[Foreign language]
I think now you can hear me very well. Maybe that was a good sign that for the first time I was not heard. I would like to welcome very cordially everyone who is here with us in Warsaw and those who are following broadcast today via our website. Our today's meeting will focus on discussion of the results that were published yesterday. These are operational and financial results of the KGHM Polska Miedź for 2023. It is also an opportunity for all those following the transmission to discuss with the management board the prospects for the company, the current situation, and the plans.
I would like to introduce members of the Management Board: Andrzej Szydło, President of the Management Board; Zbigniew Bryja, Vice President of the Management for Development; Piotr Krzyżewski, Vice President for Finances; Mirosław Laskowski, Vice President of the Management Board for Production; and Piotr Stryczek, Vice President of the Management Board for Corporate Matters. My name is Janusz Krystosiak. I have the honor of hosting today's meeting, and I already invite you to participate in the Q&A session that will follow the presentations. Now I would like to give the floor to the CEO.
Dzień dobry.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before we proceed to the presentation and discussion, hopefully in the best possible atmosphere, the results of KGHM for 2023, I would like to start with a general background about the company. KGHM, against the backdrop of other metal producers, can boast a few advantages, maybe not huge advantages, but let's say a few characteristics that make it unique. The first of those characteristics is people and experience. The history of KGHM is over 60 years now. On the 1st of May, we will celebrate a somewhat arbitrary anniversary of 33 years of operations of KGHM in the market. Another characteristic of KGHM is that it owns its own copper deposits. And the third characteristic, a very important one, is we are an integrated technological operator. A lot of producers of metals only have certain assets. They do not own the full value creation chain.
We have modern metallurgy, and we can provide a complete end-to-end technological process. Director Krystosiak presented our names, but I would like to give you a somewhat broader introduction about the management board. Probably you will have some questions. We are a new management board. We have been working as a team for a month and a half now only. However, I would like to highlight that it is a great honor for me to work with such colleagues. First of all, I have never, ever dreamt of becoming the CEO of KGHM. More importantly, I couldn't have dreamt of a better composition of the management board. We have managers of the mining industry, and it's a great honor to work with Mr. Bryja and Mr. Laskowski. For years, I have watched them as mine directors, and I looked up to them as mentors. Mr.
Krzyżewski has had the shortest tenure with us, but I would also like to say a few words about him. Sometimes I'm scared by the pace at which he learns the details about this company, even if his knowledge becomes much more profound than ours. That's only the best for the company. Mr. Stryczek, Vice President for Corporate Matters, is a person with vast experience in management. Additionally, I have known him for a number of years, and I can call him a friend. Talking about those advantages or characteristics of KGHM that I mentioned at the beginning, I can emphasize once again the huge experience of my colleagues. Before I present the results, I would like to stress the long history of over 60 years of operations.
I used to play chess, maybe not as an eminent chess player, but when we talk about life of mine or how long the mine can operate, we can safely say that KGHM is somewhere halfway. So by analogy to chess game, we can say that we are in the middle of the game. We are in a very complex, volatile environment, just as was the case in 2023. We also have a lot of things that may change. If somebody wants to say that after 60 years you should expect an end, I think that's a very inaccurate assessment because KGHM still faces a future of several dozen years of safe exploitation of its own resources. We have a lot of companies across Europe - I will not enumerate any names here - that use in the metallurgical production foreign input.
KGHM provides two-thirds of national production using its own resources, its own concentrates, or its own output. Again, by analogy to a chess game, we as the management board view the company and assess its performance not with a time horizon of a single year or two years. We take a much longer timeline. Realistic investment plans or investment strategies are normally developed 5 or 10 years ahead, but of course, all that is done bearing in mind the uncertain factors that always can modify the situation. Nevertheless, we are optimistic about the future. This company, which is now at the middle stage of its lifetime, as most mining companies, has to face increasingly difficult operational conditions. There are a lot of miners that operate open-pit mines. KGHM, in its domestic assets, has deep mines.
We can expect, naturally, that mining operations, regardless of macroeconomic situation, will not be easier as the time passes. We will have to go deeper and deeper. Delivery lines will be longer and longer. The grade of deposits can be debatable depending on which area we are discussing, but we have to be mentally prepared for lower grade. And that, naturally, is related to costs of air conditioning, ventilation, other technological processes. So now the management board sees its role as having to deal with the task of reversing the current trend of counteracting the costs that continue to grow across the mining sector. KGHM has longstanding and unique experience in mining, and we also have to draw on this experience to find new areas for optimization to offset any cost fluctuations in the areas where there are no natural factors that could drive those costs.
We have already managed to become acquainted with the strategy that is currently in place. If we consider the strategy as a set of long-term goals, we will proceed to revise the existing strategy with particular attention to core business, that is, metal production. The primary objective of our strategy, which I'm convinced we will be able to flesh out soon, will be such projects and such management activities that will allow us to complete efficiency-improving projects that are adjacent to our business, that are aligned with our business, and that are always linked to a positive NPV. This is an essential condition to support our core business, that is, metal production. We will inform you about further details once we are ready for that. Now only a general introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, let's proceed with the results for 2023.
The details will be commented on by each of the specific members of the board. What we can say about 2023 is that it was one year that's not post-pandemic, but really a year that was impacted by the war in Europe, at least from the macroeconomic point of view. But the further impact of the pandemic period is still residual. It's not entirely gone. So what was observed in the first year after the pandemic and during the pandemic was a very volatile macroeconomic landscape. The levels of PPI, Producer Price Index, were unprecedented, very high vis-à-vis the stable period in the preceding decade, which, in fact, was linked to the prices of the industry functioning. What we have right now is a trend for a slight decrease in terms of inflation, consumer inflation, and industry. But we are now talking about 2023. That is why I'm mentioning this.
