITDA, sorry, dividend, is very, very real. So we are, we have links. We anchor it, our dividend policy, to operational cash flow. And given the EBITDA generation profile, and we also have got some ambitions on the working capital improvement profile, we're pretty confident, that, given normal market circumstances and normalized environment, we will be very well positioned to recommend higher dividends to our shareholders. Thank you very much. That's all for now. Take care. ... thank you, Łukasz. Krzysztof Kozieł? Hello, everyone. Krzysztof speaking, Pekao S.A. I have a question about the M&A, and what kind of M&A are you considering at the moment? Is it likely you're going to come up with anything this year? Can you please repeat the second part of your question? What kind of M&As we expect in... I mean, I understand in the- Targeting, yeah. Business areas? Yeah, business areas or segments. Segments-wise. Yeah. All right, let's flip over to the partnership page. We will start with Upstream division. In the nearest term, we expect significant M&As when it comes to upstream and expansion in our Norwegian operations and potential acquisition targets in North America. When it comes to energy, we expect M&As in the more typical business as usual area of onshore wind and PVs. That's what we've been successful with over the last two years, expanding our renewables portfolio. We will carry on with that project, but we're also looking for or building a portfolio of targets when it comes to other technologies in the Energy segment. So the battery energy storage, we're also looking into some targets in other energy generation areas as well. When it comes to downstream here, we're more thinking about partnerships than pure play M&A. But obviously, I cannot exclude that if there is an M&A supporting our know-how growth, our access to technology, or an M&A that supports the decarbonization or transformation of the Downstream segment, that would have a strategic fit, we'd be interested. Okay, thank you. What would, what would you say is the chance of reaching that? I think if I subtract the, your guidance of, on CapEx plus M&A, subtract it from just, like, pure CapEx, I come out at, like, PLN 7 billion on M&As, this year, if I'm correct. What is the chance that, you know, that worth of transactions you target, you will reach by the end of the year? Do you have, like, anything closing right now or- We don't provide- Okay. Sorry. We don't provide guidance on each particular year here. Okay. Especially with M&As, that's been really difficult, 'cause the dynamic around the deal is always very uncertain. You've got multiple stakeholders there, and it simply takes time to reach an agreement with some of the deals. So we will. I'm pretty certain we will never provide a target for a particular year. We've got averages here, and we expect, in total, over the term of the strategy, something of PLN 85 billion in M&A deals and partnerships. That's important. That comes together, 'cause our objective is not to deliver an M&A. We are not an investment house. Our objective is to deliver the strategy. So we can have different ways of delivering that strategy, either organically, inorganically, or through partnerships. We will be always evaluating what the best option is. We've got a pipeline of projects for this year, but again, as with M&As, it's super sensitive to talk about it in public until they happen. So please, give us a little bit more time to come back with details to you. We will when we're ready. Great, thank you. And, if I may, something outside of the strategy, could you give us a little bit of an update on PDH situation? I mean, it kind of fit into the acquisition part of your strategy as well, possibly so. Yeah. PDH, meaning, polyolefins project of- Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right? I'll ask Marcin to, to give us a little bit of business color, and then I'll step in with transaction potential work color. Okay. So, we're definitely looking at this project, as we are a partial shareholder. So, we are in our best interest to make sure that the project continues. It's at almost the last stage of the investment phase. However, it's quite difficult, and obviously, Grupa Azoty has financial challenges, to put it mildly, that do not make this process any easier. And we've been successful in bringing all the parties together in December, to stabilize the situation, to have a standstill, to make sure that the situation, which is delicate because of the multiple players involved, can be handled in a way that allows us to have a rational assessment of what is the best path forward. Now, I'll pass it to Magda. Yeah, I think we changed, we swapped sides 'cause you just provided the transactional update in terms of strategic focus. Can we take a look at the Downstream Petrochemical segment page? We are very clear in our strategic objectives as well, that when it comes to petrochemicals, we want to go deeper into the value chain. So it's not the monomers, it's the polymers, and it's more specialized projects and compounding that we're interested in, not really the kind of pure play monomer production as we are transitioning from. So on this front, if there is a strategic fit of the assets, there's also a very clear strategical and strategic advantage of the asset when it comes to feedstock. We're also talking here about diversity