Good morning, and welcome to this presentation of the SSAB Q2 report. My name is Per Hillström. I am Head of Investor Relations at SSAB, and presenting today we have Johnny Sjöström, President and Chief Executive Officer, and also Leena Craelius, Chief Financial Officer. If we look at the agenda, Johnny will start with an overview of the quarter, then Leena will present more details on the financials, and then Johnny will come back at the end with the outlook and the summary. After that, we will have good time for Q&A. With that, please, Johnny, start the presentation. Thank you very much, Per. I will start by summarizing our Q2 report. As always, we start with health and safety. I am happy to see that the trend continues and that we improve our safety KPI, and the safety culture is further implemented in our company. I think also it is worth highlighting that our total recordable, the TRIF, is also on a lower level 4.1, which is one of the lowest levels that we have had in the past. A very positive sign, a positive trend. Now, looking at our financial performance and the EBITDA, we can see that our Q2 result is better than Q1 and also better than Q2 last year. We could see that we have had higher shipments as well as higher prices. I will be coming back to that some of these improvements were offset by higher variable costs, mainly related to transportation cost as well as energy cost and to some extent, alloys. We have a good net cash position, and we also strengthened our cash flow during Q2. It is also very positive. We have to remember now we did a dividend payment of almost SEK 2 billion or more than SEK 2 billion in Q2 as well, having that in mind. I also want to emphasize that our strategic direction is firmly on track. The conversion, also soon, is continuing. We had some small issues with an appeal, but that has been taken care of now, and the power line will be up and running sometime beginning of next year. We will be in production a year from now, that we will be in production in Oxelösund, and that is really a big milestone for SSAB going forward. The groundwork in Luleå for the mini mill continues. We have had some smaller issues related to the work environment, and safety is our key priority. As soon as we find something, discover something, we will stop the production, look into what it is, make sure that we have the right procedures to continue the production, keeping the workers safe. I also want to highlight that this project is split into three pieces. One is engineering, one is procurement, and one is construction, and right now, engineering is a big part of the project, and that continues even though the piling, which is just a small part of the construction, is where it has been affected right now. We have approved some investments in Q2, and one of those investments is the quenching line in Oxelösund. This is a very important step for SSAB Special Steels, but also for SSAB, and in line with our strategy to increase our volume of unique steel grades. We have seen an increased demand in the defense industry. We have also a very unique product, which is the Hardox 500 Tuf. The demand is very high. We have been fully utilized in the quenching line producing these grades in Oxelösund. With this investment, we will be able to produce significantly more of these unique grades. It is an important milestone for us and also a clear indication that we are fulfilling the strategy that we have going forward. Some words about SSAB Special Steels. We had a good volume. I think the shipments in Q2 was good. Much higher in Q2 last year, also slightly higher in Q1. When we have this Middle East turbulence, it is affecting the freight costs. SSAB Special Steels exports most of what they produce, hence, if the freight cost goes up, SSAB Special Steels will be affected by it. SSAB Special Steels was also, to some extent, affected by increased energy costs, and also alloying costs. Even though the financial performance came in pretty much at the level where we forecasted it, we were sort of hoping for slightly more, but that was offset by increased variable cost. Prices were up a little bit. I think we have a lag in time, and prices probably will continue to go up going forward, but it is still a very stable performance, so we have to remember that. Looking at SSAB Europe, shipments were also on a good and stable level, higher than it was Q1, but also much higher than it was Q2 last year. I think what I highlighted in the beginning was the record high level of advanced high-strength steel sold to the automotive, and that is sold into a segment where it is a little bit constrained right now. It shows that we have a product which is quite unique, and it is attractive to the market. You were able to increase the profitability or the earnings compared to Q1, significantly higher than it was Q2 last year. Still a good trend, and prices are moving up. We have SSAB Americas, where we can see volume slightly lower than it was Q2 last year. We have had some transportation issues in the U.S., difficulties finding rail cars and so on, hence are slightly lower. The production level has been on a good level. The demand is very high. It is just that the ability to get all the material out has been a little bit constrained because of railway issues. Looking at the financial performance, prices went up almost 7%, which is good, and they probably will continue to grow. Again, here as well, they were suffering a little bit from higher transportation costs as well as higher energy costs. Alloy came in higher than we forecasted. Still a decent performance. We have the two subsidiaries, Tibnor and Ruukki Construction, where Ruukki Construction came in slightly lower than Q1, but pretty much in line at where it was Q2 last year. Looking at the financial performance, you can see that they ended up on an almost twice