For KGHM, the currency exchange rate was not very favorable, especially to the dollar in the fourth quarter. But throughout the year, throughout 2023, a lower exchange rate compared to 2022 that we are presenting on the slide, we're talking about the comparison between 2023 - 2022. Also, the dollar prices for copper was, on average, 4% lower. But when we look at the rate in the Polish złoty, it was 9% lower than in the comparable period of 2022. The situation was slightly different for silver prices, 7% higher than 2022 in dollars, but only 2% higher than 2022. Shortly, the dry weight is 30.4 million tons extraction, and it was slightly lower compared to 30.5 in 2022. This, however, did not translate into the production of concentrated copper. It's slightly higher than 2022 due to the slightly higher content of metal in the concentrate.
The production of metallic silver in 2023 reached record high over 1,400, 1,403.4 tons of metallic silver in 2023, and metallic gold rose by 27.1%. Now, the investment outlay in KGHM Polska Miedź was higher compared to 2022, and the growth was by 21%, a very small lack of performance on the level of 2% vis-à-vis the planned expenditure. Now, the drop of revenue, minus PLN 380 million, that's 1% lower than 2022, with a safe level of indebtedness that you can see on the level of 1.1. And that's the net indebtedness to EBITDA ratio. Okay. Perhaps the KGHM Polska Miedź S.A., the revenue is PLN 33,467,000,000. Adjusted EBITDA is PLN 5,362,000,000. We will be talking about that later. The loss of the period is minus PLN 1,153,000,000.
In the consolidated view, PLN 33,467,000,000 EBITDA is PLN 5.3 billion, and the net is minus PLN 3.691 billion. Just a few words to introduce the production.
It will be spoken about by Mr. Laskowski. The production of paid copper, payable copper, 711,000, that's 3% lower vis-à-vis 2022, mainly due to the results in KGHM International and Sierra Gorda that should be treated separately. And partially, the lower production in KGHM International and Sierra Gorda was compensated by the domestic production, which amounted to 592,000 tons of metallic copper and was 1% higher than in 2022. And it was a record high production of KGHM Polska Miedź here in Poland. And I have already mentioned about the lower results of KGHM International. That's 13% lower in Sierra Gorda. And that's resulting from lower metallic content in the deposits. And in KGHM International, the main factor influencing the equity, that's Robinson, and that's lower by 29%. And we will comment on that if needed.
The lower production resulted from the content of metal, but also availability of machinery in quarter one of 2023. Okay. Now, President Laskowski, please. Thank you for giving me the floor. Before we go further to talk about operational results in specific segments, let me just remind you that traditionally, you are welcome to ask questions here in the room. But throughout the duration of our meeting, it is possible to send also questions online to the dedicated mailbox, which is on our website, also er@kghm.com. And after the presentations, we will go forward to the Q&A session. Now, I give the floor to Mr. Laskowski, who is responsible for production in the board. And we will go over the production results in Poland and worldwide.
I can say that you've partially done the job, Andrzej, in terms of my presentation because all the basic information concerning our main locations, 3 main locations, that is Polska Miedź, Sierra Gorda, and International, have been covered. But let me go to some detailed slides that will show us the volume of the production in those 3 locations. Now, before I talk about it, perhaps a few words of comment for the output in 2023 vis-à-vis the budget allocated in the Polish assets. The outcome was over the budget. Sierra Gorda was just on point. And KGHM International, well, mainly due to the problems in Robinson Mine, there were some significant deviations and a shortage. Now, let me go back to the presentation of the results in specific locations in Poland. The result was very satisfactory, very good.
And we should emphasize the fact that the production of electrolytic copper and silver is a historical high, unprecedented throughout the 60-year history of Polish copper production. Now, for Sierra Gorda, I've already mentioned that it went according to the budget, according to the plan, but below the level from 2022. And the difference is 13%, but the outcome of that is having the ore from places where there is a lower content of copper. In turn, molybdenum production, definitely above the levels of 2022 with the same results, the higher content of molybdenum in the output, in the recovery. Here, you can see the slide illustrating the situation at Sierra Gorda. And now, KGHM International. Here, we recorded an almost 30% decrease in year-on-year production.
Robinson Mine faced problems related to the machinery, mainly with the transportation equipment, with the resulting problems with obtaining output in the transitional deposit with lower content of copper. There is also the type of soil which contributes to this situation. The fourth quarter, 2023, and the first quarter, 2024, show that we have already overcome those difficulties in Robinson. The plans for the future will be implemented as planned. The result, -20% year-on-year, is also the result of a large base of 2022 in our assets in KGHM International, we had Franke mine. Hence, the production in 2022 was calculated on a larger base than what we have in 2023. That is, in a nutshell, about production in our three locations. Thank you very much. Now, I would like to give the floor to the Vice President for Development, Zbigniew Bryja.
Ladies and gentlemen, performance of our investment plans regarding investments and fixed assets in 2023 was at a very high level, 98% of performance of the assumed PLN 3.474 billion. The actual performance was just a little lower. That is the figure which includes costs of leasing and research and development activities. On those pie charts on the left-hand side, you can see which areas were most investment-intensive. As our CEO has already noted in his introduction, we are now halfway through our mine life and exploitation of our mines, our deposit. For the mining industry, it is a very important period because the benefits reaped in the first half of our lifetime are no longer fully available. We need to refocus our interest and to operate the assets, which have already depreciated.
