Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you to Boliden's Q4 interim and year-end report 2020. My name is Olof Grenmark, and I'm Head of Investor Relations. Today, we will have a presentation led by our President and CEO, Mikael Staffas, and our CFO, Håkan Gabrielsson. There will be a Q&A session, and you also have the possibility to ask questions via the web, which I will see on the screen. We hope to have a good Q&A session as well. Mikael, the stage is yours. Welcome. Thank you, Olof, and welcome everybody to this show. I call it a show, maybe that was not the perfect word to use, but anyway, this presentation. We've had a very good quarter, and I think that you've all seen that, and it's of course a very big pleasure for me to stand here and present it. If you just jump into it straight, let's see if we get this one to work as well. We've had a very good quarter, and the quarter has been good in terms of prices and terms. That you all know, because prices and terms are well-known beforehand, and both the precious metal prices and the base metal prices are on very good levels. Even though we've had a somewhat headwind on currencies, when you mix this all together, it's still a very good price and term situation. We've done very well on the things that we can influence ourselves. We've had a very good production quarter, both in general in production, and we've also been able to take down some of our inventories and intermediary inventories, which means that our cash flow has also been very good. I will also come back and talk a little bit about our update in terms of reserves and resources, which we also feel is a strong message that we're sending out today. We also have a dividend proposal. The dividend proposal is right in line with our dividend policy. We have not changed that to any bit. We have 1/3 payout ratio in terms of ordinary dividends, and we also have an extra dividend when the cash situation is good enough or when the balance sheet situation is good enough, and that we do have, and we are proposing a redemption share scheme of an additional 6 SEK per share. On top of that, these two of the three projects that we have had a very big focus on during the year in Kevitsa and Garpenberg are now fully at capacity, especially Kevitsa has ramped up very nicely. Aitik is still ramping up a little bit due to COVID, a little bit due to other issues. We still have something more to deliver for the year going forward. On all other expansion projects we're doing right now, both the copper expansion in Rönnskär and the Harjavalta nickel expansion are on plan. Just look to the EBIT, well, we're over SEK 3 billion. We have, I think, one previous quarter back in history. You see it here. It was Q4 2017 when we were close to that level. Now we've passed the SEK 3 billion for the first time. The mines have had a very good quarter based on better grades and better volumes than we've had in the previous year. Smelter production has been very good. I would say that all of our smelters have performed very well across the board. If you look into the ESG, which is of course an important part first, we've had not such a very good development during the year as you will have known, who followed us. We've had an LTI frequency that's been too high. The LTI frequency is now down in Q4, so it's better than the previous year, and it's better than most quarters during 2020. The level is still too high, and we're working hard to get it down. The only thing that I can say in defense is that we have had another year of fatality-free operation, and you know that in our industrial areas, in our mines, we now have 13 years fatality-free operation. Sick leave is higher. 5.4 is much more than 4.4. This is very much COVID driven. Actually, the COVID effect is probably bigger than that one percentage point because of all the things that we did for COVID, the normal flus and colds that we all get in the northern climate in the winter has been less prevalent. COVID is an issue. I would still say that we've been quite successful. We've been able to operate more or less without any closures. Of course, the extra sick leave and precautions around that does take a toll, and it makes it a little bit more cumbersome. Overall, we've been able to produce well. If you look at one other metric that we use is the CO2 intensity. You all know that we have a CO2 target to reduce our CO2 intensity by 40% till 2030 compared to the base year 2012. The CO2 intensity is down well year-over-year, and we're working hard to achieve the goal of getting even better in terms of CO2 intensity. If you go now to prices and terms, here you can see quite clearly that the metal prices have gone up. You see that from the gray number on the top. You also see that the currencies have worked against us. When you mix them all together, you see on the bottom graph that we have the highest level that we've had since we started measuring this Boliden index, and probably the highest level that we've ever had. The Boliden index has been measured for about since 2009, and you will see in this graph that we are in a better level now than we were back in 2011. Very good prices and terms for us. That you can also see when you look at the actual prices. You can now see here that the zinc prices have well recovered and well come up. You can also see that the prices are with a pretty good margin above the cost levels in the industry on the 90th percentile. You can also see that it looks like the cost levels are coming down. We all know that that's a little bit inflated or a little bit the wrong numbers because that's actually just a sign that the silver prices are up as much as they are, and that becomes a by-credit to many zinc mines in the world, and it lowers the zinc mining cost. On copper, you can see that we are on a very high level, one of the highest levels that we have seen. You can also see that we even also here have a, what you can think is a very good cost improvement in the industry overall, but that's mainly due to the high gold prices that comes as a by-credit to copper mines. On nickel, we have now come up to levels that are actually pretty healthy after, as you can see, for many years, nickel prices were very low and very close to the cost curves. I think nickel mining is now becoming what we've always said it would be, a business where you make money if you do things well. If we then go over and look into the mines, we've had especially positive development in Kevitsa, where we have record production. That's of course in line with the investments we've done, very good the way that we've been able to scale that up. That's mainly seen in the bottom graph to the right with the increase in nickel production that's picking up with the increased throughput and also to some extent with the increased grades, although the grades are not as good as they were back in 2017 and 2018 when we had very high grades. Now we're more on average grades. Garpenberg, very stable production, not much to say, but of course, we should be very proud of that because Garpenberg delivers and delivers quarter after quarter and had a good production this time as well. Aitik is maybe the unit that we're a little bit not quite satisfied with. We're not quite there at the 45 million tons. We were more at the 42-million ton level. There are some winter issues. There are some COVID issues around here, and there are some other things, especially in the