Refused to commit on athena power unit restart.

As we split the group into five entities after the de-merger, how would the dividend policy look like for each of the entities?

Post-de-merger, five companies' boards, run independently, will be free to design their own policies. Vedanta's policy on dividend is becoming more descriptive and principle-based, rather than prescriptive and rule-based. Currently there is a requirement to pay at least 30% profit as dividend; going forward, board will have flexibility. Same way, the zinc dividend currently has to pass on within 6 months - going forward, Vedanta board will have flexibility of this money upstreaming. So in summary, five companies will have different policies, but overall, they will be aligned with the current policy thematically.

So the mandate of upstreaming a dividend of Hindustan Zinc goes away with the new policy, is that correct?

Correct. The Vedanta Limited board will have the flexibility of passing it on or not passing it on within the timeframe they deem fit, looking at multiple factors for the company.

Now that we still have about USD4.7 billion of debt at VRL, what are the modes of addressing that debt? Is selling stake in one or more entities an option?

At Vedanta Resources, the need for the loan in FY27 is almost USD0.3 billion. Additionally, an ICL is due as well, which is VRL to VDL. Total combined half a billion is the requirement for the principal amount. The interest is in fact a shy of half a billion. So we need a billion at Vedanta Resources. Brand fee is more or less same at 400 and the balance 600 means paying out almost USD1 to USD 1.1 billion from Vedanta India's side. So with 4% to 5% dividend and the routine brand fee, VRL can be managed. That also means almost 0.5 billion or 0.6 billion will be de-leveraging organically. As we de-merge, we'll have the optionality of a differentiated capital structure - many anchor investors domestically and globally are very keen to come in the cap table.

On Zinc International, where are we on the capacity expansion at Gamsberg and by when do we expect to achieve full ramp-up? And on copper, given negative treatment charges, how are we thinking about the segment?

The Gamsberg project is 94% complete and this is now the doubling of our run-of-mine from 4 million to 8 million tons. We're looking at capacity from the current around 2,20,000 to 2,40,000 tons, another 2,20,000. So all in all, about 4,50,000 tons. The team is anticipating to commission in the next quarter and to have the plant ramped up for the rest of the year. A ramp-up for a plant of this size should be anywhere between 12 to 18 months; 15 months would be a best-in-class ramp-up. Within the year, you'll see substantial ramp-up from Phase 2.

Continuing on copper, given the brand fee changes - how should we think about profitability?

Copper within the Vedanta portfolio is a trading business practically. Over the last couple of years, the margin has been wafer-thin. The brand fee for copper from the current 3% will go down to 0.75% and that alone from India's viewpoint means higher EBITDA by 2.25%. We do foresee the margin in the Copper business going from roughly 1% right now, going to at least 5% in FY '27.

On VRL in FY '26, despite the brand fee and the dividend, if you see net debt has just reduced by $200-odd million. So could you broadly share what were the cash outflow heads there for FY '26?

In FY '26, dividend and the brand fee is almost $1.1 billion. There is a funding for KCM last fiscal, almost $330 million, and hence that is one reason. And secondly, the entire inter-corporate loan to $220 odd million has been paid from VRL to VDL. And in that case, 5.3 has become 5.2 in the last fiscal. So it's mostly the funding for the KCM.

On the brand fee for Copper, what's the delta we're looking at, and until what year is the brand fee at 3% fixed for other entities?

About $3.1 billion-$3.2 billion is the Copper revenue, and on that last year, the number has been 3% brand fee. Now that number will go down to 0.75%. So the impact of the brand fee on Copper is about $65 million in FY '26, FY '27 lower amount. From Vedanta India's viewpoint, all the five companies combined brand fee FY '27 remains similar to last year. The Copper impact is mitigated by volume and the pricing. Rates are revised every three years - so it is fixed for next three years till FY '29.

On Zinc International, we are guiding for EBITDA increasing from $100 million to eventually $450 million in FY '28. In the last many years, we've missed and delayed the guidance for Gamsberg Phase 2. So what has been the key reasons behind the delay and how confident are we?

Today the project is 94% complete. So we're very confident about the ramp-up plan and commissioning in this quarter and ramp-up for the rest of the year. Firstly, to produce 8 million tons of run-of-mine, given the stripping ratio of 3 to 4, we've had a lot to do on catching up of the waste stripping at the Gamsberg open pit, and that took the better part of the last two years to actually catch up. So this was almost three years of delayed in stripping, waste stripping. That is now adequately caught up. We've also had some delays on the ground - skills needed for certain types of work, especially in projects. In South Africa, capital has dried up. We are sitting with a healthy stockpile in front of the plant.

The resultant entity still has $1 billion of debt. How are we going to service the debt - will it be largely through dividends from Hindustan Zinc? And on aluminium, what's the preference in terms of de-leveraging and payouts?

If you look at overall Vedanta right now, $5.5 billion net debt and debt to EBITDA almost 0.95. Pre-de-merger, we have made sure that each of the entities in terms of their debt and the cash flow, they are in harmony. Vedanta Oil and Gas will have nil debt. Vedanta Iron and Steel will have no debt more than $0.2 billion. That leaves aluminium, debt of almost $3.5 billion, and in aluminium debt to EBITDA ratio almost 1.3. Given their cash flows, that will not be a challenge. Vedanta Power debt maturities are truly long-term, 7 to 10 years. Vedanta Limited's debt will be almost a billion, and there debt to EBITDA will be 0.4x. A combination of profitability at Vedanta Limited through FACOR, through Zinc International, and the Copper debt can be serviced. Zinc India dividend remains additional optionality.

