Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to MOL's Q1 2026 results conference call. I am Márton Teremi, Head of Investor Relations.

The speakers on today's call are Dr. György Bacsa, Chief Strategic Officer; Dr.

Ákos Székely, Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Zsombor Marton, Executive Vice President of Upstream; Mr.

Gabriel Szabó, Executive Vice President of Downstream; Mr. Péter Ratatics, Executive Vice President of Consumer Services; and Mr.

József Simola, Executive Vice President of Circular Economy Services. Before giving the floor to Mr.

Bacsa, let me remind you of some technical details. We continue to use Microsoft Teams as a platform to hold our conference call.

The presentation is accessible at our website at molgroup.info, and slides will be shared in Teams during the call. There will be a Q&A session after the presentation where you will have the chance to ask questions by using the raise your hand function of Teams.

Please keep yourself muted throughout the call except when asking a question. I would now like to draw your attention to the cautionary statement on slide number 2.

Now we can start the content part with Dr. György Bacsa taking us through the highlights of the first quarter.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Márton.

Let's start with the first quarter summary and go to page number 4. Let me start with the annual guidance.

If I want to be short, I would say that we didn't change the guidance, but let me take some more minutes to go a little bit of deep dive. Because I would like to remind you that when we issued the guidance, that was the presentation of our fourth quarter results of last year dated 20th of February, end of February.

At that time, we already experienced many of the risks and difficulties, specially to MOL, specially to our region, or globally. Specially to MOL, we were already in the middle of the AV3 reconstruction and repair issue after the fire, which will take still a couple of months, but we are on progress it, and Mr.

Gabriel Szabó will go into details on that. At that time, we already experienced that end of 2025 Hungary and Slovakia had one of the lowest GDP growths in recent time, and Croatian GDP was also going down.

There was already a stoppage on the Druzhba pipeline in the end of February, which lasted 10 weeks at the end. The risk that we practically presented during our guidance did not decrease, but rather increased.

Since that time, in March, the conflict of Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have brought unprecedented volatility and fragility to the crude oil supply, especially to the seaborne supplies. There was also government interventions.

Save for two markets, all our core markets are affected some sort of government regulations: price caps, margin regulations, restrictions, export restrictions, which are not just affecting practically our margins and our pricing abilities, but also the free movement of goods between our markets, between our refineries, and between our wholesale storages. I think what we are heading into that, especially if this energy shock, or this war that caused the energy shock, will drag on, that we are heading into a perfect storm, which was also, I would say, highlighted and emphasized by the latest IMF report as well, which is forecasting in such a river situation historical low global GDP growth.

I would say that such an outlook would not give us anything else just to stay cautious, and definitely consider all these risks are very serious, and draw up a plan how to manage these risks. Now let's go into some of the key ones which are specific to MOL: the disruptions in the Druzhba pipeline.

The disruption in the Druzhba pipeline, I would say, and we emphasized several times, that we were preparing for that. We didn't expect that it would happen, but in the last decade, just an example for that, we invested into the pipeline network more than $300 million to diversify our crude supply system.

I think the first quarter just sanctioned our belief that the region needs at least two open and accessible crude supply routes to ensure uninterrupted fuel supply for the CEE region. It's also our business interest, our business rationale as well.

We need to safeguard our ability to always make the best business decisions. I would also emphasize that our diversity routes enabling us to get access to seaborne supply, and also to onshore resources.

Since 22nd of April, the Druzhba pipeline is again operative, and we will remain to use both directions, both routes, to keep up this diversity, the advantage of these diversities. I also would like to go into the price controls, because everyone saw the big volatility, the big ups and downs in the pricing, in the crude and the product pricing, but I think there was in the supply also other volatilities: the availability of seaborne cargoes, and availability of resources.

There was practically a fight for the cargoes, a fight for the supply on the global market. The oversupplied global market became short immediately after the Iranian crisis, and regions and companies and countries were battling with each other to get access for the supply.

The consumers were protected against this volatility with the price controls and the governmental mechanisms, but we were not protected on our supply and on our logistic markets against such volatilities, it negatively affected our performance, especially in the downstream. Let's go to the page number 5.

If we look at the first quarter results, what we can see that our first quarter clean CCS EBITDA came in at $626 million, which means 25% year-on-year decrease. Positive we can report only in Upstream, which improved back of the higher oil and gas prices, and in Consumer Services, which was mainly supported with the favorable foreign exchange rate figures.

In Downstream, we suffered greatly due to the multiple shocks and the volatility, its financial impact, and the significant operational challenges that we are facing with. Our Downstream clean CCS EBITDA decreased to $69 million.

Our Circular Economy Services EBITDA was driven by seasonality, and reached $21 million. Our Consumer Services EBITDA increased to $177 million.

Upstream EBITDA rose to $346 million. My colleague will give you more details on the financial performance, and the drivers behind the financial performance.

