• Agricultural Inputs
  • Basic Materials
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. logo
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
CF · US · NYSE
80.93
USD
+0.08
(0.10%)
Executives
Name Title Pay
Mr. Michael P. McGrane Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary --
Mr. Ashraf K. Malik Senior Vice President of Manufacturing & Distribution --
Mr. W. Anthony Will President, Chief Executive Officer & Director 4.11M
Mr. Martin A. Jarosick C.F.A. Vice President of Investor Relations --
Ms. Linda M. Dempsey Vice President of Public Affairs --
Ms. Susan L. Menzel Executive Vice President & Chief Administrative Officer 1.3M
Mr. Christopher D. Bohn Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer & Director 1.49M
Mr. Bert A. Frost Executive Vice President of Sales, Market Development & Supply Chain 1.45M
Mr. Gregory D. Cameron Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer --
Ms. Julie Scheck Freigang Vice President & Chief Information Officer --
Insider Transactions
Date Name Title Acquisition Or Disposition Stock / Options # of Shares Price
2024-06-17 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 45125 0
2024-06-17 Cameron Gregory D EVP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12893 0
2024-06-17 Cameron Gregory D EVP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12377 0
2024-06-17 Cameron Gregory D officer - 0 0
2024-04-18 HAGGE STEPHEN J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3267 0
2024-04-18 EAVES JOHN W director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 Ellerbusch Susan A director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 White Celso L. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 Wagler Theresa E director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 DeHaas Deborah L director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 TOELLE MICHAEL director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 Noonan Anne P director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 Madrazo Yris Jesus director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-04-18 Ahmed Javed director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2010 0
2024-03-14 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11029 84.1066
2024-03-12 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6000 85.0027
2024-03-05 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 0
2024-02-29 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 184838 0
2024-02-29 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 81884 80.72
2024-02-29 Menzel Susan L EVP and Chief Admin. Officer A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 29338 0
2024-02-29 Menzel Susan L EVP and Chief Admin. Officer D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12958 80.72
2024-02-29 McGrane Michael Patrick VP, Gen. Counsel & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5378 0
2024-02-29 McGrane Michael Patrick VP, Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2343 80.72
2024-02-29 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 17602 0
2024-02-29 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7548 80.72
2024-02-29 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8208 0
2024-02-29 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 14669 0
2024-02-29 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6461 80.72
2024-02-29 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8208 0
2024-02-29 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 47675 0
2024-02-29 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21078 80.72
2024-02-29 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8802 0
2024-02-29 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3950 80.72
2024-02-29 Bohn Christopher D EVP and COO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 47675 0
2024-02-29 Bohn Christopher D EVP and COO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21082 80.72
2024-02-01 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3224 0
2024-02-01 Bohn Christopher D EVP and COO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12897 0
2024-01-04 Barnard Douglas C EVP, Corp. Dev.& Legal Advisor D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2980 81.14
2024-01-04 Bohn Christopher D EVP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3824 81.14
2024-01-04 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 849 81.14
2024-01-04 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3820 81.14
2024-01-04 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1436 81.14
2024-01-04 McGrane Michael Patrick VP, Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1039 81.14
2024-01-04 Menzel Susan L EVP and Chief Admin. Officer D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2400 81.14
2024-01-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 15556 81.14
2024-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1513 0
2024-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1246 81.14
2024-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1513 0
2024-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 463 0
2024-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3355 0
2024-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 382 82.7
2024-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 463 0
2024-01-03 McGrane Michael Patrick VP, Gen. Counsel & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2581 0
2024-01-03 McGrane Michael Patrick VP, Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 301 82.7
2024-01-03 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4645 0
2024-01-03 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 416 82.7
2024-01-03 Menzel Susan L EVP AND CHIEF ADMIN. OFFICER A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7742 0
2024-01-03 Menzel Susan L EVP AND CHIEF ADMIN. OFFICER D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 801 82.7
2024-01-03 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10839 0
2024-01-03 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1125 82.7
2024-01-03 Bohn Christopher D EVP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11871 0
2024-01-03 Bohn Christopher D EVP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1191 82.7
2024-01-03 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 38711 0
2024-01-03 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4453 82.7
2024-01-03 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2581 0
2024-01-03 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 264 82.7
2024-01-03 Barnard Douglas C EVP, Corp. Dev.&Legal Advisor D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 870 82.7
2023-11-15 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 80.0956
2023-11-08 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 470 0
2023-11-08 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1900 0
2023-10-17 Ellerbusch Susan A director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1849 0
2023-10-17 Ellerbusch Susan A - 0 0
2023-09-01 Frost Bert A EVP,Sales,MktDev,SupplyChn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 78.4528
2023-08-09 Barnard Douglas C EVP, Corp. Dev.&Legal Advisor D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 387 82.3709
2023-08-07 Barnard Douglas C EVP, Corp. Dev.&Legal Advisor D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9700 80.3692
2023-07-07 McGrane Michael Patrick VP, Gen. Counsel & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3584 0
2023-07-07 McGrane Michael Patrick VP, Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 0 0
2023-07-07 Menzel Susan L EVP and Chief Admin. Officer A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3584 0
2023-05-31 Frost Bert A Sr VP Sales Mkt Dev Supply Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 15000 60.992
2023-05-30 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 17000 61.279
2023-05-03 Ahmed Javed director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 HAGGE STEPHEN J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3521 0
2023-05-03 EAVES JOHN W director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 DeHaas Deborah L director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 Madrazo Yris Jesus director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 Noonan Anne P director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 TOELLE MICHAEL director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 Wagler Theresa E director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-05-03 White Celso L. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2167 0
2023-02-28 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 32672 0
2023-02-28 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 14474 85.89
2023-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr VP Sales Mkt Dev Supply Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 35185 0
2023-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr VP Sales Mkt Dev Supply Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 15587 85.89
2023-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 150794 0
2023-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 66802 85.89
2023-02-28 Barnard Douglas C Sr VP, Gen Counsel & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 27646 0
2023-02-28 Barnard Douglas C Sr VP, Gen Counsel & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12212 85.89
2023-02-28 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20105 0
2023-02-28 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8872 85.89
2023-02-28 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12566 0
2023-02-28 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5533 85.89
2023-02-28 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6333 0
2023-02-28 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11310 0
2023-02-28 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4977 85.89
2023-02-28 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6333 0
2023-02-27 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 582 85.29
2023-01-03 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7185 0
2023-01-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3821 82.41
2023-01-03 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1847 81.95
2023-01-03 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 29583 0
2023-01-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 15576 82.41
2023-01-03 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7736 81.95
2023-01-03 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5071 0
2023-01-04 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2385 82.41
2023-01-03 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1086 81.95
2023-01-03 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2958 0
2023-01-04 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1454 82.41
2023-01-03 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 679 81.95
2023-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1541 0
2023-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 688 0
2022-09-27 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 29924 0
2022-09-27 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 29924 0
2023-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2536 0
2023-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1218 82.41
2022-10-19 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7500 0
2022-10-19 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7500 0
2023-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 608 81.95
2023-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 688 0
2023-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1541 0
2023-01-03 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1690 0
2023-01-04 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 866 82.41
2023-01-03 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7607 0
2023-01-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3825 82.41
2023-01-03 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1723 81.95
2023-01-03 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP Gen. Counsel & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5494 0
2023-01-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2974 82.41
2023-01-03 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1467 81.95
2022-08-26 Noonan Anne P D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3000 118.64
2022-08-24 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20964 112.0062
2022-08-24 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 77174 110.05
2022-08-24 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 25346 110.5027
2022-08-24 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 18558 110.6237
2022-08-24 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21442 111.0249
2022-06-06 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6684 94.9048
2022-05-31 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5317 98.77
2022-05-31 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 32155 62.246
2022-05-31 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 32155 101.1785
2022-05-31 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 32155 0
2022-05-31 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 32155 62.246
2022-05-11 Wagler Theresa E A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 TOELLE MICHAEL A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 Noonan Anne P A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 HAGGE STEPHEN J A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2615 0
2022-05-11 EAVES JOHN W A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 White Celso L. A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 Madrazo Yris Jesus A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 DeHaas Deborah L A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-05-11 Ahmed Javed A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 1569 0
2022-03-14 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4085 93.9337
2022-03-11 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5033 97.319
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12865 62.246
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2900 95.5328
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2018 96.4989
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7135 97.4212
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 812 97.9259
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2700 95.5934
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1300 96.5573
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6889 97.3997
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1000 97.8615
2022-03-11 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2686 97.5173
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 12865 0
2022-03-10 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 12865 62.246
2022-03-08 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - I-Discretionary Phantom Stock 1132.319 93.28
2022-03-08 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - I-Discretionary Phantom Stock 1132.319 0
2022-03-07 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 46975 51.174
2022-03-07 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 46975 96.8737
2022-03-07 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10441 97.2452
2022-03-07 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 46975 51.174
2022-03-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 60200 36.19
2022-03-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 34578 87.4963
2022-03-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 25622 88.4456
2022-03-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 60200 0
2022-03-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 60200 36.19
2022-03-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20000 90.0308
2022-03-01 FURBACHER STEPHEN A D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4000 82.5701
2022-03-02 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4463 84.5
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 415140 30.95
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 341140 36.19
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 720016 80.0968
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 150065 62.246
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 117425 51.174
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 158617 0
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 70268 81.19
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 44400 38.024
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 30475 41.59
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 378629 80.6009
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 44400 38.024
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 117425 51.174
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 150065 62.246
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 341140 36.19
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 415140 30.95
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 165050 80.15
2022-02-28 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 30475 41.59
2022-02-28 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20164 0
2022-02-28 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8899 81.19
2022-02-28 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20000 80.3461
2022-02-28 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5376 0
2022-02-28 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2349 81.19
2022-03-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 26760 36.19
2022-03-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3883 84.1435
2022-02-28 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12098 0
2022-03-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 22877 84.6162
2022-02-28 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5327 81.19
2022-03-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 26760 36.19
2022-02-28 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 588 81.19
2022-02-28 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 32260 0
2022-02-28 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 14292 81.19
2022-02-28 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 29572 0
2022-02-28 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 13101 81.19
2022-03-02 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 16471 85.8175
2022-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 36445 62.246
2022-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 61075 51.174
2022-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 37638 0
2022-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 16674 81.19
2022-02-23 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4613 0
2022-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 97520 80.3594
2022-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 61075 51.174
2022-02-28 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 36445 62.246
2022-02-25 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4000 77.2229
2022-02-25 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4000 77.46
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 50170 36.19
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 27870 62.246
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 18800 51.174
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 13900 38.024
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 110740 79.3676
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 13900 38.024
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 18800 51.174
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 27870 62.246
2022-02-25 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 50170 36.19
2022-02-24 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 10000 78.4776
2022-02-24 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3000 0
2022-02-24 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3000 0
2022-02-24 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4000 0
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 78330 30.95
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 25790 77.4828
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 36100 38.024
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 24400 41.59
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 113040 78.2565
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 44708 78.7955
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 24400 41.59
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 36100 38.024
2022-02-24 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 78330 30.95
2022-02-02 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 26890 36.19
2022-02-02 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 26890 75
2022-02-02 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 26890 36.19
2022-01-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 39191 0
2021-11-16 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 165050 0
2022-01-03 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 16054 70.59
2022-01-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9789 71.13
2021-11-16 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 165050 0
2022-01-04 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5879 0
2022-01-03 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2143 70.59
2022-01-04 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1515 71.13
2022-01-04 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3618 0
2022-01-03 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 946 70.59
2022-01-04 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 617 71.13
2022-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3015 0
2022-01-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1276 70.59
2022-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 738 71.13
2022-01-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9044 0
2022-01-03 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3821 70.59
2022-01-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2482 71.13
2022-01-04 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2110 0
2022-01-04 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 510 71.13
2022-01-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9044 0
2022-01-03 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3417 70.59
2022-01-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2487 71.13
2022-01-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7235 0
2022-01-03 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3019 70.59
2022-01-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel&Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1903 71.13
2021-12-22 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9400 51.174
2021-12-22 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8575 62.246
2021-12-22 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 17975 70
2021-12-22 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5483 70
2021-12-22 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 8575 62.246
2021-12-22 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 9400 51.174
2021-12-22 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20000 36.19
2021-12-22 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 50080 30.95
2021-12-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20000 36.19
2021-12-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20000 30.95
2021-12-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 40000 68.0003
2021-12-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 68
2021-12-22 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 70080 70.0002
2021-12-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 20000 30.95
2021-12-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 20000 36.19
2021-12-22 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 20000 36.19
2021-12-22 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 50080 30.95
2021-12-16 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20000 30.95
2021-12-16 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 20000 30.95
2021-12-16 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 25000 65
2021-11-19 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 2000 65.9843
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 33290 30.95
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 14100 51.174
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 13900 38.024
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 61290 67.5574
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10255 67.6769
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 13900 38.024
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 14100 51.174
2021-11-18 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 33290 30.95
2021-11-12 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10000 65
2021-11-08 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP,Gen.Counsel&Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 35207 62.6502
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 19580 30.95
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6100 58
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 14050 36.19
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11100 38.024
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6100 41.59
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 51990 60.0061
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 6100 41.59
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 11100 38.024
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 14050 36.19
2021-10-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 19580 30.95
2021-10-01 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 44400 38.024
2021-10-01 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 30475 58
2021-10-01 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 30475 41.59
2021-10-01 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 49400 60.005
2021-10-01 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 30475 41.59
2021-10-01 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 44400 38.024
2021-10-01 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 56580 30.95
2021-10-01 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20000 58
2021-10-01 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 36580 60.0036
2021-10-01 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 56580 30.95
2021-08-09 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 27450 29.918
2021-08-09 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21879 47.07
2021-08-09 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 27450 29.918
2021-07-19 Madrazo Yris Jesus director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3263 0
2021-07-19 Madrazo Yris Jesus - 0 0
2021-06-01 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP,Gen.Counsel&Secretary A - I-Discretionary Phantom Stock 13368.898 0
2021-06-01 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 40001 55.008
2021-05-18 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev&SuppChn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 56
2021-05-18 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10000 30.95
2021-05-18 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10000 56
2021-05-18 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 10000 30.95
2021-05-14 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20600 29.918
2021-05-13 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec D - G-Gift Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6019 0
2021-05-14 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 20600 54.0503
2021-05-14 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 20600 0
2021-05-14 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 20600 29.918
2021-05-07 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev&Supp Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 27450 29.918
2021-05-06 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev&Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 52.0016
2021-05-07 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev&Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 27450 53
2021-05-07 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev&Supp Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 54
2021-05-07 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev&Supp Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 27450 29.918
2021-05-07 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9150 41.59
2021-05-07 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9150 29.918
2021-05-07 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 18300 53.008
2021-05-07 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 9150 29.918
2021-05-07 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 9150 41.59
2021-05-07 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 40000 54.2218
2021-05-07 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5650 36.46
2021-05-07 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5650 55.0081
2021-05-07 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 5650 36.46
2021-05-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8125 41.59
2021-05-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6850 53.0081
2021-05-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6850 29.918
2021-05-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8125 55.008
2021-05-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 8125 41.59
2021-05-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 6850 29.918
2021-05-04 Wagler Theresa E director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 TOELLE MICHAEL director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 Noonan Anne P director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 HAGGE STEPHEN J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 EAVES JOHN W director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 White Celso L. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 DeHaas Deborah L director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 Ahmed Javed director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3023 0
2021-05-04 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 5038 0
2021-05-04 DeHaas Deborah L - 0 0
2021-03-15 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6100 29.918
2021-03-15 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6100 50.7364
2021-03-15 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 6100 29.918
2021-03-11 Frost Bert A Sr.VP, Sales, Mkt Dev &Sup Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 22497 50.8397
2021-03-08 Davisson William director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 10000 50
2021-03-02 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 98787 0
2021-03-02 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 43763 46.01
2021-03-02 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11183 0
2021-03-02 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4896 46.01
2021-03-02 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3230 0
2021-03-02 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 947 46.01
2021-03-02 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7455 0
2021-03-02 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2129 46.01
2021-03-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7921 0
2021-03-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3453 46.01
2021-03-02 Frost Bert A Sr.VP, Sales, Mkt Dev &Sup Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 24230 0
2021-03-02 Frost Bert A Sr.VP, Sales, Mkt Dev &Sup Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10670 46.01
2021-03-02 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 18639 0
2021-03-02 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8201 46.01
2021-03-02 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 18639 0
2021-03-02 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8198 46.01
2021-03-01 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 639 45.9
2021-02-26 White Celso L. director A - P-Purchase Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 5.099 47.9534
2021-01-04 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3156 0
2021-01-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec. A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 13152 0
2021-01-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec. D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4532 38.53
2021-01-04 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert, UK A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4209 0
2021-01-04 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert, UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1221 38.53
2021-01-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP, Sales, Mkt Dev &Sup Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 17098 0
2021-01-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP, Sales, Mkt Dev &Sup Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5772 38.53
2021-01-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 17098 0
2021-01-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4932 38.53
2021-01-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 66286 0
2021-01-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 23883 38.53
2021-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5261 0
2021-01-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1958 38.53
2021-01-04 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6313 0
2021-01-04 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1413 38.53
2021-01-04 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10522 0
2021-01-04 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3072 38.53
2020-11-24 White Celso L. director A - P-Purchase Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 815.066 38.0337
2020-10-09 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5059 31.33
2020-08-07 Frost Bert A Sr VP, Sales, Mkt Dev, Sup Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 15500 16.26
2020-08-07 Frost Bert A Sr VP, Sales, Mkt Dev, Sup Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11104 33.13
2020-08-07 Frost Bert A Sr VP, Sales, Mkt Dev, Sup Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 15500 16.26
2020-08-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 14000 16.26
2020-08-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10030 33.13
2020-08-07 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 14000 16.26
2020-06-08 Hopkins David P Managing Director CF Fert. UK A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1900 16.26
2020-06-08 Hopkins David P Managing Director CF Fert. UK D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1900 32.9115
2020-06-08 Hopkins David P Managing Director CF Fert. UK D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 1900 16.26
2020-05-26 Hopkins David P Managing Director CF Fert. UK A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2000 16.26
2020-05-26 Hopkins David P Managing Director CF Fert. UK D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2000 29.3741
2020-05-26 Hopkins David P Managing Director CF Fert. UK D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 2000 16.26
2020-05-22 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10000 13.408
2020-05-22 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7137 27.59
2020-05-22 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 10000 13.408
2020-05-21 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 25500 13.408
2020-05-21 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 18079 27.7
2020-05-21 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 25500 13.408
2020-05-20 White Celso L. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 Wagler Theresa E director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 TOELLE MICHAEL director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 Noonan Anne P director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 HAGGE STEPHEN J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 8361 0
2020-05-20 EAVES JOHN W director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 Davisson William director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-05-20 Ahmed Javed director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 4726 0
2020-03-16 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - I-Discretionary Phantom Stock 7441.772 0
2020-03-03 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 22767 38.14
2020-03-03 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 26625 38.14
2020-03-03 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1681 38.14
2020-03-03 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1097 38.14
2020-03-03 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1004 38.14
2020-03-03 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 650 38.14
2020-03-03 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1525 38.14
2020-03-03 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 924 38.14
2020-03-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1755 38.14
2020-03-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1151 38.14
2020-03-03 Frost Bert A Sr VP, Sales, Mkt Dev, Sup Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4941 38.14
2020-03-03 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3587 38.14
2020-03-03 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5294 38.14
2020-03-03 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec. D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4298 38.14
2020-03-03 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec. D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6083 38.14
2020-02-27 Dempsey Linda M VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3989 0
2020-02-27 Dempsey Linda M officer - 0 0
2020-01-30 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 51392 0
2020-01-30 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3630 0
2020-01-30 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2420 0
2020-01-30 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2904 0
2020-01-30 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4114 0
2020-01-30 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales, Mkt Dev & Sup Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11154 0
2020-01-30 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 8250 0
2020-01-30 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec. A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9702 0
2020-01-02 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 51846 0
2020-01-02 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 16115 46.4
2020-01-02 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3456 0
2020-01-02 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1229 46.4
2020-01-02 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6913 0
2020-01-02 Menzel Susan L Sr. VP, Human Resources D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1946 46.4
2020-01-02 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4320 0
2020-01-02 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1289 46.4
2020-01-02 Hopkins David P Managing Dir. CF Fert. UK A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3456 0
2020-01-02 Hopkins David P Managing Dir. CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1177 46.4
2020-01-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3888 0
2020-01-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1284 46.4
2020-01-02 Frost Bert A Sr. VP,Sales Mkt Dev & Sup Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12097 0
2020-01-02 Frost Bert A Sr. VP,Sales Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3871 46.4
2020-01-02 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11233 0
2020-01-02 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3165 46.4
2020-01-02 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec. A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 9505 0
2020-01-02 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Counsel & Sec. D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3021 46.4
2019-11-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales, Mkt Dev & Sup Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 13000 16.26
2019-11-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales, Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 13000 45.4952
2019-11-21 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales, Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 13000 16.26
2019-11-05 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3500 47.5
2019-10-18 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7500 18.56
2019-10-18 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4893 47.77
2019-10-18 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 7500 18.56
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 0 0
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 5650 36.46
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 6100 41.59
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 11100 38.024
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 9400 51.174
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 8575 62.246
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 14050 36.19
2019-09-01 Malik Ashraf K Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 19580 30.95
2019-08-29 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 53550 34.114
2019-08-29 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 53550 48.2444
2019-08-29 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7350 48.041
2019-08-30 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 34343 48.1894
2019-08-29 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 53550 34.114
2019-08-29 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21000 16.26
2019-08-29 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21000 48.2133
2019-08-29 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 21000 16.26
2019-08-26 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director D - G-Gift Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 9840 0
2019-08-07 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21600 16.406
2019-08-07 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 21600 50.16
2019-08-07 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 21600 16.406
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 33000 16.26
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 34000 13.408
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 33500 16.406
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 98878 50.73
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1622 51.52
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 33500 16.406
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 34000 13.408
2019-08-05 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 33000 16.26
2019-08-05 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 16.406
2019-08-05 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 5000 50.47
2019-08-05 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 5000 16.406
2019-06-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3665 16.406
2019-05-31 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12001 0
2019-06-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3665 41.145
2019-06-03 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 3665 16.406
2019-06-03 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,SalesMktDev,Supply Chain A - M-Exempt Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6000 16.406
2019-06-03 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,SalesMktDev,Supply Chain D - S-Sale Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6000 41.1706
2019-06-03 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,SalesMktDev,Supply Chain D - M-Exempt Employee Stock Option (right to buy) 6000 16.406
2019-05-08 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 5497 0
2019-05-07 FURBACHER STEPHEN A director D - S-Sale Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3000 42.01
2019-05-08 Ahmed Javed director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 ARZBAECHER ROBERT C director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 Davisson William director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 EAVES JOHN W director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 HAGGE STEPHEN J director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 JOHNSON JOHN D director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 Noonan Anne P director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 Wagler Theresa E director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 TOELLE MICHAEL director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-05-08 White Celso L. director A - A-Award Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share 3107 0
2019-03-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 438 42.08
2019-03-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 919 42.08
2019-03-04 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 188 42.08
2019-03-04 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 432 42.08
2019-03-04 Hall Adam L VP, Corporate Development D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 686 42.08
2019-03-04 Hall Adam L VP, Corporate Development D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1411 42.08
2019-03-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1058 42.08
2019-03-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP, Gen. Coun. & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2202 42.08
2019-03-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 428 42.08
2019-03-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 918 42.08
2019-03-04 Hall Adam L VP, Corporate Development D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 682 42.08
2019-03-04 Hall Adam L VP, Corporate Development D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1411 42.08
2019-03-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6356 42.08
2019-03-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 12484 42.08
2019-03-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1178 42.08
2019-03-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2450 42.08
2019-03-04 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 410 42.08
2019-03-04 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 868 42.08
2019-03-04 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1744 42.08
2019-03-04 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3429 42.08
2019-03-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 874 42.08
2019-03-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1774 42.08
2019-03-04 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 217 42.08
2019-03-04 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 435 42.08
2019-02-04 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 982 0
2019-02-04 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 14347 0
2019-02-04 Kelleher Dennis P. Sr VP and CFO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3936 0
2019-02-04 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 559 0
2019-02-04 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1125 0
2019-02-04 Hall Adam L VP, Corporate Development A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1685 0
2019-02-04 Frost Bert A Sr.VP,Sales,Mkt Dev & Sup Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2811 0
2019-02-04 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP, Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2108 0
2019-02-04 Barnard Douglas C Sr. VP,Gen.Counsel & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 2531 0
2019-01-02 Frost Bert A Sr.VP, Sales,Mkt Dev Supp Chn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 13361 0
2019-01-02 Frost Bert A Sr.VP, Sales,Mkt Dev Supp Chn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1962 42.03
2019-01-02 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3817 0
2019-01-02 O'Brien Rosemary L VP, Public Affairs D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 600 42.03
2019-01-02 Will W Anthony President & CEO A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 56307 0
2019-01-02 Will W Anthony President & CEO D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 7831 42.03
2019-01-02 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP,Gen. Counsel & Secretary A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 10498 0
2019-01-02 Barnard Douglas C Sr.VP,Gen. Counsel & Secretary D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1538 42.03
2019-01-02 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP. Manufacturing & D'istn A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 11452 0
2019-01-02 Bohn Christopher D Sr. VP. Manufacturing & D'istn D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 1542 42.03
2019-01-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 4295 0
2019-01-02 Hoker Richard A VP and Corporate Controller D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 637 42.03
2019-01-02 Hall Adam L VP, Corporate Development A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 6681 0
2019-01-02 Hall Adam L VP, Corporate Development D - F-InKind Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 924 42.03
2019-01-02 Hopkins David P Managing Director, CF Fert. UK A - A-Award Common stock, par value $0.01 per share 3817 0
Transcripts
- :
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries First Half and Second Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries Earnings Conference Call. With me today are Tony Will, President and CEO; Chris Bohn, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Greg Cameron, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Bert Frost, Executive Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first half and second quarter of 2024 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will.
Anthony Will :
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. I'm going to start with a big welcome to Greg Cameron, who joined the CF Industries team as our Chief Financial Officer in June as being his first earnings call with us. Greg brings a strong background in executive leadership finance and clean energy. He is succeeding Chris Bohn, who was promoted to Chief Operating Officer. So welcome, Greg, and congratulations, Chris. Turning to earnings. Yesterday, we posted financial results for the second quarter of 2024, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of over $750 million. This brought adjusted EBITDA for the first half of this year to $1.2 billion. We're very pleased with our performance during the quarter, both in terms of how well we operate and also the progress we have made on our decarbonization and clean energy projects. With that, Chris is going to provide more detail on our operating results as well as on our strategic initiatives. Chris?
Christopher Bohn:
Thanks, Tony. The CF Industries team delivered outstanding operational performance during the second quarter. We operated our ammonia plant at 99% utilization rate in the second quarter following a challenging first quarter of production outages. This utilization performance includes the Waggaman ammonia production facility which has been operating approximately 10% above nameplate capacity following its first significant CF led maintenance event. Most importantly, we operated safely. Our 12-month recordable incident rate at the end of the quarter was 0.17 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, significantly better than industry averages and one of the company's lowest incident rates ever. We continue to advance the series of strategic initiatives. These include our industry-leading carbon capture and sequestration projects that will generate low carbon product and significant 45Q tax credits. The Donaldsonville project is on track with sequestration expected to begin in 2025. We also recently announced the carbon capture and sequestration project at our Yazoo City, Mississippi complex. We will invest approximately $100 million in the site to enable ExxonMobil to transport and sequester up to 0.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. We expect sequestration at Yazoo City to begin in 2028. Additionally, commissioning for our green ammonia project at Donaldsonville is ongoing as we work to integrate safely, the electrolyzer into our ammonia operations. We continue to evaluate construction of a greenfield low-carbon ammonia facility in Louisiana with Global Partners. We have made additional progress on our auto thermal reforming ammonia plant FEED study, which should be complete before the end of the year. We remain focused on a disciplined approach based on the return profile of new capacity, the technologies needed to meet customers' carbon intensity requirements and the global demand outlook. With that, let me turn it over to Bert to discuss the global nitrogen market.
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Chris. The North American spring application season saw strong demand for urea and UAN driven by higher-than-expected planted corn acres in the United States. This demand absorbed urea and UAN imports that were significantly higher in 2024 than the prior year. Spring ammonia applications were low this year following a strong fall 2023 application season. However, industrial demand and exports offset the lower spring volumes. As a result, we believe the North American nitrogen channel exited the spring application season with low inventories across all products. This supported our ammonia and UAN fill programs, which achieved prices that were well above last year's programs, but also represent value for farmers despite lower corn prices. Corn prices have been declining due to anticipated high production of corn in the United States and Brazil this year. As a result, the outlook for farm economics is softer compared to recent years. We have begun to see this ripple through different parts of the agricultural value chain. We don't expect to see a major impact for nitrogen given the non-discretionary nature of our products, but we may see changes in buyer behavior. Globally, the nitrogen supply demand balance tightened as the second quarter progressed. Natural gas curtailments in Egypt resulted in widespread nitrogen production outages from late May to early July, reducing global supply. The continued absence of urea exports from China also helps tighten the global market. We expect exports from China to resume at some point in the second half. However, we believe total volumes for the year will be much lower than the 4.3 million metric tons of urea exported in 2023, given the Chinese government's focus on domestic fertilizer availability. Brazil and India will be a key focus of the global nitrogen market in the coming months. We continue to project that urea consumption and imports in Brazil will grow in 2024. Imports of urea to India will be lower than in previous years as domestic production has ramped up. However, India has imported less than 2 million metric tons of urea so far in 2024. As a result, we believe substantial import volumes are required in the coming months to meet urea demand in India. On a longer-term basis, we anticipate growing demand for low-carbon ammonia and low carbon nitrogen fertilizers for traditional applications. We've had a growing number of conversations with customers who want low carbon versions of the products they buy today. This is because the consumers of agricultural and industrial products, including ethanol producers such as POET are increasingly focused on reducing the carbon footprint of their supply chain, which lower carbon fertilizers will do in a quantifiable and certifiable manner. We expect even greater interest as we bring low carbon ammonia and fertilizers to the market. With that, Greg will cover our financial performance.
Gregory Cameron :
Thanks, Bert. For the first half of 2024, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of approximately $614 million or $3.31 per diluted share. EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA were both approximately $1.2 billion. For the second quarter of 2024, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of approximately $420 million or $2.30 per diluted share. EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA were both $752 million. As you can see on Slide 5, the largest driver of adjusted EBITDA variance between these periods in the same periods in 2023 with lower product prices, partially offset by lower realized natural gas costs in our cost of sales. Our trailing 12-month net cash from operations was $2 billion, and free cash flow was approximately $1.2 billion. We continue to return substantial capital to our shareholders. Over the previous 12 months, we paid $341 million in dividends. We also repurchased 13.1 million shares, approximately 7% of outstanding shares at the start of the period for $1 billion. We have approximately $1.9 billion remaining on our share repurchase authorization, which we intend to complete by its expiration in December of 2025. Share repurchases, coupled with disciplined investments in growth continue to offer strong returns for our shareholders. We believe our enterprise value remains significantly undervalued. This is reinforced by two recent acquisitions in our industry. The first one focused on traditional nitrogen products and the last driven by low carbon ammonia that transacted at valuations consistent with our view of our assets, but significantly above our current enterprise value. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Greg. A year ago on our second quarter earnings call, I expressed dissatisfaction with our safety record as we had experienced an unacceptable number of very preventable injuries. I am really proud of the team for their response and focus on this front, and we have achieved fantastic results both on safety as well as our asset utilization and onstream factors. So, really well done to Chris, Ashraf, Sean, Kelvin and the entire manufacturing team. I also want to recognize the rest of the organization. We are operating extremely well, not only in manufacturing but across the whole company. Our price realizations were strong. We ended the quarter in a fantastic position from an inventory perspective and we are doing a great job on the supply chain side of logistics and gas procurement. Before we turn to your questions, I do want to highlight one other thing that Greg touched on during his remarks. We have seen two significant transactions recently by knowledgeable successful companies acquiring production assets in North America. One transaction, as Greg mentioned was by a long-term entrenched industry participant in the agriculture side of the business, the other by an energy company looking to capitalize on clean energy attributes of low carbon ammonia. Both transactions place values on production assets in North America, roughly new build or replacement cost of those assets. So it is clear that knowledgeable companies looking at the space see higher cash generation and more persistence of that cash generation than the general market recognizes. With our operations really hitting on all cylinders and our world-class EBITDA to cash conversion efficiency, we are in a unique position to continue creating significant value for our long-term shareholders. In fact, over the last 15 years, we have leveraged our cash generation to buy back half of the outstanding shares of the company, while increasing our production capacity by over 1/3. This formula of adding capacity in a disciplined way, while reducing the outstanding share count has driven the best total shareholder return results in the industry. As we look forward, we see the opportunity to continue with this winning approach, providing superior returns for our shareholders. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets.
Andrew Wong :
It sounds like you're receiving more interest in low carbon ammonia from the agriculture side of things, which I think is a bit of a shift from about a year ago when we were all kind of talking about more interest on the industrial side of things. So can you talk about that shift and what that might mean for pricing of low-carbon ammonia?
Bert Frost :
This is Bert. I think it's -- the question is a focus of where we are driving our business in all different formats. So energy is a focus, industry is a focus and ag is a focus. And because we're netback-driven or value-driven, we're going to pursue each of those vectors with vigor in the context of what it can do for the company to move these products. As Chris mentioned in his remarks, we're leading the industry in bringing these products to market and also discussing that with our customers. And as I said in my remarks, the feedback is, as folks and customers are looking at their scope missions in their process, whether that CPGs or an industry or ag or ethanol low-carbon products will play a valuable part of that solution. And so that's where we're talking about increased activity. Regarding pricing, we believe and we have already been discussing that in the context of those discussions that a valuable part of our component, not only what we received from the tax credits. But as we put these products to market, we're expecting to receive a superior value to conventional.
Anthony Will :
And Andrew, I'm just going to tack on one other thing. It's not that we've seen a diminution or reduction on the industrial or energy side for these products. It's just what has happened is on the agricultural side, we've seen demand develop that we hadn't previously recognized. What we're also seeing is a lot of interest from other potential industrial companies and looking at new low-carbon intense ammonia production for a variety of potential industries that they're focused on as well. So we're not only seeing it in terms of demand across the product space, but also demand from companies that are looking to vertically integrate their inputs.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. And I would just one point to that. I think the agricultural side is also seeing how they can benefit through the industrial side. So for example, with some of the incentives related to the 40B and the 45Z, how low corn production or agricultural production could work into fuel standards, whether it be sustainable aviation fuel. So it's seeing the whole value chain and where they participate in that.
Andrew Wong :
And then maybe building on top of that then, you talk a lot about the potential for more ammonia supply and the potential for oversupply. But given we're seeing building demand trends around different industrial applications and maybe on the ag side as well. Like is it possible this is an area where maybe the demand for low carbon ammonia could be strong enough to maybe just tighten the overall market just because of how long it takes to build on these plants. And obviously, we know that, that doesn't always go smoothly.
Anthony Will :
I think what we're seeing right now is just based on kind of expected nitrogen demand growth even in traditional applications. Looking forward, expected new demand is outpacing the amount of new construction that is already occurring. And so we expect a natural tightening in the S&D balance even before you layer on top new sources of demand for decarbonized products. So we absolutely think there's going to be a tightening in the overall S&D balance on the nitrogen side. And that's one of the reasons we're so optimistic about what the future looks like for us.
Operator:
The next question comes from Josh Spector of UBS.
Josh Spector :
I actually want to follow-up on a comment Tony, you made towards the end and Greg talked about it with the value of transactions that are out there. And I mean, I guess, to the extent you're willing to kind of opine a little bit here, I mean, the OCI transaction, obviously, there's like hydrogen feed and some other shared economics in that facility, but it was call it, now $2,100 a ton nitrogen, the Koch acquisition that was done was maybe closer to $4,000 a ton. So I wonder if you could talk about those two different dynamics and what view is the right value for your assets given that quite a wide range that's been provided by the market lately.
Anthony Will :
Yes, Josh, I think it's a great question that you bring up, but I think you're thinking about this a little wrong. So the way to think about the Woodside OCI transaction as you take a conventional plant and you basically cleave it in half between the front end of the plant and the back end of the plant. And what's essentially happened is I think Linde is putting about $1.8 billion in the ground to create the front end of a plant. And now you've got Woodside that's paying $2.35 billion for the back end of that plan. So you add those together to really look at what an integrated plant looks like, and your north of $4 billion. Now the piece that Linde is building is a bit larger from a capacity standpoint than just the requirements of the back-end ammonia plant but you do get efficiencies of scale when you start getting into a large production volumes. And so that doesn't scale on a linear basis. If you drop that plant down to kind of just what's required on the input basis, you're still probably talking about $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion. So you're looking at an integrated equivalency plant that's probably pushing [3.75 to 4] on that basis. So you really need to think about it in terms of what the total cost of construction of that plant is. And by the way, Linde has got a take-or-pay on the inputs that they're providing to across the fence line to what's now going to be the Woodside plant. And they're expecting a good rate of return on that. So you can't just look at the back end of the plant and try to do the math on it. You really have to look at what they're paying for the hydrogen, the nitrogen, the oxygen and then capitalize that back into the full cost of what a plant is.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. And I think what you'll find when you do that, Josh, is that it's pretty similar to what the Iowa transaction was as well. And that really leads to Tony's comments that you have two sophisticated buyers who are making these investments, one for agricultural, one for energy, but they both see the sustainable free cash flow generation that underlies those assets. And specifically, our assets are similar, if not identical, in some cases to that, but all the way on the low end of the cost curve in the first quartile.
