Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Vale's First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. This conference is being recorded, and the replay will be available on our website at vale.com. The presentation is also available for download in English and Portuguese from our website. To listen to the call in Portuguese, please press the globe icon on the lower right side of your Zoom screen and then choose to enter the Portuguese room. Select Mute Original Audio so that you won't hear the English version in the background. We would like to inform that all participants are currently in a listen-only mode for the presentations. Further instructions will be provided before we begin the question-and-answer section of our call. We would like to advise that forward-looking statements may be provided in this presentation, including Vale's expectations about future events or results encompassing those matters listed in the respective presentation.
We caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties. To obtain information on factors that may lead to results different from those forecast by Vale, please consult the report Vale files with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Brazilian Comissão de Valores Mobiliários, and in particular, the factors discussed under forward-looking statements and risk factors in Vale's annual report on Form 20-F. With us today are Mr. Gustavo Pimenta, CEO; Mr. Marcelo Bacci, Executive Vice President of Finance and Investor Relations; Mr. Rogério Nogueira, Executive Vice President, Commercial and Development; Mr. Carlos Medeiros, Executive Vice President of Operations; and Mr. Shaun Usmar, CEO of Vale Base Metals. Now, I will turn the conference over to Mr. Gustavo Pimenta. Sir, you may now begin.
Hello, everyone, thank you for joining Vale's first quarter 2026 conference call. I would like to start by briefly reinforcing our strategy and our ambition to create superior value for our shareholders. This strategy is grounded in a relentless focus on operational excellence, combined with disciplined capital allocation and the development of highly accretive growth opportunities, particularly in copper and iron ore, leveraging Vale's unique asset base and endowment. Recent geopolitical events and the volatility they have introduced to the markets only reinforce the importance of building a resilient and competitive business that can perform across a wide range of market conditions. This is exactly what we are doing at Vale. Despite near-term uncertainties, I'm very excited about our Q1 performance and very optimistic about delivering another great year.
I'm highly confident about Vale's future and in our ability to navigate the current environment while delivering robust, value-accretive growth over the long run. With that in mind, I would like to now turn to the highlights of our first quarter performance. Safety is a core value at Vale and remains at the center of everything we do. In the first three months of the year, we safely removed two additional structures from any emergence level, reaching an 80% reduction since 2020. These achievements reflect disciplined governance, continuous investment in monitoring and engineering solutions, and a strong safety mindset across the organization. This journey goes beyond procedures and systems. It is fundamentally about culture, accountability, and leadership at every level of the organization. By consistently advancing safety, we not only protect our people and communities, but also reinforce Vale's position as a trusted partner.
Now let me turn to our operational performance. In iron ore, our focus on operational excellence, combined with the flexibility of our product portfolio, once again translated into solid performance this quarter. Production grew 3% year-on-year, supported by record output at S11D and Brucutu, as well as the successful ramp-up of the Capanema and Vargem Grande projects. At the same time, we continued to make solid progress on the Serra Sul + 20 project. It has now reached 86% physical completion and remains on track to start up in the second half of the year. Once delivered, Serra Sul + 20 will further strengthen our operational flexibility and add incremental volumes to one of the most competitive iron ore assets in the world. Sales volumes increased by 4% year-on-year, reflecting higher production and supported by healthy global demand.
Importantly, this volume growth leveraged our flexible product portfolio, allowing us to improve price realization with all link premiums increasing by $2.6 per ton quarter-on-quarter. This translates into around $800 million in annualized revenue, reinforcing the value of our commercial strategy. Let me now turn to Vale Base Metals. At Vale Base Metals, we continue to deliver a strong operational performance with double-digit production growth in both copper and nickel. In copper, production reached 102,000 tons in the first quarter, the highest level since 2017 and 13% higher year-on-year. This performance was supported by record output at Salobo and Sossego, as well as solid contribution from our Canadian polymetallic operations, especially at Voisey's Bay. In nickel, production also grew strongly, increasing 12% year-on-year, the best first quarter performance since 2020.
This reflects the stable production from the Voisey's Bay mining expansion project, along with the successful commissioning of the second furnace at Onça Puma, bringing total production to 49,000 tons. During the quarter, we also announced an agreement to form a consortium for the Thompson operations. This transaction is part of our strategic review of assets and supports our broader objective of strengthening the competitiveness of VBM's global mining portfolio while positioning these operations for long-term value creation. To that end, I would like to also highlight the release of new standalone asset reports post our VBM Day held in March. This initiative reinforce our commitment to transparency and to providing the market with greater visibility into the quality, scale, and potential of our Base Metals portfolio.
