Lundin Mining Corporation (LUN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is Olof Grenmark speaking, Head of Investor Relations at Boliden. I'd like to welcome you to today's telephone conference based on the press release that we sent out this morning. Our President and CEO, Mikael Staffas; and our CFO, Håkan Gabrielsson, will do a presentation that is available on our web page. After their presentation, we will have a Q&A session. Mikael, the stage is yours. Welcome.

Thank you, Olof, and good morning, everybody. Before we get into talking about this particular topic, I just want to take one step back and just notice that today, Boliden is 99 years and 364 days, i.e., tomorrow, we will turn 100 years. I am myself talking to you today from Boliden as we will have quite a lot of exercises today and tomorrow linked to this anniversary. Among others, we're going to look at the first drill core that was drilled 100 years ago, and we will visit the place exactly where it was also drilled. So that's a little bit of background, and it feels good to talk to you about what we have agreed this morning, which also feels like a very good foundation for the next 100 years. So let's see if I can manage to do this one right. First of all, as always, in this situation, there's lots of legal disclaimers. So if I have said something I should not say, I have not said it. But anyway, we're welcoming Neves-Corvo and Zinkgruvan into the Boliden family. We see a very strong industrial logic and a strategic fit for them. We have -- and we'll get a little bit more into that in detail on the coming slides. But there is clearly, both from an engineering and from a commercial point of view and so on, a good fit. There are attractive financials. We'll come into that as well. But as always, when you buy something that is up and running, it's cash generative from day 1. It's also operations that do not necessarily have very big investment programs going forward. They're relatively well invested the way they are. There is also good development potential. These mines are formally, looking at the reserves, maybe not that long life of mine. But especially Zinkgruvan has proven for the last 160 years to be able to keep on developing. And Neves-Corvo also has a long history of keep on developing, and there are clearly both the resources that can be converted as well as geological potential in the area. To the right here, you can also see what this does to our production. You can also see how it raises the production in 2023, including this one. Now you all know that in 2023, we had Tara standing still most of the year. Going forward into 2025, with Tara back online, Boliden's production should be even larger than the numbers that you see here. So as I said, there's a strong industrial logic and a strong strategic fit for these assets into it. Number one, we have a possibility to leverage our mining expertise that we have. The mining methods that we're seeing in this one is very close to where Boliden's expertise is today. The size of the units is in line with existing units and sometimes, what's important with this? Well, when you have -- you can say size of units usually more or less designs which equipment you're using, and here it's equipment that we are very familiar with. So it's not just the mining methods, but also the equipment that is well in line with what we have. And also the types of ore that we're looking at here, the polymetallic deposits, the processing work that's going on and the metallurgy behind it is very similar to what we already know and where we have expertise that we can continue to use to develop this. We're strengthening the concentrate production and zinc from about 35% of what we need in our smelters to about 70%. I should maybe point out right away that it's not sure that all this concentrate will necessarily end up in our smelters, but it does, from a financial point of view, provide the balance. Copper going from 30% to 40% of the smelter capacity. It also gives us improved possibilities to optimize feed mix over time, having these concentrates within our own control. We also see relatively limited risk. These are relatively well-invested units that do not require big investments as a start. There are, in both cases, very strong community relations in these -- for both of these assets. They are stable and familiar jurisdictions for us. And the permits are in place, and both of these facilities are already GISTM committed and very close to actually being GISTM compliant, which we are, of course, thankful to Lundin having taken that step as a voluntary step going forward. So when we look at what we have actually bought, if you look on zinc, these are attractive units as such. You can see, if you take the Tier 1 jurisdiction zinc underground mines and look at the production, you can see that these 2 units are among the biggest in the world and will fit our profile of being in Tier 1 jurisdictions and in zinc very well. Regarding the position on the cost curve, you see to the right with Zinkgruvan somewhere in between Garpenberg and the Boliden Area and Neves-Corvo somewhere on the 75th percentile roughly of zinc mines in the world. This is also a position that are very strong and good. And as you can see, they're quite cash generative already from day 1. If we then move over and look on the copper side and look at the copper side and compare that to assets in Europe, you can see that Neves-Corvo fits well as one of the largest copper mines in Europe. You can see, regarding the cost position, that Neves-Corvo is relatively high cost compared to Aitik, Kevitsa and the Boliden Area. But there is, of course, work that we can do on that going forward. But even at this level on the copper side, Neves-Corvo is also cash generative already from day 1. So when we look at this altogether and look over the next years, there is, as we see it with the consensus prices and terms, roughly about USD 300 million to USD 350 million annually of EBITDA and is cash flow generative, as we said, from day 1. And if you look at the cash EPS, i.e., the free cash flow divided by the number of shares, that one is accretive of more than 10% based on this acquisition here. And as I said, there are rooms for operational optimization and synergies coming around from this one as well as we move forward. Even though I would not play these numbers too big to start with, this is a long process that we're in for in order to be able to leverage on these potential opportunities that we have. Now let's see, I think that we should also look at the time line first. And the time line, we will need to have agreement from authorities. As always in this situation, we do not fully control the time line for that, but we are expecting it to go through by mid-'25. And the regulatory approvals that we will need is regarding both on the EU level, it's regarding on the Swedish level, and there are also a couple of approvals needed on the Portuguese side as well. So with that, I will leave it over to Håkan to tell us more about the key terms of the acquisition.

