Good afternoon, everyone. This is Daniel Fairclough from the ArcelorMittal Investor Relations team.

Thank you for joining this call to discuss ArcelorMittal's performance and progress in the first quarter of 2026. Leading today's call will be our Group CFO, Mr.

Genuino Christino. Before we begin, I would like to mention a few housekeeping items as usual.

We will not be going through the presentation that was published on our website this morning. However, I do want to draw your attention to the disclaimers on slide 20 of that presentation.

Following opening remarks from Genuino, we will move directly to the Q&A session. If you would like to ask a question, then please do press star one one on your keypad to join the queue.

With that, I will hand the call over to Genuino.

Thanks, Daniel. Welcome, everyone, and thanks for joining today's call.

As usual, I will keep my remarks brief, and much of what I say will echo the messages from recent quarters that reflect the consistency of our performance, the clarity of our focus, and the discipline with which we continue to execute our strategy. What we are delivering at the bottom of the cycle positions us very well for the near future, particularly as more favorable policy conditions translate into a stronger operating environment with improving margins and returns.

Alongside the impact of our growth strategy, this supports the free cash flow outlook and the delivery of consistent capital returns to shareholders. First, I want to address safety.

Our multiyear safety transformation program is now delivering more consistent and improved outcomes across our organization. Leadership expectations are clearly defined, risk management practices are being applied more uniformly, and our focus on process safety has expanded across installations.

Advanced analytics, including AI, are strengthening these efforts, for example, enabling early identification of workers entering hazardous areas and triggering fast alerts and interventions that human monitoring alone. Most importantly, the sustained focus on safety is translating into tangible improvements in performance across the group.

We provide a more detailed account of this progress in the sustainability report published last week, which I encourage you to review for a fuller picture of how we are advancing our safety objectives. Now I want to focus this quarter on three key points.

First and foremost, our results consistently demonstrate clear structural improvements. In the first quarter, we delivered EBITDA of over $131 per ton, up $15 per ton year-on-year and around 50% higher than our historical average margins.

This clearly demonstrates the strengthening of our underlying earnings power over recent years. Importantly, this performance does not yet reflect the significantly stronger price environment seen in recent months, which we expect to be more fully evident in our second-quarter results.

Underlying free cash flow performance was robust. Excluding the seasonal working capital investment and the strategic growth CapEx, underlying free cash flow was running at an annualized rate of over $2 billion.

Again, considering where we are in the cycle, this represents a strong outcome. Consistent and disciplined execution of our strategy is driving improved performance and providing the capacity to continually invest with discipline and focus, and materially enhance the future earnings potential of ArcelorMittal.

This brings me to my second point, our compelling growth opportunities, which clearly set us apart from our peers. We are allocating capital to the highest-return opportunities.

This includes projects that are actively enabling the energy transition, expanding our iron ore mining capacity, and adding new value-added capabilities. We recently approved an EAF investment in Dunkirk.

This decision was enabled by the more supportive policy backdrop, the cost visibility from a competitive long-term energy contract, and the support of the French government. Our EAF projects are expected to deliver incrementally higher EBITDA to provide an acceptable return on the capital deployed.

We have reflected Dunkirk, together with the previously announced EAF projects in Sestao and Gijón, into the expected EBITDA impact from strategic projects. This now stands at an incremental $1.8 billion from 2026 onwards.

My final point is on the positive outlook, which is underpinned by trade policy. Given the change to trade policy, the steel sector today offers much more defensive characteristics, particularly in Europe, than it did in the past.

More effective trade protections are leading to increasingly regionalized market structures, enabling domestic producers to recapture market share from unfairly subsidized imports. The biggest shift occurring in Europe.

We are very pleased with the agreement achieved in the new tariff-rate quota tool in Europe. As a result, we can expect this to be in effect from 1st of July 2026.

Together with CBAM, this underpins our positive outlook for our European business. We are seeing stronger customer engagement, higher order inquiries, and customers shifting more towards domestic supply.

This is apparent in the material improvement in steel prices and spreads since the start of the year. As a result, despite the volatility of energy markets caused by the conflict in Iran, we continue to expect our production and shipments to improve across all regions in 2026.

We should see a clear improvement in our EBITDA in all steel segments next quarter. As I conclude, the message is simple: we are consistently delivering structurally improved results while executing our strategy with discipline.

Our high-return growth opportunities differentiate us from our peers, as does our track record of capital returns through the consistent application of our policy. That framework has already delivered a 38% reduction in our share count and a doubling of the dividend over the past five years.