More than three-quarters of the plan, PLN 2.6 billion out of more than PLN 3 billion represent mining.
The rest, metallurgy, research, and development. That is on the left-hand side pie chart. On the right-hand side, you can see specific areas to which the costs were allocated. 45% accounts for recovery. That is recovery of our production assets in a non-deteriorated condition. Then 32% CAPEX in maintenance, maintenance of the production levels that were approved in the production plan. Then we have development projects where we talk about underground exploration, infrastructure for new operating areas, but also exploration on the ground and documentation of our deposits, which accounts for 25%. Other expenditures are projects related to the adjustment of new requirements following from legal regulations. These are not significant amounts, accounting for only 2% out of the total. In the next slide, you can see the specific investments. The program of making the deposit available represents the largest item here, PLN 626 million.
Recognized in this item, we have major expenditures related to four shafts, which are now at various stages of availability. GG1 is the shaft which was opened in 2010. It is now being deepened. Last year, it was deepened further to the lowest point. We finished central unit for air conditioning. That's a very modern engineering solution, in fact, stand-of-the-art technology. Then we have shaft number two. We are now finishing research drilling works. That's about 6 km away from Głogów mine. That's where work is being carried out right now. The zoning plan is being adjusted accordingly. Then we have Retków. I cannot show you a map right now, but this is a shaft which is on the outskirts of Głogów Głęboki Przemysłowy, near Polkowice-Sieroszowice, Rudna. This is a shaft which is excellent in terms of air conditioning, travel distance for deliveries.
This will secure our production for Retków-Ścinawa, which is a deposit to be operated in the future, and even Kulów-Luboszyce. The last shaft mentioned here is Gaworzyce. Now, planning documents within the municipality are being drafted right now. So it is an early stage of development. As you can see, we are carrying out intensive work at various stages. On some of those shafts, we still have efforts to be continued for the upcoming two years. But it will give us some breathing space. And in the following slide, you will see the improvement of output in Głogów with a major relief for the teams working there. Then there are some more shafts for which we are waiting impatiently and looking forward to having them operational. Once machinery is moved from shaft number one to shaft number two, then we improve the equipment and relocate the machinery.
We want to continue this program this way. The amount involved is very significant, about 40 km of corridors available for exploitation. We have shafts, but we also have connecting connections. We have a major item related to infrastructure for utilities. We need to have air conditioning. We need to have conveyors, transports, delivery points, all other supporting infrastructure. That's PLN 589 million last year. Replacement of machines, PLN 445 million. Last year, we bought 255 mechanical vehicles of various types, more than 30 than last year. We adopted a policy within the company that envisages renewal of our entire machinery more or less every five years. We do not plan to have general renovations. It's not very profitable for machinery. It's much better to buy new machinery that is replaced regularly every five years. Auxiliary equipment has a longer working time.
We also have a major program of water drainage from the mines. The decline of our deposit is not favorable because that is northwest, which means that water tends to be accumulated. And we need to cope with this. That is why we are extending a major pump chamber in SW4. That is Sieroszowice mine shaft, which accounts for 394 million last year. Another item, exploration. That is drilling and search for deposits within our licensed areas. But also, we are working on Puck deposit. That's magnesium and potassium near Władysławowo now. And Puck now, a feasibility study is being prepared. We are in excellent contacts with municipality authorities. The local port counts very much on our presence there because that would open up the possibilities for extending the port infrastructure.
If the feasibility study shows that the construction of a mine there is profitable, we will proceed with this investment. If not, we will find a partner for joint venture. We can even sell the deposit if we find out that it is not really profitable or it is not promising in terms of our core business development. We also have some minor items which are recurring every year. So we have regular refurbishment of elements of infrastructure, new purchases of equipment that needs to be replaced, and obviously, adjustment projects, PLN 86 million. That is not a significant amount, but this includes CO2 emission rights purchase, PLN 52 billion. And the last slide here, I have mentioned Retków. It's a pity that we cannot show you an indicator very well presentable on this slide. But Retków deposit shows it is an oblong structure with this blue container.
That's a large deposit, the operations of which started more than 10 years ago. Now, we have seven teams working there. Initially, the work was conducted in very hard weather conditions. The beginnings in 2010 were very hard, but then the air conditioning improved, which improved the working conditions. So also for the production of copper and silver. But in summary, it looks better every year. And there is no new department there, but just climate has improved and the output has improved. Therefore, we're looking forward to further improvements. So the construction of a new shaft, the Retków one that I've already mentioned, will allow us to further explore the Retków-Ścinawa deposits. And that's a section that's very interesting for us because it's before the Odra River. And we're looking for any other deposits that could be used there with the existing infrastructure.
I'm looking forward to your questions. That's all for me. Thank you.
We have two segments of our operations to cover. Mr. Stryczek now, the deputy vice president for corporate affairs. And he will talk about the execution of the strategy and cooperation.
The capital group that I have the honor to oversee includes 34 domestic entities, 6 out of which are in the core business. That is our PeBeKa, Zanam, Metraco, Mercus, Energetyka, and Nitroerg . That accounts for almost 13,000 employees in the capital group. Currently, we have been reviewing the strategy of specific entities. And it is our ambition to make sure that the core entities that I've listed just now can, colloquially speaking, be tailor-made for our technological flow. It is our ambition to be able to present until the end of this year to the board the strategy for specific entities for approval.