Thank you, Mikael. Well, good morning. As you've seen, the upfront cash consideration that has been agreed is USD 1.3 billion, which is payable in cash at closing. I'd like to highlight that this transaction is done on a cash and debt-free basis, meaning that any cash included in the 2 entities will be compensated by Boliden dollar for dollar and the opposite for debt. We have designed the agreement also around contingent payments, which is based on a profit sharing model for zinc and copper prices. For Neves-Corvo, that can amount to $100 million over the next 3 years. And this is then subject to zinc and copper prices being above $1.30 per pound and for copper, $4.50 per pound. For earnings above that level after tax, there is a revenue split where Lundin gets 60%, and we keep 40%. The model for Zinkgruvan is similar, a maximum amount of $50 million over the next 2 years, which is subject to average zinc prices above $1.40. For Zinkgruvan, we also have a production threshold of 135 million pounds payable zinc. In the case of Zinkgruvan, the profit sharing of the incremental revenue after tax is 50-50. Continuing to the financing, we have a bridge loan in place that covers the upfront cash consideration. Our intention is to replace the bridge loan and refinance that in due course via approximately half medium- and long-term debt and approximately half a share issue. And to the benefit of all shareholders, we will explore the conditions to do this share issue and engage with shareholders in a discussion around this. We see that it could be either a directed share issue or a fully underwritten rights issue. It is, of course, subject to a general meeting approval, but we do expect the share issue to be carried out in the first half of 2025. As you may be aware, we have an EUR 850 million revolving credit facility in place, which is expected to remain undrawn and be a liquidity reserve in case of adverse business cycle movements or similar. This deal will, of course, have an impact of the net debt-to-equity ratio, the gearing. And to show some sensitivity here, we have given some number based on the September 30 numbers, the end of Q3 numbers. At that time, Boliden's net debt to equity that we reported stand-alone and so on was 24%. If we were to assume that the transaction had been completed, fully debt financed by end of September 2024, we would reach about 47% gearing. But if we do not add the proposed share issue, the debt-to-equity ratio would have been around 30%, slightly above 30%. I want to remind you, though, that this does not exclude dividends, and we have a dividend policy in place that we intend to keep unchanged. If we, to the 30% here, add a dividend component of 1/3 of the net profit that we have reported during the first 3 quarters of the year, we're talking about a net debt to equity of around 35%. So that is a sensitivity around where we stand in this transaction. Then of course, reality will depend on price development going forward and so on. And I hand over to Mikael again.