Josh Spector :
Definitely a different way to look at it. I want to follow-up and just ask a little bit more longer term on the blue ammonia off-take or really your decision on FID for the greenfield facility. Just I think you've been helpful about thinking about the milestones needed within Japan, Korea, et cetera, to kind of say when they're comfortable knowing what they're willing to pay in terms of contract for difference to maybe enable some of those contracts. So is there any update you can provide on the time line there beyond your FEED study that will be required for decisions to be made?
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. So Medi published yesterday, I would say the closest thing to the time line that they have right now. So they put out some of the requirements for the carbon intensity and then it's in public comment period right now for the next 30 to 60 days. So if you think about it, it's really -- public comment is this good for Japan in total, bringing in low-carbon ammonia and co-firing with coal. Once that period has gone through and Medi is the Ministry of Economic and Trade for Japan. They're the ones that are going to be making the recommendation to the government for the contract for difference, just to be specific on that. So once they have that time line, applications and submissions will go in. So that will be like the end of October, November for our projects with our partners. Medi then will have probably three months to four months to choose which projects both from a hydrogen side and a low carbon ammonia side that they would give the contract for difference for. So we're looking now at a more, I would say, more clarity on call it, mid-Q1 for that to be determined. But as Tony mentioned, I think the one thing that we're seeing is a little bit more interest around from other industrials globally on this low carbon front, both from an agricultural but also from industrial applications as well. So, a lot of activity that we're feeling pretty good about with our project. But again, all this is based on waiting for the FEED study to be completed by the end of the year.
Operator:
Next question comes from Steve Byrne with Bank of America.
Steve Byrne :
Bert, you were talking about the strong ammonia applications last fall. Would like to drill into your brain on what your expectations are for this coming fall. You got the outlook for grower margins looks tighter and you got the soybean corn ratio looks like there might be a shift back to soybeans. Do you have a view on whether -- on the strength of the fall season? Or could the uncertainty lead to kind of a shift more towards next spring?
Bert Frost :
So regarding the fall of 2023 was a big season for us. And in the spring this year, as I mentioned was lighter. However, for the fall programs, whether that be urea, UAN or ammonia, there's been very good uptake and it's a good value. The value that we put out for the fall application program was well received from a broad array of customers. And so we're expecting a solid fall application weather permitting. And the outlook -- yes, the grower outlook at $4 corn today were sub-$4 in the cash market, forward market for this 2025 is in the $4.50 range, which is acceptable. And so it's a question of how farmers are managing their economics. But fertilizer in general, that's [NP&K] on a revenue basis is still in that 20% range, which is acceptable, we think that nitrogen is a good value today. And will be well uptake, and we're expecting 90-plus million acres of corn for next year, which will then support, I think, not only ourselves but the imports that come in and so we're positive for 2025 in the fall application of 2024.
Steve Byrne :
And Chris, I wanted to just drill into the FEED studies a little bit with you. You have the FEED study for a new SMR plant, which you know that technology well, and you're working on one with an ATR. And you need a carbon capture control technology to add on to the SMR, is it fair to assume that what you're looking for there might have something like a 75% control just so that the overall carbon capture is roughly the same as the ATR approach? And are you looking at a variety of technologies and maybe even something that would be more modest in control, maybe lower CapEx if the Japan authorities don't require 90%, 95% to qualify as flue?
Anthony Will :
Yes Steve, I'm going to start, and then I'll hand the question over to Chris. So we are going through a flue gas capture FEED study right now. And part of that is does it make sense if we were going to do a new build on an SMR, but part of it also is informing us in terms of the path forward of how we're going to long-term approach getting to net zero by 2050. And there's definitely going to have to be a flue gas capture component of ultimately how we get there, in order to make it work. So this is not only good for the current but good for the long-term as well. And as you say, I think you can design these things at different levels of carbon reduction coming out of the flue. The problem is that sort of thing affects the geometries of the vessels. And so, if you were going to go to all of the pain and hassle of an expense of putting in flue gas capture. It's fairly shortsighted, I think to undersize that unit or to make it so that it's not terribly efficient because then ultimately, if your goal over long-term is to get to net zero, you're going to have to mostly replace or rebuild all of that capital you've already put in the ground. But it is certainly something that we're looking at and evaluating. We actually believe that the value of a superior decarbonized product is going to be such in the marketplace from a demand standpoint that extracting as much carbon out of it as you can is going to pay for itself. Not only do you get the 45Q benefit, but also the market demand for -- and premium that would be accompanying a decarbonized product, I think will carry the day.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. Really not much to add from that, but just to agree with Tony, that I think over time, the carbon intensity and the more you can reduce it, the more incentives or the more premium you'll get for that. If you look at the CBAM, that will be going in place really at the end of 2025 here beginning in 2026, with some of the carbon charges to it is going to be based on carbon intensity and how much you get charged based on that. So having the lowest you possibly can -- will be better. Same thing as we look in Asia primarily is for the biggest reduction that we -- the biggest reduction of carbon is going to be the most beneficial for us.
Operator:
The next question comes from Chris Parkinson with Wolfe Research.
Chris Parkinson :
Let's switch it up a little bit. When I'm thinking about the second half of 2024 and into 2025, can you just update us on your current views of both, let's say, your production rates in both India and China as well as import trends in India and export trends or lack thereof in China. Just what is your latest thought process based on the developments over the last few months?
Bert Frost :
When you're looking at India, there has been, as we communicated a growth in domestic production, which has been the Made in India movement by Prime Minister, Modi. And they've been successful in that. However, taking a step back and looking at those investments, with the cost of LNG being 60% of their gas needs, those are expensive operations, not only from a CapEx position but from an operational and a delivered basis. But doing what it is, that's what they've chosen to do. And so exports or imports to India have declined over time, and we're projecting those to be in the 5 million to 6 million ton range for 2024. To date, and that's a January to date, India has imported about 2 million tons, including their NIFCO tons. And so we would expect over the next several months, September, October, November, December, you would probably see approximately 3 million tons. And so India is still a significant importer but has now fall into the second place as Brazil has taken over the lead for the largest importing country at approximately 8 million tons. And that's been a tremendous growth of demand reflected in their exports of corn and other products. So Brazil is the agricultural powerhouse we've been projecting for years, and we'll continue to grow in their imports of nitrogen. When you look at China, just the second part of your question that has been a great moderator to the -- or the supply of urea for the world. China has been in the 3 million to 5 million-ton export range for the last several years. And this year, it's almost insignificant because it's almost zero of their exports to date. We have talked about them being in the 2 million to 3 million-ton range. I don't think that's a questionable volume. And so when you put that in perspective of if the world export vessel traded market is approximately 55 million tons, taking 3 million to 4 million tons out of that supply is a great supporter of the current price structure where we are, that as well as the Egyptian loss of production in May through July, as what has been supporting the price structure that we have today.
Chris Parkinson :
Just a quick follow-up. Over time, you've traditionally converted correct me, if I'm wrong, about 70, and if you adjust for a tax in a few years ago, probably close to 80% of EBITDA and free cash flow. Can you just help us, especially given your remarks about some transactions in the space? Can you just give us how the market should be thinking about buyback activity versus potential CapEx outflows in terms of the cadence, not only '24, but also when CapEx could even rise in the future. So just help us think about the balance of capital allocation over the next 18 months or so, just given that conversion rate.
Christopher Bohn:
All right. I'll start with the CapEx part, Chris. Our CapEx that we have is right now in the range of $550 million. As you know, having followed our company long enough that Q3 is when we do a lot of our planned maintenance. So we'll see probably a little heavier spend in Q3 here along with some of the production being a little bit lower. But with the full year being at gross ammonia production of the 9.8 million tons we talked about. As we get into an FID and say it's a positive FID to move forward with a new plant, the spending really occurs over five years, and it's almost just like a standard distribution a little bit with the beginning spend being relatively thin and then getting into years back half of the second year, third and fourth year, heavier and then the tail back on the fifth year. So a bit longer of a spend trajectory than the actual construction of plant itself is how we plan that out based on whatever our share component of that will be. I'll let Greg talk about maybe share repurchases.
Gregory Cameron :
Yes. So as I said in the remarks, we have about $1.9 billion left in our current authorization, and we plan to complete that opportunistically by the end of December of 2025.
Anthony Will :
And I would just add one thing, Chris, which is the good news, you mentioned our best-in-class EBITDA to cash conversion. And I think somewhere fairly traditionally in the 60% to 70% range is pretty normal for us. We were a little lower given kind of some of the operating challenges we had in Q1 with the weather-related outages and then the ripple on in terms of what that meant from some of our industrial ammonia contracts. But I would expect us to kind of get back into that range. That's pretty normal for us. And at that kind of conversion efficiency and cash generation, it's not an either/or question. It's both. And even if illustratively you're talking about a greenfield project if we decided to go forward with it that's in the range of what the Woodside/Linde project is trading at. If we're only doing kind of 50% of the capital on that spread over four or five years, it's not such a heavy capital load on us given our cash generation that we can't continue to do pretty significant share repo at the same time. So our view is it's the formula that we have used in the past of disciplined and addition of capacity while reducing our share count, we think works on a go-forward basis and we expect to continue to generate superior returns.
Operator:
The next question comes from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson :
Bert, in your prepared remarks, you alluded to potential changes in buyer marketing patterns over the balance of the year. And I just wanted to clarify, is that a lot of the global pieces that you were just answering response to Chris' question? Or was there shifts you're seeing amongst your U.S. domestic customers in the fertilizer space? And if so, could you just elaborate a little bit on what is changing in terms of how people are buying fertilizer for the second half of the year?
Bert Frost :
Yes. There's been a trend with buyer behavior of deferring or delaying purchases over the last couple of years. And I think as a reflection of the ag market cycle and lower corn prices to farmers, and therefore, lack of farmer liquidity or maybe financially stressed, those purchases could be delayed to the retail sector. And so based on that, we've gone into a little more of a defensive mode. We've worked on our -- we've kept our inventories low, and we have moved our programs forward and a successful launch of our fall and fill programs, as I mentioned, and so how we're operating is in the context of if that eventuality of delayed purchases were to happen, we won't be constrained as a company. So we've leveraged the utilization that's at our fingertips. So exports, distribution, modes of distribution, production allocations as well as our communication with our customers to make sure we always position CF Industries in the most opportunistic way.
Adam Samuelson :
And if I can just ask a follow-up. I believe you had the supply agreement for ammonia to Mosaic for most of the last decade. I believe that you've exercised your right to terminate that supply agreement beginning in January. Just how do we think about the non-trivial amounts of your own ammonia volumes, how do you think about -- how you're thinking about marketing that next year or you working to renegotiate the terms of that agreement?
Bert Frost :
Mosaic has been a fantastic customer. And that was a partnership that was a result of us selling the assets to phosphate production assets to them in Florida which they were, I think, a more economic owner of as well as then associating the ammonia contract, a long-term very large supply contract which was beneficial to CF when we were starting up our new production assets in Donaldsonville to have an outlet. As we've rolled forward, I think both companies realized that we were the one to execute the contract and to terminate it. But we're in negotiations and conversations with them to continue supply, and we anticipate Mosaic to always be a fairly large customer of CF Industries, and we have a great relationship with them, and they're doing a good job. However, there are additional tons, which we have been working on over the years to market. And we do have additional outlets. We've been active in the export market, both with moving ammonia to different locations as well as augmenting our industrial contracts and customers to have a more balanced portfolio.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. And I think as Europe implements the financial aspects of the CBAM, going forward to there may be more alternatives that provide a higher netback for that low carbon ammonia that will be in production next year for Bert and his team to evaluate as well.
Operator:
The next question comes from Ben Theurer with Barclays.
Ben Theurer :
First of all, congrats on a very strong second quarter. Just wanted to give your thoughts around just the cost piece of it, gas pricing and obviously, would it potentially does in Europe right now from a capacity point of view. You've highlighted in your prepared remarks, it was an offsetting a little bit the price decline clearly during the quarter from an EBITDA perspective and also on a first half basis. So as we see it right now, where do you think the spread is going to trend out just also given the geopolitical tension in the Middle East? And have you done any sort of like contracting, hedging et cetera, just to lock in those lower costs that are prevailing right now in the North American market, my first one.
Christopher Bohn:
So Ben, this is Chris. I'll start with the European side. So as you mentioned, we continue to see Europe being challenged by the energy costs even before some of the geopolitical events that have happened over the last few days in Ukraine and also in the Middle East. So that's something that we see continuing. And then on top of that, we've done a pretty in-depth analysis of the European assets and we're seeing pretty large maintenance events that are going to be coming forward for some of the plants, and they have to make the decision whether you make those significant capital investments or whether you curtail or shut down completely. I mean, as we've talked about before, the best example of that is what we've done in the U.K., where some of those capital expenditures were going to be so large. We are better off importing ammonia and then just upgrading it from there. So our expectation is between now and 2030 that we see even more tightening in the supply market in Europe related to those two factors, both the energy and then just the additional capital costs coming. And that really is what we see as an opportunity for us out of Donaldsonville, where we have the export capability, and we'll be the first to have low-carbon ammonia and low-carbon products. So we almost see it as a carbon arbitrage opportunity given that we'll be the first mover on low carbon to Europe. But I'll let Bert talk about our hedging strategy.
Bert Frost :
Where we are on gas and you see it reflected in our Q2 exceptional performance and great job to the gas team is we're wide open in the cash market, and we're believers in the future of North American production. Today, we're running at a rate of about 102 Bcf and with exports still in the 12 Bcf to 13 Bcf per day and the spreads, you're still injecting and building inventory and that's what's driving and keeping the Henry Hub price lower. And so the spread against the international market, TTF or JKM, Europe and Asia is over $10, and that's an exceptional place for us to be as operators of these assets. But when you look at the trends, you've seen what happened in Egypt when it turns to summer and they want the gas for electricity or other purposes. They're now a large importer of LNG or Trinidad on the gas constraints that we're experiencing with our own assets. And so what will happen when you combine the EU and North Africa and Trinidad combined with their production assets and the global S&D for the products that those plants produce, it places, again, like Chris said, an exporter or a producer like CF Industries in a fantastic place outside of what could happen in the Middle East with all the disruption in Gaza and the Red Sea. So I think we're well positioned.
Anthony Will :
I'd also add that what we're seeing and some of this is being driven by machine learning and AI applications and the proliferation of that is the number of data centers that are going up globally is significant and the expected energy draw against those per data center installation is really large. And I think some of the estimates that we've seen is by the end of this decade, there's going to be about 4 Bcf of incremental gas conversion into electricity just for data centers in the U.S. alone. And so the energy is not -- or the world is not reducing the electricity demand to the contrary, it's going up quite heavily. And so to be in a place in that environment where energy is short and tight where we have the kind of resource base that we do have in the U.S., you really couldn't be in a better place. And I think that's one of the reasons why assets over here are trading the way they are.
Ben Theurer :
And then just following up, you've talked a little bit about the Waggaman integration, but just wanted to understand where you're at in terms of like efficiency at Waggaman versus your own legacy assets? Where is still the potential? And just like from an operating run rate perspective. Where are you at right now? And where do you want to be maybe by year-end or in the first half of '25?
Christopher Bohn:
So what I would say, Ben is right now, the plant is currently operating at about 10% above its nameplate capacity. And that's pretty much in lockstep with a lot of our legacy plants that we have in the CF network. We haven't really evaluated doing any debottlenecks there at this particular time. I think our goal is just to have upstream on time to be the plant operating more consistently, which it has been since we took it down. If you recall, in the first quarter, it was one of the sites where we had an outage. Our team pulled-forward some of the work and got in there and accomplished a significant amount of maintenance work during that particular time frame. And since then, the plant has been operating fantastic. So from that integration standpoint, we feel very comfortable that where we're running now is where we'll run for the remaining part of the year. As time goes on, we'll look at other projects that may involve with debottleneck and definitely will involve carbon sequestration.
Anthony Will :
The other thing I'd just add is from an efficiency standpoint, I think I'm right in saying that is the most efficient plant we have in the entire network. And we're running at, I think, under 30 MMBtu per ton of ammonia, where the legacy systems, not including the recent expansion plans, but the legacy systems are more like 33, 32, and even the expansions are in the 30 range. So not only is it a fantastic plant from being able to operate above nameplate, but it's the most efficient plant in the system. And we've got a really engaged workforce down there. We could not be happier with that acquisition.
Operator:
The next question comes from Richard Garchitorena with Wells Fargo.
Richard Garchitorena :
So I was wondering if you could maybe give us an update in terms of how you're thinking about the market environment for clean ammonia today versus when you started your process to build out the strategy. Obviously, the recent OCI transaction would confirm, I guess, value that's out there. And then also, we had conflicting views out there in terms of the viability more green ammonia than blue ammonia, but maybe just some updated thoughts would be great.
Christopher Bohn:
Well, I'll start. One, we're extremely positive. We think the transaction, I should say, is positive for the industry with Woodside because it’s pretty much validates not only our clean energy strategy but the conversations they're having globally, they're seeing the sort of the same type of demand shoots and new centers starting to evolve, whether it be in power generation or in just marine fuel or just in really placing or supplanting higher carbon nitrogen today. So very positive on that. I think what we've seen change over the time is what Bert talked about in the beginning is that we are largely industrial focused. And we are seeing the pull happen more from power gen and marine side and even sustainable aviation fuel. Now what we're seeing is the agricultural side is probably seeing where they fit into that. And then there's also the demand pull side that's coming more from the CPGs who want a lower carbon product as they're moving forward.
Bert Frost :
I agree with Chris. In terms of where we are in our evolution in this process, we're focused on the business and where we can generate higher revenues and higher profitability and clean products are going to be a part of that. And it's amazing the receptivity from the processors. Again, when you look at the corn value chain in and of itself of what low-carbon product low-carbon ammonia or ammonia to upgrade it as UAN or as ammonium nitrate. What that can do in that value chain for corn or wheat as you take it through to the farmer and the farmer does beneficial practices that are being focused on today through the processor and as we sequester that CO2 from, let's say, the ethanol producer, you have a very -- a very low carbon finished product that can go into sustainable aviation fuel or ethanol. And those -- that's where we're focusing our attention on the ag cycle.
Christopher Bohn:
And I would say the discussion about blue and green, I would just call it, it's all going to be, as I mentioned earlier, on a carbon intensity. I think to get to zero carbon even as we start to commission our particular plant down there, which is about only 20,000 tons a year. The cost of green is just very significant. And the energy pull on that, but not -- without having the renewable energy sources in place, it's going to be very difficult to leapfrog low carbon and get right to zero. I think as time goes on and by time meaning decades, you'll start to see it evolve to that. But today, when you can get to 65% to 95% carbon reduction that's what's going to lead the day today.
Bert Frost :
And I think that's where you see the stalling globally of the green projects where you see CF and others leaping ahead with low carbon products.
Richard Garchitorena :
And then during the quarter, you also moved forward Yazoo City with CCS. Given how well Waggaman is running, can you maybe talk about potential moving forward with other projects on CCS maybe in that regard?
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. As we've talked about all along, we have a hierarchy of plants that we were hitting that were the most attractive and the soonest to execute so we could move on those. The first being Donaldsonville, the second being Medicine Hat, Yazoo City, so we've executed with Yazoo City, so we're working on Medicine Hat. Waggaman, our initial goal there was just the utilization rate and getting that stable and moving forward with the projects we have in place from a maintenance standpoint. But that definitely is probably the next on the list after Medicine Hat that we begin to look at CCS in that particular region.
Operator:
Next question comes from Edlain Rodriguez with Mizuho Securities.
Edlain Rodriguez :
Tony, a quick question for you. Like you talked about like the stock being undervalued and those two transactions clearly prove you right. The question is, how do you unlock the value? Like what do you need to do? Or what can you do to make investors see the light?
Anthony Will :
Yes. I mean I think from our perspective, Edlain that we're going to continue to do what we have done, which is just continue to buy the shares out of the marketplace. We've taken 50% of the company's outstanding share count out already, and that has benefited significantly the long-term shareholders that have been with us on that journey, and we're going to continue to do that. And eventually, those that are left will be able to recognize and see the amazing amount of aggregate cash flow and the few number of shares out and that will by definition have to translate into a share price that is, I would say, more reflective of the value of the asset base. But until that time, we're happy to be patient and continue to buy shares out and for the benefit of our long-term believers.
Operator:
The next question comes from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Vincent Andrews :
Can I just start off by -- I just want to clarify a few things that have come up on the blue project, one would be that is FID still intended for later this year? Or did the Medi thing push it into 1Q? And I guess, on top of that, it sounds like you're seeing a lot more demand from multiple actions versus previously. So is there any scenario where the scope of the plant increases? Or is there a second plant? Or does that incremental interest make you willing to move forward maybe with -- maybe ahead of Medi or without take-or-pay contracts or has anything changed in sort of the way that you want to have everything postured before making FID.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. So I think the Medi decision time frame is one aspect that's in our partnership with JERA, where they would feel comfortable moving forward once they know what the contract for difference is. However, in saying that what is really the gating item initially right now is completion of the FEED study and our understanding that's going to inform what is the CapEx, what is the volume we can get off of that. And then out of that, what is the return profile. And if that's significantly above our capital -- our cost of capital, there's other partners that we're also in discussion with that could accelerate that. So I wouldn't say it's 100% pinned to Medi just given some of the other activity that we've seen around that. I think given the size of the project, there's two ways we look at partnership. One would be in an equity investment and one would be a long-term off-take no differently than we've done in the past with CHS and as Bert talked about earlier with Mosaic. To move to a second plant right away, I think we would need probably really to be ensured that we had partnerships and the cash flow. As Tony said, we're looking at this in a very disciplined way while continuing to do capital allocation back to the shareholders, but also grow and we think right now, our focus is on that first plant at the blue point side.
Anthony Will :
Yes. And I would just echo that, which is having partners that are in there with us not only on to kind of share the capital commitment, but also take the product off-take is an important aspect of this from our standpoint, just in terms of risk mitigation. And so the Medi thing relative to JERA being a potential partner does elongate that time horizon. But as Chris mentioned, there's a lot of other interest from other parties that we feel like if the project holds water from a return profile perspective. There won't be an issue with respect to us having others join us.
Operator:
The next question comes from Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan.
Jeffrey Zekauskas :
I think you sold $47 million of emissions credits -- is that $47 million that net benefited EBITDA in the quarter? Or is the number larger or smaller?
Anthony Will :
No, that does. And it's actually fairly comparable to what we did a year ago. Those were credits that were -- that were provided by the U.K. government as part of the overall ETF submissions scheme in the UK. And we are, at this point, given the fact that our ammonia production is offline kind of largely through that bank of credits. But on an account basis quarter-over-quarter from last year versus this that number didn't change dramatically.
Jeffrey Zekauskas :
And looking at the language that you described Donaldsonville and the Mississippi plant, it looks like the Deville carbon dioxide will go into enhanced oil recovery, whereas the Mississippi plant will have carbon dioxide that's sequestered. In the new plant that you want to build the new greenfield plant, does it make a difference to the carbon footprint if you have to go an enhanced oil recovery route versus a sequestration route? Or how much of a difference does it makes?
Anthony Will :
Yes. It matters a little bit in terms of the value of the 45Q tax credit. The payments higher, if you go into a Class 6 well than EOR. The agreement that we have with ExxonMobil was contemplated on a Class 6 well, and so that is still for both plants, both Deville and Yazoo City. So that is still the expectation of where we're going to end up longer term. There is a question in terms of whether Class 6 permitting will be completed by the time that we're ready to begin injection from our side. And so there may be some transition period that we are talking about whether that makes sense to accelerate and go into EOR for a period of time before Class 6. But more to come on that front. Our perspective is the world is going to continue to need that oil. And whether it's our CO2 or whether it's CO2 that comes out of naturally occurring sources like Jackson Dome in Mississippi or other places, that oil is going to get produced. This is a net reduction in the amount of emissions that we're providing that's going into the ground and staying there and the oil is coming out anyway. And so our perspective is this is nothing but good for the environment. I think different potential customers may have different perspectives on that. And we've got to align with customer requirements. But in the near-term, the difference really is about the value of the 45Q tax credit. But longer term, the intent of all of our agreements is Class 6 permitting.
Jeffrey Zekauskas :
No, I get it that there's a different remuneration if it's sequestered versus EOR. But what I was wondering is in terms of the way the carbon footprint is thought of by, say, the Japanese are they going to make a different calculation or you make a different calculation.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. I think that's what Tony was trying to explain that certain customer bases are going to view EOR differently than a permanent sequestration. So as you look to Asia, it's more permanent sequestration is a requirement. I think as you look here in the U.S. and some of the other regions around the world, EOR given his point that he made, it's still sequestering CO2 will be acceptable. We look at it both on a strategic basis from that, but also on the economic as he explained as well.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick :
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to seeing you at upcoming conferences.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to CF Industries' First Quarter of 2024. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries Earnings Conference Call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; and Bert Frost, Executive Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first quarter of 2024 yesterday afternoon.
On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted results for the first quarter of 2024 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $460 million. Our performance reflects a challenging quarter for our production network. Plant outages caused by severe cold in January as well as other unplanned downtime resulted in a significant loss of production and maintenance activity.
Even with the production outages and associated expenses, our business generated strong cash flow for the quarter. Net cash from operations from the first quarter was $445 million, and free cash flow was approximately $200 million. Longer term, we expect the global energy cost structure to continue to provide a significant margin opportunities for our North American production network and for clean energy to provide a growth platform for the company. As a result, we expect to have significant free cash flow available to both invest in growth and return capital to shareholders. We remain focused on disciplined investments in clean energy that offer returns well above our cost of capital. These include decarbonization projects within our existing network and potential new low-carbon ammonia capacity. We also remain committed to returning capital to shareholders through our dividend and share repurchases. In the first quarter, we returned $445 million, including repurchasing 4.3 million cars. We have approximately $2.2 billion remaining on our current share repurchase authorization, which we intend to complete by the end of next year. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen market conditions in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The global nitrogen market has experienced rapidly changing dynamics throughout 2024, including in North America. The spring application season began earlier than normal in late February with demand for ammonia applications brought forward from the second quarter into the first or weather at the end of March, subsequently stalled field work and fertilizer purchases with the region now on a normal application and planting pace.
Overall, we expect nitrogen demand in North America to be positive with approximately 91 million acres of corn planted. Good soil moisture supports higher application rates than in previous years, and farm economics remain constructive, though weaker than the record highs from previous and recent years. We believe the spring ammonia season will see fewer tons of ammonia applied this year. However, total ammonia application volumes for the fertilizer year, which runs from July 2023 through June 2024, should be comparable to previous years, given the strong fall ammonia season. As the pace of spring application season has normalized, the lineup for urea and UAN imports for the region has grown. These tons will be necessary to meet expected demand, given low inventories in the region to start the year and production disruptions in January. Even with the imports, we expect that inventory in the North American nitrogen channel across all products will be low at the end of the season. This activity is occurring as the global nitrogen market supply position has loosened, leading to lower global prices than we saw earlier this year. Lower imports of urea to India, including the impacts of lower volumes taken in the recent tender, lower-than-expected to deferred demand in Europe and other countries and good production from the [ Europe, ] Gulf and North Africa, all played a role. We did not believe demand during the spring season in North America will resolve the length in the global nitrogen market by itself. As North America hits its traditional pricing reset in the summer, Brazil, India and China will provide the most important signals regarding the state of the market. We project that urea consumption and imports in Brazil will grow in 2024, maintaining that company's status as the world's largest importer of urea. India will remain a major importer of urea, though they have lower requirements today, reflecting their commitment to increase domestically produced urea. China continues to prioritize lower fertilizer prices for their farmers with export restrictions playing a significant role in that effort. We expect China to export approximately 4 million metric tons of urea this year, but actual volumes will depend on the timing and duration of when exports are allowed. Even with these sources of near-term uncertainty, North American producers remain firmly positioned on the low end of the global cost curve. Forward energy curves continue to show spread between North America and Europe, which is home to the industry's marginal high-cost production remaining wider than historical averages. As a result, we expect attractive margin opportunities for our network in the near and longer term. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Christopher Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first quarter of 2024, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of approximately $194 million or $1.03 per diluted share. EBITDA was $488 million, and adjusted EBITDA was approximately $460 million. The production outages that we experienced earlier this year affected our results in 2 significant ways.
Maintenance expenses were approximately $75 million higher in the first quarter of 2024 compared to the first quarter of 2023. Additionally, we had approximately 160,000 fewer tons of ammonia available to upgrade in the quarter compared to the same quarter last year. This equates to approximately 275,000 tons of urea that we would otherwise have been able to produce and sell at higher margins. The production issues were continued through the first quarter, and our network is operating at our typical high utilization rates today. We believe we currently project that growth ammonia production for 2024 will be approximately 9.8 million tons, which reflects normal asset utilization rates moving forward. Our forecast for 2024 capital expenditures remains approximately $550 million. Capital expenditures were higher in the first quarter of 2024 compared to the first quarter of 2023, primarily due to a large planned turnaround event. We are making continued progress on our clean energy initiatives. Commissioning activities for our green ammonia projects are nearing completion. We intend to purchase 45V compliant renewable energy certificates to pair with the startup of the electrolyzer to enable green ammonia production and maximize the value of the hydrogen production tax credit. Additionally, construction of the carbon dioxide dehydration and compression unit at Donaldsonville is progressing well. We believe it will be ready for start-up in 2025, at which point our partner, Exxon Mobil will begin to -- will be able to begin transportation and permanent sequestration of up to 2 million tons of CO2 from the facility per year. This will not only significantly reduce our carbon emissions, but also enable low carbon ammonia production and generate substantial 45Q tax credits. Our evaluation of low-carbon ammonia capacity growth continues with potential partners and offtakers. We have made additional progress on our auto thermal reforming ammonia plant and flue gas capture FEED studies. These should be complete before the end of the year and will be an important component of our final investment decision. We continue to emphasize a disciplined approach based on the return profile of new capacity, the technologies needed to meet customers' carbon intensity requirements and the global demand outlook. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for their hard work during the difficult first quarter of 2024. In particular, the team did an outstanding job restoring our network to full utilization rates and most importantly, doing so safely.
Our 12-month recordable incident rate at the end of the quarter was 0.36 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, significantly better than industry averages. Despite the challenges we faced earlier this year, we believe CF Industries is well positioned for the years ahead. In the near term, the global energy cost structure remains favorable to our North American production network. Longer-term disciplined investments in low-carbon ammonia production provide a robust growth platform for the company. Taken together, we expect to drive strong cash generation and continue to create substantial value for long-term shareholders. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Chris Parkinson with Wolfe Research.
Christopher Parkinson:
Tony, it's been a while since I think anybody has asked you this, but what are your latest thoughts across the organization on the global cost curve? I mean, obviously, it seems things have very much normalized in Europe. It seems -- obviously, you have this back and forth debate in terms of timing on Chinese markets. And then obviously, there's been a lot going on in India as well. So when you put all these things together, once again, I don't think anybody is really focused on this for years and years, what's yes, latest and greatest on how we should be thinking about this over the next year or 2?
W. Will:
Yes, Chris, I think that we believe, going forward, there are some significant challenges for a number of the production facilities in Europe. And our expectation is that utilization rates there will continue to be challenging. And we would expect some of those assets to permanently close. So I think that the combination of some challenges in Europe and other places in the world -- Trinidad is both running out of gas and with gas cost climbing as each of the existing contracts roll off, you've got challenges in parts of Asia and Latin America as well.
You look at all of that and you see somewhat of a tightening out of the existing production network, you combine that with the fact that there is not enough new production under construction at the moment to meet the traditional growth in normal applications. And we see a tightening of the S&D balance going forward with Europe and Asia being at fairly high end of the cost curve. And so there will be periods of time where we need to bid some of that production in just to meet global demand. So I think it provides a very constructive backdrop for our North American focused production network. And we remain excited about what the long term holds for us and even the near term, for that matter.
Christopher Parkinson:
Got it. And just a real quick follow-up, and I apologize for the ultra short-term question, but obviously, your organization has gone through a lot during the first quarter. Can you just give us kind of a -- just one additional update on just how we should be thinking about where you stand operationally. I assume Bert's team had to move a lot of products suboptimally towards the end of the quarter.
When we think about the process back normality, are we basically already there yet, and we can -- you can instill the confidence that we should just be focusing on market pricing right now? Or how should we be ultimately thinking about your pathway forward for the remainder of 2024?
W. Will:
Yes. I think as you look at the first quarter, as Chris said, there was kind of 2 primary factors that impacted us. One was because we had significant outages both weather-related and other downtime. We ended up with less production of ammonia, and we have existing industrial ammonia contracts that obligate us to kind of meet those needs first.
And Waggaman was one of the facilities that experienced some downtime in the quarter. And so we had to make sure that we were meeting the customer commitments out of that facility and other industrial customers as well. And so what that math was, as Chris mentioned, there was ammonia that we were producing that normally we would have upgraded to urea and/or UAN that we needed to ship out as industrial ammonia, which generally is at a bit of a lower margin than agricultural ammonia or ag-based urea/UAN. So the loss of production was both the opportunity cost of loss of absolute tons, but also the opportunity costs associated with being -- not being able to upgrade product for higher-margin urea than we normally would. As Chris mentioned, we were able to go ahead and get the plants back up and running and have been running sort of that normal operating utilization rates since the beginning of the quarter. And so we're back to kind of normal operations, and therefore, I think what's been transpiring in the way of spot pricing is appropriate for -- and our volumes as appropriate for the second quarter.
Christopher Bohn:
Chris, the only additional thing I would add to what Tony said is not only that it was discrete production issues contained in Q1 but also where the product mix was and being produced. We had incremental distribution costs that went over and above the margin loss that Tony spoke about and also the $75 million approximate higher maintenance expense. So it was a pretty tough quarter from that, but all of that, as you said, is sort of in the rearview mirror and our distribution and production assets are back to their historical levels.
Operator:
The next question comes from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets.
Joel Jackson:
Just a couple of things you can maybe ask -- sorry.
Are you really open for Q2 here for gas? Maybe talk about -- we've seen obviously, prices come down well below to where you're standing at Q2 into Q3? And then you talked about 9.8 million tons of gross ammonia production '24. What is your view that what you can do in 2025 for gross ammonia production with hopefully some improvements at Waggaman and these issues from Q1 behind you?
Bert Frost:
Joel, this is Bert. And on gas, yes, we are wide open, and we do have fixed contracts that are gas-based that will fix in the beginning of the month. And we do have [ bases ] that we've covered in places more of a winter item. We'll have some Q1 gas purchases trail into Q2. But in effect, the gas values that you're seeing and through the various hubs, you can bleed into your model, and that's what we're doing.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. From a production standpoint, Joel, I think you can look at 2025 and going forward similar to what we had announced earlier this year at sort of the circa 10 million tons of ammonia -- gross ammonia production. And then based on where the margin potentials are that's going to change the product mix related to the total product that we do. But give or take, 100,000 tons on either side of that is generally where we look to produce.
Operator:
The next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets.
Andrew Wong:
So my first one is really on Blue Point. I understand the plan is to go with mostly sales that are based on like a fixed margin type offtake. Just curious, how does the ammonia market pricing effect you're thinking on the investment decision there?
W. Will:
Well, Andrew, as you know, once we make an investment decision, if we decide to move forward with it, it's going to be approximately 4 years between when that decision is made and when production commences. So what's happening in the very near term ammonia market from a pricing perspective, it is an important starting point.
But what you really need to do is project where we are 4 years going forward and take a look at where we think the S&D balance will be at that time. We do expect the S&D balance to tighten as I talked about earlier, both in terms of existing production capacity that will not be running at historic utilization rates, principally in Europe and some in Asia and Latin America. But also because the new capacity that is currently under construction doesn't meet traditional growth of, call it, 1.5% to 2% within the nitrogen markets, let alone any new applications for clean ammonia going into either electricity generation or into marine fuels or some of the other applications that are beginning to develop. So as we look forward, the development of those new markets is an important input as well as just our assessment of where the S&D balance is going to be on a global basis. And so again, where we are today is a starting point, but it's not really that useful in determining what the future is going to look like 4 to 5 years out.
Andrew Wong:
Okay. That's fair. And maybe just going on to clean ammonia market and demand, it's been a few years here now since you started talking about it and feels like things have started to develop over the past couple of years.
So as we get closer and closer to some of these use cases that are maybe later 2020 into 2030, do you have a sense on like how to quantify that demand, let's say, by the time we get to 2030. And what would be the primary use cases by then? Would that still be co-firing in power generation, maybe marine is coming up a little bit faster? Just curious.
W. Will:
Yes. So there have been -- I believe it's 5 power stations in Japan that have been kind of approved for conversion to be co-firing ammonia. Those include 2 from JERA and 3 others. And so the assessment of the volume of ammonia that would go into those applications, assuming only a 20% dosage rate is about 2 million tons a year.
