Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the SSAB Update Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there'll be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Per Hillström. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you, and welcome. Good morning, and welcome to this update from SSAB. My name is Per Hillström. I'm head of investor relations, and with me here is our president and CEO, Martin Lindqvist. The reason for this is, of course, the decision today, where we have decided now to proceed with the mini mill in Luleå. And again, the plan will be that Martin will make a short introduction, and then we will open up for questions. So please, Martin. Thank you, Per, and good morning. And I must say that I'm extremely happy and proud today that we are now announcing that we continue with our transformation with the fossil-free mini mill up in Luleå, Sweden. The new mini mill will have a capacity of 2.5 million tons per year, and it will consist of two electric arc furnaces, an advanced secondary metallurgy, a direct strip rolling mill to produce, among other things, SSAB's specialty products, and a cold rolling mill complex to serve the mobility segment, automotive and heavy transport. So we will have a much more broader offering of core premium products. The total mini mill investment is estimated to be EUR 4.5 billion, including contingency. And by investing in this new technology, we are avoiding quite substantial investment needs in the current and existing plants of around a bit more than EUR 2 billion the coming next years. But we're also releasing working capital because we are really building and taking away one of the, call it, obstacles we have had in the Swedish systems already since 1978 with the metallurgy and the slab casting up in Luleå, and then the transport of 900 kilometers to the rolling mill in Borlänge. This investment will result in a significant value creation. And compared to the current system, the yearly EBITDA improvement is estimated to be more than 5 billion SEK per year higher, given the current commodity forecast. We will have a much better cost position in the new mill, much less fixed costs. We will have higher efficiencies, lower, shorter lead times, and we will eliminate the CO2 costs. The mill itself includes the production increase of around 0.5 million tons per year. But if you look at the mix and the capabilities... which will then give less cyclicality into our earnings, so much better products with higher stability, more stability. This is a very important step to establish—to continue our strategy and establish us as a leading supplier of special steel and premium steel with fossil-free content. We have, until today, entered into more than 55 partnerships with leading customers for fossil-free steel, and we see a very strong demand on the market, so that's also very positive. So with this investment, we will be much more competitive, a much better cost position, and this will reduce lead time substantially. Today, the lead times in the Swedish systems are 6-8 weeks. With this new mill, we are talking about, with the shortest lead times, we are talking about hours. And, as said, a great improvement of the product mix directly into the segments that we are focusing on strategically, but also the segments that need or want to have a fossil-free steel. And I said avoiding 900 kilometers of transport between Luleå and Borlänge will make a huge difference when it comes to working capital as well. So, as said, the investment is a very important part of our strategy to continue to develop SSAB into leading company in the steel work. Now with also the very important step of low emission or emission-free steel. With that, Per, with that, a short introduction. Thank you, Martin. And then we can open up for questions. So please operate the present instructions, and we are ready to take the questions. Thank you. To ask a question, you will need to press star one and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one and one. We will now go to your first question. Your first question comes from the line of Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning, everyone. Good morning, Martin. Yeah. I have two questions. The first one is on the CapEx profile. So how do you see the CapEx phasing from 25 onwards for Luleå? And then subsequently, what does that mean for the capital intensity and the debt ratio? That's my first question. Thanks. But, we will, the majority of the money will be spent 2025-2028. ... so, so that's the CapEx profile. And, and as we say in the press release, when we look at this, we see that we will do this within our own financial target or within our financial targets, and we expect to continue to see, continued strong cash flow generation from the underlying business. So, that's how we calculate it. And then when it comes to Raahe, Raahe will come after this. When we need to decide, but, the CapEx for Raahe is of course, substantially lower. Thank you. So it's fair to assume equally split for the next four years for Luleå, more or less? Yeah. Is that a good starting point? Yeah. Perfect, thank you. We expect to have the mill ready end of 2028, and then maybe up to a year to get it up and running fully. Okay, thank you. My second question is on your capital allocation. So your AGM is coming up in a little over three weeks, if I'm not mistaken, and the board is likely to authorize the usual purchase of 10% of your share base. However, how are you thinking about the buyback in the context of this new spending program that you have just announced this morning? Thank you. Well, but, I think it's very