Well, I will sum up this here and just very, very briefly and then give you the chance to ask questions. But just once again to remind all of you that this is a basis for keeping or making sure that Boliden remains and builds on its very strong base metal focus and very strong sustainability focus. We will have, once this transaction is completed, 7 mining units and 5 smelters. There will be a high-quality, vertically integrated operations in Europe, and we have a relatively long life of mine with proven exploration track record and promising future targets and development opportunities as well. So with this summary, I will open up for questions.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Adrian Gilani from ABG Sundal Collier.

Two questions from my end. First of all, on the guidance of $300 million to $350 million in EBITDA on consensus prices, can you specify the consensus you used in absolute numbers, what copper, zinc and silver prices you used to arrive at this guidance range?

Well, that is the consensus curve. So it will be different prices for different metals and years.

Okay. But perhaps the source you used would be enough so that we can check what the prices are.

Let me get back to that number in a minute.

While Håkan is looking that up, can you take the second question?

Yes, absolutely. You didn't make sort of any mention of synergy effects. Are there any clear synergy effects that are not included in the guidance range?

Regarding synergies, we have on purpose not put in any number. There are, of course, certain synergies that we expect to see some overhead costs that can be split over larger volumes. There is some synergy that can be optimized when you have control, both over the mining and the smelting step. But exactly how fast this will happen and when it will happen, it's relatively unclear. And we have not included in those numbers that you see, there are actually no synergetic effects in it.

And going back to the consensus numbers, I think one way of looking at it is that the contingent payment starts above the consensus prices that we have used, so if you start at the contingent payment numbers and then gradually coming down.

The next question comes from Krishan Agarwal from Citigroup.

Congratulations for the transaction. I have 2 questions. First is on the Neves-Corvo. I mean I'm looking at the consensus estimate, which probably you would have also looked at. Is there any kind of a volume growth potential lies in the mine, particularly to the zinc volumes in terms of increasing the processing capacity and your thoughts on that? And second is for Håkan. I mean, what probably is the magnitude of the rights issue that we are looking at next year?

Starting on the first question, we're a little bit at a special situation, as you can understand, because we do not yet have control over the asset. And for us to have a point of view that would be different from what Lundin has guided would, of course, be not really appropriate at this time. So we don't have any other thing to say regarding volumes in Neves-Corvo than what Lundin has said historically. And then I'll shift over to Håkan for the second one.

Yes. And when it comes to the rights issue, our assumption is that we will do a rights issue corresponding to about half of the purchase price, meaning then half of the $1.3 billion, $650 million. And that is what would put our balance sheet in a good position post the transaction.

Okay. I understand. And then probably a follow-up on the synergies. So I understand that Mikael mentioned that not necessarily all the material will go to the smelters in the Europe. But is it fair to assume that probably you will have some volume already coming in from these mines into your smelters and then probably there is not much of the potential for incremental volume to reroute?

You're absolutely right that we have a large chunk of these volumes coming already. And the chunk that we don't have is contracted to other parties on relatively long contracts. So it's not that we, overnight, will be able to turn around and shift the flows apart from what we already had since before. However, when you do have control over 2 entities in the value chain, there is more that you can do on optimizing the total value regarding exactly to how and what quality of concentrate you do and what and so on. So there are some synergies that can be done even though flows are not materially changing, at least not day 1. So that's that. But as I said, we have not calculated any of those. Those are not into any of the numbers that we have shown.

I understand. And the final question. So I mean, overall, looking at the Boliden as an organization, I guess you have Odda going on in terms of the big-ticket project commissioning and then you have the rebuild of the tank house and now probably the acquisition or the consolidation of these mines. So from a management mind share point of view, I think you have your plate looking full. And then is it fair to assume that any kind of incremental M&A sort of is out of the picture for at least next 2 to 3 years?

Yes, I think that's fair to assume that additional M&A is not the highest thing on the agenda right now, if you put it that way. You're absolutely right, we do have a full plate already of ongoing internal projects. And then we get this integration to go on, we will be quite busy. And as you already know, the next level of development, once we've gotten our arms around this, we do have quite a few internal options that are not yet ready to fly, but at least some of them we could expect to fly within the next few years, and then that will be the next kind of natural development from Boliden.