As I mentioned earlier, the Druzhba pipeline was not functioning for 10 weeks, and during which the Bratislava and the Danube refinery had to switch to seaborne crude supplies of non-Russian origin. We delivered it via the Adriatic pipeline, but I also have to mention that the Danube refinery has lost almost half of its crude processing capacity, it was not running at full capacity during this time.

Another event that in the first quarter I want to emphasize is we increased our stake in ALTEO Plc to 40% by agreeing or swapping our Waberer's shares to ALTEO shares. On the NIS transactions, we are still continuing the negotiation.

We have the negotiation license from OFAC, and we have the pre-agreement with the seller, but I think everyone knows that this is a complex transactions where we have three workstreams of negotiations: not only the sellers and the host country, but also the United States regulators, and to certain extent the EU regulators are also involved. The Rijeka refinery upgrade project has been completed, and is expected to have material operational financial impact on the refinery by end of the year.

We expect that the diesel production in the refinery to increase by up to 30%. Furthermore, MOL has also been successful in bidding for an offshore exploration area near Libya, offshore Libya, jointly with Repsol and TPAO.

Now, let me give you just a short summary on the sustainability results. I think it's a positive that the MOL safety ratio was one the TRIR ratio was 1.15, where our guidance for the year is 1.25, we would expect to keep the guidance throughout the entire year.

I would like to give the floor to Mr. Ákos Székely.

Thank you, György, and let me continue with the EBITDA performance and the segment breakdown. The clean CCS EBITDA reached $626 million in the first quarter, as György said, decrease of 25% year-on-year.

With the EVPs to discuss their respective segment performance in detail, as usual, I will elaborate on the segment which fall outside their scope. First, the Gas Midstream.

The EBITDA came in at $93 million, which represent a year-on-year increase of almost 40%, 39%. The reason is that the transmission volumes were flat, but the higher cross-border capacity demand was substantial due to the relatively cold winter, as well as favorable FX effect supported EBITDA generation.

The second, regarding the Corporate and Other segment, the central cost of $52 million were broadly in line with the seasonal average and also with the dollar weakening explaining much of the year-over-year increase. Finally, the intersegment elimination had a negative effect on EBITDA of $28 million, which is kind of expected, mainly due to the higher oil prices resulting in the higher inventory elimination.

Let's discuss the CAPEX. The CAPEX amounted to $241 million in the first quarter of 2026.

Organic CAPEX was at $252 million. This translated to an increase year-on-year, but to tell the truth, the base period was relatively slow, comparing to the historical figures.

Therefore, I think this figure kind of getting back to the normal range. Some words about the details.

The growth and efficiency CAPEX grew by close to $70 million, and amounted to $180 million in the first quarter, mainly as the Rijeka refinery investment was finished, and invoices were settled. Also, an uptick in field development works in Upstream, mainly in Croatia and offshore asset, also contributed to an increase, as did the construction in product pipeline works between Bratislava and Danube refineries.

The next category is the inorganic CAPEX, which amounted to $241 million, and was driven by the closing of the acquisition of the photovoltaic portfolio in Mezőcsát, Hungary, with the SPA signed in December 2025. The solar portfolio has a total capacity of 304 megawatts, and is expected to generate around almost $40 million, $38 million of EBITDA per annum.

Other transaction which closed in the first quarter, this was the vertical integration in the waste management segment with the acquisition of one of the regional coordinator in southeastern Hungary. The first quarter clean CCS EBITDA of $626 million resulted in a net income of $122 million, and regarding the components of the bridge, let's see the details in the next slide.

The clean CCS effect showed a positive impact of $47 million in the first quarter, which was in line with the effect of increasing oil price. The positive CCS effect was supported by the seasonal cleaning of CO2 cost, while limited by the adjustment for losses on commodity hedges.

The next is the DD&A, which reached $417 million in the first quarter of 2026. This means a year-on-year increase of 23%, driven by the dollar depreciating by over 10% versus the first quarter of '25, and the higher depreciable assets of the group, most notably Upstream assets acquired or activated last year.

With the exchange rate volatile during the quarter, the financial line was negative to results, and let me stop here and recall a couple of figures, because, yes, there was a huge volatility. In the same period last year, the dollar/forint exchange rate was 371, which decreased to 328 in the last quarter of '25, and after that increased somewhat to 333 HUF per dollars, while in euro, which was relatively stable, the last year quarter figure was 402, which decreased to 285, and practically the same figure we could see in this quarter, which was also 385.

Yes, there was a huge volatility, and this was especially seen in dollar/HUF FX. The income from associate was $35 million, mainly driven by a one-off revenue from Pearl compensating for earlier inaccuracies in measurement of Pearl's volumes.

This one-off effect amounted to $17 million. Finally, the tax expense amounted to $84 million, translating to an effective tax rate of nearly 40%.

The extra taxation continues to weigh on the group, with the special levy in Slovakia impacting the results by $15 million, one-five million dollars. Let's look at how cash flow evolved during the quarter.