That's within our capital group. Upon the completion of this process, we would like to be able to present this strategy to you. We have also started the review of staff, management, and supervisory staff in the companies from the capital group. We would really want the supervisory staff and management staff to be professionalized. In the recent years, we have observed, I believe, in some areas, some lack of professionalism. There is an ongoing recruitment procedure in some of the entities. The process is transparent. Yesterday, a new management board was appointed in Energetyka and Zanan Metraco. I am hoping that until the end of May, we will have completed the process of upgrading the professional profile of these management boards. Thank you. Many thanks. Following the presentation of our operations, let me ask Mr.
Krzyżewski, the vice president, the CFO of the group, to summarize the financials of the group, the financial indicators for 2023.
Good afternoon. Last but not least, as it's usually said, let's have a look at the three key parameters that have been with us throughout 2023. Revenue of the group, we can see a decrease by 1 percentage point year-over-year. But if we look at the segments, then in KGHM SA, we have a 2% growth. In KGHM International, the drop is 24 percentage points of revenue. And that results from what our colleagues were talking about, the Robinson and the problems that ended in quarter three. We will be able to look also through the lens of C1 in KGHM International.
We will be able to see what happened in quarter four because we seem to be going back to the normal level of extraction. We are normalizing the costs. The net result in red, PLN 3.7 billion in the group, mainly due to the non-cash event, which is a write-off. I will tell you the details. In the third component, the EBITDA is PLN 5.3 billion. That's a decrease of 41% year-over-year. There are two factors, the revenue factor on the one hand that acted negatively, but on the other hand, the cost factor that has impacted the EBITDA result. I will talk to you about the details very soon. Now, if we look at the bridge and the transition between 2022 and 2023 in terms of revenue, one of the key elements that have impacted the revenue was volume. That has a positive impact.
But when we look inside this indicator, for KGHM SA, we noted an increase in revenue on the level of PLN 1.1 billion. There was a negative impact by the KGHM International revenue. That's a PLN 450 million decrease. This is not a very big impact in terms of net outcome, but a slight change in the price of copper. That's a drop by 4 percentage points. But on the other hand, the silver rating, gold, a 7% gold aid and molybdenum 32. The biggest impact was felt by the exchange rate. In 2022, it was 4.46 PLN to the US dollar. That's the average throughout the year. In 2023, the average was 4.2 PLN to the US dollar. That has caused an impact of PLN 1.8 billion in terms of revenue. This was partially compensated by the revenue obtained from the securities transactions.
But you need to have it at the back of your mind that this revenue is only disclosing the we are only disclosing the revenue part of these transactions here. Now, when we look at the costs, expenses have grown by 13% year-over-year. Now, nominally speaking, it's PLN 4.2 billion. And you need to note that the write-offs, PLN 3.1 billion, are the biggest impairments, are the biggest component. And some of them are dependent on listings and exchange rate. Then we see that the increase of expenses is on the level of 9% year-over-year. The biggest categories that should be noted are services, external services, and labor costs. These have grown significantly. Now, looking at unit costs, C1, C1 unit costs, they grew from $2.20-$2.87 within the group. That's an increase of 30%.
If we look at the cost dynamic, the biggest dynamic is felt in KGHM International. Like my colleagues have said, a large proportion of this increase was caused by what happened in Robinson. When we look at C1 for quarter four, it's already normalized. It is at the level of $2.22. So this is normalized already. But when we look at C1 and KGHM, the increase is on the level of 25%. But when we want to go and analyze it further and find out where the main source of that increase was, 7 percentage point out of that was accounted by the change in exchange rate. So we're looking at the increase of 18% here now. If we also look at the fact that temporarily, in 2022, we saw a lower tax rate for some materials. That was a one-off.
That was not available in 2023. That accounted for 6%. So the increase of C1 after excluding these two components would have been 12%. And the inflation for 2023 was 11.4% from the Central Statistical Office, where the energy factor, in fact, grew by 20 percentage points. So Sierra Gorda grew by 12% year-over-year. If we look now at the financial results, the key element which determined this red figure on profit line are write-offs of non-financial nature, then non-performance of EBITDA in KGHM SA, PLN 1.9 billion and PLN 1.2 billion in KGHM International, and positive contribution of other segments amounting to less than PLN 100 million. Here, you can see also other amounts that are worth mentioning in this context. For example, PLN 700 million is the reversal of the element which we experienced in 2022.
That was a write-off on loans on Sierra Gorda, another element which drove those costs to exchange rates. Then we also had the change on income tax on two dimensions, in the current tax and in deferred tax. On other items, we have diagnosed one-offs that appeared in 2022. And these are transactions that were discussed earlier. That was disposal of Interferie, Franke PLN 179 million, and recognition of the result on this transaction, which was shown in the results for 2022, as well as oxide disposal, more than PLN 130 million. And I think another topic that gave rise to a number of questions and received a lot of publicity in the media. We are a listed company that operates on a number of markets. And we are also a company that operates based on international accounting standards. IFRS 36 specifies the conditions for testing.
The IAS 36 premise, which forced the auditor to recommend the additional testing, was the drop in value. We were already, at the time of closing our financial statements, and we had to carry out those tests. It is not something new. The company previously collaborated closely with the auditor in carrying out this type of tests. The auditor, acting with all due diligence, forced the company to do all the necessary testing. You can see the outcomes of the testing process. The key element here results from T1, C1. If you look at the recent years, C1 has grown very dynamically, which led to cost increase around exploitation, reaching new deposits. All this was reflected in testing results. In the note to our financial statements, there is an explanation saying that our model is very sensitive to exchange rates, dollar-to-PLN exchange rates.
