that this conference is being recorded. I now hand the conference over to Ms. Megan Cochard, Director, Investor Relations. Thank you, and over to you, ma'am. Thank you very much, and good morning or evening, everyone. Welcome to Novelis's third quarter fiscal year 2024 earnings conference call. Hosting our call today is Steve Fisher, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dev Ahuja, our Chief Financial Officer. Following the presentation, the call will be open to analysts and investors for questions. This conference call is being broadcast on the Internet at novelis.com in the Investors section. A replay of this call will also be available on our website. Before I turn the call over to Steve, let me remind you that today's earnings release and presentation include forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors identified in the release and in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today's presentation also includes certain non-GAAP measurements. Reconciliation of these measurements is provided in the financial statements included with our earnings release, as well as in the appendix of our presentation. Now let me turn the call over to Steve. Thanks, Megan, and good morning or evening, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. Starting with the highlights on Slide 3. We are extremely pleased with the significant improvement in Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA per ton in the third quarter. We are cycling past the low point in shipments and EBITDA after a challenging past 12 months of economic and industry headwinds, including significant inflation and beverage packaging destocking, while also recognizing the continued strength in automotive and aerospace demand. Adjusted EBITDA per ton reached $499 in Q3, a 33% increase over the prior year, and at the top end of our guided range for the quarter. With demand for flat-rolled aluminum products across end markets steady to improving, we maintain our expectations for margin recovery to continue. Our financial footing is firm, enabling us to continue to drive the business forward. We are making great progress with our multibillion- dollar strategic capital investment plan that will further increase our production capacity and the recycled content of our products to meet growing customer demand. In the third quarter, we completed a very high-return, $20 million hot- mill debottlenecking project in Yeongju, South Korea, that unlocked 50kt of capacity. We successfully upgraded the hot mill at our Oswego facility in the US that allows us to replace more costly third-party hot bands with internal production. We've achieved performance standard certifications by the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative at all three of our North American automotive manufacturing locations. This is an extension to existing ASI certifications across a number of plants in all regions and a recognition of our responsible manufacturing processes and another demonstration of our commitment to being the industry leader in sustainability. It is our industry-leading position as a sustainable aluminum solutions provider, along with our global presence and focus on quality and innovation, that make Novelis an essential partner of choice to our customers. Last month, we announced we signed a contract with Ardagh Metal Packaging to supply aluminum beverage packaging sheets to their metal production facilities in North America. This new contract is the third major one we've signed this fiscal year for the beverage packaging market in North America and a testament to the strength of the market in the region. I'd now like to turn the call over to Dev for a detailed review of our third quarter financial results. Thank you, Steve, and good morning or good evening. Starting with our Q3 financial highlights on Slide 5, net sales decreased 6% to $3.9 billion, primarily driven by lower average aluminum prices as total shipments were essentially in line with the prior year. Total flat- rolled product shipments were 910 kilotons in Q3 this fiscal year, compared to 908 kilotons in the prior year period. These flat shipments are a result of lower specialties year-over-year due to muted economic conditions in some markets, but more than offset by higher automotive and beverage packaging shipments on stronger customer demand. Sequentially, the decline in shipments compared to Q2 is typical seasonality, as well as some timing related to the planned hot mill outage in Oswego for the upgrade that occurred in the quarter. We had no material impact on automotive shipments from the UAW union strike that occurred very early in the third quarter, and the post-COVID customer destocking activity in the beverage packaging market is behind us. Adjusted EBITDA was up 33% year-over-year to $454 million in the third quarter, primarily due to lower operating costs compared to a very challenging metal and inflationary cost condition in the prior year. The sequential decline in Adjusted EBITDA was expected due to typical seasonality of the business to complete usual preventative activities and the Oswego outage I just mentioned. EBITDA per ton also continued its strong year-over-year recovery, improving to $499 per ton in Q3, up 33% versus the prior year. The strong recovery in Adjusted EBITDA was the main driver of the improvement in net income attributable to our common shareholder, which was up significantly to $121 million. A less unfavorable metal price lag and unrealized derivative gains in the quarter were other factors, but these were partially offset by higher tax and restructuring charges related to the closure of the Clayton Specialties finishing plant in North America in December. Net income, excluding special items such as restructuring, metal price lag, and unrealized derivatives, was $174 million in the third quarter, up 81% year-over-year. Moving to the Q3 EBITDA bridge on Slide 6. We continue to see year-over-year favorable pricing, even as some direct cost pass-throughs, primarily freight, have come down, partially offset by less favorable product mix. The main driver of EBITDA improvement in the quarter is due to lower operating costs compared to the prior year, which was impacted by high inflationary costs and the European energy crisis. In addition, we are recognizing more favorable metal benefit from recycling this year. These were partially offset by higher repairs and maintenance associated with plant shutdowns, higher labor and employment costs associated with share-based compensation. Let's turn to Slide 7 and Q3 performance year-over-year by segment. North America shipments were down 5% year-over-year. Specialties shipments were lower in a muted macro market environment and increased competition in container stock, while