The next question comes from Ioannis Masvoulas from Morgan Stanley.

Congratulations on the transaction. A few things to ask from my side. First, on the mine lives of both assets are relatively short, under 10 years, looking at the mineral reserves. Can you talk about opportunities here to prove up resources to reserves and potential to extend mine lives and which of the 2 assets has the better prospects? And I'll stop here for the first one.

Yes. So always you have to be a little bit careful around these things as we do not have yet control. But it's absolutely right that you say we're talking about 10 years, a little bit less than 10 years of official reserve life. But there are quite a lot of resources around. And if you look historically, especially Zinkgruvan has been very good at converting resources into reserves. And there's also attractive geological potential around Zinkgruvan, very much similar to typical Zinkgruvan situation with relatively small but relatively good quality areas around. On the Neves-Corvo side, there is also resources that can be converted and there is also geological potential. I think that the jury is still out who's going to be around for the longest.

Okay. Very clear. Then second question, specifically on Neves-Corvo, it sits further up on the cost curve, and it has been a relatively challenging asset with a mixed track record both operationally and in terms of safety. How are you thinking about some of the risks there? And how confident are you on improving on this track record?

Yes, it's true that Neves-Corvo has had a challenging safety record recently with 4 fatalities within the last 4 years. It is -- we have, of course, as part of our due diligence, looked into this and whether we think that this is something that is endemic to the place or whether we can change that or whether it's about to change itself. It's, of course, not so that Neves-Corvo is not trying to do anything about it. We feel relatively good about both the fact that Neves-Corvo itself is having a good trajectory in improving this. And we also feel relatively confident that we can now also add to that journey once we get control of the asset.

Okay. And last question, going back to the point around managerial capacity to deal with a bigger footprint and beyond the fact that perhaps M&A is out of the question for a few years. When it comes to organic growth options, is it fair to say that now with your focus shifting to integrating 2 new assets, perhaps some expansions around Kevitsa, Garpenberg, even Laver could be pushed out for a few years?

I will put it this way, none of those that you mentioned were really kind of scheduled anyway in the very short term because there are still things that needs to happen before we move ahead. I think in reality, we'll look into this as they come. We are not losing any of these options. And as we move forward, we will have to see what we feel about our balance sheet at any given time regarding these potential projects. But it's not that we are ready to scrap any of them. We will keep them around and keep them as options.

The next question comes from Liam Fitzpatrick from Danske Bank.

It's actually Deutsche Bank. First one, just on the strategic rationale. Just looking at the cost curves, Neves in particular looks relatively high cost. So is this deal driven by just a need to secure concentrate or because you actually think these are good assets, which have got some optionality in them?

It is the second one, it's a generally good asset that has some optionality in them, both in terms of how they're operated and in terms of the geological potential. And they are -- so that's -- they are, in stand-alone, quite interesting. They're also located in jurisdiction that we know, which is good and which also provides a safety for our smelting business. So both of them are -- both aspects are interesting to us.

Okay. And the second question, just on -- I think it was mentioned in the previous question around other investment plans. But without, I guess, commenting specifically on other projects, once this deal completes, we will see net debt pushing even higher. So will there be an emphasis from you and the management team to improve cash flows and deleverage for a period? Or what will be the focus once this deal completes?

Yes. I mean the main focus will be to try to revert basically as soon as possible our net debt down towards the 20% level, where we want to be. And having said that, of course, we will also be looking at whether we can create value from other projects. But I think both in terms of balance sheet strength and also, to some extent, management capacity, some of these organic projects, as I said on the previous question, they're not gone. They will be around. We're not going to scrap any of them, but they might be realized slightly later than they would have otherwise.

Okay. And then the final one, just in terms of the management structure, so I think you're moving up to at least 12 assets now. Are you going to keep the same sort of, I guess, management structure of your assets? Or are you thinking differently just given you're going into a new country, 2 new assets, et cetera?