mine, where we're struggling to debottleneck it fully, but we're working on that. The grade in the quarter was right in line with what we had told everybody at around 0.25. The Boliden area, very strong production in Renström and Kankberg. Both of those mines have seen records. There are some challenges in Kristineberg and the Kristineberg mine. Overall, it's a strong production profile and a very strong gold production that comes out due to the ore mix. Tara has had some production challenges, partially related to COVID, partially related to the fact that this is an old mine that tends to get some breakdowns now and then. Overall, relatively good position. We did mine out Kylylahti during the quarter. The last ore went into the mill in December. We have now stopped the operations. We are in the process of decommissioning and after treating the mine that will be finished by the summer, and we're putting the mill into care and maintenance to have it ready for potential future exploration successes. If you move over to the smelters, well, the smelter's been a great quarter. We've had some minor planned maintenance that was also guided for. We had that in Rönnskär, and we had that in Kokkola. Apart from that, the production has been very good. Stable production in Rönnskär. Harjavalta, good production, also very good for us, a good feed mix where we can utilize the precious metal capacity in a very good way, which means that we have a very good gold production. We've also in the copper smelter managed to get down some of the intermediary inventories to lower levels. Kokkola and Oulu on the zinc side, also stable production across both lines. In Bergsöe, we've had during the year an issue with getting the raw material, the spent batteries into place. That situation has gotten better in the quarter. It was bigger problem earlier in the year, and it looks better going forward. The main reason why we're short on supply is partially due to COVID, but also due to the fact that last winter was, in the Scandinavian countries, a very mild winter, and then the lead-acid batteries survived for longer in the cars. This winter is a cold winter, and with all the normal logic, we should get much more supply into our system. When you look into the group for the whole year, we've now had way over SEK 8 billion, SEK 8.4 billion of EBIT. We have higher volumes across the board due to the expansions that we've done in Kevitsa, Aitik, and Garpenberg. We have a very good improved process stability in the smelters compared to previous years. We also had less extensive maintenance stops, which is part of the scheduling, the way that it works. We'll come back looking forward. You know that both 2019 was a very big maintenance year, and also 2021 will be a big maintenance year. We've had improved prices and terms, and we've had, I would say, good cost control, limited cost increases despite the increased volumes. If you look over to the mines, well, the mines for the full year, and here you see the numbers, have produced well in most of the places. You also see here now maybe for the first time that Tara has made a loss for the whole year. That's basically due to the first half of the year where you know that we had big production issues and also big COVID issues that has recovered over the year. Of course, Tara being a zinc mine with no silver credit is struggling when zinc TCs are on the level that they have been. Very happy with the performance of Kylylahti. That's performed very well all the way until the closure, and also very happy with the performance at the big mines. Moving over to the smelters, you can see that basically all smelters except Bergsöe have improved from last year. You can see that we have a small loss actually for the full year in Bergsöe. By that, I would say all related to the issues that we've had with the raw material supply during the year. In the other areas, you can see that Rönnskär is the one that is sticking out. Of course, part of this is that Rönnskär had a very big maintenance year last year. Also, the fact that Rönnskär has been able to increase volumes, and also been able to get a good and favorable feed mix, and also been able to utilize some of the internal intermediary products that we have in storage. When you use those, you get a good P&L effect. Let's move over to exploration. Exploration costs are down a little bit due to the year before, and that has to do mainly with COVID. We had to restrict the exploration activities during the year. The drift into Tara Deep is completed to about 75%. That one continues on well now during the first year. We've now started as we speak right now, we've started to do also some underground exploration drilling in Tara. All the exploration so far on Tara Deep has been done from surface. We've also introduced new partnerships during the year. These are no news to you. You heard this before with Norden Crown Metals in Norway and with Buchans Resources in Canada. You can also see the reserve life. This is now not comparing to last year, but it's comparing over 10 years, and I think it's important to take a look at these numbers. You can see that Boliden Area, after 10 years of hard mining, it's still a six-year mine. We have this year, as for many, many years before, done the usual trick that we've been able to extend the life of mine for one year for every year, and thus keeping it a six-year mine. The same is true as you can see in Tara. That is also a six, seven-year mine, and it's been so for the last 10 years, and we continue also this year to add one year. The mines have gotten longer, and we now have 30 years life of mine in both Aitik and in Garpenberg, also with the ramp-up in production. We've had successful exploration this year, but this is also due to the fact that generally speaking, when you have successful mines that make lots of money, there are marginal mineralization that become ore and that comes in, and that's why we've been able to extend the life of mine so well. The Kevitsa Mine we didn't have 10 years ago, so there's no good comparison. In the Kevitsa Mine, we have lost some volumes in terms of ore, which we're of course not happy about, but there's lots of good development in terms of resources. We're still very happy for the Kevitsa site going forward. If you just go through then the different areas, Aitik, we have a slight decrease in grade. It's basically a rounding issue, the 0.23 becomes 0.22 when we've been mining for many years above grade point average or grade average. In the long run, the average will go down. Then we have Nautanen. This is a new update. We haven't updated Nautanen. We've done a really good study for Nautanen for four years. It has now increased another 5 million tons at good grades. Nautanen is an interesting satellite that we're looking into from the Aitik point of view. In Garpenberg, we have now extended up to 2050. By the way, I didn't say that for Aitik is also extended to 2050. Garpenberg is extended to 2050. It comes a little bit at a cost of the zinc grades, and also to some extent the silver grades. These changes are many years out, and in the short term, they will not have much of effect. In Kevitsa, we have still then to 2033 in terms of life of mine with reserves. The grades on nickel are down a little bit, which is due to that we have had to redo the modeling there, coming down a little bit, but we still feel relatively good around this. Tara, the new reserves now