as high level as it was last year, significantly higher than Q1. Some of it was also inventory gains, they were also able to increase prices, and they have been working on increasing prices in areas where they can. We have the Ruukki Construction, where the construction segment hasn't really come back to the level where it should be. We see that the revenues have increased, but that's pretty much in line with our expectations. It was slightly higher than it was Q2 last year and also higher than Q1. Looking at the earnings, we can see that the margins were somewhat lower. We have our hopes for the future, and we hope that this is going to improve going forward. With that, I leave the word over to Leena on financials. Thank you, Johnny. Let's begin by looking at the overview and reflecting a bit to the historical performance. We start with steel shipments, performance Q2 was 1,760 Kilotons. As already mentioned by Johnny, it was improvement compared to previous quarter by 24 Kilotons and improvement compared to previous year by 52 Kilotons. We move up to the earnings or the revenue, SEK 27.5 revenue in Q2, also improvement versus previous quarter by SEK 2.2 billion and versus previous year, SEK 1.9 billion. Good volume development as well as price development. If we shortly reflect back to what we guided for versus Q1, all the steel divisions shipment-wise, we were guiding to be stable. We were spot on in Special Steels and even slightly higher in Europe division and Americas. Comparing the price guidance we gave, we were giving guidance that all steel divisions would be somewhat higher, which means up to 5%. We were spot on with Special Steels and Europe and even exceeding that in SSAB Americas, where the price increase was 7%. EBITDA performance Q2, SEK 3.8 billion, as already mentioned, improvement compared to both Q1 and previous year, which both were SEK 3.2 billion. In relative terms, we see also improvement when Q2 this year was 14% and last year it was 12%. Let's move into more detailed analysis, here we are comparing operating result Q2 versus Q1. The operating result Q2 was SEK 2.7 billion and Q1 was SEK 2.2 billion. Here we can clearly see the positive impact from prices and volume, and they were offsetting the variable cost and fixed cost increase. Also the activity level was higher during second quarter, thus we have a positive impact from capacity utilization. As already mentioned, prices we guided to be somewhat higher and on group level, average price was 6% higher quarter-on-quarter. Here we have some positive FX impact supporting. However, the biggest positive impact came from Europe division with SEK 500 million, followed by Americas division, SEK 330 million, and Special Steels, SEK 235 million. Also positive impact from Ruukki Construction and Tibnor, as Johnny already mentioned as well. Shipment volumes 24 Kilotons higher with positive impact of SEK 160 million. As already mentioned, Americas was increasing volumes by 12 Kilotons, Europe by 11 Kilotons, and Special Steels was relatively flat quarter-on-quarter. Also Ruukki Construction, as you already saw, had seasonally higher volumes. The variable cost, total impact on EBIT, SEK 510 million. Here we have a few different elements. We have a higher cost of CO2 allowances coming active in Q2. Clearly higher cost for logistics, as already mentioned, some raw material costs were higher. The consumption cost is here taken into account. To remind that there is a lag in the purchase price and consumption cost. Pretty much all raw material categories were higher in consumption during second quarter compared to first one. Iron ore, coal, alloys, also slightly higher in scrap cost. Fixed cost, typical seasonal development compared to quarters. Also here we have impact of salary index increase that we pay in Q2 onwards, but also retroactively for the first quarter. Of course, the summer workers also shown here to push up their fixed cost. Also the activity level was higher, so we had some higher IT and repair-related cost, also a bit higher travel and training costs. The higher activity level is visible also in the capacity utilization, contributing positively quarter-on-quarter. We have a look at the operating result this year compared to previous year. This year, SEK 2.7 billion, compared to previous year, which was SEK 2.1 billion. Similar trend compared to previous year as was previous quarter. Positive impact from prices and volumes, which were offsetting on total the variable and fixed cost increase. Also positive from the higher activity level as capacity utilization is contributing positively. Prices year-on-year on group level were 2% higher. Here we have opposite FX impact. FX is impacting prices slightly negatively. Europe division contributing SEK 300 million, Americas SEK 265 million, and Special Steel division plus SEK 15 million. Tibnor + SEK 30 million. Ruukki Construction in this analysis has a negative impact, but that's mainly due to a shifted business mix compared to previous year. Volumes, as already mentioned, 52 Kilotons higher. Special Steels contributing SEK 220 million, Europe SEK 120 million, Americas SEK 35 million. Ruukki Construction also had higher volumes this year compared to previous year. Variable cost impact negative, but less than what it was quarter-on-quarter. In the iron ore, the raw material consumption cost is actually lower this year compared to previous year. However, the coal price is higher. Alloys already mentioned was higher. CO2 emission cost was higher, the logistic costs were also higher. Fixed cost higher than last year. Here we have a majority related to salary index increase. Only some higher manning and higher IT-related activities. Capacity utilization positive SEK 155 million. Improvement in operating result compared to previous year and previous quarter. Continue with the cash