Possibly, in the future, there will also be other periods for which we will have to do similar testing. Maybe the trend will be reversed. Those external factors can affect the whole situation. Now, we also show you how our assets and structure were affected by standalone and consolidated results. Depending on what asset base we take into consideration, you see different numbers. Obviously, this affects deferred tax both at standalone and at consolidated levels. The last element, cash flows. At the end of year, we recognized over PLN 500 million higher balance of cash than at the end of 2022. Here, a positive element involved changes in operating flows, PLN 3.7 billion EBITDA. PLN 3.7 billion is also released working capital. PLN 1.6 billion is income tax. In total, that is plus PLN 6 billion.
On the other hand, we have the investment part, PLN 3 billion KGHM International, PLN 1 billion, and other segments, PLN 600 million or PLN 700 million. As a result, we had cash balance at PLN 1.739 billion. Thank you very much for this presentation part of our meeting. Now, we move on to the Q&A session. You are welcome to ask questions if you are in the room. And I will also read out some questions that have been sent online. Please introduce yourself before you ask your question.
Paweł Puchalski, Santander, brokerage house. First of all, I would like to ask you about your CAPEX. In your presentation, you have dedicated a lot of attention to telling us about the need to invest in new shafts. There was this nice map showing new deposits.
We know very well that after 60 years, mines lose their ability to maintain production at previous levels. My question is, wouldn't it be simpler to say that within the next 10 years, we have to build such and such number of shafts in order to maintain the unchanged level of output, and we need to spend such and such amount to achieve this? That was the general question. As regards details, you state within the budget in your parent company, and then you show 100 as the annual CAPEX. In the management board report, I can read that the parent company accounted for over PLN 3 billion, international accounted for PLN 1 billion, and other accounted for PLN 600 million. There was also an acquisition. In total, CAPEX adds up to almost PLN 5 billion rather than 4.1.
I'm asking you about this because I want to know how to approach the guidance for this year. Is that likely to be 4? Is that likely to be 5? So one general question, one specific question.
Let me start very generally by answering your first question about new shafts and, in a way, change in our model of operating them. It has always been in the focus of the management boards of this company. And always, companies like ours ask themselves how to exploit their deposits. Obviously, we have defined a certain baseline. We have our mining infrastructure. And it's not just a question of location of the shafts because you probably meant production shafts. The location of mining is also the location of processing and waste storage.
Of course, we have to think about investing in mining shafts and all enrichment plants, which should be located as close to the shafts as possible. But if I ask Mr. Bryja for additional information, he can give you a lot of details. Mr. Laskowski and Mr. Bryja are two excellent miners, so they can provide you with technical details. But in general terms, we always have to ask ourselves what comes next. Definitely, we need to implement such projects which are aligned with our strategy and which allow us to at least offset, possibly reverse, the trend of costs that are naturally growing. That is something we are discussing right now. And we have a lot of meetings. And that is something we are working very intensely on, not necessarily building KGHM 2.0 or whatever label you wish to give to it.
But our focus is on such operation of the deposit to obtain copper in long term and at the lowest possible cost. Mr. Laskowski?
When we talk about developing operations in Poland at KGHM Polska Miedź S.A., as of today, we rely on operational production shafts and all enrichment plants. And as regards licensing, we need to build three more shafts to carry out our operations in the areas for which we have license as of today. My colleague has already presented my arguments. I'm well known for being a man of more words than my colleague. When we talk about mining centers, they have been in the same locations for years, Sieroszowice, Polkowice, at the level of about 1,100. All shafts that we build in the north and northwest are ventilation shafts, even if there is some transport of copper.
But mainly, we focus here on the shafts whose primary function is ventilation. By 2055, we want to complete those three shafts. They will provide ventilated in the areas. GG1 that I mentioned earlier is the 31st shaft of KGHM. We still need to build three. Apart from the areas that were shown on the map, we need to deal with a certain natural border in the form of the Oder River. Kulów-Luboszyce is another deposit. If the court grants us license to operate this deposit, we will be able to operate this area, which is across the Oder River. So if we need extra technology and more operational activities there, we will have to build an extra mine there. For the time being, before we cross this natural river border, we improve our infrastructure related to automation, process steering, machinery.
And we are doing this in order to be ready for the time when we decide to build the mine across the Oder River. For the time being, the zoning plan envisages this process starting not earlier than in 2055. In reality, it might be much later. We are really talking about 30, 40 years of operations in this area. If we could perhaps display the map again. It seemed to the non-professionals that one of the key things was the distance for the transportation of copper on the copper rock, but also the miner to the place of exploration. So when I look at this map, it seems that the distance from the current let me just respond to that.
The G1 shaft, which is currently being built, it will be the material one, infrastructural one, and the same for Oder one, just to decrease the distance between the miner and the place of work. But now, regards the transportation of the output of the ore, it will be transported to the existing shafts in its conveyor. So we will just be minimizing one of the sections, and then it will be the conveyor where we can extend that distance. We are very much limited by the time of commute, shall we say, or the transportation of the teams to the exploration points. One shaft is PLN 2.5 billion. Now, when I was planning R11, over 25 years ago, this was PLN 600 million. Now, this is PLN 2.2 billion, so PLN 2.5 billion. These are the amounts.
But we need to add on top of that the location transport to the enrichment plant also is not to be neglected. So that's a significant cost item.
So yes, I'm a financial analyst. Now, from the point of view of the finances, what was also said about the updating of the strategy? What is this? There are two models. One is the five-year model, and the other one is LOM, life of mine. And these are the models where we are trying to review different scenarios, throwing in different CAPEXes, and focusing on what Andrzej was talking about. This CAPEX that triggers the operational leverage, this can break the curve and allow us to generate additional results and to increase the margin, both where the granulation is very big. But when we talk about the new deposits, we also tested on the LOM model.