and how important that is for us in order to exactly improve our resilience through any volatility in the market or the cycle that asset also provides for that. So there are advantages of the assets. And as Marcin mentioned, we've been truly successful, and I think I'm really happy that we made it there to stabilize the situation with all the stakeholders. And now we will have some proper quality time to work on due diligence and on potential transaction structure shape if there is any that would work for us. Okay, thank you. And last question, just a little bit of clarification. If I remember correctly, there was just a little bit of that misunderstanding when it comes to your, like, your updated budget for the Olefins. And there was this part which included, I guess, the financing, like, you know, the part of the CapEx, which kind of stems from financing. And the question... my question is, those targets, that guidance that you provided today, those numbers about CapEx, do those numbers include anything about financing, like financing part, or is this like a pure outlays? Okay. No, absolutely. We reported like for like. So since we do capitalize. Mm-hmm. - financial interest expense into the asset base, we also do our financial planning in the same way. Okay. Do you provide any kind of... Could you share with us those numbers? Like, you know, what part of those numbers is, like, stems just from, from the financing, from the, from the interest rate? Yeah, I think- Uh, the- - We can provide you with estimates, because it's simply an estimate based on the effective interest rate. Okay. So, we can work with the IR team to provide you that offline. Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much. Michał Kozak, please. Yes. Hi, thank you. I have a couple of questions, if I may. I would like to confirm, because, on the, on the page, 48, you present a CapEx range, for the 25, and 27, in the amount of, PLN 43 billion-PLN 47 billion. If I understood correctly, it's not, it's not your CapEx guidance, but it's the most ambitious, target, not the base, case scenario, yes? It's difficult to answer your question when you put it like that. For us, delivering our strategy is the base case scenario, but we are not providing you with the CapEx guidance here. It's not only CapEx, it's CapEx and M&A. There is optionality and flexibility there. So, if one may also read your question differently, meaning how much of the flexibility is there? And we already discussed with Łukasz, and there is quite a fair bit of flexibility in that CapEx of the range of PLN 43 billion-PLN 47 billion. So again, quite difficult for me to address your question in that way. Mm-hmm. Okay, so maybe extra question. Yeah. Okay. So maybe extra questions. What are the areas, the main projects of that flexibility? Are there CCGT or offshore projects, for example, or M&As? Yeah. So for the 2025, 2027, when you think about our investment priorities, it's mostly Upstream and Downstream segment with a supplement of the Energy segment. So let's start with Upstream. For Upstream investments, we're talking about quite a fair bit of M&As related to Norway and potential expansion in North America, and that's clearly optional. There is full adaptability there. When we think about Upstream investments, there is also... Sorry, when we talk about Upstream investments, we also have got some investments in Poland in order to sustain volumes delivered from the Polish market. There is probably less of flexibility here, but still not all of the works were contracted. There are investment decisions, but not strong commitment there.... Then moving on to Downstream segment, PLN 21 billion up to 2030 is new chemistry project that we spoke about into a high level of detail in December. And I think, thinking about what is the profile of that investment, a large bit of that investment still relates to the core of the investment. So to the cracker, the so-called ISBL, and that's a bit front-loaded. But then there is also a significant amount of supplementing infrastructure that comes towards the end. So, I think it's fair to assume that this is more evenly distributed over the period. And then, when it comes to other Downstream projects, specifically related to decarbonization, and transition to alternative fuels, these are less mature, and not contracted, at least to a large extent. So there is flexibility here, but again, there is also the strategic commitment to transform our Downstream division. So also want to manage your expectations here. And then, thinking about the Energy segment clearly our distribution assets, this is what we're committed to. When it comes to other assets, we've got two CCGTs very close to completion, so I wouldn't expect much flexibility here. But we've got also two CCGTs that we haven't started yet, that we haven't contracted yet, or that we haven't really decided on yet formally. So we've got Siekierki project that we really would love to deliver on time. Therefore, while there is a theoretical flexibility on that project, I think in terms of management intention or, in terms of management decisions, we believe that project is a must to be delivered, so because there is also our strong commitment to diversify from coal-fired assets. And there is one additional CCGT that we included in our strategic plans, but that's a purely yet, you know, that's an idea, not