At the same time, we have advanced the business strategically, enhancing resilience and structurally improving returns on capital, all achieved while maintaining a strong investment-grade balance sheet. With that, Daniel, I believe we can begin the Q&A.

Great. Thank you, Genuino.

We have quite a long list of questions already. We will move to the first, which we'll take from Alain.

Please go ahead, Alain.

Yes, sir. Thank you for taking my questions, Daniel, and good afternoon, everyone.

A couple of questions from my side, Genuino. The usual question is probably a good place to start if you can walk us through the usual profit bridges, Q1 versus Q2, and where do you see the greatest deltas in prices and volumes, and how are your divisional costs evolving sequentially, including the CO2 cost implications in Europe?

That's the first question. Thanks.

I will ask Daniel to start with the bridge. Daniel, do you want to kick it off?

Sure. Thanks, Genuino.

It's a very simple bridge, which you've already alluded to, I think, in your opening remarks. You referenced that we expect all of the steel segments to improve in the second quarter relative to the first quarter.

The drivers behind that improvement are common across the segments. It's a theme of improved volumes and improved prices.

That's applicable to Europe, it's applicable to North America, and it's applicable to Brazil.

Yeah. The only thing I would add, Daniel, the good point on carbon cost is, Alain, as we have the new benchmarks, right, from beginning of the year, that's ETS 4.2.

I'm sure you know what it means in terms of reduction of free allowances, right? I think what is important here, and we have in our results is that now with CBAM, which so far, based on what we can see, is proving to be very effective, right?

We see that prices since introduction of CBAM has moved up by this year, just look at the index, almost €100, right? You don't see that yet in our results.

You see, of course, the costs in Europe already, right, as we accrued the higher CO2 costs, but you don't see yet the benefits of CBAM. That's what I would say.

That should come, of course, from quarter two onwards.

Thank you. My second question is if you're able to give us some qualitative color on the European customer behavior.

How receptive are they to the new pricing frameworks post-CBAM and with the upcoming safeguard, and are you worried about inventory levels in Europe or are you seeing any client retrenchment because of the Middle Eastern conflict? Any color you can give us on your customer profile in Europe today would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Yeah. I made some comments within my prepared open remarks, right?

We are seeing more activity. The order book is good.

When I compare where we were last year, I would say the order book is stronger. We see customers trying to develop the relationships.

That is all supportive, Alain. That's good.

That's why we feel, of course, confident to confirm the guidance that we discussed at the time of Q4 results: higher shipments in Europe year-on-year, right? I would expect our second half actually to be stronger than the first half, which is, as unusual.

Typically, our second half is weaker. Because of everything that we are discussing here, I would expect shipments in the second half to be actually stronger.

Yeah. I think it's all moving in the right direction.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Great. We'll move now to take a question from Bastian at Deutsche Bank.

Hi, Bastian, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. My first one is also a follow-up actually on maybe your guidance particularly on the steel production side in Europe specifically, which was, I guess, very low in terms of production in Q1.

You talked about the maintenance, but shipments were down quite a lot as well, which, I guess, one could say is a little bit surprising given the impact from CBAM we've seen already as well as maybe some withdrawal from imports. I'm wondering how far we will see a real catch-up in the second quarter driving very strong year-on-year growth, and whether you would be able to even give a bit more detail on that.

That would be great. That's my first question.

Sure, Bastian. Bastian, you're right.

We are, of course, and as we discussed in Q4, we had maintenance in some of our facilities, right? We have just one or two days ago restarted one of our furnaces in Poland, and we continue to work on our furnace in Fos, in Spain.

We're going to be in a position to bring back the capacity as and when we see the demand, right? As a result, we are ramping up that as we speak.

Inventories, and I have not really touched on it when Alain asked, I should do it now. We know that imports were quite elevated in Q4, right?

We saw imports coming down in quarter one, right, but evidence suggests that imports, at least at the beginning of quarter two, are still elevated. You still have players trying, of course, to get materials here before the new TRQ starts from 1st of 1st of July.

Having said that, we don't believe that inventories are too high. Of course, they are higher than normal levels, but not so high.

Our expectation is that when the new TRQ comes into place, this inventories should normalize relatively quickly.

Okay. In terms of what this means for, I guess, the overall cycle, I guess there are some players in the market which do expect that imports in the second quarter will basically go up before they fade in the second half.