good to have that mandate, and we will ask for it. We will stay very firm to when it comes to our financial targets for the next year, in between +20% and -20%. And if we are, as we showed, this fall, if we are above that, we will make sure that we handle that in a correct way or a good way, and that's why we have the share buyback program. So we expect to continue to pay dividend and expect to stay within our financial target. That's the simple answer. Thank you. Thank you. We will now go to your next question. One moment, please. Your next question comes from the line of Tristan Gretta from BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Yes, hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Also, and if I may just follow up on the CapEx timeline. So, can you confirm then that Raahe will come after Luleå, meaning we won't get an overlap in 2027, 2028 of Luleå and Raahe at the same time, which I think initially was the base case when you presented it at the Capital Market Day? That, that's my first question. No, but as we said in the press release, we say that we see Oxelösund as the first step, then Luleå as the second step, and then we say that as a third step, we will do transformation to Raahe in Finland is planned. The timing for the project will depend on, as I say, this financing and execution capacity, as well as the learning from the Luleå project. So we will not run them in parallel. Mm-hmm. Okay, that, that's clear. And also on the timeline, I mean, initially, the timeline to, to wrap up those two mini mill projects was 2030, the end of free allocation is 2034. So do you have some wiggle room there, some flexibility of pushing out some CapEx further down the line? Is that, is that feasible? And also, when you say that Raahe is, is substantially less expensive, I understand there's less downstream investment. Roughly speaking, can we think about a 50% less expensive, 30%? Can you give us a sense? No, but what we said from the beginning was around the 2030, so that of course gives some wiggle room. And we will take this decision, we will execute on this one, and it will be up and running 2028, and then we see when we take next. But as said, what we will be very firm to is our capital targets. So we will do it within our financial targets, and that will also determine. And the learnings, of course, from this project will determine when exactly we do the third step. But you're right, I mean, there is much less downstream operations in the mini mill, and we have also changed the scope from since the beginning when we started to think about this. So we have a good scope now in Luleå with much more downstream and processing. So we have a cold rolling complex, galvanizing, and so on. Okay. That will not be the case for- Okay, so all right. And lastly, maybe, on the DOE announcement of the new hybrid facility in the U.S., I mean, I understand the funding is not final, but it looks like there could be a new investment. Can you discuss that a little bit? If you go in that path to build a hybrid facility in the U.S., how will that be financed between the partners? How we should think about it, now that we have more visibility on Luleå, with Oxelösund and potentially this hybrid facility, if you want to calibrate CapEx for the next coming years. No, but we see this as a very positive sign that there is a huge interest for this technique, not only from U.S., but all around the world. We see this as something we need to, of course, think about, but it's very positive, and it shows the strong interest, I would say, especially from the customers in the U.S. and the strong focus globally on these kind of products, the combination of advanced products with zero emissions. I mean, now we are selected and invited to this, and then we'll see how this goes. But overall, a very positive sign and a strong sign of the huge interest, and we see that from governments, and we see that especially from customers.... Not only European customers, but global customers, among them are U.S. customers. It's only, for us, it's only a positive. But if the project goes forward, being a partner of the—you, you'll need to finance one third of the net CapEx. Is that correct? We haven't come that far at all. We were, as said, very happy with this announcement. I said we took it as a strong sign of confidence in our technique and our ability to do this with our partners. So that's where we are. Now we are focusing on taking the very important step in Luleå. And Luleå is very important that, of course, it is, to a large extent towards mobility, but it's also towards special steel product. The thin and wide- Okay, I leave it there. Thank you. dimensions that we can't produce today in the existing mill, but also dimensions that will ease up or free up capacity in Oxelösund, where we have a quarto mill. So this will give us the possibility to really change the mix in the company. As we have talked about many, many times, we focus a lot on reducing volatility, and this will be a very important step to continue that journey. So 1,000,000 tons of product mix change will make, over time, a huge difference. So that's what we are concentrating on now. And then we are, of course, happy, as I said, for the huge interest for this technique and the possibilities with fossil-free steel. Thank you. We will now go to the next question. The next question comes from the line of Patrick Mann from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, Martin and Per. Thank you very much for the call. That's, that's actually what I wanted to ask, was: How should we think about the change in the group mix of products, given this investment, sort