We firmly believe that this increased transparency will support a better understanding of the strategic importance and value creation potential of Vale Base Metals. Finally, I would like to highlight a pioneering initiative that reinforces Vale's leadership in innovation and decarbonization. In April, we announced an unprecedented agreement to introduce the world's first ethanol-powered ocean-going vessels with operations expected to begin in 2029. These next-generation Guaibamax vessels have the potential to reduce carbon emissions by up to 90%, marking a major milestone for decarbonization in global maritime transportation. Combined with advanced efficient technologies and wind-assisted rotor sails, this approach delivers environmental impact, operational flexibility, and energy security. This initiative reinforces our commitment to reducing Scope 3 emissions and positions Vale as a leader in shaping a more sustainable and competitive future for the industry. Now I'll turn to Marcelo Bacci to talk about our financial performance.
I'll be back for closing remarks before the Q&A session.
Thanks, Gustavo. Good morning, everyone. In the first quarter of 2026, our pro forma EBITDA reached $3.9 billion, representing a 21% increase year-on-year. This strong performance was primarily driven by another very solid operational execution in our three commodities, benefiting from higher volumes and improved price realization. Vale Base Metals' EBITDA more than doubled compared to last year, reaching $1.2 billion in the quarter. This is yet another demonstration of the significant value being unlocked in this business. VBM's EBITDA would have been even higher, absent the approximately $140 million negative impact of provisional price adjustments made at the end of the quarter. Based on today's forward curves, this impact would have been positive, implying a potential reversal in Q2.
In iron ore, EBITDA reached BRL 2.9 billion with a flat but solid performance year-on-year, supported by higher sales volumes and better all-in premiums, more than offsetting the appreciation of the Brazilian real during the quarter. Let's take a closer look at our cost performance. In the quarter, our C1 cash cost, excluding third-party purchases, reached $23.6 per ton, an increase of 12% year-on-year. As expected, this increase was mainly driven by the BRL's appreciation, combined with the effect of inventories consumption carried from the previous quarters at higher costs. The all-in cash cost, in turn, increased by 8%, with stronger all-in premiums and a solid performance in freight, helping to partially mitigate cost pressures.
While external variables such as exchange rates and oil prices can introduce volatility to our cost structure, they further reinforce the importance of our ongoing focus on efficiency, productivity, and operational excellence. Assuming market consensus estimates for 2026 of an average BRL of 5.25, an average oil prices of $90 per barrel, we are working to achieve the top end of our original guidances on a 61% FE basis. In this slide, you can see the different sensitivities for our C1 and all-in costs for iron ore. Through disciplined execution and a strong focus on controllable cost drivers, we remain confident in our ability to progressively and structurally reduce our cost base, supporting competitiveness and value creation across the cycle. Turning now to Vale Base Metals, both copper and nickel once again delivered solid and consistent reduction in all-in costs.
Starting with copper, all-in costs once again reached negative territory, declining by BRL 1,800 per ton year-on-year, reaching BRL -600 per ton. This very strong result was mainly driven by robust by-product revenues, supported by higher prices and increased gold volumes. In nickel, all-in costs declined by 48% year-on-year, reaching BRL 8,200 per ton. This improvement reflects stronger by-product revenues from our polymetallic assets, benefiting from favorable pricing as well as cost optimization initiatives at Voisey's Bay. Fixed cost dilution, driven by a 12% increase in production volumes, also further supported results. Looking ahead, we expect Vale Base Metals to continue delivering operational improvements beyond the contribution from by-product prices. In nickel, our focus is now on maximizing cash flow generation, leveraging on continued cost efficiency and on the polymetallic nature of our assets.
Let's talk about our cash generation. Our recurring free cash flow generation reached $813 million in the quarter, representing a 61% increase year-over-year. This stronger performance was primarily driven by solid EBITDA, combined with the settlement of currency swap and oil hedging programs. The more negative working capital variation reflected higher inventory levels and an increase in accounts receivable, with collections expected over the coming quarters. Despite the volatility that oil prices can introduce to the cost structures, we remain well-positioned thanks to our risk management strategy, which helps protect and stabilize our cash flow. Our oil hedge program was designed to limit exposure to tail scenarios through the use of zero-cost collar instruments.
These hedges provide Brent crude oil price protection above BRL 80 per barrel for around 70% of our bunker oil demand in 2026, supporting greater visibility and stability in cash generation. I would like to highlight the strength of our cash position and our continued commitment to shareholder returns. In the first quarter, we distributed BRL 2.7 billion in dividends and interest on capital, while we also repurchased nearly 5 million shares under the current share buyback program. As you can see on the next slide, these distributions resulted in a seasonally expected increase in extended net debt, which reached BRL 17.8 billion in the quarter. Our target range remains unchanged at BRL 10 billion-BRL 20 billion, with a clear objective of operating around the midpoint of this range.
Important to say that under the current price environment for iron ore, copper and nickel, we are increasingly confident on the possibility of paying extraordinary dividends and on further executing on our buyback program throughout the year. Before passing the floor back to Gustavo for his closing remarks, I would like to reinforce that we're building a company designed to be resilient through the cycle. Our flexibility, cost discipline, and capital allocation approach are key pillars of this strategy. With these elements in place, we expect to continue benefiting from the strength of our iron ore portfolio while fully unlocking the potential of our base metals business, consistently delivering value to all stakeholders. Gustavo, please.
