Question on Novelis. There is 180 K volumes, which have not been contracted at Bay Minette, and they are for the auto segment. So, just trying to understand, given the Oswego fire, given the disruption it has caused to the largest customer of Novelis, when would this open volumes for the auto sector be contracted? Is there a risk that these volumes are not contracted till Oswego is fully up and running well into next calendar year?
Thanks for the question, Pinakin. So, obviously, OEMs are continuing to contract, because they have already made choices as to their material on their vehicles, and will have started production dates over the next several years. We are very positive on our Bay Minette progress and the commissioning in the second half of this year. As we said before, we feel really comfortable about the overall contracting as we ramp up the overall plant over the timeframe of 18 to 24 months. We also think, as OEMs, look at the fire and think about risk management, I think, of course, aluminum has significant advantages, like weighting, for strength to weight ratio, better agility, better braking, better higher payload, towing, all these benefits have to go under their decisions, especially on the larger vehicles in the North America marketplace. And from a risk management standpoint, Novelis will be the only aluminum provider with three hot mills capable of providing these technically sophisticated products, both beverage packaging, automotive, and then also specialty product sheet as well, as well as multiple locations of finishing capacity at both Guthrie and at Oswego and Kingston. So, while everyone will be looking at their overall portfolios associated with the Oswego fire, the growth that we continue to see because of the attributes of aluminum, advantages aluminum brings, we still see the growth, and we think Novelis is in a very strong position to continue to capture that growth and contract into it.
So, sir just mentioned that your consol net debt would be around, you will not try to surpass 2 on the medium term. But considering insurance would take about 18 to 24 months, which was pointed out again yesterday on the call, would it be fair to assume that that actually the threshold would surpass in '27 and say mid of '28, considering you will be surpassing $8 billion of net debt in Novelis?
No, I think, Dev, I think the point that we will have to look at is, post Oswego start up, how this thing develops, because the net debt to EBITDA, of course, takes into account the trailing 12-month EBITDA. I think what Dev is trying to give you is the absolute levels of debt. So, I think that, to take your point, is it possible in one quarter that it may go above? Fair enough. But I think that what we are trying to give you is a little bit of a longer-term perspective over a year. There will be and can be some amount of spikes or so during a month or a quarter, but there are pluses and minuses. We are quite hopeful that Oswego will start up. So, I think you will just have to bear with us over the next 6 months as we get through this issue of getting the Oswego start up. Just to be clear, when you say insurance monies will take a longer time, it does not mean that everything just comes all at once. That is what I clarified yesterday, that insurance payments keep coming progressively, and we are working very closely to make sure that we do everything to accelerate those payments. We have already started getting some monies. And so you should not think about insurance monies as something that will all come at the end of 15 to 18 months. That is not a right assumption.
Sure, but when we speak about a $600 or $525 kind of an EBITDA number in medium to long term, a couple of your competitors, global competitors, I am not talking particularly your U.S. competitors, but global competitors have already surpassed the $630 kind of a number last quarter. Is there a room for improvement? Just wanted to understand where are we lagging or what can be done to reach that $600 number in as fast as possible?
Yes, we stay committed to the building blocks, to the $600 per ton long term. We would have to understand which competitor you are referring to, that they might have a very different product mix from us. But from the underlying efficiency of our business, the target that we have set is a very strong operational performance and very much on the back of the $1,000 plus per ton of EBITDA coming off of the Bay Minette project itself.