covering full production in the old mine till 2027, which is good for us as an extra year compared to what we said last year. We're very happy with the Tara Deep going from 22 million-26 million tons. The grade is going up as we continue to explore down into the Tara Deep, which we are also very happy about. As I said before, we have not even started yet to do exploration from underground. This is all surface exploration on a target that is between 1,200 and 1,900 meters deep, which has its own technical challenges. The Boliden Area, as I said, has also been able to extend one more year from 2026 to 2027, or we've done the normal trick of extending life of mine for one year. What it doesn't say here, but those of you who read the details will also see that the update on the Rävliden project also looks good. We've got increased tonnage on Rävliden also at good grades. If we then take a look into the financial summary, and I will ask Håkan to come in and take that for us. Thank you, Mikael. Good morning. As Mikael said, it's a pleasure to talk about a good quarter. As you can see on this slide and as you've seen what we've released, we've got an EBIT excluding process inventory that exceeds SEK 3 billion, and that is actually the first time. Above all, that is due to good production, but we've also been helped by good metal prices. Moving on to the next line, investments SEK 1.7. That is perhaps a bit lower than some expected. Looking at the full year, that adds up to SEK 6.3 billion. Last quarter, we talked about a bit below SEK 7 billion for the full year, and we also highlighted some uncertainty due to COVID. We are lower than that number, and that is primarily due to lower stripping in the open pit mines. When we have had challenges due to COVID, we have prioritized ore, which means then that we spend a bit less on CapEx. Cash flow also, that is a very good number, SEK 2,750. Clearly above the comparison periods. I'll come back to that in a while on a separate slide. Moving in by business areas. As you can see, it's a second consecutive very strong quarter for mines at close to SEK 1.9 billion. Also smelters very strong, coming out of maintenance a bit and up to the same level as we saw in Q1, SEK 1.1 billion. Other elimination at a positive SEK 76. We have been able to process intermediate stocks to reduce inventories. We also had a situation with Aitik not achieving the 45 million ton pace, and the smelters having a very good production. We ended up with inventories at a quite low level, and that translates to a positive number here. Looking a bit more into details about the development of EBIT compared to Q4 of last year. As you can see, we've increased the profit by about SEK 1.3 billion. We have been helped by better prices, about half a billion SEK, but the main thing here is of course higher volumes. Overall, as Mikael talked about, we have had a stable production across all or most sites. Grades have been higher in mines. That adds about half a billion SEK to that number. We've also had a situation in smelters where we had a good feed mix, and we've been able to process material with a high precious metal content, and together with good recoveries, that adds up to a good contribution to the P&L. Finally, we have reduced inventories, and that is visible in both business area results and then also in the internal profit elimination. On the cost sides, we are a bit up compared to the same quarter last year. We have a normal inflation in the personnel costs. We also have some higher variable cost in smelters due to the high production, that is consumables, transports, and so on. Then we have slightly higher cost for ore production in mines. As I said earlier, we have prioritized ore ahead of stripping and waste rock when we have seen challenges due to COVID. That means all things like that means a bit higher cost and a bit lower CapEx. Finally, we have depreciated stripping costs at a higher rate compared to last year, and that's related to the metal production. That is in line with normal accounting principles and so on. If we make a sequential comparison, Q4 compared to Q3, again, numbers are a bit smaller since it is a shorter time span, slightly up on prices, but a good addition in volumes. Again, higher grades in mines, less maintenance, and a very good feed mix in smelters. As you recall, in Q3, we had a slight negative impact due to a negative feed mix, that's come out to the opposite in this quarter. Reduced inventories also works in this slide. Cost-wise, we have a seasonal change. We usually say that we add about SEK 150 million between Q3 and Q4, that happens this year as well. On top of that, we have had a bit higher variable cost above all in mines. Looking at the cash flow. I think we've covered the earnings, and we've covered the investments. We were able to release SEK 400 million from working capital. In this quarter, we've had increasing prices, so if you adjust to the underlying volume change, that release is actually a bit bigger than it might appear on this slide. We have been talking a while about adding extra working capital to handle potential disruptions due to COVID. That extra capital is now out. We are at inventory levels both for concentrate and finished metal that are below where we were one year earlier, and we're also below our target level. This, I would say, came out probably a bit better than we anticipated when we stood here last quarter. Adding up to a strong SEK 2.7 billion CapEx number, or sorry, cash flow number. That of course translates into a strong balance sheet We've got capital employed of SEK 51 billion and a net debt of just over SEK 2 billion. That translates into a financial net debt to equity, a financial gearing number of 5%, the net reclamation liability is an additional 5% of equity. Interest rates have been coming up a bit, that's mainly due to the strong cash flow where we have repaid some short-term loans with the lower interest rates. This reflects our long-term lending rate at this time. Net payment capacity close to SEK 13 billion, really a robust financing and a strong balance sheet. A final comment for those of you that are modeling our result, and in particular, the process inventory. We have increased the process inventory with 1,500 tons in copper, that is related to the expansion in Harjavalta above all. This is then the inventory that we do not hedge, so that will be valued at each quarter according to market prices. For those modeling, you'll have the numbers here. With that, I hand over to Mikael again. Thank you. Thank you, Håkan. Just a quick comment on Laver. Those of you who read the Swedish newspaper, and maybe some of the international will have heard this already. We got the news on December 23rd that the Laver appeal that we had done to the government was rejected. I.e., we would not get the mining license or the mining concession the way we thought. This is of course lots of politics going around this. It says here on the chart that we intend to request judicial review. We actually have requested it yesterday, so we have requested judicial review with the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden around that, and it's a legal question about how to handle Natura 2000 permits in the mining licensing process, and where that should be done. This is of course a setback. This will push the Laver project out by a few years. It's a little bit unclear exactly how long. We're continuing to