Thanks, Marcelo. I would like to highlight the key takeaways from today's call. First, safety remains a core value at Vale, and we continue to make consistent progress in strengthening our safety culture and performance. Second, we continue to execute with discipline across our 3 business lines, maintaining a strong focus on operational excellence. Third, we are persistently pursuing cost efficiencies to preserve competitiveness and build resilience in the face of ongoing external cost pressures. Fourth, we remain fully committed to our sustainability agenda and our 2030 goals, advancing innovative solutions that support our decarbonization and sustainability targets. Lastly, our disciplined approach to capital allocation remains unchanged, enabling us to generate strong cash flow and deliver attractive returns to our shareholders. Now let's open for the Q&A session. Thank you.
We are now going to start the question and answer section of the call. If you have a question, please click on the Raise Hand button. If your question has already been answered, you can leave the queue by clicking on the Lower Hand button. Please ask your question in English and limit your questions to two at a time. Our first question comes from Leonardo Correa with BTG. You can open your microphone.
We're talking.
I believe Leonardo is having some problems with the connection. We are going to go ahead with Alexander Pearce with BMO. You can open your microphone, sir.
Great. Thanks. Can you hear me?
Yes, perfectly.
Yes, we can hear you.
Excellent. My question is just around the iron ore market at the minute. You've redirected pellet feed to Brazil, given Oman is offline at the minute. Maybe you can just talk about, is there any knock-on impact to product mix and cost? Then the second part of the question is, you know, can you provide an overview on what you're seeing in terms of demand for the premium products at the minute?
Thanks, Alexander. Let me start by giving you our view of the impact of the conflict in Iran and specifically what happens to Oman, and then I can give you a broader view on the market. Okay. The way we see it is the steel production remains stable globally. In the Middle East, specifically as per your question, steel production is also stable because they are keeping production based on scrap and pellet inventory. This is despite a contraction in Iran crude steel production. As you know, Iran crude steel production has been halted, but the rest of our clients in the region, they're still producing. Okay?
Important to say that in terms of pellet production, Bahrain, which is an important pellet plant in the region, has been mothballed because they had difficulties in receiving pellet feed. This pellet feed has been diverted to other markets, essentially for China and Asia in general. There's actually this additional supply has been offset by no exports from Iran in terms of iron ore. Our view on the market, specifically out of the conflict, is neutral. There has been a neutral impact on the global iron ore supply with the conflict in Iran. Just maybe to take the opportunity to highlight that looking forward, we believe that with the conflict, the cost curve has shifted upwards.
If we calculate, it has shifted forwards between $5-$10 per ton. We also noticed that this shift upwards is actually asymmetric, with some marginal players in the cost curve being more impacted, actually by more than $10 per ton, which actually supports a bit of the prices that we're seeing today. Okay, this is more general aspects of the conflict in Iran. Market in itself, I think you asked about the high quality iron ore, high quality pellet feed. We do expect the market to be stable for pellets, even with an eventual increase in supply net of supply of high-grade pellet feed and demand of high-grade pellet feed.
Coming the next quarter, we expect pellet premiums to be stable or even with a slight increase. On the general market, I think it's just a broader overview. We also see the broader market stable despite the conflict in Iran. China, as we see crude steel production is stable according to independent institutes. As a proxy, we always look into blast furnace utilization, and blast furnace utilization is at about 90%, which is extremely positive and high. We still believe and see continued annualized steel exports at a number of 100 million tons in 2026. Infrastructure and manufacturing offsetting a weak property sector that's still actually a challenged sector for China.
Another important point is when you look into iron ore port inventories, they actually reached 166 million tons, which is an increase of quarter-on-quarter. I'd like to highlight that our inventories of value ores have decreased about 10 million tons quarter-on-quarter. This is extremely important, right? The days to cover in the whole value chain remains at about 30 days. Ex-China, we see a stable overall market. There's a variation by region, but it is stable. Yeah. All in all, we see supply demand balance and the price outlook is also balanced.
Thank you. Our next question comes from Leonardo Correa with BTG. You can open your microphone.
Okay, everyone. Very sorry for the technical difficulties I had before. A couple questions on my side. First one on the cost side, specifically for iron ore, right? I mean, when we look at the C1 costs, clearly a lot of debate on trends and on what you reported, right? There was about $ 23 per ton with about 10% inflation year-over-year, right? I guess the question we've been receiving over the past hours is, how comfortable are you with your guidance at these levels, considering what you're seeing and so many moving parts with some cost inflation items, right? I think the guidance for the year is $ 21. You just delivered $23.
