Good morning, good afternoon, and welcome to the discussion of KGHM Polska Miedź S.A. results for 2024. The results will be presented by the Management Board, CEO Andrzej Szydło, Deputy Rada Ministrów Mr. KGHM Polska Miedź Tomasz Zdzikot, Mr. Mirosław Laskowski , and Piotr Stryczek. With us today is also Director Janusz Krystosiak , the Investor Relations Director, who will be moderating the Q&A session right after the presentation of the results. Our conference is being streamed online. You can ask your questions both from the room as well as via email to er@kghm.com. Over to the CEO, Mr. Szydło.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I hope you can hear me.
Ladies and gentlemen.
An annual conference, a conference presenting the annual results, is an opportunity for us to present the annual results, but also to wrap up the year. I remember our conference a year ago where we discussed the results for 2023, and it's not a secret, no one's going to be surprised, that in discussing the results for 2023, we discussed the results of KGHM, but those were not the results of the work of this Management Board for 2023. As for 2024, by and large, we are discussing the results of our own, as we might put it. The results were published yesterday, and you're aware of them. By the way, some comments have already appeared in the media. Let me start on an untypical note and start with what the conference looked like a year ago.
A year of the Management Board's work has passed in this composition, and in retrospect, to allude to the conference that was held in April 2024, will, I think, be a good start to also make a resume of this board's work and also to present what we were grappling with, what we have identified, and what sort of analyses we've performed in the company and how we approach the management of such an organization as KGHM Polska Miedź S.A. , an organization which, in terms of the raw materials, the commodities, is important not only for the region, for the country, but also for the EU or Europe as a whole.
Let me just remind you that KGHM, when it comes to primary copper, it represents 50% of the EU output, which, in today's times of uncertainty and the attention put to commodities, especially critical commodities and strategic commodities, makes a huge difference. Who are we? What are we responsible for? And how the responsibility is distributed when it comes to Poland's and EU's commodity strategy? What did we deal with before we pass on to the results? What did we deal with over the last year? Obviously, it should come as no surprise to anyone we had to review the company's past and what the ongoing most important problems were. We have prioritized those problems and dealt with them in such a way as to catch up with the time and resolve those issues that were the most urgent ones.
With your permission, let me come back to the conference for 2023 and where we were. Of course, physically, we were here in the same conference room, but in terms of our thoughts, we were at the company premises owing to some problems that required very urgent resolution. Without getting into details for obvious reasons, also not to abuse your time, the problem of water-related threats in KGHM was a problem which, in the months of March, April, May, and even June, was a priority problem that we were dealing with, especially Mr. Laskowski's departments responsible for production. Most companies, most companies like ours, deal with natural resources. In our case, it was the issues connected with the Oder River and the Golden Elge.
KGHM was not responsible for those crises, but KGHM is an entity that uses natural resources, and we had to be very careful and meticulous to ensure the top environmental safety and security. We confronted the status quo in the form of significant filling of the hydrotechnical structure, the iron bridge at almost 100% of its capacity. That is to say, at times when KGHM should have built a retention facility. This year, we will see what the next month shows.
We probably have a hydrological drought, low levels of water in the Oder River, so we have to be prepared not to add in any way to possible negative natural phenomena, not to add additional risks connected with the possible discharge of additional water from technological processes, from water removal from the mines to the Oder River, which is the natural body of water used by KGHM, both when it comes to water intake and discharge. How does it look in brief? In the winter months, the flow of water in the Oder River and the potential changes in the salinity of the Oder water is not very sensitive to whatever is going on at the entities that use those resources. However, in the summer months, this body of water is potentially very sensitive to its use.
Briefly speaking, spring and late spring and summer months is the time when you need to build technological retention in such a way as to be prepared for significant constraints, especially when it comes to discharge. I've been talking about it quite long. Briefly speaking, as compared to last year when our thoughts—well, physically, we were at the conference, and with our thoughts, we were at the company—and we took a number of action items connected with the retention of water underground, including also the restoration of the correct technical condition of the discharge infrastructure to build additional retention facilities where possible to avoid possible negative consequences for the water removal from the mines. I mean, the inflow of water from the mountain areas is what affects KGHM in particular this year.
We are in such a situation that the retention facility has been built in such a way that we are prepared for such scenarios where we can limit water discharges to such levels that will in no way impact the environment. Of course, this has also been subject to audit and the further part of the process and the answer to the questions why that had happened and what to do to avoid the recurrence of such situations going forward, and that such a large entity as KGHM is not prepared or should not be prepared for its operations in the spring and summer months are underway. This is the first issue that has taken a lot of time, but it was finalized.
I mean, it will never end because the proper care for the appropriate balance of technological water across the seasons is a phenomenon that will always take place, and you always have to pay attention to that. The question that needs to be answered is why it had happened otherwise previously is a question to which the answer will be provided very soon.
Proszę państwa.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is no secret, because you have been asking about it, so it is no secret that KGHM has undergone a series of processes of audits related to events from the past. Among those, there was the audit of diversification of energy sources. KGHM is a very large recipient, consumer of electricity, should diversify its energy sources, and KGHM did try to do that, among other things, by investing in photovoltaic farms. As a result of the audits, though, we have found out that some acquisitions that took place in the past were not carried out in the optimum manner, both with regard to the acquisition price and the later identified technological condition and the entire procedure of acquiring photovoltaic farms. This is also a lesson learned for the future and a message from us.
KGHM is by all means interested in diversification of its energy sources and investing in renewable energy, however, definitely not in the manner in which we found that things had been done before, with the technological aspects being handled, to put it mildly, inappropriately. Before some of us returned to the company, some others came to it for the first time. Like in any other large entity, KGHM experiences staff turnover, and precisely this was also reviewed. KGHM is an excellent institution that forges good personnel. You can learn a lot in this company. You can use those lessons in other institutions. However, I think that KGHM is not the best place for spending money on severance payments, on paying for non-competition with excessive staff turnover that happened in previous years.
Several dozen people came through various management boards, maybe not physically natural persons, but titles on which they were entitled to receive compensation. Several dozen people in KGHM International, in our foreign assets, and almost 200 people from among key managing personnel in branches. In total, in such large companies, people do change the career paths, or at the level of the organization, decisions are made that some optimization can be undertaken with regard to managerial personnel. In the labor market, if somebody has particular skills, particular expertise, mostly, please forgive me the simplification, the market is willing to pay for this asset. It is a bit like in football. If there is a transfer of players, sometimes the club buys a player and pays for the player. Surprisingly, in KGHM, staff turnover mostly represented a cost for the company. I cannot recall a case of it generating revenue.
That is another thing from which we should draw conclusions. Personnel changes, which are an inseparable part of the operation of such a company, should be handled properly. Various things affect staff turnover, but definitely should not generate several dozen million costs over a couple of years. At least staff should be selected in the right way, and the changes should be prevented from being only unilateral. Another area which we submitted to review was the environment. KGHM is a large company. ESG, CSR are not just empty labels or slogans nowadays. KGHM has for years been pursuing activities related to sponsoring or media cooperation. The area should be well thought through and well supervised, because for the majority of consumers who are not deeply familiar with this, these might be associated with money that is spent in a non-optimal manner. Unfortunately, such things happened.
In the past several years, KGHM spent almost PLN 800 million on this budget line. Always attention has to be paid that this type of collaboration is balanced without being tainted by anything else apart from the substance of it. That regards the cooperation with the environment of the company and with the media, so that nobody can say that the company likes those and dislikes others and is willing to cooperate with the former and unwilling to cooperate with the latter. In companies like KGHM, this should be really balanced, and it was not. KGHM, in its structure, has the Polish Copper Foundation, and the foundation has its statutory goals, which are closely linked to this aspect of activity that I have just mentioned. Spending reasonable amounts on social purposes, on good causes. Let me just quote one example.