of, versus what you presented previously? Maybe at the capital markets day last year, I think we had a certain mix, and does this investment in the downstream change that? And then what happens to the existing rolling capacity in Borlänge with this downstream investment? Does that become surplus to requirements? Is there a sort of cost saving on that side? That's my first two questions. We will close the whole strip mill. When this new mill is up and running, we'll close the whole strip mill in Borlänge. Got it. And then in terms of the group mix, should we think 1 million tons of additional specialty versus what the previous target was? No, but this, this gives us the possibility that over time increase, the mix or enrich the mix, with 1 million tons. So we have, given targets for 2026, and those targets are still valid. Then beyond that, from 2028 and afterwards, we, we can move another 1 million tons. I mean, we will increase the capacity with 500,000 tons, and then we'll have... So in total, we will have 1 million tons of, of, more mix than the capacity and capability today. But you, Patrick, in the thin limit here, you have the direction there. So, but- Got it. A good direction. Yeah. Okay, thank you very much. And then, sorry, the last question. If we just think about the raw material source, so you've obviously said iron units from HYBRIT and also from scrap. Do you have an idea at the moment, sort of what that looks like on ramp in 2028, given what you know of HYBRIT's ramp up and scrap availability? How should we think about the sort of raw material basket? Well, that's how they still have their plant up and running late 2027, at the latest, early 2028, and we will consume all of that. And then we will also have scrap. They have internal scrap. We have also source scrap. So, so the raw material situation is under control. We will have available raw material to run also the mini mill in Luleå. And that was, of course, a very important precondition. If you remember, there was a demo plant from LKAB, roughly 1.45. Million tons. Okay. And then they, they came out with the press release today, stating that we gradually build that out in the southern system of the mountain belt system to 5.4 million tons. Okay, so more than enough. Okay, got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will now go to the next question. Your next question comes from the line of Viktor Trollsten from Danske. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator, and hi, Martin and Per. Perhaps as you know, still thinking around you know, the annual investment pace going forward, thinking about Luleå, Oxelösund, but perhaps also you know, the maintenance CapEx level that we should expect. So firstly, on Oxelösund, could you remind us of where we are in that you know, investment? If it's 2024, the peak CapEx year for Oxelösund, or will investment accelerate for that also in 2025? That's the first place. Maybe not accelerate in 2025. We expect roughly SEK 2 billion this year for Oxelösund, so maybe sooner next year. ... Okay, that's super. And then on maintenance CapEx, I think it was around SEK 2.5 billion-SEK 2.6 billion in 2023. Does this investment mean that we should expect lower maintenance level ahead, or is that sort of the level you think of up until 2028 or whatever? Maybe something similar or slightly lower, yes. I mean, of course, if you know that the mill will be closed, then on the margin, we can do something less. But I would say something similar until this is up and running. Okay. No, that's, that's super. That's super. And then, perhaps if I may, please correct me if I'm wrong, but, but it says, you know, I get that the Luleå investment of EUR 4.5 billion now is higher than your first assessment. And can you help us with, you know, what has driven that? If you try to describe that. It's mainly three parts. First of all, I would say inflation and also inflation among the equipment providers. Then we have a broader scope than what we originally presented, more downstream activities and so on. And then, of course, we have also put in higher contingency. We have- Okay. quite a high contingency figure into this to make sure that we definitely deliver within the frame. Hmm, okay. No, that's, that's super. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go to the next question. The next question comes from the line of Moses Ola from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you very much for taking my question. So the first question I have for you is just on the logistics here for FID. You stated the environmental permits are expected by the end of 2024. But just on your power allocation, it continues to remain under a potential dispute by the H2 Green Steel, who essentially had communicated that they aim to dispute that power allocation at Luleå. Just want to understand what visibility you currently have on this, and if you've proceeded today with full confidence that, despite any potential dispute on that power allocation, you will retain your current allocation at Luleå. No, but we have a contract for the power, power allocation, so we have good, full visibility and full confidence. We have a written confirmation and agreement on the power allocation. This is regardless of if there is a legal dispute by H2 Green Steel? I don't know if there is any legal dispute, but we have, as said, a valid contract with Vattenfall earlier than the H2, and we know that we will get the power allocation. Thank you. And then just secondly, on the potential DRI investment in the U.S., so of course, it's, you know, early to discuss any details on that, but just is it safe to assume that