Operating cash flow before working capital was around $800 million, even somewhat higher than the first quarter of last year, despite the challenges throughout the year. However, ongoing challenges were much more apparent when looking at the change in the working capital, which marked a build of nearly $1.4 billion.

Most of the deterioration in net working capital was related to the crude sourcing switching to a seaborne in March, impacting working capital on several fronts. Regarding the inventories, there was a build that amounted to $900 million, roughly $900 million for the group.

The time between receiving the crude oil at the port in Omišalj in Croatia and the start of processing became longer as a result of the more cumbersome logistic and blending, leading to an increase in crude inventories. Regarding fuel products, volumes also increased, mainly due to the timing effect in Hungary: strategic product reserves released in the beginning of March led to elevated product inventory levels that did not fully deplete by the end of the month.

Also, the skyrocketing crude and product prices contributed most of the increase in the build of inventories. Apart of inventories, I think it's worth to mention that the net working capital position was also worsened by the advance payments made to secure crude cargoes, and also effect of higher margin deposit for more extensive hedging transaction.

Overall, as a result of these factors, operating cash flow including working capital reached over half a billion dollars in the red, and, just to highlight it again, the inventory effect amounted to around $900 million, the advance payments at around $100 million, and the margin call deposit roughly $300 million dollars, which finally resulted in $1.4 billion increase. Finally, let's look at the balance sheet.

The net debt level deteriorated by over $1 billion during the quarter, which reflected in the challenges in the operational cash flow, especially in the working capital cycle, which we discussed in details. Net debt thus closed the quarter at close to one times EBITDA, with the gearing ratio rising to 17%.

While the increase in the net debt we could clearly see, our expectation is that some of the factors leading to the cash drain in the first quarter will just not be with us going forward, most notably the flows resuming on the Druzhba pipeline system should able to release some of the working capital that built up during the first quarter. While cash flow and working capital is definitely under higher management focus than usual, the balance sheet remains strong, with the available liquidity of around $4.3 billion.

After the financial overview, I would like to hand over to Gabriel to discuss the Downstream results.

Thank you very much, Ákos. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Let me elaborate on the first quarter '26 results. As you have just learned from Mr.

Bacsa, we faced a very challenging times in Downstream, but let's get to the numbers. Downstream clean CCS EBITDA was well below last year's, and came in at $69 million for the first quarter of 2026.

The underperformance was due to a series of shock, which I will then elaborate on them later, that led to lower capacity utilization in refining and a petrochemicals performance that is not yet reflective of the better pricing environment in the wake of the Iran conflict. On the refining side, clean CCS EBITDA came in at $132 million, a decrease of 62% year-on-year.

This was mainly due to the 34% lower processing in the Bratislava and Danube refineries. While we tried to make up for some of the lost own volumes through third parties, including semi-finished products, with the final steps of processing in the Danube refinery, product sales were still 8% below last year's level.

Regarding petrochemicals, volumes were 15% below last year at 263 kt as a result of the naphtha naphtha scarcity, what reflects the lower refining capacity. In order to provide you a better sense of those shocks, and the sequence of those shocks, and their impacts on our processing and profitability, we prepared the next slide.

This slide is showing the the the shocks from four perspective: so what happened and when, then how it impacted the crude supply, processing, and also the profitability. As Mr.

Bacsa mentioned, the series of challenges started October last year, you are very much aware of it, the pump station of AV3 distillation unit burned down, meaning that the total crude processing of our two landlocked refineries has been limited to 75%, 80% of the usual capacity throughout the first quarter. Then at the end of January, flows from the Druzhba pipeline were disrupted.

I have to mention that it was the 23rd disruption which we experienced from the outbreak of the war. In this particular case, it was the result of the drone attack of the at the 70,000 cubic meters oil tank in Ukraine.

We had no information on when the pipeline could resume operation. The two refineries ran on their own reserves.

Then by mid-February, we initiated the plans to switch to the Adriatic crude supply route and started booking cargoes with deliveries expected to the port of Omišalj by early March. At the same time, we also triggered the release of strategic crude reserves in both Hungary and Slovakia in order to keep the operate operation until the first seaborne crude supplies arrives to our refineries.

In this period, we although adjusted the processing as a precaution, and in order to keep the utilization of strategic reserves as low as possible. By the first crude supplies arrived in March, the war in Iran had already erupted, and the Strait of Hormuz was already closed.

Although it's costly, we ramped up our crude processing in order to supply our customers and to start refilling the strategic crude reserves and our own inventories. In terms of profitability, it was really volatile and under pressure throughout the the first quarter, and mainly the impact of low utilization is magnified in financial results as the fixed cost in the refinery were not covered as in the normal, or within the normal operation.

Additionally, seaborne crude, coupled with the unprecedented situation on crude markets due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has also a significant negative impact on the results in March. All in all, the first quarter of the year posed a series of significant challenges, but with the resumption of the crude flows through Druzhba pipeline on the April 22nd, the operational and technical difficulties are eased, and and we can get back, or we are about to get back to the modus operandi of selecting dynamically between the two available crude supply routes and different crudes based on our best interest.