Is this the view you do share as well? I guess what is your view maybe particularly also on the pricing side?

Prices have been very strong already, but is your view that basically comes third quarter, we will see further price dynamic most likely kicking in in Europe? Or will it take longer to maybe digest and work through, I guess, inventory overhang, whatever disruptions we could see?

Bastian, what we are seeing, we saw, of course, prices actually moving up during the quarter, right? Actually, accelerating from the beginning of the beginning of the Iran war, also in response, right, to cost pressures.

I think it's fair to say that imports in quarter two should in quarter two should still be high, right, as we discussed, because just it's normal, right? Players trying to get the materials here before the new TRQ.

Again, it's not ideal, of course. We're going to need to work through that, but we don't expect that to really be or to take us to take the market long to absorb that.

Of course, on prices, Bastian, as we cannot comment, right? I can only refer you to what we're seeing.

If you look at the index, right, we have a nice and not only prices increasing during the year, but the spreads, right? When you look at the spreads, also evolving positively, also in as a result of introduction of CBAM at the beginning of the year.

I think we need to look at the European now market, as we have always been saying, right, it is the combination of the two, CBAM and TRQ, that is very very powerful here, right? We have one piece, and we're going to have the second piece now from 1st of July.

Okay. Great.

Maybe a very quick one on India, which you didn't mention in your early second-quarter indication. I guess we've seen decent performance actually in Q1.

Prices also picked up, but then there's obviously the energy situation as well. I guess, what is the trajectory for India into the second quarter?

It's also good. You're right.

Because of the DRI, we are more exposed to gas in India. As we are fully hedged, Bastian.

We don't expect cost pressure coming from gas in India, we are fully hedged. The pricing environment has also improved, which already benefited Q1, right, and would expect also a good second quarter for our Indian operations.

Understood. Thanks so much, Genuino.

Thanks, Bastian. We'll move to take the next question from Reinhardt at Bank of America.

Hi, Reinhardt, please go ahead.

Hi, Daniel. Hi, Genuino.

Thanks for taking my question. First one, maybe just we've spoken a lot about inventories, and it seems like it's creating a bit of an uncertain picture around when this domestic demand will kind of kick in.

What are you seeing across the European steel industry in terms of capacity mobilization? Outside of the actions that you've taken, do you think that the European industry is ready for the challenge of producing that additional volume?

Reinhardt, I'm not going to talk much about what the competition is doing, right? I think what we have been saying very consistently is that ArcelorMittal is in a good position, right, to take our market share of the reduced imports.

We can do more, right? To the extent that others cannot, then we're going to be in a good position, as we talked about.

We have a lot of flexibility here. We have the furnaces that we can bring back, we have the possibility to bring back slabs, we have more downstream capacity.

We're going to be in a good position here to make sure that the market is supplied, that we don't have any shortages as a result of these changes.

Understood. That's very clear.

Thank you. Just maybe a second question on the Dunkirk EAF investment.

Are you looking to do any kind of downstream additions there, or to get any changes in your product mix, maybe, out of that capacity as you go through the capital allocation?

Can you repeat the question, Reinhardt? I'm not sure that I got it.

Sure. As you're converting over to EAF, are you looking to add any downstream investment as well, any kind of finishing capacity as part of that project?

No, not really. We're going to be able to, of course, and that's why the CapEx can be reduced to some extent, because we're going to be able to still use some of the equipment there, right?

Downstream will, of course, be intact. Basically what we're changing is the upstream, right?

Instead of the blast furnace and the converters, you're going to have the EAF, the ladle furnaces, and then we're going to just follow the normal process of that plant. We should be in a position to achieve the same mix, which in Dunkirk, as it's quite high.

We have a very high order book there, which of course, it's very important for us to protect, and that's exactly the idea here, that we should be in a position to produce the same grades as we can today with the blast furnace.

That's clear. Thanks a lot.

I'll hand it over.

Thanks, Reinhardt. We'll move now to take a question from Boris at Kepler Cheuvreux.

Hi, Boris, please go ahead.

Hi, Daniel. Hi, Genuino.

Thank you for taking my questions. The first question is about the new capacity restarts at Fos in France and Dąbrowa in Poland, and plus the EAF capacity in Spain.

How much capacity are you bringing back with those furnaces? The second question would be on North America.

Are you still facing the same headwind about the tariffs, Section 232? Can you share with us the expectations you might have for the coming renegotiation of the USMCA agreement?

Thank you.

We have a couple of questions there, Boris. The first one, the capacity in Europe.