automotive shipments were lower due to the planned Oswego outage. This was partially offset by higher beverage packaging shipments on strong demand and compared to the prior year, which was impacted by customer inventory destocking activities. Adjusted EBITDA was up 33% to $165 million, primarily driven by higher product pricing, favorable metal benefit, and lower operating costs than the prior year, partially offset by higher labor costs and lower volume. Moving to Europe. Shipments were down 5%, as demand for both beverage packaging and specialties shipments were soft, partially offset by higher automotive shipments on stronger demand. Despite the lower shipments, EBITDA was up 55%, driven primarily by higher contracted pricing and cost pass-throughs, and favorable metal benefits, as well as translation benefits on the stronger euro and some lower operating costs. Energy costs on a blended basis, net of our hedges, are fairly stable, but still remain well above pre-Russia-Ukraine war levels. Turning to Slide 8. Asia shipments increased 25% versus the prior year, driven mainly by significantly higher beverage packaging shipments compared to the prior year, which was impacted by a national trucker strike that impacted logistics throughout South Korea and customer inventory destocking activities. Automotive and specialty shipments were also up due to good demand. Adjusted EBITDA increased 35%, due mainly to the higher volume, as well as more favorable metal benefit and favorable foreign exchange, partially offset by less favorable mix. South America shipments grew 9%, driven by higher beverage packaging shipments compared to the prior year, impacted by customer destocking activities and a good start to the summer season. Adjusted EBITDA was up 21% year-over-year, primarily driven by the higher volume and favorable metal benefits. Now, let's turn to cash flow on Slide 9. Fiscal 2024 year-to-date adjusted free cash flow was an outflow of $517 million, primarily a result of a planned increase in capital expenditure as we ramp up our transformational capital investment spend this year. For the first nine months of this fiscal year, capital expenditures have totaled $960 million, we now expect for the full fiscal 2024, CapEx will be between $1.4 billion-$1.6 billion, likely on the lower end of this range. Free cash flow before CapEx increased 52% versus the prior year to $443 million. The increase was driven by lower working capital requirements, including lower inventory and some relief from lower aluminum prices compared to the prior year, partially offset by lower Adjusted EBITDA and higher interest payments due to higher variable rates. We continue to manage a strong and prudent balance sheet, managing the balance of strategic capital investment, adequate maintenance CapEx, net leverage, and liquidity. At the end of fiscal Q3, we had a net leverage ratio of 2.7 times and total liquidity of $2.1 billion. We expect net leverage will drop below 2.5 times at the end of this fiscal year, with a strong Q4 cash flow. I'd now like to turn the call back over to Steve for an update on our capital investment plan and a market and business outlook. Great. Thanks, Dev. Starting with our end market outlook on Slide 11. In the new calendar year, we roll forward our long-term demand outlook across end markets, where sustainability, light weighting, and urbanization trends continue to drive demand. The near-term trends are largely unchanged. While macroeconomic uncertainty in some parts of the world continues to hamper a full recovery, the near-term market trends remain generally positive. Starting with beverage packaging, the post-COVID inventory destocking activity across the supply chain over the past year is behind us, demand recovery is mixed by region. Demand in Americas is strong. The U.S. market is solid, South America has picked up over the past few months, with the summer season off to a good start, as seen in the recovery in shipments in Q3. Europe and parts of Asia are steady, but we need to see the economy improve before we see real recovery. However, our long-term global view remains positive at approximately 4% compounded annual growth rate through 2031. In automotive, near and long-term demand remains stable to positive in all three regions we operate in. We had no impact from the UAW strikes in the U.S., and our placement on large, luxury, and electric vehicles remains a positive factor for demand. Demand in Europe continues to be strong, and Asia is benefiting from the strong demand for electric vehicles. Moving to specialties, demand remains steady but muted, and we are not yet seeing recovery in some of these end markets. Historically, many of these product markets move with GDP and economic cycles, and we need to see those economic conditions improve to see recovery. We are also seeing increased competition in some other specialty end markets, such as container foil, as a weaker Chinese economy is driving an increase in exports to other regions. The housing markets are fundamentally undersupplied, and we believe cooling inflation and interest rates will drive demand recovery in North America and Europe. Demand for premium aerospace plate and sheet remains strong, reflecting strength from growing OEM build rates, supported by multi-year backlogs for aircraft deliveries. This positive long-term demand across our end markets underscores our strategy to expand our capacity-constrained system. We have a multibillion- dollar transformational investment program underway to strengthen our industry-leading position and grow with our customers. There are a number of projects already under construction, with additional opportunities across regions identified and just waiting for the right timing to launch. As always, we will continue to be disciplined about the balance sheet and keeping net leverage levels around three times during this investment cycle. Of the projects currently underway, the largest project is our U.S. greenfield rolling and recycling investment in Bay Minette. This is the first fully integrated aluminum plant built in the U.S. in nearly 40 years and the largest project in our company history. The second bucket of projects are for investments in new standalone recycling capacity in the U.S. and South Korea. The recycling assets continue to make great progress, with Guthrie coming online in just a few months. The third bucket consists of a number of high-return, brownfield investments to debottleneck existing assets and unlock valuable capacity or reduce input costs. I highlighted in my opening remarks, we completed the Yeongju hot mill debottlenecking project earlier this fiscal year, and the first phase associated with multi-year upgrades at both Oswego and Pinda. The remaining investment and