Tata Steel Ltd Institutional Investor Meeting Transcript

The following is excerpted from the question-and-answer section of the transcript.

Question: Kirtan Mehta - BOB Capital Markets Limited, Research Division - Analyst : Congratulations for sort of arriving at the viable solutions for U.K. In terms of the GBP 1.25 billion CapEx that we are committing, what would be the configuration of -- what would be the units under this CapEx? What is the configuration that is envisage around EF? And besides the EF, what all components would it include? REFINITIV STREETEVENTS | www.refinitiv.com | Contact Us consent of Refinitiv. 'Refinitiv' and the Refinitiv logo are registered trademarks of Refinitiv and its affiliated companies. SEPTEMBER 15, 2023 / 12:00PM, TISC.NS - Tata Steel Ltd Institutional Investor Meeting

Question: Kirtan Mehta - BOB Capital Markets Limited, Research Division - Analyst : The second question was again about the configuration in terms of sizing at 3 million tonne operations. So initially, the site had capacity of 9 million tonnes, which we had brought down to 3 million tonne. So are there any site constraints which restrict the operation at 3 million tonne size? Or it's primarily the level of grant that can be supporting the current size? So what has been the consideration to arrive at the 3 million tonne size?

Question: Kirtan Mehta - BOB Capital Markets Limited, Research Division - Analyst : Just one more question that I can sort of squeeze in. You talked about that U.K. government is taking the broader look at the energy network cost, and that would bring down the cost. Could you give us a bit more sort of understanding about what exactly is being undertaken and what would be changing there?

Question: Kirtan Mehta - BOB Capital Markets Limited, Research Division - Analyst : Thanks for this clarification.

Question: Ashish G. Jain - Macquarie Research - Analyst : Sir, my first question is in terms of the assumptions we have made to be comfortable with the GBP 500 million grant. Is there any underlying assumption on power cost on employee cost? Because historically, they have always referred to as some of the key reasons of our cost structure in the U.K. And secondly, earlier in the call, you gave a number of GBP 30 million losses, EBITDA losses in U.K. in the first quarter. And we are also giving a commitment that we'll continue to supply to U.K. until the time the plant is commissioned from some source or the other. So how should we think about that because if the current run rate of profitability sustains, then the grant might just get wiped out purely on the back of the losses. So how should we think about that?

Question: Ashish G. Jain - Macquarie Research - Analyst : Right. So is it safe to assume that purely as a part of the negotiation with the government we are only getting this onetime amount because a lot of energy stuff you said is anyway as a part of the broader process that the government is taking. Labor seems like it is left to us to negotiate and discuss and settle. So probably from a government point of view, the GBP 500 million is all we are getting? Or is there something else which is a part of the broader deal?

Question: Ashish G. Jain - Macquarie Research - Analyst : Right. Sir, just one last question I had. As per our '23 annual report at the Tata Steel Europe level, there was a GBP 1.3 billion loan to Tata Steel Europe from the parent. As a part of this restructuring, will that be adjusted, written off in the books of -- in the books? Is that the way we should think?