flow analysis. Strong performance during Q2. If we compare with the previous year, we have higher EBIT level contributing positively. We have also positive impact from change in working capital. If we then look at the running rate, this is sort of a typical first half of the year development. First half of the year tends to be negative, which is turning then towards more positive going forward. Maintenance CapEx, a really similar trend compared to last year. The other line, which is mainly related to CO2 emission allowance transactions. We had quite a few of them during Q2, and we will continue doing the hedgings going forward. If we jump to the strategic expenditures line, here we see that the trend was lower than last year. The running rate compared to last year, we see that it's on the same level. This will naturally pick up towards second half of the year. The biggest deviation here is actually delayed payments that we have done in the Oxelösund project, but those are mainly related to vendor performance rather than any actual delays. Acquisition of shares. This is related to Ovako Metals transaction, Tibnor did in Finland during Q2. The dividend payout just below SEK 2 billion also took place in Q2. Really good performance, compared to previous year, the first half of the year was better, and deviation mainly from earnings, lower dividends, and good working capital performance. This will lead to a net cash position, end of Q2, SEK 8.6 billion. As already mentioned, the dividend payout took place during Q2. The gearing ratio is still well in line with our financial targets, ± 20%. End of Q2, it was -12%. We are really pleased also to mention that Moody's gave a credit rating for SSAB during this week, Baa2 investment grade with the outlook of stable. We have had good discussions with Moody's, and they are understanding the steel industry really well, and they are supporting our strategy and trusting our financial capabilities. More information on that you can find on our website. Raw material already briefly discussed, here we can see the development of iron ore price, and this is purchase price. It has gone down compared to previous year, and it was also contributing positively in the bridge analysis. However, the cost of iron ore has increased quarter-on-quarter slightly. Coking coal prices, we can see that have started to develop upwards already during Q1, continued during Q2. To bear in mind that in the coking coal, the logistics also plays important element, and as they were going up, it will also impact the cost of consumption going forward. Scrap prices in U.S., as the graph is illustrating, they were higher than previous year during the second quarter. As this is the purchase price, the consumption cost comes with a lag, and we saw minor increase in the scrap cost in Q2 compared to Q1. However, the outlook is that Q3, the scrap cost, consumption cost should be somewhat lower. We already mentioned also the alloys cost that has climbed up during this year, and it was higher in Q2 also compared to Q1. Already mentioned higher logistics costs. Also the cost related to CO2 emission allowances, we have seen that is impacting the variable cost. Good to remember that Q3, we have a lot of maintenance activities starting and ongoing. All steel divisions will have maintenance activities, and the estimated total impact on the result is this around SEK 800 million. Fairly similar trend the full year cost-wise compared to previous year. CapEx guidance, no changes compared to what we have been informing previously. We are still sticking to this annual CapEx plan. Maintenance CapEx will be on a similar level as last year, around SEK 3 billion. Strategic CapEx going up both in Luleå and Oxelösund, and also other smaller strategic investments starting to take place end of this year. We have also indicated that the emission allowance related transactions that took place last year will be on the same level this year. So the estimated purchases is on around SEK 700 million, as it was last year. No changes either on the IT-related cost estimate. The biggest projects, of course, are related to Luleå minimill investment and preparation for their ERP system. And the estimate for the full year operating expense compared to previous year is around SEK 200 million higher. So this we have kept also the same. I end my part here and give the floor back to Johnny. Thank you very much, Leena. Then we move on with some outlook and summary. Last time we spoke about the regionalization that happens both in the U.S. as well as in Europe, and I think it is worth mentioning that and also highlighting that. We see clear signals of the Section 232 impact on the market, which is strengthening our position. We have less imports coming into United States, and as it is right now in the plate industry, there is a bigger demand than supply, hence forcing customers to use sheet steel instead of maybe using plates. So it is beneficial and also, as I said last time, derivatives are included in this Section 232. That means even if you bring in a bucket, it is made of steel, that means it will be subjected to a tariff. When it comes to the trade measures in Europe, we have these safeguards implemented from the 1st of July. That was also sort of announced last time. We have seen prices moving up because of this, but we also seen a lot of imports coming into Europe, and then prices have dropped a little bit. We believe that as soon as these inventories are gone, prices probably will be moving up again. On top of this, we have the CBAM. The CBAM was implemented from 1st of January making it a little bit difficult to bring material into Europe for administrative reasons. The tax itself maybe is not as high, but the administrative things around it will make it more difficult. Then there was a new proposal from the European Commission on