The difference between 2024, which we are discussing today, and 2023, the previous one, in terms of the Polish Copper Foundation, the difference in the money spent was fourfold and not always related to the activity of KGHM and the region. KGHM is not that big a company so as to carry out this policy on a nationwide scale, or the areas in which it does not have any impact on the environment, or it does not have its employees or former employees or local communities. KGHM is a large company in the scale of Lower Silesia and in Poland, but you have to be very cautious about blowing up this type of cost. The last point, I think Ms. Dorota Lis will talk you through the details of that.
Last year, the company, well, in recent years, the company became an international one with assets located in Canada, in Chile, in China. We reviewed those assets, and also certain things that were identified there are things which we do not consider optimum. This in particular applies to the Robinson Mine, which in 2023 got into very serious trouble related to the availability of machinery, but also with regard to planning both open-pit mining operations and stockpiling preparation for the processing in a flexible manner that allows the plant to react to any temporary trouble. We can see that in the first quarter of 2023, the situation was really very bad, and now it is very good.
You can say, "Okay, the results are fine, but the base is very low, so there is no point in deceiving ourselves that if the bar is set so low, it's really easy to jump over it." It took us a lot of time to address the key development project of KGHM in Canada, namely the Victoria Project, which was acquired as part of an acquisition project in 2012, where we had certain conditions.
Connected with the advancement of that project, let me just remind you that this is a very deep mine, deep-pit mine of copper and nickel, where the project is performed in two stages. That was actually our decision that we made. Two shafts will be built there.
We've determined that in the decision with regards to that project, that the decisions had been made on an ad hoc basis, and the components of the budget were just added. The project CapEx grew multifold over many years, so you couldn't just make a decision whether it was profitable or not. What would happen to the minerals extracted, who they would be provided to, but it was basically a typical haphazard ad hoc project. The largest asset is the Sierra Gorda mine in Chile, where we are partners of the then Japanese Sumitomo, right now the Australian South32 company.
I believe that Madame Vice President will also relate to some phenomena that have to happen there, but the performance there has to be improved, and the situation has to be achieved where some things should be delivered if budgeted and promised, at least to a large degree, rather than as life shows. I am talking about the mining activity, but also I think that very soon now, in terms of a good cooperation, it is very important. I mean, we perceive good cooperation with a 45% shareholder as our partner to be of key importance. We will also be making decisions for the future, and in terms of the development, and keeping in mind that the time of intense CapEx investments in international assets, financial assets have to be finished when the cash flows in one direction only.
We should also try to find reasonable sources of funding, not necessarily in Poland and not necessarily at the parent company. I've been talking quite longish, but I had to make this introduction. I'm sure that you will ask a question at one stage, what about the strategy that we mentioned at the first conference early this spring? I will be trying to avoid the word strategy because to announce a strategy in line with the corporate rules, first, we have to adopt that strategy at the management board level, and secondly, to invite the supervisory board to approve that strategy. Those processes have not formally been finalized. I think they will be finalized soon.
I don't think it's a secret that a certain identification of the status of KGHM growth after 64 years of its history and for the next 140 years to come, that's what has taken up most of our work and still is. That's why KGHM will announce its strategy at one point. You must not build a strategy for such a company as KGHM for four or five years because investment processes, CapEx-related processes, take 15 years. Whoever prepares a strategy for a company like KGHM in planning anything for 10 years' time, it's actually operating. It's not a strategy. We'll just deliver a strategy very soon now. We also have to keep in mind that the reasonableness and the profitability of some decisions is of key importance, and those decisions need to be made urgently.
Let me just emphasize that urgently because the decisions to be made in 2025 will realistically result in the outcomes in 2040. That's how it works. There will be no realistic production-related outcomes in 2030. The fundamental decisions in mining operations cannot be expected earlier than within 12 to 15 years. That's why we realize how urgent some decision-related processes are. I'm sure that Mr. Vice President Brill will mention that in a further part. So much when it comes to the introduction, 29 minutes, not so bad. Let me just pass to something that I'm sure you saw yesterday. That's to say the key macroeconomic factors that had an impact on KGHM performance for 2024. The most important ones are the quoting results for metals, mostly copper and silver. They were positive vis-à-vis the comparable period, that's to say 2023.
In dollar terms, copper was 8% higher, silver by 21% higher. However, if you look at the valuation in Zlotys owing to the appreciation of the PLN against the euro and the dollar, in our case, mostly the USD, the Polish Zloty is 5% stronger vis-à-vis the dollar. The increase in the prices of the metals were +2% for copper and 14.7% for silver. You will remember that the revenues from the sales of silver represent above a dozen percent. 15% of increase in the silver price does not result all that much in the increase in the top line increase. As regards the revenues, KGHM Polska Miedź S.A., the domestic revenues grew by +3%. Let me just remind you, +2% for copper, +14.7% for silver. This stems from the Robinson Mine results and the lower production.
The adjusted EBITDA for KGHM was PLN 4.4 billion, which represented a 25% increase year on year against 2023. The adjusted EBITDA for the group represented PLN 8 billion 457 million and an increase by 58%, the net result. Last year, the company had made some write-offs, and you also have to look at this from the prism of why this happened. When it comes to the result, it is PLN 2.8 billion for the individual result, and for the KGHM group, PLN 2.87 billion assembly level. When it comes to copper production, 2024 was the time when the Głogów I mine had an idle time. That is the largest mine that was actually launched in 2016. Let me just, on a private note, we launched it in 2016. It was launched within a day of, and it started being operational. It will never happen.
There were some teething problems, obviously, but that metallurgical work, those metallurgical works are very close to my heart, and I'm very happy that it was launched in 2016. The first overhaul took place in 2020, and the next one precisely last year, which means that once in four years, such metallurgical works are subject to the in-depth revamp overhaul, including the replacement of the boiler system. Why is it important? Because I remember when it comes to a similar technology, I don't remember that, but I'm aware of the story. When a similar situation for the furnace was launched in, I think, 1978, the first stopover happened one month thereafter. Everyone strived to make sure that the stopover times between the overhauls were about a year or 18 months. It was a huge achievement to achieve two years.
We ventured to introduce three-year periods between major overhauls and then four years. In the case of the Głogów metallurgical works, it just happened right away. If we're capable of managing the insert in such a way as to extend the overhaul times, this will impact cost optimization. We will naturally do that, and we will be thinking about five-year periods between overhauls. Going forward, you could not exclude longer periods. Tak długo o tym mówię.
This is why I took so long to discuss the topic. First, obviously, I wanted to boast a little bit, but secondly, I wanted to give you a background on the result of 2024. With this planned operating smoothly, we had a positive impact on the total results of our national assets.
Usually, a certain stock of anodes has to be amassed in order to ensure continuity of the refinement process. As regards electrolytic copper and paid copper, the output was at the level of any year without any renovation stoppage. Owing to the base in the Robinson Mine, we recorded significant growth. However, it is not satisfactory to us yet. We had the output also meet the results in Sierra Gorda Mine. Paid copper production is something that I would like to use as the opportunity to make another comment. 35% of electrolytic copper input comes from third-party input. That is concentrate and scrap metal that is processed in KGHM smelters. This is a trend that will probably continue because this secondary copper recovered from scrap metal is something increasingly common. Both CapEx and operating costs grow, and companies worldwide will have to reach for weaker and weaker resources.