any investment there would be outside of the previously guided SEK 50 billion envelope? And then also, could this potentially be an investment within 2030? As said, I mean, we are not there yet at all, but we have, we are very happy, as I said, for the huge interest and the strong interest from the U.S. government and from U.S. customers. And they really see this as cutting-edge technologies. That's very positive that this will lead at the end. It's way too early to say, but as said, extremely positive signals from the U.S. government and from customers in U.S. And we are really happy that they acknowledge what we have developed within the HYBRIT corporation together with Vattenfall and LKAB. So that's where we are. There's nothing included in the frames so far? This is about Luleå. Yeah, that's understood. And then finally, you talked about a potential release in working capital, once Luleå is up and running. Could you perhaps maybe guide to the potential cash flow improvement as well? But I mean, it is about today we have quite big slab box in order to handle the distance and the security in Sweden with the railroads and everything. We are transporting the slabs for 900 km, but we will not sell transport slabs. I mean, we have in the system today, we warm up and cool down in multiple steps. This will be an integrated process. So the lead times will be much, much lower, and the use of security stocks in both Luleå and Borlänge with slab stocks and slab yards will not be necessary. Thank you. There will be less working capital needed in the new integrated system. It is to the range of hundreds of millions SEK or more? We haven't really said that, but it's quite a decent amount. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go to the next question. The next question comes from the line of Johannes Grunselius from DNB Markets. Please go ahead. ... Yes, hi, Per and Martin. My question is on, on the SEK 5 billion step-up in EBITDA that you're, you're highlighting in, in the press release. If you could elaborate a bit, I mean, what's behind it? Perhaps give some numbers on, on mixed improvement, lower fixed cost, and also the CO2 benefit. Oh, but it is exactly as you said. I mean, it's a much better competition with lower fixed costs and, and lower costs for, for CO2. Shorter lead times, less transport with about the 900 kilometers between Luleå and Borlänge, and then, of course, the better products and increased volume. So it is a combination or, I mean, overall, we increased the volume with 500,000 tons, but the shift is 1,000,000. So it's a combination of, I would say, mainly these three areas that adds up to, to more than SEK 5 billion step in EBITDA improvement compared to the current system. Yeah. I don't, don't know if you can share that, but what's your assumption on the fixed cost reduction? We haven't said that, but I mean, these mini mills, these mills, they all have a much lower portion of the fixed cost. Higher variable cost, yes, but the total is a better cost position. So I think I've talked about this before, but the good thing is that we have developed segments, markets, and products give them the size we have today, which is, I mean, in the blast furnaces and coke oven batteries, we have been having, call it, compared to competitors, a weak cost position. So in order to make any money, we have to develop products, segments, customers, and so on. I mean, we talked about premium products and specialty products to justify that cost position. Now we can have more or less the same volume, but at a much better cost position. So it will be for the future very, very important in order to only stay competitive, but become more competitive. And I think one very important part also with the mix shift is and the lower fixed cost is to reduce volatility. So much more stability over time in the system. Mm-hmm. And this is not- Sure. I mean, one could be mistaken and say that this is only a product for SSAB Europe. No, it's not. I said, we're also talking about here, thin and wide Q&T, thin and wide Q&T, which we can't produce today, and thin Q&T, which we can't produce either. When we produce 4 millimeters in Oxelösund, that needs a lot of capacity. Here we can go even further down thinner than 4 millimeters. Right. It's a combination of a lot of things that add up to the figure we have given. Mm-hmm. Then I want to go back to one of the first questions in the Q&A, and it was basically about dividends and buybacks. Did I get you right, that you are still committed to buy back shares if the gearing falls below this minus 20% that you're committed to? No, but as I said, I mean, we are committed to stay within our financial targets. I think I've showed that. We updated the financial targets to a net gearing of +20% to -20%, and we will stay within those targets. And if we go outside or if the balance becomes too strong, we will do exactly what we did this quarter. Right. We are also committed to. Mm. Continue to pay dividends. Yeah. Just a final one also from my side. You mentioned also that you raised the assumptions for contingency in the project. Mm. Could you share what billions we are talking about there, please? No, it's a part, but a bigger part than before. But we have a, call it, a decent part in contingency. There's several billion SEK here. Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will now take the next question. Your next question comes from the line of Bastian Synagowitz from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Yes, good morning, all. Thanks for taking my questions. My first one is just kind of coming back on the CapEx side as well. So I'm wondering, is there any funding support or anything meaningful you would expect for this investment? And then also, is there anything which may be creeping into your 2024 bill, SEK 5.5 billion CapEx budgets? That's my first question. No, but, I mean, we are taking this decision in order to finance it within our financial targets, and to a very large extent by our own cash flow and by freeing up the working capital and avoiding other investments in the current system. Then if we would in the future get some kind of support, that's the icing on the cake. Yeah, but we will not... As you saw, the environmental permit, we expect late this year, so there will not be any moving the CapEx already now. It is all 2025. Okay, cool. Very clear then. My next question is on the five billion SEK EBITDA uplift you're talking about. What is the CO2 price level you roughly, which you would need to get to those levels? And I guess that, that I guess the 5 billion number is probably like something where you're basically working with a certain bandwidth. But obviously a year ago, we've been at 100 EUR per ton of CO2, now we are close to 50. So what is the what is the CO2 price level you really need to get to those levels? ... But, I mean, this is not the exact figure in that aspect, but roughly where we are today have been so, so no huge increases of CO2 costs. But of course, in calculation, we have counted on these free allocations being withdrawn over time as the current position is in the commission. Okay. Okay, great. And then just on your obviously your operational reshuffling, given that you're closing the hot rolling mill in Borlänge, is there any restructuring effort needed at site? And is that included in your, in the contingency budget? No, but of course there are some restructuring, which is part of OpEx, some of it, and some of it in CapEx. But that is handleable. We will be less people, of course, in total, but that's part of the plan. And could you give us the number, roughly, of the amount of people which you're aiming to downsize there? No, we haven't gone out with that. Okay. Okay, no problems. And then, last question is just coming back on shareholder return. Sorry for being the third person to follow up on that, but, I guess if we, if we take you by the word, right, you basically above, your gearing threshold already, so you're obviously very comfortable on your balance sheet, which means technically fully funded the dividend, which you're gonna pay later. And technically, again, that means that there's got to be another buyback next year. And I guess the environment at the moment is still decent, obviously you're still making very good margins in many parts of your business, generating decent cash flow. So visibility is, quite favorable. But on the other side, of course, the CapEx budget has gotten clearly higher than what I guess most people would have expected, and I guess probably slightly higher at least versus what you were indicating earlier as well. And I, at least if we look maybe two, three years out, at the moment, we can probably argue there's definitely still a higher level of uncertainty also on the operating side. So, are you leaning to potentially even run with a bit of more balance sheet buffer here to basically hold that buffer for what is still due to come on the CapEx side? Or, do you see another buyback also to be firmly in your toolbox for this year? Of course, we have some- Expectation management. We had a mandate, and we used that mandate. And I said we are committed to stay within... We updated the financial targets. We are committed to stay within the financial targets. And then, I mean, we expect to continue to generate strong cash flows, and we are saying that we will be able to finance this with own cash flows within our financial targets. So, as I said, I think a year ago, let's take that question if and when it is necessary. But the strong message is that we are committed to our financial targets. Okay. Understood. Thanks, Martin. Thank you. We will now take your next question. Your next question comes from the line of Ola Södermark from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Thank you. Yes, hi, Martin and Per. A follow-up on the practical or how should I put it, how is the investment divided in groundwork and infrastructure and buildings and equipment? And, I mean, the construction market in northern part of Sweden is quite hot right now. Do you see any risk or have you already signed contracts so forth? Thank you. But it's a combination of equipment and groundwork, civil engineering and so on. An exact split, call it then, other things like continuances and internal engineering and others and so on. But I would say a rough split between equipment and construction and installation is 50/50, maybe. If you exclude continuance and some other parts. Yes, and, the groundwork and, the infrastructure work, is it already signed, and, do you see any risks there? Because I suppose that's the bottlenecks. We have very good things like this, very good discussions with suppliers. Yeah, and but also on CO2 allowances and CO2 emission allowances, given it's up around in two years, and I suppose you still have inventories of it. How do you expect that you have to buy any CO2 allowances coming years? We are buying already today. Okay. We have been buying since, I think, 7, 8, 9 years. Yes, but your inventories, I suppose you have inventories as well. Yes. Can we expect any material cost with CO2 allowances coming years? But it will gradually go up, because it is the free allowances for years. But as you know, this is a benchmark system. We are in relative terms better off