Now get back to the normal sequence of my slide, let's tackle the macro environment, please. Thank you.

Brent-based refining margins were about of $11 per barrel for the quarter, which figures pulling the average upwards as a result of the supply shock in European middle distillate markets. However, this attractive margin was unfortunately not reflective of the actual unit profits we could realize.

After the Strait of Hormuz closure, the producer asked for a premium to Dated Brent, with volatility in the markets adding further costs to hedging, logistics, and insurance was also turning more expensive. At the same time, product prices were also under pressure in March as many governments in the region introduced price cap, margin caps, or other mechanism to limit increases in the fuel price.

Actually, out of the 12 countries we supply with with fuel, out of those 12 countries, in 10 countries there is some regulation there. Petrochemicals margin have a longer lead time in reacting to the exchanges, margins remain subdued in the first quarter.

Looking to the April, the Strait of Hormuz shock is more visible. Refining margin increased to levels which we experienced last time back in 2022.

The Urals blend was traded at a premium to Dated Brent. This was also for the first time since the DAP India quotations are available.

Petrochemicals margin have also increased materially as the closure of the strait has decreased global petrochemical supply directly or indirectly. My last slide about the impacts of several factors.

I believe there is no surprise in the light of my earlier comments that the refining margin and price effect was positive, but and there was theoretically much more potential there, but because of the aforementioned factors limited the upside of the refining margin close close to tripling year-on-year. Petrochemical also contributed positively on the margin side.

The volume impact amounted to over $200 million negative contribution, which underlines the severity of the financial impacts of the landlocked refineries' low utilization. Furthermore, the Rijeka refinery also underwent a plant turnaround during the first quarter, adding to the negative volume effect.

Within the other factors, there is also a negative contribution there due to due to the base effects, as well as the negative contribution of the gas and power trading, and similarly negative impact of the hedging activity. This would be everything from my side, and I would like to hand over to Péter Ratatics to continue with Consumer Services.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Gabriel, and good morning to everyone. The Consumer Services reached $177 million of EBITDA in the first quarter, as it was already mentioned, which is roughly 12% increase year-on-year.

If you look at this chart on the right side, and you can see that the year-on-year depreciation of the dollar had a material positive effect on the result. I also have to highlight that this is just the first quarter, the Hungarian forint change compared to euro and dollar that just happened in April.

This first quarter effect is just purely the dollar depreciation. Without this effect, the EBITDA would have grown by 1%, meaning basically a flat year-on-year performance.

On a more underlying level, the fuel side of the business contributed negatively to results, with the rise in non-fuel margin having offsetting partially or close to equally this effect. This is not surprising, by the way, if you think through what range of measures were introduced by the governments across our area of operation in March in response to the crisis in the Middle East.

In fact, all our countries in our operation, in the 10 countries operation except Bosnia-Herzegovina, have imposed regulatory measures for the fuel prices. All in all, it would take half an hour to go through on the different countries, different regulations.

Some of the countries has a hard price cap, like in Hungary. In many of the other countries have a margin regulation, but the frequency of the regulation changes are also different country by country.

During the whole month of March, actually, we were trying to adapt our operation, and the whole market tried to adapt to the operation of the changed environment. Before we move on to the fuel, just a brief summary for the first quarter.

Out of these three months, January, February were practically normal months. The dynamics and the direction, the trajectory of the business was practically the same what we have observed in the previous years.

In March, actually, as a result of this Iranian conflict, immediately changed the market dynamics. What was the effect of that for the fuel?

Let's move on to the next slide, and you can see that the fuel volumes rose by 7% year-on-year, clearly a consequence of the mentioned price control mechanism. In fact, looking at the first two months, what I've just mentioned, the volumes were up by 1% only, reflecting purely and consequently to the underlying market fundamentals.

However, in March, actually, the fuel volumes increased, the sold fuel volumes in our network increased by 18% year-on-year growth, which is this 18% came up just in few countries like Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia mainly, and also in Croatia. Rest of the countries, the increase was a single-digit percentage increase, but still substantial.

Regarding the margin, there has been a decrease overall, with the profitability of fuel retailing falling the largest where the harshest measures were introduced, and actually that was in Croatia, Hungary, and Romania. In these three countries, the impact on our unit margin was the harshest in March.

We will see that how that will continue in the upcoming quarter. Let's move to the non-fuel part, because the non-fuel part is still the bright side of this whole operation.

The development in the non-fuel part of the business where there are no surprises, and we have continued on the path of this 5% organic year-on-year growth. Obviously in such circumstances, what we see that the fuel drives the footfall, and our intention and the clear task for us at this current moment that try to convert as much of these new customers to the non-fuel transactions as we can, and also to try to convince them to join to our loyalty program, to gain an additional long-term customers to our operation once the world will go back to normal, then hopefully our market share and also the non-fuel transaction will land on a higher level than it used to be.

That's our business strategy at the moment. Thank you very much for your attention, and let me pass the floor to Zsombor.