working with the project and see how we can develop it forward. Hopefully we'll get the right decision from the court. Even if we don't, we will then try to see whether we can get it permitted in some other way. Now, this one says process inventory. That's not what I wanted to say. I want to talk about this. Just for everybody's information, we have applied for membership to the ICMM. Many of you who listen to this know what the ICMM is. We are expecting to become a member sometime during the first half of the year. With that, we of course undertake to follow ICMM principle and guidelines, including their new guidelines on tailing standards. I shouldn't say that it's totally easy because there's always something new to learn, but we have not had a big issue to fulfill the guidelines of ICMM, and we look forward to joining, not just to have a seal that we are also following the guidelines of ICMM, but also to be able to be part of the group and be able to influence their decisions going forward as we will say, and to be able to excel and even further strengthening the sustainability work in the mining industry. Outlook going forward. There is nothing really new in this one either. We told you over the last quarter that the grades in Aitik will come down. What I should maybe stress a little bit clear is that sometimes you might think when it goes down, it will come gradually over the year. That's actually not the case because we have now more or less mined out the pushback and the sixth that have been our, if you want to say, is that the golden pushback that's been able to keep the grades up. Thus we're remaining with the other three pushbacks that we're working on which have lower grades. The grades will be pretty abruptly lower than the 0.25 you saw in Q4, and we will get to the 0.21 very soon. It's actually even so that we will probably have lower grades in Q1 compared to the 0.21 as well, and the 0.11 gold. In Garpenberg, I think this is fully in line with both what we had in 2020 and what we have guided for before with the 3.8% in zinc and 110 for silver. The maintenance stops are at 550 for this year compared to 375 for last year, and I think that's also in line with what we said before. The CapEx is slightly above SEK 7 billion, also in line with what we've said before. With that, I've been told by Olof I need to make a little bit of a commercial for those of you who are around this table who have yet not decided whether you're going to attend our capital market day on March 17. It's going to be a great day. We still intend to have it live in Stockholm for those who can attend, and we will have it electronically for everybody else. We of course, we're very closely monitoring what happens with the COVID and the COVID development. Our plan B is that it will be a fully electronic event. We will have the event at any rate, but we will keep you all updated, and the ambition is that we will be able to also have it physically for those who can attend. With that, for those of you who haven't seen that before, I'll just remind you on this slide, we have upgraded and updated our purpose, our vision, and our values during the year. This is what we're working with internally. This is what you'll see when you start talking about our website. We have made very clear that the purpose of Boliden as a company is to provide the metals essential to improve society for generations to come. Our vision is to be the most climate friendly and respected metal provider in the world. Our values are care, courage, and responsibility. We're actually very proud of this as well. We've managed to get these words down. It's not done by a top-down approach. This is very much a bottom-up. We had initiated a process already late 2019, and we had come a little bit on our way when COVID hit, and of course, having these kind of workshops where people that everybody should feel good about the purpose, the vision, and the values is quite difficult when you get into COVID. We managed to keep this process going with all the means that we had, and we launched this in the fall, and another thing that I'm very happy that we managed to do during the year. Now, with that, I will leave it to you, Olof, to take care of our Q&A session. Thank you very much, Mikael. Ladies and gentlemen, that open ups our Q&A session this time. Let me please remind you that besides asking questions over the phone, you now have the possibility to ask questions via the web, which I will then take care of via the screen at the end of the session. Operator, please let's start the Q&A session. Our first question comes from the line of Gustav Sjödin from Handelsbanken. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you very much. A couple of questions from my side. Firstly, on the IT production issues you had during the quarter, if you could indicate sort of ballpark effect on the negative effect on throughput and how we should view Q1 as well with the weather and everything in Sweden at the moment. I'll take them one by one. Thanks. Well, it's always difficult to separate what is COVID, what is winter, what is other things that happen. I can clearly tell you that the 10.5 million tons that we had is below what were our own expectation and below what we had guided for. Regarding Q1, the guidance is still for SEK 45 for the year, it is winter is always tricky, COVID has not eased yet, I will not say anything more than that. Okay. Secondly, on the Garpenberg throughput, exactly at the environmental permit now for 2020. If we look at the run rate you had in Q2 and Q3, both of those are about 3 million. Of course, you had the maintenance in Q4, but how much are you holding this back, simply because you want to avoid the penalties? How much could you increase the sort of investments if you get the new permit for 3.5? Well, just so everybody know, we have applied for a new permit for three and a half. That will probably take a while until we get it, but we're hopeful we will get it. Yes, if we get the permit, we will use that to be able to increase production at some stages, but we're not there quite yet. You are absolutely right, as somebody who does look at the numbers, we did hit the permit. Just for everybody's sake, it's not a question of a fine to go over the permit, it's just simply not an issue. If we were to be ahead of the permit and we come December 15, we will have a closure for two weeks. It is not even possible to go above the permit. Great. Lastly, on the Liikavaara project, just if you can mention what the latest is on the timeline there. Well, we did have the hearing in the court, the lower environmental court in Sweden two weeks ago. We are expecting to get that ruling maybe in April, and then we'll have to take it from there. We'll see what the ruling says and if it will get appealed or not to take the next steps. We still have an ambition to get it into production in 2023, but that could be delayed if it's appealed or if it's not approved the way that we want it to be approved. Okay. Thank you, Mikael. Our next question comes from the line of Luke Nelson from J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just on CapEx for 2021, and in the context of Q4 CapEx obviously being below probably the expectations even at the Q3, can you just give an indication of maybe how much of the delta from Q4 underspend will be pushed into your prior expectations for 2021 CapEx? That's my first question. Yeah. As you would have seen, we