Much of the Hindalco India questions have been answered. Two questions on Novelis. First, given record high scrap spreads in North America right now, want to get a sense as to when they will start reflecting in North American EBITDA per ton, sitting on a lot of high-cost scrap inventory? And if you could just help us with what is the recycled content in North America. I mean, we talked about 63% across the globe, but what is the recycled content in North America, if that is something which can help us add the benefit on a monthly basis given the hight scrap spreads
Yes. So, they are reflecting, but the point is that our ability to use scrap in North America today is impaired because of the Oswego plant being down. So, had it been a situation where we were under these pricing conditions, had we been fully up and running, we would have seen some very, very nice impacts from the current metal prices and therefore the scrap spreads, but we are being impaired by that. Now, if I were to say in Q3, despite not being able to use the scrap volumes that we would otherwise have done, as compared to the previous year's same quarter, because of the high metal prices and the resultant spreads, we are still in a pretty good place on an overall metal performance, right? So, that is something that I just want you to know. Now, at a company level, we are still at a recycling rate of around 63%. So, we are still at that point. Of course, North America is lower, but then it is not right to look at North America in this situation. It does not represent the reality.
And my second question is, your cost of service this quarter, because of Oswego, was around $186 million. Assuming a 20 Kt volume impact, that comes to around $9,000 per ton. I am not sure if my understanding is correct here. But safe to assume these will be lower on a per ton basis going ahead, given now you had time to optimize supply chains and the Midwest Premium arbitrage also kind of now facilitates imports. So, is that the understanding, how we should look at it?
You are talking about several things together. I am not really sure how I should address the question, but let me try my best. I don't know the 20 Kt that you talked about. Well, the impact of the Oswego fire is like 72 Kt, right? Now, as we are undergoing Oswego remediation, I mean, the fixed cost of Oswego are now not reflected in the EBITDA. Until the time Oswego comes back, we will be reflecting Oswego costs below EBITDA. And you can look at our filings. I mean, all the numbers are there in the filings. But basically we have reclassed about $61 million as idle costs below EBITDA. But, honestly, I mean, it is not a great time right now because of the distorted situation from Oswego shutdown for the time being. It is not a good time to really make any conclusions from the cost structure because we have reoriented supply chains. We are producing material in different regions to supply to North America. Net-net, I think that as a reminder, if you really exclude the impact of all the different ongoing events and just look at where we are on an EBITDA per ton basis, the underlying is 495. Last quarter was around 506. So, minus the noise, our cost structure, EBITDA per ton, is in a pretty good place. So, the cost to serve will steadily continue like we have seen in this quarter. And, so that is the best estimate that we have right now. Now, depending upon the timing of the sourcing, when we are able to actually procure the material, there could be some timing differences. It could be a little bit higher as compared to the current run rate, but a lot of it depends upon the logistics and the ability to have the material coming in. For the time being, I would ask you to kind of just think that the cost for Q4, cost to serve will be on similar lines or a little bit higher as compared to Quarter 3.
Noted. Yes, so the idea was that in Q3, you would have faced two things which you may not face in Q4. Q3, obviously, you would be desperate to procure material. That supply chain might be becoming more streamlined right now. And second, the Midwest Premiums right now at 72% are much higher than the tariff rate. So, imports may not be as costly versus Q3. So, net-net on a per ton basis, your cost to serve ideally should be going down. So, that was the point of the question, but I get what you said now.
Yes. So, to be clear, the cost to serve actually, the amount that we are bringing in increases in this quarter and next quarter compared to the December end quarter. Why? Number one, we had finished good inventory both at the OEMs as well as at Oswego. When the second fire occurred, we did not have any more finished goods inventory. We were hand-to-mouth, as was the OEMs. We have created those supply chains through the first fire that now are stable and actually will bring in more hot band in Q1, Q2 of Calendar 2026. So, cost to serve, the quantity in Kts will increase. Yes, there is potentially some offset with higher Midwest Premium, but the overall dollars will increase in the next couple of quarters. I can make it a little bit simpler for you. It would be okay for you to kind of assume the overall run rate of net income impact to be on pretty similar lines as we have in Q3 with all the puts and takes. So, we can make it simpler if your intention is, how do I model? So, that is one input that I can give to you. You can take a pretty steady number, comparable to what was in Q3 on an overall basis.