All these furnaces, they are 2 2-plus-million-ton. They are relatively large-size furnaces.

As I mentioned before, we started Dąbrowa already, and we are getting ready in Fos and also in Spain, right? We will, of course, announce when we are ready to bring these furnaces back up, right?

We're just doing all the work so that we are in a position to restart them when we need them, right? In North America, look, the USMCA, it's early days.

I think we have to wait to see really how it starts, right? Probably wouldn't be right for me to speculate.

The only thing I can say is that we hope that the outcome will be one that we feel that we can operate as a single block, right? For us, for our business, what would be ideal is that we have Mexico, we have Canada put in the same barriers against the imports that we have similar protection as we have in the United States, right?

Then the material can flow. That's what I would say.

I think we have to wait there, Boris.

Okay. Thank you.

Just the current headwind, that is still something like $150 million to $160 million per quarter due to tariffs?

There is no change there. The headwinds remain basically the same, Boris.

Okay. Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Boris.

We'll move now to take a question from Tristan at BNP Paribas. Hi, Tristan, please go ahead.

Yes, hi. I have two questions, and thank you for taking them.

The first one is a question on North America and Section 232. We've seen recently that there could be some relief for Mexican, Canadian producer if they build new capacity in the US to supply the auto market.

Do you believe this could be retroactively applied to your first Calvert EAF? If not, is that a consideration for the potential second one?

Yeah. Tristan, I think it should be clear, right, so that today, we are not receiving any tariff relief, right, on any imports into the US, including from Canada and Mexico.

Continue to pay Section 232 50% tariffs. I think you know our position on tariffs, which is very consistent.

For over 20 years, we have been arguing that the global steel industry has been suffering from overcapacity, and continuously pushing for fair trade, whether it is in the US, Brazil, Europe, Canada, or other parts of the world. We do fully support the Section 232.

We also support being able to operate, as I was saying before, as one regional market across North America, and that there are no tariffs on steel that is melted and poured in Canada and Mexico. As we have been seriously considering the second EAF in Calvert, as the US is an attractive market to make steel.

In terms of potential tariff relief, as text has been now published, designed to stimulate additional investments in the US, and we are analyzing it. A lot of details has now been published, and we're just going through that.

The answer is not really a clear yes. We still need to study it.

As a lot has been written on this topic, I would actually like to also take the opportunity to confirm that we are contributing steel to the White House ballroom. Approximately 600 tons have been delivered to date.

As we have a track record of both supplying strong high-quality steels to US customers and donating steel to iconic buildings and projects around the world that showcase its strength and flexibility. Just to give an example, when the Freedom Tower's, one of the strongest steel in the world, they came to our facilities.

We are pleased to add the White House to the list of iconic American buildings where our steel will stand strong for years to come, Tristan. We just need to wait a bit more.

We're going to go through the details, and then we're going to be in a position to update everyone.

Okay. No, that's clear.

That's a potential, I think, to consider. My second question is on the green steel economics in Europe.

I was a bit surprised to see that you were only targeting $200 million of EBITDA for your three EAF projects, because if I understood correctly, Sestao in Spain is potentially adding another 1 million ton of new volumes, Gijón is replacing one 1 million ton, and Dunkirk is replacing 2 million tons. That's close to 4 million tons of EAF steel.

It does not look like there are much productivity gains or green steel premiums baked into that. Maybe if you could discuss a little bit the high-level assumptions you're making, and perhaps the deltas on the cost base and if you expect a big increase there from moving from BF to EAF.

Thank you.

Yeah. Tristan, there are a couple of points there, right?

I think it's just important to appreciate that we are just giving you the incremental EBITDA, right? It's incremental to what we are earning today.

As the idea here is that we're going to be, except for Sestao, where we are really increasing capacity, in Dunkirk, we're going to be replacing one furnace, we are not really looking to increase capacity. What you have is really what is incremental.

Then I think it's also important to take into account the amount of investments, right? That's why we were so focused as a company to make sure that we have the right conditions, right, so that we can justify this investment.

That's why the focus on making sure that we have visibility in terms of CBAM, visibility in terms of imports, TRQ, we have visibility in terms of our energy contract, which we now have for this project, as you know. I would encourage you also to look at what is the net amount of this CapEx, right?

Then in the case of Dunkirk, not only you're going to have the 50% support through the white certificates, but we're going to also be in a position to avoid the reline of the furnace that we're going to be replacing. That's why, in the end, we feel that we're going to be in a position to earn a return on our investment.