Copper scrap will always be of value. 35% of our national operations use third-party input, and we will very much strive to keep this proportion so that we do not have any significant increase in third-party input. It is not going to be easy. However, that is the only way that allows us to envisage higher volume. You can easily process scrap metal on condition that it is available at the market. This is something that did happen in 2023 and in 2024. The proportion stayed almost identical, 65% from primary copper and obtained as output, then processed into concentrate that was used in KGHM smelters, and 35% of third-party input, very carefully selected so that the technological processes fit the material that we have. I'm about to wrap up, promise. As regards silver production, that requires some comment.
We had more than 1,000 tons of silver in 2024, which was 6% down from the previous year. This story goes back to 2022, the second or fourth quarter, where there was Kaldo Furnace downtime. As a result, some easily processable materials were kept in stock and were carried over to 2023. Easy to process and quick to process. As a result, the base for 2023 in terms of silver was a record high year. It is our ambition to drive the production here, but we want to increase our own supply. Silver comes mainly from KGHM mines, and it is going to be very difficult to match the result obtained in 2023. TPM, total precious metals, also 6% lower. Molybdenum, similarly. That's it from me. I do apologize for this lengthy background, but I think that will optimize the Q&A session after our presentation. Mr.
Laskowski, key things from the production. Andrzej has already said everything, so I will not repeat any numbers that you can see on the screen behind me. I will comment on the production and Polish assets as follows. We had good and very good results in each sector of operations, both with regard to the budget and in comparison to 2023. This is the case in mining, in processing, and in smelting. Let me just give you one figure that is not shown on the slide behind me. In 2024, we also had a record high production of rolled metal, which we make in Cedynia smelter. There was significant demand for that product, and we managed to obtain PLN 271,000 profit as a result of that.
The other numbers can be read from the slide behind us, and I would like to speak for a moment about the planning process in such a large mining and metallurgical company as we are. Everything starts with mining. We plan our extraction units and places where we obtain ores. We have about 300 meters progress annually, so you need to plan geological parameters very carefully. I'm talking now about the copper content and grain of the deposit, density of the metal in the deposit. Also, the investigation of the quality of a particular deposit. Sometimes we need to do that drilling, which gives us improvement in the planning by 30%, and then we have data from the actual mining activity. That is the key component of our mining activity that also involves preparatory work. We have a structure of making deposits available by layers.
We prepare a certain preparatory layer, and then assuming progress at 45 km, which is about 7%, moves us to category B of deposit study. We have the last element then related to mining production, namely calendar. Every calendar has a fixed number of business days and holidays. We plan work also on holidays, weekends, and other holidays at 13% with a completely voluntary basis of involvement of our employees. We use a variety of incentives, special bonuses, or day salaries at 200% or at some other percentage. We need to plan our work for the following years, and any additional change of a black day, business day, to a red calendar day that is a holiday means a certain modification in such a large plant. We have the easiest part.
Everything that is delivered by the mine has to be provided in the form of concentrate to our smelters. We need to make sure that about 85.5% is the actual metal in the output. In the total mass of output, we also have to make sure that the waste is disposed of at the right rate. Planning is based on our throughput capacity and renovation cycles. 2024 was. Na Hucie.
The overhaul in the Głogów metallurgical works, and in 2025 and 2026, we have six months idle times at the electro-raffinate at the Głogów metallurgical works. We do not turn off the electro-refining to zero. This is done section by section, but it does impact the end result, which is electrolytic copper. Hopefully, this was enough what I have you have been informed about when it comes to the assets I am responsible for at KGHM. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
A couple of words on the production markets for our international assets. Let me start with our Sierra Gorda asset. The CEO mentioned some things. Let me just start with strictly production-related data that you can see. We could hear you very badly. Is that better? Okay. I'm sorry. When it comes to payable copper production, indeed, we have an increase versus 2023. 2023 had not been a very good year. Therefore, we're not fully satisfied with the results, but this is, of course, some increase. We can see possibilities or further production-related and operating improvement. It should be added that the components mentioned by the CEO as regards the copper prices and the FX rate do affect us. For Sierra Gorda, we've been aided by macroeconomic components such as the copper price.
Additionally, contrary to Poland, we've been also helped by the currency and its rate against the dollar. Therefore, last year was closed by the result of 2% year -on -year. As regards the silver production here, we also had a larger throughput or throughput volume, and the ore content was also increased. Therefore, the effect is that year -on -year basis, we have 4% plus. Similarly, when it comes to noble metals, a little bit less so when it comes to molybdenum. It's minus 6%. On Sierra Gorda, this is the component that we focus on. We try to optimize that process. We have problematic ore also this year, but hopefully, the results will be better. As regards our situation and our relationships on Sierra Gorda, I'd like to emphasize two things here. First, we managed to build quite good relationships with our South32 partner.
We treat Sierra Gorda as a hugely important project for us that still has some development potential, and there is a significant value to that investment, to that project. Therefore, we decided, along with South32, to focus on joint staff-related strategy as well as the operating optimization strategy and implementing new production-related rules. Additionally, if we're talking about the potential for Sierra Gorda, we're talking about future projects, but those projects have to be prepared in a very meticulous way based on full analysis. South32 conveyed this information. We can confirm it that any possible decisions on a potential fourth line will only be made after the decision, and that decision is expected towards the end of this year. Additionally, I'd like to indicate that Sierra Gorda has also inspected Katawela Northeast, the deposit that we have, and we confirm that there are deposits enabling us.
I mean, we're in the course of documenting that, but this is definitely the licensed area that will increase our throughput capacities so much. That's it as regards the Sierra Gorda. As regards KGHM International, first of all, we should focus on the Robinson Mine. That's our largest mine in North America. As the CEO has indicated, 2024 was a very good year, both compared to 2023, which was, colloquially speaking, quite poor. Also, it was a unique year, 2024, no matter what you benchmark it to. We were using the Ruth 5 deposit, and we were also able to extract as much as possible from the blending. Therefore, that year, compared to 2023, was finished with a payable copper production of plus 52%. At the same time, we also had good results in Canada as regards the Sudbury Basin and Carlota Mine.
You will probably know it, but I'd like to emphasize that on February 28th, 2025, we closed the sales transaction for the Sudbury Basin. Consequently, this will probably be visible in the next years. As regards silver, as you look at the Robinson Mine, there are just spurious amounts of silver. KGHM mostly bases on the Sudbury Basin. It was just indicated, as indicating the case of copper, there is a lower extraction volume as well as lower silver content. The effect is that we're talking about minus 63% silver production. As regards precious metals, gold at Robinson was obtained in higher amounts as well as throughput at the Robinson Mine, which enabled us to achieve a result of plus 32%. For molybdenum, no change has been accounted for. We produce molybdenum mostly in North America in the Robinson Mine. That's it.
Thank you very much. Over to Vice President Ms. Bryja.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. When it comes to the production-related activities that were discussed as well as international projects, let me just focus on the CapEx in Poland. The first slide shows that out of PLN 4.1 billion worth that is accounted for CapEx in this year, the actual CapEx represented PLN 3.935 billion this year. This shows how important mining is. This results in above three-thirds of the CapEx in our company being mining. It is PLN 3,441 million is mining. The rest is metallurgic, and we also spent also on CO2 emissions purchases. That was 715. Analytically speaking, that was the maintenance and development and adaptation projects. 36% was for actually for replacement. That means that our assets are getting old, and we have to spend money on maintaining the operating sufficiency.
