Hello everyone, and welcome to our video conference for 2025. As you already are accustomed to, let's wait a couple more minutes so that everyone can enroll and register. We will come back in a couple of minutes and start the conference. Thank you. Hello to those who have joined us in the meantime. We can begin. Is it okay for everyone? Let's also share the screen. Okay. Now you can see the screen as well. 2025 for us was an activity normalization year after exceptional levels from 2020 to 2024. Stemming, as you know, from Ukrainian exports via Constanta Port. We started off with a low demand in terms of transport services, a market environment that was characterized by huge pressure on volumes and tariffs. We adapted our goods mix to market conditions. Minerals and chemicals, they are adjoined, as you can see. We will analyze them separately further on. Reached 55.6% from our turnover as compared to agricultural goods, which amounted to 22.6% from turnover. Goods mix that we anticipated and communicated. We communicated the idea of changing up the goods mix so that we are less exposed to overall volatility in terms of demand of agricultural services. Minerals and chemicals, a record increase +14.8% in volume, +7.8% in turnover, plus new flows in 2025, and a growth in terms of interoperability between the Decebal platform and TTS operations. In terms of agricultural goods, as I stated, 22.6%, a big decrease, -39%. This is a baseline effect because 2025 was the first year we didn't have any Ukrainian exports through Constanta. The second half of the year was in line with the second half of 2024, but the first half of the year was very weak as compared to 2024. It was a baseline effect. We had a very weak first half of the year. In Q3, we had a good harvest. However, at the same time, navigation conditions were unfavorable. We actually had interruptions, I believe, one week or more in July, August. For last year, we had the longest and most interruptions. Around 10 days. Yes, that's what I remembered as well, around 10 days. Q4 was very weak as well, again, due to lack of exports and unfavorable prices on the international market. We adapted our activity to the market conditions. It was a true operational recalibration. We optimized our cost basis, we optimized used assets, we resized, actually, our operational assets, and we also undertook various operational measures. We adjusted staff at activity level. We also optimized certain processes, and very important, we tried to subcontract less and internalize activities with subcontractors, of course, based on economic efficiency rationale. We had a very strict investment discipline. We invested in the expansion of Canopus. We also had refurbishment and Decebal storage spaces and of course, investments at the level of fleet maintenance. Overall, 2025, we see it as a transition year. We have operational momentum, a restructured cost base, and favorable market conditions. Now, in terms of volume analysis, aggregated volume has decreased in 2025. As you can see here, the decrease is less accentuated as compared to 2024. We can see a stabilization tendency. In terms of absolute values, 1.4 million tons as compared to 3.7 million tons decrease in 2024. Percentage-wise as well, you can see a stabilization trend happening right now. In what concerns separation of, contracts executed internally with our counterparties and third-party contracts, we witness an important decrease. I'm sorry. An important increase in terms of operation segment contracts with third parties. Revenues, third-party revenues supported our aggregated revenues. As I mentioned, volumes for the mineral and chemical products show an increase. If we look at the chart, you can see there is a stabilization trend. The levels narrowing 2023 levels after a minimum reach in 2024. The main weighting was from the mineral segment. In 2025, they had a spectacular increase, especially in terms of operation services, an increase of 60%. As I mentioned, Decebal operator operations had a huge weighting and influence. At aggregated level, they had a 19% increase in 2025. Again, referring to minerals. In terms of chemical products, they also had a growth phase, less significant and less so on river transport. In terms of agricultural products, they drew down the revenues overall. We have a baseline effect, a base effect. Here you can see the first half of 2025, 2024 with huge decreases, 70% in the first half of 2025 as compared to 2024, when we still had considerable Ukrainian goods present. In the second half of the year, there were decreases as compared to 2024, but not as significant, not as high. Let's move on to the next slide. We have a short analysis of overall results. Obviously, the market has stabilized, we believe, at lower levels in terms of volume and tariff. After the compression, after the overcycle with goods from Ukraine. From our point of view, what is important to mention, to highlight is that agricultural goods that decreased at 22.6% from the turnover from 35% in 2024. Here we had the maximum decrease, 42.6% difference between 2025 and 2024. We also had a decrease for other transport services, a lower decrease. In terms of absolute value, of course. The growth that we had, revenues from mineral products were substantial. Chemical products as well, and other services here, the main weighting comes from commerce with wood products. There were increases here, but they couldn't compensate overall decrease witnessed in the agricultural products segment, where we had a huge decrease. Comparing 2025 to 2024, we can see a huge change in terms of mix when discussing revenue sources. Agricultural decreased from 35%, but minerals increased from 33.4%. Actually, minerals and chemicals increased from 45.8% to 55.6%. Substantial growth in terms of weighting in the overall products portfolio. Of course, I mentioned the decrease in terms of services. Transport services remained at around 4%. Weighting of commerce with wood products has increased. In