Good morning everyone. Upstream recorded $346 million in the first quarter of '26, and this corresponds to a 40% increase compared to the previous quarter, and around 10% increase versus last year.

The increase was predominantly driven by higher hydrocarbon prices because of the Strait of Hormuz closure, and with that, Dated Brent increased to $81 per average, and gas price to $80 on a dollar per barrel of oil equivalent. I think what's the good news is that we were able really to capture this relatively high share of these elevated prices.

Plus, we delivered a strong production in our home turf, both in Hungary and Croatia, and were able to catch that and harvest. We are still pushing for more, and accelerating in the CEE as well for the future, trying to get more out of the favorable environment.

If we move to the next slide, you'll see that this trend is reflected in the evolution of the unit economics. That's the highest after the 2022 price peaks in the last four years, and even accounting for or despite of the higher organic CAPEX, the simplified free cash flow per barrel reached $32, well above the $20 per barrel equivalent strategic guideline.

If we move to the next on the EBITDA, let us now break down quarter on quarter. You see that it was really because of the higher prices.

Most of the increases compared to the fourth quarter of '25 is due to the macro. Lower volumes only accounted for $15 million, $15 million negative effect that was mainly due to lower production in Iraq, both Shaikan and Pearl, because of the stoppage and the precautionary halt in Shaikan production in March, as well as the technical factor of less cargoes loaded in Azerbaijan.

The other category you see on the waterfall had a positive impact to the extent of $32 million, and in a year-on-year perspective, the volume impact was also positive despite the suspension of production in Iraq Shaikan with this average production. If you move to the next slide, let's see the production volume as well.

The production is lower compared to the fourth quarter, but averaged above the lower threshold of the annual guidance of 95 and 97 thousand barrels of oil equivalent per day. Still with the Iraqi Shaikan and Pearl stoppage and lower production, we are inside the guideline, and we are missing around 7-8 thousand barrel of our production, which we believe if it in the Iraqi production restart, then we will be above 100,000 barrels in average, and that could still end up in the year-end forecast between the 95 and 97 guidance.

In April again, the Iraqi Pearl resumed production after the suspension of production. It is not yet fully operational, but that's why the production level decreased to 92, but you see in April, what we are seeing now, an elevated production going forward.

Lastly, let me share a few thoughts on the evolution of the unit OPEX and our investment perspective. The OPEX rose by 11% year-on-year.

This increase is predominantly due to weaker USD. If we would consider that not in the numbers, we would only be 1% above the plan, we can say that the OPEX is flat still due to the measures we are taking on efficiency and on the diligent production.

With regards to CAPEX, the spending in the first quarter is usually the weakest, but here there was an increase of $36 million year-on-year, and this is largely due to the offshore campaign and the development wells we are doing in Croatia currently, and then of ICG CAPEX, which is coming with the drilling of the new offshore platform. Let me also share that in the TAL block in Pakistan, with regards to our projects, we were able to have a new discovery, Bilotang-1 well, which is gross 5,000 barrel well production.

We will start that still this year, and the production is the share is only 8.4% of ours. This is still a nice discovery and adding volumes to our portfolio.

In Croatia, we have also expanded our onshore portfolio. Two exploration blocks were awarded to INA by the Hydrocarbon Agency, while we have also completed farm-in acquisition of Vermilion's remaining 60% share of the Sava-07 block.

Furthermore, we have also moved in Hungary, and had acquired a range of upstream assets from OGD at the end of April. This acquisition would add almost 1,000 barrel of oil equivalent of production to our group, oil production primarily, and we see to develop these fields as well with large exploration acreage, mostly oil dominated.

Again, let me also finish with the news from Libya. That's a new country entry for Upstream.

That was a successful joint bid together with Repsol and TPAO where Repsol will be operator into an offshore block in Libya. We have 20% in the joint venture.

With that, I will pass the floor to József Simola to discuss circular economy.

On a year on a year-on-year basis, this increase includes also seasonal factors such as the higher DRS return volumes and the lower collected waste volumes due to the colder winter, but it includes also the impact of the ongoing efficiency program. Organic CAPEX was at low level, as planned and expected, reflecting our cautious approach for spending.

As discussed last time, the preparations for a waste-to-energy plant to be collocated at our refinery in Százhalombatta are ongoing, and currently we are foreseeing final investment decision sometime during this year. As on the general trends on the business side, with the above 90% return rates in the DRS system, we can clearly call it's fully operational and completed.

We reached this result in shorter than two years, and from now on, clearly the focus will be on the continuous improvement of service level and operational efficiency, and generally we will continue to keep our focus on efficiency and financial results in the coming quarters. With this, I like to hand over to Marci for the closing Q&A part of our session.

Thank you very much. That completes the formal part of our presentation.

We'd like to now open the floor for the Q&A session. Please indicate if you'd like to ask a question by using the raise your hand function of Teams.

Anna, please go ahead with your first question.