Just wanted to see how confident you are on that guidance. That's the first one. The second one, I can't not ask about CMRG and all the implications, right, for the iron ore markets. We've been seeing this back and forth with BHP. I think several observers in the market, they think that there could be some pressure from those inventories at Chinese ports, mainly Jimblebar Fines and some other specifications, moving back into the market and potential implications. I think that's one point. More importantly, we've been seeing other companies also settle with CMRG, right? Fortescue, I think, also announcing some deals. I wanted to hear from Vale's perspective, right? If anything changes.
I know that Vale already has about, I think, 10% of shipments in Yuan settled in China. I just wanted to hear how the relationship is with CMRG and what Vale has been doing with the group over the past weeks and implications. Those are the questions. Thank you so much.
Leo, this is Marcelo speaking. I'll take the first question on cost guidance. As you saw on our presentation, the main effect on costs come from seasonality, which is always the case on the first quarter of the year and also in the second quarter as a consequence of higher costs on the first one. FX and oil prices. If you take the forward curves that we see today on the market for oil, and if you take the projection for FX that we see on the focus report from the Central Bank of Brazil, which is currently at 5.25. If oil converges to $90 and FX at 5.25, we should be able to deliver the top end of our guidance in C1 for the whole year.
Second quarter is not gonna be too different from first quarter, we should see a second half better than the first half, in a way that we deliver the top end of the guidance for year-end. It's important to mention that the external factors are the main factors behind the cost inflation, and they impact everyone in the industry. It's not a Vale-specific situation. We're confident that if the market goes in the direction that the futures markets are indicating today, we should be able to deliver the top end of the guidance.
Leo, on CMRG, I think, acknowledging what you just said, they're talking to all the major players. As you mentioned, they've talked to BHP now, trying to come to an agreement with Fortescue. They have reached an agreement with Hancock. There will be probably negotiation with Rio. Same happened to us. We keep a collaborative dialogue with them. We're always seeking efficiencies, and that has to be the basis for us to negotiate. Also important to say that they understand the corrective nature of our iron ore grades and also the physical and metallurgical properties of our iron ore, which actually differentiates us a little bit. What we're doing with them is that we are working together to design the way we can collaborate to develop well-suited blends for the Chinese steel industry.
It's a bit of a different focus, trying to find the efficiencies, as I just mentioned. Ultimately, just to highlight the prices, we do believe the prices will be set up based on the supply demand, which is the ultimate driver.
Our next question comes from Liam Fitzpatrick with Deutsche. You can open your microphone.
Good morning. Hopefully you can hear me. It's Liam Fitzpatrick from Deutsche Bank. I've got two questions. Firstly, on the buyback, how do you want us to think about the pace of buybacks through the year? You're still some way above the midpoint of your net debt range, but you did repurchase some shares in Q1. Should we think about the pace picking up as net debt falls, or will this be more opportunistic around the share price levels? The second question is just on costs. I think you've answered most of it and you touched on it in your previous comments, but curious as to where you currently see marginal costs for the industry landed into China at current diesel and freight rates. Thank you.
This is Marcelo. I'll take the first question. We not only look at the current state of the expanded net debt, but most importantly, to the trend. The first quarter, it is always because of the dividend payment that we make. Seasonally, it's always a quarter where the net debt goes up. Our decision to start buying back again has to do with the outlook that we have for the year. As we mentioned before, we did have an impact on costs, but the price is more than compensated that impact in the way that margins are going up. We have a positive view for cash flow generation for the year. As a consequence of that, we have decided to start buying back again.
As we mentioned before, if we are in a situation where net debt trends below $15 billion, we should be, deciding, to distribute more to our shareholders in the form of a combined, situation between, extraordinary dividends and buybacks. This is what you can expect for the coming, months and quarters.
Liam, on the impact of diesel and bunker freight, ultimately, on the cost curve, I think as I mentioned, we believe that the industry cost curve has shifted upwards, as I just mentioned, from $5-$10 per ton. This is not so it's not symmetric. Some of the players who sit on the last quartile of the cost curve are more impacted, for example, for distances. What we view is that this asymmetric impact in the cost curve may actually shift it up, so the last quartile by about $10 per ton. It's a significant impact on the last quartile of the cost curve.
Liam, Gustavo here. I'll just add to this last question that Rogério answered that this only reinforces that the strategy that we have for long-term affreightment is the right one, and it's paying off, right? Because I think one of the things Rogério has done recently is to increase the level of affreightment for our fleet. We decided to do this last year for this year. This year, for example, we are mostly contracted close to 100%. The increase that we've seen in time charter, for example, we haven't been able or we're not impacted. Plus the hedges that we put on bunker.
We've been able to manage some of that impact to our own operations, and I think that is very important to highlight.
Next question from Daniel Sasson with Itaú BBA. You can open your microphone.
Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for taking my questions. My first question is actually related to the cost front also. More specifically, with the macro changes that you've already discussed, the change in FX, oil costs, how do you think that it has changed Vale's relative competitive position versus the Australian guys and maybe versus the junior miners in Brazil or the smaller players in Brazil? Because in the end of the day, it's a matter of what weighs more, right? Iron ore prices have actually increased more than the negative effect of your higher, of higher costs because of the higher oil prices and stronger BRL and so on, so forth.
If you could guide us on how you are thinking about your relative cost position versus the Australian guys or the main players, that would be great. The second thing, you also mentioned a little bit about the strong performance you had in copper volumes in the first quarter. We know that you have an important maintenance stoppage of Sossego throughout the year, and therefore maybe it's, it would be too optimistic to believe that you would be able to exceed your 350,000-380,000 tons copper production guidance for the year. Whether you think it's feasible or likely that it could stay somewhere closer to the upper range of this guidance.
How you're thinking about the evolution of your, of your base metal division throughout the year considering the maintenance stoppages, I guess the question is that. Thank you.
No, Daniel. Good. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Look, I think, dividing between the Australian miners and the Brazilian miners. I think, in regards to Australia, you know, we have a disadvantage of the distance. In absolute terms, when a bunker oil increases specifically, we have a disadvantage. Right? Having said that, we have been able to offset a lot of disadvantage by our hedge program. As Gustavo mentioned, we've reduced our exposure to the TC market. We had previously operated with between 25%-30% spot exposure. This year, we're operating with less than 5%, especially to Asia, which is a great advantage.
We have, as Marcelo Bacci talked in the beginning, a program that we are hedging about 70% of our exposures to the oil, to the bunker market. This actually has helped us to offset this logistics and geographic distance disadvantage. You will see more of this coming on the next quarter, but you shouldn't expect a full impact of bunker oil prices increase in our relative competitiveness. Okay. In regards to Brazilian players, I think we're really well-positioned because we have done all the hedging that I just talked about. We're shipping larger vessels which are more efficient. They do rely on spot market prices. Relative to the other Brazilian players, we have increased our competitive position.
Daniel, Gustavo here. Before passing on to Shaun, I'll just add to this question, the positive effect of premiums as well. If you look at our price realization, quarter-on-quarter, we have also improved substantially to $0.6 per ton. IOCJ premiums have improved BRBF. This is also just as an extent of setting some of the impacts that Rogério was saying. When you look at the overall margin of the company, it has expanded, in fact, right? More than offset the cost increase that we faced.
Yeah. Daniel, hi. It's Shaun. Look, I think firstly, the Q1 results for the portfolio as a whole really set us up well to answer your question directly. It was important for both the polymetallic or nickel part of the business that contributes meaningful amounts of copper as well as the copper side to deliver well this quarter. They've done that. Just to highlight that point, Sossego, I think it's the best performance since 2008. It was an 81% year-on-year increase. Even Salobo with lower grade did the same mine movement with 30% longer haul distances, slightly lower grade, and had 4.6% better recoveries and were able to actually increase copper output. How was that site loss? two weeks ago, they're knocking it out the park.
They're doing well. We've got that 110 day shutdown, as you've mentioned, at Sossego. We're gonna remain very focused and disciplined on that. Then in the polymetallic side that contributes, you know, Gustavo and Bacci commented on the performance overall. Voisey's where we, you know, we get meaningful copper. That was a 64% year-on-year increase, and they've hit record production. Across the board of what we control, I think the team is setting us up well to do exactly what you said. We're gonna remain cautious, and we'll update the market as we go through the PMP.
Next question from Rafael Barcellos with Bradesco BBI. You can open your microphone.
Hello, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. My first question is on your commercial strategy. Can you give us more color on your strategy around the medium-grade Carajás going forward? I mean specifically, what is the outlook for growing these product shares in your mix? To what extent does that come at the expense of the IOCJ volumes? I'm particularly asking this because we have seen the 65, 62 spread improving recently. Moving to VBM on copper. I would say that Alemão appears to be your most important project as VBM. I know that you published your new reserve report recently, but my understanding is that the full potential of the project hasn't been fully disclosed yet, right?
Given that the drilling and exploration is only now being initiated in the second quarter, so probably as we speak, right? Can you give us a sense of what we can expect from these drilling and exploration initiative? You know, more important, I would say that when should we expect that the exploration plan will be concluded? Thank you.
Rafael, no, thanks for the question. Rogério, on the product portfolio. I think just restating what Gustavo has just mentioned, our fine premiums has actually been very positive this semester. $4.1 per ton versus $ 1.9 per ton in the fourth quarter of 2025. This is just on the fines, not accounting for pellets, right? This has to do with some factors. The first one, as you mentioned, is that we have seen a very good acceptance of our mid-grade Carajás globally. We're actually planning to increase it because the market has not only appreciated the product from a chemistry point of view, but also from a metallurgical performance.