We will share the outcomes of this work with you. Once it's completed, it will be then supported with figures, but with also some base of our resources and our review of it.
Did you spend PLN 4.1 billion or PLN 5 billion last year?
Like I show on the slide, the CAPEX was PLN 3 billion for KGHM S.A. and PLN 1 billion in international. You won't see it to this extent of detail. 680, this is Adders. Those are our companies. And what Piotr has mentioned, we are revising our strategy, but also revising the strategy of our company. So we will come back to you with a response as to what CAPEX we are looking into and what its impact will be because that CAPEX should have influenced a better cost structure, expenditure structure, where the services are prepared for us.
So this should also impact our long-term model.
Sorry, forgive me, but a follow-up question. I understand that in KGHM, you've got PLN 3-something billion. And in the companies, you've got about PLN 600 million, which will impact the improvement of KGHM S.A. So perhaps you should be showing the CAPEX of PLN 600 million in the mother company because if it translates directly to the outcome of the mother company, perhaps that's where it should be disclosed.
We are currently having the financial statements approved in specific entities. We will definitely come back to you. But we should not, at this point, be discussing these issues before the corporate management bodies approve the statements. We will come back to this. But when we have an investment in an ex-company of ours, the CAPEX could be used by us. But they also work commercially on the market. So from that point of view, I think this presentation is correct.
We are not trying to avoid it. We are disclosing this information. We can talk about it. We are showing to you that the CAPEX includes the three segments that are being presented here.
Another question then, if this is how you are disclosing this, it's good to be showing a small CAPEX in the mother company. Let me add a different question. If there's PLN 600 million CAPEX in the companies outside KGHM SA, but it generates PLN 300 or so or more, and the new management board decides to immediately sell from this package, which is creating a PLN 300 million loss in terms of cash for last year, I do not understand entirely where this diagnosis comes from. You would have had to analyze every individual CAPEX separately. I understand that they should have a positive NPV. I think that your claim is too simplistic.
I'm looking at the EBITDA in other and the CAPEX in other. The EBITDA of other is PLN 300 million. The CAPEX is about PLN 600 million.
Yeah, but you would have to take a different question over what time was this CAPEX spent and what kind of investment projects they were.
I can imagine various scenarios here. But we can possibly discuss this topic. Without going into detail of specific projects, this outlook seems too simplistic. Also, if you allow me, we're looking at the consolidated data, and we're making comments on the CAPEX of individual companies in this segment of the Other. So I think this would take a longer analytical discussion. One more thing. We cannot look at CAPEX throughout the period of one year. This is what you're doing. Thank you,
Mr. Robert Maj. I have a question about dividend.
This is something that is interesting for the market. What's going to be your dividend despite the net loss? And what are the prices of copper that you apply in your calculations of positive NPV per project? Because you mentioned that they need to be in the black, and they need to be positive. So what's the Victoria Sierra Gorda 2 project, so the extension of the mine in Chile, stroke oxide, with your assumption of copper prices? Are they highly positive then, and will they be continued?
I believe that, well, I don't know if we can disclose this to such a level. This is a slightly different approach that's being used for tests and different for budgeting, Mr. Krzyżewski. Dividend, the policy of the company remains unchanged, and we maintain the level that is included in our dividend policy. The write-off was a non-cash write-off.
But ladies and gentlemen, we are, at this point, currently analyzing the present financial outlay, the CAPEX and the OPEX. And we will come back to you with the information about whether or not there is space for a dividend to be paid. I believe that in the weeks to come, we can inform you about this. Now, for NPV, as was said just now, this is our background model. To a large extent, we are also basing on the analysis and the average market values. We look at the analysis that are provided by either investment banks or just our outlook. And that's something that we do. And you can see in the explanatory note, we have provided some details describing the test and the values that were assumed in it. For the Victoria project, you see that it is in the advanced exploration phase.
The CAPEX is quite significant for that. In the weeks to come, we will be taking the decision as to the investments in this project and how we see the future of this asset. A short comment about Victoria. We are not slowing down the performance of the project of building exploration shaft there. We need to commence talks with our partners, maybe resume talks, start afresh discussions about an offtake agreement regarding Victoria mine. It's premature to discuss any details yet as regards the ore from Sierra Gorda as SX-EW project. As far as I know from Director Laskowski, we cannot make any too far-reaching plans. There are two projects going on there. One is the construction of a fourth line with a three-year time frame, and the other project related to the development of infrastructure there, special installation.
The outlays in KGHM International have been significant. We first need to secure the possibility of efficient funding, and we need to analyze those projects in terms of the hierarchy or the best rates of return. Nothing escapes our attention here.
In a moment, we will move on to the questions that were asked online. I have a question to the CEO who started with general comment, which is great news to us as investors, namely that you will take care of costs. You will also revise your strategy. Could you give a bit more color to this general statement, how you are going to take care of this budget?
I don't know which color you have in mind. I hope it's going to be a somewhat warmer color. As for costs, cost discipline will be our high priority.
In a moment, you are probably going to ask about costs of remuneration because that's a significant component of costs. But we tend to see that in terms of completion of projects that are efficient enough to make sure that the costs related to energy, for example, a very significant item, can be completed to obtain cheaper energy and to ensure security of our technological lines. Additionally, there is a lot to be done in renewable energies. I wouldn't like to discuss individual segments yet, but we know that KGHM cannot rely on its own sources of a single type. We need to diversify, not only for security reasons, but also for reasons of the characteristics of those various energy sources: photovoltaics, wind, semi-conventional energies, or CCGT, or nuclear energy.