When it comes to the assumptions, we don't want to be too specific about it, Tristan. As you can imagine, this is also commercially sensitive.

We have our teams going out and marketing already for the future this contracts, green steel. As for some time, at least, we believe that this will be limited, right?

I think our teams are out there, we don't want to be talking too much about the assumptions here.

Okay. No, that's very clear.

Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Tristan.

We'll move to take the next question, which I think will be from Ephrem at Citi. Hi, Ephrem, please go ahead.

I'm just trying to understand the page 12, AMNS future growth optionality figures. There's a 15 million tons from Hazira, 8 million tons from Andhra, which gives you 23.

My understanding was that after 15, there is an optionality of Phase 2A to 18, and then Phase 2B to 24. Then obviously the greenfield in Andhra is sort of separate.

Is the Phase 2 being delayed? Is that how we should sort of interpret that in favor of pushing ahead with the greenfield in Andhra not to balance the balance sheet and skill sets?

Ephrem, I think you're right. Of course, we have to phase it, right?

Absolutely right. We had in front of us the two options, and it continues to be an option for us, right, to take Hazira further.

That will most likely happen over time as well. Right now, yeah, that's the sequence that we see, right?

Which is to start Andhra. Hazira will remain an option for us.

As well as after we complete this first phase in Andhra, we can go also for another phase there, right? The 40-million-ton vision for the Indian operations remain intact.

Thanks. Then you've said that obviously the current energy situation is manageable, hedging and supportive policies frameworks will insulate margins.

Can you give us a sense of timeline for that in terms of how long, because energy prices could remain high for 6 months, 12 months, 2 years. If they remain, for how long would your hedging policies cover it?

At what point do you think you and the industry will have to start thinking about energy surcharges in your steel?

Yeah. Specifically in India, it's a multiyear program, Ephrem.

I think we are in a good place there. It's a multiyear, and even in Europe, for gas, we will also have a multiyear program.

I think we are, as I said, I think we are in a good place.

Okay. Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Ephrem.

We'll move to the next question, which we'll take from Cole at Jefferies. Hi, Cole, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question.

I'd just like a little bit of color on iron ore, just the ramp-up on volumes and how you see that into the second quarter, just any color you can provide. Then I'd also just like to follow up on imports into Europe ahead of the trade barriers.

We've seen a lot of logistics disruptions globally. Do you think that there's a possibility that everyone's expecting a lot of imports into Europe, but considering the supply chains, we just don't see them delivered in time, or customers potentially pulled back on some of those orders just considering they might not meet the delivery dates?

Just any thoughts on that. Thank you.

Maybe I'll take this one, Daniel, and then maybe you can comment on iron ore. You're right.

I think, at this point in time, what we are seeing is more a cost issue, right? We are seeing freight rates going up, and of course, some of the journeys also taking longer because of the conflict.

It's not something that we believe should be delaying the arrival of the materials. I think that's why, as we discussed, we feel that second quarter should still end up with elevated levels of imports, right, and as a final quarter, and then from Q3 onwards, the new TRQ comes into play.

I would say that this window is now closed, right, as we are here almost the beginning of May. The window to imports, they are basically under the existing safeguards regime are getting close to an end.

The fact that we don't have yet the quotas for the new TRQ as split by country makes it even a little bit harder for imports, right? That's what we are seeing.

Daniel, you want to talk about the iron ore?

Sorry, Cole, would you mind just repeating that question?

Just a little bit of color on the iron ore production that you're expecting into 2Q and any of the phasing through the year just so that we can think about that in the model. Sure.

Thank you. We did have obviously a good start to the year in Liberia, another record production shipment quarter.

I think that will just continue over the next three quarters. We've signaled in our initial guidance at the beginning of the year that we expect to be at full capacity in the second half and to achieve at least 18 million tons of shipments.

That's how I would be factoring it into the model. Some further improvement in the second quarter.

I expect that we will navigate the rainy season through Q3. We continue to improve in our ability to navigate that.

Then I would expect we should finish with a strong fourth-quarter performance. Then

maybe just following up on iron ore. You've been very clear that the energy situation is manageable across the rest of the business, but are there any things we should be thinking about in iron ore costs, just for diesel, et cetera, on the mining side?

I think the only thing I would call out, Cole, is freight, right? I think the profitability of mining in Q2 will depend, of course, much more where prices finally land and freight, right?