This is the replacement and maintenance. Development only represents 25%. That is way too low. The CEO noticed, and this will probably be shown in the next slide. You will see that our plans and needs actually are requirements. The plans are not so large. As regards to our mine's requirements for large CapEx projects that we have been waiting for in years that are quite delayed. For instance, the building of the three shafts. This 25% is hopefully the last year when we are talking about R&D and our expansion. W zeszłym roku, przypomnę.
Last year, just to remind you, it was roughly one-third for each of those three areas. Nowadays, recovery and maintenance accounts for more. The needs in this respect grow. On the other hand, we lack funds for new investments.
Here you can see what tasks were qualified to those individual areas: PLN 3 billion, PLN 17 million for maintenance of mining areas. When we use new fields, we need to make sure that all utilities are conducted. We have power supply. We need to ensure transportation and also conveyor belts. We prepared a 30-section of this conveyor route. That is a constant ongoing effort just to maintain the production. Another thing is the replacement of the machinery. We adopted a policy in the company that with regard to our core machinery, that is drilling, anchoring, and transportation machines, after 5, 6 years, we replace this machine park in its totality. Therefore, we have to buy new machines. This year, we bought 247 machines, and the plan was 254. Some were carried over to this year.
Let me remind you that at the beginning of this year, we had to deal with stage five. The machines that did not meet the requirements of stage four were kept by the producers until the time the requirements were met. As the CEO mentioned at the beginning, water protection. At the beginning of this year, we had to make sure that we regulate water regulation functional. In Żelazny Most, we had a significant amount of waste water discharged, and now it was significantly reduced. Control of water supply and disposal systems, both overground and underground, is of great importance, in particular in times when we expect the Oder River to raise its level. The next item is the Żelazny Most container. We ended at 195 meters, and it was practically filled.
There was a significant risk that it would be forced to reduce the production or even stop it altogether, depending on the weather conditions in the spring and the summer. We regulated all things related to infrastructure, underground and overground. However, there were no procedures that would allow us to raise the level of the container. We had to negotiate with local authorities to ensure modification of the zoning plan. Now the plan has been modified. We are at the final stage of obtaining environment decision. We expect consent to raise the level of this to 205 meters. We know that procedures have to follow certain administrative terms, and that is something that remains beyond our control. Nevertheless, we make all preparations necessary to use this time effectively. Another big chunk of this pie is the recovery of mines and smelters.
Here, we have work related to hydrotechnical plants. In plants, we have modernization of lifting machinery, ventilation systems. Altogether, that is PLN 301 million, which is a relatively low cost compared with the previous items like machine purchases. Exploration, unfortunately, that is much too little. Exploration for new deposits is unfortunately insufficient. We have a few areas in which we carry out exploration at the same time. First, that is in active mining areas. That is Retków-Grodziszcze and Białorzynce Radbanice. Here, we obtain the highest category. That is category A. Also, exploration on drilling from the surface. That is Luboszyce and Bytom Odrzański deposit, where we need to intensify our activities in the upcoming years. We think this is where we are going to continue our mining operations once the plan, which we have now, has been completed. Maintenance of the shafts.
Here, the largest item is SW4 shaft. In the so-called salt section, we are obliged to make it regularly operational by cleaning it and by making overhauls of the entire infrastructure. Modernization, for example, salt storage at Sieroszowice. Let me just remind you that we produce copper ore, but also we produce salt in Sieroszowice. The program of making deposits available. That is the program for underground drilling that will allow us to develop new layers for exploitation. This is of great significance because this program allows us to identify new types of risks related to gas, new related to water. This is a very significant item. After we came to the company, some of those places were covered by water. Now all the locations have been recovered for operational use. When we have drilled corridors that are flooded, it does not make sense to operate the mine.
Once it is cleaned and ensured against future flooding, that improves our overall performance. I said I would not show you the details of the slide, and this is not actually something that you saw in the past when we talked about Głogów. This slide intends to show you the importance of shafts in mining. We are talking about deep Głogów. Here, production increase previously was 2%. Between 2023 and 2024, the growth was at 16%. Because in 2024, in June, we managed to open GG1 ventilation shaft. Each cubic meter of air translates directly into the tons of our output. In this map, you can see GG1 shaft that was made in June 2024. In green, you can see other shafts. From the right, Redków, then GG2, also called Oder, and then Gaworzyce shaft. This is nothing fanciful. This is nothing that is nice to have.
These are the shafts that we have to build because the program of exploitation of the deposit assumes the usage of those shafts. We have to remove the air. We will make anything to make sure that these shafts are operational soon. Nothing for the future. These are the shafts that allow us to complete the existing plan. Here, we accelerated some activities as compared to our previous schedule of work. GG1 will be completed this year. Now we are securing finishing works there. We are also building overground structures there. GG2, with particularly complex geology, we are seeking a convenient place for the location of the shaft.
The first project and the first drillings were finalized last year. This year, we're starting drilling in another year. After in-depth analysis, we hope that this will be the ultimate place for Redków and Gazowżyce shafts.
The local zoning decisions have been changed. We're in contact with the municipalities, and we're starting the plan for the drillings. For all the shafts, we are also negotiating with PeBeKa, our own entity. We want to have a general contract to avoid in-depth negotiations. Since all of them will be performed, we want one umbrella agreement for all of them. This should, first of all, curtail the administrative procedures before starting the work. For the Redków shaft, we are starting the Żelazny drilling this year and probably for GG2 in a new location. I've just discussed the basic tasks when it comes to mining. Here we have, we're talking about smelting and refining. Actually, it was previously discussed by the CEO, who's a great expert at this. I won't be coming back to the individual tasks.
These are mostly connected with the modernization of the smelting and refining facilities that are being modernized. We are also talking about the preparation of new sulfuric acid tanks in Głogów, also the refinery, and also for the Legnica copper smelter and refinery that has not been closed yet. Hopefully, it will by the end of next year. So much for smelting and refining. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Now over to the financial results. Can I ask the CFO to mention that? It is hard to add anything after such statements. It is good to be at the end. Let me just run the slide in the background. What the CEO mentioned at the beginning, I remember being here with you a year ago, as the CEO mentioned.
We were here physically, but then I remember I was thinking about two figures: 2011-2015, Kogar 1%, and 2015-2023, 10%, and now 2024, minus 2%. I wish it had been the output. Unfortunately, it was the increase in costs in kind. Just to exemplify what it meant, Kogar 10% is doubling the costs over eight years. That is what we had to cope with. Our ambition was also, and we repeated that each quarter, to stop those dynamics. The dynamics that had been of at least 10% was not feasible from the point of view of ensuring business profitability. What we achieved was a negative increase at 2%, excluding the write-offs. Also, for taxes and considering those factors, the figure is minus 2 percentage points. Ladies and gentlemen, it took a lot of work.
Let me also tell you where the deposits are that we were able to extract in 2024 when it comes to costs and where we can see ourselves for 2025. Of course, we did not only work on costs in 2024. We were also working on the revenues, as Mr. Kaczkowski said, but also when it comes to the rolling materials. I think Cedynia was first launched in 2009. The company never produced so much rolled copper. We also, including wire, sold a record-breaking amount. Also on the cast, we manufactured wire, and we also bought some throughput capacities out of Poland to ensure additional margin. If we're talking about 6% in revenues, as mentioned before, this is mostly attributable to Robinson.
What changed and what you can see as analysts and investors is that this contribution is much higher because the structure, I mean, we were producing and selling higher-margin products. The quality change for sales is noticeable for 2024. Also, what was mentioned before, we always refer to our core products: copper, silver, gold, and molybdenum. Our product range weighs much more. We have rhenium, selenium, sulfuric acid, and a lot was also happening over the year. There was a lot of commotion in the market. There was a lot of volatility. We tried to achieve as high leverage when it comes to revenues as possible. The next area that I oversee is finance, and it took a lot of effort along with the controlling department and all my colleagues. We were working in our teams to reduce the costs.