So that's a pretty sizable increase in terms of demand, and that would be expected to be online by, call it, 2030, if not before. Additionally, we see demand beginning to develop, both in terms of marine, but also Bert can talk about some of the things that we're seeing in the way of using a decarbonized fertilizer product for certain applications in ag, not only for CPG companies but also to develop a traceable sustainable aviation fuel as well as ethanol that will meet the California low carbon fuel standard.
Bert Frost:
That's exactly that, Tony. In terms of the low carbon value chain, we see developing 4 ag and the pull-through that will take place from the CPGs and consumers. But when you look at whether that be corn or wheat, the principal consuming crops for nitrogen, as a low or no carbon ammonia is passed through corn to the ethanol plant, which is decarbonized, you have a very good upside for a decarbonized product coming from that corn value chain of starch, ethanol, fructose and the same thing with the wheat value chain. So we're working on that with several players and more to come.
Operator:
We have the next question from Adam Samuel -- sorry, that's Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson:
Maybe picking up on that last topic, Bert, there was earlier this week that the treasury department issued kind of the rules for the new 40B tax credit for sustainable aviation fuel that tax rate will change next year, but the rules that would presumably be somewhat applicable. And one of those requirements for ethanol to jet was the requirement to use climate smart agriculture, of which one of the requirements was the use of enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizer by corn growers.
And I would just love to hear your perspective on kind of how kind of disruptive that could be to the existing domestic nitrogen market and how available enhanced efficiency nitrogen fertilizer. I know there's a bunch of things that fall under that. But how -- what is that -- what could that do to domestic demand by product or form both opportunity and risk as you think about the CF network?
Bert Frost:
I don't view it as a threat. I view it as an opportunity because of the first mover with low-carbon ammonia as the largest ammonia supplier to corn production in North America, that's just right up our wheelhouse. And so working with the co-ops, CHS and Land O'Lakes and others as well as the ethanol producers, POET, ADM, CHS. Those are the people that will drive through their management area in our area, the responsibility is as we started with decarbonized product.
But we have the pipeline through a terminal, it's traceable, it's producible, it's manageable. And so each of these steps were getting tighter and better and that time frame that I would have thought was longer dated is, I would think being pulled closer. And so there is some more development. We'll be communicating this over the next quarters and years. But that's where I see this going. And climate smart agriculture, regenerative agriculture, precision agriculture, there's a lot of names for this. A lot of this is already being utilized. Some of it incorporating obviously, the seed companies and the crop protection. So our whole industry is working towards this future that's coming, and we're going to play a vital part of it.
Adam Samuelson:
That's helpful. And if I could just ask a follow-up on the spring demand here. Obviously, the ammonia side of things is more complete. Can you talk about kind of where we are on UAN from a side dress and topdress perspective and kind of when you start to think that in-season pull will really start to materialize?
Bert Frost:
So we're just getting started as we talked about planting and product movement and field work did start early. It was a surprise in February and early March, and then the rainy cold weather came through in March, delaying again field work and applications and planting. And now I would say we are on a normal -- a good pace with very good soil moisture from the Texas panhandle up through into Canada.
So the UAN season really hasn't started and where we've been positioning product, utilizing our logistics team with additional toes of UAN through our terminals and our customers' terminals, and we expect that, and I would say, now going forward -- and it should be fairly heavy because the opportunity, the upside, the pricing structure of where UAN is today compared against the price of corn on the forward for December, let's say, [ $4.60 ], [ $4.70 ]. It's attractive. And we would expect with the lower volume of spring ammonia applied, that will then move to UAN.
Operator:
The next question comes from Steve Byrne with Bank of America.
Steve Byrne:
Yes. Thank you. I'd like to continue that discussion there, Bert. You had production issues this year. You had less imports into the U.S. China's exports of urea first couple of months were almost 0. We were thinking that there was going to be some strength going into the application season, but yet over the last month, pricing has fallen.
Just curious what you think of that? Has there been less application rates of nitrogen than maybe you expected? Or was there significant ammonia application in the fall that may have reduced some of the near-term demand? Or is this a shift towards UAN? Curious of your view of where that price trajectory on Slide 8 goes.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Welcome to my confusing world because that is exactly that you've listed the dynamics that we deal with every day that really were confusing. And then just pointing to the CF system of what Tony and Chris articulated with the difficulties with the weather and the production and the maintenance issues that created on the sales side or at least the commercial side, different product allocation and movements, and I give a lot of credit to our logistics team for moving that product around.
But yes, the -- when you look at the overall market, and I would have expected what you thought coming in a strengthening market or at least a firm market, but a lot of work has gone into detail this. And you've really had some pullback in demand in some areas. I would say the EU when you look at Italy, Germany, Belgium, France on this year basis and on a fertilizer both a fall in demand along with Mexico, Philippines and then there's India tender that took place where they had a tender, had 3 million tons put into the tender, announced 750,000 tons of purchases with LOIs issued and then canceled that, would not cancel, but cut it to 350,000 tons, the traders and producers that had positions allocated towards that, then had to move that into the market and got aggressive. And that, coupled with some additional production coming on in different places, but also India, Russia, Iran and Nigeria coming back on production because several places were limited on gas, probably overwhelmed a little bit the second quarter market. And so what we would have thought was tight inventory is probably looser inventory and the U.S. won't resolve that long, but lower prices tend to incent additional demand. So as we work through Q2, I think we'll still be in the state of where we are today with pricing probably a line plus or minus where we are today and work towards the back half of the year.
Steve Byrne:
Okay. And just a question on the green ammonia plant that you're commissioning. Just curious if you've signed any contracts for that product and any of your partners in Japan or South Korea interested in bringing green ammonia into their facilities? Or do they really prefer the blue?
W. Will:
Well, the volume is not really sufficient to be able to meet the application for co-firing. We're only going to be able to make about 20,000 tons a year. And even the smallest of the power stations is going to require somewhere in the neighborhood of 350,000. And because that is a part of a broader program with some incentives provided by the government, they are going to be, I think, focused on the most economically available decarbonized product. And so that's going to be a blue product as opposed to green.
But we are in conversations with a number of companies, particularly some companies in Europe that are focused on the extremely low carbon attributes of the green product. And we need to begin making it and very likely building some level of inventory for probably half a year before we've got sufficient volume to be able to ship. So more to come on that, Steve, but we're excited about being able to both start that plant up as well as what the future holds for us.
Bert Frost:
And we're looking at 2 options. Like Tony said, as we build inventory, that could be for a vessel to a customer that wants only 0 carbon product or it could go up to one of our terminals, which our terminals are about that size, where we can isolate an area with 0 carbon ammonia, again, back to the corn value chain. So working on several different fronts at this time.
Operator:
The next question comes from Josh Spector with UBS.
Joshua Spector:
So I wanted to ask on all the projects you guys are evaluating. So particularly, I guess, with JERA, converting to a JDA, how many separate plants are you now considering at this point? And I guess, as you look at all these separate agreements, could that combine together to be more offtakes from a smaller number of plants? And would CF be interested in a very small stake and maybe more of an operator role? Or do you see yourself as requiring majority control over the facilities you built?
W. Will:
Yes, Josh. While we're evaluating a couple of different projects, principally, what we're looking at is different technology pathways to get us to a very low carbon intensity solution. And realistically, at least at this time, we're focused on one plant as opposed to multiple plants and doing the evaluation, as I said, should that be just a straight SMR, should it be an SMR with flue gas capture?
Should it be an ATR? Kind of what's the right technology to deliver on both an OpEx and CapEx basis the most competitive returns for us and our partners? And on the second question about the role that we would play, I think we're -- we are open to a variety of different structures, some of which would have us with a majority control and other structures might have us on equal footing or even, as you say, more of an operator of the asset, but with a smaller equity participation. So we're pretty open to different ways of structuring the agreements. And we're in those discussions at the same time as doing the technology evaluation, but we're really only looking at building one plant initially and seeing how the market develops, then we'll make some decisions as that continues moving forward.
Joshua Spector:
That's helpful. I guess just to clarify on my part. I guess I'm thinking about the Mitsui JV announced earlier, now JERA, JDA. Are those just different tranches of the same plant, those aren't 2 separate plants you're looking at then?
W. Will:
Initially, they were different based on the type of technology but certainly, it's our hope that we can find a way to have all of our partners participate in the same project, and that would be something that we can combine together and aggregate demand so that we're -- have a home for more rather than fewer of the tons coming off of that project.
Christopher Bohn:
I would also say, Josh, that all 3 of the FEED studies that we have ongoing, the SMR, the HR and then the flue gas, all the partners that Tony just spoke of are all participants in that even though the JDAs and the MOUs may look different. So all the partners are working collaboratively to determine what we need to do from a carbon intensity standpoint, how does that influence the technology we choose, and as Tony said, and then really the contract for difference and the economics not that come out of that in the end.
Operator:
The next question comes from Ben Isaacson with Scotia Bank.
Ben Isaacson:
Just one question from me. Tony or Bert, can you talk about the situation in Russia when it comes to nitrogen supply? If we break down ammonia, urea and nitrates, where are we right now in terms of supply? Where have we come from and where are we going? And I'm also referring to the pipeline that's being built right now.
Bert Frost:
Yes, Ben, this is Bert. And the situation in Russia is as cloudy and clear as it's ever been. So that's a little bit of a dichotomy. But it's difficult because there are some places in the world that will not accept Russian product. And so there are places that are. And the largest happens to be the United States, which is surprising with where we are geopolitically, but the other is the EU.
And so what has happened over the last year since the invasion has been just a reorganization of the distribution channel for Russian product. So a lot goes to Brazil, a lot goes to North America or not even Canada, actually just the United States and then to Europe. And so with the recent restrictions on ammonium nitrate, a lot of that was stored in St. Petersburg and are probably a decision as a reflection of some of the capabilities of the Ukraine to cause disruptions. They have canceled some of that movement or all of that movement out of those ports and are reorganizing how they'll be able to export. That has created a little bit of a shortage of ammonium nitrate in some markets. And with ammonia, you're right, the -- but the pipeline that used to go through Ukraine was stopped during the war and has been stopped and probably is not operable today, that was there usually. And so they have developed a new export corridor through the port of Taman, and they're working to get the Togliatti tons out through that. That's a black seaport and that we expect to happen probably in Q3. And so going from, let's say, 0.5 million tons of exports out of the Baltics will probably convert to a couple of million tons -- 1.5 million to 2 million tons probably over the next year and probably positioning that product in the Mediterranean, Morocco and different places. Urea and UAN, a lot of that UAN they produce comes to NOLA and the East Coast as well as Europe. And that's probably on a -- looking at the statistics for United States, UAN imports from Russia are up; from Trinidad, they're down. But that balance of UAN is probably okay. And that's about it. I think what we're going to see out of Russia is trying to get those tons out. They put out some export restrictions, but I think those are manageable, and we'll see what happens going forward.
W. Will:
Yes. I mean to tag along on that one just for a second. It's kind of shocking and I think actually, [ Yara may ] mention this as well in their call. But what's kind of shocking is that there's been all of this focus on not funding the Russian war machine and not buying Russian gas and yet the U.S. is arms wide open to take urea and UAN coming out of Russia, which is effectively just natural gas that's been converted and so it's -- the U.S. is funding the very war effort over there that on the one hand, it's condemning. So it's absolutely shocking, but I think that's not surprising given the political climate over here and the fact that we're in an election year.
But you see some of that going on, I'd say, in Europe as well where there's a lot of Russian nitrogen that's planning its way into Europe, and it's just supplanting what used to be gas.
Ben Isaacson:
And maybe just a quick follow-up on that. Can you talk about Ukraine? I mean before the invasion, I think, in 2014, Ukraine was a major exporter. And where do they stand right now? Are they self-sufficient for the net importer?
Bert Frost:
So it's actually when you take into account the acres that are planted and applied and harvested against probably the previous -- let's go back, maybe not 2014 as far back, but before the war, you've got a loss of acres, obviously, in the contested area, especially, which is good agricultural land. But you have several plants that are off-line and OPZ plant in Odessa that has been -- they're trying to -- I just read they're trying to bring that back up.
W. Will:
Although that one was struggling economically even well prior to the war. So that one has always been sort of up and down again.
Bert Frost:
So there are gas questions on gas supply. And yes, they have imported product. And so it's a question of why I think getting through the current crisis to see where we are coming out of it.
Operator:
The next question comes from Ben Theurer with Barclays.
Benjamin Theurer:
Just wanted to follow up a little bit on the global dynamics and thanks for all the comments on Russia, but coming back to China and India to a degree. So in your press release, you kind of alluded to China probably going to be back exporting some 4 million tons, also India being a little more aggressive on the internal supply, and you've talked about the tender and the implications.
So if you think about it those 2 markets, coupled with what you just said on Russia, how does that kind of level set the pricing? How do you think about pricing going forward in the medium term when -- if cost curves stick where they are right now, just given that potential supply out of China and India on top of the Russian you just mentioned?
Bert Frost:
Well, the good thing is it's a global market. And you have, in a global market today, a lot of production in dispersed countries and also a lot of consumption in dispersed countries. And in a growing population, a growing need to feed the world and the benefits of nitrogen for pollution control, which are growing, not only in DEF but in power generation and with clean energy, you have demand.
So today, let's just take urea. Today's urea market is about 55 million tons of globally traded on a vessel out of about 190 million tons of production. And so when you look at China and our number of 4 million metric tons of possible exports, that's less than 10%. If you look at India, and India has been a major player in the importation of urea and the support of the global urea price, but they're falling from imports of 7 million to 9 million tons, and we're projecting 5.5 million to 6.5 million. So that is being taken out of that global trade. But the countries that are growing, and Brazil is growing significantly, we project them to be 8 million tons. Just 15 years ago, that was around 3 million tons. So the countries that are increasing, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, South Africa, Turkey, Thailand. Those countries have grown this year in their urea consumption. The price of urea today at around $300 is highly attractive for agricultural and production control. The challenge, I think, for India -- or excuse me, for China going forward is the export controls that are in place. And the new controls are such that you have to have prepayment, a shipment date, a destination, a product price and all that set up in a contract before applying for the CIQ application. And then prepayment has to take place before the cargo moves to port. So that's a very difficult transactional structure to have China, I think, even hit the 4 million tons. And so I think we're a little vague in our comments because it's a little opaque right now in the market on how it's going to develop. But China, I think, will play in the international market once the spring season is over. And then we'll see how the pricing develops from there.
Benjamin Theurer:
Okay. And then just a quick follow-up on that industrial versus agriculture use, the impact you had in the first quarter that shift towards the lower profitability on the industrial use just because of fulfilling those contracts. Has that already normalized now that we're like early May, so that was really just like kind of a onetime? Should we think about that volume balance to be more normal and not as skewed towards the raw ammonia because of the industrial needs?
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. As we talked about, a lot of the issues that occurred in Q1 were discrete to Q1 and that those are passed us both from a production and also a sales perspective. But as you mentioned, we did take 167,000 tons of what would normally have been upgraded to urea, which, as I said in my remarks, would be about 275,000 tons of urea. So you see the urea decrease in sales and the increase we had in ammonia.
But when you put that on a nutrient margin basis of what the quarter was for the industrial ammonia versus the ag urea, you're looking at something that was almost about a $30 million margin impact. And that, combined with that $75 million of approximate maintenance expense really is what set the quarter back. But again, can emphasize enough that those are discrete items to Q1.
Operator:
The next question comes from Richard Garchitorena with Wells Fargo.
Richard Garchitorena:
I just wanted to ask about Waggaman. You mentioned that the facility had some downtime from weather in January. I was wondering if you can give us an update in terms of how the ramp-up has been since you'd closed the acquisition, integration of that asset into your facilities? And have you been able to get utilization rates up to sort of typical CF average levels as it was maybe lower than that prior to your ownership?
W. Will:
Yes, you bet. So we had an outage and we took that opportunity to conduct the turnaround that was kind of scheduled for later in the year. And so we were able to take advantage of that downtime. But prior to that and in fact, post turnaround we're operating at rates that reflect north of what nameplate capacity has been on that or is on that unit.
And so that reflects kind of more traditional operating rates for CF across our network. And I'd say the integration has gone remarkably well. The team at Waggaman has worked extremely well with the rest of the CF network. And I think it's that kind of partnership and coordination that has led to some of the improvements we've made in terms of onstream factor and operating rate at the location. So we couldn't be more happy about the acquisition and in fact, particularly at the value of it, given where new assets look like they're trading and what the cost of new construction is. So we're really pleased with adding Waggaman into the portfolio.
Richard Garchitorena:
Okay. Great. And then just on the press release on the JDA with JERA. I'm just curious in terms of -- so if capacity ends up being 1.4 million tons, JERA procurement of 500,000 tons. So how should we think about that available 900,000 tons? Is that -- given JERA is going to be taking potentially a 48% stake, did they get sort of percentage of that amount as well?
Are you looking at as potentially merchant sales or are you looking to lock that up? I know you had said earlier that you basically have 4 years from decision to production. So maybe how you think about how much you want to get locked up before you get into that sort of development of that project?
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. So I think just starting the encouraging thing is that about 0.5 million tons as a home already for it. And as you mentioned, with the next 4 years, and that provides a lot of opportunity to find basically sales for the remaining amount, along with keeping a little bit for merchant.
But the one thing with JERA is that 500,000 is just for one particular unit at their coal plant facility. And they have multiple units they're looking at in addition to that, as you look at what's going on with the JERA test right now, which is a commercial test going on, which is performing to expectations. You could see other areas that JERA has within Asia, also converting to a 20% ammonia injection into the coal along with some other additional players that are looking at it that Tony mentioned within Japan as well. So I think we're just on the first few innings of where that demand side goes. But I would say that we're very encouraged that we have a large portion of it already taken. Additionally, as Bert mentioned, you're just seeing more and more activity come along, whether it's through the power gen, the marine or the sustainable aviation fuel or even just on the legacy agricultural business, where decarbonized product is going to have a home from a supply standpoint. So we're pretty encouraged by what we have and what we're seeing going forward.
Operator:
The next question comes from Aron Ceccarelli with Berenberg.
Aron Ceccarelli:
I wanted to ask you, in the scenario where you go ahead with both the Mitsui plant and the JERA one or, say, a combined one, how should we be thinking about your capital expenditure phasing for the next 3 to 5 years?
W. Will:
Yes. So I think as Chris mentioned in our last earnings call, the FEED study for an SMR steam methane reformer, kind of a copy of Ammonia 6 at Donaldsonville was about $2.5 billion, and then there would be roughly another $500 million for scalable infrastructure that could be leveraged against additional plants on site.
So all in for the first one, it would be circa $3 billion. Now that does not include if it was required flue gas capture. And we are still in the middle of a FEED study to evaluate what it would look like to do an auto thermal reformer or an ATR. And so more to come in terms of what the cost of a different approach or different technologies are. But if we had both, let's say, JERA and Mitsui and CF kind of all aligned on one particular project, and it was 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, that would be kind of $1 billion per company to do the SMR spent over, call it, 4-ish type of years. Now if it's 50% for us and 50% for somebody else, then that increases to $1.5 billion. It just kind of scales appropriately. But it's in that order of magnitude, and it's spread over 4 to 5 years of cash outflow. So while it's a meaningful amount of cash compared to the amount of free cash that we're generating, we still have plenty of free cash available to be able to return cash to shareholders in the form of dividend and share repurchases. So it's not going to impede us from being able to execute our return of capital program and other incremental growth opportunities that we have.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to seeing you at upcoming conferences.
Operator:
Thank you. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to CF Industries Full Year and Fourth Quarter of 2023 Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning and thanks for joining the CF Industries earnings conference call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and Bert Frost, Executive Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the full-year and fourth quarter of 2023 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non GAAP measures in the press release and the presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks Martin, and good morning everyone. Yesterday afternoon we posted financial results for the full-year 2023 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of approximately $2.8 billion. Net cash from operations was also $2.8 billion and free cash flow was $1.8 billion. These results reflect a healthy nitrogen supply demand balance and global energy spreads that favor our low cost production base in North America. They also represent outstanding execution by the CF Industries team. We worked safely, ran our plants well, and navigated dynamic industry conditions. Our investments in people, safety and reliability have built the industry's highest performing manufacturing network, as you can see on Slide 6. Looking ahead, over the next four years, confirmed construction of new nitrogen production capacity is not sufficient to keep pace with the historical nitrogen demand growth rate of roughly 1.5% per year in traditional applications. Adding to this tight supply demand situation is the risk that existing ammonia production capacity in several important regions remains on the verge of permanent closure due to constrained availability and cost of natural gas. Meanwhile, emerging demand for low carbon ammonia into clean energy applications should further tighten the already strained global supply demand balance. As a result, we are confident that our cash generation will remain strong, as underscored by the recent increase in our quarterly dividend and continued share repurchases. We look to continue to invest in high return organic and inorganic projects to grow our cash generation. As such, we continue evaluating a new low carbon ammonia production plant at our Blue Point Complex in Louisiana with our partner, Mitsui. Our company share a belief that North America is the best location for production of low carbon ammonia, given natural gas cost advantages and access to CCS sites and expertise. As you can see on Slide 8, the economic value of North American nitrogen assets continues to increase over time, supporting returns greater than the cost of capital and new projects. We and Mitsui are targeting a final investment decision in the second half of 2024, when we have additional information on low carbon ammonia production technologies and better clarity on customer requirements for carbon intensity levels, along with regulatory developments. While taking a disciplined approach to growth, we will continue to return capital through our dividends and share repurchases. We have approximately $2.6 billion remaining on our current share repurchase authorization and fully expect to complete it before its expiration at the end of 2025. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen market conditions in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks Tony. The fourth quarter of 2023 was an active period for our team, highlighted by the largest fall ammonia application season in North America in years. A strong fall application season indicates a commitment to nitrogen consuming crops on these acres and robust demand for additional urea and UAN applications through the first half of 2024. This, along with strong ag fundamentals, supports our outlook for a positive spring application season. We expect 91 million acres of corn to be planted in the United States. As we continue to work with customers in advance of spring applications, we believe supply is more constrained in the North American nitrogen channel than industry expectations. Inventories were below average entering the year and net imports of nitrogen to the region are not making up the difference. The cold snap we experienced in North America during January has exacerbated this situation. We believe that there has been significant volume of domestic nitrogen production lost due to weather related shutdowns across the region's supply base. We estimate that CF Industries lost approximately 150,000 tons of ammonia production in January from our own network due to the weather, unexpected supply tightness often leads to follow on logistics challenges and early spring would further strain the supply chain. We believe that our in region production and extensive logistics and distribution capabilities will serve us well in this environment. Global grain stocks use ratios have returned to normal levels after two robust growing seasons. However, we do not project a significant impact on global nitrogen demand, given the imperative to seed growing populations. We expect continued supply constraints in key producing regions, most notably ammonia production economics in Europe remain challenging. Global ammonia spot prices continues to align with the full cost of European ammonia production, confirming Europe as the industry's marginal producer. This continues to support elevated imports of nitrogen products into Europe compared to a decade ago. Beyond Europe, natural gas availability continues to affect ammonia and UAN production in Trinidad. And based on its actions in the fourth quarter of 2023, we believe the Chinese government will limit exports through the first half to ensure supply availability and urea price stability for the Chinese domestic market. Looking ahead, forward energy curves suggest continued favorable energy spreads between low cost North American production and high cost production in Europe and Asia. We believe this will support sustained margin opportunities for our low cost manufacturing asset base. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks Bert. For the full year 2023, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of approximately $1.5 billion, or $7.80 per diluted share. EBITDA was $2.7 billion and adjusted EBITDA was approximately $2.8 billion. In the fourth quarter, we completed the acquisition of Incitec Pivot's Waggaman ammonia production facility. After adjustments and accounting for the value assigned to a long term supply agreement with IPL's Dyno Nobel subsidiary, our cash purchase price was approximately $1.2 billion. The Waggaman facility has operated as expected since closing and has generated margin commensurate with our existing ammonia segment. Looking ahead to 2024, we expect capital expenditures for the year to be in the range of $550 million and for gross ammonia production to be near 10 million tons. As Bert said, we experienced unplanned weather related outages in our network during January. During these outages, we pulled forward some planned maintenance activities. This should reduce scheduled downtime later this year, mitigating some of the production loss in January. As a result, we expect gross ammonia production for the year to be near our projection. Commissioning of our green ammonia project at Donaldsonville is underway. We are currently evaluating the purchase of renewable energy credits to pair with the start-up of the electrolyzer to enable green ammonia production and maximize the value of the 45B production tax credit. We expect that the CO2 dehydration and compression unit at Donaldsonville will be ready for start-up in 2025. This will enable low carbon ammonia production and generate substantial 45Q tax credits. We are also making progress on other CCS opportunities with returns above our cost of capital. Turning to the potential new low-carbon ammonia plant at our Blue Point complex in Louisiana, we completed our FEED study on a conventional steam methane reformer ammonia plant with CCS technologies. The FEED study estimates the cost of the ammonia plant at approximately $2.5 billion, we estimate another $500 million for scalable infrastructure, such as storage tanks and loading docks. Our FEED studies focused on autothermal reforming or ATR ammonia production technology and flue gas capture are progressing well. Alongside disciplined clean energy investments, we are committed to returning capital to long-term shareholders. In 2023, we returned almost $900 million to shareholders through share repurchases and dividend payments despite being locked out of the repurchases for part of the year. We expect share repurchase activity to increase over the two remaining years on our current authorization. As you can see on Slide 7 and 8, on both a free cash flow yield and a precedent transaction basis, our enterprise value is significantly undervalued, supporting continued share repurchases. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for their contributions to an outstanding year. I especially want to highlight the progress our team made in the second half of the year regarding our safety performance. After a challenging start to 2023, we ended the year with a 12-month recordable incident rate of 0.36 incidents per 200,000 work hours, in line with our performance in recent years and significantly better than industry averages. Our operational excellence and significant structural advantages underpin our cash generation. This enables us to invest in the business to further increase cash generation and drive increased shareholder participation in our free cash flow. In the last three years, we acquired the Waggaman ammonia production facility, advanced high return clean energy initiatives, increased our dividend by 67% and deployed $2.5 billion to repurchase more than 31 million shares which represented approximately 15% of the outstanding share count at that time. Additionally, we have strengthened our balance sheet to provide us tremendous flexibility as we are able to grow our business at the same time as return significant cash to shareholders. This approach has had a dramatic impact. As you can see on Slide 10, shareholder participation in our business has increased 80% in the last 10 years. We're excited about the opportunity ahead of us to build on this track record. In the near term, we expect industry fundamentals to remain favorable to our low-cost production network. Longer term, disciplined investments in low-carbon ammonia production can provide a robust growth platform for the company. Taken together, we expect to continue creating substantial value for long-term shareholders. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes, thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
So I guess, Tony, I guess the first question is we think about the decision to pursue additional FEED studies on the Blue Point complex evaluating the different technologies. Just help us frame the increment on carbon reduction that could come from either ATR or the flue gas capture? And maybe any additional color on the policy drivers of your potential offtakers as they evaluate what threshold is needed to commit to taking the blue ammonia volumes longer term?
Tony Will:
Yes. Adam, so one of the reasons that we're evaluating all the different kind of possible paths forward is to really have a comprehensive set of solutions depending upon the carbon intensity levels that are ultimately demanded by customers. And conventional CCS, the way that we've implemented it in Donaldsonville today allows for the process CO2 to be stripped out and sequestered, and that means you can reduce the carbon intensity by about almost 70% versus kind of conventional ammonia, particularly given that the plant that we're talking about having implemented that on is among one of the most efficient newest plants in the world. So it already is a fairly low footprint relative to older plants. If you look at doing flue gas capture in conjunction with processed gas, CCS we think we can get rid of in excess of 95% of the CO2 emissions coming out of that particular plant. If you look at autothermal reforming, the estimates are you can get to the 90% to 95% reduction level. But the problem with that is because of the way that the technology works, you have to have a very, very large air separation unit to introduce the nitrogen back into the process that you don't get when you're -- because you're not doing steam methane reforming. And the electricity draw on a large AirSep unit like that is a tremendous adder to cost of the project as well as op cost. And based on the grids where we're thinking about, the Scope 2 emissions become substantial. So that means you've got to do a bunch of things in order to potentially limit the emissions of Scope 2 that you'd otherwise pick up in order to get to the 90% or 95% reduction levels. And that brings with it all of its own set of costs and OpEx, CapEx in. So that's really why we're looking at kind of all of these different possible paths to give us kind of the full suite of optionality and really understand OpEx, CapEx costs in order to hit certain thresholds that the customers may ultimately demand in terms of the product. But the other point is we have a very large network longer term that we are focused on getting to carbon neutrality in the next 25 years. And so flue gas capture is going to play an important role in that process as we continue to move forward. And so us kind of getting more heavily involved in that and really understanding the different potential paths is an important thing for us longer term strategically anyway. And this is a good time for us to really kind of dive in as we're contemplating making an investment decision in new production.
Adam Samuelson:
All right. That's very helpful. And if I could just squeeze a quick market question just on natural gas. As you think about the decline recently in TTF and LNG prices broadly, it doesn't seem like you expect quick restart of idled or high-cost European production? Just how are you thinking about that over the course of the year?
Bert Frost:
Yes. Adam, good morning. This is Bert. When you look at the spreads, what's going on in the world with Henry Hub trading today at $1.60, $1.65 and NBP and TTF in Europe, trading in the, let's say, $7 to $8 range and so you have a pretty big spread. And as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, where we are in the ammonia supply chain, you're bidding close to that full cost range for European and some high-cost Asian producers especially when you consider carbon costs. And so the competitiveness, we're still in our position of the European producer is the marginal producer, and that will set the cost floor or the price floor. And we don't see in the short term an improvement in gas supply taking place to lower that value.
ChrisBohn:
Yes. And I would just add to that, that the decision goes beyond just the cash cost immediately goes into the idea of cycling these plants is not necessarily good additional maintenance that may be needed prior to starting those back up or turnarounds that are coming forward or even holding inventory at certain periods of time that have a working capital cost to them. So I think gas is obviously the primary driver, but there's a lot of other ancillary drivers that go into factoring whether you restart.
Tony Will:
Overall, I think, though, the message you'll hear from us is we're very -- we're very optimistic about what the S&D balance looks like and what the demand for our products are on a global basis. It gives Bert a lot of optionality to think about exports and satisfying in-market demand here. And we just have a lot of roads to help get us there.
Adam Samuelson:
I appreciate all the color. I will pass it on thanks.
Operator:
The next question is from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson:
Good morning. A couple of questions. I noticed in your slide deck, your new updated sensitivity table, right, that shows EBITDA for every level of gas price and urea price, it's down in every single cell by $300 million at the same gas price and the same U.S. gas price in the same urea price versus what you had in the fall. Can you explain what's going -- and it's that higher volume now. You're at 1 million tons higher volume. Can you explain the drop in EBITDA at every single cell?
Tony Will:
Yes. Let's start off with the volume issue first because I think that's an important one to kind of get on the table, and then we'll go through kind of the table in a little more detail. But although we did add the Waggaman facility into the network, there is a maintenance turnaround event on that facility, and there's also a couple of significant maintenance activities. One of them is on debuild number six, which is our -- the largest operating ammonia plant in the world. And so when you've got a 40-day outage on a plant like that, that takes our production down. Now that said, as Chris and Bert talked about, we still expect to generate about circa 10 million tons of ammonia this year, which is in line with what we've historically done. The big issue in terms of last year versus this year was we had -- we entered into last year with a fairly high inventory level. So we had pretty substantial additional sales volumes last year based on inventory drawdown that we're not able to tap into. So our volumes kind of year-on-year are going to be order of magnitude fairly similar last year to this year.
ChrisBohn:
Yes. And additionally, Joel, I think the big -- one of the bigger aspects of it is the relationship between the products on a pricing basis was updated to what 2023 was. So we always use the prior year as sort of the structure benchmark from that compared to 2022. So you saw more parity between the products than maybe what was a premium for UAN prior to that. And obviously, we do quite a bit of UAN volume. So this is just based on not only the cost structure of 2023, which we saw higher non-gas costs, primarily through logistics, but then also that new relationship that we experienced over the last 12 months on pricing.
Joel Jackson:
Okay. So my follow-up will be kind of two parter because first, I just want to follow up on that. So I guess you're saying at the same gas price and same urea price, excuse me, UAN and ammonia prices are lower at the same urea and gas price? And then my true follow-up question would be, when looking at the Blue the Greenfield Blue Project, Blue Ammonia Project. Obviously, we saw a very good valuation comp with coke and the weaver plant a couple of months ago that you obviously didn't buy would it not make sense to just buy back stock as much as you can, just attack it authorization, don't do any greenfield plants because the market's not giving you the valuation that Coke is obviously giving to Weaver. I know it's not exactly 1-to-1, but isn't just makes sense just buy back stock as much as you can?
Tony Will:
Yes. Let me take the first one first, and then I'll come back to your second point. The first one, not really being a full-on question, more of a statement. So every year, we try to update the table based on what the relationship was in terms of margin per nutrient ton of the previous year. And so the table will naturally evolve up and down and sideways and whatnot based on previous year. It doesn't mean that this is precise because if UAN starts on a nutrient basis starts trading at a premium to urea then the numbers are going to go up in every cell because of the volume of UAN that we sell. So this is illustrative as opposed to a point estimate. But your general comment of the relative premium of UAN versus urea dropped last year compared to where it was the year before is the right kind of takeaway, and that's the basis and underlying the sensitivity table. On the second question, we think that the price paid for Weaver is a fair but a full price for that asset. And our view is that at any point in time where we have made decisions to expand our network. Someone could have made exactly the same argument that you just made, which is it's cheaper to buy back shares than it is to add capacity. Therefore, you should never add back or add capacity. That would have been true. Back in 2010 when we bought Terra that would have been true. When we acquired the Medicine Hat slice that we didn't know and that would have been true. When we did the expansion projects at Donaldsonville and Port Neal or even probably the Waggaman asset that was just acquired. At every stage, we have been able to invest capital and earn a rate of return well above our cost of capital. So that's a value adding transaction, whereas buying shares back at market price by definition, is sort of NPV zero. Our view is if you look at the aggregate amount of cash that we generate and shareholder participation, sort of the ratio of the number of shares outstanding. Our shareholders have been much better off based on the combined approach that we've taken to both disciplined add capacity and also take shares out of the marketplace. And that has created a lot of value relative to an exclusive pathway of one versus the other. And so we're going to continue to evaluate the attractiveness of adding capacity on a basis of can we generate returns on a risk-adjusted basis above our cost of capital because generating more cash flow simply allows larger share repurchases in the future and it's not necessarily a point in time comparison about where we're trading in that moment because as you well know, these assets go 40, 50, 60 years in length. And so we really need to take a view of do we fully expect it to be a positive IRR and PP positive transaction to invest in a new plant because we can always default to buying shares back. And by the way, because of how well the business is operating, it's not an either/or question for us, we can actually do both at the same time.
Operator:
The next question is from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Steve Byrne:
Yes, thank you. Bert, I got a couple of questions about your near-term outlook. Could it -- could the strong ammonia fall application season you rode the spring demand for urea perhaps more than UAN. Is that why maybe your UAN production was so robust in the fourth quarter. And when you look out at imports coming into the U.S., you commented about low inventory levels. some lower production in the U.S., we're hearing that there might be a much less level of imports this spring than in prior years. Is that consistent with your view? And how much have you sold forward into the second quarter?
Bert Frost:
Okay Steve, well good morning and some very good questions and top of the -- of our mind today. Because as we look outside in Sunny Chicago, it's 43 degrees and we've got good soil moisture, and I would anticipate an early spring based on historicals and what we see throughout the Midwest. What that means is you're pulling forward demand. That encompassing earlier opening to river barges means product can move. So a lot of synergistic things happening at the same time. Our outlook is positive. 91 million acres of corn and good moisture and wheat country and as well as good value surpassed. You're going to see nitrogen applications in all the segments, probably at or above normal. When you look at the fall ammonia level. As we said, that was our -- probably our second best fall ammonia in 10 years. But when you put that into context of how many tons could go out, there is a substantial amount of demand to be satisfied with ammonia, UAN and urea in the spring. So our probably a couple of hundred thousand tons more than normal, we believe we were one of the last companies standing due to our logistics capabilities and distribution networks, which we leveraged very well with product in place, and then we're able to run all the way through November in Q4. And so I look for a very positive spring demand for UAN and urea as well as ammonia. The imports have been lower, and that's been fairly consistent, but when you go back and look at it in totality, the low level of inventory we believe that we carried in, coupled with the low level of imports to date, and we're tracking vessel nominations in what we think are coming in, in Feb, March and April, it's going to be a challenge. And then, again, weaving into that an early spring impacts that even more. And so our forward call is we're probably going to see and we are seeing some price appreciation you're going to see demand coming forward earlier, and we're prepared or being prepared for that eventuality even with some of the loss of production we experienced in January, we believes others in our industry experienced as well, but these are the challenges we face, and we will meet them.
Steve Byrne:
And maybe just one quick one for you, Chris. in that flue gas carbon capture analysis that you're doing there's a variety of technologies out there. Are you looking at several different technologies? And are you also looking at potentially using oxygen in the boiler instead of urea?
ChrisBohn:
Well, I'll say the engineering team has reviewed several different engineering types for the flue gas capture, but we are focusing on one specific as we're moving through the FEED study rather than doing multiple FEED studies with additional technology providers through that.
Steve Byrne:
Thank you.
Operator:
The next question is from Josh Spector with UBS. Please go ahead.