We are considering this, but this is not a direction in which the market would be ready to respond to the requirements of KGHM. And in terms of our plans for 2024, because that's probably of great interest to you, I can say that the positive effects that the CEO has mentioned will probably be already visible in the first quarter on energy numbers. We manage efficiently the costs of energy, so we keep this under control. We are also implementing some activities related to the use of the existing infrastructure. For example, we reduce the level of work of our units, and we buy energy at weekends when the costs are favorable. We are beneficiaries of those changes, which will be reflected in the results we will show for the first quarter. We are also looking for savings on consumption of materials.
Depending on the item, there are diverse projects. In subsequent quarters, you should see the results of those activities.
Last question, very quickly. Slide 61 shows that you have, at least as of January this year, you have hedging on dollars. You didn't have any hedging on silver or copper.
Yes, exactly. Hedging on exchange rate, dollar PLN, is about 15%. Then we need to add that we follow all the principles of hedging accounting here, and the entire benefits were utilized here on metals.
As I announced now, some questions that were asked online. We have already talked about energy sources. I have three questions here that can be merged into one about energy.
Given the changes in the composition and the management board, can we expect any change in the attitude to the funding and ownership structure of the projects related to renewable energy sources, in particular SMR? Bank of America wants to know whether the management board is similarly involved in nuclear energy plans as the previous management board, or would you consider changing your attitude from a builder to a stone kind of client. But the general question is about your intentions regarding energy projects, various things concerning energy projects.
I don't know whether I understand precisely the tenor of the questions. KGHM has been interested in all energy projects that can generate positive results for our core business. That's the foundation, and that's the precondition. There are no energy projects that are being implemented for their own sake. Core business means metal output and production.
Energy in KGHM should be auxiliary to core business, at least as long as we have this long-term prospect of deposit operation. SMRs, MMRs, small nuclear energy for purposes of diversification and offsetting of power is a very attractive option. But you have to bear in mind that the process of obtaining permits, the process of building small or microreactors, is a process that's going to take a number of years. There has been relatively little time to review the technologies available, but there has been enough time to answer the question whether we should stand in line or rush to get those technologies. The answer is no. There was a bit of rivalry among state-owned companies, which of them will sooner get nuclear reactors. But the problem is that no such thing is readily available in the market, and probably it won't be available soon.
We tend to be very sober at KGHM when considering such matters. It's reasonable to have energy generation sources located as close to our technological facilities as possible. We want to have those energy generation sources at the shortest possible distance from our places of consumption of this energy. Then there is also the issue of cogeneration or technological heat, which needs to be produced with the use of fuels. We are very open-minded in thinking about various energy sources. We do not back out of considering building small reactors, but we seem to be ahead of the market right now. I cannot envisage an entity appearing in the market that would be able to come up with a proposal of building small nuclear reactors within the next five years. If such an entity exists, we can start talks immediately.
But it seems that the activities so far, they shouldn't be assessed negatively, but we need to look around. We are very much interested, yet our primary interest is to have it interesting and efficient in terms of costs for our core business. So with regard to funding of energy, we have four points. One is the profile of consumption, and we know that. We have our own generation sources. We have our own consumption profile. The second point that we need to consider is the mix we would like to acquire from the market, and that is photovoltaic energy has a profile which is different from that in wind energy. And we have two categories here, our own projects on our own lands and M&A.
And then the last thing, we have already started talks with the financial sector because the entire funding structure would have to be built for such projects with a determined rate of return, with a determined lifetime to make sure that everything is appropriately balanced so that we do not compete with CAPEX among other projects. All these projects have to follow certain rules, but they have to have allocated sources of funding as well and the hierarchy of priorities in terms of efficiency.
Thank you very much.
Now, the plans on the optimization of metallurgy. In 2016, we completed a big modernization project in the Głogów 1 metallurgy plant. I think this project was slightly forgotten because it launched overnight, as a matter of fact, which never happens.
Actually, after this change of technology, this plant seems to be almost complete, Głogów I, and it doesn't seem that there are any more modernization projects needed for metallurgy infrastructure. Legnica plant, gradually and in a controlled way, is becoming the plant that has taken over a significant proportion of the derivative copper processing. And there was also a program for the construction of revitalization there. Now, for the next decade, we've got still some to do for refinement for Głogów and for Legnica, but I would probably, to be concise, tell you that we do not foresee any significant overblown needs in terms of CAPEX for metallurgy. Obviously, Głogów, from the point of view of experience, has about 40 years of experience. And in Głogów I, there is similar technology, but to a large extent, and almost 10 years, 8 years experience right now without any major issues.
So here, we seem to be very advanced, and we don't need to expect a revolution. Now, responding to this topic, I don't see I can put any more shades into what was just been said.
Thank you. Another question from UBS, a request to—sorry, we already covered that. After the significant decrease in KGHM International last year, what is the outlook for 2024? So we have specific volumes already disclosed for the first quarter of 2024. Now, what is the outlook?
We've got a precautionary policy in place. Production volumes in Poland and all our locations for 2024 for the first quarter are, according to the budget, above.
Thank you. Perhaps questions from the room?
Janusz Maruszewski. Let me ask you about the review of strategy.
Now, for the existing review of strategy, do you see any remaining risks for write-downs or any aspects that have perhaps brought about some positive ones, so the reversal of the write-down for impairment?
Okay. Well, again, precautionary policy, we cannot respond. This would be too theoretical. It's too early to say. But for CAPEX, did you ask about yes, I wanted to ask about the CAPEX as well.
Now, for the sources of financing of CAPEX this year and the implementation of the assumptions for a few years to come, are you considering the capital market, any bonds, green bonds? Are you looking at that as an option?