Those kind of effects, how we would organize ourselves based upon this is a little bit of an open question. There are a couple of different options around how we can do that. We have on purpose keeping that -- those options open, and we will revert to that closer to the -- any closing of this deal. And in the meantime, in these next 6 months, we do not have the operating responsibility.

The next question comes from Viktor Trollsten from Danske Bank.

And perhaps -- sorry in advance if you have any noise in the background. I have a little man a bit puzzled about the financing here also. But just on the share issue, I guess the question is from my side, why a share issue here? And I guess from the context that when you acquired Kevitsa, you took net debt to equity a bit higher. So what's the difference this time around, if I start there, please?

I will say it's a good point that you're bringing up. This is, however, 2 things. Number one, we're pushing leverage higher than we did in the Kevitsa situation, as Håkan mentioned the numbers. But there is also another difference, which you are all aware of, which was that when we bought Kevitsa, we were looking into a couple of years of super high grades in Aitik, 0.30. We knew when we bought Kevitsa that, that was a very safe cash generator at almost any prices and terms. As opposed to right now, as you know, we are in a trough situation. And even though the grades in Aitik are expected to revert in a couple of years here going forward, we're not seeing grades as we saw then. So I think that's the main difference on an operating point of view.

Okay. Yes. No, that makes sense. And then just also for context again, but why not cut the dividend this year and take on a smaller share issue? I don't really understand that.

This is a longer discussion we can have, also philosophical, but I should be very open with this is that we will, of course, now start talking to our major owners around this one because our major owners will get to weigh in a little bit around how we would do a share issue and the size and so on. We are, of course, not allowed to talk to any of our owners during a process like the one we've had. So we have not spoken to them. And as any kind of decision on the share issue is also subject to a general meeting, we need to have that discussion. So we'll see exactly where that ends up. But our plan A is to keep dividends going as normal and then take a share issue to the extent that is needed.

The next question comes from Daniel Major from UBS.

Yes, a couple of questions. Just firstly on the deal structure and the consideration, it's $1.3 billion as of the August 31 on the lockbox basis based on the Lundin release. But Lundin is saying $1.37 billion upon closing. Can you just walk us through the bridge of the difference between those 2 numbers? And is that dependent on cash generation between now and the closing of the deal? Or is that a fixed cash outflow?

Well, there are 2 things. The deal -- the price $1.3 billion is based on a cash and debt-free basis. And at the lockbox basis, there is cash transferred in these 2 units. So we're basically compensating the cash that we receive dollar by dollar. So we're paying $1 for $1 in cash, and that explains the difference between $1.3 billion and $1.37 billion. Then as you correctly say, from August 31, provided that this deal is then completed, from August 31, we will have the right to the cash flow out of these activities, and that is depending on prices and production and so on. And during that time also, we pay an interest rate of 5%. So that's the structure, but the difference between $1.3 billion and $1.37 billion is that the units are coming with cash.

Okay. So just to be clear on -- like you will receive the cash flow from the asset until closing. Is that correct? And then you pay the difference.

No. The reason that we'll pay the [ $37 million ], that is because there is cash positions from the start that is transferred. So that -- and that we pay for dollar by dollar. Then on top of that, we get whatever cash flow is coming from the operations. And for that, we pay an interest rate.

So on the $1.37 billion, we will pay an interest rate of 5%, but all the cash flow in the meantime that comes after August 31 is coming to us. So that is what's going to be sorted out upon closing.

Okay. So we should model the asset continuing to contribute and then a $1.37 billion outflow on closing?

Yes. But you should also then model that we have -- we get $72 million of cash that comes with the assets.

But that's already on your balance sheet now?

No, it's not on our balance sheet. It will get on our balance sheet when we take them over. It's not on our balance sheet now. It's on Lundin's balance sheet now.