We're actually moving to have 50 million tons - 55 million tons of this product into the market, which is actually, quite frankly, beyond our expectations because the market accepted it so well and there's a huge demand for the product. Just to add some other points on the portfolio, which helps our realized premiums. The other one is a very good acceptance of our China concentrate. It is really becoming a standard product. This year, we expect to have an annual sales of about 40 million tons of the Chinese concentrate product. I mean, very good, very good for us, very good for the market.
Last but not least, I think the control as we look into the mid-grade Carajás, we can control, we can adjust the volumes of Carajás that we have, standalone Carajás that we have in the market, and that actually defines the premiums. We're always trying and looking into how to optimize it, shifting from mid-grade to high-grade Carajás to achieve the best result. Again, not the best result only on price realization, but as we have always been talking about, it's about maximizing total contribution, total margin contribution, optimizing production costs, price realization. Again, this semester we've been able to do it all and still increase price realization. Okay.
Rafael, hey, it's Shaun. I was actually at the project at Alemão a couple weeks ago with the team. Look, they're making incredible progress. Just to remind you, we published, you remember, just around BRBF and our MRMR statements. We are roughly doubling, where we already doubled last year, our exploration in Pará. A lot of that is gonna be concentrated around all our projects and sites. You know, we'll keep, as we get through probably a year from now, we're looking to target over 20% increase, as you'll recall, from 2024 in our mineral inventory. The real focus is on increasing NPV. You can expect that not just on Alemão, but on our projects as a whole.
When I was at site, we were just in the process of removing a very small alligator from an old exploration adit and starting the dewatering process to actually focus on some of that exploration drilling at that project. Just to reorient you again, remember we changed the mining method there. It's about half a billion BRL in CapEx improvements. We're on track, and the real focus at the moment is on the permitting timeframes and progressing the study. We'll have updates probably by Vale Day and certainly on the exploration, you know, similar time next year.
Our next question comes from Marcio Farid with Goldman Sachs. You can open your microphone.
Thank you. Morning, everyone. Two follow-ups on my side. I think the first one on Simandou, not only, you know, the view on volumes. We've seen Rio reporting two weeks ago. I think that's relatively clear. If you have any views in terms of expectations for ramp up. Also obviously, Simandou, everybody sees it as, you know, high-grade Fe content, right? Above 65%. At least the grades we've seen so far also show a high alumina content as well, which is interesting, right? It seems like Vale, it's still one of the few producers at scale that can offer the low alumina product.
Just wanna check with you on that, you know, and how you see Simandou obviously affecting the, you know, the premium market in terms of Fe grade, but how can Vale be positioned for that scenario with the current portfolio that you, that you guys have? Maybe secondly, quickly, maybe to Gustavo and to Shaun, in terms of Base Metal VBM IPO, there has been some news suggesting that you guys wanna be IPO ready. Just, you know, and we get a question a lot from investors, so it's probably good opportunity to, you know, have a view in terms of how to think about a business IPO, when, why, and why not. Thank you.
Hi, Marcio. Rogério, on Simandou, I think it's you're absolutely right. In the first quarter of 2026, the reported production was 1.5 million tons. There's gonna be, as we're seeing, a gradual ramp-up. The numbers for the years, again, official from them is from 10 million-15 million tons. Again, it's gradual, as we expected, right? To your point on the chemistry side, yes, it is indeed a high alumina relative to silica, which is a very important parameter for blast furnaces. That means that for this ore to be used effectively in blast furnaces, they need to have a blend with complementary ores, which have silica higher than alumina. A silica ratio to alumina higher. Again, the one who has this kind of iron ore in scale is Vale.
That actually positions us in the whole portfolio strategy to provide the ores that make the blends, the ultimate optimizer of blast furnace performance. We are looking into this and thinking about how to design and where to sell our ores on a product market strategy.
Marcio, Gustavo.
Well, on the VBM IPO question, what we've been, you know, sharing and discussing with our shareholders in the market is that the company had initially the goal to stabilize operations. I think Shaun and the team have been able to achieve that. As you've seen, as we've seen in the performance Q1, it's been very strong. It's been strong in the last several quarters. That has shown that the carve-out has worked. The next step is to make sure we can grow the business. We see an enormous potential to grow, particularly the corporate business. We have a goal to double the size of our corporate business. The more we drill and the more we explore, especially in Carajás, the more excited Shaun and the team get.
This is certainly a key priority. Any strategic market transaction will depend on market conditions if it is necessary for us to achieve that future. The priority today is to make sure we continue to operate our assets well, and we can grow the business. That's exactly what the team is working on. The good thing of the carve-out is that it gave us optionality, so we can do many things. I always say, the IPO, potential IPO, it is a means to an end. It's not an objective in itself and we continue to think that way.