Briefly, we will not rule that out.
And last question, do you see any risk of stagnation here in Poland like it was last year or abroad for the company's assets? This question is mostly about metallurgy.
This year, there seems to be a maintenance stall that's planned for Głogów 1. After many years, we have reached such a period where the period between main closed-downs for maintenance are about six years. When we look at the calendar on the 16th of October 2016, we launched Głogów 1. 2020 was the first break, and 2024 would be the second one in Głogów. I stalled here for a while because in Głogów 2, which was launched in 1978, I think these were two periods between maintenance, but we only reached that after 20 years. Now we're looking at four, and that's the first period of four years between maintenance breaks. That just tells you to the extent to which we were able to draw on the experience from the previous plant. I don't see that we can foresee any other events.
We wouldn't want to see any happening in any case. So a planned maintenance break was something that we accounted for, but it's according to the plan, to the planned scheduling.
To be fair, towards all the people that have asked questions, I tried to put these questions into groups. UBS asked about dividend and guidance for 2024.
We've covered the dividend. We have published the budget. So I think there is nothing new that we can add here. The budget for 2024.
Again, let me later call our colleague from UBS. Santander again. Just to summarize, I understand that the board is sustaining the plan to produce 50% energy from own resources. And the second thing, as far as I can hear, the resources should be located close to the plants. I understand that it is not feasible to take part in an offshore project.
And another thing, a detail, concerning Sierra Gorda, in quarter four, there was a significant increase in cost, in expenditure, and I would like to know whether this is a one-off situation or should the level of expenditure in quarter four be continued in the subsequent quarters of this year and the next years.
Okay, let's start with the 50% coverage in the strategy of energy. Indeed, in its strategy until 2030, KGHM has included a provision whereby we generate up to 50% of our energy from own resources. Now, let me remind you that we are consuming over 3 terawatt-hours a year. And that is not to say by any means that it is an unrealistic volume. We're looking into trying to update our strategy. And of course, it'd be very good if it could be 50% until 2030.
But when I spoke about small reactors or microreactors, nuclear microreactors, then most likely, it will be a problematic thing to only use that. And if we base on just PV or offshore, well, that's not completely out of question as long as it brings out a positive outcome to Mr. Laskowski in his production capacity, if it brings enough energy. But I'd never ruled out offshore. Of course, it would be preferable to locate the sources close to where the energy is consumed, also due to cogeneration, which is an important factor. But that is not to say well, that is a preferred location, right, but not the only one. And KGHM is not intending to close off within our own locations for generation. Now, for quarter four, Piotr.
Yes, the observed increase in OPEX in Sierra Gorda in quarter four, it was temporary.
I don't think we should be observing such a great growth dynamics in terms of OPEX there in subsequent quarters. We should be able to keep a stable level from now on. But it needs to be said that in Chile, there is a significant inflation rate, and it has had an impact on our asset.
Thank you. I've seen another question. Microphone, please.
I will perhaps respond myself to one, not one that hasn't been asked, but one that I see on the internet. What is the planned net revenue in terms of percentage in first quarter 2024? We cannot respond. We are not revealing forecasts. We will be closing quarter one very soon. From the point of view of financials and operations, we only know volumes right now, so no forecasts at this point. And the same author is asking about dividends. So again, it's a recurring topic.
It's already been covered. What is the board thinking about the transaction of taking over Anglo American by BHP? What impact will it have on the copper market, and in particular, what can happen to the copper assets throughout the world?
Well, the board of Polska Miedź would not like to issue its position on the takeovers between the two very important players on the market, whether or not it will have an impact on the copper market. I don't think so. Perhaps we should reverse the question. Why should it have an impact? We can try to read something into it as a positive sign for copper prices, looking through the lens of the purchaser. Perhaps. Maybe I'm going too far because then I would be saying things about an entity that I'm not managing, and I shouldn't be doing that. Thank you very much.
Are there any other questions from the room? I have already reviewed the questions asked online, and they have been answered. Mr. Puchalski?
To continue on the topic of M&As, if you received today the offer that KGHM had a year or a year and a half ago to buy about a 40% stake in Sierra Gorda, would you take advantage of this offer or not? And one last point. I have heard what the management board said about the cost of energy. We know about the level of silver prices. So the question is, does the management board intend to revise downward its guidance on such costs for 2024?
The first question is very difficult because we are talking about something that took place. Sumitomo sold 45% shares in 2021, I think.
We have to say that each decision of this nature involves a number of various aspects that should be considered.
Let me speculate in a safe way, though. When Sumitomo was selling its 45%, should KGHM have bought that stake?
KGHM didn't buy the stake of 45% stake in Sierra Gorda. But just as well, you could ask whether KGHM should have sold its 55%, then what copper price was back then?
Should you sell when the price is high?
I cannot really answer your question. I do not know. Regarding the second question, please consider that this parameter of energy, which has been quite stable historically, has become very volatile lately.
Any revision, change of the budget and guidance based on a volatile indicator would not be advisable, especially when we have, on the other side of revenues, we have volatile exchange rates, dollar to PLN, and then prices of metals. Costs are definitely the elements to which we will pay a lot of attention to find an operational leverage.
Thank you. There are no further questions from the room, and we have some time limitations. So I would like to thank you very much for this meeting and invite you to the next one in mid-May when we are going to publish KGHM results for the first quarter 2024. We are at your disposal. If you have any questions, we are available. Our Investor Relations Department and our Communication Team are available at the telephone numbers shown on our website.
You can also use the dedicated email addresses to ask your questions. Thank you once again for participating at this conference, and see you at our next event.