Josh Spector:
Yes, hi guys, good morning. So I wanted to follow up on the additional FEED studies for carbon capture. And I just specifically asked about if there's been any changes in what you're hearing in terms of policy in Japan. I thought Japan was kind of leading the way that clean ammonia 60%, 70% lower carbon was something they were comfortable with accepting with their first move to reduce coal intensity, maybe other countries wanted to push it further. So has anything changed on the Japan side and how that relates to your first potential investment here?
ChrisBohn:
Yes. From Japan side, I don't think they've come out necessarily with the strict -- what are their requirements for carbon intensity. We've had plenty of discussions not only with our partners, but with the government related to that, there's a few different scenarios that they're playing through. But as to exactly what they want, that hasn't come. They have, as you mentioned, preliminarily said that they would be willing to accept a lower carbon intensity or I should say, yes, a lower carbon intensity amount there, whereas some of the other nations specifically Korea are looking for carbon intensity that basically has 90% reduction. And that's why we're looking at some of these other options as well to do that. So more to come on the clarity, as Tony mentioned in his prepared remarks and his questions about what's happening out of Japan. Now, one of the things that is occurring in Japan right now is the cabinet has moved forward with a package for this towards the diet. So we should see some sort of approval from essentially the diet in the next several months. And then from there, Medi would be able to allocate those funds and we begin to put in applications for the projects with our partners. So -- nothing has changed from where we stood three months ago or six months ago, but we are looking at many different alternatives, as Tony mentioned.
Josh Spector:
Okay, thanks. And just on Waggaman. I mean I don't believe you mentioned at all that anything update on what you're doing in terms of potential CCS at that site. So just curious if you have any thoughts there on what that could look like timeline wise? And if there's anything to note about why CapEx or even OpEx, I guess, as you think about sending it on pipeline to get sequestered if that's meaningfully different versus what you're doing in Donaldsonville or similar?
ChrisBohn:
Well, I think Waggaman is just another site within our whole entire network now. So we're viewing Waggaman similarly how we're reviewing all our sites when it comes to CCS, that being specifically Yasu City, and Medicine Hat in Alberta, some of the projects that are a little bit further along but our team is evaluating CCS at Waggaman, but again, similar to how we're evaluating at all other sites. What I would say from a pipeline and sequestration, I think with Louisiana getting primacy on Class 6, we should be seeing a little bit more expedited approvals of those Class 6, specifically in Louisiana and that's going to help move things along much more quickly. And I think based on some of where those Class 6 wells, particularly are also going to direct us where we're going to put more of our time on each of our network sites for CCS. So more to come on that, but we continue to evaluate and be very optimistic about Waggaman just as we are at Donaldsonville today.
Josh Spector:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
The next question is from Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. Who are the natural buyers for your green ammonia? And how do you think about the price at which you might sell it?
Bert Frost:
So what we're working on now is just that the volume of product that we will be producing could be digestible in a vessel, which could go to Europe. We're working with some of the ethanol producers for a low-carbon corn value chain, which we believe will lead then to sustainable aviation fuel and low carbon fuel products. We're talking to some of the food companies and some of their labeling ventures and how do we do that and incorporate that? So both blue and green or let's just call it low carbon and no carbon products, we're moving forward. And we think we have quite a few opportunities to market those products out of value over conventional products.
ChrisBohn:
Yes. And I think if you look at it, Jeff, both similar with blue and green, we're going to be the first to market with these. And as you look at the green, there's just not a lot of supply there. So as Bert mentioned, you're probably going to see a premium based on that product that is significantly above our cost, I would say, just because it's a smaller amount. As we bring on Blue will be the first in the world with any measurable amount of volume with that. And I think there's a lot of activity, as Bert said, on the demand pull side that we're beginning to see that we feel fairly confident that we'll be able to receive some sort of premium on it what that is, that is yet to be determined 100% at this time.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Okay. And then natural gas prices have fallen pretty sharply, but you also hedge. Do you expect much hedging penalty in the first quarter?
Bert Frost:
So how we talk about gas is just that. We do hedge and we saw that the reason why in January with the spikes up to $50 in our Iowa facilities and actual availability or lack thereof in some other facilities. So hedging and securing supply during the cold months of Dec, Jan and Feb are important. But you're correct on the reverse side of that is those hedges were taken at higher value than we are in the cash market today. So your first quarter value for gas will be over what the cash value is and more to come on that.
Tony Will:
I would say though, the offset to that Jeff is we're not -- we're clearly not 100% hedged. We do, to Bert's point, like to do basis hedging more than Henry Hub necessarily hedging. And so we are benefiting from the drop in the daily cash rate on a piece of it as well. And so in some cases, it's not fixed price. There could be some swaps or some collars that are in there. And so we do get to participate in a portion of that reduction in gas costs. But really, what we're trying to do is protect the margin against unusual weather events that can blow out against us. And if you end up giving up a nickel or a dime along the way in order to protect against the potential blowout that's a reasonable insurance policy from our perspective, but Q2 forward is open.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Okay, great. Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question is from Richard Garchitorena with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Richard Garchitorena:
Thanks. Good morning. My first question was just on the update to the Mitsui JV and the Clean Energy Project. So it looks like the initial CapEx estimate from the FEED study is roughly $3 billion. Just curious, where did -- does that compare to the original estimate when you signed the MOU back in early 2022, how much capacity does that entail and then also, what protocols are you putting in place to maintain that cost estimate as you progress through development?
Tony Will:
Yes. So we have not made a final investment decision on that yet. We have an estimate that we think is within kind of plus/minus 10%-ish of the final cost. But we have not made a decision to proceed with that. And therefore, there's nothing that we've done to kind of "lock in" that price because no decision has been made to progress. Relative to when we initially began talking with Mitsui and created kind of the MOU around the joint venture to pursue this project. We had, I would say, some very high level estimates of where we thought the cost might come in, but we certainly had not gone through the process of doing the FEED study to get an accurate cost estimate. And so it was just directional at best. I would say that the cost to complete, including the site level and a scalable infrastructure that Chris mentioned in his comments, is a bit higher than what we had maybe initially thought. But I think that's reflective of the relatively tight labor market and inflation in general, particularly around some of the exotic metals that are required. But what that also suggests is that the value of existing assets is that much higher as we saw with the sale of the Weaver asset here just recently and suggest that the value of the rest of our network is, again, even that much higher as well. So we're still in process of evaluating whether there's a project that we want to fund here or not. And as part of that, we are evaluating different production technologies and different amounts of carbon reduction levels. And we'll make that ultimate decision kind of sometime in the back half of this year, along with our partner, Mitsui.
Richard Garchitorena:
Okay. Great, thanks for that. And then just talking about the nitrogen market. It looks like you cited about 40% of ammonia capacity in Europe being shut down in early January. And that's up versus around 25%, I believe, as of early November. And this is during a period when European natural gas prices have actually come down over 40%. So I guess, what is driving that? Is that -- is part of that curtailment maintenance shutdowns? Or are these -- part of these permanent shutdowns they expect to continue through 2024?
Tony Will:
I mean I think it can be both of that. There's also an issue of if you can acquire deepwater traded ammonia at a cost that's lower than what you can produce using domestic gas. There's no reason not to do it. If you are in a facility primarily doing nitrite as opposed to urea, you don't need the CO2.
Bert Frost:
And I think a reflection of the gas -- current gas price today is in the cash market that was not available just a short time ago. And so the reflection of 40% as a look back on Q4 and entering into Q1, and you're probably going to see some of those plans restart, especially with the Russian announcement of limiting ammonium nitrate exports that just came out today, that's going to have a substantial impact on Eastern Europe and Central Europe and probably the ability to export for the Western European producers who can export, for example, Brazil had a 1 million-ton consumer of ammonium nitrate and Central America will need someone to supply that. So let's say, today, that's $8 gas that's doable in relation to the absence of the product coming out of Russia. So things are changing. And I think the gas as well as the supply market as well.
Operator:
The next question is from Edlain Rodriguez with Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Edlain Rodriguez:
Thank you. Good morning everyone. Maybe this is for Tony or maybe for Bert. I mean if you compare where we are today with three, four, five months ago, are you more positive or less positive on the prospect of the industry or NCF for 2024, and that's looking at some of the big drivers, like corn prices, corn acreage, the energy complex supply demand? Like anything else you want to address? Like do you see things being more -- are you more or less positive?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean, I think gas has been very constructive for us. Our cost, it looks like as they're shaping up for the balance of the year should be down substantially relative to where we were back in kind of November when we put together our thoughts of where we expected the year to come out. I also think that some of the other changes kind of structurally, whether it's potential imports running slower than expected in early spring what we believe is lower channel inventories than kind of many expect out there. All of those things, I think, are net positives for our business, particularly for the first half. So overall, my sense is we're feeling pretty good about the way the year is shaping out.
Bert Frost:
I agree. In terms of where we were coming into a falling market, falling urea price market in Q4 and now in Q1 are rising urea market. Why is that? Related to energy, of course, and the inability of -- or the non-economic position of the European producer and higher imports, but you're seeing in terms of the global market of a very tight market, you've had downtime in Malaysia, export restrictions in Indonesia, export restrictions in China, as well as heavy imports and continued imports into India, but heavy imports into Brazil. And we're just entering our season, as we talked about previously with a tight market and needing to be -- to bring in product and so you have a tighter global market and then that's reflected in price. For the values for the feed grains, corn at $4.60, $4.70 is very attractive, especially when you look at trend yield over 180 and yields in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana above 200, it's very profitable. This will be the fourth best year in 10 years for the American farmer. And so when you couple that all together, as well as global supply and demand, I would say we're positive for 2023 -- 2024.
Edlain Rodriguez:
Okay, thank you. That's all I have.
Operator:
The next question is from Ben Theurer with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Ben Theurer:
Yes Good morning, and thanks for taking my questions. Just wanted to follow up a little bit on the international trade dynamics and in particular, the export market versus the import markets and where you're seeing especially in South America, Brazil inventory levels. We've talked about the North American as being low, but we all know Brazil has been a little bit more of an issue. So within that 7 million to 8 million tons of import need. What's your sense on the ground inventories in Brazil right now? And how does that shape up for your opportunities to potentially export into the region? Thank you.
Bert Frost:
Yes. So CF is an active exporter of our major products, ammonia, UAN, urea and some ammonium nitrate. The UAN has predominantly gone to Europe, Argentina and Australia and urea is more spot and situational. Where we are in Brazil today with about 44 million tons of consumption of NPK and the targets for 2024 are closer to 46 million tons, you're going to need our projections are over 8 million tons of urea imports to Brazil for the calendar year. And that's a very positive move. That will push Brazil to the largest importing country surpassing India who is between 6 million and 7 million tons now. Brazil did have high levels of inventories and imports entering the year. Much of that was consumed during the Safrinha season of which is January, February and March of applications, and they are low-level importers 200,000 tons, 300,000 tons a month. Their wheat application starts in April, and then we moved to corn applications in July, August, September and then cotton later in the year and again, repeating the cycle. So Brazil is the positive, I'd say, consumption train in the world of fertilizer economies, and it's going to continue to play a major part and so the S&D right now is balanced type globally for urea.
Ben Theurer:
Thank you.
Operator:
The next question is from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong:
Hi, good morning. So regarding your hurdle rate that's required for the investment decision at Blue Point, if you say -- like if you get take-or-pay offtake with steady volumes and steady margins, does that lower the rate for the hurdle versus some of your other projects or buybacks or anything else you'd be considering?
Chris Bohn:
Yes, I think as you look at any return on a project, it's a set return with a risk premium based in there. If you have take-or-pay, that's offtake on a ratable basis, you're probably willing to take a lower return profile on that. I mean that allows a lot of additional synergies that run throughout the entire network as we see with our [Mosaic] contract with them taking ammonia on a ratable basis, lower inventory, lower receivables, different things like that, lower risk involved and therefore, that allows you to have a lower risk premium and therefore, taking a slightly lower return on that.
Andrew Wong:
Okay. Great. And then just regarding the Donaldsonville ammonia project, could you just provide the latest update for the injection well permits? And I think you mentioned this Louisiana gaining primacy on the classic wells. What does that mean? And how quickly can you get approvals there? And how quickly can drilling be completed?
Chris Bohn:
Yes. So the approval time line on that is really based on our partner, Exxon, and what they're doing both with the Class 6 and some of that's probably been accelerated some by their acquisition of the Denbury pipeline because it allows the other access to different states with Class 6 that may have a -- I would say, a shorter queue time than what Louisiana or some of the other states, so we are confident that in 2025, we will economically be receiving a benefit related to the 45Q and therefore, we'll have low carbon ammonia ready.
Andrew Wong:
It's great. Thank you.
Operator:
The next question is from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Vincent Andrews:
Thank you. Tony, on the blue ammonia JV with Mitsui, I guess a couple of questions. One, if we get to the second half of '24, and I assume that's probably the third quarter call or maybe you'll have an update and you're not moving forward at that point, what's happened, do you think? And then just secondly, I believe there are several other potential MOUs or JV partners that you have out there. Is there any update on those? Or is that all pending sort of the outcome with Mitsui?
Tony Will:
Yes, we're very happy with the agreements that we have in place and the partners that we have lined up to pursue these kind of opportunities with us. A lot of them that we have come out publicly with tend to be Asian focus. So a couple of Japanese firms as well as South Koreans. I would say that the Korean government and the customers as a result are a little bit behind from a time line perspective compared to the Japanese. And so we'll likely be making a decision around a plant principally targeting the Japanese market first, and then we'll eventually look at both Korean market and potentially European partners that we've discussed with as well further out. And that could be served by one in the same plant or it might have different requirements associated with it. But if we decide not to proceed, I think it's a combination of very likely just aggregate costs associated with moving forward and lack of line of sight on making sure that we can earn an appropriate risk-adjusted rate of return against that cost nut. Relative to the global S&D. I think I kind of went through that a bit in my prepared remarks, which is we're constructive on where we sit right now. Our results last year were strong. We're looking at another good year this year. Longer term, traditional applications for nitrogen continue to grow in the kind of 1.5 plus or minus percent range per year, and there's not enough new projects that are currently under construction globally to meet that requirement. Adding into the either supply deficit or demand increase is you've got some plants around the world, including Trinidad and probably Europe that are facing challenges with gas availability and gas cost. And then you've got new or potentially new applications for ammonia that are also developing. So all of those things lead to a tighter global S&D marketplace bidding in higher and higher cost of production around the world. And that provides, I think, a reasonable backdrop for us to be considering building new production capacity. But we have to, at the end of the day, be comfortable that we can earn an appropriate rate of return that's well above our cost of capital for us to want to proceed with a project like that.
Vincent Andrews:
Okay, thanks very much.
Operator:
The next question is from Aron Ceccarelli with Berenberg. Please go ahead.
Aron Ceccarelli:
Hi good morning. Thanks for taking my question. My first one is about the comments you made on farmer incomes in your press release. You talked about improving farmer income in North America and in 2024. I was wondering what's the thought process here, considering that we saw John Deere on year-to-date being a little bit more downbeat and I think USDA report last month was a little bit down bit to. My second question is around blue ammonia and the news around the potential partnership with POSCO. Is there any color you can provide about the implied blue premium you are assuming or you have in mind? And my final one is on exports from China. I think Yara last week in Europe mentioned that Chinese export could potentially come back a little bit messaging today in the presentation seems that there could be some temporary windows about where Chinese could export. So just wondering if you see the situation changing pretty much you would expect, again, a very tight export market from China at this stage. Thank you.
Bert Frost:
Good morning. Regarding the farmer income comment, what my comment was it's the fourth best in about 10 years. So when you look at -- as compared to last year, the year before, you're referencing John Deere, some of the chemical or seed suppliers, if not it's lower, but it's still at $4.60, $4.70 corn for December corn pricing today, and what was hedgeable not just a few months ago at 5.10, 5.20, very attractive, again, based on just trend yield of 180 bushels an acre, which is what we're targeting for 2024. But most high-state farmers are in the 200 to 250 bushels. So very profitable even with the drop in fertilizer prices, the drop in diesel prices. And so you have to look at the total cost structure for a farmer, whether that's owned land or rented land, variable costs against fixed costs and putting that whole structure together, it's still a good time to be a farmer. That was the point. Regarding the exports from China, we've seen a different China about every other year. And our prepared remarks and communication about what we expect out of China is that the government restrictions are in place for urea and some phosphate products. They will continue through or into Q2 and our expectations for China or they will export, they will return to the export market. And being that in the past five years, it's been between 2 million and 5 million tons we would say 3 million to 4 million tons of exports, sort of logical volume for 2024.
Tony Will:
And then relative to blue ammonia premium, blue ammonia for us makes great economic sense even if there were no premium in the marketplace because of the 45Q tax credit, I think we've kind of gone through that math a little bit in the past, but we expect a net benefit from the Donaldsonville blue ammonia project in order of magnitude of roughly about $100 million net benefit to us per year. So just on the face of it, that's a great investment for us. Now that said, we have had I would say, ever-increasing interest levels in blue ammonia from a variety of different constituents, including a number of our existing customers, but also some other folks that have reached out. And so based on a relatively small volume of decarbonized or blue ammonia that's going to be available principally just from us beginning in 2025. And the appetite in the marketplace, we absolutely believe that it's going to be a commodity and scarce supply relative to the appetite for it. And so it will carry with it a premium in the marketplace just on in S&D, there's more demand than there is supply on. We have not formalized exactly how we're thinking about selling that in because we want to begin actually producing it, and that's going to be dependent to some extent on the timing of our per ExxonMobil in this deal. But we feel very good about the likelihood of a reasonable premium that adds on to what's a very attractive regulatory framework for Blue.
Bert Frost:
Plus, I'll add one more positive comment for the team, for the company and for what we are about as a company with the Do It Right culture, we have the highest onstream factor. We have the best safety statistics in the world. and we're going to lead the world in this move to low-carbon ammonia because it's the right thing to do and the government is incentivizing us and our shareholders want us to do this. And so there's a lot of positive energy going forward with that and what we will bring to the market.
Aron Ceccarelli:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for any closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to seeing you at upcoming conferences.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to CF Industries' First Nine Months and Third Quarter of 2023. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries earnings conference call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Executive Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first nine months and third quarter of 2023 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted our financial results for the first nine months of 2023, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of approximately $2.2 billion. Our trailing 12 months net cash from operations was $2.9 billion and free cash flow was $2 billion. These results reflect continued strong execution by the CF Industries team, a constructive global nitrogen supply-demand balance and energy spreads favoring North American production. Looking forward, we remain very positive about the opportunities that lie ahead. In the near term, we expect strong demand for the 2024 application season in North America due to low nitrogen inventories across the supply chain. We expect to close the acquisition of the Waggaman ammonia plant this year, adding that facility to our network and production volumes for 2024 and beyond. In the medium term, industry fundamentals point to a tightening global nitrogen supply-demand balance. Over the next four years, construction of new nitrogen production capacity does not keep pace with the expected demand growth of approximately 1.5% per year in traditional applications. Additionally, several important regions are projected to have reduced nitrogen production, given constraints around the cost and availability of natural gas in those regions. Finally, longer term, we expect our clean energy initiatives to provide strong returns and multiple growth opportunities for the company, while helping us to meet our decarbonization goals. Taken together, we are very optimistic about our ability to drive strong cash generation in the years ahead. This will enable us to continue to create value over the long-term through disciplined investments in growth opportunities as well as returning capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss global nitrogen market conditions in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The third quarter is often a period of softer demand and softer prices in North America as applications for the current crop are completed and purchasers assess their needs for the next spring. This year, purchases aggressively entered the market early in the third quarter driven by attractive nitrogen values, positive farm economics, strong interest from Europe and low inventories in the North American nitrogen channel. CF Industries built a good order book early in the third quarter and by the end of September, our UAN and ammonia order books stretched well into the fourth quarter. Strong demand early in the quarter helped drive nitrogen prices higher during the quarter. Urea barge prices in New Orleans moved up from below $300 per ton to over $400 per ton in early September. While the Tampa ammonia contract moved from $285 per metric ton, to $575 per metric ton during the quarter. We believe nitrogen inventories in North America remain low and substantial future demand will still need to be met as we enter the New Year. We are well positioned for this environment giving our low inventories today an open order book for the first quarter of 2024 and beyond and wide global energy spreads that continue to favor our low-cost North American manufacturing base. Outside of North America, we project significant nitrogen demand from India and Brazil in the coming months. As expected, India has been active in the fourth quarter so far, securing 1.7 million tons of urea in their latest tender. We expect demand for urea in Brazil will be robust through February for continence and second crop corn planting. Longer term, agricultural led demand for nitrogen should remain resilient with global green stocks expected to approach averages from the last five years by the end of the 2024 growing season. We also expect continued supply constraints in some key producing regions. Natural gas availability remains an ongoing challenge in Trinidad, which in recent years have seen the loss of nearly 1 million metric tons per year of production compared to the 2018 to 2020 average. High natural gas prices have made ammonia capacity in Europe, the global marginal producer. Ammonia production levels are 4 million to 5 million tons lower in the region compared to the 2018 to 2020 averages. This includes the impact of the permanent closure of our U.K. ammonia plants, which accounted for nearly 1 million tons of ammonia capacity. Europe has become the CF industry's top export destination over the last 18 months as purchasers bring in ammonia for upgrade as well as purchase UAN, ammonia nitrate and urea. In addition to curtailments and closures, government actions continue to restrain participation in the global market from other producing regions. The Chinese government reinstated urea export controls after Chinese producers contributed large volumes for the August India urea tender. Additionally, intermittent natural gas curtailments by the Egyptian government continue to affect nitrogen production in Egypt. And with that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first nine months of 2023, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of approximately $1.25 billion or $6.42 per diluted share. EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA were approximately $2.2 billion. At the end of September, cash on the balance sheet was $3.25 billion. We have earmarked $1.25 billion of cash for the acquisition of the Waggaman and ammonia facility, which we expect to close on December 1st. As a result, our pro forma available cash at the end of September was approximately $2 billion. We expect company-wide gross ammonia production to be between 9 million and 9.5 million tons in 2023. We expect gross ammonia production to be significantly higher in 2024 as we add roughly 900,000 tons of ammonia capacity from the Waggaman facility to our network. We project that capital expenditures for 2023 will be in the range of $450 million to $500 million. Our green ammonia project at the Donaldsonville complex is nearing mechanical completion. We also continue to advance the carbon dioxide dehydration and compression unit at Donaldsonville, which will enable us to permanently sequester 2 million tons of CO2 per year. This project, which offers a return profile well above our cost of capital and will accelerate progress towards our 2030 decarbonization goal is on track for startup in early 2025. Along with decarbonizing our existing network, we continue to evaluate low carbon ammonia capacity growth that is well timed with demand. We expect the FEED study for our proposed joint venture with Mitsui to be complete before the end of the year, which is one of the many outputs into a final investment decision. We also remain committed to returning excess capital to shareholders, given our free cash generation outlook. Since the start of the year, we have repurchased more than 5 million shares for approximately $355 million. We expect to continue to favor opportunistic purchases layered in at attractive levels. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for all they did during the first nine months of 2023. Their teamwork continues to deliver outstanding results. In closing, I want to highlight two slides from our materials. Page 16 provides a recap of our consistent approach to creating long-term value. We thoughtfully and selectively add production capacity to our network, the Waggaman ammonia plant being the latest example, while we steadily reduce our outstanding share count. Since 2009, we have increased the participation in our business by approximately 4x, a 10% CAGR over this time horizon. I also want to highlight Page 15 that demonstrates we are the best operators in the world of these types of assets. We have a long track record of unmatched asset utilization enabled by a safety culture without peer. I'm essentially proud of our team's collective commitment to safety excellence and their focus on continuous innovation. Nowhere is this more evident than in our annual Wilson Safety Awards. Our winner this year was the Courtright Ontario complex, but all the finalists were outstanding and helped to drive continuous improvement across the organization. I encourage everyone to learn more about these innovations on the company's website. We believe CF Industries has a bright future. In the near and medium terms, we are well positioned for what we expect will be a tightening global nitrogen supply demand balance with strong margin opportunities. Longer term, our disciplined investments in low carbon ammonia production provide a robust growth platform for the company. As a result, we expect to generate strong free cash flow in the years ahead. enabling us to create substantial value for long-term shareholders. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
We will now begin the Question-and-Answer Session. [Operator Instructions]. At this time, we will take our first question, which will come from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Joel.
Joel Jackson:
So a big question is whether European production is the marginal cost or not. It seems like in the last couple of years that we've gone through a lot of geopolitical issues and higher gas prices, lower gas prices, sometimes it is times it isn't. Do you think that the European tons are marginal production. Can you elaborate on that? Is it seasonal? Anything else you can provide would be great. Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think as you point out, Joel, it shifts from sort of high third quartile to the high fourth quartile and back and forth kind of depends upon weather patterns and what's going on with storage and honestly, costs in other places. But I think if you look at -- as Bert mentioned earlier, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 million to 5 million tons of ammonia production that has come out relative to where they were operating in just five years ago. It's pretty evident that it's a challenged environment to operate there. But to your point, there are times where Asia is equally challenged or other parts of the world, whether it's because of export controls or as Bert said, government enforced gas curtailments. I think Nigeria had some of that earlier this year and Egypt as well. So it is a situation that dynamic and influx. But the one thing we can definitely say is the U.S. is firmly at the low end of the supply curve, and we have consistent access to gas. So we're really happy with our network and where our plans are.
Bert Frost:
Yes, Joe, when you look at the gas comparisons, whether it's MVP, TTF, JKM being Europe and Asia, but also feathering in the coal costs and then equating that back to an MMBtu value, you do have just a separation. But then thinking about the age of the plans and the efficiency of the plans, that's when you get into question some of the European or Eastern European or FSU locations that are a combination of high cost and inefficient. And that's what -- how we're able to move some of those and call that the marginal ton and you're seeing that reflected in the level of imports and the inability to operate in even the current environment of $15, $16 gas against ours and others in the world of two to three. And I think you're going to see that dynamic, and it is reflected in the forward gas curve of how these plants will operate and when they'll operate.
Joel Jackson:
[Indiscernible]. Okay. I forgot. Just really quickly, I read some of the filings, it's probably a sensitive topic on the ammonium nitrate dispute you're having with Oracle and Nelson Brothers. I show some sense of topic there, but anything you could talk about as you're thinking about plan year '19 volumes and your margins versus the past? How should we think about that going forward for next year considering what's going on in that disagreement?
Tony Will:
Yes. Our expectation is that we continue to run our ammonium nitrate capacity at capacity. In the U.S., our AN is really centered around our Yazoo City, Mississippi facility. And in the U.K., although we don't do ammonia production over there anymore, we're importing ammonia and then upgrading it to solid ammonium nitrate. So our expectation is our volumes are going to be the same going forward. And we're largely constructive on margins given the forward gas curve and our opportunity to bring ammonia into Billingham and get a good upgrade margin on it. So overall, AN segment, we're really pleased with. And I can't really comment on the topic that you referenced earlier, because it's a matter that's under dispute at the moment.
Joel Jackson:
Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Stephen Byrne with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Stephen Byrne:
Yes, thank you. How do you think your Donaldsonville operations might change post the connection with Waggaman given you can -- you could move those ammonia tons up into the corn belt from Waggaman and then maybe upgrade more at Donaldsonville. Is that logical? And maybe to that topic, your third quarter volumes were more ammonia than urea than we expected, even though pricing was so much better in urea, was that just some refill volumes were really robust in ammonia? Any comments on that?
Tony Will:
Yes. So Steve, let me start off with a question about Waggaman. The Waggaman facility has existing supply agreements that are in place and those volumes are largely spoken for. We're very pleased with the recipient customers for that facility. And so we're not looking to make any changes in that regard. And our belief is we can get consistently more out of that plant than what historically it's been able to produce. So we're excited about that plant added to the network. Relative to Devil upgrades. We tend to run the upgrades at basically full capacity, at least the urea plants and then we swing back and forth between how much of that's granulated versus how much UAN we make based on relative margin opportunities between the various products. So there's not really an opportunity to dramatically increase the amount of ammonia Donaldsonville build it to upgraded just because we're running upgrade plans full on. Relative to the product mix in the third quarter, we did have an upset at our Medicine Hat, Alberta urea plant that took some production off-line and we had a turnaround in another facility. And so the result of that was just through both planned and unplanned maintenance, lower ability to make granular in the quarter. And therefore, we ended up with a net longer ammonia position. And Bert and his team were really focused on trying to manage kind of inventory levels and took appropriate steps to make sure we could keep the plants running full rates.
Bert Frost:
That's exactly what happened. The only thing I would add is we did export additional volumes out of Donaldsonville as we balance the system in North America. As Tony said, we had the medicine had issues, so we're moving some of that product down, and then we had some turnaround work at one of our Oklahoma plants and then the balance then was moved to Donaldsonville and that ended up being exports at a lower value, but that's what the values were at the time.
Tony Will:
And the good news is we're back up out of the maintenance activities and we're running full on in terms of our urea production network again. So we're looking forward to the fourth quarter and the first half of next year.
Stephen Byrne:
That's very helpful. And I want to just pick a brain a little bit about the outlook for blue ammonia, Tony. You have these partnership discussions with several players. It's not just Mitsui. It's LOTTE, it's JERA, its POSCO. And when you think about this down the road, are these likely to result in one greenfield plant? Or could this be multiple plants? And do you have any kind of conflict in that because some might prefer an autothermal reformer whereas you were also considering steam reforming, does that play into this at all?
Tony Will:
Yes, without going down the rabbit hole of technology too much here. As Chris indicated in his comments, we're finishing up the FEED study on the conventional steam methane reforming plant, basically a carbon copy of Donaldsonville #6, which I believe is the highest operating rate ammonia plant in the world. And the fact that they're so close together allow us to not only basically make a carbon copy of it and train operators just down the road, but also share common spare parts. And we think that the opportunity to get fantastic asset utilization out of a plant like that, right from the beginning is quite high. But as you mentioned, there is different appetites in different jurisdictions for carbon intensity. And ultimately, that's the notion of blue ammonia or green ammonia, this convenient shorthand ultimately, where we're going to have to get to is a measure of carbon intensity and the possibility for autothermal reforming does provide at least at first blush, a lower carbon intensity than steam methane reforming does. So we are engaged in a FEED study also on an integrated stand-alone auto thermal reforming technology plants that cost estimates from those probably won't be in for about another 12 months. We're also engaged in a study on doing flue gas capture, so that theoretically, the alternative to get to a very, very low carbon intensity number could be auto thermal. It could be a conventional steam methane reformer with flue gas capture technology added to it. So we've got a number of different potential pathways going forward. And we're excited about the developing appetite and new demand applications for clean ammonia. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, we're also very excited about the fact that even in traditional applications, we think the world is going to be nutrient short going forward. So I think the demand is clearly out there. We are -- as I said, the best operators of these kind of assets in the world. And given North America's access to plentiful low-cost natural gas and a very favorable framework around rule of law as well as carbon capture and sequestration. This is increasingly recognized as the place to be. So I think all of that sets up very well for us in terms of evaluating these different types of opportunities. And we are, as you said, engaged in conversations with numerous parties. They all look to us because we are the global leader in this space. And we think we can navigate any kind of conflicts and manage that situation through a variety of ways, including the fact that we're going to have multiple sources of decarbonized pneumonia from a production standpoint, not only potentially if we build a new plant at our BluePoint complex, but also at Donaldsonville, Waggaman once we add TCS there our Yazoo City, Mississippi facility once we add CCS there. And so we'll have multiple points of production, multiple ways of navigating potential conflict should they arise. And honestly, we're just really excited about the opportunities ahead of us.
Stephen Byrne:
Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Richard Garchitorena with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Richard Garchitorena:
Great. Thank you. Just with the Waggaman acquisition, closing December 1st. I was wondering if you could give us an update in terms of your thoughts on the ramp-up once you take ownership. I believe the plant was running probably sub-90%, operating rates under IPL. So how long do you think it can take you to get those operations up to the rest of your plants? And related to that, any synergies that you think you've sort of unveiled given the recent work that you've done since you first announced the acquisition would be great?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think the biggest synergy from our perspective is the fact that we think we can consistently run that plant at higher rates and get incremental tons that come out of it into the network. And so that's where basically all those incremental tons are purely at variable cost and therefore, at very high margins, and that's first and foremost the most important aspect of this. I think it also gives us some flexibility as we think about scheduling turnarounds and chip from ship to locations it's a plant that is on the pipeline. And so it's got access into the terminalling system in the Midwest. And it just gives Bert some additional flexibility in terms of how he thinks about minimizing aggregate logistics and transportation costs. So that's really kind of how we're thinking about the plan. But first and foremost, the biggest value is we're buying it, I think, at an attractive value for us. I think it's attractive for IPL as well, and we think we can get more tons of production out of it that should generate some very nice incremental margin for us.
Richard Garchitorena:
Okay. And then just as a follow-up, your CapEx guide this year, $450 million to $500 million, is there anything in there for prep work for Waggaman. And how should we think about 2024 CapEx levels given that as well as the progress on the Donaldsonville to CF? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes. So all of that is baked in there. The finishing up of the green ammonia plant this year as part of this year's CapEx continuing progress and basically getting, if not to mechanical completion darn close to it on our dehydration compression project next year at Donaldsonville plus what we're expecting to do at Waggaman in the way of turnaround and process improvement is all embedded in there, as well as some of the ongoing improvement things we've got on our end from an IT and a systems perspective. So including the integration of Waggaman into our systems and our network. So all of that is rolled into the number that Chris gave you. We are very consistently year in and year out in the range of $400 million -- $450 million to $500 million and I think this is one area that, Ashraf, has brought great discipline to from an operations standpoint of being able to get world-class onstream factor and asset utilization without having to gold plate stuff, but we keep all the processes incredibly safe and high running and our people safe as well. So I would say this is an area where we really excel.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. Richard, if I could -- this is Chris, if I could just add on to that. So Q3 is generally our historically been our higher maintenance and turnaround period and after that period, we actually reduced what the range was from $500 million to $550 million, down to $450 to $500 million. And we did that because once we get through this heavier turnaround period, have better line of sight on what the spending was for those particular turnarounds, but also what we can accomplish project-wise until the end of the year. I think as Tony was speaking about the Waggaman site. Because we don't necessarily have that site yet, and we will may have it for 12 months, it's pretty much looking at what will be built in into the 2024 CapEx number as we go forward.
Richard Garchitorena:
Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Josh Spector with UBS. Please go ahead.
Joshua Spector:
Yes, hi. Thanks for taking my question. First, I wanted to ask near-term, Bert, we've seen some decline in urea prices over the last month despite kind of entering kind of the stronger North America season. I guess, one, what do you attribute that to? And two, what's your view when you look over the coming months here?
Bert Frost:
Yes. So urea has been on an interesting ride, as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, we entered Q3 at $2.85, $2.95 and then accelerated through the quarter based on some global issues being India's demand and China's restrictions to over $400. And then as since settled out and probably dropped back down into the -- for NOLA 3.55 to 3.70 range today. And when you look across where the demand will come from, we still see significant demand out of India and from Brazil, South America, and then we'll transition to the Northern Hemisphere in the New Year and a lot of demand to be fulfilled in North America and Europe. So demand is solid. We've seen on the supply side, more restrictions. The gas issues that we mentioned in Trinidad, in Europe affect urea and as well as the upgraded -- other upgraded products and the continued restrictions out of China. So the market we believe is tight and that supply-demand balance probably has moved more towards demand. We're in an okay range. We expect pricing to improve as we go into Q1 and Q2 as well as demand to accelerate. We're looking at planted acres for the 2024 crop below 2023, but not significantly so, more in the 90 million, 91 million acres and then solid wheat, but good performance out of South America for second crop. So demand is good globally. And pricing is like urea is, it's volatile. Well, there's the volatility with gas, but I think we're in a good spot.
Joshua Spector:
Thanks. I appreciate that. And just longer term, Tony, I wanted to ask just more about the timing here for the JV with Mitsui. So you have the FEED study completing shortly from our prior conversations, talked about the milestone in Japan with Medi talking about some subsidy support or how that evolves, is that timing still early to mid-next year? And does that mean you make a decision to invest later next year, mid- to late next year? Or is there any reason that timeline will be off from how you're thinking about it?
Tony Will:
Yes. I think the situation with Medi and Gara's decision-making might be a little fluid, it feels a little bit like many governments one step forward, two steps back. So it's hard to know with precision exactly when they're going to come to conclusion on their evaluation and putting in place the subsidy schemes that are ultimately going to drive that marketplace. But we remain strong believers in the fact that it's ultimately going to happen. It's going to be an important tool for ongoing decarbonization, both in Japan and in Korea. And if anything, our conversations with the potential end users are becoming more firm and kind of more compelling as opposed to softening based on what's going on with the government. So we're very optimistic about how that demand profile develops. It's more a question of when the governments kind of finalize things and people are able to step forward. We are continuing to have -- as Chris mentioned, the FEED study is one important input into the process in making investment decision. We're continuing to have ongoing very constructive dialogs with our potential partner/partners in that project. And we're hopeful to be able to be a little more definitive about things. I'm going to stop short of saying making a final decision, but being more definitive about things on our fourth quarter full-year call in February. So I would just say, Josh, stay tuned. That's probably a good time horizon for us to really update where we're at.