have not changed our guidance for the 2021 CapEx. You're right that we are below, and the reason why we're below in Q4 and also you can say a little below for the whole year, is that we have not been able to keep the stripping up in both of our mines, big open pit mines. The reason why we've not increased the guiding for next year, or for this year, I should say, is that we don't expect to be able to strip more than we had originally planned for this year. We will not do additional stripping. Of course, down the line somewhere, we'll have to catch up. These are stripping-intensive years, and we simply do not have the capacity to strip more than we already had in the plans, and thus, we have not foreseen any extra CapEx. Okay. That's very clear. Thank you. Secondly, maybe one for Håkan, just on the earnings waterfall. Can you just give an indication from the pricing element how much of that was an effect from provisional pricing relative to underlying strength in headline pricing? Okay. I'll do that. I just like to be clear what I include in the numbers I mention. Provisional pricing, or Mark-to-market, as we sometimes call it, what I refer to then is the open positions in the beginning of the quarter that has been set to final prices during the quarter, and that is a fairly low amount. It's about SEK 25 million plus. Of course, there's always a difference between average prices and the realized prices. We're a bit skewed to the later part of the quarter, always with the provisional pricing model. SEK 25 is the real revaluation, so to speak, in the results. Okay, great. My last question is just a clarification on Aitik grade, and your comment at the end, Mikael, on the step change lower to 0.21. I think you mentioned it could be below 0.21 in Q1. Could I just confirm that's what you said? It was a bit unclear. That is what I said. Great. Thanks a lot. The next question comes from the line o Viktor Trollsten from DNB. Please go ahead. Yes. Good morning, Mikael and Håkan. Two questions from my side. Just firstly, on cost inflation, the way I see it, at least it seems that costs are coming up quite a bit in Q4 year-over-year. Could you just talk a bit more about what has been driving that? I haven't been along for so far, but with reference to 2018, we talked about higher external material prices and stuff like that. Are you seeing sort of the same trend now, or how should we think about that going forward? I can take that. It's a few things in there. If we begin with the easy part, perhaps, we do have normal salary revisions and so on. That is about 1/3 of the increase. There is an element in there as well, which is regarding variable pay. We have a profit-sharing program in the group. As we've seen stronger prices in the end of the year, we've increased the resource in our books for that. That's one thing, a regular inflation, let's say about 2% on the salary side. Inflation in the material that we procure, the external material is more or less non-existent. We don't see much inflation there. What we do see on the smelting side is that we have produced more, and we have more volumes of variable costs. We have more consumables, we have more transport services, and so on. Then the final part that has an impact on the cost is the fact that we prioritized ore production. Just to give an overview of that, we have our resources, we have our personnel, we have our trucks, et cetera. Normally we deploy those resources to produce ore, which means OpEx, and we produce waste rock, which means CapEx. As we have not always been able to keep up the efficiency due to COVID, we have prioritized the ore production, and that means that we charge a bigger part of our total base to the cost side, so to speak. We spent more of our resources to produce ore. That is not an inflation as such. Those three, I think, are the main changes Q4 to Q4. I think it's about a third each. Okay. No, that's very clear, and maybe you answered my second question there. Just in terms of OpEx per ton of ore milled, maybe focusing on Aitik, at least the way I look at it, OpEx per ton is up 8% at Aitik, which is significantly more compared to Kiruna and Garpenberg and other key mines. Is lower stripping the main reason for that, or is it something else in particularly Aitik? I think stripping is an important part. The main thing is that we have not reached the 45 million ton pace. That is due to COVID. That is due to winter. For those reasons, we've been spending more resources in ore and less in CapEx. I see that as a temporary increase, but that is a correct observation for Q4. Okay. Just finally on my side, in terms of working capital, at least in my view, very impressive management this quarter. Just how should we think about that going forward? As you mentioned, the levels are below maybe what you were looking for, also prices are also increasing quarter-over-quarter. Should that have a negative effect on revaluation of inventories? Well, if you look at the cash flow and the working capital release, we typically are at fairly low levels seasonally at the end of Q4, and that is the case also this year. Q4 is below average for each normal year, and this year we're actually lower than what we were at the last year end. What we typically see is that it bounces back to some extent in Q1. I think my expectation is that Q1 will not be as strong in cash flow. That's a typical seasonal pattern. If you're modeling, I guess the tricky part is to keep track of the price developments because that has a big impact as well. I should also mention that we have a diesel tax impact on the cost side that I forgot to mention that we talked about some time back. Okay. No, thank you very much. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Christian Kopfer from Nordea. Please go ahead. Thanks, operator. Good morning, everyone. Just to follow up on Livebrant. Just trying to understand a little bit what your options are here. Is it possible for you to just align with the, call it government decision here, and work with a Natura 2000 permit? If so, how much would that cost, approximately? The answer is yes, Christian, we can align and do a Natura 2000. There are, of course, a couple of buts, and that's why we are not doing it quite yet. The first but is just to be clear, you do a Natura 2000 impact assessment with the kind of installation that you're planning to build. The problem for us and for anybody at this stage of any kind of project is that we don't know what installation we're going to build. We don't know exactly how big the mine will be. We don't exactly know where we're going to put the waste rocks. We don't know exactly how we would use the tailings facility. We cannot do it. It's physically impossible. What we can do is that we can invent. We can say that, "If you potentially were to do it this way, then these will be the impacts." That we could theoretically do. That would cost money, it would cost time, and it would set a precedent that we don't like, because in the end of the day, which is fully fair, we should have a full environmental impact assessment of the actual facility they want to build. That's what you always have when you're doing the environmental permit. The question is, yes, we could do it. Yes, we could do a, what do you call it, fake impact assessment or an assessment of a mine that we will build differently. You all understand that this has some other implication, because we will be criticized at some