what concerns balance sheet, indeed, we see an increase of loans, substantial increase in 2025. This comes from the loan that we contracted for the expansion of Canopus, combined with the recognition and registration of IFRS 16 structures for port operation on the long term. In what concerns market share, we increased both in terms of river transport, and we are talking about solid bulk and general cargo, what we transport and operate. In terms of transport, we reached the 30% threshold, a huge increase compared to 2024. We are actually reaching the level of 2022 around 30+%. No, it's actually 30%. In what concerns operation handling in Constanta, we increased. Constanta had a very weak year. The Constanta announced lower traffic. I believe -10% was their initial estimate for bulk and for overall, 14% decrease for overall traffic. This was their estimate. In terms of sustainability, although our consumption and energy intensity and emissions decreased in 2025, this isn't necessarily a good thing, a great thing. Efficiency has decreased as well. Intensity of emissions has increased. Intensity of usage and consumption has increased in this period. It reflects the unfavorable navigability conditions. For the same volume of goods, we had to carry out more voyages with lower loads. That's why fuel consumption per ton and kilometer was higher actually when compared to 2024. On the positive side, if you want, in 2025, we had a huge CO₂ emission factor lessening thanks to steel, the difference between them representing the amount of recycled steel. It's 0.69 tons per CO₂ per ton of steel as compared. This is three times lower than emission factor of BF-BOF steel. Which amounts to 2.34 tons of CO₂ emissions per ton of steel. The difference between them representing actually the amount of CO₂ emissions avoided. The source being steel that was recovered from decommissioning barges. We had a number of barges that were decommissioned in 2025, and the steel was recycled. In order to conclude the perspectives for 2026, we expect a first half of the year in line with 2025, and maybe a potential recovery supported by agriculture in the second half of the year. Minerals will continue to grow. They are a main driver in terms of volume stabilization. Agricultural goods, we see that they will stabilize as compared to 2025. Maybe a slight increase possible depending on the harvest and navigation conditions. In terms of activity mix, we are less dependent on opportunistic flows. We see an increase in importance in 2026 of regional agricultural flows, also stable industrial contracts as well, and services integrated through the Decirom entities operator platform. This is how we see. We will have to operate the flows, lower ones. We will optimize via the full transport. We can see an increase of port operation, and it has the benefit to have a more stable margin. Using the capacity of storage in Constanta port, and we have an operational heading here and also revenue streams. It's the integrated model as main competitive advantage. Of course, the quality of results are based on the operational discipline. We can see a partial recovery in the agriculture. On minerals, we have divergence. We're non-EU. EU, non-EU. On EU, we don't have goods. We don't have any good signs at the moment. There will be some reconfigurations in the chemical products segment. The budget that we built up is based on an increase of 14% on the revenue side and a more moderated increase of 5% on the expense side. We will have consumables. We will have important increases due to diesel costs going up. We know where the oil prices has gone, and this is one of the most important risks we're seeing for 2026. Based on how the conflict, the war between U.S. and Iran will conduct, we might have significant changes here. We will try to reduce the expenses with third parties. We can see an operational profit of RON 54 million and an EBITDA of RON 158 million. This is what we prepared for the short presentation. We are waiting for questions from you. Mr. Marish wishes to talk. No. Now Mrs. Irina Rilan. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you for your presentation. Let's talk about the budget a bit. What can happen in the second half of this year, looking at the hypothesis that the favorable impact on the agri side will not materialize, which are the risks here? The second question is related to the absorption of the diesel costs. Can you tell us how is it compared to... You mentioned 750 EUR per ton. Which would be lower than the current market price. How should we look at this? Is this an average value? Or as the conflict attenuates the market prices will decrease. Here, it's a conservative approach. I have seen that the transport costs, you don't present in detail. In this amount on the consumables, how much are the transport costs? Of course here also, if you have a sensitivity connected to the diesel pricing, an increase of 5%, what does that mean for the profit? For the agri products. Because it has a negative connotation. The harvest, the summer harvest. Last year we had the record in terms of summer crops, so we can rely on figures similar to last year. There are important changes in the agricultural market in Romania. Maybe you read already in the press. They circulated a number that we mentioned was unsubstantiated in terms of number of traders on the grains market, turnover of over RON 100 million. Beyond their issues and problems and challenges, we are witnessing a reconfiguration of this market. By reducing their activity, multinational companies that ensure most of export via Constanta will have to address farmers directly. We have historical agreements, contracts in place with these grains traders and their direct activity in relation to farmers leads invariably to increase of overall tariffs. In the sense that they take the goods, and then they send the goods via Constanta or maybe via railway. They use it to reach Constanta. We also base ourselves on an internal reorganization. We