than competitors, given our low comparable, with low CO2 footprint. But we have been buying since, I think, every month, since 8, 9 years. ... But then we still haven't secured all the future needs, so there will be some more, we'll have to do some more purchases as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We will now go to the next question. Your next question comes from the line of Miguel Lejon from Nordea. Please go ahead. Hi, Martin and Per. Thanks for taking my questions. I was wondering, was the increased availability of electricity a deciding factor to choose Luleå before, Royston? No, but I think, yeah, I mean, it, it was a precondition, of course, that we had the power allocation. Then, as I said in the beginning, I think it was quite natural to choose Luleå because then we can take away a lot, first of all, a lot of, call it, compromises that was made back in 78, in 1978 when the company was formed, so we can take away 900 kilometers of, of transports and so on. But also the mill in Luleå was always designed for what we call the mobility and more, call it specialty and, and premium products. So it was a natural choice, but to, to have the power was, of course, a precondition. Great. Does the investment in Luleå need a change of the current detailed plan in Luleå? Do you mean the plan for...? We will build, we will build- From the city council. We will build it on the same site that we have- Ah, okay. -today. Yeah. Okay. I understand. Today, SSAB has about 1,100 employees. Is it possible to say how many will be needed? Roughly, roughly the same amount. Yeah. But with much, call it, more advanced production and a longer, call it, production line. During the building phase, it should be much more, right? We need to, of course, during the building phase, there will be a lot of contractors, of course. And lastly, is it to decide what's going to happen with the old mill? No, but the old mill will be closed and taken down when the new mill is up and running. So we will close the last furnace, the coke oven battery and everything that is also today. We will use the infrastructure and some other parts, but the production equipment will be closed. Yeah. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. We will now go to your next question. Your next question comes from the line of Hanna Holappainen from Yle Radio, Finnish Broadcasting Company. Please go ahead. Good day, everybody. It's Hanna Holopainen from Finnish Broadcasting Company. Of course, I'm interested in Raahe and asking now, do you have any plans for Raahe now? What are the plans? Because, I get this idea that you are planning to close blast furnace in 2030. So what's happening in Raahe now? No, but Raahe, Raahe is and will always be a very, very important part of our system. Raahe is the best mill in many ways because it's completely integrated, and we have the steel shop and integrated production at the same site, which is more cost effective and better. We also have depth equipment in Raahe. So it was quite natural to start with Luleå, and Raahe, we will continue to run Raahe, and we haven't at all given up our ambitions to transform Raahe as well. Quite the opposite. So nothing will change at all, and we will give time also do the Raahe transformation. Did I get it right that after 2028, you will make decisions about getting CO2 free production in Raahe also? But, as I said, the ambition is to transform the whole SSAB into fossil free steel making. Exactly, when that decision will be taken, we need to come back to, but, as I said, Raahe is a very important part of the SSAB system. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go to the next question. Your next question comes from the line of Krishan Agarwal from Citigroup. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my question. My question is on the split of the CapEx between the mill and the downstream. My apologies if you already answered the question. I joined the call a little late. Krishan, do you mean the split between downstream and upstream when it comes to the investment? Yes. Yes. Now, we haven't specified that, but of course, it's a fair amount when it comes to downstream part, since you have cold rolling, you have galvanizing lines, et cetera. So that is a substantial part of the total, but we haven't given a clear number for each of the steps now. Understand. And then, is there a kind of a better way to read across for aggregate CapEx? Because, I mean, the rebuild of this is probably on the similar line between the upstream and the downstream, and the capacity is also going to be similar to 0.5 million tons for both platforms. Yeah, but as Martin said, it will be substantially less due to the fact that we will most likely do not have any sort of advanced downstream UI. It will be more like what's called straight production. And we might also keep the plate mill that we have currently. So the cost will be much less, but we have no updated number to go on. But it was much less than this number today. Okay. And, and then the last question is on the sequencing of the investment. So should we assume that 2025, 2026, 2027 takes up the bulk of the CapEx, and then the remaining in 2020? Yeah, exactly. You will see 4 or 5 years now, from 2025 up until 2028, may perhaps also some in 2029. Yes. Okay. The last question is, I mean, with this large CapEx approved, I mean, do you want to give us a kind of an advanced estimate of what kind of annual CapEx we would be looking for, say, 2025, 2026, including the oscillation, normal CapEx and really this latest CapEx approval? Are we looking more like a SEK 10 billion annual run rate of the spend for the next 3, 4 years? Yeah, of course, it will be double digit. We try to update this also on an annual basis. You know, we, we usually present the CapEx for the next year in, a bit more in detail. Yeah. We have no details today on 2026 and 2027, but of course, it will be high numbers due to the fact that you will spend this EUR 4.5 billion over this period. I understand. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you. I'll now go to the next question. Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Jones, UBS. Please go ahead. Hi, Martin. I've apologies if you've answered this. I had a few connection issues, but just on the assumptions behind the SEK 5 billion, have you given an assumption on the green premium that you're assuming in there? And also, I know someone was asking already about the breakdown and CO2 cost assumptions and so forth. I mean, do you... Can you give us a number in terms of the CO2 cost? You're saying at current commodity prices, does that include spot CO2? We're talking somewhere around 50 euros a ton for the, for the CO2 price being assumed in that or a different number? Thank you. If we start with the premium, it's fairly limited, and it will fade out in our calculations over time. We think that this will be, hopefully, the new way of producing steel. So that will with in the beginning a premium, and we have established a premium on the market, but that will gradually then shrink and fade away in our calculations. Then when it comes to CO2 costs, they are, of course, a bit volatile and are hard to predict, but we have a, call it a normal, normalized figure in there. So no, it doesn't require any huge difference compared to what we see and have seen. Right. Okay, so but when you say you've established a price on the market, you were talking about EUR 300 a ton assumption before. Are you assuming that at the start in this SEK 5 billion? And, and just to be super clear, on the CO2, we're talking- We are assuming a fairly low premium in the calculation. It's a very modest premium in the SEK 5 billion, Andrew. Yes. Double digit rather than triple digit? Now, we are negotiating the price, and we are not doing that. 50. The CO2, might be, are we talking EUR 50 a ton or EUR 100 a ton? Maybe, somewhere in between. 70. Okay. Yeah. So okay, cool. Well, yeah, just I think it's just useful to understand the raw breakdown between those buckets, between the fixed costs and the CO2, the green premium, you know, the sort of mix. The big parts are mainly divided into three. It's cost efficiency, volume effects, and mix of- Right. Okay, got you. And just on the... You mentioned obviously, you're assuming the CO2 cost falls away. I'm saying that, assuming that the CO2 cost, the green premium falls away, are we saying that it's SEK 5 billion at the start and then maybe that gets lower over time? Or is that being, like, offset by the sort of gradual, the increased saving on the CO2? Like, how should we think about that? It's probably not a static number. Should it be going up or going down over time? You're partly right, but of course, we have used a conservative approach. And as Martin explained, the green premium is very modest within that. So we... No, we are not seeing that get a sort of worse over the years, so no, there might be some upside to it. Mm. Okay. Understood. Thank you. ... Thank you. We'll now go to the next question. Your next question comes from the line of Tom Zhang from Barclays. Please go ahead. Hi, gents. Thanks very much. Just one final question for me. With the existing blast furnaces at Luleå, you mentioned you're going to avoid EUR 2 billion of CapEx costs, I guess, that's sort of relining and similar. Are you confident that, you know, if there were delays to the EAF build-out, and you had to keep running these blast furnaces for longer, you know, there wouldn't be any sort of, any risks that come up in 2028 or 2029, where suddenly you'd have to keep reinvesting into these things? Because obviously, I guess, even once you ramp up the electric arc furnaces, you need to keep blast furnaces going for a while, while you get product qualified and everything. I'm just trying to figure out if there's any CapEx risk that could be associated with the blast furnaces. Thanks. If there is a very, very long delay, yes, but we can handle a couple of years without any risk. But if it would be a delay of 10 years or 5, 6, 7 years, then, of course, we need to look into that. So the SEK 2 billion that you're avoiding, that's sort of a, like a light reline or effectively, sort of light relines of the blast furnace? No, but if we would continue to run the blast furnaces, we have to do a reline when 32 or something. Yeah, and of course, I mean, even though we have a decent mills today, they are old and require a lot of maintenance and investment. So, I mean, if we would continue to run the system, which is obviously not the plan, we would have to continue to invest in relinings. We need to do things with the coke oven batteries and other things. And of course, the hot rolling mill in Borlänge, originally from the sixties. With the sort of requalification process of product, I mean, do you think it's just gonna be standard, or do you think it might take longer because, you know, it's a totally different supply chain? It's you know, hybrid iron, it's new melts, and it's also new hot rolling, new cold rolling. I mean, is a normal sort of nine months to get things qualified, reasonable, or is the risk of this pushing? But already today, we are qualifying products. We are delivering steel products from sponge iron to customers, and I've already started that process. Makes