a real project. So, we don't really even have it named here other than a capacity of 600 MW. If I may, I just wanted to reiterate that large part of that Downstream CapEx going forward is actually decarbonization. But we haven't made any commitments. As mentioned, we're looking at regulations. We're making these projects ready, but they're pre-FID. So this is the flexibility that we've mentioned, that we're very pragmatic about these energy transition projects. But we do have to make a plan for you know, transforming our business or transitioning our business as well. But a large part of that is not committed. It's still early stage. Maybe on this flexibility, even within the Downstream, you'll have a different rationale behind the transformation of refining, where majority is actually driven by RED III directives, which you could argue is a bit regulatory-driven. Whereas on the petrochemical side, it's actually following the market trends and expectations of the customers. So it's a bit independent of the regulations and simply trying to capture as much green premium as we can. Okay, thank you. So maybe another next question. Could you split into main growth projects in assumed CapEx in Energy segment of roughly PLN 15 billion in 2027? Because I include in this area two CCGT plants, Ostrołęka and Grudziądz, one offshore JV of 1.1 GW, which will be finished until this 2027. And as I understood correctly, I have to include in that new Energy segment also PGNiG area from the Gas segment with I don't know PLN 3 billion of annual CapEx. And if I sum it up, it equals PLN 8 billion, but not PLN 15 billion. So where is the gap? Is it, are there new offshore projects, other CCGT plants? But I don't think so. Could you explain that? Before we start explaining that, clarify what PLN 15 billion are we talking about? What page should we- PLN 15 billion of CapEx in the Energy segment in 2027, that you showed in your presentation. All right. So the majority of that CapEx refers to CCGT. Indeed, as you mentioned, plants, two new units, one that you mentioned of PGNiG, or we call it simply Siekierki project. And but a large chunk of those CapEx relates to renewables. This is your opportunistic approach, meaning M&As, yeah? That's correct. But there are also, there are also projects in, renewables development, and we also will be supporting projects in renewables development. ... Okay, so which area from the renewables should have the most significant impact? Because offshore or maybe onshore after regulatory changes. Offshore- It's too early, I think. Mm-hmm. Offshore is clearly a priority in 2027, with our following projects, so with Baltic East and the next, and the next project that will be already in preparation. Onshore wind and PV, we committed to reach 9 GW in 2030. Our starting point is 1.3 GW. We've got five years to get there. I think there's a lot of work ahead of us. Do you think that offshore investment is attractive from the IRR point of view in the next phases? In the next phases? No one can tell, right? We don't have a price yet. We don't have, we haven't had an auction yet, so no one can tell. We obviously have got different scenarios that we are working with, and we've got a very clear hurdle rate that we expect from that project. So I believe on, on our end, we know where we want to get to, and now we need regulators and policymakers to help us get there. Mm-hmm. Maybe if I can provide some additional clarity on the timing. So offshore wind is mostly after 2030. So the current focus in the next few years... I mean, we are of course developing Baltic Power and Baltic East. And Baltic East, and we're committed to those projects. But the big chunk of our CapEx when it comes to offshore wind is actually further out. And most of the current or the near-term spending is actually in onshore and in PV or solar. When it comes to profitability of offshore in the long term, we see quite a big potential in this. We're also developing this in partnerships. This is basically the underlying assumption. You can see how we've been developing Baltic Power, and it's a formula that works and helps us distribute that risk as well. Okay, so in the CapEx stream that you presented, this is the CapEx that belongs to you, or is it your part of the CapEx with the partnerships? No, the CapEx either belongs to us if we are the sole investor or share of the CapEx that belongs to us based on the partnership assumptions. So this is your share of the CapEx? Yeah. That's right. Okay. We presented the average assumptions for how much is developed in partnerships. I think that's on the slide with partnerships. So we do have. And of course, this is an average, but we have made assumptions on how we will distribute the risk of some of these projects. Mm-hmm. Okay, so maybe another question. What is the consultancy that provides you this macro assumptions? Because... Or maybe it's your in-house view. Because when I look at Brent oil and electricity prices in Poland, it is skewed from consensus, and it's way higher than forward curves indicates. Can you elaborate particularly on the expected energy price in Poland after 2030 in the amount of over 60, sorry, PLN 600 per MW? Mm. Yeah. Okay. So I can take it. In case of electricity prices for Poland, we model them in-house. We have our in-house models for electricity market with model demand and supply. And