the ETS structure. We have to remember that the ETS structure we've had, it was implemented 2005. It's been there for quite some time. Now it's being revised. I think our position from the very beginning was that we don't want to make any changes. We have made sort of an investment plan for both Oxelösund and Luleå based on existing ETS system. Now it's being revised. I think that the proposal that came out, it looks fairly good. We understand it. It was also a little bit expected because we have to adjust the ETS system to where Europe is right now and also looking at the infrastructure and the availability of fossil-free electricity and so on. I understand that this change was made, and it's going to have a very little impact on SSAB. There were some highlights to it as well. I think one of the highlights was that they're linking the free allocation to the investments done in transforming your production into a more fossil-free production. Also the ability or possibility to get financing from the European Investment Bank, as well as also get some funding. I think this is a good step, and I think it's the right measures in that sense. When it comes to the outlook, we are, just like Leena said, Q3 is the quarter where we do a lot of maintenance. Hence, we will not be able to ship out the volumes that we normally do like in Q2. Our ability to produce will be limited, but the demand is still there. I think prices will continue to move up, but our ability to ship as much as we did in Q2 will be lower. The guidance in this case is that we will have significantly lower volumes coming from special steel in Europe, then lower for Americas. Looking at the prices, it will continue to go up. We know that. Here we're guiding for somewhat higher. It's between 0%-5%, I guess. Maybe it will be closer to 5%, but it's remaining to be seen, but that's what we anticipate at least. I think that is all for the outlook. Just to summarize this presentation, we have to remember that we do have still a lot of geopolitical turbulence. The Middle East situation is not over yet. It has had a negative impact on our variable costs. We're hoping that this will be over, that it will be stabilized, but now things are as they are, makes it a little bit more difficult to predict. I think also our transformation projects, they are on plan still. I think they are very important for us. We have to remember now that it's going to be almost impossible to have blast furnace production in Europe after 2040. This is necessary, and I think it's a good plan that we have. We also made the decision to invest in another quenching line, which is in line with our strategy. I think that's also a very important step for us going forward. We see profitability, earnings improvements both in Europe as well as in Americas. We also see prices are going up and will continue to go up, and then that our shipments will be somewhat lower in Q3 because of the maintenance that we have in Q3. All in all, I would say that it's a stable quarter. I think that we performed. We were sort of taken a little bit off guards with the higher variable costs, but still we came out on a decent level. I have high expectations going forward. I think that we are present in the most important segments, markets, and we have a good position for the future. That pretty much summarizes it, Per, and I'll leave the word over to you now. Yes. Thank you, Johnny, and thank you, Leena. Now we can prepare for the Q&A. I would suggest initially in the first round that we limit it to two questions to get as many people as possible the chance to ask some question. As usual, please ask the questions one by one to give time to answer in between, so it will make the process smoother. By that please, operator, present the instructions for the Q&A. 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 and one again. Thank you. We will now go to our first question. One moment, please. Your first question today comes from the line of Andrew Jones from UBS. Please go ahead. Hi all. Thanks for taking questions. Just firstly on the ETS, your first response to it was actually pretty negative, I guess. You gave some initial thoughts on that. I'm curious where you can potentially benefit from this. Is there any scope for maybe some more CapEx support at Luleå Project? I would guess that Raahe would qualify at this stage. Is that possible? Also on price hikes, as you noted, maybe it is a bit conservative here, and I guess there's lags that impact on the 3Q guidance, but I saw that ArcelorMittal was aggressively hiking HRC prices already in response to the quota cuts. I'm curious if you see potential for HRC to sort of get into the high SEK 700s in the not too distant future, do you think the summer seasonality is going to negatively impact the ability to achieve those sort of price increases? Thanks. All right. If we start with the ETS, I think that our initial stand is that we don't want any changes because we made our business case based on the existing ETS system. Uncertainty is not good. When we've seen the proposal, we have to remember it's still a proposal, we don't think it's that bad. I think linking the free allocations to the investment ability, also giving the market a chance to get funding, both in the sense of loans but as well as getting real grants. I think these are good things. A lot of details need to be worked out. We also need to look at the timing, I think there should be an opportunity for us to get some benefits from this. Otherwise, I would be surprised. It's too early to draw any conclusions, I think our initial reaction is not a bad proposal as such. To your questions regarding the pricing. These safeguards implemented 1st of July will help the market and will help the prices to go up. We are certain of that. As I said before, we saw a lot of inventory coming into Europe. Inventories