I can also tell you, as a fun fact, that we also performed a cost-cutting exercise. We reduced the human resources in the head office by 4%. One of the things I did was flattening the structure. I eliminated the controlling department. I'm also one. Just we go directly with the controlling heads so that we could perform as much as possible when it comes to cost reduction. A lot was happening in finance when it comes to building the funding structure. You cannot see it, but we're talking about over a dozen contracts with banks, financial institutions that we concluded last year with two goals: to first build the stability and liquidity for the company. On the other hand, the rationalization of costs. Many thanks to our colleagues from the national and international banking sector for treating us in our partner way.
We are also very well perceived by the banking sector. Another leg that we were also expanding last year was obtaining funding at the bond market. Just to remind you, these were seven-year bonds worth PLN 1 billion, 125 basis points of premium without non-collateralized. That was the cheapest corporate bond issuance in the history after 1989. We enjoy a lot of trust from banks and investors and lenders. A lot also related to risk management, both for FX rate and the metal quotings. This process is well streamlined. What we can hear from you, from analysts or bank specialists, is that our team is one of the best in the market. I think it is the best, actually. As we have been saying, we have an F1 at our disposal. It makes a difference who drives it.
We think we're good drivers when it comes to driving such a racing car. The last item that I'm proud to deal with is energy, as mentioned by the CEO. A lot was happening there, and we achieved a lot. Energy is a very complex issue in our company. It is composed of two most important pillars: energy and gas. We developed a dealing room. I think we're among the best corporate traders when it comes to buying, selling, and insuring in the balancing market in Poland. We have a lot of ideas. In this respect, I can say that 2024 in this respect has been well used. For 2025, we have new ideas on how this team could be optimized when it comes to using that. We will be consuming over 3 terawatt hours per annum.
We are the largest consumer of energy in Poland. That is to wrap up 2024. As for 2025, what lies ahead? First of all, colloquially speaking, I should say that we have already picked up the low-hanging fruit in the first year. Now we are reaching a step further. What does it mean? These are more complex and longer-lasting projects, and it will probably require some patience from us and from you. We have well thought about it, and we want to know where to work: against materials, services, energy, gas.
We see great potential for further improvement, digitization of certain processes. As my colleagues have already signaled in the context of our way of looking at foreign assets so far, they have been the recipient of capital. Now the repayment of loans is going to represent a much higher amount than what it was last year.
We can see also the development of those assets with regard to creating a structure of funding where the recipient of capital is KI. As of now, this year, that should be about PLN 1 billion of funding to be obtained for KGHM International so that it can operate and develop the Victoria project that we have mentioned. It is important because the demand for CapEx this year is $100 million? $115 million. Okay. So $115 million is we assume that that will all be funded by the capital we are going to raise in that part of the world and not here in Poland. We have a lot of work with the financial sector. Some of that work is already being finalized. We also often ask about the dynamic in trade. For sure, the dynamic is very high at present.
Something that is certainly of interest to you that keeps recurring: LME, ContraComex. Yes, we're in the process of registering cathodes there. This process should be completed in the second quarter. There are a lot of press publications. There was a lot of information on what is going on here. Here, the difference today is more than $1,500. Let's make certain assumptions. We have the information that shows that within the upcoming days, the decision should be announced about tariffs in the copper market, in the U.S. market. A ship takes about a month to sail from America to Poland. The variability over time is over $1,000. Customs represent about 1%. There is one more aspect that needs to be kept in mind. Two figures were quoted: between 150 and 250 tons are now on their way to the U.S.
These are mainly cathodes to be delivered to take advantage of the arbitrage. We were not present in the American market in selling cathodes. We see some prospects there. We want to be present. This year, we have already completed a swap transaction where our partner, another producer, which is situated closer to the U.S. than we are, supplies the U.S. and we took over another contract from that supplier at a different location that is closer to us. At the end of the day, the American market is very important to us. COMEX -LME is something that we should watch without anxiety. If we look at net long-term items versus short-term items, the long-term position is built on LME and not on COMEX. As a result, if an administrative decision is issued all of a sudden, the spread gets narrower very quickly.
What perturbations it can cause? It's hard to imagine now. I can think of a scenario where the scenario in which the 150, 250 tons never reach the U.S., and we will be then forced to sell it in Europe. The dynamic of changes is very high. In the company, we manage sales actively, taking advantage of such situations. Maybe also a comment on the slides, just to wrap up. Leverage here. On the one hand, we are working on revenues in terms of quality. On the other hand, we are working on costs. EBITDA growth by 58% is a component of that. What caused the present structure on the revenue side? Obviously, we have volumes that is more than PLN 700 million. A change in the quotations of coproducts, PLN 2.5 billion.
That has to be considered in the context of changes in exchange rates. The second item, apart from price changes of metals, we also have the changing structure of sales towards more processed products, which also drove revenues and increased the margin. One more thing that we did as the Management Board, we stopped the dynamic of increase in costs by type. If we look at the types of costs, technological materials, fuels, and energy, that is more than PLN 1.2 billion, out of which PLN 1 billion falls for KGHM itself. We have lower consumption and lower prices of energy. We have lower gas prices and materials. These items allowed us to stop the growing dynamic. This year, we are going down to the level of physical storage, which will also affect our working capital.
We take a multifaceted approach to measuring this impact, also bearing in mind cash flows. C1 is a good example of how we performed. C1 dropped by 7% year on year. 2.67 is the current level. If we look at individual segments, Poland on the one hand represents a 3% growth. On the other hand, this growth means that tax on some mines grew by 15%. If we eliminate this element from C1, if we look only at this darker bar, C1 from 199 dropped to 195. If we consider Robinson, it has already been explained why we have 4.15 here. Just pay attention to 0.14. We have eight times higher tax in Poland than in the U.S. If we compare that to Sierra Gorda, the difference is such that in Poland, the tax is 12 times higher.
Of course, each mine faces its own challenges. Open-pit mines are not easy to operate and manage. Also, apart from the financial aspects, the operational profile is completely different in open-pit mines. The formula that was justified in the past is no longer valid nowadays. Last but not least, of course, cash flow. Probably it is worth noting here one thing. On the one hand, income from operations, which almost covered investment. We did not use PLN 1 billion from factoring, but that was in the context of rationalization of financial costs. We wanted to deliver the results that promised this factoring is available. The PLN 1 billion you can see here can be drawn at any point. As you can see, we will use working capital as needed. This high bar represents largely the CapEx in Poland and abroad.
This is also reduced by the repayment of loans.
They are also recognized in the investment activity and other aspects such as financing activities. To wrap it up, the liquidity situation and also as regards the debt to EBITDA netto is stable. The company is prepared to perform further investment projects. Thank you very much.
Thank you. We can see that that was the last part of the presentation discussed. May I just ask Arthur to support you in the Q&A session? Thank you very much to the board for discussing the 2024 results. Let's pass on to the Q&A session. We have questions that were asked in the course of the conference on an online basis, and you're also invited to ask them here in this room. I'm giving the floor over to the director who will be moderating this part. Thank you very much.
We have a question from the floor.
I'm very happy that in your intro to the conference, you said that the strategy would not be for a couple of years. It would be for 10 or 15 until 2040. In remembering the limitation of deposits in Poland, my question is simple: Are these deposits enough, these fields enough to maintain KGHM Polska Miedź's business in 15 years' time at the existing level, or will it be necessary to go beyond the Oder River? If so, would that involve expenditure exceeding PLN 12 billion or so? If so, would KGHM envisage any changes to its dividend policy?