capacity release related to these and the Logan debottlenecking project underway, will continue over the next couple of years and deliver very strong returns when complete. Let me talk about two of these investments, Bay Minette and Guthrie, in a little bit more detail. Starting with Bay Minette on Slide 13. Novelis is constructing a state-of-the-art greenfield rolling and recycling plant in the U.S. Southeast, with the ability to initially produce 600,000 metric tons of finished goods for the beverage, packaging, and automotive markets in North America. This is the first fully integrated aluminum rolling and recycling plant built in the U.S. since the 1980s. Since starting the project and completing a large amount of the engineering design, we are updating the project capital cost estimate accordingly to $4.1 billion versus our previous estimate. When we initiated this project, our Front-End Engineering Design, or FEED study, was completed with very low levels of engineering that underestimated the civil and structural requirements for a project of this scale. On top of this low level of engineering, we had the additional challenge of construction, constructing near a coastal site and some overly ambitious views on our ability to pull costs downwards in a high inflationary environment. With all key equipment and the majority of necessary materials contracted, we are confident that we now have a true and full picture of project costs. Despite this higher cost estimate, this is the right move for Novelis. As a highly sophisticated and automated plant, Bay Minette will be a true plant of the future that will improve efficiency, operating leverage, and the sustainability of our products. It provides a first-mover advantage that is not only being built for today, but for decades into the future. This greenfield investment will have a double-digit return on its own right, but more valuable is the ability to very cost-effectively double capacity here in the future. This investment also has provided a broader lift in beverage can pricing for all of North America. Customer contracts covering the new beverage packaging capacity are already signed and in hand, including announced agreements with Coke, Ball, and Ardagh, and automotive customer contracting is progressing as planned. We anticipate commissioning Bay Minette in the second half of calendar year 2026, and look forward to leveraging our decades of experience in aluminum rolling and recycling to serve our customers and the growing market with this new capacity. Turning to Slide 14, the Guthrie Recycling Center is our second-largest investment currently underway, also in North America. I'm very pleased with the construction progress here of this $365 million facility, leveraging our first-mover advantage in advancing automotive recycling. This state-of-the-art aluminum recycling and casting center in Guthrie, Kentucky, remains on budget and timeline to commission in the next few months. The Guthrie facility will be able to recycle and cast sheet ingot made from both pre- and post-consumer automotive scrap, through our existing and growing closed-loop recycling networks with customers, as well as metal available at the end of vehicle life. It also allows us to convert our excess production scrap right back into new sheet ingot and reduce reliance on external sheet ingot supply. Using more recycled content in our products not only helps us to lower our input costs and improve EBITDA per ton, is another demonstration of our commitment to sustainability. Guthrie is expected to reduce our carbon emissions by more than 1 million tons per year, an immeasurable step closer towards our goal of 30% reduction in carbon in 2026. It is these strategic investments, Guthrie, Bay Minette, and a number of high-return debottlenecking projects, that will be a key contributor to support and advance Novelis margins going forward. Moving to Slide 15. Our EBITDA per ton margin transformation journey has been significant over the past many years. The rapid recovery in Adjusted EBITDA per ton over the past year is really a testament to our overall product portfolio position. Since its recent low point in Q3 last year, EBITDA per ton has recovered quarter to quarter as expected, with a very strong 33% increase year-over-year at $499 per ton. We are confident in our guidance for EBITDA per ton to return to a sustainable $525, starting in this fiscal fourth quarter. We don't believe this improvement is the limit. Our strategy provides a number of margin driver opportunities for EBITDA per ton to continue to expand over time, largely stemming from our capital investment plan already underway. These drivers include capacity expansion and a significant operating leverage from higher volumes, favorable market dynamics, combined with excellent quality and service that supports higher pricing with long-term contracts already in hand, maintaining our automotive leadership position in a growing market, and increasing the amount of recycled input utilized in our products. These proven margin levers, combined with our ability to drive continuous operational improvement and efficiency, are opportunities to drive future EBITDA per ton expansion to over $600 over time. Finally, turning to slide 16. We are delivering significant improvement in Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA per ton as expected this year. We anticipate the fourth quarter of fiscal 2024 will see a return of Adjusted EBITDA per ton to a sustainable $525, leading to a return of Adjusted EBITDA around $500 million. With operating leverage and normalization of market growth next year, this $500 million of Adjusted EBITDA will also grow. Our transformational organic expansion program is well underway to capture growing demand for sustainable aluminum products. This new capacity growth and capabilities, combined with our diverse and growing global portfolio, recycling leadership and operational excellence, will continue to provide further margin expansion over time. In summary, our unmatched global scale and recycling leadership drives strong financial results and makes us an essential partner of choice for our customers. These differentiators also allow us to execute our ongoing strategy to invest in growth. Organically increase our rolling and recycling capacity to shape a more sustainable future. With that, we're happy to take your questions. Thank you very much. We will now begin the question and answer session. Anyone who wishes to ask a question may press star and one on their touchtone telephone. If you wish to remove yourself from the question queue, you may press star and two. In order to ensure the management is able to address questions from all participants, please restrict your questions to one question and one follow-up question at a time. You may rejoin the queue for follow-up questions. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now wait for a moment while the question queue assembles. The first question is from the line of Indrajit from CLSA. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my question. I have most of my questions are on the Guthrie CapEx expansion. When we see that from the initial expected $2.5 billion, it is more than about 60% inflation. Are we getting any support from the government under IRA or any other support that we think we can get over the next couple of years, at our CapEx design that time? Yes. So we do have support from both local government and state that's already embedded in the overall estimate of $4.1 billion. We also have applied for IRA funds for Cap 48C, and think that our investment is a strong candidate. The decisions as it relates to 48C are expected to come by the end of March, and in no estimate of any 48C funds coming in are part of the $4.1 billion. Sure. When you talk about the IRR of the project, we revised down from mid-teen to double digit, have we considered any increase in profitability that we had earlier estimated, or our profitability estimate that we had earlier forecasted remains intact? I'll let Dev handle this. Yes. Indrajit, yes. In our earlier estimates of the IRR, we had been a bit deliberate in building up some conservatism into our cost numbers. I think we were also more aggressive in how the cash flow, cash outflow would happen over the construction phase. We think that while there is an overrun, as you captured, our rate of outflow is going to be slower than what initially estimated. On top of that, we have more concrete understanding of the future operating costs, both of which are going to bring in some favorability, and that is what gives us confidence that the double-digit IRR for this project can be well preserved. Yes, we are taking a dip from the mid-teens that we had announced earlier, but at the same time, we will be confidently at a double- digit IRR. In short, that's really how I would describe it. Sure. last question, of the $4.1 billion, how much have you already spent so far? We have spent, or rather, let's put it this way, at the end of March, we would have spent $750 million, approximately. The burn has not been so significant until this stage. I also said earlier, we think that compared to our initial assumptions, the burn is going to be slower, and the burn is going to be more closer to the commissioning of the project, than we had earlier estimated, Indrajit. Sure. Thank you so much. I have more questions. I'll join then. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Amit Dixit from ICICI Securities. Please go ahead. Hi. Good evening, everyone, and thanks for taking my questions. I have a question on the cost efficiencies that we are going to get essentially from increasing the three recycling capacity. What kind of margin improvement, if it is possible to quantify, or what kind of additional recycling percentage we would enjoy? Also if you can give a flavor on South Korea as well. Amit, one clear thing I can tell you is that any recycling project always comes with a very, very strong IRR. In the case of Guthrie, the attractiveness becomes more pronounced because a good part of this project is towards automotive. The largest part of this is towards automotive. This project has a very attractive payback period. It has an above teens IRR at a minimum, just to kind of describe the attractiveness. It has an above teens IRR. What this is going to do is a couple of things. It will be a key strategy for us to increase recycled content in line with our future goals, to get us closer to the 2026 target on carbon as well. In terms of attractiveness of profitability, it is going to considerably make the profile of the North American profitability more attractive as the project is fully rolled out and commissioned. It is part of our margin improvement story in future, to be clear. This is one of the enablers and a meaningful enabler, Amit. No, got it. just a follow-up on, you know, cost efficiencies only. This on slide 6, there was a big bar, $93 million benefit in this quarter, which of course has got a base effect, as I understand. How much of it is really sustainable? Some of those cost elements have come down significantly. Yes. You are talking about the improvement in the cost quarter-on-quarter versus the last year. Is that your key question? Yes, Dev, exactly. Okay, fine. Let me just address it. We are comparing last year with a period that was basically stuck by a number of unfavorable happenings all at the same time. One, that energy was in a bit of a crisis mode, particularly relating to Europe. Energy costs had really gone to peak levels, number one. Number two, our metal benefits were hitting a low point, and that is related to challenges in availability of scrap, including more particularly in South America. You know, as a second factor, in general, besides the pronounced inflation of energy in Europe, it was generally highly inflationary condition. Freight were high, supply chains were still struggling. We are comparing to a period which was quite unfavorable, with everything that was wrong happening at the same time. From there, as expected, as we said at that time, that we expect these conditions to start normalizing, and they actually have normalized even earlier than we expected. You see that recycling has come back, scrap availability is good, scrap spreads have normalized to a large extent. Overall inflation, particularly freight inflation, has moderated, and energy prices have also moderated. Spot is very good right now, as we speak in Europe. This slide and the number of 93 million that you see is basically reflecting the swing between a very adverse situation last year in the same quarter, to a way improved situation this year in quarter three. I hope I've addressed the question. No, no, wonderfully well. Thanks and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Sumangal Nevatia from Kotak Securities. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning, and thanks for the opportunity. I have a couple of questions, mainly on the revision of the gaming CapEx and timeline. We're looking at almost 65% increase in CapEx and one-year delay, and looks like the project is now three years away at least. I just want to understand properly, I mean, what exactly has gone wrong here, and is there any change in scope, the same equipment configuration, same end contracts, or some actual change in scope of the project? Yeah, it is a large increase from our previous estimate, and we recognize that. As I said in the prepared remarks, when we started this project, the FEED study was at a very low level of engineering and we underestimated the true costs of site work and construction of the project of this scale. I think on top of that, the challenge of constructing at the current coastal site and our internal ambition to an ability to cost contain the capital expenditure in a high inflationary environment just has not occurred. When you think about the major drivers of the cost increase, it is really related to civil and structural. A vast majority of this, it's not the equipment itself. There is a little bit of additional equipment that we've added to the facility, but we have not dramatically changed the scope of the project itself. It really is driven inside the civil civil construction site. Now, what I think is important to take away, too, is we're building this site not just for tomorrow, but for the next several decades. When we do expand this site, it will be at a fraction of the cost of this initial greenfield investment that you're seeing today. As we talked about, we can double the capacity of this facility with this hot mill at rates that would be much, much more attractive on a per ton basis, between $1,500-$2,500 per ton, to construct, to do brownfield expansion. I think you can see that supported on Slide 12, where there's a number of examples of brownfield expansion. You know, at the end of the day, we're confident that this is what it's gonna cost to build a facility of this, you know, of this capability, and it's still a solid double-digit IRR. Okay, are we now, I mean, revising down our return expectation also? I think earlier it was mid-teens, now we are talking about double digits. Is it like early double- digit range? Yes, Sumangal, I mean, yes, we are not anymore saying that it's a mid-teens IRR, with this kind of a cost overrun. That's very obvious. That should be very obvious. At the same time, we are saying that it is still a double-digit IRR. As Steve described, this is a project for the very long term, has a very attractive profile. When we do the next expansion, it will happen at a fraction of the cost, as Steve described. I think that while nobody likes this, we don't like the overrun, but at the same time, the project makes a lot of sense, both from a strategic perspective and a financial perspective. Okay. Second question is, I mean, since we've already entered into a large part of the contracting for these volumes before we did this reengineering and reevaluation of the cost, are we having discussions with the customers? Are we going back to them with this revised cost and trying to renegotiate anything, or those terms and contracts did not leave any scope of rediscussion? Yeah. No, we're not going back to our customers. We're not gonna let any customer down. We've got a diverse footprint that we can supply and satisfy these customer contracts that we've talked about are at significant price increases and an uplift across all of our North American system. No, we're not going back. We will make sure that our customers are fully satisfied with the contractual commitments that, you know, we've announced with Coca-Cola, Ball, and Ardagh recently this year. Yeah, Sumangal, I think that what I forgot to mention earlier, I think we have said to you many times before to all of you, is that the returns profile of this project, as we describe it, does not include the uplift that we have got on the price on existing volumes, not just on the Bay Minette volume. Basically, you know, in the inherent attractiveness of the project includes also the overall uplift in pricing that we have got. Just some things to keep in mind as to why this project is still very, very meaningful financially and strategically. Got it. Since we are now talking about a one-year delay, is there any penalty, or how long are these contracts? Do we face any impact if we are commissioning the project one-year delay, given a large part is already contracted? No. We're very comfortable with being able to satisfy all the contractual commitments that we've made for beverage packaging and continue to move forward with auto contracting as well. We no impact. Got that. Just last one, when we're seeing $600 potential, are we talking about next one, two years, or it kind of factors in Bay Minette and more of a five-year, four, five-year kind of a potential for our business? We're not giving any timeframe. We're telling you the margin drivers of which we have the ability to continue to push past $525. That's what we're signaling to you. It will take a number of price increases that we've talked about publicly, recycled, increase in recycled content that Dev talked about earlier, commissioning of some of these assets. It's multitude of fact, margin levers. Got that. Just one last one, sorry. Are we expecting since the end market outlook, we are seeing bottoming out of a lot of factors, can we share some sort of a volume guidance for FY 2025, given that FY 2024 has been quite weak on volumes? I mean, I think in the prepared remarks, I think we gave some guidance. We said 525 sustainable average basis over the next several quarters. Also getting back to $500 million EBITDA in the fourth quarter. As we see continued operating leverage and normalization of market recovery, which are not all there yet, we feel there's growth. There is growth in that $500 million, we're not going to get into shipment growth. Got that. That's very helpful. Thank you and all the best. We'll be in line with market growth and slightly above. Okay, got it. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Amit Murarka from Axis Capital. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, good evening. Thanks for the opportunity. Just again on the CapEx cost inflation. Like, can we now say that finally, this is the final number of CapEx costs? Because we've seen, like, twice this being revised, and particularly this one is quite surprising to see. That is the first question. Like, are you confident that this is the final CapEx number now? Yeah, we have a much clearer view now of the total project cost, with a high level of engineering that's complete, and all equipment and the majority of materials contracted at this point in time. We are confident in this estimate, which does also include adequate project contingency. To put it in project terms, we have a T85 confidence level, 85% confidence level in this estimate. Why not 100%? I mean, there's still, you know, the typical risks, of a project of this size within its 2.5 years, you know, unforeseeable events, whether it be weather or supply chain, these type of things that, you know, could be out there. We have a high confidence that we can deliver on $4.1 billion now with what we've done. Sure. Could you break up this $4.1 billion? Like, I understand you spend only $450, you will spend $750 by March. Like, how will