that prices result from assumed higher demand for electricity in Poland, especially from Transportation and Heating segments as well. We assume pretty high prices of high rates of electricity demand. In terms of crude oil, we base on S&P Global forecast, as Konrad verified a while ago. Okay, so under such assumptions, would you decide to invest in CCGT plants without the support of capacity auctions?... due to high clean spark spreads? I think it's always a combination. So, you know, options provide some form of stability and visibility into pricing. But these projects are typically looked at as a combination of both. Okay You know, having exposure to the electricity price as well, or the market electricity price. Okay. Maybe the last question. How likely is it to pay- You are killing the show. Yeah. So, the last one from my side, if I may- We need to conclude in three minutes, so be quick, please. Okay. So how likely is it to pay an additional dividend this year? Dividend slide shows also rendering area different in the following years. Is there any hint of this? Again, we all know on the call that I'm unable to make any dividend recommendation today, right? So I think we've been so very clear with our intentions. We updated our dividend strategy. Sorry, our dividend policy. We linked the dividend policy clearly to business performance in order to also help you out with the modeling. So far, we've been very predictable when it comes to delivering business performance in the recent quarters. Should that continue, I honestly see no reason not to recommend a dividend policy, an additional dividend. But it always is a recommendation made at a given point in time. We will get there. We will see where we are with the delivery of the plan. We will see where we are in terms of our leverage and availability of funding. Based on that, we will recommend a dividend for this year. Thank you. Oleg, please, be quick, please. It looks like I have one minute, so I really will need to be very quick. Yes, good afternoon or good evening already, and thank you for the presentation. I will skip the detailed questions because as I understood, you'll provide us with the detailed assumptions that will help us understand your, the EBITDA guidance. Is that correct? You mean business drivers? What I mentioned, that we will support you with the business drivers in order to understand our assumptions for EBITDA's related to segments. Do I understand correctly? Yes. Yes, yes. Yes. We're working on that further in the year. Okay. Because, for example, for the Upstream, I would like to know what is your assumed gas and crude oil production for this specific period, what is the OpEx per BOE, and the pricing environment so that we can use it for our modeling. Yeah, but- We will be sharing the business drivers, but we will not be sharing detailed financial models, correct? No detailed financial model, just the key assumptions. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, but still, when looking at slide number 47, maybe you can quickly guide us through your EBITDA assumption for the Upstream segment, because what... We can see here, we see an increase in 2027, and then we see a decrease in 2013, and then again, an increase in 2025 and 35, sorry. And when I look at the information provided on the energy slide 28, for example, I don't, I don't- I'm not in a position to reconcile this evolution. So maybe you can quickly tell us what are the drivers behind this evolution of Upstream EBITDA. All right. Pricing, volumes, both. Yeah. I'll be very, very quickly, because we're already on the clock. For the first significant change, so growth of 2027 compared to the base of 2024, this growth is volume-driven. For the drop in 2030 compared to 2027, this drop is market change-driven. So what drives this drop is narrowing spreads between the European TTF and American Henry Hub. Given the increased volumes of American liquefaction and export of gas, there is a changing dynamics between the Henry Hub pricing and TTF pricing. We currently benefit from a very healthy spread. We will see those spreads narrowing in the late 30s, and then we expect the situation to reverse and stabilize, and spreads recover in the early 30s and mid 30s. Okay. Thank you. Maybe just to add, this is very consistent with what the market is currently seeing in terms of, you know, future spread between Henry Hub and TTF. So we're following those assumptions. Okay. Understood. And now jumping with the one that is cruel and the one that needs to finish it. Thank you very much. Sorry, Michal, for bringing that harsh through your question. We can organize follow-up calls as well, but we've got another presentation still tonight, so we'd rather run. It's not that we'd rather, we will need to run, and prepare for the next one. Thank you very much for your attendance, for your insightful questions. We'll be happy to take them offline. So if you want the answers immediately, you can give us a call to the IR team. We'll make sure that, still in the afternoon, the strategy team and the IR team will be available to answer your questions. However, we need to conclude with the board, to set them free for another events. Thank you very much, all. Thank you, Marcin, Magda- Konrad. Konrad. We will be meeting you on the road, if not on the phone before. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.