Joshua Spector:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson:
Hi, thank you. Good morning everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
Good morning. So Tony, I mean you talked a little bit about the kind of some of the supply disruptions in ammonia in the near term, which is certainly helping kind of the overall nitrogen balance. There's also a lot of blue ammonia and new kind of project activity happening in this market, maybe with a little bit less diligence in terms of kind of the pre-engineering or customer offtake agreements than you seem to be pursuing. But how do you look at that merchant ammonia market over the next -- over the next couple of years? Are you -- do you see any concerns that there might be some blue ammonia that comes to market before some of the end-demand use really is in place yet? Or do you still feel comfortable that there's a sufficient kind of tightness in the nutrient on the fertilizer side to absorb that if needed.
Tony Will:
Yes, Adam, so one of the things I mentioned in my prepared remarks and certainly able to kind of provide more details of this offline as it makes sense, is that if you look globally at the number of projects that are under construction right now, and it basically takes four years before when you announce and actually break ground to have something that is in production. So you have a very good visibility in terms of how much capacity is coming online in the next four years. The amount of new net capacity coming online does not keep up with a 1% to 1.5% demand growth in traditional fertilizer applications. And so we think that just based on the fundamentals in the marketplace, we are going to experience an S&D tightening and that's before you layer in some of the supply disruptions Bert talked about with Trinidad being down one million tons of production, Europe being down four million to five million tons of production, other disruptions elsewhere in the world. So we are very constructive on the S&D balance globally over the next four years. I think it remains to be seen how many new blue plants that are actually announced get built. Capital cost continues to go up and it's easy to announce when it's a lot harder to actually get financial close and build one and get it run in. So I think as we look out the next four years are very promising. We think based on the partnerships that we have lined up, we're in a really good position, having secured end user demand to go forward with these things if we can make the math work. And others, it's hard for me to speculate on where they are. We've seen a couple of projects that have been announced that people have walked away from. So I would just say again, more to come. Stay tuned. At the end of the day, I think some level of discipline and rationality is going to prevail here. Because it is a big expense to build one of these things. And if you're an end user, do you want to line up with someone that's got single facility risk? Or do you want to line up with someone that's got multiple sources of production for a decarbonized product and can guarantee supply even through turnaround periods and so forth. So we feel really good about our position in this marketplace.
Bert Frost:
And just some additional comments. This is Bert, Adam. When you look at ammonia, and we mentioned in the prepared remarks about lack of gas in Trinidad and the difficulties in Europe. But if you feather in Brazil is not operating and the [indiscernible] pipeline coming out of Russia, Ukraine is not operating. You take an additional several million tons out. So if we calculate four to five out of Europe, one out of Trinidad, and Brazil and Russia could be up to three or four, you've got a substantial amount of movable ammonia out of the market. And that's why I think you saw the reflection in the market when it hit the lows, it quickly bounced up back into the five and then now $600 range for global pricing which is a very attractive range for us. Now regarding Blue and let's just call it low carbon products will be coming on in 2025 with our Donaldsonville low-carbon ammonia and products, and we're seeing a substantial interest whether that be for industrial applications or agricultural and that's globally. So I'm very excited about the progress and the position we will be in, in the short, medium and long-term. with these products and the receptivity in the marketplace.
Adam Samuelson:
There is a lot of helpful color there. I appreciate. I will hop back.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong:
Hey, good morning. So just looking at the balance sheet, I mean there's a pretty large cash balance even after taking into account Waggaman and you're generating some pretty significant cash flow, which I think can pay for most of these projects that you're considering over the next several years. Your shares are also trading at an attractive valuation. I think you would agree with that. So are there any plans to maybe just do a larger share buyback?
Tony Will:
So let me give just a little bit of color, Andrew, on this one, which is going back to the beginning of last year, we've purchased, I think something close to 20 million shares back, which is about 10% of our outstanding float. During that same period of time, we have invested in some new capabilities, both in terms of green production and dehydration compression, blue production and build cash on the balance sheet. So we have been able to do sort of all of the above. We do have an open $3 billion share repurchase authorization. And the approach that we have opted to go for is to be sort of disproportionately opportunistic when we see attractive valuations and as opposed to just a consistent and steady return of capital. So you will continue to see us jump in deeper during those periods of time. And then there may be weeks or months where we're kind of sitting on the sidelines. But the whole idea is to make sure that we disproportionately reward our long-term shareholders by taking out as many shares at the lowest value as we can. And I think it actually is a good strategy. I'm not really that worried one quarter to the next if we flex up or flex down a little bit. And as Chris mentioned, we expect to close the Waggaman transaction here within a month. And so $1.25 billion is already spoken for in that regard.
Chris Bohn:
Yes, this is Chris. I would just add to that. As Tony mentioned, really just being opportunistic with patience. So there will be periods where we have higher cash balances on the balance sheet. I think if you look at the overall macro uncertainty, whether that be geopolitical in Ukraine, or the Middle East or even here at home from whether they will be funding approved by Congress in the next couple of weeks. And then even the higher interest rate market and having companies deal with that through that time. We're probably going to see periods where that macro uncertainty goes counter to the fundamentals of the company that Bert and Tony have talked about today. And as a result of that, that's Tony said, we'll go in deeper and more shares during that particular time, really rewarding the long-term shareholders for their patience.
Tony Will:
I would also say that we were blocked out for Q1 because we were in kind of the final throes of negotiation with InsTech on the Waggaman acquisition. And so we couldn't be in the market buying our shares back. So that kind of thing may happen here or there. But we are focused on continuing to drive the underlying fundamentals of what underpins that Page 16 that I referenced in our materials, which is selectively adding capacity where it makes sense and otherwise returning capital and buying our share count down.
Andrew Wong:
That's great. Makes a lot of sense. And maybe just -- maybe I'll throw a question over to Bert. Just going back to the question on Europe as a marginal cost producer. Globally, we tend to look at urea alive. But Europe is more of an ammonia and nitrates kind of market. So should we be maybe more product specific, when we talk about marginal cost and if you look at it today, ammonia prices aren't that far off from European marginal costs and maybe just looking at a Urea, more specific, isn't the right way to look at it? Like how do you think about that?
Bert Frost:
Yes and no. I think regarding your question, urea is a placeholder globally that is the most traded product that 190 million tons of consumption, 56 million tons moved globally on a ship. And so it becomes the placeholder that it's basically used on every continent. So it's a good measure of nitrogen values. You're correct that Europe is more of a nitrogen or ammonium nitrate, calcium ammonium nitrate consumer or UAN, but there's still a large importer of urea. I think 4 million to 5 million tons per year. So they do participate by a lot of North African and Nigerian tons and some Middle Eastern tons make it up there. And so that's what I talked about in the Northern Hemisphere moves into its high demand period here starting in January, they become a pretty good importer as well. So yes, you need to look at it that way. But ammonium nitrate is not really consumed that much on for agriculture outside of Europe and maybe Russia and Ukraine as well, maybe 1 million tons in Brazil. And so that's falling in North America, so we don't really talk about it. outside of the explosive sector in North America. So we do look at all those factors. But again, urea is more of the easy placeholder for everyone to understand.
Tony Will:
But I think the other important thing, Andrew, that I wanted to just highlight here and you mentioned it. If you think about from a natural gas cost differential, the difference between the cost of production in the U.S. versus the cost of production in Europe right now and even on the forward curve, is about $400 to $500 spread. So whether we're talking about ammonia or whether we're talking about urea, whether we're talking about UAN, North American production network has a huge economic advantage. And that's one of the reasons we're so happy where our plants are located.
Andrew Wong:
That's great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
And our next question will come from Ben Theurer with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Benjamin Theurer:
Yes, good morning and thank you very much for taking my question. I wanted to go back to some of the demand expectations you've talked about and particularly the gap of imports or what you expect at least for Brazil and India. We've seen a lot of like peers in the industry talking about just the softness in Brazil and the more spontaneous buying as you go as you need kind of purchases. What's your level of confidence as it relates to this demand for the imports and what you flagged in the 3 million to 4 million ton range just in the fourth quarter to basically wrap this up. And then obviously, similar to India because it's also a very sizable number. So just about the level of confidence you're having for this demand?
Bert Frost:
Yes, so when you look at Brazil, the substantial growth in Brazilian agriculture is amazing over the last 20 years, going from an exporter of soybeans and corn to a major #1 position for soybeans and corn in a subsequent or a parallel increase in fertilizer demand going from 2000, let's say, 23 years ago, 16 million tons to today 44 million tons. Well, what does it take to bring that in when you're only producing a little bit of phosphate, that means all the potash, most of the nitrogen and almost all of the phosphate as well needs to be imported. And what does that look like when you have just a few ports, Paranagua and Santos and some of the others that are congested. And so you have lineups that it's expensive to have demurrage. So when you calculate the movements of products, why we have confidence is the acres will be planted. That will be fertilized, the profitability for especially a pharma for second crop corn, even factoring in 100 bushels per acre is positive. And that's basically a cover crop for them. So that is at minimum, an application of urea. So when you look at our expectation of 7.5 million tons more or less for an annualized basis of Urea for Brazil, and where they are today, that import will last through February. So we've got November, December, January, February, four months at around 700,000 tons more or less per month and the demand is there. So we expect to see that, and it's pretty consistent over the last several years, again, consistent with our growth and production of feed grains and oil seeds. In India, we've seen a different dynamic with the construction of the plants that have taken place with the Modi government Build and Buy India program that, that production has gone up to close to 30 million tons of the 36 million, 37 million tons of demand. So our expectation is more or less 7 million tons. That's off of the 9 million to 10 million tons of imports over the previous few years, but still sizable. That puts India well, now put Brazil as the #1 importing country, India #2 and United States or North America region #3. And again, those numbers are trending exactly that way.
Benjamin Theurer:
Okay, perfect. And then just coming back quickly on the capital allocation side. Just as we think about it, you talked about the buybacks to be opportunistic, obviously and accelerating here when prices are lower and dividends to be sustained. Now if we think about the projects that you have pending and you have obviously the Waggaman cost next year and then roughly $450 million to $500 million in CapEx, but it still leaves a very substantial amount for excess cash, so if it's not buybacks because you don't think price is low enough to aggregate the value, how do you think about inorganic growth opportunities similar to Waggaman? Are there any things you're looking at? Do you feel there is meat of doing something? Or with the projects you have on decarbonization and clean energy, plenty of CapEx to be spent on anyway?
Tony Will:
Well, we don't really think about it in terms of trying to look for a home on how to spend capital. We haven't opened $3 billion share repurchase authorization that runs through the end of 2025. And our expectation is that we are going to complete that program. And historically, we tend to complete those ahead of schedule in terms of when they expire. So I'm not worried about the pacing or the timing of getting out there and repurchasing that volume of shares. We're just trying to get the most bang for our buck when we go do it. We do have an awful lot of interesting potential growth opportunities that we're evaluating, but we evaluate them very rigorously in a disciplined approach and we do keep our eye on inorganic growth as a possibility and we were very pleased with the Waggaman acquisition. We think that will create a lot of value for us and we're excited about it. But those things tend to be fairly sporadic as opposed to consistently available. They also tend to be fairly large bites when they do come out just because the replacement cost is so high for existing assets. So we're evaluating all of those things, but I'm not worried about our ability to buy the $3 billion of share repo back.
Benjamin Theurer:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question will come from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Vincent Andrews:
Thanks. Hopefully, you didn't get to this to hop off for a moment. But Bert, could you talk a little bit about where you think U.S. dealer inventories are going to end this Fall season or customers behaving a little bit more normal now? Or are they still looking to have empty bins where is sentiment?
Bert Frost:
I think sentiment is positive. We've seen this actually on a global basis, I can take it back to North America, but the increases in and pull from places like Turkey and importing countries has been remarkable compared to 2022. And North America is similar. You're right, the buying behavior from 2022 was basically a risk off, prices were falling and inventory built with the producer until prices came to an attractive level in the Spring of 2023. We're seeing the opposite effect for this fertilizer year, which began in July of healthy demand, healthy pull for our fill programs and fall application of ammonia program. We actually think inventories trending into 2024 fertilizer year were low based on acreage consumption and then just actual demand and our channel checks. And we think they still remain lower than normal and we think a lot of buying is still to take place. Even with the lower import levels, the November lineup for urea is still fairly weak as with December. So I think that will have to be made up in Q1 and Q2 and so we're -- that's why I think you can view from our comments, we're constructurally [ph] positive of what will take place in North America relative to demand and pricing. So I think behavior is back to normal.
Vincent Andrews:
I'll leave it there. Thanks guys.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this will conclude our question-and-answer session. I'd like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for any closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone for joining us today. We look forward to seeing you at upcoming conferences.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect your lines.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to CF Industries' First Half and Second Quarter of 2023 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries earnings conference call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Executive Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first half and second quarter of 2023 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find the reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted results for the first half of 2023, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of over $1.7 billion. Our trailing 12-month net cash from operations was $3.2 billion and free cash flow was $2.1 billion. These results reflect outstanding execution by the CF Industries team against the backdrop of robust demand. Our plans ran extremely well and we leveraged our unique system flexibility to maximize results, given the high volume of just-in-time purchasing that took place. We sold more product than we produced and ended the first half with low inventories. As you will hear from Bert in a moment, we believe we are really well positioned for the remainder of 2023 and into 2024. While our safety performance remained good by most measures and comparisons, it is not where we expect it to be. Our 12-month rolling recordable injury rate at the end of June was 0.54 incidents per 200,000 labor hours. Ashraf and his team are focused on this, not to manage the number, but to ensure that all of our people go home in the same condition as when they came to work every day. Looking forward, changes in the energy markets have steepened the global nitrogen cost curve and extended the margin advantage available to our North American manufacturing network. As you can see on Slide 7, we enjoy a $300 to $400 per ton margin advantage versus European and high-cost Asian production. Given the structural advantage as well as our industry best operating rates and unique network flexibilities, we expect to drive strong cash generation in the years ahead. This will enable us to make disciplined investments in growth opportunities, while also returning substantial capital to shareholders. In that vein, we remain focused on our clean energy growth platform, which has been well served by the collaborations and partnerships we have developed. We expect to make a final investment decision on a newbuild clean ammonia plant later this year in conjunction with our partners in that project. This approach significantly reduces risk to CF and ensures that the new production volume is consumed in new sources of emerging demand rather than creating an overhang in the market. We also continue to return significant capital to shareholders. Over the last 12 months, we returned $1.3 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases, which was more than 60% of our free cash flow. Looking ahead, as we continue to execute on our current $3 billion share repurchase authorization, we are committed to taking advantage of dips in our share price opportunistically, amplifying the rewards to our long-term shareholders. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss global nitrogen market conditions in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. CF Industries experienced a very positive spring application season, that we believe points to a strong global demand dynamic in the second half of the year. Our challenge in the spring was managing through peak application season, with customers deferring purchases until the last possible moment. Despite delayed purchases, demand in North America during the spring was substantial, with planted corn and wheat acres up significantly compared to 2022. Even with this high demand, net imports were lower than the prior year. As a result, we believe that inventory in the North American supply chain is extremely low compared to historical norms and will need to be replenished. At the same time, India and Brazil will need to compete for urea tons in the coming months as they prepare for their upcoming planting season. As you can see on Slide 6, we project that Brazil still needs to secure 5 million to 6 million more tons of urea and India, another 4 million to 5 million tons of urea, by the end of the year. Farm economics continue to be robust and supportive of strong demand. Consensus estimates project that global grain stocks will improve slightly in 2023, but drought in the United States and ongoing impacts from the war in Ukraine are keeping grain prices attractive for farmers. The global nitrogen market has responded to these dynamics with rapidly rising urea spot prices through July with other products following. We saw a strong demand for urea. And in July, we built an order book of domestic and export sales that takes us into the fourth quarter. We also quickly achieved our goals for our initial UAN fill offer in North America and have been able to raise prices for subsequent layers. Against this backdrop of strong demand, the global supply response is somewhat muted. We do expect China to participate in the upcoming India urea tenders, with strong prices for nitrogen in China indicate that domestic demand is competing for the volume available for shipment. Russian tons continue to reach the global market, but willing buyers are limited to a few areas of the world, such as Brazil and the United States. Additionally, European ammonia production volumes remain well below normal due to natural gas prices that make the region uncompetitive globally. As we look at our own operations, our network continues to benefit from low-cost natural gas. Forward curves suggest natural gas values in North America will be $2 to $4 per MMBtu lower than last year in the second half, keeping our production costs firmly in the first quartile globally. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first half of 2023, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of approximately $1.1 billion, or $5.55 per diluted share. EBITDA was $1.8 billion, and adjusted EBITDA was over $1.7 billion. At the end of June, cash on the balance sheet was $3.2 billion. Since that time, we paid CHS semi-annual distribution of $204 million from our CF Nitrogen partnership. Additionally, $1.25 billion of cash is earmarked for our acquisition of the Waggaman ammonia facility, for which the regulatory process continues. We expect to close the transaction before year-end. As a result, our pro forma available cash at the end of June was approximately $1.75 billion. Looking ahead, we expect the rest of 2023 and into 2024 to be favorable based on the global nitrogen industry dynamics that Bert just described. The second half typically starts with lower production due to maintenance activity as well as seasonally low prices that should rise as we move towards spring. We expect company-wide gross ammonia production to be between 9 million and 9.5 million tons. As you know, we recently proposed to permanently close the ammonia plant at our Billingham complex in the U.K., due primarily to the structural disadvantage that European ammonia production faces from high energy and carbon costs. We have been importing ammonia since the fall of 2022 to produce UAN fertilizer and nitric acid at the site, which we expect to continue to have a positive impact on gross margin compared to producing ammonia at Billingham. Our capital expenditure requirements for the remainder of the year remain modest, with capital expenditures expected to be in the range of $500 million to $550 million. This includes our blue and green projects at the Donaldsonville complex, which continue to progress. We continue to advance the front-end engineering design study for the proposed joint venture low-carbon ammonia facility with Mitsui. We expect to make a final investment decision later this year. Alongside our clean energy initiatives, we remain committed to returning excess capital to shareholders, given our free cash flow generation outlook. In the second quarter, we repurchased two million shares, at an average price of approximately $64 per share, compared to an average share price in the quarter of almost $70 and to a share price that has recently been trading above $80 per share. We expect to continue to favor opportunistic purchases layered in at attractive levels. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for all that they did during the first half of 2023. Our teamwork continues to deliver outstanding results. We remain very excited about the future for CF Industries. We have a large structural cost advantage that provides substantial margin opportunities, coupled with industry-leading operating expertise and unmatched network flexibility. This should continue to drive significant free cash flow. We will deploy that cash to both grow our business and return capital to shareholders. We have significant decarbonization projects in flight with industry leaders, such as ExxonMobil. The Waggaman ammonia complex will fit seamlessly into our network and enhance our ability to serve customers, and we are positioned at the forefront of low-carbon ammonia into new clean energy applications, supported by collaborations with global leaders such as JERA, Mitsui and LOTTE. As a result, we believe CF Industries is well positioned to create substantial value for our long-term shareholders. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Christopher Parkinson with Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Christopher Parkinson:
Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. So I think when most people step back, Tony, I think on normalized EBITDA, we could have a debate on this all day, but it could be low, mid-2s, somewhere in there in terms of billions of EBITDA. But you do have, I'd say, at least three, perhaps four moving variables, which are pertinent for the next two to three years in terms of what you'd add to that. I'd say Waggaman plus, obviously, carbon optionality, you have the additional 45 queues for various projects you're working on. And then on top of that, you have a nice energy transition theme, which perhaps is a little bit later outside that time frame. But it does seem like these three buckets, which could materially add to the perception of normalized EBITDA. And I was just hoping perhaps if you could add color on those three buckets and perhaps add anything else you think is important and how the investment community should be thinking about those? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes, good morning, Chris. Thanks for the question. I'd say those three are certainly important and near-term, I might add one or two others. But as Chris mentioned -- Bohn mentioned in his prepared comments, we expect to be able to close the Waggaman transaction here later this year, and that should certainly be additive to our otherwise normalized EBITDA numbers, as you said, whatever people project that to be. In addition to that, we're going to be starting up the CO2 sequestration project at Donaldsonville, the beginning part or early in 2025, and be able to take advantage of the 45Q tax credit that goes along with that. That is a substantial amount of money, given that the 45Q is $85 a ton -- a metric ton, and we're going to be sequestering two million metric tons a year. So the margin associated with just that one project is substantial and moves the needle relative to our performance on an annual basis. And then that's going to run for 12 years. In addition to the D'Ville project, as you mentioned, we've got some ongoing opportunities at some of our other facilities, and we hope to be able to announce a couple of those in the coming quarters. So we're excited about the opportunities that we have on the decarbonization in the 45Q side. You did mention clean ammonia into clean energy applications. We think that that's going to start taking off in reasonable volumes in '25 and '26 and then going from there. Fortunately, we will have the D'Ville project up and running by then and be able to begin meeting that requirement from there. And as mentioned, we'll evaluate the new build project, but that's a little longer wavelength, I think than the time frame that you're talking about. But the two other things that I'd add, really, Chris, is the first one is there is broad-based efforts right now that's driving industrial companies to onshore into the U.S. manufacturing operations. And we've had advanced conversations with a number of them around ratable offtake of some of our products, both on an ammonia as well as on an upgraded basis. And that should provide attractive returns for new capital that we'd be able to deploy against those kind of opportunities, and that would be additive to our business as well as just taking more ammonia and moving it into higher-margin pieces of business on a ratable basis. And the last thing I'd add, I'd just go back to our $3 billion authorization and the amount of free cash flow that we're generating, we expect to dramatically reduce the number of shares outstanding over this time frame. So whatever you thought previously in terms of a mid-cycle kind of number that's going to increase, based on the other initiatives that we talked about, on a per share basis, that's going to be amplified as we move forward as well because of the amount of share reduction we expect to be able to accomplish.
Christopher Parkinson:
That's very helpful. And just as a quick follow-up, there's just been a lot of, let's say, variable change in terms of regional operating rates between anywhere from -- Europe seems to be plateauing a little bit after increasing earlier this year. India has been rumored to be up, but kind of has been disappointing a little bit versus the otherwise expectations. In North Africa, down. Southeast Asia, down, now potentially up. Just in terms of just how you're thinking about your own order books, in terms of just risk management not wanting to miss a potential for the rallying essentially what we've seen over the last six to eight weeks, can you just -- do you disagree with any of those? And just could you help us think about how that thought process is playing into how you're managing your book, not only to the fall application season, but also into 2024, just given all the change over the last 12 to 24 months? Thank you.
Tony Will:
I'm going to give just a real brief high-level comment, and then I'm going to turn it over to Bert to kind of go into a little more detail. And the high-level comment, Chris, is we saw kind of an unusual experience over the last two years. 2022, based on energy differentials and where shutdowns were taking place, and of course, war in Ukraine, created a scarcity of nitrogen products in particular, and then that led to high cost or high prices globally, which reduced demand and consumption. This year, we saw a moderating of pricing, which, I would say, reinvigorated some of the application rates and demand, particularly in parts of the world that are more subsistence-based. But we saw a move toward just-in-time purchasing, which really stresses the network. And I think Bert did a great job of managing kind of that stress, but it adds a lot of complexity in terms of movements. And so there's always a balance between trying to build an appropriate book and making sure we're able to run the plants safely and efficiently and keep them online and be able to ship against that book, but not wanting to miss opportunities when you see some strengthening in the market. And again, I think Bert does a great job on doing that. But it's always a little bit of a tightrope act.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Thanks, Tony. In terms of -- you touched on -- let's talk about supply for a minute. And you touched on some of those areas where supply is constrained. It probably wasn't considered to be a few months ago. India production has been growing in terms of capacity growth on these new and revamped operating units. And so we would project that their internal production is probably close to 29 million tons, and that then the demand for imports on an annualized basis will be between, let's say, six million and eight million tons rather than the 10 million tons we saw a few years ago. And they're behind. And so this dynamic that we saw in the United States of customers waiting and waiting and depleting their inventories has -- that situation has been multiplied globally, where many destination markets did the exact same thing, and now they all need to step in and acquire those tons, that being South America, Asia, as well as North America and Europe. So now you have this dynamic that has taken place where we've had a falling market, let's say, really since February. And in June -- the end of June and early July, we started to see this recovery, and it's been more pronounced than I think the industry had anticipated. And that's also predicated on the lack of supply, like you mentioned, with lack of gas in Nigeria and Egypt, and as well as Trinidad, Europe, the European Union gas prices, Pakistan, Brazil, many places that have produced tons in the past are not producing today. And so when we look at our order book, Tony is right, we have to go into the forward market with an order book that's shippable. We have to rely on our rail partners, truck partners and moving product by vessel and barge and pipe to keep our system balanced. And so I'm pleased with our order book for what we have for Q3. And as I said in my prepared remarks, some of those products extended to Q4, and we've been able to move product pricing up along the way. So I think you'll see we're going to perform well as we always do.
Christopher Parkinson:
Thank you so much.
Operator:
The next question is from Andrew Wong with RBC. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong:
Hey, thank you for taking my questions. Good morning. So CF made the decision to permanently closed Billingham for economic purposes, which I think makes a lot of sense. We've seen maybe one or two of these announcements in Europe, but maybe not as much as some might expect, given the economics for nitrogen today in Europe and potentially looking forward. So what do you think is keeping some of these plants operating? And do you expect more permanent shutdowns in Europe going forward?
Tony Will:
Great, Andrew. Good morning. I think we have an interesting situation of Billingham, and that we're able to import ammonia and then still upgrade it to nitric acid and ammonium nitrate. And there is a pretty substantial upgrade margin that's available between at least over the last couple of years, the deepwater price of ammonia and what the upgraded products are selling for as fertilizer and intermediate chemicals. And so for us, the option was pretty apparent. As Chris mentioned, it is margin enhancing for us not to incur kind of the relatively high and volatile gas costs as well as the relatively high carbon costs associated with operating in that region, but still be able to get the upgrade margin by bringing in ammonia. I think some plants in Europe don't have access to be able to bring ammonia into their facilities and/or they may be making urea-based products that require the CO2 in order to be able to upgrade them as opposed to the nitrate-based products. So I think for some producers -- if you look at the gas costs versus the margin available for ultimately, upgraded product, you can probably still see some level of operation during times of the year. And I think that's probably why you see this variability in operating rates for those that are able to import ammonia. And I think there are several plants out there that have done that. They've turned off ammonia production in the near-term. We've just made a decision based on the age of the equipment, the amount of CapEx required to keep it running in the ongoing carbon cost that it made sense for us to be focused purely as -- in the import ammonia and upgrade facility there.
Andrew Wong:
That's great. And maybe just kind of following up on that. There's a few plants that are in the planning stages for the U.S. Gulf on blue ammonia and there has been some concern that there might be too much ammonia that gets brought online over that three to five-year time frame. But there are some plans to import ammonia coming from different places into Europe, and one of your peers have mentioned something like that as well. So do you look at that be a way to balance some of these new ammonia projects that we're seeing coming online potentially over the next few years?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think just like happened in 2012, that there's very likely a slew of announcements about projects. And I think back in 2012, there was something like 26 projects that were announced, of which only four got built. And I think you probably saw some of that exuberance last year and into this year as well, where you're seeing a lot of announcements. And then when people really put pen to paper and need to go out and begin construction, there's a little more cautiousness that goes into it. It's easy to announce something. It's a lot harder to build it. And I think one of the interesting things about our potential new build project is that we're partnering with ultimately, folks that are going to be end users of the project from a volume standpoint and putting it into new clean energy applications. And so it's production that's not going to create the kind of overhang situation that you were just talking about. Now that's very important for us. The other piece of that is we're still collecting data on the cost side of the equation, and it's got to make economic sense for us and earn a fair rate of return for us to move forward with it. But I think that between some of the shutdowns you're seeing in high-cost places in the world, and some new demand centers that are springing up, particularly for clean energy applications, I'm pretty optimistic that we'll end up with a balanced to tight ammonia market going forward to the balance of this decade.
Operator:
The next question is from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning. It seems you did a very good realized gas cost this quarter in Q2 -- excuse me. There were concerns that some of the inventory overhang higher cost gas when your winter hedges may have pushed the realized cost close to around $4. Can you talk about what happened positively to not have such a high gas realization?
Chris Bohn:
Yes, Joel, thanks. This is Chris. There's really two items that occurred that allowed us to have lower gas than what we were projecting when we talked about some of that overhang from production in Q1 being sold into Q2. The first being, as Tony and Bert mentioned, we sold more product than we produced. So we went into inventory deeper than what we had anticipated doing during the particular quarter. So we bled through that overhang more quickly. And then additionally, instead of doing first of month purchases, Bert's team that was purchasing natural gas did more of the daily buying, and the daily numbers were quite a bit lower than what the first of month would have been. So I think those higher prices that we saw in, call it, March and April, have bled through. And as you look at the strip right now, it's relatively flat kind of in the $2.50 to $2.75 range. And that's what we'll expect going forward. But you're right, we were expecting slightly higher natural gas costs, but sort of those two points mitigated that a bit.
Operator:
The next question is from Josh Spector with UBS. Please go ahead.
Josh Spector:
Yes, thanks for taking my question. I wanted to ask on just project returns broadly. So -- I mean as you're investing more in clean ammonia in various other applications. How do you think about the rate of returns on those projects that are required versus your historical investments? I'm just thinking if you're looking at these differently, particularly if they have offtake in stability to use a lower return versus some of the historical maybe FERC market focus, which could have more cyclicality, but also periods of much higher earnings, if that requires a bit different return level. So is there any way to think about how you and the Board are kind of working through those decisions would be helpful?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I'm certainly happy to give my perspective on this, and I encourage Chris to also jump in to the extent I step out of bounds on it. But we typically target at a minimum, a low teens kind of return, and that's been fairly consistent with how we've thought about things in the past. That tends to be well above our cost of capital, but it also takes into consideration some things like -- particularly if you're talking about construction-based projects, potential contingency on overruns and a few other things. I think the benefit of years like last year is that it meant that any of the projects we had done historically ended up looking like they were absolutely fantastic from the standpoint of capital deployed versus returns that we've been looking at. And I do think that as we talk about bringing partners in that are both adding equity into the equation in a proportionate way, but then also taking guaranteed offtake of it and moving it into non-traditional applications that de-risks the project substantially. I don't think it fundamentally changes the return profile that we expect for the capital that we put into the project.
Chris Bohn:
No, I would agree with what Tony said there. That as we look at these projects, we do look at them all as risk-adjusted returns. And given what Tony said with a ratable offtake, that has -- allows us to have better working capital from receivables to inventory to all of that. Obviously, that enhances the return profile and puts it in line even if it is slightly lower to begin with, commensurate with what our other projects are sort of in the mid-teens.
Josh Spector:
Thank you.
Operator:
The next question is from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Please go ahead.
Steve Byrne:
Yes. Thank you. Do you expect ammonia pricing to remain well below the unit nitrogen pricing for urea, just because of less industrial demand? And if so, do you think that that combined with what could be a relatively early harvest, might lead to a very strong ammonia application season this fall? And if so, are you planning accordingly to have a strong fall through your network of storage tanks in the [indiscernible]?
Tony Will:
So Steve, almost every point in time, barring maybe a blip here or there, ammonia tends to trade at a pretty substantial discount on a margin per unit of nitrogen basis to the upgraded products. And that's just because it requires more capital to build the upgrades than it does the ammonia. And really direct application ammonia is almost limited exclusively to North America. So because of that, you generally see a pretty big margin enhancement by upgrading ammonia into other forms. And that -- I don't think that's going to substantially change. But you're certainly right and that there has been a reduction in industrial demand for ammonia over the last year. And just given sort of energy costs in other parts of the world, and what looks like is -- whether you call it a soft landing or a slow recovery or wherever we are in terms of the global economic condition, I think ammonia is going to continue to be a very attractive product from a price per unit of nitrogen. And based on where we think grain prices are going to trade if you've got conducive weather, we'd expect to see a pretty strong ammonia season. But there is a limit to how much ammonia goes down, and a lot of that is driven by what's the storage capacity of end-market tanks. And in the fall, it's pretty hard to dump them and then refill them and dump them again. You typically want to get one dump in the fall. So there is a limit to availability of ammonia for fall application.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Just following-up on Tony's comments that I do believe, based on the pricing structure of ammonia. And based on the opportunity -- the revenue opportunity by planting corn for harvest in 2024, we're going to see a positive uptake in the ammonia demand. Now Tony's point of you basically have a month to move that product through the system, and that's weather dependent. So if we had an early snow or too much rain, then you would just carry that inventory and that demand into spring. But the fall pricing has basically been set, and then we see it going up from those levels that were initially offered, but I think demand will be robust given all the considerations and if we have good weather.
Steve Byrne:
And just wanted to follow-up on the blue projects down in Louisiana. Is there anything that you can do to pull forward that Brownfield project in Donaldsonville ahead of what you're guiding to early 2025? Anything that you could do to create shipments and start to fulfill some of this demand before there. I don't know what the rate limiting factor is, is it your engineering? Or is it your plastics, injection, well partner? Or whatever it is, is there any chance you could pull that forward and start fulfilling these -- the interests from the low case and the JERA rather than 2027?
Tony Will:
Well, certainly, we'll have blue ammonia or low carbon ammonia available by 2025. And as that demand starts developing, we -- one of the value propositions that we offer companies like that is we'll be able to service their needs as it's developing in advance of a potential new plant start-up. And so we've got supply for them. In terms of when we're able to begin sequestering the CO2, we should have the compression and dehydration equipment on-site and commissioned and ready to go probably by the end of '24. but part of the challenge has been getting Class 6 permitting for the injection wells and getting all of that done and pipeline connections built and so forth. I think ExxonMobil has done a fantastic job of managing kind of that piece of the equation, and it's very helpful that Louisiana has been granted primacy from the EPA over their ability to permit those kind of wells. So all of those things are big steps forward. But as you know, anything around this particular area takes time and requires permitting. And I think we're all trying to push forward as fast as we can because we see the economic value of getting it completed and beginning to inject, but we're targeting right now kind of first quarter, maybe beginning the second quarter at 25% is likely when we'll begin doing that.
Operator:
The next question is from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes, thank you. Good morning everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
Maybe first, a little bit more on clean ammonia, but maybe on the sales side. And as you work towards FID, help us think about where the key kind of pain points are still on kind of setting the contractual terms for those kinds for that kind of product? Would you be looking to FID that with a take-or-pay kind of agreement in hand with a major off-taker? How are you -- how are those getting structured? Or what are the parameters by which you're still negotiating? Just framing those discussions would be helpful.
Tony Will:
Yes. So look, let me talk a little bit about the new project, and I'll throw it over to Bert to talk about some of the interest that we're seeing from European users and others in terms of just decarbonized products. In terms of the new build projects, what we're -- the kind of operating model we're going into is the equity participation is going to be proportionate to your offtake from that project. And so that's -- call that effectively a take or pay, if you will on that piece of it. And then it looks like demand, if everything that we're hearing from our potential partners around the expected growth in demand and the volume that they're looking at is going to well exceed what their equity participation is. We would be looking to try to enter into a back-to-back kind of take or pay for the rest of it. So our approach is going to be very much one of trying to de-risk this project and have it done back-to-back and not have it be a speculative kind of investment, but one that you can pretty much bank on the return profile.
Bert Frost:
Yes, Adam. Good morning. And we're seeing, it's interesting how this area is developing and how we're looking at it holistically and to our point of de-risking and how we manage the business. So we are in conversations with a lot of different end users and applications, but as various companies and industries look at their scope emissions and their needs to improve their profiles, low carbon products as a feedstock or as a fertilizer, adds value. And so we're in conversations and we have requests on the table today for when these products are available, that we would supply them not only to the United States, but to our European customers as well. So we're excited about the future and how we're building this capability, both with people, process, equipment, plants and customers for -- to be ready to go.
Adam Samuelson:
All right. That's helpful. And if I could squeeze a second one on just on share repurchase. And obviously, you did resume that this quarter with the Waggaman transaction announced. Should we be thinking about that more ratably? Opportunistically? How should we be considering share repo over the balance of the year given kind of the other uses of capital and potential uses of capital you've got on the table?
Chris Bohn:
Adam, this is Chris. As Tony and Bert, and I mentioned in our prepared remarks, we are expecting to continue to generate a lot of free cash flow here. And with that $3 billion authorization open, we're starting to move into that now. I think as we've talked about on other quarters, we're going to definitely favor opportunistic repurchases more so than the ratable. It's not to say that, that's going to be 100% that way, but if you look at this past quarter, or even year-to-date, where we purchased over $200 million or 3 million shares, in the mid-60s compared to where we're trading right now. We felt that that was a very efficient use of capital going forward. So I think for the long-term shareholder us being more opportunistic is going to provide much greater value as we look at our share repurchases. But if you look at historically, we've had share repurchase programs in over time, and we've closed them out -- over the last 12 months, we've purchased over 11 million shares for about $1 billion, as Tony mentioned earlier in his remarks. So I think it's something we're committed to doing. We're just going to do it a little more opportunistically than we have in the past.
Operator:
The next question is from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Vincent Andrews:
Thank you. Bert, would you mind expanding on your comments earlier, just about the order book? And I guess I'm just curious, it sounds like summer fill was very well subscribed in the industry this year. So how much of the 3Q book do you think we should think about around those summer fill values versus sort of where the market has headed? And then how much liquidity is there in the fourth quarter in terms of being able to fill up the fourth quarter book where values are today?