You started off very well. The last sentence, the dividend policy, put me off a little bit, but okay, it will be taken by the CEO. Just a correction.
I was referring to that whatever we decide on might be reflected in 2040 in terms of the production. To avoid using the word strategy, because we will come back to the strategy, in terms of strategy, we're talking about 2055 plus. We're talking about a longer perspective. We, as the company, at least in terms of mining, will not avoid a phenomenon that will happen over 10 years. That's to say that we will have to cope with the decrease in our own mining output that will have to be substituted for. That's also a challenge for the near future, because we have some smelting and refining capacities. I was talking about this 65 to 35 own to foreign inserts. We don't earn so much on foreign, abstracting from taxation, as mentioned before. Thank you very much for the comparison.
One of my colleagues have met. The potential beyond the Oder River is large. We have many millions of tons of copper that are still awaiting us. We have to also remember about the millions of tons that are still on the side of the Oder. That is the reason Mr. Bryja has mentioned the three shafts. That is what I can say without getting into details. I am sure we have two challenges. There is one challenge connected with the fact that the structure of the smelting inserts should be still valid in 10 or 15 years. That is not going to be so easy. The input has to be taken into account. As regards the future, it will also depend on the shape of the mining taxes and whether it will be adequate for the activity.
Some resources, supposing the mining tax is not updated, might turn out to be unprofitable, basically. As for the dividend policy, in the context of what I've said so far, I would treat the dividend policy, I mean, each investor looks at it about how to perceive a company that you have in your portfolio. I believe that in terms of KGHM, as one of the diversified assets that you hold in your portfolio, we have to look at it from the point of view of the long-term increase in its value, not only through the lens of short-term dividend policy, but perhaps the CFO will add something more. Ladies and gentlemen, in addressing the first part of the question, does anyone sitting in this room know what the copper price will be in a month's time? I don't think anyone does, given what's happening.
Let me just ask you, do you know what will be happening in terms of the copper price in 2050 or 2060? I mean, I guess that answers the question. There is a lot of volatility. Just to explain how we hedge ourselves, the fact that we are an integrated organization from the end of the pit to the end of the process, we're integrated. Thirty percent of primary copper in Europe is derived from us. Back to the COMEX case, let me just say that what's happening right now, as a result of some anomalies, the U.S. used to be an exporter of scrap metals on a net basis. Right now, the scrap metal is staying in the U.S., but it's staying there for speculative reasons because there are no smeltering or metallurgical works to take advantage of that scrap metal. What will happen?
I don't know. The scrap metal prices might lead to an increase in prices. On the other hand, there might be an overflow of scrap metals that will flood the European market. If we're not talking, if we're not aware of what's happening in terms of scrap metal right now, what about 2050? We have to answer it in a responsible way. In being an integrated operator, I think that this is our competitive edge vis-à-vis our competitors. Now, to address the question with regard to the dividend, it's a simple equation. It's made up of several variables. It's the EBITDA that we generate right now. It's the savings program, which we generate each year, and that's the amount of money that we have at our disposal. The third variable that we also know is the tax.
Whether it will change and how it will change, we do not know. You will be receiving the information, and we will be receiving this information. This will be the body of the amount of cash that we have at our disposal. In clashing it against the CapEx, we will know what we can afford in terms of dividend. If we are talking about CapEx that will ensure a higher rate of return, I am sure that you will be inviting us to invest. This is a simple equation, but there is one missing part. We will also add the strategy to that, and then we will be able to add one simple sentence when it comes to the maintenance, modification, or other treatment of the dividend policy.
I would like to add one more thing. Mr. Krzyżewski talked about copper prices in 2055.
Actually, he did not talk about those prices. I'm not going to speculate either. One thing has to be said very clearly: global demand for copper is also primarily linked to energy transformation, which is unavoidable. Also, electrification is something that we experienced decades ago. Modernization of transfer infrastructure, all that is a predictor of what might happen to prices of metals in the future, not just copper, but all metals in the context of the available global resources and potential new mining projects that might be in the pipeline. At the current prices of metals, they are not profitable. That's why they are on standby. Their per-unit costs are excessively high for anyone to consider launching them right now. In general, commodities, raw materials is something that is likely to remain in good condition in the future.
If I may take advantage of holding the microphone, I would like to bring up two other minor things regarding foreign assets. We have significant deviation from the budget on two items: molybdenum in Sierra Gorda and on TPMs in international. Are these any special deviations, differences that will soon be eliminated? Or now, after two months of the year, you see that the budget needs to be revised. Another thing, when we are talking about foreign assets, I am also curious what will be the streaming costs in international because these affected the EBITDA in 2024. Okay, let's take that one by one. As for molybdenum, we are in a very transitional zone now in Sierra Gorda and Robinson. The difference is not that great. In Sierra Gorda, there was a difference. Should I hold the microphone even closer? Okay.
We had the difference, and after the first quarter of the year, we see we are in the same area where we have a lot of elements that influence the process of extraction of this metal. For some time now, molybdenum production has been better in Sierra Gorda. We hope that it will continue this way. For the time being, we do not see any need for budget revision. In my opinion, we will focus on optimizing the processing to improve the overall process. The situation is not disastrous to the extent that would force us to revise the budget in March. As for precious metals, precious metals is not about only Robinson. It is also Sudbury. On 28 February, we disposed of those assets, and the decrease will be visible in the future because we will not have that asset any longer.
Our optimization of foreign assets not only consists in extending the lifetime of the assets that we have, but also in divesting those assets which we consider can be better handled by other entities. We think those minor assets should be managed by minor entities, while we will focus on our large assets. These are the assets that we are definitely going to optimize in terms of process organization to have better results on Sierra Gorda. The third question was about stripping, stripping, stripping on international. As regards Robinson and stripping, we continue with stripping. As you will know, we are now moving from Deposit 5 to Liberty, and we are making available Veteran Tripp-Veteran deposit. The costs in terms of CapEx related to stripping, yes, CapEx on stripping for those deposits will be visible because we have to prepare that for the next two years.
Thank you very much. Jakub Szeregowski. You carried out the impairment tests in the fourth quarter. As a result of the tests, the value of Victoria increased significantly. My question is, is that the green light that you give to this investment or this $1.6 billion as the investment needed or the amount needed to complete the investment, is that what we should expect? If you gave a go-ahead to this project, by when would you like to complete it?
Possibly there was some misunderstanding here, but we did not revalue the assets of Victoria. For this project, just for clarity, that is underground deep mine that is now 800 meters deep, and the target depth of the exploration shaft is 1.8 kilometers. The entire overground infrastructure is ready. We saw the history of the budget in this project.
Unfortunately, there was a continuous underestimation of the value and then the need for increasing the budget. This asset is completely illiquid. We are unable to offer this asset to the market if we decide at a certain point that KGHM does not want to continue the project on its own and will have to look for a partner. The perfect partner would be an entity that has some processing or smelting facility nearby. The conclusion seemed evident. The project should be completed, and the budget at PLN 1.6 billion is not adequate. In fact, it is much lower. We are not talking about the entire project because another shaft also has to be built. We decided to go for the two-phase, two-stage scenario because the CapEx risk and resource risks had to be limited. At the same time, we did not want to rely on only a single supplier of Ore.