Marcio, if I can add to Gustavo's comments. You know, our job, I think from the beginning, was to take a platform that wasn't visible and wasn't creating value and then position it where essentially Vale, [SM and Yara] have choices. I've mentioned before, I think we're probably two years ahead of what I thought the team could deliver. I think you would have seen in our VBM Day, which is part of also just revealing the value potential that I think was invisible. I think Marcelo pointed out that where the business had traditionally contributed maybe 10% or 15% of EBITDA to Vale, you know, it was on track for, say, 30%-35%. You can see this quarter, we're over 30% on EBITDA. We have further to go.
I think as Gustavo said, it's about maintaining that performance, also creating possibilities. We do not need the funding for our growth at this stage. I think if we deliver and prices remain even this year, we'll be around zero net debt in this business, and we can self-fund. It's more a strategic question for our owners at the right time.
Our next question comes from Carlos de Alba with Morgan Stanley. You can open your microphone.
Yeah. Thank you very much. Just wanted to ask a follow-up on the excess cash and return to shareholders. Given the earlier comments by Marcelo, what do you think Marcelo is where your preference is between buybacks and dividends? You clearly are already paying a regular dividend. Does that mean, or is fair to assume that maybe excess cash return to shareholders would be more on the buyback than special dividends? On the second question, I don't know, Gustavo, you can provide, please, an update on the railway discussions with the government. Clearly, it seems that you're back in the negotiating table, maybe that is a good indication. I don't know, any color in terms of timing, what are they asking?
Anything you can provide just to give us more certainty on the potential outcome.
Carlos, last year we gave a clear preference for dividends, because of the change in taxation that came at the year-end. This year the situation is different, and we tend to be more balanced between buybacks and dividends. Of course, depending on where share price is. I would say the answer is a balanced approach between buybacks and extraordinary dividends.
[Stellar], and Carlos, thanks for your question. On the railway concession discussions, just to recap everybody, we had signed an agreement, no mining agreement 2024, we're not able to conclude. To your point, we have resumed conversations with the several governmental entities early this year. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to conclude this in a way that works for everybody's, everybody including Vale. We are working hard and hopeful that we'll be able to conclude this discussion this year still.
Our next question comes from Marina Calero with RBC. You can open your microphone.
Good morning. Thanks for the call. I have a follow-up question on cost. Can you clarify whether the sensitivities you presented today include the impact of your hedges on the currency and the fuel? Maybe as an extension of that, have the recent developments in the Middle East changed the way you are thinking about your hedging strategy for 2027?
Thank you, Marina. The sensitivities do not include the hedging policy because the percentage of hedging that we have at different points in time is different. But for specifically for 2026, we have a significant hedging position on oil and also some of the effects exposure that is partially compensating, but the result of that comes as a financial result and not as part of our EBITDA or included in the C1 cost or all-in cost calculations. We tend to be, you know, balanced and also careful when talking about the hedging for 2027.
I think for 2026, what we have in our portfolio is already very significant, and we discuss at this moment what we're gonna do for 2027, in terms of a freight plan, in terms of oil exposure and also effects. The market gives us some opportunities. The market in oil, for instance, is very much inverted, and we are looking at the markets and deciding what to do.
Yes. Thank you.
Our next question comes from Alfonso Salazar with Jefferies. You can open your microphone.
Hello. Can you hear me?
We can. Yes, yeah, we can.
Thank you. Just quick question for Rogério. Rogério, regarding production of domestic concentrates in China, there were some targets to expand that capacity. It hasn't materialized. Just wondering what is your expectation for the future years regarding production in China, and also your expectations regarding more scrap use in China for the steel iron units. That would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
Hello, Alfonso. Thank you. Domestic concentrate in China these days because of not being so much impacted by freight. They've gained some relief. Longer term, it's really challenging because it's low grade iron ore in the ranges of lower than 20% Fe content. A lot of the mines are underground. They're smaller operations. Our perspective is that currently they are producing about 260 million tons per year, and they're gonna come down to about 160 million tons. That's our view, our expectation for the future, which is a decline in domestic iron ore production in China of concentrate. This is one of the trends. In terms of scrap, in the past we had a sort of more optimistic view.
Today, we believe the scrap is gonna increase gradually from the level they're operating, about 300 million tons of scrap per annum. This is gonna be very gradual and it's gonna be absorbed naturally within the system. Nothing that would create a major impact or disruption in the iron ore supply, seaborne imports.
Thank you, Alfonso Salazar from Scotiabank for your question. Now we're gonna go ahead with our next question from Yuri Pereira with Santander.
Hi, guys. Thank you. Back to Rogério . Please, back to the cost topic. Regarding your comments about high cost producers having a cost impact of more than $10 per ton, do you have it in terms of volumes? I mean, what's the negative impact on iron ore supply? I remember you guys talking about, roughly 150 million tons, if I'm not mistaken, impact with spot prices below $90 per ton.
Just trying to figure out this. How about now considering that $100 is the new $90, right? Thank you.