Oil will have an impact as well. Based on what I see today, I would be more focused on prices and freight.

Thank you.

Great. Thanks, Cole.

We'll move to the next question, which we'll take from Andy at UBS. Hi, Andy, please go ahead.

Yes, thanks, guys. Got a few follow-ups to previous questions.

Just on that potential tariff carve-out in North America, my understanding is it's based upon volume sold just into the auto sector. If you ship slabs from Mexico into Calvert, is it your understanding you'd potentially get some relief on those if they're then resold into auto?

That's the first one. I've got a couple of modeling ones to follow.

Andy, as I said, we just got all these details, right, and the teams are busy going through that. I don't want to anticipate the analysis.

If you don't mind, I think we will address that with you next quarter. I'm sure we'll have more color and information to provide on that.

Okay. No worries.

Just a couple of modeling ones. On the Ukraine contribution, that was obviously a drag in the first quarter.

Can you quantify that on EBITDA, and do you see anything changing into 2Q? Yeah.

It was. Q1 was a challenging quarter for Ukraine, right?

Energy prices, in particular, really very very high. As we discussed before, Ukraine, they have been managing relatively well, right?

In the whole of 2025, as we discussed, at EBITDA level, they managed to be basically neutral, still free cash negative, of course, because of CapEx. Q1 EBITDA was negative as a result of the high energy costs.

Energy has come down, which is good news. We do expect to do better in the second quarter, right?

As we know, the situation remains very challenging. At least on that front, we expect to do better, and that has been really one of the key drivers of the results.

That's clear. Just finally on Mexico, the operating issues that you had last year, there was a little bit of overspill into 1Q.

How material was that? I think maybe in the fourth quarter you called out a $65 million hit.

What was the equivalent number in 1Q? Was it material?

Yeah.

The evolution in Mexico is very good, right? We restarted the furnaces, which is producing long products.

We were not yet at full capacity in Q1 in longs, we're going to be at full capacity in quarter two. I would expect our production and shipments in North America to continue to improve as we move forward, right?

It's no longer, of course, at the same magnitude that we had in prior quarters. I think it's a very good evolution.

As we discussed at the time of Q4, you see profitability in North America almost doubling, and we should continue to see progress going forward in the second quarter. Production is now up and running, and it's only now the full capacity of the furnace that you should see in quarter two.

Okay. That's fine.

Thank you.

Thanks, Andy. We'll move now to take a question from Timna at Wells Fargo.

Hi, Timna.

Hey. Thanks.

I wanted to actually double-click, as the kids say these days, on North America just a bit more if I could. I think we obviously, as you pointed out in the last response, seen a nice benefit.

It was the biggest contributor to Q1 over Q4 from rising prices. You have some locked up in annual contracts.

Can you talk to us about how auto annual contracts fleshed out a bit or give us high-level color on that? Then also, do you think that you could see the same order of magnitude in the US into Q2 given the pace of price increases?

Then also wanted some more color on how Calvert was ramping up. Thanks.

Yeah. Hi, Timna.

Automotive, as in US, the negotiations happen throughout the year. It's a little bit more spread out compared to Europe.

In Europe, we have a concentration really at the beginning of the year. In US, it's more, I would say, more like 30 30% Q1, 30% from quarter two, and then the rest is 25 is Q3.

I think we are doing well. As we don't really comment so much on the outcome of these negotiations, but I have to say that they're going in line with our expectations.

It's good. The ramp-up at Calvert, the EAF is progressing.

In quarter one, we were a little bit running above already 20 25%. We are progressing.

We believe that by the end of quarter two, we should be at much higher levels, and we remain optimistic that we're going to be getting close to ending this ramp-up phase by the end of this year, Timna.

Daniel, if I have Great. Thanks.

No, no, go ahead, Timna.

Oh, no, I just wanted to ask about if you would be able to quantify the extent of the price increase in Q1 over Q4 if that could be sustained given recent price strength continuing into Q2.

Yeah. Look, we're not going to be quantifying that, but I think you know very well how prices have moved up in US.

They continue to rise, and you should see that reflect in our results. Plus, we talked about automotive, the annual contracts, and how much is resetting, right?

Yeah.

Okay. One further one if I could, please.

We're hearing a bit about switching away from aluminum to steel in the US. Of course, it's a more extreme change in prices between the two, but even in Europe to the extent that the BYDs are getting built and have more steel amount in them versus aluminum.

It'd be great to get any observations that you're seeing on switching away from aluminum to steel in automotive. Thanks.