1.6 was the total amount, plus there are also recovery costs at PLN 300 million, if I remember correctly. As of today, we want to optimize this project and to carry it out in accordance with our rules for carrying out projects. Namely, we do not want to run it on an ad hoc basis because that does not give any comfort to the contractor if they do not know until which point they can have work. The contractor in this situation carries most of the risks. We are restructuring the contract with EPC Exploitation, and we know that this has to be finalized probably in four years at the turn of 2028, 2029. That is the time limit by which we would like to finish this phase. We do not see any risks related to continuation of the process in this structure.
I understand why you mentioned the right of. Tam się pojawiło.
It was minus $100 million as of, and the carrying value PLN 1.3 billion. No, maybe I was confused. Thank you very much for the answers. I have one more question about the slide where you were showing the licenses for Poland. A specific question for Luboszyce Bytom Odrzański. There were some litigations also. Now, supposing you wanted to enter those deposits, is everything well coordinated in legal terms? One more thing, supposing you enter those deposits, would you need to build additional infrastructure in the metallurgical terms other than what you have?
Ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to Bytom Odrzański, by the end of the year, there was a court case. Actually, it was in terms of arbitration in Europe, but there were also two lawsuits against the State Treasury for copper.
Right now, they have been finalized. We can use that license. We'll be trying to make sure that the license is extended because due to litigation, we couldn't drill, we couldn't explore it. Yes, you're right. It is our future. It's another area that we're interested in because after the total use of the deposits that have been explored so far, the ones marked in blue, we still have Retków and Grodziszcze. There was this Redków-Szczecinawa, and we will be building in the northwest direction, Bytom Odrzański.
However, there is the Oder River halfway through, so we say that the first area until the banks of the Oder is the natural area, and beyond the Oder, there will be KGHM 2.0, as we call it, which means that we will have the second part of KGHM, which will have its own shafts, its own processing, and a large part of the technological process, other than the smelting and refining plant because it's already in place. A large proportion of it has to be built anew. I'm sorry, Robert, Robert Maj.
I have some thematic blocks. Let me just try to ask the questions about the costs, the unit costs combined for your own deposits in Poland. I think it's an interesting deposit on C1 for Poland. It's surprising at the level, quarter to quarter level. It's unchanged, PLN 350-PLN 250.
It's surprisingly good information, especially compared to what you provided in the budget, where it was about PLN 35,000, 8% more. The question is about those simple savings after the previous managers. Has everything been accomplished, and now can we expect the cost at the level of 8-10% higher per annum in 2025, or will we be able to control it around PLN 32,000-PLN 33,000? That's my first question. On the international, what's the lifetime of that mine? Should we just assume in the models that you'll be able to, how much of the copper will you be able to sell? If you could just tell us more about the process when it comes to the sales. I mean, can you just relate to the COMEX or be selling the dry weight, or is it like the concentrate? What's the process like?
Should you just assume any extraordinary results because of the arbitration, or rather not? That's my second question. About the dividends, in line with the dividend policy, it turns out PLN 4.6 as the maximum dividend for last year. Is that the level that the investors should write down, or will you be just proposing something else in terms of a dividend? Thank you very much.
As for the first question on the costs, yes, I think the answer is, as I've been emphasizing, the first low-hanging fruits that were the easiest to pick, and you can see the results in 2024. That's what we started in 2024. It's been consumed in 2024. The next level is much more complex. It has a much different nature. I'm sure it will be that of a way. I can see some optimization opportunities when it comes to energy.
We are starting to manage not only our generation assets, but also the electric recipients in terms of high power. The effects can be very high given the power consumption that we have, but you have to remember that whatever is working well in the virtual world, because we have a virtual twin, and we can forecast that and analyze that, we're very much advanced in this area, but you have to remember that this is physical infrastructure. We must not make experiments on furnaces and so on. We are very cautious in those terms. I would give the floor over to Mr. Kaczkowski to say something about the operating part because it's not the kind of cost-cutting that we exercised in 2024. We're moving a level higher. It is not a matter of cost-cutting, but also process optimization so that one plus one could make three.
I can see a lot of potential in those terms. To wrap it up, 2025 will still be the time that we will be trying to improve the cost structure. You'll be also able to see it through the lens of C1, but we are trying to work through the lens of inflation. It's everywhere. I mean, probably everyone can observe the inflation in all components, and we as the industry are also exposed to it. What we did this year was not only stopping the increase and beating the inflation. Will it be the case this year as well? We always put the bar up very high, the bar that we want to achieve, and we do our utmost to achieve that. Even if it's not fully visible in 2025, then in 2026 and 2027, I think.
I mean, as it was mentioned about the COA, the cost optimization program is something that we are implementing, but it's not something that we are implementing now and will finish in two months' time. This is a process that will be very long-lived, and it will probably be a component of our organizational culture and identity that we want to live by, to keep trying to find some cost and operating optimization. Over to you.
We are looking at every aspect of our business. We meet on a regular basis during operating meetings, and I can just reveal something to you. The division directors might not still know about it. We will be dealing with the additional materials, and we can evaluate the potential as several dozen million PLN. Every component of your business will be subject to analysis.
May I just ask you, do you see any savings in terms of the CapEx? Because the CEO mentioned that the CapEx was over PLN 6 million, was above PLN 4 million last year. Can we expect that on a long-term basis, the CapEx will be also lower than OPEX, just as OPEX?
I mean, we're trying to prioritize CapEx, maybe not economize on it, but just to prioritize it in such a way as to, first of all, achieve to carry out those projects that offer the highest ROI. And as you will know, the maintenance and reconstruction CapEx or replacement CapEx is very high. That's the way it is. Even today, we talked that when it comes to the overhaul of the metallurgical works, one were reflected in terms of PLN 60 million in OPEX and over PLN 300 million in CapEx. I mean, it's CapEx, except that it's not bringing any results.
I'm sure we'll be just looking at CapEx as to use some prioritization hierarchy and try to achieve those that bring the highest rate of return. I was talking about the periods between overhaul. We will be looking at those components of the production assets that are not necessarily production assets and the costs involved. Cenowania tego.
Also in all areas of the functioning of those assets from the perspective of the possibility of divesting so that we do not invest money where we do not have the required return rate as much as possible. We have continuous work ahead of us consisting in looking very carefully at our assets. Wherever possible, we will reduce CapEx. There was such a long discussion about shafts, and money for that has to be found. Otherwise, the business will shrink rather than develop, and that's not our point.
Two words from me regarding international. As for the two mines which we have in North America, it's easy to address the question regarding Carlota, that is the asset which we are going to divest by 2028. As for Robinson, everything will depend on the price of copper. We assume at least 10 years of Robinson, and maybe that will be even 2038, 2039, depending on the price and depending on the profitability of extraction. I would just like to remind you that as of the moment of taking over those assets, the operations of Carlota were planned until 2017, and the other one 2019. The prices are getting higher, and management of those assets and their extraction gets more expensive. However, as long as the revenues obtained cover our costs, we will extend the life of Robinson.
I think the second half of the 2030s is the time until at least which we will operate this mine. Just one more thing, and the output that you get in the U.S., you sell in the U.S., what is the technical process like? You are talking about concentrate, yes. We sell the concentrate. Globally, so that you know what the American market is like from an extraction perspective. Less than a million tons, 700, well, 700 tons is extracted, while 400 is processed. That is the capacity, and the 300 is sold outside the American market. That is why I do not want to speak on behalf of the American administration, but that is why there will have to be a decision what to do with this excess material that cannot be processed in America.
We allocate some of that in the U.S., some in Canada, some in other markets. As for pricing clause, that is a sensitive piece of information subject to trade secret, so we do not announce such information nor make it available. However, I would like to draw your attention to another thing that is happening right now in the market of concentrates. Concentrates are always quoted based on discount related to TCRC, and last year that was at $80-$88. Now it is $21, $22, $15. I do not want to speak on behalf of all smelters, but a lot of smelters that process third-party concentrates operate below costs and record a loss.