sense. All right, thank you. Thank you. We'll now take the next question. Your next question comes from the line of Patrick Mann from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. Yeah, follow-up question, obviously. Probably a quite basic one, but pulling it all together, right? The, the CapEx investment, the lower CapEx in existing, the improved cost position, lower working capital, et cetera. Have you guys, are you willing to share a return metric for this investment, and, and sort of how you thought about hurdle rates or required returns on investment in, in making this decision? Thanks. No, we haven't said that officially, but of course, we didn't do this investment if the return on the investment wasn't attractive. We think it is very attractive, and compared to running the current system, this gives us a lot of benefits. And I think cost position is one important part. I think mix is also very important. This will allow us not only to earn more money, but earn more money over the cycle and continue on our strategies. We are not changing strategy, we are changing production system, but that new production system allows us to speed up our ambitions when it comes to premium products and high steel products. So, when we look at this, and as Per said, we haven't been overly optimistic. I think we have, as always, taken a very conservative view. We look at the calculation, and I think it is a very, very good investment for the future, in line with the strategy and demand on the market, and the returns are good. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go to the next question. One moment, please. And the next question comes from the line of Bastian Synagowitz from Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead. Yeah, hey, quick follow-up from my side, please. Just, on the DI supply, so given that LKAB will be owning and running the DI mills, have you already defined the exact terms for the transfer pricing for the green DI? And will that happen on the co- cost plus basis? We are already in those discussions, and a very good discussions, and what we have decided together is to create a cost-effective, competitive, green value chain, and then we will come back to the exact details. But, I mean, we are doing this... I mean, it's about creating a decarbonized, cost-effective, value chain for our customers. So, but we will have to come back to the exact details. Okay. But, yeah, I mean, just given the fact that you're now taking this decision for this very big investment, I guess now when it comes to the green DRI, it's also a little bit about how do you split the actual value of your green product, of which I guess part is tied into the green DRI, and then part of that is obviously tied into you basically placing that product at the customer. And so I guess it's really about that. So how, how will you make sure that you can actually capture your right share of that value, if that is not defined yet at this point? I think we have together a fairly common understanding of that. Mm-hmm. Okay, all right. Thank you. Thank you. We will now take our final question for today. The final question comes from the line of Malin Johansson from TT Nyhetsbyrån. Please go ahead. Hello. Hi, hope you can hear me all right. I was just wondering, with this next step, will this create any new job opportunities, or what can you say about that? No, but as I said, we will have roughly the same amount of employees up in Luleå, but we will do much more production. So, then, of course, the skills we need, we need to develop now. We said we have a very good base of employees up in Luleå, extremely committed, hardworking, talented people. Now, of course, part of this will also be, I didn't call it reskilling, but competence development. But in absolute terms, there will be no huge difference up there. Okay, and just to double check, the power supply needed for this is secured, right? For all of this. We have a contract on the test allocation, yeah. Yeah. Also finally, when the mill is up and running, do you see it having any effect on the prices on electricity for consumers? No, that depends on a lot of other things. I mean, we will use, what is it, 2 TWh up there. So in today’s system where we have a total of 15 TWh. So we will of course be dependent on what other kind of projects we see out there and what kind of a build out we see also for power generation. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. I will now hand the call back for closing remarks. Yes, thank you, operator, and thank you for a lot of good questions. Martin, do you want to say sum up? Well, I think I said the same. Thank you for a lot of good questions. And for SSAB, this is a very important day, and we are extremely, as I said in the beginning, happy and proud of that we now continue our transformation with the mini mill in Luleå. It's asked by the market from our customers, and we see a huge interest in the technique we have developed, the HYBRIT. And this will create a much stronger SSAB with less volatility, better mix, lower costs, lower working capital needs. So we are now really building for the future and continue our journey to build a competitive and stable SSAB. So at least from my side, I thank you for all the good questions and all your interest. And I said again, stating the obvious, we are extremely happy now to be able to move on and continue to deliver on our strategy. Yeah. Thank you, Martin. So this concludes today's conference. Thank you for your attention, and wish you a pleasant day. Thank you. This concludes your conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect. Speakers, please stand by.