are learning from the effects of low water levels we had last year. This in terms of summer grains and of course decrease of water levels. In this regard, we have a better strategy as compared to last year. If this strategy will work, we will actually reach these figures that we envisaged. Of course, something negative could happen. Beyond the possibility of us not behaving as desired, we could witness a distortion in terms of grains market volumes or a calamity could happen, a natural disaster could happen before harvest. Right now, of course, conditions are great. Water deficit is okay. We are actually in an oversaturation interval right now. Anything could happen. A lot of things, a lot of negative things could happen as has happened in the past. This could distort in a way our estimations. Downfall of the market, and right now in current conditions, nobody knows what could happen. A natural disaster in Romania, but also in other countries as well. In terms of fuel, yes, you are right. We are trying. We built a price as we did every year without disregarding current prices. It would be impossible to build a budget based on price estimations as per the current situation. Right now a huge part of our activity, blanket adjustment fees. We have clear formulas that we apply and they take over the fuel increase in revenues. It's a hedging tool that we have used efficiently up until now. We have spot activity for grains, for example. Today, the spot prices are adjusted to the current price of fuel when the offer is issued. Or, based on the transport and when it will be conducted. We had the budget price 750 EUR, and we have, of course, real actual prices for fuel. We have a tool that updates the price, of course. There are variations between what we estimate and what we actually collect. What I would like to add, we have undertaken preventive measures in terms of storage. Namely, we acquired volumes of fuel on the market immediately, of course, based on existing stocks and inventory, because the situation could have two effects. One effect would be the price, and we see it's a price hike, and then lack, overall lack of fuel. That's why we already started contracting and discussing with the purpose of diversifying our fuel offer in terms of potential suppliers, and some contracts with new suppliers have already been signed, and others are undergoing this process. Hopefully, we will have supply sources for Romania, for Constanta, for Bulgaria, for Serbia, and in Austria, we already have a good supplier in place contracted. This would be the overall situation. Can you explain this figure, EUR 750? It's a hedging, as you mentioned, 100% hedging. Whatever price hike can be transposed to the end client. By means of spot contracts and term contracts? Yes. To a certain extent, yes. Okay, I understand. In what concerns a market downfall, this you said that it could be a negative aspect. Is it correlated with what is going right now in the Middle East, their supply in terms of grains? Are there any disruptions that you estimate in this regard, or do you see them now? Do you have a better visibility in terms of these potential disruptions? Could this be a risk factor that we should take into account or that we can take into account? There are disruptions. Big disruptions, small disruptions. For example, our colleagues started the year at a high level in terms of supply based on contracts that they concluded last year for the Gulf countries. After two and a half exceptional months, they had to restructure their strategy because our contracts, for example, are long-term. Now they are trying to redirect towards ports to the Red Sea. Jordan has a port to the Red Sea, so they're safe right now. When discussing grains, I don't think that we didn't have volumes for the Gulf area. Yes, in Jordan, of course, because Jordan has ports to the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia, yes, towards the Red Sea. Right now, as Stefan also mentioned, there are no distortions in the logistic chain related to the Gulf situation, but we don't know what will happen because I have a report here from March 30 of the National Statistics Agency from the U.S. for agricultural aspects, and it's not encouraging. Their report says that for wheat, March 2026 compared to 2025, world's inventory increased by 5%, volume increased by 11%. This is a huge amount of volume in inventory. We don't have buyers due to price, funding, and so on. But an increase in terms of fuel price at a global level, of course, will thin financial resources of states that have to buy grains. Now we have to see if this thinning of cash flow will have an impact on sales in terms of grains overall. It's too soon. We don't see effects right now in terms of the Gulf situation. We see the fact that prices have started to grow on the world market as well, but this doesn't mean that a higher price means a higher risk or a higher buyer. This is the benefit of the seller. Right now we don't see disruptions or distortions in terms of goods flows. As long as the Suez Canal works, functions in normal conditions, as long as grains leaving Constanța towards EU ports are okay, things will go as planned. Beyond costs are a different category in terms of effects because ports actually consume fuel. Everyone, the entire logistics chain consumes fuel, but right now there is no distortion, significant distortion in. Two more questions about the Liberty. Is there reopening included in the budget? For the reopening from April? No, no, we didn't consider that. There is an extra raise there. We are working with them forever, and we had this auction, which was a failure. We wait for the second one. There are relatively positive aspects for the potential buyers. They want to reopen the production, but we don't have any declarations for that. You did not consider in Liberty? No, we did not consider this cost. Not in Alro either. Talking about the memorandum in Latin America, have you considered something from that side or in the budget? As figures, no, we did not consider. Historically speaking, we could estimate an increase of soybeans. The issue there is that there is genetically modified the harvest, and that contradicts the EU policies on that. We did not consider, but we might have a surprise to have an increase in traffic or from goods from Latin America. There are important quantities there. We do not work. We do not operate just accidentally with this storage needing goods. We can handle an increase in volumes, but we did not include it in the budget. In Liberty, if it will reopen, historically, what this will mean as an impact, we look at the statistics and the last year fully operational for Liberty, 2.5 million tons. Thank you. If Liberty starts at first of July, there's a process there. There are steps. We could see a start there. In 2022 I think 2021 was the last operational year for Liberty. 