Thank you very much for the presentation. I have a couple of questions, if I may.

First starting with April and second quarter performance. Given that the flows via Druzhba pipeline restarted, but at the same time fuel caps, margin caps remain in place, what level of margin capture can you realize since 22nd of April, if you can comment?

The same question around the utilization rates, to what extent did you manage to increase the runs? Second question would be around the comments and newsflow on the Croatia side.

On the one hand, we heard this final award from US court for collection of the award. Do you expect it to happen this year?

Do you expect to get the collection this year? Another news was around Croatia discussing or considering to buy back the stake in INA.

Can you share any thoughts on that regard? My final question would be a technical one on the cash flow from operations.

There is this other category, other line, which supported the cash flow. Can you explain what was in this other category?

Thank you.

Thank you. Gabriel, if you Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you, Anna, for the questions. can answer the first question.

I will answer the first question. Regarding the utilization and the Druzhba supply, yes, as I mentioned, that from 22nd of April the Druzhba supply was restarted, and is still operational.

On the other hand, we believe that we will start processing the Russian REBCO and Ukrainian crude just in the second half of May or end of May, we still run fully on the seaborne crudes. In terms of the utilization of the processing capacity, in Slovakia, in Bratislava, we are back to 100% utilization, or close to 100%.

In Croatia, we also run a full throttle, while in Százhalombatta we are still limited because of the unavailability of the AV3 unit there. I would pass the answering the second question to my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think the question regarding the US court decision on the international arbitration case, I think we are glad that the US court endorsed the earlier international arbitration decision which were in favor of MOL.

I think the claim is now become enforceable. However, at this point, we are not in the position to say that when and how we and what will be our next steps.

There is still a kind of period before any enforcement actions can be started, but we still believe and hope that the claim can be settled voluntarily as well. Regarding INA, I don't comment on political statements, but there is no sale process in INA.

The final question about the cash flow, this is kind of technical item. We need to translate the P&L to cash flow, and some of the P&L item is considered as cash flow relevant and some of not.

While what you just asked, the other categories here, this is mostly the adjustment adding back some non-cash item in the profit as per the income statement. The largest impact was due to the loss on unrealized hedges, and, well, this is how we translate it from the P&L to cash flow.

The hedge amount have swelled considerably in the first quarter, mainly due to the longer lead time of crude supply, as already we discussed, and steaming from the switch to the seaborne crude sourcing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Just a follow-up regarding the margin capture since the Russian flow restarted, do you expect better margin capture in second quarter from second half of May?

Sure. On the other side, what I mentioned that there are out of the 12 countries where we supply our production, out of those 12 countries, 10 applied some kind of regulation.

I think that there will be some adjustments there, but so far based on the run, I am rather positive.

Thank you.

Tamás, please go ahead with your question.

Yes, thank you very much. Good morning.

A couple of questions, mainly on the downstream side. When do you expect the agreement with JANAF to be signed, and would this agreement include the usual 2, 2.5 million tonnes or higher?

I presume this should be higher because in the last 2 months, you bought much more crude via the seaborne route because, yeah, Druzhba was not available. When do you expect this agreement?

That's my first question. Also, looking now the new presentation that the Ural prices above the Brent prices, do you expect in the future to play a little bit and buy more seaborne crude if this situation persists, or do you see a better economics on buying Ural crude at the moment?

Because now it's not obvious that Ural has a cost advantage versus the seaborne crude oil types. My third question would be about the strategic reserves.

I think you received both from Slovakia and Hungary some strategic reserves. When do we expect them to give it back or fill up the strategic reserves?

If I remember correctly, you said last time that the deadlines are September, October, I wonder how this would look like. Finally, how do you proceed with the upgrade projects regarding the decoupling from the Russian crude oil?

I think the original deadline was the mid next year. Do you still see this as a realistic deadline?

Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much. I will go one by one, but please chip in once you see that I miss something.

Regarding the agreement, very good observation. The agreement with JANAF is still not signed.

There are still few pending issues there which are from our side rather critical. Now, I don't want to elaborate on those because we are tied with some confidentiality, and I believe that in terms of a good partnership, we should not negotiate publicly.

What is very important with JANAF, and this is not a contractual term, this is our interest to test the whole system of the crude supply where we cannot reach an agreement with our partner operating the Adria pipeline. We would like to test the whole system, while the counterpart would rather test just the partial part of the system.

From my side, this is also very critical point there. Then the other question, could you, Tamás, please

Yes, basically the second point.

The

second question was that would you buy more crude

from the

seaborne direction?

Now having two pipelines operational, which I believe is a huge advantage currently or a benefit, we can optimize based on the economics more. This is also a good point that the Urals or the REBCO is now traded with a premium delivered to India.

Of course, we have to adjust the logistics cost there, but still, I think having those two options, it's the right way how to move on with the security of supply. Also taking into account that there were some problems at the TAL pipeline, and the other countries having just one supply route, for example, Austria, because of these problems of the TAL pipeline, they were forced to ask for a state reserve release in Austria.