Okay. I understand. Yes, that's clear. Okay. And then just a second question. What is the cost of the bridge loan in terms of rate and any kind of arrangement fees?

Well, we have not disclosed the rates of the bridge loan. So we're keeping that, but I can say that it's a good and competitive cost level.

Okay. And then a final one, just why are you not pushing ahead immediately with the share -- with the equity issuance?

I think there are a couple of reasons with that. Number one, as you know, in the Swedish context, a rights issue is always the base way. There are reasons why a direct issue in this case might be better, but we need to explore that with our current owners to make sure that they feel that, that is the same way so we can step away from what is otherwise the normal. And a rights issue as such would take some time. So the answer is we will go ahead with it sometime during the next few years -- a few months, I was going to say. The other thing is also just from a very practical point of view, even though we think it's virtually certain that this will go through, there's, of course, always a slight risk that for some reason, some authority would not allow this to come through. And then it's a question, do we want to sit with all that money from a raise?

The next question comes from Ola Soedermark from Kepler Cheuvreux.

Congratulations. Very interesting. Just a couple of follow-ups on, firstly, the share issue. You're saying you're going to talk to your main shareholders. Could it be that you are not pushing through with the share issue at all if metal prices are keeping decent and you maybe scrap the dividend next year?

Let's keep all that kind of open. I mean it's -- of course, everything can happen in this thing, but that's not our plan.

Okay. And then also, if you could give some more color on Neves-Corvo. I mean Zinkgruvan is a very well-run and a low-cash cost asset, and Neves-Corvo is a little bit larger and has had its challenges over the years and has recently gone through a quite big zinc expansion. And what kind of -- what do you see? You're saying that you can see improvements there. And I know that you haven't maybe digged into the data room and the books and so on, but what can you do? What do you see for potential at the mine to improve the cash cost situation there?

I think that there are many things that we see on a high level that can be done, but we're not going to comment on detail because we need to be able to do those things in detail. But as you pointed out, the costs are relatively high, and we feel that there is a possibility to work on the cost side there. There is also maybe a possibility around the mine sequencing that we can work around. And then as some people asked before, there is also the discussion about how you make sure that you install the right safety culture to make sure that we don't get any more fatalities on top of the 4 that have been recorded in the last couple of years. So I think there are lots of things that can be done. There is not a magic thing that we're going to, whatever, we're not going to -- there's not a magic investment somewhere that makes a magic return or the other way around there. So it's all about managing what we have and try to improve from there.

The next question comes from Richard Hatch from Berenberg.

Just trying to get a bit of an understanding on the financing cost for this. So I appreciate you won't be drawn on the interest, but is it fair to assume something like SEK 0.5 billion, something like that as an interest cost for that bridge? And then also just transaction fees, banker fees and such like, can you give us a steer as to what we need to be putting into our numbers for that, please?

Well, I think that going to the EBIT bridge, I mean, we publish our average interest that we have, and this isn't far from that -- sorry, the bridge loan. So calculate with similar numbers. Then as it is typically for these kind of loans, there is a gradually increasing interest rate, but it's still at healthy levels. So I'd use roughly the same cost that we have for our current financing. And then your second question was around?

Just on like transaction fees, kind of adviser fees and such like.

No, I think that, that will get more into detail as we finish this thing off. Yes, there are both advisers fees. And of course, if we were to move ahead with the -- when we move ahead with the equity raise, there will also be fees for guarantees and other things coming into this one. We'll come back regarding those once everything is summed up.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Amos Fletcher from Barclays.

A couple of questions. The first one was just on the timing of any equity raise. Is the intention that it should happen before or after you get the approvals?

Open. It depends a little bit on what happens in the next couple of months and exactly how it is. But let's say that we aim to do them around the same time.

Okay. And then second question is just on rehab liabilities. Could you give us a breakdown of what those are going to be? I also see that Zinkgruvan has an unfunded defined benefit pension liability that Lundin doesn't disclose the size of. Could you tell us the liabilities coming with these assets?