Yeah. When we look at the at the

I think you're you're right. I I think this is, to be honest, it's it's has been at least now less of an issue.

We continue to be very focused on that, showing the benefits of steel to our customers. I think we have been very successful there, Timna, as you know.

I think we continue to to make improvements there. It's not something that I would highlight to you as, as a as a big concern that we have at this point, right?

Of course, we remain very focused on R&D, making sure that we have the right grades, we achieve what customers want. We have successes.

When we look at the level of intensity, steel intensity, on average, we see relatively stability.

Great. Thank you.

Thanks, Timna. We'll move now to question from Tom at Barclays.

Hi, Tom, please go ahead.

Yeah. Hey, thanks very much.

Just one quick follow-up for me just on Ukraine. You talked about obviously high energy costs having an impact in Q1.

Are you seeing anything from CBAM impacting Ukraine? I guess one of your Ukrainian peers has called out CBAM as being quite a big disruptor for Ukrainian steel going into Europe, because I think it's not exempt at the moment.

There's been a few articles saying maybe some order cancellations. Are you seeing any kind of impact there?

Yeah.

I think there was, Tom, the expectation that Ukraine would be exempted, right? They're not.

We believe that it's right. There shouldn't be exemptions, right?

At the same time, prices are increasing in Europe, then if you have the right cost base, of course, then you should be competitive. In our business, of course, we are focused in Ukraine on the domestic market, right, and also selling pig to different parts of the globe.

There is good demand for pig, which we continue to sell.

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. Did you say it shouldn't be or it should be exempt from CBAM?

You think?

It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be any exemptions.

Shouldn't. You're focusing more on the domestic market.

You would say there was some kind of earnings impact that I guess persists into Q2 if an exemption doesn't come through. Then just a second question, just on sort of buyback thoughts, really.

I know your capital allocation policy hasn't changed. We haven't seen any buybacks for nearly a year now.

If I look at your free cash over the last 12 months, it is positive, and I guess you're talking about earnings ramping up through the rest of the year. Is that sort of back on the cards, potentially, to restart that buyback program?

I think you're right. Our policy, right?

We had, by the way, in Q1 our first quarterly dividend, which was paid. We remain very optimistic that we're going to be free cash flow positive this year, and then the policy will kick in.

Based on the visibility that I have today, I see no reason why we would not go above the minimum 50%, as we have been doing in the last couple of years. If I can remind everyone, the policies has been really great.

We bought more than 38% of our stock. I think we are close to restart that.

Great. Sorry, you just said, "So optimistic, free cash flow positive this year, then the policy will kick in."

Does that mean the policy only kicks in once you sort of see the full-year numbers in, or is it more dynamic than that, if you have good enough visibility, you could start sooner?

As it is more dynamic.

Yep. Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Great. We have time for maybe two, three more questions.

The first we will take from Max at Oddo. Hi, Max, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, gents. First question is you published last week sustainability report where you cut your carbon emissions objective to minus 10% from minus 30% previously by 2030.

I think the new objective is very dependent actually on Dunkirk being delivered on time in 2030. My question is, what would be, in your view, a more realistic timeline for the 30% reduction?

Is it the mid-30s, the late 30s, even beyond? How should we think about the sequencing of the next EAF projects in Europe?

Are you waiting for Gijón to be delivered and ramped up before potentially launching new investments, or will it come perhaps even later?

Do you want to start with this one, Daniel?

Yeah. Thanks, Genuino.

I think you're right to observe the change to our 2030 target. We'd well flagged that, I think, in recent reports and communications.

What's, I think, important to take away is that 2030 target is based on the announced projects. It's a number that we are confident we can achieve, and that's why we updated it.

In terms of the timing of the next EAF projects, I think if you look at our communications and our messaging, we've also been quite clear that our EAF projects are going to be sequential. We don't expect significant overlap on any of our blast furnace to EAF projects.

The focus right now is completing Gijón. We've just announced Dunkirk, and that will occupy us for the medium term.

Then the intention in time is to obviously communicate on what the project that will then follow will be. Let's really focus on getting a smooth start to Dunkirk at this stage, and then we will update on the next project in due course.

Okay. Just a second and last one, it's about the German stimulus plan.

Expectations in recent weeks have gone down actually amid the red tape, other priorities perhaps than infra for the new German government. What's your latest view on the topic?

You were quite vocal previously on it saying that it could increase demand in Europe by around 2% per year over the next 10 years. Is that still your scenario?