2.5 million was the difference between the two years. In the portfolio, of course, it had a huge impact on the volumes. Thank you very much. Mrs. Popov, what impact do you estimate about the increase of the fuel costs on the operations and results of the company? And can you transfer this increase to the clients? Mr. Paraschiv. Considering the budget for 2026, the main directions about management of expenses with third parties and consumables, what why do you believe that their dynamic will be under the turnover one, where can you correct it? At consumables, 85% are fuel costs and oils, of course. The difference, there are some parts, consumables and so on. Mr. Ene-Checheru. Mr. Paraschiv has started the other way around. Last year, we had a deterioration of the efficiency of the fuel use due to the water levels. When the draft is lower, of course, we distribute a lot less goods, volumes, and the result of this waiting is higher. If we have the water level beneath 20 to 20.1 meters for the vessels. This means an additional consumption of fuels which is not distributed. So we can have from that part. We estimated some acceptable navigation conditions, and this is where we had the expenses envisioned for consumables. We'll see how it goes. For the first 3 months, we also had depth in the waters. There were also low-level waters. About third parties, we have various categories. We have the repairing side for the cranes, for the shipyards, for the fleet, and some third parties at a low level. We have the insurers at a high level. Third parties in the port operating system is the biggest one. The costs are dependent on the volume transported. We have the channel, the administration, the survey, cleaning the barges in our activity. Although we estimate an equal activity to last year with some increases in river transport, we internalized some activities for the fleet from the subcontractors at Decebal. We want to internalize. A proper one with a long-term view will decrease our expenses starting this year. We have the subcontractors from this area, and we have an intersegment area, the TC and the group companies. In these difficult conditions, we prefer to pay a company within the group than to a third party. It's a more fair cash flow management operation with them. They're being used when our own resources are not enough. It's about renting equipment and teams when we're at full capacity. By increasing the asset base and the equipment base, the expenses tend to go down. We try to optimize also on the personnel side also. Of course, the productivity that comes from using the crane of last year. We have also the management organizing side, and we will have a second crane of 20 tons that will be operating this year. We have the equipment that are being rented in a lower amount in 2026. Of course, it's not about the operating subcontractors, but there is a mix there. Also from Mr. Paraschiv, can you comment on the investment budget and how adjustable it is if the situation deteriorates throughout the year? We considered for the investment budget continuing the main project, so that we're focusing also on efficiency and reducing the costs. It can be adjusted, considering the projects that are taking place in the second half of the year, somewhere after June. We realign the conditions in the market and with the implementation of this budget. Just a small comment here. When we worked on this budget, of course, investments are required, and we want to have them as at the highest level we can. We want to have a cash flow optimized, and we have this process, and we were very cautious in promoting investments that are not 100% needed nor financially sustainable. The total investment budget is well below the limit that we envisaged for this year. At the beginning of the summer, in the second half of the year, and the estimates we will have for the second half of the year, it is possible that we will adjust up or down the investment budget. We have Canopus on the way up. In May, it will be finalized, and there we have needed investments. There is something about Giurgiu, because Mr. Paraschiv was interested in Giurgiu. We envisioned everything that was needed to restart operating in Giurgiu port, and we performed that investment, and you know about that. That is planned to show the results in the next period. For Giurgiu, just a part of the amounts envisioned for the budget of this year come also from the ones from last year that were a bit deferred due to the situation of last year. Now we are conducting them. They were deferred not because we couldn't perform them, but because the access was provided via a January tender in Giurgiu, and we won that auction. We signed the agreement of renting, and we will start the investment that will start shortly. We don't have any other questions for now. Okay. Okay. Considering that there are no further questions, I hope we answered as many of them as we could. We are closing this video conference. Have a nice day, a nice weekend, and happy holidays. We will see each other at the beginning of June with the next video conference. Thank you.