Well, there are a few liabilities, but those kind of assets and the liabilities, as you just mentioned, pension plan is taken care of in the net debt -- in the debt-free calculation. So that one doesn't come to us at all. It's, however, also a very small number, but it doesn't come to us at all. So -- but what will come to us is the reclamation responsibility for these 2 assets. And in terms of Zinkgruvan, there is also an older asset reclamation that will come to us. These numbers have all been put into our models in order to make sure that we have that in the valuation that we have done. So we're pretty clear around those. I personally don't know exactly what the numbers are right now. They're still, in order of magnitude, relatively small, but they have been well calculated with.

Okay. So you can't disclose what they are or we'll get them in due course?

I think you'll get them in due course. I simply -- I don't know what they are, but we have -- and this is also where things get a little bit tricky because we might have -- we might do something else than what Lundin does right now, but we cannot say anything about that because Lundin is still managing the assets and thus responsible for all those numbers.

Sure. Okay. Okay. And then next question is on synergies. Can you give us the value of the TC/RCs that you're paying for the concentrate that you will now benefit from vertically integrating?

We never comment on anybody's external -- any external contracts, including this one. What we can say is that we have mentioned several times that most of our external supply, the vast majority is on benchmark terms. Now -- so that's what is underlying. What then is tricky with a concentrate, especially copper coming out of Neves-Corvo, is that lots of that concentrate is considered dirty or not clean, which means that it comes with a penalty. And that penalty is, of course, difficult to benchmark around, but it's been around. And regarding that, on the copper side, since we've had most of the concentrate from Neves-Corvo already before on the copper side, we know that relatively well and we know what they are. But I think your original question was, where does it come? Well, most of it is already in -- has already been on benchmark.

Got it. Okay. And then just coming to this EBITDA forecast you've given of $300 million to $350 million, could you give us the broad assumptions underlying that on production and unit costs?

Well, once again, things get very tricky here because I cannot say anything that would differ from what Lundin has guided for. And I would not be allowed to say that. So I can only say that if you use the Lundin guided numbers, you're maybe not far away, even though you might not be exactly there.

Okay. And then final one was just on -- you mentioned earlier Neves -- well, both assets are cash generative from day 1. But if you look at the Lundin's disclosures, it was EBITDA negative year-to-date and in Q3. So I just wanted to understand how do you come to this judgment that they're cash flow generative from day 1?

Lundin has just finished off an expansion that has been quite CapEx intensive in Neves-Corvo, and that one is now finished and will not be bearing down on them going forward. I think we have one more question, and unfortunately, then we will be out of time. So who is next in line?

The next question comes from Johannes Grunselius from DNB.

It's Johannes here. I have 2 questions. And my first one is on the expected EBITDA contribution that we discussed in the call. But are you able to give us a rough split between Neves-Corvo and Zinkgruvan of these $300 million, $350 million EBITDA?

Well, it's -- no, not really. Let's keep them together for the time being. Once again, not interfering too much with what Lundin has guided.

Fair enough. And if you could maybe give some color on this question. I'm not after the exact number, but when you have done, let's say, NAV, NPV calculations of these 2 assets, what kind of expectancy have you used in terms of life of mine?

We have used a base case, which is according to the reserves. But then we also have used -- especially in the case of Zinkgruvan, we have added value, which is a relatively smaller part of the total, but it's still there, which is linked because it comes after the first 10 years, but Zinkgruvan does have a history of resource conversion that is quite strong that we have put in. But as it comes from years beyond year 10, it's a relatively smaller part of the total valuation. In Neves-Corvo, where there's been a maybe weaker historical resource conversion, it's a smaller number, and the number is more linked to what is in the actual reserves. Thank you very much. It has been great talking to you all this morning. As I start out in the morning, I will have a busy day later today and tomorrow linked to the fact that we are tomorrow 100 years exactly. And it's going to feel good to celebrate that here in Boliden at the origins of the company, and it feels very good to be able to announce this, this morning as building the foundation for the next 100 years. Thank you all.