Possible to break the Saudi $2 billion by years, or the way you explained the capital structure?

What we have agreed with the local government, the entire funding will be happening in the ratio of 75:25 debt to equity. So, 25% will be Vedanta contribution as equity, 75% will be the funding locally at about 2% to 2.5% cost of funding. This 25% funding of the amount you mentioned will be over several years and that will be managed through Vedanta Limited free cash flows.

On critical minerals, how should we understand the option value?

Out of the seven critical mineral blocks with Vedanta, if you look at the timeline of exploration, three blocks we hope to finish exploration by 2028. And normally we do mine planning one year ahead of finishing of exploration, somewhere in 2027. That means if we add 36 months of putting up projects of mining and smelting, we should look at somewhere around 2030 adding three more metals to the bottom line of Vedanta.

On the de-leveraging during the quarter - is part of the Hindustan Zinc stake sale proceeds also included in this de-leveraging?

Yes, INR7,370 crores is de-leveraging in the fourth quarter. It includes every aspect, both source and application. So be it paying a dividend in the previous quarter or divesting a 1.5% zinc - yes, answer is yes.

On the entity-wise net cash, where exactly would the debt of Bloom Fountain go to?

Bloom Fountain is a part of Iron and Steel. The current Vedanta where the net debt, net of cash, is about 5.5 billion and leverage 0.95. Iron and Steel and Oil and Gas are zero or almost net zero debt companies. Vedanta Power leverage will be 4.7x. Vedanta Limited will have a $1 billion debt, and significant portion of debt goes to Vedanta Aluminum. So out of 5.5, 3.5 goes to Vedanta Aluminum, and looking at the EBITDA of that business, their leverage will be still 1.3.

Now that we've de-merged into different entities, if we want to go for any acquisition, will that be related to that particular segment only, or can we do something that clubs another business?

From an overall M&A standpoint, our Chairman is still very involved in all M&A across the company. Anything outside of the portfolio would still happen at the holdco level. Holdco will be set up to make sure there is some visibility of capital allocation across all 5 businesses, but also with its own M&A team. If it makes more sense, synergies wise to go into one of the 5 companies it would. The CEOs and leadership of their respective companies will be mandated to continue to grow organically. Any M&A depending on the size, shape, that's very in line with the company's strategy will happen at the company level, anything else above we happen at a holdco-level together with the chairman.

On aluminium operations - consistent delays in mines like bauxite and coal mines. Where are we on approvals? When will the aluminium smelter be fully commissioned? When can we start seeing lower alumina cost of production?

On Alumina, probably we will see a $50 reduction as we go into the quarter 1. By quarter 2, we should see alumina cost hovering around $750. At constant LME - it has 2 parts: one, we should appreciate the Middle East impact on furnace oil and caustic. Had it not been there, probably we would have seen a cost of around 710, 715. As of now, based on whatever cost we are seeing, we expect the cost to be around broadly 740, 750 in quarter 2 of FY '27. If we were to remove the Middle East cost implications, probably 700, 710 with 80%, 85% of the captive alumina.

And aluminium cost of production?

If you have seen the guidance, we're guiding 1650 to 1700. Compared to quarter 4, you can expect flattish to 1% lower because of some impact of the raw material on the aluminium side, some of the carbon cost. So for that, the yearly guidance remains 1650 to 1700, but H1 should be probably flat to 1% lower compared to quarter 4. On BALCO expansion: 70 of the total 304 pots that we are putting in, we commissioned by March. The delay was basically through partner substitution and resource augmentation. Going forward Q1 to Q4 on a run rate basis, broadly we will be doing around 105 KT a quarter. So Q1 should be 25%, Q2 ramped up to 50%, Q3 75%, and as we go into the Q4, it will be 100%.

On the Lanjigarh refinery and bauxite/coal mines status?

As we exited FY26, we exited at a run rate of close to 4 million tons. Our guidance is 4-4.1. We should achieve the rated capacity in Q1. On coal mines: Kuraloi - we have got the mining lease maybe a week back. In a month or so, we should start seeing mining operations. Coming to Ghogharpalli, EC has been recommended at the start of April. We are also targeting FC in this quarter. Sijimali - we have got the LOI extension done, FC-1 is granted, EC we're expecting next month, and hopefully in H1 we will see the mines opening.

On Sijimali specifically - why is the delay happening? Are there local issues disturbing the process?

Let me address it in two parts. First on regulatory approvals - there was a LOI which got expired in March. It was an administrative process, and it took some time before that LOI was extended. We've just got the letter yesterday. On the noise we're talking about - we continue to engage closely with the state government, local administration, and surrounding communities to ensure smooth and responsible operation. This engagement is driven through focused community development initiatives across healthcare, education, infrastructure, culture preservation, and livelihood generation. This is an auctioned mine. So maybe approvals might have taken a little longer time, but we are in touch with the administration, with the community, and we expect to open this mine within the timeline that we have committed.