When do you expect that to really kicking already next to 2026, or it's more of a story of 2027 or even 2028 based on your latest understanding?

To be honest, we don't see any significant change there. When we look at the impact of the program, we start actually to see some activity, right?

I don't believe that the overall numbers that we talked about, they will change. At least that's not the intelligence that we have.

We will, of course, have to keep monitoring that, but I think we are progressing as the progress is happening there.

Okay. Thank you.

Great, Gustaf. We do have time for two more questions.

We'll take the first from Dominic at J.P. Morgan.

Hi, Dominic.

Hello. Thanks for taking my question.

Two quick questions. You've spoken and given us a lot of granularity on Europe, and again just maybe coming back to the US.

Given how tight we see that market at the moment, do you think there's any possibility that you actually run harder than through Q2 the normal? Obviously, we often see a summer slowdown.

Do you think there is potential that, given the state of lead times, that you may run harder than the normal? Second question, just on any kind of obvious cash flow items we need to be aware of for the Q2 modeling for the net debt bridge?

Dominic, in US, as we are running our facilities full. Calvert we have been running at high levels, and that will continue, right?

Where you're going to see improvements in terms of production and shipments is going to be more really in Mexico and a little bit also in Canada, right? The focus in US for us right now is to ramp up the EAF, as we talked about, but that will bring more results, should contribute to results.

The second part of the question, can you repeat that for me, please?

Just in terms of modeling for net debt into Q2, are there any other cash flow items? Oh,

yeah. Look, Daniel, I would not focus so much in quarter two, right?

I guess my message is more really when I think about the year as a whole. As typically we will have a large release of working capital in the second half, that should continue to be the case, despite all the improvements that we are seeing, right?

We explained that because we built some strategic inventories end of last year that we're going to be releasing. Despite of the good developments that we are seeing in terms of prices, volumes in the second half, our expectation is that for full year, working capital should not really be consuming a significant amount of cash, which should then support even more the free cash flow generation.

Is that helpful, Dominic? I think, just to reiterate, normally the working capital movement in Q2, Q3 is not a major delta in the cash flow bridge.

Where it is a major delta is normally Q1 and Q4. Normally we invest in working capital in the first quarter, and this year has been no different.

Then normally we see a nice release of working capital in Q4, and Q2, Q3, normally that's broadly a wash. Great.

Great. I think we will now move to the last question, which we're going to take from Matt at Goldman Sachs.

Hey, Daniel, thanks for squeezing me in. Look, I have one question on your Indian operations, perhaps in two parts.

Genuino, you mentioned costs are largely hedged. That's fine, but given India's reliance on gas imports primarily from the Middle East, and some of your peers flagging shortages, could you outline where you're sourcing your gas from today and whether you've received any force majeure on future deliveries?

Then just to follow up, given your use of gas-based DRI and captive power, what measures can you realistically take to manage gas availability or reduce gas intensity across the Indian operations? Thank you.

I think we are in a good place there as well. We have different sources of gas.

We are not really dependent only on Middle East. We are in a good place.

We have not had any force majeure. We have received all our gas.

We have no indication we are, as we speak, in end of April, beginning of May, no indication of force majeure. I think we are, as we discussed, I think we are in a good place there.

We are not expecting any disruptions because of availability, for sure on the price, and also on availability. It's not something that we are overly concerned at this point.

That's great. Thank you.

Great. I'll hand back to you, Genuino, for any closing remarks.

Yeah. Thank you, everyone.

Before we close, let me briefly reflect on the key messages from today's discussion. First, our first-quarter performance again demonstrates the structural improvement in the earnings power of ArcelorMittal.

Margins are well above historical levels, with the further benefits of more favorable policy still to accrue. Underlying free cash is annualizing at over $2 billion.

Second, we have a clear and differentiated growth pipeline. Our strategic investments are supporting our results and materially enhancing our future EBITDA potential.

Finally, the positive outlook for our business is underpinned by more supportive trade policy, especially for Europe. More effective trade protections are fostering a more regionalized market structure, providing a robust platform for higher capacity utilization and profitability and higher and more consistent returns on capital employed.

Alongside the impact from our growth strategy, this supports the free cash flow outlook for ArcelorMittal and the delivery of consistent capital returns to shareholders. With that, I will close today's call.

If you have any follow-up questions, please reach out to Daniel and his team. Thank you again for joining us, and I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Stay safe, and keep those around you safe as well. Thank you.