Glencore and the Philippines suffered such a loss, and you might have heard of other works that are about to be closed, those that relied on third-party sources and that had to buy at benchmark. That is no secret if I say so today. The benchmarks for TCRC are negative nowadays. We also have some such transactions in which smelters have to pay extra money to obtain the concentrates to work on. Of course, that is very important what is happening right now because key capacity is located in China. That has to be said honestly. These are state-of-the-art smelters that are also supported financially on a local basis. The question is what the market will be like in the long term. There might be an asymmetry where we have very little capacity in markets other than China.
In my opinion, this scenario is very likely to materialize. Just a few days ago, the Chinese government said that copper and nickel were included in a list of strategic raw materials in terms of purchases of such raw materials. On the one hand, you have Providence Law's account. On the other hand, you have the relations between the U.S. and China, and then you have an even bigger puzzle in which various players take part. This example, for example, of road metal shows what is going on. The market has also showed us that we need to ensure stability of supplies of raw materials. Also, the location plays a part because we ensure stability of supplies. The input comes from our technological materials, and that builds the value for our business. I'm trying to ask questions that were asked online, just very quickly regarding energy.
Tomasz Jóźwiak asks about SMRs, at which stage the project is now, whether the Management Board intends to continue the project, and Anatol JP Morgan, whether KGHM was planning to participate in nuclear power plant construction in Poland. I will start, and Mr. Krzyżewski will probably want to add something. I was wondering how to very briefly answer this question, so let me try this way. When we talk about long-term perception of such mining companies as KGHM, that is 20, 30 years ahead, and the same goes for nuclear power. These are projects that have to be analyzed even in a longer term.
Whether SMRs as such would be able to compete in generation and delivery to the Polish power grid and compete in this market as an element of ensuring stability, probably yes, but I don't think they would be competitive compared with large players or some combination of PV wind and energy storage facilities. KGHM, potentially, when SMRs are ready to build, constitutes quite an attractive area for suppliers of this technology for implementation of the right installed capacity and possibly three generation. KGHM is a huge consumer of electricity, but also heating. It also needs to cool its very deep mines. We are open to various possibilities, and we will be willing to start talks aimed at finding synergies.
It doesn't have to cost a lot of money, but yes, KGHM is open to proposals that aim at finding formulas, technological solutions that will give a chance nuclear power, a chance to exist. We are talking about SMRs or MMRs. Probably there are two other places where it could be PK and Orlen.
As a major recipient and consumer of heat, but generally, it should be connected with large industrial facilities or municipal centers. If it competes in terms of, if it were to compete in terms of power generation, I wouldn't say it would be very successful. I might be wrong, though. Two sentences about it. The first one, when it comes to SMRs, we distinguish two stages. First of the old kind and next of the old kind. What is power gen in KGHM?
It's the safety of the technological process from the security and human point of view. If there's any other technology that would meet those requirements, we're open to that. As of today, I don't think that technology meets the criteria. I haven't seen a high-efficiency operating SMR. If we see it, we'll be able to talk about it. Thank you very much. Before I give the floor over to the lady, that would be the last question asked online. I'm happy to have also used it in our message and directly addressed most of the questions. I have a question that is not directly related to the results related to 2024, but the overhauls to be performed this year. Mr. Laskowski mentioned the reports this year.
If I may just ask you, once the smeltering infrastructure, when will the smeltering infrastructure finish at KGHM, and whether after the finishing of this year's overhauls, the production of copper and silver be increased, or will it be the same? Perhaps this time on another line. Would you care to explain the mechanisms and the outcomes of this for the production? I mean, overhauls will never be finished at KGHM. They will last as long as the company. As regards the overhaul at the electrolytic refinery at Głogów 2, it will be finished halfway through the year, at the end of the six months. In the next year, next repair works are envisaged for the next year. This component will still be subject to overhaul and repair works. Thank you very much. One more question from the FinCardina and the Transfer European Investment Bank.
I wanted to ask you how you perceive the potential impact on your result based on the Critical Raw Material Act and the fact that the list of critical and strategic components should contain, well, what it does. Two days ago, a new list was announced, and you do not see any KGHM projects. That might sound sad, but do you see any ways of taking advantage of that? Dariusz Malinski, WNP. Very soon, a new edition will be launched. Will you be taking part in the new edition?
I was wondering how to address it in the briefest way because Critical Raw Material Act, in my opinion, I mean, I read it, is a conceptual document, in my opinion. It is just the definition of certain directions where the member states should be moving along, or they should perceive them as important.
It contains the list of elements and materials that is periodically updated and copper is among those special care metals, so to say. I am slightly disappointed by the fact that this document should be presenting some minimum self-sufficiency threshold for the European Union, given those materials. I mean, there are different depending on what they relate to. If you look at copper itself, then we, as the European Union, we are meeting those thresholds, except that it's hardly a source of satisfaction if you produce 1 million tons of mining coal, given that the demand is almost four times more, which means that when it comes to primary mining copper, we meet roughly 25% of the EU needs and requirements. As regards recycling, it's a little bit more.
Of course, you should perceive it as an opportunity, except that I would expect more specifics on the European Commission, much more than the Critical Raw Material Act, which has a general nature. I would expect more executive documents. As regards the second part, I would not be able to answer because maybe someone else has understood. Which second edition do you mean? Second edition of collecting applications. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that we have been on the board for 12 months. The CEO has indicated that we faced a very difficult situation at the beginning to apply for any projects. The project has to be very well prepared. I do not think we can make it for the next edition of applications that will soon be launched, but we are getting prepared, except that we need to prepare the project very well first.
We are working on those projects. We can see that potential and the resources. I am sure that in a perspective which will probably go beyond a month, because it will be next month, I think. I am sure we will be dealing with that. To add to that, I would like to shed some more light on the details. We are working on those projects that can be achieved together with the National Fund of Environmental Protection as part of the Rebuild Europe program. We are developing that. I hate to disclose the details, but as Madam President has said, we will soon be preparing for going beyond that, and we will be talking about larger sums of money than now.
Okay, let me just add one more thing at this point, because I'm always the one on the board that maybe not the one who hits the brake, but the one who submits one issue to be considered. Any projects, notwithstanding the level of their funding or subsidizing, should be efficient. That's to say that the accomplishment of a project that, without subsidizing, would not be feasible, would not be profitable, well, no such decisions should be made. Okay? If a project is partially subsidized or to a large degree, it can only be more attractive. The necessary and marginal precondition is not to make a decision on carrying out a project that would only be efficient because they are for free. Money never comes from the vacuum. There are no zero CapEx projects.
If a project is subsidized within 80% of the CapEx, it does not mean that you only need to add 0.2 of the CapEx. Why am I mentioning this? Because raw materials-related projects at KGHM, first of all, have to be profitable. At the end of the day, we will have the strategies defined, and in every such place, they will be split into—maybe WBS is an example, but we will be looking at each such project separately as part of the strategic project portfolio. We will also be looking into the efficiency of each of them. To apply for any subsidies is a component that might only make such projects more attractive. Kyllä.
That would be it. Thank you so much. I can just confirm that we have answered all questions that were asked online. We will also provide more detailed answers by posting them on our website.
Also, if there are any questions after this conference is over, we will answer them on our website. Thank you for the presentation of the annual results presentation and for answering the questions. I would also like to thank those who came here for the conference and those who followed us in streaming. Thank you very much.