Sir, three questions for me. One, is it possible to explain the net debt bridge? Because we saw that net debt has increased by almost INR 18,000 crore on a quarter-on-quarter basis. So, we understand that $0.4 billion was on Novelis, and then $750 million we have paid to Novelis. So, roughly around $1.2 billion we can understand. But what about $0.8 billion extra? So, first question is on reconciliation of net debt bridge, please.
So, if you look at for the first 9 months, the net debt has gone up by INR 24,000 crores. And as we discussed in the Novelis call yesterday, the nine-month FCF for Novelis was a negative $1.7 billion. So, that $1.7 billion, it translates to, in INR terms, around INR 17000 crores because there is a there is an exchange rate difference on the opening balance as well. So, INR 17000 crores really came in from the Novelis FCF, which was a mix of the Oswego impact, around $485 million, the higher CAPEX in Bay Minette, as well as the increase in material price, that is the LME-driven price impact on the working capital. In the India business, the net debt increased by around INR 7,000 crores, which was coming really from the copper business layer, because of the increase in the LME, as well as some increase in stock because of the concentrate arrivals. The net debt increased by INR 7,000 crores, but in Q4, we are confident of liquidating or reversing that part of the copper increase. On this INR 18,000 crores, I think the broad breakup is, in the India business, there was a INR 4,000 crores because of the copper working capital, it will get reversed. And if you look at in rupees, INR 1,000 crores, what happens is, the opening net debt also gets reconverted from dollars into rupees, because of the Forex impact on the opening. So, INR 14,000 crores was the impact which came in from the Novelis FCF for the quarter.
Secondly, in, sir, hedging, you have said Q4, what was the hedging loss in Q3 and anything on FY '27 also will affect?
So, I think in Q3, the hedging, I wouldn't say loss, but the notional loss was INR 245 crores. And in FY '27, we have now hedged about 21% at 2,925. And we will take it up to 25% at the current 3,100 levels. We are trying to catch it, so we will probably be around 25% at about 3,000 by the end of March. That is our plan.
And sir, lastly, on account of our EBITDA per ton, when I look at last three quarters' EBITDA per ton on aluminum, I am including both upstream and downstream. We are getting EBITDA per ton of something like $1,550, $1,560 per ton, which is hardly any increase in last three quarters, despite the fact that LME prices have increased by more than $300 per ton. So, partly we understand because of hedging, but still it is difficult to look at that when LME prices have increased by around $400 per ton, but our EBITDA does not have any change in that in last three quarters. So, how can you explain?
Yes, I think that when you look at it, you have to get, see, the upstream EBITDA in Q1 was INR 1,467. In Q2, it was INR 1,521, and Q3 is INR 1,573. And you also have to go back and look at my commentary, because we have, along with that, the Specialty Alumina EBITDA, that when we sell, we add. But from Q2 to Q3, there was a sharp drop in the alumina prices. And if you look at my commentary in Q2, we had also got the RPO benefit, which I had talked about in the cost. So, there are many. Besides the thing, there are a couple of moving parts, which I try to be as transparent when I do the quarterly calls. So, if you go back and reconcile all this, you will see that the pure upstream part has been going up. The cost of production has been about one or two points higher as we have gone along the quarter.
So, the first question was on, with the significant rise in copper prices, are we seeing any substitution happening from copper to aluminum?
I think that broadly you can say that wherever possible, the substitution has been happening over the last few years already. So, long-distance conductor cables, many wiring systems have been switching to aluminum, but it is not in the last quarter. But of course, there are certain applications where copper still holds, and that is why if you look at electrification, you look at electric vehicles, motors, harnesses, there the copper demand remains extremely strong. So, some amount of substitution has been happening over the last two years from what we have seen.
The other question, with the CBAM coming in, what proportion of our aluminum exports are exposed to Europe? And you mentioned some level of emissions that we have. So, are those in compliance with what the guidelines are for the CBAM?