it be broken up in FY 2025, 2026, 2027? Yes, by March, we would have spent $750. For the next two fiscal years, you can say that the bulk of the expenditure will be happening, cash flows will be happening over the next two fiscal years. In the final fiscal year, there will still be a meaningful amount. I'm not yet giving you a perfect breakdown, if you divide it into three years, for a majority of, you know, the $3.4 billion that is left, you should take the bulk of it over the next two years, and then some remnant, which will run into high hundreds of millions, will be in the final year. That's the guidance, broad guidance I can give to you. Sure. Like, only question that is coming to my mind was that given that the bulk of the CapEx that will remaining be done, and I believe you would not have firmed up the contracts for the long lead items, could there be any inflation coming in from equipment ordering or long lead item ordering when you go to do that? All equipment has been ordered and negotiated, and the majority of materials are already contracted. You know, there are still levels of inflation that we've assumed in the next two and a half years for what's not contracted, embedded in some of the contingency that we've put in here. We wanted to be as transparent as possible of what this is gonna cost. We've gone through this with experts, and we feel very confident here, as I said before. Yeah, Amit, we have factored in, based upon the advice of our PPCM partners and even independent assessors, we have been proven to embed in some contingency in this number, which will take care of some of the concerns that, you know, you have expressed, you know, on future inflation and all of that. All right, thanks a lot for the explanation. That's all from my end. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before we take the next question, a reminder to all participants, you may press star and one if you wish to ask a question. The next question is from the line of Ritesh Shah from Investec. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, sir. Thanks for the opportunity. Just two questions. One is, when we indicate that return ratios will be, say, low single, say, low double digit, does this also take into account the sort of support that we have secured from the government? You did indicate that we have some sort of support from the local government. We have applied for IRA funds. Is this after taking that into consideration? How should we understand that? Yeah, no, it does not consider anything as it relates to 48C or IRA funds. We'll find out where we're at with our application, hopefully by the end of March, but this does not factor any of that in. What I said before was we have always had some local and state level incentives that have always been embedded in the numbers. Sure. Hypothetically, if we had to secure that, how would the return ratio profile change? I think it's premature. Let's wait and see. We'll know here hopefully in the next six weeks. Right. Again, just to go back to the one of the prior questions, I think Sumangal was asking, how should we understand the bloating CapEx profile? It's pretty significant. Are we looking at a new plant layout altogether? Because it's just hard to believe when you say the CapEx bump is on back of the construction and structural cost. If you could provide some more detail, I think that would be really useful. You know, this was a first mover advantage that we had to increase the levels of profitable contracts across the entire North America system based on where the growth was. When we started the project and talked about the original numbers, the FEED was in a very low level of engineering. That is, as we've gotten in the increase in confidence level with the detailed engineering at the current site, it has driven a significant amount, additional civil and structural requirements that we had just not factored in in the original numbers. You know, at the end of the day, that is what's now being reflected. I think we also would be straightforward that we set ambitious targets as it relates to cost containment and value engineering, that did not come through as well. As we've advanced this project, we brought in the right experts to make sure that we know exactly what this is gonna cost us, and the confidence now, the $4.1 is there. The increase in the civil and structure, structural components of this project has driven the cost up. Sure. Given this is a long gestation project, do you fear technological risk when it comes to FRB Tecnologie, say, over, say, three years, four years? Let me be more specific, I think microbial has been spoken about, but it's, it hasn't got commercialized to the desired extent. How, how do you see that as a potential threat, given this is pretty much a long gestation CapEx? Yeah, yeah. No, we don't see that. I think we're the leaders in innovation in this space, and we look at all kinds of different types of technologies. We continue to embed those into this facility, and this will be the most advanced facility when it comes up. We're confident that it will be the most advanced. We'll be the leaders in innovation, so if there is advancements, we'll be able to be, you know, participants in that type of new technology as well. We are very confident in this facility and what it's gonna do. Sure. Last one, I think they did indicate that range from $525-$600, there will be several price increases. If we had to subtract that part of the equation of incremental price increases, taking the market cycles out of the equation, where would this $525 number be at? Okay. I think that Ritesh, you have to just understand this with all the levers that Steve basically elaborated. The journey from $525 -$ 600 and above is with the following levels. Number one, operating leverage with increasing volumes, including the impact of new capacity. I mean, today, we are still not using even the existing full capacity. By now, you would have understood that operating leverage with higher volumes in our business is very meaningful. Pricing is another lever that one can, you know, keep in mind, you know, given the, given the new contracts that are coming. The third lever is going to be really increasing recycling. Example, Guthrie. Example, Korea. We have a number of recycling projects in the pipeline. More recycling is the third accretive element. Last but not the least, continuous improvement, operating efficiencies and digitalization. We are not going to give you a breakdown of each of these components. What we are saying is that we have some very powerful levers, you know, which will help us to continuously keep adding margin. The 600 was just to tell you directionally that there is a lot of gunpowder still left, and therefore, you know, we see a very