stage for having changed our mind. Why is it different the second time from the first time? Don't you know what you're doing? All these other issues. That's why we are challenging the legality. Right. Okay. Thanks for that, Mikael. Just to follow up on that, how long would it, in theory, take, and how much money is it for you? It would maybe take a year or two and maybe cost SEK 50 million or something like that, just to put an order of magnitude. Right. Okay, thanks. On the electrification projects that you have, I think, ongoing in Aitik and Kevitsa. Sorry if you already talked about it, how are those progressing, and when should we start to see no impact? I guess it's start to be more important now because oil prices have come back, and that should take down your. Yes cost per ton. Without going into details, I would say that the Aitik part is doing quite well and is going forward according to plan. The Kevitsa part is actually behind the original time schedule that we did. It is, you can say, COVID impacted. We have decided not to start the actual developments on the electrification in Kevitsa, and we postponed that a few quarters to get the COVID situation under control before we start it. Right. Maybe finally, it's a very small part of your asset base, but just wondering, Bergsöe, it seems it's running at negative free cash flows now. Just wonder if you had any specific plans to take that back to profitability here. Well, yes, we do have plans. We have actually already implemented some cost savings there. In the end of the day, cost savings will not turn around. What will turn around is the prices and terms, which for Bergsöe have been very bad, A, because of the lack of feed, lack of the quality of feed that you want, and also when there's lack of feed, of course, the people that sell the used batteries are using that as a way to also increase their margins and reduce the smelters margin. It's been a very tough year commercially. Our sense is that all the competitors in this market have had an equally tough or even tougher year, although it might be difficult to see that yet because they're not public in the same way as we are. We can say that in Q4, and also looking right now, as we stand now, it look much better. The cold winter is something that we like. People have to change their batteries more often in their cars. Right. Okay. Thank you very much. The next question comes from the line of Oskar Lindström from Danske Bank. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning, gentlemen. I have two questions. The first one is on the smelters, which have performed very well for quite some time, and you've had an improving performance throughout this year, and per my calculations, I think it was the highest ROCE ever, adjusted for maintenance now in the fourth quarter, at least in the past 10 years. You say that internal intermediate products impacted the or boosted the result in the fourth quarter. What was this impact, and how much of these intermediate products is left? I think you also talked a little bit about the better feed mix, and I was wondering how sustainable is that going forward? I can take some principles. Håkan gets to get through the numbers. Generally speaking, we always produce intermediate products. When you have challenges, especially as we did during say 2017 and 2018 and so on, you tend to build up a higher level of internal products, i.e., products that have gone through some stage of the production, but they haven't gone all the way through. At these situations, you tend to be conservative in terms of how you value those intermediary products for different reasons. It could be that you had some technical challenge, and you weren't really sure exactly how you're going to treat them. You sort that out, and then you can treat them. There tend to be, I would say, a healthy conservatism around how you count the value for intermediate products. At certain times, things go very well, and they have done right now, and then you have better confidence that you can feed some of these intermediate products into the mix, and that's always good financially. That's, of course, a trick that you can't do all the time. You could do it sometimes, and Håkan will get back to the numbers. Now, I would say then, regarding the mix of concentrates, that's been favorable during the quarter, and hopefully we can keep that going, but that's a constant commercial discussion about what to get. For us, favorable has meant that we've been able to get material that contain more precious metals. We do have precious metal capacity, and when we get material with more precious metals, we tend to make more money of them compared to materials with less precious metals. Now, this is not a universal truth because the people who sell the material also want to get charged for the content of precious metals because they know that there's a value to us. We have better capabilities in this than many of our competitors, and thus it becomes very attractive to us. Now Håkan can do numbers. Some numbers. As you've seen by the profit bridge, we're about SEK 300 million, SEK 400 million up in volumes in smelters, depending on which quarter you compare to. If we start with the feed mix, what we have there is precious metal-rich materials. We have had higher revenues for gold, platinum, palladium, and so on. If we use the Q3 as a baseline, we talked then about having a slight negative impact of feed mix, we talked about a negative impact of below SEK 100 million, somewhere in that range. I think that has translated to a positive impact of about SEK 150 in this quarter. There you get the order of magnitude, of course we are constantly working to extend that, to continue with that, our commercial team. I guess it would always be a bit prudent to model that. When it comes to the intermediates, I'd say it's the same order of magnitude. Let's say that we talk about SEK 100 million or something in that range. All right. Thank you. That's great. I just wanted to follow up also on Christian's question about the electrification program. Will this have any meaningful impact on OpEx in mines in the coming years? You said it was a little bit delayed, or should we more see it as something that offsets future higher fuel prices? It offsets higher fuel prices going forward, but there is a saving because, of course, electricity is cheaper than having fuels, especially with the diesel taxes that we do pay in Sweden. It does have an effect. I'm not on top of the number. Are you on top of the number? I'd like to refer back to the original press release. There are details there on how much fuel we'll save, then, of course, the payback largely depends on what you assume for electricity prices and what you assume for long-term diesel prices. Then, of course, we also have a diesel tax that's in, I think, about SEK 100 million per year, right? Which will be impacted by this. I don't have the exact number at the top of my head. All right. No change in the rollout of the program compared to- Apart from that- That question. As I said, we're slightly late in Kevitsa because of COVID, but otherwise it's still the same ambition. Otherwise not. It's not a big secret. We do have ambitions to continue after that. This is not the end of the road. This is not fully implemented, but we are not there yet to talk to you about exactly how we would like to take it further. Right. All right. Super. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. Three questions from me. First one probably for Håkan, just on the numbers. If I look at the smelter bridge, it looks like there was a pretty positive or a big positive volume impact in Q4. Was that related to higher sales over production and therefore is one-off type in nature, or is that a sustainable improvement as we look into 2021? That's question one. Question two and three, more on projects and growth. On Odda and Tara Deep, can you just give us a bit more color in terms of the potential timelines there, in terms of approval? Third question, just looking at your balance sheet, it's very strong at the moment. Can you comment on organic opportunities? Do you expect to focus primarily on internal or are you actively on the lookout for assets? Thank you. I can start from the end so Håkan gets a few minutes to think about how to answer the first one. Regarding an M&A, it's a very simple question or a very simple answer, I should say, is that yes, we're always looking at things, and if we find something that's attractive, we're willing to do it, but it's not our primary strategy. Our primary strategy is to develop the assets that we do have already or develop other assets from scratch that tends to be much more financially attractive. That's the standard one. Regarding the projects you mentioned, Odda is, I would say the main part there is we're waiting for is the permit. Just those of you who speak Norwegian, you can read about this. To some extent, we have a permit, but we don't have all the details of the permit. We expect all the details of the permit to be figured out sometimes during the first half of the year. Then, as you know, with all these kind of projects, that is only once you really have a date that you can aim for, that you can get all the suppliers lined up, and you can make sure that you have a good cost estimate for everything. Some of these things, you always have to make sure that you have a, even not just an estimate, but you even have a contract before you go live, because that's the only time you have a good leverage to negotiate with the supplier. You can't negotiate after you've said you're going to do it. All this is expected to happen during the first half of the year, and we hopefully that we will be able to come to some kind of decision in the summer. Regarding Tara Deep, it's a much longer timeline. We've said many times that around 2023 or probably most 2024 is the time that we will have to make a decision on Tara Deep. That is in line with, as you already seen, that the existing Tara Mine is likely to be until 2027 or even beyond that. That still gives us enough time to get Tara Deep in place to take over as original Tara Mine depletes. We want to use as much of that time to really get all the exploration going. Now we went from 22 to 26 million tonnes. That's only surface drilling. Now we're going to be able to finally get to do underground drilling. We are quite hopeful. This thing is open in every direction, it's going to make a big difference how we will plan the mine and how we do it if it is, say, 30 million, if, say, it stops at 26 or 30 million, or whether it's 50 or whether it's 70 or whether it's 100. That makes a big difference, we do not know. The only thing we know is open in many directions. Okay. That's perfect. Could I just briefly follow up? I'll take the follow-up on that before then Håkan gets a go. Yeah, it was actually just on Odda. Just in terms of the CMD in March, will you be in a position to give us some more detailed numbers around the project, or are we going to have to wait until the approval point around the summer or later? We said that we're going to try to provide some more flavor around it. It might not be that you will get what you really want, which is a CapEx number, because we will wait until we have it. We're going to explain what the project is more in detail, because I think what we said many times, but many people have not understood quite thoroughly, is that, yes, this is an expansion, but it's not really an expansion. It's a total revamp we're talking about. It's totally different yields that we would have going forward. We'll be able to recover things that we don't recover today, et cetera. Those are things that we'll talk about more in March. Now I leave it over to Håkan. Thank you. Okay, the question was how much of the volume increase in smelter is sustainable over time. If we start with Q3 to Q4, we've added SEK 300 million profit due to higher volumes. Now, there is one element in there, which is lower maintenance. We had a little bit more maintenance stops in Q3. Of course, that is sustainable because we don't have maintenance all quarters. We talked about a favorable feed mix with more precious metals, higher free metals from gold, palladium, and so on. That is something that we always try to achieve. I cannot say that it's impossible to sustain that for another quarter or so. Typically, when we are extremely successful in one quarter, I think it's going to be a tough challenge to reach this level of feed mix going forward. Not impossible, but a good challenge. I think a little bit the same for the intermediates. There are more intermediates that we can process. We feel that we've been very successful in this quarter, and not technically impossible to repeat, but it's not going to happen every quarter for sure. Okay. Next in line. That's quite clear. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Ioannis Masvoulas from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning. Thanks for the presentations. Three questions from my side. The first on the Aitik grade profile. How does this change with and without Liikavaara? Can you talk about the associated CapEx if you were to develop that satellite deposit? Second question, you mentioned the normalization of working capital at the end of Q4. Can you remind us how much exposure you now have to spot and zinc and copper TCs in today's environment where we've seen much lower spot terms? Lastly, apologies if you have already mentioned it, what's the latest update on the Kevitsa grade profile for 2021? Thank you. Let's start with Kevitsa. We didn't say anything about Kevitsa, which means that if we don't say anything, you should work around the average grades, which means that we will not be materially off the average grades for 2021. If we talk about the Liikavaara. Liikavaara is, as I said, if we're lucky, we'll have it in production in 2023, so Liikavaara will not affect anything in 2021 or 2022. The years after that, it's of course a bit difficult to comment because there are lots of things that are moving, but the Liikavaara average grade is higher than the average grade in the rest of Aitik, so it does help the situation, say in 2024, 2025, 2026, that we get that as part of the mix. I don't know if I answered your question. In terms of investment, I would say that yes, there are investments. The main investments are, in that particular case, mainly into stripping, which we have all the time. It's not a massive investment. We'll come back with a number once it's clear and once we have the environmental permit. The way that we right now envision mining Liikavaara, it will be able to utilize the investments already done in Aitik in terms of taking care of the sulfur-containing waste rock and other things in a relatively CapEx-efficient way. Put it that way. The last one was about. TCs TCs and working capital spot and benchmark. Should I take it? You can take that. Well, first, we have normalized the working capital, so if anything, it is lower than average at this point. Our exposure to spot is about 10%, 15%, somewhere there. Understood. Just to follow up on Liikavaara. Is it fair to assume that if you get a permit, you could be closer to reserve grade for Aitik by 2023, assuming it's up and running by beginning of 2023? We haven't really guided for the grades around that. I will say that assuming we get it, we will be in a better situation. On the other hand, I think I said that many times, we've been for, I think, five, six, seven years above average, and these cycles are relatively long, and we are going to be below average for a while. Exactly how that will impact, we will take at some other time. Okay, understood. Thank you very much. Okay. Go ahead. Next. The next question comes from the line of Daniel Major from UBS. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks. Two questions. First question, when do you expect to approve the Rävliden mine expansion in the Boliden area? Does this offer upside risk to the CapEx guidance you provided for 2020? That's the question. You mean 2021, I suppose. 2021, yeah. Rävliden is a good question. My ambition is still that we will get a go-ahead for Rävliden in the first half of the year. It's been slightly delayed. I think I might even have spoken to some of you that I would have hoped to be able to announce it now, but I am not. It has been slightly delayed. In terms of CapEx in 2021, it will have a very limited impact. I think that any CapEx related to Rävliden will be more in 2022. That should not impact too much. Okay, thanks. Just quick follow-up on that. Am I right, the CapEx for that's about SEK 1.5 billion? No. Well, number one, we haven't guided, but I've said to people, and it's not a big thing, that we can do Rävliden in two different ways. We can do it with high CapEx, low OpEx, and we can do a low CapEx and a high OpEx because we haven't yet decided on exactly how to design the mine. That has to do with what kind of infrastructure we put in there. As you know, the Kristineberg mine, as such, has not been able to afford big CapEx for many, many years, and thus has become a very high OpEx mine, which is unfortunate. The way that we continue to find more and more ore has made it this decision back in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s that were very rational when they were made, has, over time, become irrational. I said many times that I want to make sure that we develop this product as much as possible so that we can motivate high CapEx, because that will, in the long run, be, I'm certain, the best thing to do. As you can kind of feel from my answer, we haven't really figured that out yet exactly how that will be best done, and thus the amount of CapEx is unclear. SEK 1.5 billion is a potential number. That will be, by the way, on the high side. That's related to kind of the high CapEx option. Right. Okay, cool. Thanks. Second question on tax. The cash tax was kind of in line or slightly below the P&L tax. I think you guided for SEK 200 million release or higher cash tax versus P&L tax in the quarter. Where are we with that? Do you expect cash tax to be higher than P&L tax in Q1 or in 2021 as a whole? I expect there is a bit of delay there. There's always a timing thing, so I do expect a slightly higher tax in Q1. Okay, thanks. Operator, time is running out. I think we have time for one more question over the phone, then I'd like to conclude by one question from the web. We have got many questions over the web, I have one question from the web as well. One more questions over the phone, operator, please. Thank you. The last question comes from the line of Tyler Broda from RBC. Please go ahead. Great. [Sam], thanks very much. Two questions from me. The first one is just on the CapEx in terms of the spending happening at the open pit mines. They were lower in Q4, which can't catch up this year. I guess, just in terms of the I just would like, if possible, some more color perhaps on the underlying flexibility in terms of the mines from here, especially if we are to see further constraints on that stripping over the course of 2021. Secondly, just to follow up to Ioannis question, I guess, just in terms of the current situation for the TC market with spot as low as it is, could you just give a bit more color on where you expect things perhaps to come out? Thank you. Okay. If I take the first one, this is, of course, a very good question, which is a little bit difficult to answer. Is the fact that we have been stripping less than we said we'd strip, is that going to reduce our flexibility on how to do things in Aitik? The answer is yes, it is reducing. It is less than we would like it to be. Is it critical? No, it's not. We came from a situation where we had a relatively good flexibility, but of course, this cannot continue. As you continue to walk down this path, you will come to a dead end. We need to continue to strip well in advance so that we do have flexibility, especially if odd things happen and whatever it could be, we need to have more flexibility. I would say short-term, it's not a big issue. We started from a relatively good point of view. The other one is on TCs, and I suppose you're talking about zinc TCs, where the spot is quite different from the benchmark. As you know, we are not at this table. We are, in this case, very much of a price taker or TC takers. We don't know. It's of course obvious that the benchmark will come down. It will not remain at the 300 or 299. By how much it will come off, I don't know. It's going to be an interesting discussion to be at those tables. As I said, that we are not. No, that's great. Thanks very much. Okay. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our Q&A over the phone session. For those of you who didn't have the chance to ask questions, please come back to us. You have the contact details at our homepage. The final question over the web is to Mr. Staffas, and it's from a gentleman called Anthony Livebrant. The question is, what is your view on the metal prices development going forward? That's a very good question, and of course, almost impossible to answer, and whatever you think is going to be the opposite. I cannot really answer that in any way that we do publish. We published last year, and you will see our annual report in a few weeks out where we do publish what our long-term prices are. They are not in any way differing from what you will find at many other of our competitors or at financial analysts predicting future metal prices. That's saying one thing, and that's of course what it is. Having said that, in the shorter term, it looks good. Everybody knows that base metals are needed for the transition away from the fossil economy into the non-fossil economy or renewable economy, and mines don't open very fast. On top of that, COVID has some supply issues coming out. I think that especially on copper, but also on the other base metals, it's a relatively good place to be as a supplier right now. Just as I say that, of course, it will go the other way around. That's what always happens. Okay, Mr. Staffas, please conclude this session. Well, thank you all. It's been, as I said, a very great quarter for us. It's much more pleasant to stand here a day like this than it is some other days. It's been a great quarter. It is a great company. Thank you all.