So, look, one thing you have to realize. In aluminum, CBAM power is not included right now. So, the Indian aluminum, carbon per ton is no different from Middle East, no different from anywhere else, because power is not a part of CBAM yet. So, till that gets included, the CBAM is not a restriction for any Indian aluminum imports. In fact, I am little bit positive with the current trade agreement that has been signed, because I think that exporting to the Europe will become more attractive for us.
Sir, lastly, if you could just also give us a guidance on the 4th Quarter COP, will there be an increase in cost take, etc?
Yes, I think that we are expecting 4th Quarter cost to be about 1% higher, largely driven by CP Coke. CP Coke prices, which goes into making the anode, has sharply risen due to what is happening, I think, in the demand and supply in China. So, we are expecting costs to be about 1% higher in Q4.
So, do you expect to contract these volumes in Calendar Year '26?
A combination of already contracted '26 and '27. By the way, Pinakin, it is not such a bad thing at this point in time to have open capacity, because there could be portfolio and pricing opportunities, because overall, the North American markets are in a pretty good place from a demand-supply balance perspective. So, having some open capacity may turn out to be a good strategic opportunity. So, it is not like a concern or a bad thing in the market conditions in which we are.
My second question is for Mr. Pai. Now we understand that some of the net debt would reverse, as the working capital gets released. But given there was a past CAPEX cycle, aluminum prices did not do well, and Hindalco's debt had surged. At this point of time, the cycle is slightly different, but given what is happening at Novelis, would the company look at pushing out or delaying some of the CAPEX programs, either at Novelis or India, in the course of Calendar Year '26?
So, the way, Pinakin and we are looking at that, and that is why in the prepared remarks, we are sticking to our commitment of 2 or below at a consol net debt to EBITDA level. And I think that that is the only way I can answer, because the Novelis CAPEX is largely Bay Minette. After that, they are going to go on a deleveraging cycle. And the India CAPEX, the projects that we have, you know very well, we are going to be spending around INR 10,000 crores a year, which right now, for the next two years, I don't see a problem with the cash that we have. But if we can or do get into trouble, we will take the decision so that the consol net debt to EBITDA does not go above 2. I think that is the best way I can answer.
Sir, my first question towards Novelis. Since we are buying the slabs from outside and to meet the customer requirement, had the insurance covered the additional premium or the cost which we are paying from the buying slab from outside as well, or is it over and above what we have estimated in terms of the hit we have to take?
Yes. So, the insurance does cover the cost of all the external sourcing that we are doing. That is part of the policy.
Noted, sir. Sir, my second question pertains to the Bay Minette expansion. While I noted that we have spent only 54% of the CAPEX till date, and our starting time is second half, FY '26, is probably hardly 6 months down the line. So, is the project has been delayed? Or how should we look at the aggressiveness of the capital CAPEX basically in the next 6 months? Because I am confused that you would be able to spend that, even that had assuming 15% to 20% payment after the commissioning, 30% in next 6 months, spending would be pretty high, which would reflect on your debt as well. So, are we confident of commissioning it on time now?
Absolutely. And so the cash flows reflect exactly the way things should be. Now we are in a phase where you will see an acceleration. There has already been some acceleration of the cash flow, and it will keep happening as we approach our commissioning dates towards the later part of this year. So, there is nothing abnormal about the way the cash outflows are going, and it is not just because of the percentage. It is not indicative of any slowness in the project. You see, right now, we are in an intense construction phase. And therefore, this is where we need to pay contractors because they need to pay the labor. So, as you get into this intense construction phase, cash flows rightly tend to accelerate. But I don't want you to kind of think that just because we are at $2.7 billion, there is some slowness in the project versus the projected cost of around $5 billion. Not at all.
Noted, sir. And sir, just lastly, since next 6 to 7 months, basically, most of this $2 billion of Bay Minette would be spent, even after the copper working capital getting diluted, we could expect the overall debt levels to remain at current levels, or you are expecting on a consolidated level, it should be coming down?