Bert Frost:
Yes. When you look at the field programs and just the running of the business, you're always looking forward the months, because you need to logistically be in place as well as what customer needs. And so the interesting thing I think about -- let's focus on the UAN fill program, the price that we launched at was actually higher than the spot price ending the quarter. But you're right, we filled a book out for Q3. And the same thing with -- as my prepared remarks on urea, we were booking some export values that are below the current values today. And so that's kind of the Q3 position, and we'll execute against that and now look to Q4 and Q1 of next year and how we're going to put product in the market as well. It is a dynamic commodity business. And so you're looking at the components of gas, logistics, and then the end price and what markets you put that to. And that's always the calculation that we look in the dynamic nature of our business. It's on the matrix of options and how we execute against that and how you should judge us. And so we'll see when we report results for Q3.
Vincent Andrews:
Thanks so much.
Operator:
The next question is from Ben Theurer with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Benjamin Theurer:
Thank you very much. Good morning. Congrats on the results. Two quick ones. So one, on the regulatory approval process for Waggaman. Is there anything you can share an update? Is this coming along as you expected? Is there any potential delays or maybe an acceleration of the process? That would be my first question.
Tony Will:
It's a pretty kind of routine regulatory process, dealing with the FTC these days. And I wouldn't say there's anything that's out of the ordinary compared to how these things run. As Chris mentioned, we do expect to be closed by the end of the year.
Benjamin Theurer:
Okay. Perfect. And then my second question is really to understand maybe the economic background of the decision to close down the ammonia production over in the U.K. Could you maybe somehow quantitatively elaborate what you expect the benefits are going to be? Because obviously, you're going to be able to allocate more U.S. produced ammonia, but then there's a shipping component to it versus the cost of producing it over days. Have you done any sort of sensitivity analysis or just economic value-added analysis, so we understand better what benefits for the whole CF group ultimately is going to be from this decision?
Tony Will:
Yes. We always have the option of moving ammonia from Donaldsonville over to Billingham. But oftentimes, we can just source ammonia, whether it's from Algeria or other places, and have it delivered on a lower cost basis. And we've got better opportunities to sell ammonia coming out of Donaldsonville at higher rates than moving it into Billingham. So the analysis really is both historically and as we look forward, given the volatile and high cost nature of gas in Europe and also given the high cost of carbon in Europe, and the age of the equipment and the ongoing cost for maintenance and turnaround of that asset. What do we look at being able to buy ammonia into the facility versus the fully loaded cost of running the ammonia plant, and it's just cheaper for us to be able to buy the ammonia in. And so it's just a pure margin pickup by taking costs out of the system.
Benjamin Theurer:
Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much.
Operator:
The next question is from Edlain Rodriguez with Credit Suisse.
Edlain Rodriguez:
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I mean, Tony, like you've had a very uneven and a relatively challenging first half with prices going down just in time demand. As you look into the rest of the year and into next year, like what concerns you the most in terms of volume, energy costs, et cetera? And what excites you?
Tony Will:
Well, I'm going to recharacterize your question just for a moment, if I may, which is, except for the fact that we're comparing year-on-year against an all-time historic performance in 2022, delivering $1.7 billion of adjusted EBITDA in the first half of this year is fantastic by historical standards, really by any stretch of imagination. So Bert has had to navigate an interesting market from the standpoint of delayed purchasing patterns and volatile pricing and so forth. But I think he's done it extraordinarily well. As we look forward, we actually think inventory and supply side is pretty tight out there. And as we've mentioned, we think both India and Brazil as well as the North America channel that is really running low inventory are all going to be important centers for demand for nitrogen moving forward. The forward curve on gas is very attractive for North America. So we're optimistic about the second half of this year and into next year. We do think that grain prices will continue to have attractive farmer profitability as we move into 2024. So we're expecting high acreage next year and strong demand on a global basis. And we're just -- we're really optimistic about that. I don't really have any big concerns or bogeyman man out there that I'm worried about. Our focus is we want to get safety back to the place that we've been operating at the last couple of years, keep the plants online and just execute the way we normally do.
Operator:
The next question is from Aron Ceccarelli with Berenberg. Please go ahead.
Aron Ceccarelli:
Hi, good morning. I have two. The first one is on blue and green ammonia. How do you see the potential for blue and green ammonia as an alternative fuel for marine, which is completed now with methanol? And one of your competitors in Europe yesterday was very bullish about it? The second question is on the Slide 6 of your presentation. May you help me understand a little bit better what's the embedded assumption for the lower and the upper end of the targets, please? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes. So we're somewhat optimistic here about the potential for ammonia to be a clean energy source in marine applications. We do think that it's going to take a little bit longer time, because there's some obvious EHS concerns on board, some retrofitting and then development of new propulsion systems, they're being driven off of ammonia. But there's a couple of really great developments, including some engines that are in test right now. And so our belief is this will happen. I don't think this is going to be a large center of demand in the next five years. But as you get out 10 years and beyond, I think that is going to become a real demand source for clean ammonia. I don't know, Bert, the other sort of thoughts on -- or Chris on...
Chris Bohn:
Yes, I would just say there's going to be -- as Tony mentioned, I think our thoughts are this is really into 2030, where you start to see some of that demand build on ammonia from a marine. And a good portion of the reason for that is not only because of the development that Tony talked about with the engines, but it's also just the attrition of the fleet that's out there of the 60,000 vessels in order for those to be replaced with ammonia is just going to take time when you see anywhere from a 1% to 3% per year attrition rate on those vessels. So we're being a little more conservative than others on the marine demand build, as Tony mentioned. We do expect it to come, but it's probably more closer to a 2030 post time frame.
Bert Frost:
And regarding your second question on Page 6 of our analysis and asking what are our assumptions, these assumptions are based on; one, our active integration and understanding of the markets and conversations with those destination consuming areas, being India, Brazil, and they're just that dynamic of most of these markets have waited to purchase and don't have the inventory in place, but they have the pricing structure for the feed grains that support significant consumption of urea. And so India, just by limiting their rice exports, that's a significant move on the international market. Why are they doing that? One, to keep pricing in control, but they're going to need the nutrients to produce that rice in an acceptable monsoon season. And Brazil in the same category with being a substantial producer going forward. You got the cotton planting season that is in Q4, and then second crop corn for first quarter of 2024, is going to require substantial products to be imported. And then when you look at the -- as we talked about earlier, the gas limitations and some of the supply points, it just puts together a very positive market for the tail end of the year and into 2024.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for any closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today, and we look forward to seeing you at the upcoming conferences.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to CF Industries' First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] We will facilitate the question and answer session toward the end of the presentation. [Operator Instruction] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries earnings conference call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first quarter of 2023 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted results for the first quarter of 2023, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $866 million. Our cash generation remains strong. And on a trailing 12-month basis, our free cash flow was $2.3 billion. These results reflect continued outstanding execution by the CF Industries team. We ran our plants well, leveraged our logistics and distribution capabilities and most importantly, work safely. At the end of the quarter, our 12-month reportable incident rate was 0.33 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, significantly better than industry averages. While last year's unprecedented pricing environment has moderated, global industry dynamics remain favorable. Global nitrogen demand that was priced out of the market last year is returning driven by the need to replenish grain stocks. At the same time, forward price curves suggest that energy spreads between North America and high-cost producers in Europe and Asia will continue to be significantly wider than historical averages. As a result, we expect to continue to generate substantial free cash flow. This will enable us to both invest in growth and return capital to shareholders. In line with this, we are pleased to have reached an agreement to purchase Incitec Pivot ammonia facility in Waggaman, Louisiana. The Waggaman facility offers us a newer, highly efficient ammonia plant that we expect to enhance through improved uptime and asset utilization. This acquisition is the latest step in our drive to provide shareholders with greater participation in our business and access to superior cash flows as is shown on Slide 6, 7 and 8 in our materials. The facility will fit seamlessly into our network and increase our capacity to meet demand for decarbonized ammonia as a clean energy source once we have implemented carbon capture and sequestration at the site. We believe the demand for low-carbon ammonia will provide a robust growth platform for the company in the years ahead. We have made a serious investments alongside partnerships and collaborations with global leaders in order to be at the forefront of producing decarbonized ammonia as a clean energy source. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen market conditions in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. Over the last year, the global nitrogen market has continued to change rapidly and in dramatic ways. At this time, in 2022, global energy prices reflected the shock and uncertainty brought on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. There are fears that Russian fertilizer exports would be locked out of the global market, and we entered a period of substantial production curtailments and shutdowns across Europe, while China restricted urea exports. Today, global energy costs have moderated and global operating rates have risen. New capacity delayed by the pandemic ramped up production. Other than ammonia, Russian fertilizer exports have returned to near pre-war levels as willing buyers have continued to take the discounted product, especially in the United States and Brazil and global fertilizer trade flows is largely adjusted. As a result, global nitrogen prices have fallen from 2022 highs. This helped lead to a first quarter of 2023 that was marked by lower than typical global buying activity. Agricultural purchases in North America took a wait-and-see approach as global nitrogen values fell and weather patterns did not support an early spring. Several large importing regions were essentially absent from the market during the quarter as well. Most notably, this included India, which only had one urea tender during the quarter, in large part due to higher domestic operating rates. Additionally, European purchasers slowed import activity in the first quarter after securing substantial imports in the second half of 2022. Lower global nitrogen prices have triggered a rebound in demand from less affluent regions of the world, as you can see on Slide 13, offsetting some of the impact of lower purchasing from large importers. CF Industries was well prepared for this environment, having entered the year with a strong order book. As demand in North America held off, we leveraged our distribution and logistics capabilities during the quarter. This included capturing superior netbacks available from exports as well as positioning product at our distribution terminals for the spring application season. As a result, we had a more open order book heading into the second quarter than usual. We have managed as well as the North American spring application season kicked off recently. Pricing in North America has risen as demand emerged and all products started moving at a more normal rate. We expect this to be an active fertilizer season -- application season in 2023 with corn acres in the U.S. expected to be up about 5% and wheat acres up around 9% compared to 2022. Income at the farm gate in the United States and Canada is historically high, underpinned by an extended period of low grain stock-to-use ratios supporting high crop prices, as you can see on Slide 9. We continue to believe that this will take two growing seasons at trend yields to replenish global grain stocks. This should support agricultural-led demand as growers seek to optimize nitrogen applications and maximize returns. That said, over the next 7 to 8 weeks, the entire value chain will be walking a logistics tight rope due to the purchasing delays. And with that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first quarter of 2023, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $560 million or $2.85 per diluted share. EBITDA was $924 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $866 million. These results reflect the impact of realized and unrealized losses related to natural gas derivatives. As you know, we typically engage in hedging activity during the winter months to derisk our exposure to shocks in the natural gas market, such as those that occurred with winter storm Uri in 2021. As our hedge -- winter hedges rolled off, we purchased natural gas at market prices during the second quarter. As we work through higher cost inventory produced in the first quarter, we expect natural gas costs in our cost of goods sold to decline significantly. Looking ahead to the rest of 2023, we continue to expect approximately 9 million to 9.5 million tons of gross ammonia production and $500 million to $550 million in capital expenditures, with more than $2.8 billion of cash on the balance sheet, we are prepared to fund the cash portion of the Waggaman facility purchase price. We have begun the regulatory approval process with the U.S. government, but cannot predict when it will be complete. We remain focused on disciplined investments in our Clean Energy growth platform to meet the demand that our MOUs with JERA and LOTTE indicate is emerging. Our blue and green ammonia projects at Donaldsonville are progressing towards their respective start-up dates and the FEED study for our proposed joint venture with Mitsui is advancing as well, and we expect to make a final investment decision later this year. Even with this activity, our capital requirements for the year are modest compared to our cash on the balance sheet and our outlook for robust free cash generation. As a result, we expect to continue to return substantial capital to shareholders. Over the last 12 months, we have returned more than $1.3 billion to shareholders through share repurchases and another $320 million through dividends. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for all that they did during the first quarter of 2023. Their commitment to safety and outstanding execution continued to drive our company's performance. This is an exciting time for CF Industries. Global nitrogen market conditions, coupled with our network and operational expertise, support our outlook for superior cash generation. We are excited about the value that integrating the Waggaman facility into our network will offer, and we have positioned the company at the forefront of global decarbonized ammonia supply bringing together our expertise in ammonia production, enhanced by partnerships and collaborations with leading companies such as JERA, LOTTE, Mitsui, ExxonMobil and NextEra. Taken together, we are well positioned to increase our free cash flow generation and grow shareholder participation in that free cash flow, enabling us to continue to build on our track record of creating substantial long-term value for shareholders. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson:
Tony, Bert, I guess, this is actually a bit more of a longer-term question. And certainly, as you look at your own activity on the blue and green ammonia side, you've got a number of MOUs and projects that are kind of in various stages of development, approaching FID. There has been a slew of announcements similar to your own in North America over the last year. And I'm just trying to get your kind of current perspective on the demand growth, especially the demand growth outside of traditional fertilizer channels that you are looking at as you think about '25, '26, '27, '28. Do you think that, that demand is going to come in commensurate and consistent with some of the potential capacity that's starting to get put into the market? Or is there -- how do we think about the ammonia market surplus balance through the later part of the decade?
Tony Will:
Yes. I think that's an excellent question, and there's certainly a lot of uncertainty out there. I would say the one thing that gives us great optimism and comfort right now, Adam, is the fact that a lot of the agreements that we have put in place and the discussions that we're advancing are with end-users that are actually going to be consuming the product for a clean energy source. So whether it's JERA, LOTTE or a number of others, they are ultimately the end-users of that product, and they're pretty far advanced in terms of their thinking and some of the pilot projects they have run on co-combustion and so forth. So we feel pretty comfortable that the demand is going to be developing. Our sense is that it's probably going to start developing in larger kind of increments as we get into '27, '28 time frame. But by the time we get to 2030, I think there will be a sizable volume of ammonia consumed in nontraditional applications as clean energy sources. Whether or not the pacing of some of these projects exceeds or lags that, I think, is to be determined. I think there's a lot of question in terms of some of these announcements, how real are they? And are they actually going to go forward and are people going to be willing to put the money down. What we saw back in 2012 was something like 26 or 27 announced new projects in North America, of which only four of them got built, two of them by us, two other ones, and all of them were built by traditional industry participants. So a lot of the speculative plants that were talked about never materialized. And I would expect that same dynamic to happen here. But I think it's an excellent question, one of those things that we are evaluating and thinking about. And one of the things that I'm also excited about is the Waggaman acquisition gives us a lot of flexibility in terms of how we think about continuing to grow our own decarbonized ammonia platform base and different levers in terms of how to achieve that while having the same kind of S&D balance in the industry and not overwhelming kind of the marketplace. So I think we're in a really good position. I think North America is clearly the place where these projects will get built and should get built both because of the huge natural resource base, low access to low-cost natural gas but also the ability to do carbon capture and sequestration and the incentive structures in the 45Q. So more to come, but I think there's a lot of vaporware announcements out there right now.
Adam Samuelson:
And if I just have a quick follow-up, near term with Waggaman getting funded out of cash on hand this year. How do we think about kind of buyback pace from cash flow in light in the first quarter. I imagine you might have been blacked out for part of it because of the Waggaman kind of transaction. But how would we think about kind of cash turn with Waggaman going out the door?
Tony Will:
Yes, you're absolutely right. The first quarter was heavily influenced by the fact that we were in pretty advanced conversations for most of that quarter, and therefore, we were blacked out from being able to do buybacks and then we were able to kind of jump in after the announcement went out the door and participate a little bit. I think we feel very comfortable about the amount of cash generation that we expect through the balance of this year, plus a sizable amount of cash on hand even after we consummate the Waggaman purchase. And so we have a large share repurchase authorization in front of us that the Board just put in place. But one of the things that we have seen is despite having what -- from a historical standpoint is a very strong Q1, including very strong cash generation, share price volatility that seems to trade on all kinds of other factors and we're committed to taking advantage of those dips opportunistically in a way that really rewards our longer-term shareholders in a very substantial way. And so what you'll probably see is us diving in deeper and harder on the dips and less so when we're trading relatively flatter. But I think taking over a year or a two-year period that should really disproportionately reward those that stay with us.
Operator:
The next question is from Stephen Byrne of Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.
Stephen Byrne:
Yes. I'd like to better understand your own outlook for demand for nitrogen in both fertilizer and industrial markets. When do you anticipate that collective demand will warrant pulling that production in Europe back on stream, even if it's $15, $20 per million BTU. Do you anticipate that, that demand could develop? Or is the reduced demand for nitrogen and some of the chemical end markets basically eliminating that pull.
Bert Frost:
Steve, this is Bert. And when you look at the outlook for nitrogen for 2023 and beyond, it's positive. As we've said, due to -- on a fertilizer basis, the stocks use ratio where we are and where -- we are structurally in the grain complex. With what we've lost in production in Argentina this year, and in terms of corn and what's not being either consumed or exported from Ukraine, it's a substantial portion of the world's supply. Then you look at the Chinese demand, maintaining that 20 million, 21 million, 22 million metric tons of corn imports supporting the international market. We're structurally positive that it's going to take at least two years and possibly longer to refill that supply of grains and so fertilizer demand should be very strong, and we're seeing that now recover in some of the countries that took kind of a purchasing holiday in 2022 due to high prices, Thailand, Turkey, some places in South America where demand is recovering quite substantially. And we're looking at additional acres in the United States, additional corn and wheat acres, so additional demand. Brazil has been very strong. We're anticipating probably close to 8 million tons of imports through 2023. They've only imported one to date. So demand ahead as well as with India. So fertilizer should be, I would say, returning to its historical growth pattern of 1% to 2%, but probably greater in this year, and that's why I think you're seeing some of the price recoveries. Regarding industrial demand, we're still doing very well in terms of our industrial book, and it's diversified with nitric acid, ammonia, ammonium nitrate and DEF in North America. I think in Europe, you're going to see some -- a little bit harder situation just due to the cost structure and the complications there. But I think that's what you'll see is imported ammonia helping to balance that supply. We're looking at probably 5 million to 6 million, 7 million tons of ammonia production capacity either offline or curtailed. That's going to help support the whole industrial or the whole ammonia production globally as products move in that direction. So we're structurally positive for this year and for demand on both industrial and fertilizer.
Stephen Byrne:
And then Bert, maybe more near term, do you anticipate pricing in the corn belt, particularly in the Northern Plains that may be tied on supply with the river being closed, do you expect premium pricing to come through in the remaining of this quarter, how much have you sold forward? And can you comment on any allocation out of your Port Neal plant that we've heard about?
Bert Frost:
So when looking at -- that's the dynamic that we're experiencing today. The product is tight. Through the last several quarters, a lot of the inventory has remained with the producer side or in inventory with the producers. And retail took a holiday for at least 2, 2.5 quarters of purchasing. Well, when you need that product promptly for walk-up demand, which is where we are today, you need it today, tomorrow, the next day and it is short and it is very tight. Then it's exacerbated by these river issues on the Mississippi with the lot closures and the difficulty to move product that may be in the Gulf up to the Midwest where it's needed. So yes, we went on allocation in Port Neal. We're producing every day at maximum rates, but a lot of demand came in for maybe a 30-day window contract, a lot of demand came in wanting it in the first week of the month and we're allocating that out on a ratable basis to treat all of our customers fairly. So product is tight. We don't believe there's going to be enough urea. We believe that they will have to be migrating for second and third applications to ammonia and UAN, and we're preparing for that with positioning product throughout the system. And pricing has extended from the normal spread of NOLA, let's say, $30 to the Midwest, it's between $50 and $100 today and will probably go up towards the higher end as we get to peak applications. We're pleased with our order book. We demonstrated well in Q1, what we did and our pricing reflects that. And we're equally happy with where we are for Q2.
Operator:
Next question is from Joel Jackson of BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson:
I have a couple of questions. Just on your answer before Bert, maybe Tony will chime in too. So we know that retail as your home words took a buying holiday for 2 to 2.5 quarters. Can you talk about that some more? They did that and it seems like they went out for a while, maybe now they're not winning, but is that going to change your strategy going forward? Like what are the lessons learned from this year in many years at your career?
Bert Frost:
Yes. I'm just a spring chicken. So I just have a few years on my career, but this has been an interesting year and a difficult year, a lot of -- I give a credit to the teams, to the production team operating safely and the distribution teams managing our terminals well, our logistics teams are working with at times 6 to 7 toes and at times 20 for moving product up the river and then the export program with the vessels we've contracted and the work that goes into that. So a lot of dispersion of responsibilities and taking good decisions. But the retail sector, I think, has reflected -- prices were falling. I understand that if they bought $500 UAN and the market is now $300, how do they price that to the farmer. And the farmer is reading some of the same materials in -- whether that's the publications or online. And so there's a standoff. What is an appropriate price at the retail level, what should the farmer be paying. And so in effect, they said, I'm going to stop buying because the farmers stopped buying. And as does happen, when there's an imbalance, prices fall and they feel quite hard in Q1. But eventually -- and this was our conversation with a lot of our customers, you need to plan because it can take railcars days to be loaded and move and to come back and to have a full cycle. Same thing with barges. And so that's where we are right now in a difficult situation on the retail side of -- for the second applications or enough for the first and second and third applications and so pricing has rebounded and we're now the highest priced market in the world, and we think that's going to extend through to Q2. And then inventory will be drained, positioning well for Q3. So I think every year is different, and we've had overpurchasing, aggressive purchasing probably in 2022 as a reflection of fear and this year, a lack of purchasing as a reflection of anticipation of overabundance. And so I think we'll see how this year unfolds. But as I said in my comments, it's going to be very logistically challenged.
Joel Jackson:
And then my second question is actually a two parter. So, is there any reason why Q2 earnings should not be higher than Q1, right? A lot lower average gas costs, maybe pricing down, but volumes higher? And my second part of that is, is there any reason why this year should be dipping out the years where Q3 pricing is typically lower than Q2 pricing? Any reason why that may not be the case here?
Bert Frost:
When you're looking at Q2 versus Q1, we're still in the beginning of the game. If it's a 9-inning game, I'd say we're in inning 3. And product has been moving. A lot of demand has been coming in for prompt shipments. And so I think it's a little early to speculate on where and what. But we're active on all fronts. We are exporting. We are moving product and we are taking new orders. So I think Q2 will be positive. When you look at Q3, you're right. Traditionally, we do have a reset period. Why? You're asking customers to hold inventory in North America for up to 9 months and that's something we work closely with our retail and wholesale customers to make sure we're properly priced against the import alternative, helping our customers move that product ratably because we want to keep our plants operating and be in a good position for fall demand, which is generally ammonia and then spring demand for the 3 major nitrogen products. So I think it's a little too early to go into Q3.
Tony Will:
Yes. The other thing I would just add, Joel, is that there's still basically 8 weeks or so to go here in Q2. So there's a lot to play for you at and it's probably too early to make a call one way or another in terms of how we do sequentially quarter-on-quarter. But if you look at our price realizations reported in Q1, Bert did a great job with this team of really getting some good numbers there despite the fact that you saw pricing kind of moderate throughout that quarter. And if you take a straight average, we did a great job of getting price compared to Q1. Current prevailing prices in the spot market today tend to be a bit below where our average prices were in Q1 as reported. And so again, more to play for. We do expect some tightness in the marketplace. We do expect the inland premium and product coming out of Port Neal and Med Hat and our other facilities to really trade at a pretty significant premium given some of the logistical challenges that Bert talked about, and it's also clear based on Chris' comments that our gas cost should be a lot lower than it was in Q1. So all of those things are positive, but we're starting at a point where prevailing prices are a bit below where our average price realization was in Q1. So more to play for, but some all of that together, we still expect a great first half of the year by historical standards and to generate a lot of cash over this period of time. Q3 as you pointed out, normally a reset period. But every year is different. So stay tuned, I guess.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. I think the only thing I would add to that, Joel, is on the natural gas prices, while we're buying at lower prices today, significantly lower. We still do have an inventory, some of those hedges that were -- the actual production that occurred in Q1. So some of that will roll off here in Q2, and then we'll get into sort of the $2 per MMBtu gas that we're seeing today and purchasing today.
Operator:
The next question is from Christopher Parkinson of Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Christopher Parkinson:
You obviously alluded to this a few times in your PowerPoint in your prepared remarks. But the cost curve seems to be engaging at least a little bit more in a fluid manner than it has in the last 12 to 18 months, especially with European operating rates increasing. I would just love to hear your team's perspective on what your, let's say, second half/normalized view of import export trends are going to be, just given the dynamics in Europe right now? I mean do you still expect more products coming out of MENA, specifically North Africa to Europe in terms of also ammonia trade flows as you saw last year going into Europe to basically supplement some of the product that's offline. Just any quick thoughts on that as well as you would be incredibly helpful.
Tony Will:
Yes, Chris, I'll start and then hand the mic over to Bert here in a second. But MENA is running at full rates. And so it's not like we're going to see incrementally more product coming out of MENA. It's local consumption, is relatively low in region. And so it's a pretty constant stream of product coming out of MENA. That said, our belief is it's a pretty tough operating environment in Europe. The reason why is there's a very steep contango on the gas forward curve between Q3 and Q4. And even if you see prices, the spot market moderate a little bit on gas, it's kind of hard to want to campaign an ammonia plant for 3 months or 4 months of operation. It takes a terrible toll on the equipment to heat it up and then cool it back down again. And plants don't operate well when you're pulling them up and down like that, at least on the ammonia side. And so we do not expect Europe to return to kind of historical relatively higher operating rates. We think it's going to be spotty and campaign. And I think the upgrades will run, but that means it's a sync for ammonia as opposed to producing ammonia locally. We do think that Europe is going to go ahead and continue to evaluate and look at bringing in more urea and UAN as an alternative to locally produce nitrates and I think that, that bodes well for our production network in North America.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Just some of the numbers behind Tony's comments, when you're at 20 million tons more or less of production capacity in Europe, West and East, and you have 5 to 7 of that offline or curtailed. That's an impact of about 2 million tons of urea. So as those demands for that nitrogen are needed in Europe and they're pulling those imports in from wherever, that is structurally helpful to the global nitrogen complex and supporting prices. And as we go more towards winter, that only is further placing those plans with difficulty with an operating environment plus carbon costs. Today, I would say that cost for ammonia is probably $550 to $600 where you can import for substantially less so it makes sense and that then supports the global price of ammonia. So I think that these trends only continue and get worse as we hit winter.
Christopher Parkinson:
And just as a quick follow-up, Tony, it sounds a little Chris to mention this now, but we used to discuss normalized earnings many years ago between, let's say, 13% and 18% EBITDA. Now I think in most people's analysis, it's probably, let's not say quite, but almost double that. When I take a step back and I look at obviously your -- obviously, your M&A pipeline as well as the deals with JERA, Mitsui. I mean, is there -- do you have any additional thought press on just how you're enhancing and improving CF's normalized EBITDA profile not only for '23 and '24, but quite frankly, for the balance of the decade. Do you just have any insights on your way of thinking there?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think a lot of the new demand that we're looking at for ammonia as a clean energy source is much more likely to be kind of longer term, contractually based with ratable offtake and a return profile that's attractive based on either the acquisition price of the asset or the build construction if it's new build. And so our expectation is that, we believe that we're the best operators of these kind of assets in the world. We operate in one of the lower-cost regions. There's incentive structures out there from a legislative perspective. And access to some great partners like we have with ExxonMobil and others to help us achieve blue ammonia. And so from that perspective, we think that we can earn a really attractive rate of return on incremental capital that we're putting in the ground on these kind of projects. And it's likely to be much more kind of ratable and fixed rate of return than it is subject to some of the volatility in the fertilizer space. And so we think that adding some of those layers of attractive fixed margin returns will be pretty additive to the overall valuation of the enterprise going forward. We'll continue to generate some good cash flow for us that we can deploy either against share repo or appropriate growth projects when we find opportunities to continue to generate those rates of return. So we'll probably see us doing more of that kind of thing, particularly as this new demand source emerges.
Operator:
The next question is from Vincent Andrews of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Vincent Andrews:
Bert, can I ask you on China? If the export policy does lapse and kind of go back to what it was in 2021, I think you highlighted that maybe we'd go back to that 3 million to 5 million range. But what I'm curious is, that would be for urea. Last year, we started to see China pick up significant exports of ammonia sulfate. So if the urea restrictions lapse, do you think that the -- clearly, urea exports would go up, but do you think ammonia sulfate export stay the same? Or does that get reduced as some of that ammonia gets used to make urea that gets exported instead? How would that work?
Bert Frost:
Vincent, I think that the untold story of 2022 is the volume of ammonium sulfate that did come out of China. For years, that product was available. But with the new compaction projects that have gone in and making that product more viable to places like Brazil or Turkey or even the United States in term -- well, we use ammonium sulfate, that's domestically produced. But ammonium sulfate is a good fertilizer. It's half the end of urea, but has sulfur. And so it has moved out. I don't see the growth, though, of where we're at, there's a substantial volume that has been moving out of China. Regarding the urea exports out of China, where they are capacity-wise a significant amount of capacity has come offline and been taken out over the last let's say, 5, 6 years. And then we would peg that at about 81 million, 82 million tons of capacity. Operating rates have ranged from the mid-60s to the low 70s. So taking an operating rate of 70%, you're producing about 56 million to 58 million tons of urea. Domestic consumption is in the low 50s. So there's just not a lot of urea available to export as there were maybe 10 years ago. And so we see this is all speculation today on the change in an export policy. There are some plants that are that were built for export purposes, and those are the, I think, 3 or 4 that were announced as possibly gaining those export opportunities or clearance for export sooner rather than the other plants. So I don't see a significant amount of urea coming out, out of that 3 million to 5 million tons for 2023.
Vincent Andrews:
And then Tony, if I could just ask you a clarifying question on Waggaman versus some of your MOUs. Am I correct in saying that Waggaman was sort of a unique purchase that you don't view as a substitute versus some of your potential greenfield opportunities?
Tony Will:
So I think it gives us some flexibility in terms of how we evaluate the attractiveness of new construction in the near term. And it certainly gives us an opportunity to enhance our platform from the standpoint of adding dehydration and compression and making more blue ammonia in that location without having to do a full greenfield expansion. So it gives us, I would say, a lot of flexibility in terms of how we think of if and when it makes sense to do a new project. And we've added 900,000 tons of ammonia to the portfolio. That ammonia is already being consumed in the marketplace, so it doesn't disrupt the S&D. And we can generate a fair bit of blue ammonia with a fairly modest incremental investment. So I really like the project because of the optionality it brings us in addition to just the base economics of it.
Operator:
The next question is from Edlain Rodriguez at Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Edlain Rodriguez:
I mean this one is for Bert. I mean, Bert, a temporary ammonia prices is down to, what, $380 or so. I mean that's a level that's well below European production costs. Like what's causing that? And is the EU no longer the marginal cost producer? I mean it's just been very hard to understand what's going on there, maybe if you can help us.
Bert Frost:
Yes. So you're looking at the EU costs. It's a pretty easy calculation. Gas price is public, looking at TTF or NBP and op costs, adding what that would be for cash or for full and then carbon costs, as I said earlier, gets you to between $550 and $600. And you're right, in the current spot market, you're in the low 400s and so what I think is happening, and we're seeing this reflected in announcements as well as public and private companies, they're operating either curtailed or shut down. And supply-demand does work. And I think as you take some of that supply off in Europe and some of that is being backfilled with supply from around the world, then pricing tends to moderate and move up. We did I think is a reflection of some of the issues we talked about globally in Q1 with some economic downturn as well as purchasing holidays in different places. And delays in consumption probably went a little long on ammonia, which drove that price down to the level where it is today. And so we're positive on what's coming in terms of, we think, especially in winter with Europe and backfilling with product ammonia produced in different locations and shipping that. And we have done that ourselves taking down our Billingham plant and buying product or shipping product in from Donaldsonville.
Edlain Rodriguez:
And that's good. And another one on corn prices, they have come down not by a lot, but they have come down. I mean, if you look at the December futures price, it's at $5.25 or so for [Indiscernible]. Like how do you think this will impact farmer psychology. Will they be willing to pay higher fertilizer prices when they see corn prices kind of moving down a little bit?
Bert Frost:
So yes, when you look at the prompt price and the forward price, you referenced December, so that's the harvest price for the 2023 North American crop. And when you look around the world, again, the stocks-to-use ratios are tight. We've had a drought in Argentina, where we've probably lost 8 million to 10 million tons of production. We've had the difficulties in Ukraine. an additional probably 12 million tons were lost. And that's a reflection not of lost exports, but lost domestic consumption in Ukraine, whether that's corn processing or for feed. And then you've seen [indiscernible], we also had a negative trend yield in the United States in our harvest last year. Some of that has been made up by Brazil, which had a record corn crop in the United States is trending forward. But the price of $5.25 on a historical basis is pretty positive. We've tended to operate in the $4 to $5 range over the last several years. And so yes, we're coming off the highs of $6 to $6.50, but still $5.25 is incredibly profitable. We're estimating this is the third most profitable year but that's 3 years in a row because last year was exceptional and the year before that was also incredible. This is just going to be very, very good. Rank it. So it is still very profitable to whether you're a dryland farmer or an irrigated farmer to absolutely maximize your seed population as well as your nutrient applications for yields. And we're seeing very good soil moisture in North America to support that. So I think we're $5.25 represents a fairly -- a very fair price, which then supports livestock, it supports ethanol, for the demand of those products.
Operator:
The next question is from Richard Garchitorena of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Richard Garchitorena:
Great. First question, just on Waggaman. Can you just give us an update in terms of timing for closing? Any regulatory progress that you've made? And where is -- where we expect it to close?
Chris Bohn:
Yes. So we filed with the FTC and they're reviewing it. Right now, we don't necessarily have a time frame on that. We're supplying them the information that they need. We think -- we're hopeful that it will be sometime this year that we'll be able to close on that project.
Richard Garchitorena:
And then just in terms of -- once you get that deal done, when you think about the flexibility that you mentioned, one option, I guess, is to convert it to CCS, potentially get IRA credits. Can you talk about that in terms of how that might work in terms of timing and have you had a chance to sort of work that into your options with your partners, whether it's JERA or Mitsui or LOTTE.
Tony Will:
Yes. So timing on putting in the dehydration compression and getting access to the pipeline and being able to have that injected is probably two years out. That's about the time frame it took us to announce the project at Donaldsonville and have the equipment order delivered and installed. So it's probably about that kind of time frame. And again, we are in ongoing discussions with the partners that we have already signed and announced MOUs with and there's a series of other conversations that are happening in the marketplace as well that are not quite as advanced at the moment. But this just is another source of supply. So it both provide some diversity of supply locations in case there's an outage or a storm or an issue that would affect one location. It also just increases the aggregate volume of material that we'll have that's low carbon. So it's certainly of interest to all of those folks that you mentioned. And we are in ongoing discussions about appropriate ways to try to structure agreements that provide them attractive and certainly secure access, but also provide our shareholders an attractive rate of return on our investments.
Richard Garchitorena:
And just last question. In terms of funding these projects, is the idea basically to look for project financing? Or are you going to fund it with your JVs from free cash? How are you thinking about that?
Tony Will:
Yes. So we ended the quarter with over $2.8 billion of cash on the balance sheet. We're continuing to generate a substantial amount of free cash flow kind of every quarter as we move forward. It's going to be funded from cash on hand. And by the way, it's a relatively modest draw on cash on hand, particularly at the rate at which we're building it. So it provides us flexibility to continue to do our share repurchases as well as our growth and improvement projects all at the same time.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. Just to follow up on that. I mean these projects are staged over multiyears. So it's not as if similar to the Waggaman where there's a big lump sum at one time. So even the Mitsui project, the LOTTE project, these are 4, 5-year cash outflows with a partner involved. So we expect exactly to what Tony said that there's going to be still significant cash for other capital allocation return policy.
Operator:
The next question is from Ben Theurer of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Ben Theurer:
Just wanted to follow up on some of the logistic challenges you've talked about. And maybe help us understand how that impacted you this quarter or maybe benefited you this quarter? And how you think about logistics and supply chain issues just would like those different water levels, et cetera, go forward and how you can prepare yourself to maybe take advantage of it as it relates to your trade and export business?
Tony Will:
Yes. So it's a really interesting situation as we got into the back end of last year. You saw historic or near historic low water levels on the Mississippi. Fast forward to the spring and all of a sudden now we're facing such high water levels that barge. Traffic is again impacted by it. Combine that with what I would say is a relatively significant national shortage in drivers -- over-the-road drivers and so forth. You've seen logistics costs and delays in timing go up kind of across the board. And that helps us significantly in terms of the in-market premium that we're able to realize in our facilities like Port Neal and Medicine Hat because we're already in the marketplace. And generally speaking, the value of product in market is loaded on the coast plus logistics cost and maybe you get a time premium for it as well if you're in the middle of immediate application. And so all of these things really are helpful for us as we look into the meat of the application season here in the second quarter. I'd say in the first quarter, the increase just costs across the board in logistics, probably impacted us a little bit to the negative side, but I think that will turn around and play to the positive side as we go forward. And it's less important from an export perspective because vessel freights haven't moved quite as dramatically as the inland stuff.