Also, I heard that the other partners in Czech Republic, they also asked for a state reserve release. It's just proving our standpoint that one route, this we believe is not sufficient.

Coming back to your question, yeah, now there are more options, and of course that based on the economics, based on the technical feasibility, we will now use both of those options. The third one was regarding this, am I right?

Refilling back the strategic reserves.

Yes. The strategic reserves, actually MOL has processed crude from the Hungarian state reserve, in February, March in the amount of 134 kt.

Slovnaft has processed from Slovakian state reserves 105. We stopped the state reserve pumping or utilization in MOL on 23rd of March, and in Slovnaft at the end of the March.

In Slovnaft, we already refilled all those 105 kt, while in MOL, we need to refill that until August this year. Yeah.

Finally, the upgrades of the

Yes, we are starting up the facility. There was a public announcement that the mechanical completion is done.

Once fully operational, and so far, we see that there are no hiccups there. I think that till the end of this year, we will experience higher processing in our refinery in Rijeka, which will be also reflected in roughly 30% higher diesel output.

No,

I was actually referring to the upgrade for the decoupling projects from the Russian crude oil, what you said you would do by the mid-next year. How do you go on with them?

It's fully on line with the schedule. We are working hard.

There are some learnings from the recent period how we can operate our refinery fully on seaborne, different available crudes. From my perspective, we learned a lot, and I hope that till 2027, we will be ready to process alternative crudes fully.

Okay. Great.

Thanks very much.

Thank you, Tamás, for your question. Thank you.

Thank you. Oleg, please go ahead with your question.

Yes, good morning, and thank you for the presentation. I have several questions, and if you don't mind, I'll ask them one by one just because some of them are a bit longer.

Starting with the first question: market expects the new government to improve the business climate in Hungary, and when it comes to MOL, in which business area would you see potential for positive impact or improvement? What I can think of are the abolishment of the CO2 tax and other special tax, maybe higher visibility on the future royalty regime, less intervention on fuel price regulation, etc.

It would be interesting to know what are your expectations, if any. That would be the first one.

Thanks for the question, Oleg. That it's very speculative to ask us about what the future economy politics will bring us, and how the political development, and the effect are.

Definitely based on the statements, and let us also confirm our understanding that I think normalization and standard solutions that we expect and we hope. Regarding some of the points that you mentioned, I would like to emphasize that the royalty regime is already cleared out, especially in Hungary.

After years of special royalties, now we have a progressive royalty regime, which is I think is mutually beneficial both for E&P companies who are running exploration campaigns helping the production level to not just practically a little bit cut the decline, but also to keep the production level even to increase in certain parts, but also benefiting the state in case of higher hydrocarbon prices. I think there is a progressive royalty regime, which I don't think that needs change.

The CO2 tax was before the European Court of Justice, and European Court of Justice already ruled that the CO2 special tax is not in line with the EU regulation, so that was also public information. Definitely we expect the CO2 tax in its current form to be abolished.

Fuel price regulation, I think it's not unique. We think that and we believe that it's temporary, and it's, as I mentioned, it's about shielding the vulnerable consumers against these volatilities.

Of course, it has a cost. The cost is mainly borne by the wholesalers, and as you could have seen and as you could understand, because we are exposed to global supply volatilities, but our domestic markets are regulated and normalized, which is definitely flattening the hikes of these price volatilities.

I strongly believe and I strongly hope that we have practically a chance both global macro normalization, and of course these price regulations will fulfill its goal and then will be abolished, because as Mr. Szabó mentioned, 10 out of 12 countries we are now facing with some sort of regulation.

Definitely we are always positive if governments are announcing market-friendly, normalized, and predictable economic policies.

Understood. Thank you.

The second question refers to the downstream segment. I was hoping you could tell us what would have been the clean EBITDA of the segment assuming no disruption to the oil supply via Druzhba?

This would allow us to better understand the first quarter developments, as well as to make better projections for the rest of the year.

I see, Oleg, your point, but I'm sorry, I did not elaborate the scenario of having Druzhba operational, I would need more time to guess the figure which could help you.

Okay. Fair enough.

Okay. The next question, I guess it's also addressed to you because I noticed that the petchem margins have sharply increased in April, and I was hoping you could tell us what level of petchem margins would MOL require in order to break even in petchem, also maybe assuming that the €100 million CO2 tax is abolished.

In this scenario, for example.

I'm rather positive about the petchem performance seeing now the petchem margins. On the other side, once the world gets normalized again, there we see that the supply is really robust.

In terms of the growth, Mr. Bacsa at the beginning mentioned his concern about the growth perspective, and I believe you are also aware of those, probably the petchem margins will get normalized, which means that they will get to the breakeven level or even below.

In other words, this almost €600 per tonne margin in April is still not sufficient to

It is. I said that I am rather positive.

I'm positive.

I see. All right.

In long run, I am worried that it will get back to the couple of

hundreds

level, yeah, so. Okay.

Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Lastly, you mentioned that the negotiations for the acquisition of NIS are ongoing, and they're quite complex, but maybe you still can tell us when do you expect the transaction to close? Looking a bit more into the future, can you also tell us if the supply of Russian seaborne crude oil to NIS would be possible, or you would have to rely mainly on non-Russian seaborne crude oil?

Thank

you. Let me answer the question.

To the extent I can answer it. The closing of the transaction, I think it's two phases down the road, I don't want to predict when closing could happen.

If you mean when the agreements could be signed, we have a negotiation license till 22nd of May. We are deep in the negotiation phase.

We completed all the due diligence and other phases that were practically preconditions. We are heavily negotiating and working on to practically meet these deadlines, and by this time to conclude some sort of arrangement.

Of course, currently I cannot say that with full certainty, because we are in negotiation. The other one is the Russian crude supply.

Russian crude supply is not permitted to NIS, currently NIS is running on non-Russian seaborne crude supply.

That will not change in the future, or this is not expected to change in the future?

We don't count with changes.

Understood. Thank you very much.

That was it from me.

Ricardo, please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning.

A couple of questions on the crude supply, if I may. The first one, given just how volatile the first quarter was because of Druzhba and then having to access some of those seaborne and the strategic reserves, if you could just comment, what are the major learnings that you had during those weeks?

Was that getting access to those seaborne or on the prices? Just how did MOL perform, according to your expectations, on almost overnight not having access to Druzhba?

The second question that I have is when we look at towards the end of the year, if we assume the current situation remains with some disruptions on the global supply side and you have your full capacity back, would you expect to have a mix on your feedstock from both Druzhba and seaborne, or would you just go back to how you were operating until last year? Thank you.

Yes, thank you. I mentioned that there are several learnings.

The first one, and I believe you also realized it, that this was the kind of decoupling of the paper and the physical market. There were really high premiums asked for the physical deliveries of crude oil, and we even learned that some of the big traders try to reissue kind of tenders to run, we got a confirmation for a vessel, then next day we were asked to submit a bid.

This was the learning there. In terms of the processing itself, we had our view what kind of crudes and crude baskets we would like to process once the Druzhba stopped.

In terms of this, we did not get all the time those crudes, or those crudes were rather expensive, we were forced to go for a different crude basket. In terms of this, I would like to praise the team that we were very agile to select the proper crude basket, and we were able to run the refineries and to supply the market.

There was another learning there. The third learning I would share is the backlog of the vessels.

There is some experience that the European refineries book the vessels for a month in advance, the Asian countries for 2 months, while in United States is rather very much on time. There was another learning, in case of these disruptions and volatility, probably 1 month is not sufficient once those elements of extra bidding and problems comes.

The fourth one was with the Adria pipeline. We learned that the crudes with higher density and the low temperature environment, there could be some hiccups in the system, and for this reason we are pushing even more that we would like to test the whole system.

Regarding your second part of the question, what is the scenario once there is another Druzhba stoppage, I think that we are ready. We keep a high level of inventories.

Now we got an experience processing different crudes. I think that we are ready for this situation.

A good question. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I see Anna has a follow-up question.

Please go ahead.

Yes, thank you very much. Follow-up to Oleg's question.

You mentioned which special taxes could be in theory uplifted or where you see more probability. You didn't mention windfall tax on Urals-Brent differential.

Do you think there is possibility for it to be abolished at some point? Of course, currently the price and the differential is not there, but in normalized environment.

If I may answer, in case of the normalized environment, I believe that this Brent-Urals crude differentials get back to normal. Historically, I believe it was around $1 and $2.

Yeah. This kind of bracket, yeah.

Probably not that normalized. I'm meaning we will be back in the sanction regime and there could be a bit higher differential on Urals again.

Do you think with the new government in Hungary the windfall tax on the difference could be abolished? Or will it stay?

Let me take this question. Thank you very much, Anna, for pointing out.

The Brent-Urals tax has been extended until the end of 2026. At the moment, this is the information we have.

There is no signs pro or contra whether the position is going to be changed. On the other hand, as György mentioned, we are always welcoming the business-friendly environment, but I think down the road how the government is going to decide, I think this is, this is not to comment by ourselves.

Also, I think it's quite important to mention that if there is a premium Urals is traded, I think the whole notion of the taxation is questionable.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Adam, please go ahead with your question.

Hi, hello. Just to confirm, because you showed that there is premium of Urals oil to Brent oil, but it's Indian market, but in the European market, are you paying also premium, or is there differential?

Because it seems based on my estimate that there could be differential. Thanks.

I would not share with you the specific number, but it's heavily dependent and it's good observation, and I also mentioned it, that the DAP India has to be adjusted by the different logistics route. The logistics costs have a very high impact of that number, which is varying a lot, the logistics costs itself.

Thank you for the question.

Okay. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation in today's call.

Please do reach out to Investor Relations if you have anything to follow up with. Have a nice day, and thank you very much.

Goodbye.