So, let me clarify something. It is not like all the cash flows will go completely out at the time of the commissioning. No, the cash flows will lag the commissioning. So, I want to be clear about that. The cash flows will go into the next calendar year, even up to, let's say, beyond the first quarter of next calendar year. So, please don't assume that all the $5 billion is going to be out by the end of this year, okay? So, I just want to clarify that. And before I hand over to Satish, I just want to clarify that, once we complete Bay Minette, our deleveraging cycle starts almost immediately after that. So, basically, after Fiscal Year '27, we enter, from Fiscal Year '28, we enter a deleveraging cycle, because this is really what is peaking our cash flow, cash outflows. So, just two things to note. And look, on the India side, the gross debt will not go up. So, right now we have got long-term debt and short-term, where the working capital requirements that Bharat mentioned, we have taken, but that will reverse as the copper concentrate is consumed in Q4. So, at India level, there will be no increase in debt. Again, I repeat, the overall way to look at it is that on a consol level, we will try to keep that gross net debt to EBITDA around 2.
Just continuing on the debt question, considering yesterday's call on, at Novelis, you already have a net debt of about $6.2 billion. Considering you have some undrawn limit and which you will be drawing for working capital, and also, I agree that you just clarified that there will be a certain lag to push out the CAPEX amount going forward. However, just considering next, say, 6 months or 9 months, is it possible to quantify the net debt at Novelis? Can we assume that grow, going to about $8.5 billion odd number? Because yesterday on the call, you said that the leverage would actually go towards the higher end of the 4x, basically.
So, I clarified yesterday on our call that from a net debt to EBITDA perspective, we will go into the high 4s. And yes, I want to be clear that our debt levels could be going up, will be going up further from this point in time. And they could be for a period of time until the insurance recoveries come, they could be going well above levels of high $8 billion. That is going to be timing, and as the insurance recoveries start coming, we would quickly see that falling below $8 billion. I would say even by the end of FY '27, our gross debt could kind of be sort of coming towards $8 billion or below $8 billion after going much higher than that into the high $8 billion. So, yes, there will be an increase, in short, in the gross debt, for a while.
So, my second question is pertaining to Bay Minette. Now, when we announced Bay Minette a couple of years back, the entire macros, especially in U.S., were quite different, right? And purely for that reason, we were able to contract almost what, 70% of the volume. When the second escalation of CAPEX happened, there were a couple of reasons being given that there is some civil work escalation which has happened and so on, so forth. How confident are we to take up the next phase of expansion of, say, going from 0.6 to 1.2? And also considering the global macros, what is the kind of IRRs you are expecting, say, beyond 28? Because I think at '27, you are not expecting any volume. '28 will start volume, you can expect volume from Bay Minette from '28 but just want to get your longer-term perspective on this.
Yep. All right. So, again, the IRR picture, we will be just below double digits. We will be covering the cost of capital. And so from the point of view of, does the project still make good financial sense? The answer is clearly yes. It will be accretive in a very nice way to the EBITDA story, and it will be a key enabler for us to get to that over $600 per ton EBITDA, which Satish earlier alluded to. As far as the macros, we still are very confident the drivers of demand, especially in beverage packaging. I talked about automotive earlier. So, we are still very confident that the overall supply-demand picture with Bay Minette first phase and ADI's aluminum expansion in the U.S. will bring further opportunities for Phase 2 by the end of the decade. And of course, we talked before that in the second phase, the utilization of the hot mill with the second cold mill is very accretive from a return perspective, but nothing to announce as far as timing or anything at this point in time.
Sir, couple of questions. One is, how should one understand the capital structure at Novelis? I understand it is an equity injection of $750 plus incrementally $200. So, how should we understand that? And what is the plan to repay this $950? That is one. Second is, why did we come to this number of $750 + $200? And what gives us confidence that there won't be need of anything beyond this $950? If you could put that into context with the covenant that we have on, I think, 2032 term loans, which I read is at 3.5x on net leverage. Does it necessarily mean that there won't be further need of infusion, and any comfort over that if you could provide us with? That is the first question.