positive direction. That's the limited message that we are trying to give to you. Sure, that's useful. If I can just squeeze in one. Steve, you did indicate that we can effectively double the capacity at Beaumont. Did I hear it right when we say double the capacity? Does it infer 600 to 1.2 at minimum CapEx? Yeah. The hot mill would allow us, if we debottleneck the hot mill, whether it be front-end equipment debottlenecked, back-end in cold mill and finishing equipment, to double the capacity at that facility. The efficiency, now that we will put all the civil and structural work into this, the hot mill there will come at much, much more attractive per ton capital cost in the range of $1,500-$2,500, depending on how we go about sequencing the debottlenecking over time. By the way, you can have enough evidence of that if you look at the recent debottleneckings that we have done. You know, take the example of Brazil, which is already commissioned. We did a 100kt expansion of not only rolling, but also recycling at a cost of about $1,600 and some dollars per ton. I mean, if you look at all our debottlenecking projects, there is enough evidence that debottlenecking at the levels that Steve just described, has happened multiple times in our past and also in the near future, we are doing it. Sure. This is, quite useful. Thank you so much. I'll join back with you. All the very best. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Vishnu Kumar AS from Avendus Spark. Please go ahead. Thanks for the time. Again, going back to the same question, I mean, on the Beaumont expansion. One of our competitor seems to be well ahead of timeline, both on CapEx and also in terms of commissioning. If I intuitively arrive at the per ton CapEx, the number seems to be probably way lower than what we are investing in. Any, any sense where the gap could be, if you can speak about it? Secondly, on the timeline, since it's getting delayed by a year or so, in the non-packaging space, do we see aggressive competition from the competitor? They are probably coming slightly ahead of time. If you could help understand on these two. We don't know the details behind their estimate and certainly can't speak to their project. I mean, all we can do is do what we put in the diligence associated, what we think a project like this is gonna cost. We've confirmed, you know, with this, with project engineering experts, and we have a high confidence level, you know, in our estimate here, for a plant of this size and scale and sophistication. That can, as we've talked about, easily be utilized more in the future, not just for today. You know, we've been in the aluminum space a long time and we feel comfortable that this is ultimately what it's gonna take to build a plant of this capability. Can't speak to competitors. I think you can see where we are from a contracting standpoint. We feel very comfortable. We've contracted all the beverage packaging portion of this under long-term contracts, and we're moving very, very well on the auto as well. Okay. on the journey from $525 - $600 per ton, I mean, if you could probably help us understand on the new investments that's coming, I mean, new projects that are going to get commissioned on the Guthrie and the other smaller ones. Any delta in terms of per ton, if you can speak about maybe $10, $20, $30, something that we could possibly see before Beaumont kicks in? Well, Vishnu, I think that what we can definitely tell you is the following: that this journey to $600 includes the impact of the higher volumes from Guthrie. We will get the higher price in time, because we are not going to be letting down any customers. We have the flexibility to supply these volumes from other plants. The bigger point that you need to understand is that the plant that we are constructing is going to have a cost per ton of production, which is meaningfully lower compared to existing plants, and a meaningfully higher price to justify the returns that we needed from this project. So it is all embedded in, we do not want to start splitting the number by project or plant. All that I told you is that if you remember the levels that I called out earlier, on operating leverage, pricing, efficiency, recycling, all of them are going to take us north of $600 in the next year. That, that's all we can say for now. Understood. Thanks, and all the best. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Kirtan Mehta from BOB Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thank you, sir, for giving me this opportunity. Going back to Bay Minette, if you look at the $750 million spent over a previous budget of $2.5 billion target, basically, it was closer to 30% CapEx run rate that we were achieving. I think we also measured the project progress also based on the milestones. What would the progress that we have reached on the site work at this point of time? Obviously, we've been doing a lot on the engineering side, procuring, and working on civil at the site. Steels arriving and being erected soon. I think we can get more into a cadence of progress of the construction part of this, the construction management of this, as we report out on a quarterly basis. You know, as we said, based on the new estimate that we've put together and what that's gonna require, the timeline has shifted into commissioning in the second half of 2026. Calendar? Calendar. Calendar. Just one follow-up. I think the way I was coming from is, typically when we construct a large new project, first year is typically more about the site work progress. After the end of the first year, when we are guiding that, we are now seeing a more need for civil and structural site work. I think physical work with the site would have progressed as well. Is there sort of a lot of rework getting involved when we are now putting up additional civil and structure? Would you be able to clarify on those aspects? No, no, we've paced construction management alongside of the engineering and ensuring that engineering is in front of the construction management of the project. Listen, we did the rebaselining. We wanted to get out with where we are confident in the new estimate. Clearly, as now we move into really getting into construction management, besides just dirt piling and structure erect, we will begin to give you updates on a more regular basis. Sure. One more question, again, on the Bay Minette, from the profitability when we are guiding for the double-digit IRR. I presume that this would earn significantly higher margin than the rest of the company. When we are now sort of looking at a $600 per ton average margin over a period, are we sort of backing in $700-$750+ EBITDA per ton while we assess the IRR profile for this particular project? I think that you can do the math, you know, with all the information that we have offered to you. What I can tell you is that the margin profile of this project is significantly more attractive than the average EBITDA that we have been describing. I can tell you that with confidence. This project requires a superior margin profile to justify the investment, right? Yes, the answer that I can give to you is that this project will generate much above average EBITDA per ton profile that we have described so far. That is absolutely needed to justify the return. I leave the rest to you to model it out. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Thank you. The next question is from the line of Indrajit from CLSA. Please go ahead. Hi, sir, thank you for the follow-up. I have two questions. One, when you talk about doubling of capacity at, say, $1,500-$2,700 per ton, on a four- to five-year horizon, do you see the need for another 600kt in the North American market for Weyerhaeuser and others, particularly Weyerhaeuser? Do you think it is just an optionality that we're building in maybe 10-12 years down, but then we can evaluate it? No. Just I want to make sure that you heard us correctly. The opportunity to debottleneck and expand the capacity, double the capacity, comes in the range of $1,500-$2,500 per ton from a capital standpoint. We don't have to do everything at once. There's debottlenecking opportunities along the way, so it can be phased over several years. Coming back to the market opportunity, we've always said that we needed both our investment and our competitors' investment in North America, and that even with those two... Remember, the first thing we're doing is bringing in domesticating supply that's coming from Asia right now. That's a significant number. That's the first one. The growth through the end of the decade will fill both of the mills that have been announced. Early in the thirties, we will need more capacity in North America, absolutely. Sure, thank you. X of Bay Minette, given whatever debottlenecking is ongoing and will be completed, say, in FY 2025, what would be your total rolling capacity, say, end of FY 2025, across the world? With Bay Minette or with all identified projects? Excluding Bay Minette, all the projects, so by end of March 2025, what would be. Yeah, so I can answer that. As we speak, you know, we are doing a number of debottlenecking, like, you know, in Brazil, we are going from 680 to 750. I'll kind of describe what the debottleneckings are. In Korea, we have already commissioned about a 50 kt, right? Just very recently, by doing a $20 million CapEx. You know, we are having some more 50kt of opportunity in Korea, you know, again, at a very low CapEx in our Ulsan plant. I would say that we would add about 200kt-300kt on other debottleneckings between now and 2025. again, so 4.2, just to be clear, 4.2 is the current capacity. I would say that we could be adding about 250kt between now and 2025, based on other debottleneckings, and then you'll have the 600, which will take us to our about 5.1+ million. What would be the recycling capacity or proportion at that level, at 4.4, 4.5? Yeah, we are not. We have described all the recycling projects, you know, the Ulsan recycling and all of that. If you see the materials, we have told you what the recycling is going to be. But yes, recycling investments will also continue as part of this, you know, debottlenecking. It's difficult for us to just give the recycling, because we have to work on new high recycled alloys too, right? It's a combination of both in order to get it into our products. We have lofty goals to increase from where we're at of 61% currently, on average last year, and to significantly increase that going forward. We will continue to make investments alongside of the rolling. That's what my question is. At 4.4, 4.5, would we have optionality to go beyond 61% on recycling? Yes. Yes, absolutely. I mean, think about Guthrie. Guthrie itself is a significant lift. Yes, I mean, recycling percentage will steadily keep going up from the current levels of 61%. That's how it has been planned. Sure. Thank you so much for your answers. Thank you. We have the next question from the line of Sumangal Nevatia from Kotak Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, yeah, thanks for the follow-up. Two questions. One, on Bay Minette, given the huge scale and one of its kind, can you guide us, how should we expect the ramp-up to be? I mean, should it be over 12-18 months or more like three-four years to reach rated capacity once it's commissioned? We still stand by our original ramp-up of 18 -to 24 months to get the facility fully ramped up. I think we're in a very good position, as we've worked with our customers for multiple decades. The need for this capacity to come online, we'll be working with them early in qualification and setting schedules. We think that we will be able to, you know, ramp up Bay Minette within that 18 - 24 month timeframe that we've been outlining before, and maybe a little bit of an opportunity to tighten that up a little bit. Okay, got it. Second question, more so from the market dynamics point of view. Overall, we're seeing exports from China increasing in various commodities as their domestic demand has been struggling. Can you, I mean, can you share, are we witnessing that in any of our segments, beverage can in Western geography, mainly, any rising competition in sheets or any downstream segments from China? Obviously, in our Asian operations, or Asian region, we are seeing a little bit more beverage packaging exported out of China into that region, causing a bit more pricing pressure in the near term. As far as other products around the world, there's what we highlighted in our prepared remarks is specific to actual containers coming into the U.S., that we had been supplying previously foil stock, or the coils to make the containers. With where the economy is in China, those containers are landing inside of the U.S., and has caused a little bit lower demand as it relates to that product. Got it. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Dev Ahuja and Steve Fisher. All the best. Thanks. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will take that as a last question for today. I would now like to hand the conference over to Mr. Fisher for closing comments. Over to you, sir. Yes, thank you, operator. thanks to everyone for attending our call today. I hope you see we had a favorable outlook for Q4 and the road ahead as we continue investing and building for our future. I wanna thank you for your support and look forward to sharing our fiscal year-end results in the May earnings call. Thank you. Thank you. On behalf of Novelis Inc., that concludes this conference. Thank you all for joining us. You may now disconnect your line.