No. Yuri, this is a good question. You know, with this location, we've actually done a sort of initial calculation, okay. With layers would actually be on the anchor point of the cost curve. Our estimate is that prices reduced by $ 10 with the current other elements such as freight and diesel, staying the same, there will be more than 50 million tons of iron ore production that is going to be out of the market with negative margins. This is our preliminary assessment.
Our next question comes from Igor Guedes with Genial. You can open your microphone.
Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me?
We can.
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. We have seen an increase in expenses related to iron ore, both in terms of the CFEM, the royalty rate, and the distribution costs, given the concentration of volumes in Chinese ports for subsequent. More specifically, regarding royalties, we note a recent decision by the Federal Attorney General Office overturning the preliminary injunction that deducted the CSM calculation basis using the CFEM payments. I'd like to get you guys' perspective on what you expect from this standpoint regarding royalty regulation and also on the level of distribution costs we have seen, which rose like 40% quarter-over-quarter, even as the volume declined sequentially. How can we model these expenses going forward? Thank you very much.
Igor, thank you for your question. Those are two different subjects. On the concentration part, I think this has to be seen as difficult to model on an isolated way because it is part of a portfolio strategy. This will tend to vary depending on how our commercial team is looking at the market and the different products that we're gonna offer to the market. You're gonna see always the flip side of these costs on the margin. That changes, and it's a dynamic decision. It's going to be difficult to model as an expense. When it comes to royalties, there is a continuing discussion with the different authorities. It's difficult to make comments about decisions that may come from justice, we are always working towards trying to reduce those costs.
There are some things that don't depend on us.
Even on the, on the second part of your question, we have started a strategy of concentration in China, especially because, you know, it, in one side, it increased costs for the concentration processing. It reduced recovery, but it does increase our, our realization price. Net, it is net zero or positive impact, but that has a very important impact in our product portfolio. Specifically to your question, we're actually improving this because sometimes we have concentrated volumes in certain regions, and we need to redistribute in China to find markets with better demand. This is a cabotage within China, and we have many initiatives in place to do that without incurring this redistribution cost. You should see an improvement.
Our next question comes from Caio Ribeiro with Bank of America. You can open your microphone.
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity. I wanted to once again touch on the subject of your expanded net debt concept, you know, particularly as the proportion of non-financial liabilities within that metric drops significantly from 2027 onwards. I wanted to see if you can give us some color on how you think about that range, if you would consider increasing it. If you can give us some color as to what levels you could be contemplating. Assuming you change it to, say, a level closer to $15 billion-$25 billion, what that means for extraordinary dividends. You know, particularly as you had been looking at that $15 billion as that anchor to dictate these decisions to pay extraordinary dividends or not. Secondly, shifting gears here to the nickel front.
There were some important changes recently in Indonesia in the past six months to the mining quotas, to the reference price upon which royalties and taxes are calculated. I wanted to see if you could discuss from your point of view the implications that that has for your business and whether the price surge that we've seen on the nickel side of things since those measures were announced, if that compensates for that higher cost of operating in the country. Thank you, gentlemen.
To Caio, on the expanded net debt, today, around a third of our expanded net debt is related to the present value of the commitments related to reparation, which is a part of our debt that is not manageable. You cannot roll over, you cannot do anything other than pay. This number is going to reduce significantly between 2026 and 2027 as we pay the commitments that we have. I would say that for this year and next year, it is not in our plans to change the rule that we follow or to change the criteria or the range. But as the number of the expanded part of the net debt gets smaller, in the future, we probably are going to review this, but not till the end of 2027.
Yeah, it's Shaun. I think to your point, we started seeing late last year the impacts of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources adjusting those RKAB quotas. I think they said, what, 250 million-260 million tons, whereas it was at, say, 379 million tons in the prior year. I think given that they're responsible now for about 65% of global nickel supply, I think we're realizing, you know, the impact of probably similar to what you see with the DRC and cobalt. We did see the market respond. I think what you're seeing at the moment is a combination of that effect.
Given that something like 90% of the sulfur supply, particularly impacting MHP and HPAL's Indonesian nickel production come from the Middle East. You know, the sulfuric acid and the sulfur supply going in there is having, I think, quite a significant impact on cost of production. I think we're seeing some early signs of curtailment of the supply for some of those areas. I think on our numbers, you know, you could see if these things sustain something like about a $3,000-$4,000 a ton increase in the cost of MHP. If, you know, if this persists, we're looking at about 500,000-600,000 tons of nickel and MHP should be produced in 2026. A fairly significant impact.
For us, we're net long sulfuric acid and sulfur. We're benefiting, I guess, from, you know, the higher pricing environment, which is obviously good news. I think we're all just making sure we can control costs and be as agile as we can. Our supply from PTVI of MHP, they currently have enough sulfur supply, so that's not a concern for us. We're definitely seeing, I'd say, the combination to your point of both that curtailment, but also some of the cost increases for producers in the country.
Thank you. This concludes today's question and answer session. Vale's conference is now concluded. We thank you for your participation.