Bert Frost:
When you're looking at the logistics options we have, we're on the Class VI railroads, and we're on the Arkansas, the Mississippi, the Illinois, Ohio. So we are able to barge as far north as Minneapolis and when we look at each year, we work with our retail wholesale trader customers who work with the farmer, and we're in constant communication. And this is a great year for an earlier question of what did we do when our customers weren't purchasing. Well, we focused on how are we going to deliver the spring needs in a way that makes sense. And so we set out a strategy and a game plan early late Q4, early Q1 to make that happen, and that's leveraging all these assets that are at our disposal, and we have done that. So we feel very positive about what we have positioned in the interior through our terminals and ammonia tanks, our UAN terminals and urea storage places for dry. But in those conversations, when customers were not willing to buy, we did pivot aggressively to the export market. And we're able to do that. We're able to move several of our plants to the export market and optimize our loading structure. We have 5 docks in Donaldsonville. So we are a unique company that has many options available to us. And each year, we're going to evaluate those and do what's best for our customers and our company.
Ben Theurer:
And then my second question is just to understand a little bit the magnitude of the inventory. You said the higher cost inventory, you still have to run through into 2Q. Can you give us a little bit of sense of timing. Is that impacting like the majority of the second quarter, just maybe half of it, only a few weeks. How should we think about what was in place as to the nat gas hedges and how this runs through on the cost of inventory that needs to run through into the usually good second quarter?
Chris Bohn:
Yes, good question. I think generally, what we have is we have production and inventory that sits a little bit more than a month. So I think at a minimum, what you'll see is probably a month's worth of higher gas costs, probably maybe 6 weeks worth that roll through here in second quarter before we get into sort of the cash purchases at the low $2 that we're seeing. So I think that would be a good proxy to use.
Operator:
The next question is from Josh Spector of UBS. Please go ahead.
Josh Spector:
Just a couple of quick follow-ups on Waggaman. First, can you disclose what the remaining life is on the contracts for the other two buyers outside of Dino? And just regarding carbon capture and who gets the credit, is there anything in the agreement with Dino that has you share some of the portion of what you're selling them in terms of ammonia credits for carbon capture on those tons? Or is that still open-ended?
Tony Will:
Yes. So we're really happy with the way that the contracts are structured and that we've got offtake for that -- all of that production. It gives us some flexibility in terms of how we think about the future and increasing production there and what we do with the incremental tons as we increase production. and as we move forward. But it's nice to already have a home for all of those tons at kind of market-based pricing. So we're really pleased with those. In terms of the blue ammonia and the CCS there, we have a number of companies that are very interested and have registered interest with us on securing access to decarbonized or blue ammonia. Dino is among them. And we will work with Dino and also work with others, whether it's production out of Donaldsonville or Waggaman in order to try to satisfy the needs that we see really developing in the marketplace but also realizing value for that product.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. And I think as you look at the production and actually the dehydration and compression piece of that, we purchased the plant with that being an upside to CF that we would own that asset and also the benefits that would come from that as well.
Josh Spector:
And just to clarify, I mean, just without disclosing, I guess, the remaining life of the contract, do we need to be thinking about, is there any risk of renegotiation in the next one to two years, creating different economics versus what you expect today?
Chris Bohn:
I think we feel comfortable with where those industrial contracts are and we can't really disclose more than that. But [Indiscernible].
Tony Will:
Yes. We don't see the kind of risk that you're talking about associated with the go-forward in that facility.
Operator:
The next question is from Andrew Wong of RBC. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong:
So just going back to clean ammonia with a lot of these clean ammonia, clean hydrogen projects coming up in the U.S., along the gulf. Are you seeing any potential for bottlenecks, cost inflation around labor and construction services? And maybe taking the S&D question from the other side, like could there any tightness in the clean ammonia market, if we see any delays on build-outs and could demand come in quicker than expected?
Tony Will:
Yes. Andrew, so I think it's fair to say that you're seeing inflationary impacts in every aspect of the announced projects that are there. And I think that affects both the time that it takes to bring them online as well as the cost that it takes to bring them online for those that ultimately get built. The raw materials, the metals, the fabrication, the transportation, the labor to construct, you're seeing inflation in every single aspect across the board. And remember that none of these projects that have been announced really are underway at this point from a construction standpoint. So minimum of 2027, maybe 2028 before any of these things that are announced would potentially start up, and there is a high likelihood of cost inflation over that period of time. It's one of those reasons that make us so happy about the Waggaman acquisition because our belief is by the time some of these projects that are being discussed, if they're announced, that the cost per ton of capacity is going to look really attractive from an acquisition economics on Waggaman. More to come in terms of whether what results our FEED study for the potential project with Mitsui yields but I would certainly expect when all is said and done for the Waggaman acquisition to look really attractive [Indiscernible].
Andrew Wong:
Okay. And then just a question on the BP deal for low methane gas earlier this year. Can you just talk about how important that is for your customers in securing some of these clean ammonia deals? And is this something that you're looking to do more of going forward?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think one of the things that helps us address is some of our Scope 3 emissions. In this case, it's upstream Scope 3. The downstream Scope 3 are very hard to manage. But from an upstream perspective, if we're sourcing gas that is more responsibly produced and transported, it reduces the methane slip on the upstream that reduces our upstream Scope 3 emissions. And that's substantial because methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. It certainly goes into our overall carbon footprint. And so customers that are interested in the overall footprint, will care about that to some extent. Most of the conversations we've been having around decarbonized ammonia are very project-specific to Donaldsonville and/or Waggaman and once we get the carbon capture sequestration equipment installed and operating. And so I think in the near term, that's a little less important. In the longer term, it's certainly more important, but it helps us manage our overall footprint and certainly something we're evaluating, continuing to expand from a program standpoint.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you at all the upcoming conferences.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to CF Industries' 2022 Full Year and Fourth Quarter Financial results. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries' earnings conference call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2022 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we will review the results, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks Martin and good morning everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2022 that reflected a phenomenal year at CF Industries, highlighted by outstanding execution from our team. Our plants ran extremely well, producing nearly 10 million tons of ammonia. And most importantly, we continue to operate safely. At the end of the year, our 12-month recordable incident rate was 0.33 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, well below industry averages. Against the backdrop of a persistently tight global nitrogen supply/demand balance, these achievements led to extraordinary results. We produced record full year earnings, record fourth quarter and full year adjusted EBITDA, and record full year free cash flow. We also made significant progress decarbonizing our network and furthered our leadership position in low-carbon ammonia production. Over the last 12 months, we've signed an MOU with Mitsui for the development of a new blue ammonia production facility, our BluePoint complex in Louisiana. We signed a CO2 transportation and sequestration agreement with ExxonMobil. We signed an MOU with JERA for the supply of low-carbon ammonia, and we recently signed an agreement with BP to purchase certified low methane emissions natural gas. All of which put CF Industries at the forefront of decarbonization and sustainability within the nitrogen industry. Turning to the market, the last 18 months have been particularly volatile period for our industry. High energy prices, geopolitical events, and economic weakness leading to reduced industrial demand affected both nitrogen production rates and nitrogen prices. In the near-term, we expect continued volatility in the global nitrogen market. As we look at the first half of 2023, we believe typical spring demand in the Northern Hemisphere is going to be weighted to the second quarter as buyers have taken a wait-and-see approach to their nitrogen procurement. CF Industries network with our combination of in-market production, extensive storage and logistics capabilities and export optionality is well suited to navigate this type of environment. Longer-term, we continue to see a positive operating environment for the company. Industry fundamentals remain strong, resilient demand driven by the need to replenish global grain stocks, significant energy spreads between North America, compared to Europe and Asia and the emergence of demand for low-carbon ammonia as a clean energy source are all very favorable for our cost advantaged network. As a result, we continue to generate -- we expect to continue to generate substantial free cash flow in the years ahead. This will enable us to both invest in growth and return capital to shareholders. We are enthusiastic about the growth opportunity that low-carbon blue and green ammonia provides for our company and believe our MOU with JERA demonstrates tangible emerging demand for low-carbon ammonia as a clean energy source. We will continue to focus on disciplined investments to decarbonize our network and accelerate our ability to produce low-carbon blue and green ammonia to help meet this developing new demand. Alongside these growth investments, we expect to continue returning substantial capital to shareholders. In 2022, we returned nearly 60% of our free cash flow, $1.65 billion to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends. And in the last two years, we have reduced our outstanding share count by 11%. We expect to further leverage the $3 billion share repurchase program recently authorized by the Board to continue building on this track record and providing our long-term shareholders with ever-increasing participation in our business. With that, let me turn the call over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen market conditions in more detail.
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The global nitrogen market was pushed to extremes in 2022. The need to replenish global grain stocks drove prices for feed grains to the highest levels in a decade. This supported resilient demand for nitrogen and major agricultural production regions like North America, Brazil and India. At the same time, we believe historically high nitrogen prices led to lower demand and smaller subsistence focused agricultural areas in Asia and Latin America. Industrial demand in Europe and Asia was also softer than expected due to higher prices and recession fears. Additionally, we -- very high natural gas prices in Europe and Asia significantly curtailed production in those regions. This, along with government actions restraining nitrogen trade, reduced product availability further supporting high global nitrogen prices. These dynamics were exacerbated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which triggered disruptions and a large realignment of trade flows. The combination of these events push global nitrogen prices to all-time highs in the spring of 2022. Through the second half of last year, the shock of these factors moderated as global trade flows of natural gas and nitrogen adjusted and the world absorbed previously delayed urea capacity additions. In addition, a mild winter in the Northern Hemisphere resulted in higher natural gas stocks, lower natural gas prices and therefore, lower global nitrogen prices. Global nitrogen prices were also pushed lower as many agricultural buyers took a risk off just-in-time approach to purchasing. This is not unusual, nitrogen prices are historically high, and demand for the spring application season seems distant. This buyer behavior has persisted longer than normal as declining global prices reinforced the wait-and-see approach. Over the last two weeks, we have seen retailers and wholesalers begin to step back into the market at attractive price levels. The decrease in global nitrogen pricing has improved farmer economics dramatically and should spur demand globally that was discouraged at higher prices. We expect significant demand to emerge in North America in the coming weeks as the value chain moves into catch-up mode that will likely last into and through the second quarter. We believe inventories are lower at the farm and retail level given the extent of the Q4, Q1 purchasing slowdown. Additionally, nitrogen imports into the US since July are lower year-over-year, while nitrogen exports were significantly higher. As a result, we believe there is a good amount of product movement yet to occur and purchases required to meet spring needs. From a longer term perspective, we believe that industry fundamentals continue to point to a tight global nitrogen supply and demand balance. As you can see on slide 9, global grain stocks did not improve from last year's growing season per weather conditions in many key growing areas along with lower production in Ukraine due to the war limited global yields. As a result, global course grain stocks use ratios remain low, supporting high global grain prices for longer. This has been farming highly profitable and low cost exporting regions of the world, such as the US, Canada and Brazil. We expect this will support resilient demand for nitrogen as the agricultural sector focuses on maximizing food production and farm incomes. We project that 92 million to 93 million acres of corn will be planted in the United States in 2023 along with strong wheat, cotton and canola plantings across North America. We believe we'll take at least two more growing seasons at trend yields to fully replenish global stocks. In our view, Europe remains the marginal nitrogen producer in the industry. While forward energy curves have moderated, the current decline in global nitrogen values suggest that producer profitability in the region will continue to be challenged. We believe this is reflected in the estimated 20% to 30% of European ammonia capacity that is currently curtailed. With European production supplying the marginal product ton in the industry, the marginal opportunity for CF Industries remain substantial, as you can see on slide 10. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the fourth quarter of 2022, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $860 million or $4.35 per diluted share. EBITDA was $1.25 billion and adjusted EBITDA was $1.3 billion. For the full year, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $3.35 billion or $16.38 per diluted share. EBITDA was $5.5 billion and adjusted EBITDA was $5.9 billion. Full year net cash from operations was approximately $3.9 billion, and free cash flow was $2.8 billion, both CF Industries records for a calendar year. We generated this free cash flow even after making $491 million in one-time tax and interest payments in the fourth -- third and fourth quarters related to a US Canada tax matter dating back to the early 2000s. Excluding these payments, free cash flow was$3.3 billion, representing a free cash flow to adjusted EBITDA conversion rate of 56% and a free cash flow yield of almost 20%. Looking ahead to 2023, we expect ammonia production will be approximately 9.5 million tons. Capital expenditures are projected to be in the range of $500 million to $550 million in 2023. These amounts reflect a normal turnaround schedule. They also include expenditures related to our low carbon ammonia projects. We expect our green ammonia project at Donaldsonville to be finished around year-end. Fabrication of the electrolyzer is complete and site work is ongoing for its installation and integration later this year. The blue ammonia project at Donaldsonville remains on track for start-up in early 2025. Engineering activities and procurement of major equipment for the CO2 dehydration and compression facility are in progress. Longer term, we remain focused on increasing our free cash flow generation capacity and growing shareholder participation in our free cash flow. We do this in four ways
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for their outstanding work in 2022. Their expertise and unwavering commitment to safety is the foundation of everything we do. I particularly want to recognize, the more than 400 CF Industries employees, who contributed to the successful upgrade of our enterprise resource planning system, which we have had operating since the beginning of the year. This was our largest business technology implementation ever, and it was completed on time and on budget, an outcome that is extremely rare for these types of projects. And while the work may not generate headlines, it is fundamental for our future growth. We are proud of the outstanding 2022 that we had at CF Industries, but we're even more excited about the opportunities ahead. Given our operational focus, disciplined capital stewardship, positive market outlook and strong return profile from our clean energy initiatives, we expect to continue to generate superior free cash flows. As a result, we believe we are well positioned to build on our proven track record and continue to create substantial shareholder value. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Stephen Byrne from Bank of America Securities. Stephen, please go ahead.
Stephen Byrne:
Thank you. I'm very curious to hear your view on – what has driven NOLA urea from $700 to $300 in five months. Is this just deferred demand at the retail level that is driving that, or are there some other things like the US is willing to take Russian cargo as a lot of countries aren't. Is there some Saudi-based cargos that are coming in and getting manipulated on price? Is there something else going on here? I don't get it. You got a marginal producer even with lower gas, it's still their marginal costs are still $500 a ton. So what has led to this? And where do you think it goes from here?
Bert Frost:
Good morning, Steve, this is Bert. And your short answer is yes, yes and yes. So, yes, the pricing has fallen down from, I would say, $600 in September to $300 today, short ton FOB NOLA. And there are some factors, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks of there is the theory that high prices cure high prices. And some of that is reflected in demand. When you look across the world globally, to whether it's a Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3 consuming country, a lot of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 countries did cut back, especially on subsystems farming, or where you're importing in dollars, but trading in a local currency, which makes it economically difficult for that kind of transaction. So when you look at South America, in Asia, and let's just say, countries like Peru or Central America or Thailand. That combination between those two regions is probably 2.5 million tons of lower demand coupled with then the next step of that equation is additional supply that came on feathered throughout 2022 from India, Iran, Nigeria, Russia, Brunei, is probably 5 million tons. So it doesn't take a lot to tip that over. And then we're starting in -- or at least talked about recession and we did see that in our EU operations with high energy prices and therefore, the lower consumption of industrial products in Europe. Now there was to add in -- to do an added on that equation, there was the European shutdowns that took a significant amount of tonnage off the market and pulled in imports from various exporting regions. So those combinations, along with in the Tier 1 countries of demand deferral or a slowdown or a purchasing holiday, we like to say, has pushed prices lower. And then you're right, the car goes from various countries that sell on index have overwhelmed NOLA. All that being equal though, we still see a positive market going into Q2 and a significant amount of demand to be satisfied, and we're right in position with $2.50 gas in Oklahoma and a freight differential that's positive to us. And so we're eager. We've got a good order book on and waiting for Q2 to arrive.
Stephen Byrne :
And maybe just one more for you, Bert, and you just said you have a good order book on. Would you say that you've you sold more into the second quarter than normal or maybe less than normal if you're expecting a recovery in pricing?
Bert Frost :
Well, we're pleased with our order book and always look to manage those expectations and internal requirements. And we're market sensitive. We're wide open for Q2.
Tony Will :
Yes, Steve, I think it's fair to say, Bert sort of manages us really well. We're comfortable in terms of the orders that we have to get us to the place where we're expecting demand to start emerging in a very significant way in the quarter. But we're keeping our powder dry with respect to being able to participate in that high-demand portion of the first half here.
Stephen Byrne :
Understood. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar from Citigroup. P.J., please go ahead.
P.J. Juvekar :
Yes. Good morning. I have a question on your JERA agreement, where you're supplying 0.5 million tones of clean ammonia. Where does all this ammonia come from? From which projects that you have going on, where would it come from, or do you need to build more? And would JERA uptake that in Louisiana and take it from there? And how do you price, how do you contract pricing? Is it a long-term market bid price, or what are your current initial thoughts on this?
Tony Will:
Yes. Good morning, P.J. So the first sizable quantity of low-carbon ammonia is going to be available at Donaldsonville, as a result of the CO2 dehydration compression project that Chris talked about earlier in the agreement with ExxonMobil for transportation and permanent sequestration of that CO2. So we're going to be able to sequester about 2 million metric tonnes of CO2 a year, beginning in 2025, which is about the time frame that GERA is going to begin taking some of these volumes. And so it syncs up very well with our ability to produce it with when demand is beginning to emerge. We have a framework or an MOU around the agreement, some of the specifics of whether there's an equity investment in the project from JERA, whether or not it is strictly an off-take agreement. All of those things are currently being discussed and we're -- we've got a very good relationship and a good dialogue going but more details to come as we kind of further firm things up. But suffice it to say with the availability of the 45Q tax credit and the recognition globally of the value and relative scarcity of low-carbon ammonia, we're really excited about this development of real tangible demand showing up. And the interest on the part of consumers of this product to be involved in the equity side of the production of it as well. So to us, that's very different than people building spec plants you've got kind of the base consumers that really want to vertically integrate into the production side, and that's an exciting development.
P.J. Juvekar:
Yes. My follow-up is for Bert. Bert how much urea does US need to import between now and planting season. And how much of that is already contracted at these lower prices and is on water to get here. Can you just give us an update on sort of what happens between now and planting season?
Bert Frost:
Yes, on average, on a historical review of previous experiences, it's let's just say it's 5 million tonnes, 1.5 million has come in, probably have 3.5 million tonnes to bring in. February and March, we're tracking the cargoes are probably between 700 to 1 million tonnes for each month. And then it gets a little dicey for that importer because if you're putting a vessel on the water in April, getting here in late April, early May and has to move from a coastal import port into the interior, it's not that easy. So I think more to come on that issue. I think the other issue is demand. When you look at what the additional corn acres we targeted in our remarks of 92 to 93 and the additional wheat acres of probably 5 million acres, you've got, I'd say, 300, 000 to 400,000 tons of additional demand on top of the pasture acres that will be fertilized. So good demand profile going forward. I think the imports generally tend to be balanced. And we're well positioned with our three urea plants on the coast and then the interior to serve that need.
P.J. Juvekar:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
We have a question now from Christopher Parkinson from Mizuho. Christopher. Please go ahead.
Christopher Parkinson:
Great. Thank you so much. Your free cash flow conversion was pretty good adjusting for the tax payment. I'm just curious to inquire on when I look at free cash flow in the outer years, whether it's 2023, 2024, 2025. Tony and Chris, has your idea in terms of the distribution between share buybacks and some of the blue and green projects and obviously, the support for the Japanese decarbonization initiatives. Just in the context of the IRA is that distribution of that free cash flow, has your thought process around that changed versus buybacks just given the opportunities that have continuously emerged? And then obviously, you've been already participating in? Just curious to hear your updated thoughts. Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes Chris. I would say the good news here is that there should be plenty for all of the above. The investments that we're making on the decarbonization and in particular, the dehydration compression are relatively modest compared to the amount of free cash flow that we're generating. And so our expectation is that we can continue to do all of the above. Now, I would say, given the return profile of some of those projects, particularly in light of the 45-Q tax credit that -- our first call on capital is going to be investing in these kind of projects that have returns way above the cost of capital. That's good for all seasons. But I don't think this is a choice that we have to make as an either or.
Chris Bohn:
Yes, I think, Chris, also, just how we're looking at those projects in the clean energy segment is, as always, very disciplined, but also where we don't have the technology or the infrastructure, looking to partner, and that really goes to the modest capital side that Tony mentioned there. I think as you look at those projects, as you mentioned, there's not huge calls on capital at this particular time, so that leaves a lot of excess free cash flow for us to distribute to shareholders. I think the one thing we will look at differently this year is sort of that ratable versus opportunistic method in which we went about share repurchases last year. And I can just point to Q4 where with no change in the long-term fundamentals of our industry or CF in general, if anything getting better we saw our share price where we repurchased that $100 during that timeframe that today, we're trading in the mid-80s. So, the way we're looking at it maybe is if the market is going to offer that large of a discount, we may do some altering to that ratable versus opportunistic type of share repurchase. And as Tony mentioned in his remarks, I think we have a history of returning cash to shareholders with the 60% of free cash flow, we returned last year.
Tony Will:
I also think -- and I just want to highlight one of the things Chris said is while we're looking at a host of different clean energy initiatives and low-carbon ammonia opportunities, we are partnering with people to bring those things to reality. And so the example being if we built a new ammonia facility, our BluePoint complex in Louisiana, we're doing that with Mitsui, who is in for almost $0.50 on the dollar. So it really does -- and as you think about cash going out the door, that's spread over four, maybe four and a half years, it really is relatively modest in the grand scheme of things, and that's why we feel we can do all of the above here.
Christopher Parkinson:
And just as a quick follow-up. Just given the fact that European production still is favoring imported ammonia and you've also seen less production out of Trinidad. And you've even seen some facilities in Europe be reluctant to restart holistically just because of the current pricing environment, which I thought was a bit odd. But just, are you at all surprised, and I apologize for the short-term question, are you at all surprised that the market on the downstream side hasn't ultimately been a little bit tighter even if it's still relatively earlier in the year. If you could just say the additional in that framework, it would be very helpful? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yeah. So I would say by historical standards, we're very happy with where the ammonia pricing is. Arguably, it's a good value out there in the market today. I would say some of this goes back to the point that Bert mentioned earlier, which is a little bit of reduction of economic activity. We've also seen a reduced demand on ammonia going into industrial applications. So that certainly had somewhat of an impact on it. But look, by any standard other than a period of time last year, the ammonia market that we're looking at right now is absolutely phenomenal.
Bert Frost:
And I would say the same for the upgraded products. The market mono historical standard is tight and some of the dynamics that we talked about earlier with these purchasing delays has pushed product in the open market with an India, tender delay as well. So all this incentivizes just as higher prices were probably limiting some demand. These attractive prices are going to incentivize demand, incentivize seed populations, as well as applications and application rates, not only in the United States but in other countries as well. So I say we're fairly prosaic about the market today and the market going forward.
Christopher Parkinson:
Thank you so much.
Operator:
We now have a question from Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Joel, please go ahead.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning. Maybe following a bit on risk here. It seems like ammonia has been trading with the marginal cost curve, marginal cost for months and months and urea is not, in fact, there's a negative margins, right, to upgrade from ammonia. Can you talk about that? And is that really sustainable? And Bert, Tony, have you seen this before because I don't think I've seen this before in a long time. It's lasted for this many months?
Bert Frost:
I think with where the market is today on ammonia, because ammonia is utilized in the initial production of some of these products, and some of the plants that have been down can like ours and Billingham in the UK can import ammonia and run the upgraded products operates differentially, and where we are in urea, for example, you do have additional urea that has come on stream, and you've got some delays in the purchase of the Egyptians, the Algerian, the Nigerians have been moving product into Europe at just under that marginal cost of production. However, for ammonia, why is trading a little bit differently, some of that ammonia and you need the production to make the DEF, to make the products that require CO2 in Europe. So it's a little bit of two different process.
Chris Bohn:
I mean, I think the ammonia S&D is tighter than the urea, one for the points that Bert just mentioned, one is the additional urea plants, upgrade plants that have come on this past year. And then additionally, just the reluctance right now, purchasing prior to the application season. But I think the expectation is you start to see that tighten up as well.
Joel Jackson:
Okay. I have a question, a little different on – the announcement you made last week or I think this week on the BP gas arrangement. And this is a little bit out of my comfort area, but I'm going to try. Can you – with that arrangement with BP. So are you – it's a two-part question. Are you paying a premium for this gas? And then how exactly is BP going to supply 90% lower carbon intensity gas? Is BP investing in financial offsets? That's netting against the actual carbon intensity, the physical gas supply – going on?
Tony Will:
Yeah. So Chris, I'm happy to give you a little bit of background on this, and then I'll invite others to jump in here as we go. But basically, or Joel – yeah, sorry. Basically, there are typically involved when you're doing E&P some fugitive methane emissions that you get slipped in terms of both around the wellhead, as well as in the transportation and pipeline system. And BP has developed and has implemented and invested in some technologies and approaches to dramatically reduce the amount of methane emission slip at those sources. And Nathan, as you know, is a very potent greenhouse gas. And so by them investing to reduce the amount of fugitive emissions that has a pretty dramatic impact on our Scope 3 emissions. Because they're investing in reducing their emissions profile, there is a premium on the gas, but it is really small. It's de minimis. And so this is a way that we can go after another piece of our emissions profile, do it in a very cost-effective way and do it in a way that's good for the environment. And so we're excited about this partnership and continuing to move forward with it.
Bert Frost:
Yeah. And I think the only thing I would add in this particular case, these are verified credits as well, and it's something that is a legitimate in reducing our Scope 3.
Operator:
Okay. We are going to continue with a question from Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Adam, please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. Thank you, good morning, everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning.
Adam Samuelson:
Morning. So maybe another question on some of the clean energy type investments that you've been pursuing? And to date, I mean, these are largely confined to the US Gulf, the Donaldsonville plant and kind of the potential new plant with – with Mitsui. Can you talk about maybe things you're evaluating or considering at the rest of your North American plant network related to carbon capture, just 45Q at Verdigris or Port Neal become viable Medicine Hat obviously, it's in Canada, but different kind of opportunities that might be available north of the border? And how those would fit into the portfolio of clean energy and ammonia hydrogen kind of opportunities?
Tony Will:
You bet, Adam. So one of the places that we have a significant amount of CO2 that's currently being vented, and it's partly because what we're primarily producing there is ammonium nitrate is our Yazoo City facility. So there's a lot of CO2, we end up venting and we are in active discussions about finding solutions from a transportation and sequestration options there. That was one of the two initial ones that we highlighted when we announced kind of our movement into Clean Energy and de-carbonization. And as you pointed out, in Medicine Hat, the City of Medicine Hat has been granted the rights to the poor space in that area. And so we're in active discussions with them about developing a sequestration option. And that's -- it's a different kind of benefit for us on like the 45Q here in the US. The cost of carbon, as I'm sure you're aware in Canada, is already high and it's going to get a lot higher going forward. So there is really good economics around a potential investment there where we can also dramatically reduce our aggregate emissions profile. And we are continuing to evaluate in other areas as well. The one challenge at a place like Port Neal because the amount of urea and UAN that we're producing, we're using most of the process CO2 that we produce. And so it's fairly low the amount that ultimately gets vented there. And so the prospect of doing a CCS project is small. Verdigris on the other hand does have some reasonable amount of CO2. And we are looking at it across the network for other opportunities, including going after some of our N2O emissions from our nitric acid plants, the N2O side is also really carbon intensive from a CO2 equivalent standpoint.
Chris Bohn :
And then just to build on what Tony said, those are the more defined projects that are out there that really the hydrogen production tax credit and the enhancement of the 45Q. So those are already in motion, but there's others that are related to everything from the hydrogen hubs, the carbon transport incentives that are part of the IRA as well. And those are continuing to evolve and what the scope is and everything like that. But we remain very active in evaluating those as well. But again, as we talked about earlier, a lot of this is really playing to where our strengths are partnering where we don't have it and participating where we have the highest return on those value chains.
Adam Samuelson:
Okay. That's helpful. And I guess just a separate follow-up on the Billingham plant in the UK. I think the guidance for the full year was 9.5 million tons of gross ammonia production. Does that assume you actually are able to restart ammonia production in the UK? And if not, kind of how long would you be comfortable not running ammonia there before that starts creating issues at the plant?
Chris Bohn :
Yes, Adam, I'll start with first is as we've said in the past, the amount of gross margin really associated with the UK business is pretty small on an overall CF basis. Our intention is that when gas prices get into a range where it's more profitable to produce ammonia there and upgrade it than to import it, we'll do that. But right now, it's just a margin play. So I guess from a standpoint of how we're looking at this, we're going to be very nimble and flexible, and we will turn the plant back on when we see the margin advantage is better to do that. Right now importing from Donaldsonville is providing an uplift to that price at the Donaldsonville ammonia could get versus just selling it as merchant ammonia out in the market. So we'll continue to evaluate that, but it will always be margin dependent rather than production volume.
Adam Samuelson:
Okay. That's all. I’ll pass it on. Thank you.
Operator:
We will now take a question from Edlain Rodriguez from Credit Suisse. Edlain, please go ahead.
Edlain Rodriguez:
Thank you. Good morning, guys. Just a quick one on buyers psychology. Like, what do you think buyers are still wait and see buying pattern when they can clearly hear you saying that they should expect prices to be going up soon, like shouldn't they be wishing to buy ahead of those higher prices?
Bert Frost:
Well, good morning, this is Bert. And yes, it's an interesting dynamic, but it's been global and so far successful. So we have to recognize that. We've had many conversations with our global customers as well as our domestic customers. We -- the team was in Brazil for the conference down there in late January, and we just returned from the TFI yesterday. And we're going to have various customer interactions. There is a spread between what was purchased before. And so on the retail level, several have inventory priced much higher and they need to dollar cost average. And the feedback we get is they're waiting for the floor, our feedback is, you might want to review what you think the floor is because I think we're there. And so global dynamics will drive this going forward. And again, we -- I just look at those dynamics, higher priced natural gas in Europe will keep a portion of that production offline and keep, I think, supply tighter than is recognized and the dynamics that we have in place in North America and Europe with adequate soil moisture, good temperatures. We had a drought last year. We're not going to have that this year right now and probably lower inventory levels point to a very healthy spring. So we'll see what happens.
Edlain Rodriguez:
Okay. Thank you. That’s all I have.
Operator:
We will take a question from Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan. Jeff, please go ahead.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. Your tax bill to Canada is about $500 million. How much do you expect to get back roughly from the US government and when? And to the same tax problems continue into 2021 and 2022 taxes?
Chris Bohn:
Jeff, this is Chris. Thanks for the question. this, as we've talked about earlier, this relates back to the early 2000s, and it's really a tax dispute between Canada and US, where CF is a transfer pricing tax issue, and we made our payments. What I would say is, given that it's taken this many years to get to where we are now, it will likely take some time before this is fully resolved this whole matter fully resolved. However, in saying that, we have filed amended returns for the payments that we made related to 2006 through 2011, seeking refunds from the US. Those should come sooner than the full resolution of everything. So there is going to be some frictional costs that will come out of this, what that number is. We just don't know at this particular time because there's some interest difference between what Canada charges in the US, much of which we're contesting but we really don't know at this particular time, but we should begin to see initial payments probably in the 12 to 18 months with, I would say, full resolution of this anywhere from 36 to 48 months depending on when both jurisdictions get to this item.
Tony Will:
And Jeff, the other thing is we did go ahead and make estimated payments for the period of 2012 through 2021 in order to stop the interest ticking as Chris said, the Canada charges a much higher interest rate than the US. And so that's where some of the frictional cost comes from. But our expectation is that we'll get much of the money back. And again, the 2006 through 2011 money faster, the rest of it is going to likely have to go back to another round of arbitration when you're talking about 2012 through 2021. But we're obviously going to put all efforts forward to recover as much of this as possible.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. One other point, Jeff, to answer the second part of your question, is this continuing to build as we go forward. As you recall, this went to -- this goes back to really 2012 when we started to initiate on it, even though it's early 2000s. So, some of that profit distribution was changed during that timeframe. So, there's really nothing that's continuing to build on a go-forward basis. It's more or less through this 2021 time frame for the most part.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Great. Okay. And in the Donaldson complex, you want to transport in store 2 million tons of process CO2. How much CO2 does the Donaldson complex throw off, or maybe put another way, how much CO2 was thrown off per ton of ammonia you produce?
Tony Will:
Yes. So, in terms of total CO2 generation per ton of ammonia in our plants, it's about 1.8 tons of CO2. Now, of that, about a third of it is flue gas and the rest of it is maybe it's more like 40% or 50% is flue gas. The rest of it is processed CO2. So, the process portion of the CO2 is right now, we have an excess of about 4 million tons in aggregate. So, we're taking about half of the excess process CO2 and signing up to -- with Exxon has signed up to sequester that amount. We're going to continue to evaluate and ideally, we'll do a second project and sequester more of it. The challenge a little bit is the margin opportunity on urea and UAN, tends to be higher than just for ammonia, at least the way current product pricing is that may change in a clean energy ammonia world. But on a current basis, that's the case. So what we want to do is to ensure when we do have a trip of one of our ammonia plants, we're able to continue to operate the urea upgrade units at full capacity. So, we don't -- we're unlikely on a fixed basis to allocate 100% of the excess CO2 for sequestration, because we want to make sure that we can keep our upgrades running even if we get a turnaround on an ammonia plant or an upgrade. But one option that we haven't spent a lot of time talking about up to now that we anticipate at some point being able to avail ourselves of is flue gas capture and recovery and then sequestering that CO2. So, as we -- and we are involved in the evaluation of flue gas recovery right now. So, -- as that starts looking like a more promising and realistic technology to be able to cost effectively implement that gives us a lot of flexibility in terms of being able to sign up another such sequestration deal on the CO2 side.
Jeff Zekauskas:
That’s a pretty good answer. Thanks very much.
Operator:
We have a question from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Vincent, please go ahead.
Will Tang:
Hi guys. This is Will Tang on for Vincent. I'm wondering if you could give some additional color on, I guess, what's happening with respect to Chinese new exports and why you're expecting them to be flat to down on a year-over-year basis in 2023? And then as a follow-up to that, you guys gave, I guess, what they would be on a looser export restriction level of three million to five million tons per year, which is a little bit lower than what the been exporting between 2019 and 2021 of around five million tons. So I'm wondering, if you could bridge the difference there. Is that just higher demand from the region, or are there other aspects influencing that estimate?
Tony Will:
I would say the biggest reason, then I'll turn it over to Bert for some more specifics here. But I'd say the biggest thing that affects it is really one of the shift of policy around trying to reduce environmental pollution in the country. There's -- recently here since COVID, there's also been a strong desire in order to help curve inflation around availability and affordability of nitrogen fertilizers and so some pretty significant restrictions on exports. But in terms of in a looser export restriction environment, the thing that gives us a lot of comfort around them not going back to the old days is the real push around environmental cleanup and just environmental quality. Urea is a huge particulate matter amid or a big consumer of freshwater, there's not that many employment jobs that go along with it and you're effectively exporting energy in the form of urea when you're turning around an importing natural gas, and it's just not a good trade from a policy perspective but from the central government.
Bert Frost:
I think you covered it well. And the key thing for me was a very good governmental action to protect. This is reflective on 2022. The export controls, an inflation control mechanism and a cost control mechanism for the Chinese farmer to have available nutrients and it worked, and they did. And so when the price of the global market hit $800, the price in China was $400. And so I think that was a successful program. And we see Chinese exports moderating, you're right last year, they're just below three million tons and probably expect that same level to up to maybe five million tons. But today, the Chinese price is higher than the global market. So there is not an incentive to export those tons. And they're going into their spring season, just like we are in the Northern Hemisphere, and I expect demand to be robust. China has been a very active purchaser supporting the global agricultural structure of corn and soybeans and refined products for the -- for now decades. And we expect that to continue as they rebuild their stocks, as well as their protein stocks, as well as their feed grain stocks. So we don't see a big change coming out of China on the export front for urea in 2023.
Will Tang:
Got it. Thank you.
Operator:
We have a question from Andrew Wong from RBC Capital Markets. Andrew, please go ahead.
Andrew Wong:
Hi. Thanks for taking my question. So thinking a little bit longer term here on the market. We haven't seen a lot of announcements for kind of traditional gray ammonia builds, or urea or UAN or anything like that? Like, why do you think that is? And with some of these new low-carbon projects that have been coming up, most of it is just ammonia. Do you see some of this ammonia entering the traditional market and competing with great tons, or do you think they're going to be mostly reserved for clean ammonia users?
Tony Will:
I mean, I think that's one of those situations, where you never fully 100% in balanced where demand develops at exactly the same rate as new production does. I think what we'll probably see is as demand develops, if there's not enough production, initial implementation using conventional or gray ammonia with a desire to shift towards blue as it becomes available. And as you have a project or two like this that comes up, if for a while, you get a little bit of excess availability of that product, it's chemically identical, so it can certainly go into any of the uses. My sense is on the margin, there will be desire on a broader industrial application basis to start making use of low-carbon ammonia as it becomes available. And again, I think the thing that's very different about some of the announcements going on today as compared to what happened in 2012 was there was a lot of spec plants that were being announced by people that were not industry participants at the time, just because they thought, hey, this is a great thing that we want to go do. Most of the announcements that you're seeing today are from people that are well-capitalized already in the business, understand it. And you also see a number of people that are ultimately going to be end users of the product or other participants in the channel that want to be involved as well. And so it's got a very different feel to it. And again, as we look forward, the JERA MOU is really just the first piece of tangible demand that is emerging, and we expect a lot more to come. So our sense is that for ammonia really to take off as a clean energy source, we're going to need the production capability, that are represented in some of these announcements. And the number that are announced versus the number that get billed is ultimately a – it's less than one for one. So we'll see how all that develops. But we're – we're very pleased with kind of where we sit in terms of the leadership, not only on global ammonia production, but also the actions – the early actions we've taken to de-carbonize our network and produce low-carbon ammonia.