went up. We also believe we have a rough idea what kind of volumes we're talking about here, and we have a rough idea of how much time it will take before these inventories are sold out. We think that at the end of Q3 these stocks will be sold out. Prices will start moving up again. What happens now is that we are negotiating quarterly contracts, half-year contracts, et cetera. Here we have a good idea of what the market is expecting. Hence we know that prices will be moving up. Since the way we work now, we can't guide for any higher price increases because the model makes it such that it's a slow progress for us. We're not selling so much on the spot market. I think the spot market prices will move up in the end of Q3. To your question, is it going to be above SEK 700? I guess your guess is as good as mine. Okay. There is some likelihood that that would be the case. Prices will be moving up, and you say that, are we conservative? I am saying, like we said last time. We have a lag in the system. We are negotiating prices now, and some of the contracts will be higher and somewhat it is just somewhat higher. In average, maybe it will be 4%-6% or something like that in average. It is hard to say, but in that frame, in that ballpark. Yeah. Okay. That is clear. Just one quick follow-up on the CapEx guidance. You have maintained it despite obviously having the safety stoppages as a result of the issues at Luleå. Was there a reason why that was not maybe deferred partly to next year because of the delays? Why was it maintained rather than cut? As Johnny was referring, in Luleå project, we have different sort of streams. Engineering has continued and will continue, and also the procurement stream has continued and will continue. The standstill was mainly related to the ground preparation work, and then we are now sort of rescheduling that. There is, of course, room to reschedule and catch up. So far, we have not updated our budget or schedule, so we are sticking to the CapEx guidance as we present it. Okay. That is clear. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Kaleb Solomon from SEB. Please go ahead. Hi, guys. Thank you for taking my questions. Maybe starting off with the inventory levels in Europe, they're still somewhat high, having sort of continued to build up ahead of the new quotas in July. First, did I hear you right in saying that you expect that to be normalized by end of Q3? Sort of as a follow-up to that, have you or do you sort of expect to see any impact on the demand side as a result of the sort of positive price developments in Europe, given the just general economic climate? Especially if they, as you sort of said earlier, continue to move up after inventories normalize. Just interesting to hear your reasoning on that part. Yeah. The underlying demand is what it is. I don't think that's going to increase or improve in Europe in the second half of this year. It's just a rebalancing. That means of this 36 million tons of imports, half of that will be probably sold from European sources instead. The demand for European steel will increase, and that's also going to make the prices go up. To your initial comment, yeah, our assumptions are that those inventories that was built up prior to 1st of July, looking at the volumes, it's likely that they will be sold out at the end of Q3. That's what we are anticipating, at least. Okay. That's clear. Thank you. Just a second on Oxelösund. You're expecting to start production in Q2 next year. Can you give some color on roughly how long you expect that ramp-up to take before reaching some sort of satisfactory utilization level? As a sort of second question, will you be providing any sort of guidance on what the ramp-up cost will be for that period as we get closer to that date? In Oxelösund, we are only replacing the blast furnace with electric arc furnace. The rest will be the same. As long as you have the right chemistry from the primary production, you will have the same quality through the rest of the operations. We have a rather large product portfolio in Oxelösund, which means that each product needs to be sort of qualified in a way. This will probably go pretty fast. We have a very good experience from this. We've done it in the U.S. with electric arc furnace, and some of these operators will be moved over to Sweden during the ramp-up phase. We believe it's going to take less than six months, and some of the grades will be available through the fossil-free route already after two months. Not the whole portfolio, but some of them will be available already after two months. Then we will continue the qualification. six months is what we're anticipating. Then regarding the cost, Leena, could you help me out here? We haven't really calculated that. Of course, it's difficult to calculate. I would say that there is already some higher manning working with the ProTech, and that will sort of continue, but then level out eventually. Then maybe to remind that we do have blast furnace functioning while we are doing the ramp-up. We most likely see some higher slab inventories as a preparation for the startup. All in all, in big picture, the ramp-up impact should be rather modest, I would say. Yeah. We will get back to that when we have a bit better plans at the later stage. Yeah. I can second what you said. I think that those costs will be rather modest. When I saw some figures myself, I was surprised that they were as low as they were, actually. Exactly. We will get back to that a bit later. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Alain Gabriel from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Thank you, and thank you for taking my questions, and good morning to everyone. A couple of questions from my side. First, on the U.S. plate or the SSAB Americas business, the typical one quarterly lag suggests a low teens ASP for SSAB Americas as we head into Q3. Johnny, how do you explain the somewhat lower guide than the lagged spot market would suggest? More broadly, if we look past Q3, where do you see the most exciting end markets for the U.S. plate business? That's my first question. Yeah. Related to the price, I emphasized it last time, we have a lag in our system. It takes a little bit longer for us to implement price increases, but it is happening, and we see it happening. We had a price increase of 7% in the second quarter. We already now negotiate quarterly contracts, et cetera. We know prices are moving up, and we have also announced price increases. I know that it could be a deviation from what the CRU is indicating, and that we are a little bit behind, but we will have significant price increases in Q3. I guess, looking at the guidance that we gave, we were higher than previous guidance, and it could be the case that we end up here this time as well. From what we know right now, I think that we're between 4% - 6%, and that gives us a somewhat lower. Higher Sorry. Somewhat higher price increase. Yeah. Use the second. Thank you, Johnny. Which are looking the most attractive i n the U.S. Thank you for reminding me of that. I think it's very much similar to what I said last time, last quarter. It is the industrial segments, everything which is related to energy. It's growing, transmission towers. If you look at these server halls that's being erected pretty much everywhere, we don't sell maybe so much steel into those server halls, but the transmission of electricity to those server halls, they need transmission towers, et cetera. There we sell a lot to. You have wind power, we have oil and gas, we have pipes, tubes. We sell a lot into this. That demand is still very strong. We see some also improvements in the rail cars production. Crane business is also improving. We see Mexican capacity moving back to United States. That's just reallocating because we were still selling, let's say John Deere as an example, we were selling most of what they consumed in Mexico. They will still consume, even though they moved their manufacturing to United States. We see some improvements there as well. In general, those are the segments that we mainly are focusing on. Thank you. A follow-up on that question is on the lead times for plate. Typically, you've always guided for a quarter lead time. Is the current stretched lead times, does it mean that the lags will hit your P&L much later than what they have done in the past? That's a follow-up on that question, my second question is on the costs, which seem to have come through a bit higher than what you had initially thought when you've given your guidance for Q2, and you've singled out the logistics and alloy prices. How much visibility do you have into Q3, and how confident are you that your cost guidance on these aspects on logistics and alloys is in the right place today? Thank you. I guess maybe Leena, you can answer. Maybe I start with the cost guidance. Yeah. Of course, we know that the raw material consumption cost is, I assume it's not going down, it's continuing on a stable level. As you saw, the U.S. scrap cost or the consumption cost, however, will be slightly lower during Q3 versus Q2. All in all these much higher logistics cost, high alloys cost, and also the elevated cost for CO2 emission allowances, that will be visible in our figures for Q3. Not to underestimate the cost related to the maintenance, that's good to also bear in mind. That cost, we don't see a big drop. That's my view for going forward. Rather stable. I guess for the first question, what's the lag between us and the market price? I would say it's at least a quarter because majority of what we negotiate is quarterly contracts, then we have half-year contracts, and sometimes we have yearly contracts. That means that we should be one quarter behind. If you backtrack where we are now compared to the first quarter, you can see that we are one quarter behind. It's likely that will be the case in Q3 as well. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Tristan Gresser from BNP Paribas. Please go ahead. Yes. Hi, thank you. Just a quick follow-up on the Q3 guidance. You flagged that you have those higher prices offsetting higher cost. You guide for raw material cost, and you touched on a little bit on energy, alloys, and logistics. You implied it's relatively steady, not increasing, not falling. When you say higher prices mitigate higher costs in Q3, that include both raw material and other costs. Right? Is this kind of a neutral margin outlook for Q3, and is that valid for both Europe and Special Steels alike, or there are differences by division? My assumption is that, in the United States, the price increases will for sure cover for all the cost increases. For Europe, I think it's a little bit more uncertain, especially when we talk about energy as well as when we talk about transportation costs. The way we see it will be covering the costs. I guess, Leena, if you have any other comments on that. To remind that we have the maintenance cost impacting the results. In relative terms, yes, of course, we always try to compensate with the pricing. We had this sort of the lag and mix in Q2, going forward it should be more compensating, reminding the maintenance cost will definitely hit the Q3. Just a final comment to that, and I think it's important maybe to say that when it comes to Special Steels, they are much slower when it comes to price adjustments, both when prices goes down, but also when it goes up. If some were surprised to see the lower price increase in Special Steels, this is the way it is. It takes time, significantly longer time than it takes for U.S., SSAB Americas or Europe. I guess it's even two quarters instead of one quarter. That's clear. Maybe just a quick question on Luleå. You started construction works again. Just to confirm, there is no cost impact at all from some remediation, some more Q2 you will need to solve the situation? If you are now referring to Q3, we see that there is very limited cost for that standstill that we have now started also in phases to get back to the construction site. The cost related to Q2 when we had also a pause in the construction work, that was also relatively small, ended up being around SEK 60 million that we had to took as OpEx and not capitalized. In big picture, that's still a small amount, all in all. We don't foresee for Q3, as far as we know now, that would have an impact on the cost base. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Dominic O'Kane from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Hi. I have two questions. I think the broad consensus view is as we get towards Q4, we work through the inventories, we'll obviously start to see a tighter and higher pricing environment. In the context of that, could you maybe just talk to us about what your order book currently looks like for Q4? Is it open yet? How much is available to be filled for Q4 as we start to think about the trajectory into that higher pricing environment? My second question is for Q2, the Middle East clearly looks like a drag on certain components, as we look forward, does the Middle East become an opportunity for you in terms of new addressable markets and new sources of demand? Could you just maybe talk to us about if there are obvious opportunities that will potentially present themselves in the Middle East? All right, the way we do it now is that for the U.S. market, we open up month by month, and as soon as we open up a month, we're sold out within a day. It's filled up immediately. Customers really want to buy, and they come to us, they contact us, and then we sort of give them a rough idea how much they can buy from us going forward for the rest of the year. They are eager to buy even more. For the SSAB business, I'm not concerned. We can open up the order book tomorrow, and then we will fill it up. The reason why we only take it step by step, because we believe prices will move up even further, we want to utilize that opportunity. That's why we take it step by step. When it comes to Europe then, and the order book, SSAB Special Steels and Oxelösund has been sold out, and will be sold out for the rest of the year. When it comes to SSAB Europe, they still have capacity left. For Q4, their order book hasn't been filled up, not near. I think there's a lot of room still. That's hard to guess right now how that's going to look like, but we're quite positive. Mainly based on the fact that there will be limited imports coming into Europe. I think the demand is going to be there. To your second question regarding the Middle East situation, if this could be a new opportunity for us. Yeah, maybe. We're not so sure. I'm guessing that would be related to the energy segment. Could be some potential there, but it's not super clear how that would bring a new market for us. It's quite a limited market as it is today. We have to remember now that for SSAB Special Steels, most of their capacity is sold out. For SSAB Americas, it's been sold out, especially for the U.S. It's Europe where we still have some capacity left, and I'm pretty sure that we will be able to sell that in Europe. Right now, we don't really need a Middle East market to be fair. I'm not so sure that's going to be an opportunity for us either going forward. Thank you. That's helpful. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Reinhardt Van Der Walt from Bank of America. Please go ahead. Morning, Johnny and Leena. Thanks for taking my question. I just want to go back to the point around costs. Could you just break down for us, to the extent you can, where you saw most cost inflation and kind of how we can translate that into a sort of SEK per ton inflation figure or maybe percentage inflation figure? If we can just understand how things like energy costs will maybe evolve into 3Q based on what you're seeing right now. If we do the comparison now, Q2 versus Q1, we can clearly see that the logistic cost is a big impact here, and also the CO2 emission allowances went up. As you know, the system with CO2 allowances changed, going forward from Q2. There is less free allocation and our forecast with the latest price is also slightly higher than in the previous periods. That does have an impact, and also it's based on our production forecast, so higher cost related to that. Then in all the raw material categories, we saw the increase, and I don't have a percentage split to give you, but we saw increase in consumption cost, especially with coking coal, and here also the logistic import freight has an important role when it has gone up. Alloys, definitely we see increase in nickel and ferromolybdenum. Compared to previous year, we also see that zinc and paint has gone up. A lot of increase here and there. The percentage splits, unfortunately, I don't have to give. The guidance for Q3 is also a bit uncertain, but as said, the cost level will not go down. Only exception perhaps the scrap consumption cost in U.S., but also there, the reduction is minor or modest. Different elements, definitely the biggest elements, CO2, logistics, and then the rest between different raw materials. That's the most I can give you at this stage. Okay. No, that's good. Thank you. I just want to check on Tibnor. There was a pretty big increase in earnings there, large part being driven by inventories. Can you separate out for us maybe how much was inventory-driven, and can you give us any comments around what's happening in the end markets for that business? The inventory valuation in Tibnor's case is done based on the latest market price valuation, so they definitely have a positive impact, and I believe that versus Q1, the positive impact was around SEK 30 million. That's sort of the scale that the impact was. What was the second question? Just some commentary around the end markets in the Tibnor business and how conditions are. The end markets for Tibnor is very much related to construction as well as in the industry. They are a distributor covering a lot of different grades from stainless to our products, et cetera. One-stop shop concept. They're moving into doing more processing now and doing solutions for the customers. I think what they've been working on now lately is to optimize their portfolio, sort of reducing the non-profit business, and then also increasing prices in areas where there's room to increase prices. They have this price and excellence program running to optimize their portfolio and their profitability. Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next question today comes from the line of Adrian Gilani from ABG Sundal Collier. Please go ahead. Hello. First of all, just a follow-up on the previous questions on Luleå. There have been several starts and stops recently to the construction. I guess how certain are you now that all the issues are resolved and that this won't be paused again? For us, safety is our key priority, and the safety of our workers is extremely important. We're never going to jeopardize the health for the workers. We detected very small amounts of hydrogen cyanide, and due to that, we needed to update the routines. The contractors had to send back to us how they would secure the safety of their workers with new routines, then we need to approve it, then we continue the production. I guess now, with everything that we've been through, we have now gas measurements all over the site. We also have a procedure for protecting the workers for most of what they can be subjected to when it comes to gases or dust or whatever. It's more likely that we will not have any interference compared to how it was before. I cannot guarantee, it's more likely that we will not have any disturbances. Okay, understand that. The second one, you talked quite a bit about distributor levels in Europe or inventory levels in Europe. Can you just talk about what the similar situation is in the U.S. on the plate market? Do you think that part of the strong price trend we've seen recently is driven by some restocking, or is it fully explained by improving market conditions? I think it's more the first thing, that the stock market is. They're almost out of stock everywhere. They're coming to us begging for more volumes, more capacity, which we can't give them. Hence, they're actually looking for imported material to replenish their stocks, even though they're bought at much higher prices. This is driving prices up. I'm actually surprised that the stock market didn't foresee this, and it came as a shock to them. They don't have the sort of availability that they should have, and now they have to buy from a market that doesn't have capacity available for them. Hence, they are now forced to look into increasing the imports at a much higher cost. That's the situation. The question is, for how long will this maintain? It's not the underlying demand. It is more the availability among the distributors and the stockists. Understand that. Just as a follow-up, do you have any similar time projection as you do in Europe for when these inventory levels could become normalized? Well, they are not restocking at the pace that they were hoping for. We know that for a fact. Hence the reason why they're starting to import. Because the cost of imported material is much higher, they're only importing small quantities to have some availability. I think, and this is just a guess, I think it's going to take longer for them to replenish the stocks, maybe up to half a year, depending on what happens to the market. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Yes, operator, sorry to break in, t ime is running. We have time now for one more question. Thank you. We will now take your final question. Your final question for today comes from the line of Boris Bourdet from Kepler Cheuvreux. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my question. It's a strategic question on Europe. It seems like now Europe is a better place to be for steel makers. At the same time, there is an increased support from authorities to protect the industry. Do you think this provides some recipe for some consolidation in the sector? Yeah. I think most companies are looking into it all the time. It is likely that there will be some consolidations going forward. That's all I can say. It's hard to guess who's going to look into what company and so on, I wouldn't be surprised if something will be announced within the next half year. Okay, very good. Maybe a very quick technical one, you seem to be a bit behind budget in terms of the cost in the other segments. Like you've guided for SEK 1.4 billion, I think, for the full year, you're running slightly short of SEK 0.6 billion. Is this guidance still valid, or do you see some upside here? Some downside? The guidance is still very much valid. Of course, we have a bit of a sort of a timing issue with invoices, also in the other, we do have this internal inventory elimination, which is going up and down, that is deviating depending on the quarter, the guidance definitely still valid. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you. That was our final question for today. I will now hand the call back for closing remarks. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Joanna and Leena. Thank you for good questions. We know that there was a few more waiting to ask questions, but you're much welcome to contact us here during the day. We will try to get back to you. By that, we conclude today's conference. Thank you. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.