So, let me try to answer all parts of your question. So, we are looking at $750 million and potentially another $200 million of equity infusion. Now, what is the thinking, rationale, logic around it? Essentially, this is going to go towards funding the announced higher cost of Bay Minette, i.e., from $4.1 billion to around $5 billion. That is essentially the logic behind infusing this equity between us and our parent. We agreed that it is not good to go into the debt market to fund this increase. Now, this would have, in the normal course, happened at a bit of a later point of time. But given what happened with Oswego, and we will have a $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion gross outflow until insurance money comes, this also now becomes a bridging money to a very large part to be able to really fund that short-term need, and then insurance money will start coming in. And it will basically, once again, the point is that basically eventually go towards Bay Minette. Now, I want to be clear that during the year, there could be some timing challenges, and those timing challenges we will solve by using some short-term working capital or structured financing facilities. As I have been saying, even yesterday at our call, the only debt that we will go for externally now will be the planned debt raise of another $500 million. That should happen between now and the middle of the year, and that was planned debt. In short, in terms of how we will manage the capital and the structure, we are not going to be going out to raise any more debt other than the already planned debt that we would have raised. I hope that that is helpful.
Yes, and just a follow-up. So, this $750 plus $200 what we have raised, what is the cost of fund over there? And is there a tenure, because for insurance, you indicated that the money can continue to trickle in. So, is there a timeline on this $750 plus $200 to be returned?
Yes, it is five years. Yes. So, the cost is SOFR plus 105 bps. It is SOFR plus 105 bps. Five years.
Mr. Pai, in the interim, if I can just ask a question, like, why is the tenure of 5 years for the return of $950 million? And do we have adequate comfort that this number won't go beyond 950? Because, there is a covenant which is there, which says 3.58. So, looking at the cash flow profile, I think the denominator is adjusted EBITDA. But are we comfortable, confident, that there won't be further need beyond this 950?
No, I think that right now we are looking at the situation and the way we have modeled it, we are fairly confident. And I think that a five-year tenure is fine because we really believe that the next 6 to 8 months, by the time we get Oswego back up and running and Bay Minette commission, we will all be talking something quite different. So, the next 6 to 8 months is our critical period, and I think that we will be out of the woods then.
I will wait for the answers on cost of capital. And the cost of debt? Sorry. Perfect. And last question. The debt maturity profile for 6.2 or the gross number, if you could just help on Novelis, that would be a great help.
So, the cost of capital of Novelis is in the mid-8s. The cost of debt, the weighted average cost of debt would be somewhere around 5.3%. Well, most of it is towards the end of the decade. We have no early maturities. After we did the last refinancing of the $750 million in September last year, our debt maturity profile is now approaching towards the end of the decade. The only renewal that we can talk about is the ABL renewal, which will happen in the middle of this year, but we are very comfortable with the maturity profile of our debt.
Just a couple of questions. On the CAPEX side, we have an idea of the Novelis CAPEX. So, for India, what has happened so far in the nine months? What is the target for this year and next year? How much have you spent in the 9 months?
So, this year, our target is about, we will be finishing the year at around INR 8,000 crores, and you need to add to that the INR 2,000 crores we paid to get the Bandha Mine. So, roughly this year will be INR 10,000 crores, and next year we also will be in the same range, about INR 10,000 crores to INR 12,000 crores, because the Aditya Refinery recycling plant projects will be going. So, that is the next year's forecast as well. In 9 months, we have spent about 7,000, I think. So, we will be finishing the year. Not 7,000, I think it is about 6,000. We finish the year at 8,000, plus the 2,000 of Bandha, which will take it to 10,000.
And what is in the current split of the INR 59,000 crore of net debt, how much net debt is on India books?
India is a negative 4,000. You are talking about gross or net? Because net in India is negative now. So, negative INR 600 crores.
