Luiz Carvalho: All right. Thank you very much. That was very clear.
Operator: Our next question comes from Pedro Soares with BTG Pactual. You may proceed sir,
Pedro Soares: Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon Roberto, Pedro, Rosana. I have two questions. The first is about your CapEx and also your portfolio optimization. You’re bringing the tone of adapting to the moment, the cycle and optimizing our portfolio. Could you please share a little bit about what the investments look like for 2024? Are you going to work on delayed investment or recurring investments that are kind of being pushed forward to 2025? And so, it something that we should expect to see in 2025 for these delays to be realized? Or should — are they likely to be split further down the road? Now this — I know this is nothing new. We’ve been talking about some divestment processes and for some assets, could you share anything with us about that?
Any news in that trend during the past few months? And my second question is with regard to cash generation over the year 2024. With the reduction in investment for ’24, should we still expect — even in a low cycle, a free cash flow that is closer to breakeven? Or is that likely to occur during 2025 instead?
Pedro Freitas: Hi, Pedro, how are you doing. All right. Both CapEx. Actually, I would say that I’m going to exclude Braskem Idesa because they have a terminal. The terminal still continues, but it tends to pollute the numbers. Now our CapEx for ’23 was USD750 million. And the number for ’24 is $400 million. So, what has changed. In ’23, we had a central stop, which is something in the order of approximately $80 million. If it’s a large stop, a small stop is going to be $60 million. So, $60 million to $80 million for a central stop, which is not going to occur in 2024. Then we expanded our Green PE and the green ethene plant in Triunfo, which was also completed in 2023. So that brings us another almost $100 million at least $50 million to $60 million.
So just those two major events alone would, in and of itself bring our CapEx reduction to approximately $60 million. There’s another aspect. It gives the strategic investment. We have the innovation and technology investments. We have investments in a unit in the South, which is under construction. So, when we look at everything that has already been done in the past, that number drops even lower. And since we are in a low cycle, and we are operating under low rates. We don’t need to do investments based on availability of assets because there are some investments we can apply at a higher rate that keep the plant running in a standard location. But during a low cycle that does not need to be done, but you can distribute CapEx more efficiently.
And that also involves renegotiating with equipment suppliers, with service providers. They are working on the maintenance on the plant. But at the end of the day, when we look at the portfolio of $400 million, compared to a normal year in our cycle, that does not represent an expressive reduction in our CapEx in essence. Of course, the number is lower. But when we start thinking about why the number is lower, it is fully justified for the current context and it does not represent just as you worded it. It does not represent delaying investment for 2025. It really was a reduction as a result of the present cycle, and projects that have been completed, and we don’t have new projects replacing them. We don’t have any major investment in strategic projects for this year.
So, looking at the whole of it, we do have lower CapEx this year and next year in ’25, we are likely to go back to $500 million or $600 million for the normal level. That’s our forecast for next year. Now with regard to divestments we have smaller participations. There are some elements that we have assessed in the line of investment, but as a whole, they are peripheral projects, they are noncore projects. And they are within — they fall under the value-generation philosophy. There are some cases where we invest in smaller and noncore projects where we have a relevant fiscal footprint. But again, it’s nothing very expressive, nothing very significant in terms of value generation. And lastly, with regard to cash generation. I think the way you ordered it, talking about breakeven is very interesting.
We have an outlook for a better EBITDA, a lower CapEx and interest, working capital, taxes at historic levels, and we’re going to arrive at a number that gives us perhaps a cash flow around the breakeven point without considering Alagoas. So, our estimate for the year now when we’re thinking about cash generation, I think it would make sense for us to think about cash consumption and what we would have. I think it’s similar to what we’d have in terms of what is reasonable to think for this year.
Operator: Our next question comes from Eduardo [indiscernible] with Santander. You may proceed sir.
Unidentified Analyst: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. My first question pertains to Mexico. Looking at the Pemex supply, I wonder how sustainable is this supply above contracted volumes? And what is PEMEX rated as internationally? And my next question with regard to Brazil, with the logistics disruptions, has this helped us to gain market share compared to imported products? I can imagine that imported products are being traded with a mind to the higher import costs. So, in that sense, has Braskem managed to regain some of its volume and price.