Just one question on the cost side. This quarter, your cost also went up by 1%, and next quarter also you are expecting a 1% increase? Has there been any delay in the Chakla mine? I think earlier we were talking about a start end of FY '26, and now the presentation is saying the first half of FY '27. And just last question, alumina sales for the 4th Quarter expectation?
Yes. This quarter, just let me now clarify. Last quarter, when I talked about the cost, I said the cost had a one-time impact of an RPO reversal. So, if you look at it quarter-on-quarter, the way it stands, it is 2% up this quarter versus last quarter. But if you take out that impact of the RPO that I mentioned in the last quarter, the cost was flat. But as you will see, it is real numbers, it is 2% higher, because last quarter had a one-time write back of the RPO that I did mention in the script. So, we are still trying to get the certain clearances sorted out. We thought we would do the box cut in January. The box cut now looks like more likely like April. So, yes, there has been about a quarter delay. Alumina sales for the 4th Quarter should be around 170 Kt to 180 KT. We did 160 in Q3.
No, I understand right now North America might be lower, but let's say before the Oswego incident, what was the recycling content in North America? Maybe ballpark numbers.
It is pretty much close to the company average, you know. I mean, it will be very close to the company average, which is around 63%.
So, one question on Novelis and one on standalone. We see a kind of 11% volume decline in Novelis in this quarter. And if we go by the history, normally 4Q and 1Q are heavy quarters for the company. And you hinted at yesterday's call at some mitigating measures to external suppliers at all in terms of how to address the customer volumes. So, will we see a similar kind of volume decline in the coming two quarters before our Bay Minette is up? Or will we see some kind of reduction in the decline due to the mitigating measures? And a follow-up question, at what cost will it come? Will it be more margin dilutive for us?
So, the volume impact was 72 Kt. In this quarter, you can expect a pretty much similar volume impact because of Oswego in the 4th Quarter. And that is net of sort of the production loss. So, the net volume loss, i.e., low production, less all the procurement that we are able to do, we will be pretty much close to 72 Kt. And Quarter 4 is always one of the peak quarters that we have. So, you are right to think that in Quarter 4, we will see significantly higher volumes as compared to Quarter 3. But I am just trying, and we don't give you a quarter by quarter forecast in any case. But all that I can tell you is that it is very safe to assume that the impact on volume from Oswego in Quarter 4 will be similar to Quarter 3 at around 70 Kt.
And the mitigating measures you suggested yesterday in terms of getting material from external suppliers, etc., will that kind of contribute to some kind of volume addition? And at what cost will that be? And on the price, on the EBITDA, more impact on the EBITDA mitigating measures or it will be similar?
Well, the implication, that is what I am saying, that the net impact will be 72, which includes all the mitigation measures that we will be taking. So, based upon the impact net of mitigation measures, we will have a similar net impact of 72 Kt. That includes the mitigation. So, the EBITDA will be, again, the impact in 4th Quarter will be a little bit higher. I mean, 3rd Quarter was, as you know, net $54 million. This could be more in the $60 million to $65 million in the 4th Quarter on EBITDA. That is the guidance I can give to you.
Thanks, sir, for the clarification. And one question on the India business is that you mentioned in your PPT that there is some kind of demand destruction happening on the copper side because of the price rise. And from 3Q to 4Q, we have seen an even further increase in the copper prices. If we were to combine that with the lower TC/RCs, could we see a kind of combination by which our EBITDA from the copper business can fall substantially into, say, half the peak level we were ever achieved? Yes, some clarity on that.
I didn't talk about any demand destruction of copper. I think that Q3 volumes are a bit low because it was the Diwali season, and the copper prices sharply ran up. So, people just ran down a bit of inventory. In fact, we are predicting Q4 will be an extremely strong quarter for copper. The demand is very strong, and the EBITDA guidance of INR 600 crore is completely comfortable in Q4.