Andrew Wong:
That's helpful. And just like on the traditional grey ammonia plants, just in general, we haven't seen a lot of announcements, like why do you think that is? And does that potentially continue? Is there maybe some sort of hesitancy to invest in carbon generating businesses, or maybe is there something else?
Chris Bohn:
I think a lot of the announcements, Jeff, that you're hearing are actually blue ammonia projects, which are effectively gray ammonia production that just has sequestration areas around it. So I think it's why you're seeing the activity in the Gulf Coast with the ability to sequester it. So, obviously, the transition to blue ammonia given the incentive structures that have been put out there, allow you to make that incremental capital. So that's why I think you're seeing it is because blue ammonia projects with the enhanced 45Q become very close to what a conventional production would be.
Tony Will :
And actually probably with better economics of conventional production.
Andrew Wong:
Okay. Thanks.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Josh Spector from UBC -- I'm sorry, UBS. Josh, please go ahead.
Josh Spector :
Yes. Hi. Thank you. Just on natural gas quickly. I mean, I know you guys normally don't do much hedging further out, but given where prices are, I mean, do you take a different view over the next six to 12 months. It's hard to see that you'll be very wrong on the low end of that. So, just curious on your thoughts.
Bert Frost :
Yes. This is Bert. When you're looking at natural gas, you're correct. We don't hedge that far forward. We do hedge in the winter months, as you saw in our Q4 numbers, and that's just as a reflection of some of the things we've seen with freeze-offs and risk. But when you look at the forward, we're 2.50 from now through the summer months and then $3 until you hit winter again and then in the low $3s there. So it's something to look at, something to talk about. We do have a gas committee that Chris and I and Ashraf and a few of the others who team sit on and ruminate over these things, and we'll have to take a look at that.
Josh Spector :
Okay. And just quick on CapEx. I mean this year makes sense. I guess, I mean assuming you guys go forward with FID on the facility, assuming your share of that's roughly $1 billion spent over four years. I mean, should we be thinking about if that plays out, your CapEx is in the range, $700 million, $800 million the next four years, barring you don't do any additional further projects?
Tony Will :
Yes. Josh, it's not really ratable that way even though we can talk about allocating it that way, typically, there's a little bit of money spent upfront for the engineering work and also for the initial down payments on procurement of long lead time vessels and other equipment. But the vast, vast majority of the expenditure happened in the last two years to the last 18 months, which is when you're doing all of the major construction activity. So it's really back-end loaded.
Josh Spector :
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Richard Garchitorena. Please, Richard go ahead.
Richard Garchitorena :
Great. Thanks having me in. Just one high-level question. You've made a lot of announcements on the clean energy initiatives in the past year. And considering you have strong free cash flow, it doesn't seem like that's a constraint. When do you think your plate will be full in terms of like how many projects do you think you could have going on at the same time between now and 2027 or so where you feel comfortable you can manage that? And then I guess, just also in terms of what your priorities would be in terms of managing those? Thanks.
Tony Will :
Yes. So I think a lot of it has to do with the capacity of the engineering execution within the existing facilities. The Blue Point complex in Louisiana is a bit of a different one because that obviously it's a greenfield kind of project, and we are staffing up that organization for assumed go forward, but the decision about go forward has not been made yet, given that we don't have the cost estimate on what that would be. So I feel like we can execute a lot of these things simultaneously. We've got a lot of capacity around the network. And the projects that we're talking about other than the Blue Point Complex are not so large and so involved that it would overwhelm our engineering resources and a lot of this stuff would get phased in. So on the CCS stuff, we're making good progress in a number of the facilities concurrently. I do think as we talk about N20 abatement and/or flue gas recovery, that would be phased in over a little bit longer time horizon and making sure that we don't kind of overwhelm resources, but we also align those initiatives with turnaround planned, turnaround activities and so forth. So those would also get phased up.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. And the only thing I would add is the projects that we're doing really play into the core competencies. And that's why this strategy makes so much sense for our organization. It's not as if we have to go out and build a whole bunch of new infrastructure. A lot of that exists and we're making add-ons to that. So I think that also alleviates the size of these projects and then additionally, partnering in areas that we don't have those core competence -- allow us to maybe take on a few more projects than we would if we were doing them all by ourselves.
Richard Garchitorena:
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you at conferences over the next month.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to CF Industries 2022 First 9 Months and Third Quarter Financial Results. All participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries earnings conference call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the third quarter and first 9 months of 2022 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted our results for the third quarter and first 9 months of 2022, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $1 billion and $4.6 billion, respectively. On a trailing 12-month basis, our adjusted EBITDA was $5.8 billion, and our free cash flow was a whopping $3. 7 billion. Our industry-leading EBITDA to free cash flow conversion efficiency is an incredible, 63%. These results reflect continued outstanding execution by the CF Industries team. Our plants are running well, and we continue to leverage our distribution and logistics capabilities to navigate rapidly changing global environment. Most importantly, we have done all of this safely. At the end of the quarter, our 12-month recordable incident rate was 0.29 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, well below industry averages. Our team's remarkable performance took place against the backdrop of a very tight global nitrogen supply-demand balance. As Bert will explain in a moment, we believe the dynamics underpinning this environment will remain in place for an extended period, namely strong agricultural-led demand and high energy prices in Europe and Asia. Based on this outlook, we expect to continue generating substantial free cash flow, which will enable us to invest prudently in high-return growth projects while at the same time returning significant capital to shareholders. We remain focused on our clean energy growth initiatives, highlighted by the development of our blue ammonia capacity. Most recently, we reached a landmark carbon capture and sequestration agreement with ExxonMobil for our Donaldsonville, Louisiana complex. We have also moved our joint venture blue ammonia project with Mitsui into the FEED study phase. We believe that our focus on disciplined investments and partnerships with global leaders will keep us at the forefront of the developing market for low-carbon ammonia. We also remain committed to returning capital to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends. At the end of the third quarter, we have brought our outstanding share count below 200 million for the first time on a stock split adjusted basis. Given the confidence we have for our continued high level of free cash generation going forward, along with the fact that our shares have an LTM free cash flow yield of over 19%, as shown on Slide 6 of our materials, we have established a new $3 billion share repurchase program to follow on after we complete our existing authorization. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen market in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The operating environment for CF Industries remains positive as near the end of 2022. Agricultural-led demand continues to be robust due to the need to replenish global grain stocks. At the same time, energy prices in Europe and Asia have remained high, causing an unprecedented level of ammonia curtailments in Europe during the third quarter. Trade flows have adjusted rapidly with the rate of nitrogen imports into Europe over the last 3 months approaching those of the two largest import regions, India and Brazil. Foreign energy curve suggests that producers in Europe and Asia will face high energy costs into at least 2025. This will likely continue to challenge producer economics in those regions and lower global nitrogen supply availability. Producers in Europe with the option to import ammonia have been able to run upgrades profitably. But for those who cannot, the European winter is likely to be very difficult. Global supply also remains limited by government actions. Since October of 2021, Chinese government policy has materially restricted urea exports. Ammonia exports from Russia are also well below prior years. In contrast, the supply of upgraded fertilizer products from Russia has returned to near normal levels as trade flows have adjusted over the last two quarters. Looking ahead, we expect demand for nitrogen to remain resilient as the agriculture sector focuses on maximizing food production in the face of increasing food and security. Global harvests are not projected to make meaningful progress in 2022 towards rebuilding global grain stocks as key producing regions suffered from poor weather during the growing season. This includes the U.S. where crops were negatively affected by extended heat and drought this summer, leading to yields that are expected to be significantly below trend. As a result, crop futures prices for corn remained strong relative to the last decade, which should incentivize farmers to apply nitrogen fertilizer to maximize yields in 2023. As we have seen so far this year, margin opportunities can shift rapidly between regions where product is needed most. Typical seasonal demand from India and Brazil and higher-than-usual demand from Europe continue to drive today's market. This has enabled CF to build our largest export book ever, and we are receiving strong interest for first quarter export shipments as well. Further out, we expect high corn and wheat planted acres in North America in 2023 due to strong crop futures prices and healthy farm economics. In line with this outlook, we have a strong order book for the fall ammonia application season which has begun. Low water levels on the Mississippi River have challenged the industry's ability to move product northward late in the year and will have an impact into 2023. This is likely to increase the importance and value of product manufactured in and close to the Corn Belt as we enter 2023. As you can see on Slide 11, we expect these broad industry supply and demand dynamics to continue to support a steep global nitrogen cost curve during 2023 and, in our view, well beyond. The wide estimated cost range suggests continued volatility in global nitrogen prices. With our manufacturing network firmly rooted at the low end of the cost curve, we are well positioned for a strong margin opportunities even as prices fluctuate. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the third quarter of 2022, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $438 million or $2.18 per diluted share, EBITDA was $826 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $983 million. For the first 9 months of the year, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $2.5 billion or $12.04 per diluted share. EBITDA was $4.3 billion and adjusted EBITDA was $4.6 billion. As we look ahead, we believe, we are well positioned across our business and strategic initiatives. Based on remaining planned maintenance activities, we expect capital expenditures for 2022 to be around $500 million. At the low end of the range we provided at the beginning of the year. This total encompasses expenditures related to our clean energy initiatives, including acquiring the land in Louisiana for the proposed blue ammonia plant with Mitsui. We have initiated a FEED study for the project with ThyssenKrupp and we expect a final investment decision in the second half of 2023. We also took a substantial step forward with our carbon capture project at the Donaldsonville complex partnering with ExxonMobil and gaining the benefit of their unparalleled expertise in subsurface geology. Once operational, up to 2 million tons of carbon dioxide annually will be transported from Donaldsonville and sequestered rather than admitted, putting us well on track to meet our 2030 emissions intensity reduction goal. We expect sequestration to begin in early 2025, in line with the anticipated completion of the $200 million carbon dioxide dehydration and compression unit we are constructing. Given our installed assets in place and the enhanced 45Q tax credit and the Inflation Reduction Act, we expect to earn returns well above our cost of capital. We believe our agreement with ExxonMobil represents critical progress in the development of the market for low-carbon ammonia. In a little over two years, we expect to have completed the carbon dioxide infrastructure necessary to produce blue ammonia. This should give industries interested in using low-carbon blue ammonia for clean energy greater certainty that substantial volumes will soon be available. Our clean energy initiatives continue to have a very attractive return profile with projected expenditures representing only a modest outlay of capital compared to our free cash generation outlook. This will enable us to pursue additional growth opportunities that meet our investment criteria as well as continue to return capital to shareholders. On a trailing 12-month basis, we have repurchased more than 20 million shares for approximately $1.6 billion through both ratable and opportunistic repurchases. This is almost 10% of CF Industries share count from one year ago. On Slide 6, you can see our free cash flow yield and free cash flow to adjusted EBITDA conversion rate. Based on these metrics, we see our shares as undervalued and expect to maintain a robust share repurchase program. We anticipate completing the remainder of the current repurchase authorization in the near future. At that point, we'll begin the new $3 billion share repurchase program. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for their outstanding work in 2022. Their expertise and unwavering commitment to safety is the foundation of everything we do. One of the ways we put a spotlight on this commitment is our Annual Wilson Award for excellence in safety, which honors the most impactful safety innovation development within the company. I want to recognize our Yazoo City complex for winning this year's award. They improved the process of ammonia plant boiler startups, reducing the potential for unsafe conditions to arise. As we approach the end of an outstanding year for CF Industries, I want to put our performance in context. Over the last 10 years, we have invested to grow our production and cash generation capacity while strengthening the balance sheet and significantly reducing our outstanding share count. Our unmatched execution ability, along with a positive operating environment, have amplified the returns from these investments. As you can see on Slide 8 of our materials from the perspective of shareholders, free cash flow participation has more than tripled over this time period. Given our strong operational focus, disciplined capital stewardship, favorable outlook and strong return profile from our clean energy initiatives, we expect to generate superior cash flows. As a result, we believe, we are well positioned to build on our proven track record and create substantial shareholder value in the years ahead. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from Chris Parkinson of Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Chris Parkinson:
There's been a lot of movement in trade flows, including ammonia coming out of North America and heading to Europe, which is easing a lot of the supply shortfalls that the region is facing. Just I'd be very curious to hear your assumptions on how this materializes into, let's say, the first quarter into the springtime demand season and whether or not you believe there's going to be an eventual disproportionate demand pull on Middle Eastern suppliers as we begin to supply, let's say, the Northern Hemisphere markets into the spring? Just any kind of comments on that updated dynamic would be very helpful.
Bert Frost:
Chris, this is Bert. And you hit on probably one of the important subjects that we in the production side of the sector need to look at as well as the distribution side and that is these changing trade flows. And so what used to come out of Russia, let's say, 2-plus million tons of ammonia or different places is needing to be replaced on top of the lack of production coming out of Europe, at least in Q3, with gas prices remaining above $50. So you've had a substantial amount of supply taken off the market and CF as well as others have had to step in and replace those tons. But it's also reflected in urea and UAN as Russian tons head more towards South America and Middle Eastern and North African tons as well as North American tons are heading to Europe. And so those trade flows are reflected in additional vessel time and costs of logistics as well as the cost of the products. And so when we're looking at the trade flows, our assumptions are, and we're receiving, as I said in my prepared remarks, requests and outright bids for product to be supplied in Q1, and we expect this dynamic to continue through 2023 and probably 2024, and we are geared up for that. We have changed some of our flows to accommodate that, always mindful, though, of our North American customers and the ability to supply that. And so that's why we did the fill program early in July to take care of our North American customers and meet their needs or what they're willing to commit to and then be more aggressive in the export market.
Operator:
The next question comes from Adam Samuelson of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson:
I guess maybe continuing on that line of questioning. Obviously, a lot of different kind of dynamics between different forms of nitrogen at the moment. As you look at the fourth quarter in the U.S. and overseas, maybe it's pre-notable how divergent maybe ammonia and some of the nitrates are versus urea. And now that you're out of the major -- the bigger turnaround and considering the logistics issues with the river, how should we think about that impacting shipments? And how do you think -- how does you think that impacts inland inventories in North America going into the spring?
Bert Frost:
This is Bert again. And I think these are the important salient topics that we are discussing with our customers today is how do we meet North American demand due to some of the difficulties. And you're right, the river issue with -- it's not just the Mississippi, but it's the Arkansas, the Ohio, the Illinois that are limiting shipments and water levels are at 30-year lows. So barges are not only being light loaded, they're taking double the amount of time and then to merge on those barges. So the cost of moving a ton from to the Midwest by barge went from, let's say, $15 to $70. So that's why when we say the value of internal tons like our Port Neal or our Canadian tons or Inland tons in North America are going to be valued and needed, and we're working with our customers to move those tons as we speak.
Tony Will:
And I would just add to that, Adam, this only potentially gets exacerbated if you do end up with a railroad strike, which is being threatened out there. So the value of our in-market production, distribution assets is really spotlighted during periods of logistics, discontinuities, and we're seeing that today, both in terms of river but also just normal rail service rates even if there's not a strike. So as Bert said, we're very pleased with where we've got product position, what our production looks like in market. And with Donaldsonville, where it is, we certainly have the options to be able to continue to export and access the European market, which is really short nitrogen. And so we're happy to be able to satisfy some of those requirements and needs over there. Relative to, I would just say, the differences in margin opportunities, Bert does a great job of optimizing product mix in order to maximize margin opportunity. So right now, as you look at the value of ammonia versus where urea is or UAN, he twist the dials and we moved toward the products with better margins per unit of nitrogen. And in a lot of cases, then that leads to opportunities for export and really to set us up for a great end of the year and a good year next year.
Bert Frost:
Yes. And just some additional comments. Thanks for that is, we have gone out and procured additional railcars as a reflection of the difficulties of the rivers as well as working with vessels to efficiently move our products globally. So we're excited about what's coming in Q1 and Q2.
Adam Samuelson:
I guess just one clarification question on the railroads. How long of a strike could you weather without impact starting before you run out of on-site storage and load out that user production would be impacted?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think the way we approach that or have approached that is, Bert's got a really good order book. And Donaldsonville, we can export everything we produce there. And so we have plenty of international demand. There is available vessel outbound loadings. And we're not in a situation where we're concerned about being able to run Dville. Our in-market plants because they're already in market, a lot of them have access to just do truck delivery and don't require significant rail outbound loadings. And so we're in a really good position relative to not only capturing that in-market spread because of the high cost of bringing imported product into the Corn Belt but also given our logistics and distribution network and our storage capacity, we're relatively unaffected by a rail strike, but that would have dire consequences for the rest of the industry and anyone who's counting on bringing imported tons in is real trouble in the event of both the combination of low river levels along with the potential rail strike.
Bert Frost:
And we're cognizant of these issues and we would have inventory space, as Tony said, with our distribution network and our terminals. So I think we can manage that well.
Operator:
The next question comes from P.J. Juvekar of Citi. Please go ahead.
P.J. Juvekar:
I'm really confused with this nitrogen market. And I hope you can make some sense of this. If you assume European DDF prices, let's say, in the mid-30s, that puts marginal cost of ammonia at close to 1,200 and maybe urea north of 800. And prices are much lower today. U.S. is exporting, But as we approach the spring season, U.S. will have to stop exporting, you guys will have to take care of your own domestic customers. So in that case, how does this market play out? Can you just describe some scenarios for us?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think what we're seeing right now is there clearly is some level of demand destruction. And I would say, most prominently on the industrial side in Europe, where you've got very high energy costs and it's well publicized that BASF and others are running facilities at greatly reduced rates. And so -- and that really has to happen in this environment because you don't have enough nitrogen to go around. So price tends to be a good arbiter of where the value sits and what things don't get it. And so that's necessary. But as you point out, we don't expect high operating rates in Europe based on where the forward gas curve is and at least where current product pricing is. So that's further going to constrain supply going forward. And that really calls into question or highlights potential food and security issues and some of the most vulnerable parts of the world. So that's a real challenge as we look at high energy costs and relatively lower operating rates. And we're conscious of that and trying to navigate that. But from our standpoint, given where the strategic location of Donaldsonville is, we do have the option of exporting it. And we'll sell those tons domestically if the price is attractive relative to other options. And if Europe is a more attractive option for us and are paying higher prices, then I think price is the best arbiter of who values the tons the most, and they ought to So we're aware of it. But I think that's one of the reasons why we're fairly bullish as we look forward. The outlook of high energy costs in Europe and Asia means lower operating rates. They still need the product given where grain markets are and grain stocks to use are. So we expect very strong agricultural-led demand and a tight supply/demand balance on nitrogen, and that's why we're so bullish about the go forward.
Bert Frost:
And I also think this is a cost curve in action. You're seeing the cost curve bid in that high-cost ton globally. So again, back to strange economics and logistics, you have Australian ammonia moving to Europe, you have Chinese ammonia moving that direction. It's never happened. You have our ammonia also moving to Europe. And so these changes, these dynamics are you have to bid in those tons. And some of those plants that have to produce for DDF reasons or chemical intermediates are running, but those who can import, like we said earlier, are. And so when you have 17 million tons of capacity and half of that's off, you're going to have massive dislocations. And we stepped in, and we think others will continue to step in and that will keep the market tight.
Operator:
The next question comes from Vincent Andrews of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Vincent Andrews:
I just would like to hear your thoughts on Chinese exports. And in particular, we saw in the last month data that ammonia sulfate exports took a big step up. And so I'm just wondering if you think that's going to be a trend on a go-forward basis? And where -- what markets do you think that would wind up influencing? And does it actually matter from a CF perspective?
Bert Frost:
Again, China has been an enigma wrapped inside of enigma. It's been very interesting to watch their various governmental policies over the last several years from massive expansions and capacity to ramping that production down and becoming a basic domestic supplier, especially of urea, going from 13 million tons a few years ago to 5 and now down to 1.5. So a dramatic change that has tightened up the global S&D. But ammonium sulfate has been a surprise. That's come out in multiple millions of tons. And ammonium sulfate is a good fertilizer because you're combining nitrogen and sulfur to sulfur deficient areas. So it's been -- a lot of those tons have moved to South America as well as to Europe and have replaced some of the urea and ammonium nitrate tons in Europe. So we expect that to continue. Those haven't been sanctioned by the government and they have come out and that's probably reflect -- some of that production is a reflection of caprolactam. Other is a reflection of pollution control equipment to make that product. And so it's been a surprise, yes, and we expect it to continue.
Tony Will:
But I would also say it is something that the world is desperately short of now with all of the curtailments and outages you see across historic producing regions, the world is chronically short and really needs those tons and as bid up the value of those tons for the reasons Bert has talked about. So I think that's the normal response given the deficiency on the supply side.
Operator:
The next question comes Joshua Spector from of UBS. Please go ahead.
Lucas Beaumont:
This is Lucas Beaumont on for Josh. I just wanted to ask you guys about Russia, if I could. So the exports there haven't really been impacted that much in nitrogen compared to some of the other nutrients. But I mean, over time, you'd probably start to expect to see them having production problems there based on lack of availability of parts and expertise, that sort of thing that's popping up in other industries. So I was just wondering, could you give us your thoughts on how we should kind of see that through -- flow through to like lower production yields and operating rate -- operating rates over time? And then also just kind of on the expansion project side, like they had a few listed there the next two to three years. So they basically just not get done now for the same kind of lack of availability of products and expertise basically?
Tony Will:
So Lucas, I think our expectation is that nitrogen exports remain sort of near historic levels, and there isn't that much variation. The one difference is probably a little lower on the ammonia side because a lot of that ammonia used to go via pipeline down to Odessa or usually and then come out to the Black Sea and that route is not really available right now. So there is some reduction in ammonia exports. But as you point out, the other forms of nitrogen are pretty flat year-on-year. And our expectation is that their operating rate at least for the next year or so is going to be fairly consistent. I think it's really dependent upon how long the conflict goes on and how long you see various sanctions in place. At the moment, we're not counting on there being a big fall off of Russian ton availability due to maintenance problems. On the new plant build, our expectation is those plants once they've begun will eventually start up, but they will likely be delayed for a significant amount of time. And so I think it's fair to push start up on a lot of those plants back at least 18 months, if not two years. But again, our expectation is that they start up. And also, the world really is in a deficit situation right now with respect to the normal demand growth in nitrogen year-on-year and the amount of production capacity coming online. So ultimately, the world really does need those plants to show up, particularly when we start seeing alternative uses of low-carbon ammonia, whether it's as a marine fuel or as co-combustion for electricity generation with coal. Historically, those demand areas have not required ammonia. And if we see those things develop and start pulling away available ammonia, we really do need those new plants to start up. So our expectation is that Russia is, for the most part, status quo with a little bit of delay on the new stuff.
Operator:
The next question comes from Joel Jackson of BMO. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson:
I'm going to ask a few questions together. Maybe Bert, what would you think if the Togliatti pipeline comes back online? What would that do for ammonia in the world? Number two, Martin always like to yell about Q3 politely though, but Q3 ammonia netbacks tend to be weaker because of the heavy industrial mix. You had some quite weak urea and UAN prices relative to so benchmarks. Can you talk about -- was that just the export dynamic there? And number three, the $3 billion buyback over three years, it's a good number. Can you talk about, Tony, why is that the right number? What the Board was thinking about all the different commitments and how you got to $3 billion for over three years?
Bert Frost:
Okay. I'll start with the first two. Togliatti will come back online at some point. We know that there have been some efforts to rail those tons to northern ports. That's a very difficult situation to take on, one, you need additional railcars, then move additional miles that had to go through different facilities. And it's an intricate bringing together of many different components. Will the pipeline come back up? That is a big question. It's a very long pipeline. It's an old pipeline, and you're in the middle of a war zone. So all those positive factors would say that's going to be a pretty difficult enterprise to bring back up to its former operating rate. So those 2 million tons that have moved pretty consistently over the years, I think should be questioned. Is it 1 million tons? Is it just a pigging of the line? We have to wait and see. And when you look at the Q3 netbacks, you're right. When you look at the -- let's just take each of the 3. On ammonia, it is an industrial quarter. And so when you look at the volume of tons and the commitments we have to Mosaic and other industrial users that are many gas based, I think our number is extraordinary because on the percentage that is at cost plus against the percentage that is at market price, we averaged very well. And when you're looking at urea, as the next question you had, the low of urea for Q3 was $485 entering Q3. And so as you know, for urea, you're asking our customers to sit on those tons for up to 8 months. And so there is a working capital issue and expense issue that goes to buying those tons, and they do get discounted and the interior, they get discounted as well. And that's just something we work through with our customers over time. And so when you look at our average price, again, starting at a very low level and probably hitting a peak, the peak of pricing was late in September. And so that will be reflected in Q4. So I like our Q3, both ammonia and urea numbers. I think UAN was fantastic at the numbers we had there when we started ammonia filled at $400 and average $448 has a good team effort there.
Tony Will:
Yes. And I would just tag on with that one. Joel, back to Martin's point that he's spot on. Q3 is our lowest quarter from an ag demand perspective because the Northern Hemisphere is not applying and everything for the most part is going into inventory. And so really, it's also proportionally our largest industrial quarter. And as he points out, right, we saw whether it's the Mosaic contract or other industrial contracts that we have, those don't trade typically at the same level as ag demand does, particularly ag demand in season. And so you got to make sure when you're thinking about third quarter, you take those factors into consideration. But I'm with Bert, I'm really pleased with our price realization, our volume. I mean, $1 billion of adjusted EBITDA is the strongest third quarter we've ever had by a long shot. And that really lead us into the second part of your question, which is $3 billion. Why is that the right number? And I would just say, over the last 12 months, we've done $1.6 billion of share repo. And we're nearing the -- closing out the existing repurchase authorization that we have. And so we want to make sure that we got another authorization in place so we didn't have any dead period in there. And this is one of those things that it's going to be a rinse and repeat, not this is the end of it, right? So if things develop the way we expect them to and how we're seeing the first half develop, we could easily finish that well faster than the three-year time horizon that it's on, and then we'd go back and layer on another one on top of it. But the good news here is based on energy differentials and based on where stocks to use are, we see a prolonged period of very significant cash flow generation for the business without huge CapEx requirements. And so it really gives us a lot of flexibility in terms of how we think about deploying capital and returning capital to shareholders. And I'm just excited about what that means for the future.
Bert Frost:
Joel, I do want to highlight one issue that when you're talking about pricing is the record levels. But if you look at our other category, that's basically DEF and a few other products. But the DEF team is not only operating at maximum capacity and utilizing our fleet efficiently but the average price realization from that group is at record levels. So just a shout out to them.
Operator:
The next question comes from Andrew Wong of RBC. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong:
So I just want to ask demand actually. We normally -- on the ag side, do we think of it as pretty nondiscretionary. And obviously, there's going to be a lot of acres being planted. We have seen a little bit of pullback in demand or just some demand deferral and things like that. Like -- I guess I'm just kind of curious on your view on price elasticity on nitrogen, profitability and all those metrics look really, really strong. But just seems like there's a little bit of hesitancy here. So just trying to think about how that works.
Tony Will:
Yes, Andrew, I think what's going on a little bit is there's a wait-and-see approach being taken by a lot of people right now. They know that they're going to need nitrogen next fall. They're looking at prices are. And despite the fact that farm economics are still very favorable, the view is nitrogen price is relatively high, and therefore, I may want to wait. I think what we're seeing is that that's a tough situation or potentially a tough situation given where energy prices are in the rest of the world. The other issue is in some parts of the world, less so in North America and Europe, but there's also a big working capital commitment at the current levels of nitrogen pricing out there in order to build a position for next year. So I think people tend to live a little bit more hand to mouth on that. But there's still plenty of demand, as you say, based on where grain prices are, we think ag demand is going to be very strong as we head into next year. And we're very optimistic about where that goes.
Bert Frost:
I agree. And when you look at end demand, just taking five major markets, China, Argentina, Brazil is one, North America and Europe. When you look at the total demand coming from those -- just those areas, it's very healthy, over 100 million, 130 million tons of the 180 million tons that move around the world. We are short in terms of grains and oilseeds and the stocks-to-use ratio, but you have to feather in than livestock ethanol. And even though we're heading into a recession, the products that are demanded from us, the ammonia, nitric acid for synthetic fibers or explosives for mining are all very positive. And so for end demand, I look at the forward and that goes back to the cost curve. There are regions that are going to be cost constrained. And so then you lay in the demand that's expected, that still keeps the market tight, and that's why we're operating in this level of pricing of $1,000 for ammonia when a year ago, we were at $600. And two years before that, we were at $400. We are going to stay at healthy levels for the foreseeable future.
Operator:
The next question comes from John Roberts of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Edlain Rodriguez:
Actually, this is Edlain Rodriguez. Bert and Tony, one quick question. And apologies if you mentioned that already. Clearly, the quarter turned out weaker than you would have expected. Like what was so different from your expectation 2, 3 months ago? And what did you think you missed?
Tony Will:
Actually, I don't think we missed any I think if anything, the view from other people on the outside may not contemplate the normal cadence of this business, which is there's no ag demand and product going to ground in the third quarter, and therefore, it's industrial really mix of business that is much higher and industrial contracts because of the ratability of them tend to trade at a lower rate. We've talked about the Mosaic contract and others. And honestly, having $1 billion of adjusted EBITDA in the third quarter is absolutely fantastic. We launched at the highest price we've ever launched at and realized prices well above that. We had a fairly muted fill program because we saw the demand for that product internationally. And I'd tell you $1 billion of EBITDA in the third quarter is absolutely outstanding. There's nothing I'm disappointed or apologetic about it all.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Let me get my own opinion which is production is higher than estimated, volume shift is higher than estimated, we pivoted very quickly to the export market where we had at times 3 times the normal volume of exports, we have got the vessels lined up, the product moved and the pricing was in line and our inventory is manageable and gas price was lower than expected. Other than that, it was great.
Tony Will:
Yes. And Ali, I would just say one other thing. We don't really give guidance, right? We have it internally, and I'll tell you based on what our internal thought was, we knocked it out of the park. So I'm really pleased with the performance of this organization.
Operator:
The next question comes from Stephen Byrne of Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.
Stephen Byrne:
I'd like to hear your view on nitrogen inventory levels in various channels. So maybe starting with the U.S. corn belt. Clearly, you exported more than normal this year. And I'm sure you have visibility into your wholesale and retail customers. How would you assess their inventory levels right now versus normal? So that would be the U.S. comment or question? There's some comments out there that Europe has full inventory levels of urea. I'm not sure that's logical, but would to hear your view on that one? And then with respect to Brazil, do they have enough urea to head into [Indiscernible]
Bert Frost:
So looking at the U. S. system, I think it's probably -- I know how we were trending into Q3 and we had high inventory levels. And this was not the view that was public, but as we followed the trade case, we kept inventories in anticipation of spring demand that didn't show up. So we were long UAN. And so through Q3, we worked that down to a very good level. Yes, we did export, but we also shipped to the interior. We've also prepared for fall application of ammonia, which is now taking place and positioned ourselves very well to meet our customers' expectations into December. Urea, I think that's probably maybe on the lighter side of inventory. And I think that's where the river and for UAN, the river issues are having an impact of an inability to move NOLA tons up or the cost to move them up. And that's something we're watching. And that's why we're acquiring additional railcars, so we can move Dville tons by rail if needed, as well as Port Neal and Medicine Hat, Alberta. But transitioning to the rest of the world, there are areas where inventory is high. But the reason that they're high in Europe is Europe was not set up to be a very large importer. And so you're structurally trying to do something very quickly that the system was not built to do. And so those import facilities, they are a little bit plugged. They also had low river issues and an inability to fully load barges, but they also don't have a rail system like ours set up to quickly move tons into the interior. So structural issues are limiting the movement of product. And I think that's going to be an issue for them. There are a lot of North African tons that were moved into Europe. So I would actually say they were plugged for a while. UAN is a little bit different. We're moving some UAN over there, and that's been moving fairly efficiently. Brazil is another issue. There were Paranagua as well as Santos, Rio Grande, and they were all inundated with imports, and there's been some trucker issues, some trucker strikes, and they're not set up for rail on a grand scale like we are in the United States. And so vessels have been lining up and waiting record numbers of days, and that's going to cost money. I do think they'll make it though. However, Brazil is constantly working through their issues and very creative in their -- how they solve those issues. But they need 600,000 to 700,000 tons a month to this Jan and into February to meet the requirements. I think they'll do that, but it will be probably more expensive.
Operator:
The next question comes from Ben Theurer of Barclays. Please go ahead.
Ben Theurer:
Actually, I wanted to just like follow up around the pricing of the product and what maybe was your expectation into the quarter and some of the delays in terms of how it's reflecting through. So given everything you've talked about in terms of the logistical constraints, be it the rivers, be it the potential rail strike and so on, plus what's over up Russia, et cetera, how do you think about the structure price going forward? And how do you think the structure price and the realized price is going to align over time? And also, if you could explain maybe a little bit why current price, at least NOLA seems to be below the levels of last year, but it seems like there's much more friction in the system this year versus a year ago? So just to understand a little bit the actual pricing environment versus some of the commentary you made around the structure price.
Bert Frost:
Yes. So I'll start with the last part first of the current price and why is it lower. We're in a commodity business. In a commodity business, that's not board traded. That is determined at different pricing points, whether that be NOLA, Paranagua or in the Middle East are dependent on different things. And so as I just -- with the last caller talked about there are areas of the world that are high demand areas that are plugged and have an inability to receive new tons. So what has happened, that has happened into NOLA. And with the difficulties of the river system, a lot of traders and buyers have wanted to get out of their positions and they just sold them down to a level that we believe is artificially low. And guess what happened this week, we saw a $50 rebound because those tons now may be going to India because India did a surprise tender announcement today. And so this is a dynamic market, and this is what the beauty of the CF system of our ability to pivot very quickly, participate in all these different markets have the spread of the distribution terminals and the flexibility. You have to remember, we have 5 different modes to ship, pipe, barge, rail, truck and vessel. That gives a lot of flexibility. So that's why we believe our pricing structure is consistently at or better than the market. So our expectations are still the same. You have a product constrained market, a little bit of the demand deferral and demand destruction, but a need for the world to be fed and cloth. And that will only happen with nitrogen fertilizer being readily available, and that's the question we're heading into 2023 is how and when that will normalize. So the structured price, we would say where we are today and probably trending higher into 2023, and it's going to be a positive market next year.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. We look forward to seeing you at the upcoming conferences.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation, and you may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries' 2022 First Half and Second quarter Financial Results. My name is Gary. I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation to the -- over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning and thanks for joining the CF Industries' earnings conference call. with me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development, and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first half of 2022 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website are not -- that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks Martin and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted our financial results for the first half of 2022, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $3.6 billion. On a trailing 12 month basis, we generated adjusted EBITDA of $5.3 billion, net cash from operations of $4.4 billion, and free cash flow of $3.6 billion, all of which are new company records. To put this into context, our previous full year adjusted EBITDA record was $3.3 billion, which was set back in 2012. We exceeded this mark through just the first six months of this year. This all-time record free cash flow is coupled with our lowest share count ever and the benefits to our shareholders are shown on slides 14, 15, and 16 of our materials. Our performance was made possible by the outstanding execution of the CF Industries' team against the backdrop of wide energy spreads between North America and high-cost production in Europe and Asia. Looking ahead, in the near-term, we expect global nitrogen demand to be underpinned by the ongoing need to replenish global grain stocks. Longer term, we anticipate meaningful new demand to develop from low-carbon ammonia in clean energy applications beginning in the next couple of years. Over this period, we believe the global LNG market will remain structurally tight as European and Asian economies compete for scarce LNG cargoes, keeping natural gas prices high in these regions, which should support continued wide energy spreads favoring North American producers. Given this outlook, we expect to generate substantial free cash flow for an extended period. This will enable us to return significant capital to shareholders, while we also make disciplined investments to grow our low-carbon ammonia production footprint. Our blue ammonia project at Donaldsonville our partnership with Mitsui, position us to supply a substantial volume of low-carbon ammonia beginning in 2025, just as significant demand emerges. Taken together, our growth initiatives and shareholder return programs position us well to create meaningful shareholder value in the years to come. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss global nitrogen market conditions in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The first half in second quarter of 2022 saw a continued positive operating environment for CF Industries. Strong global demand and high natural gas prices in Europe and Asia pushed global nitrogen prices to all-time highs. As a result, we achieved record average selling prices for all segments, even as poor weather affected the North American planting and application season. As we look ahead to the second half of the year, we believe the environment will remain favorable for our company. European and Asian producers are facing extremely high natural gas costs, creating supply uncertainty at a time of resilient agricultural led demand. Last week, prices at the Dutch TTF natural gas hub exceeded $60 per mmbtu. This would put ammonia production costs for efficient plants in Europe above $2,000 per metric ton. At current product prices, this production is not sustainable, which is why we have seen several producers in Europe, including BASF, Yarra, OCI and Fertiberia curtail ammonia output. Producers with the option to import ammonia, maybe able to run upgrades profitably for those who cannot, the European off season is likely to be very difficult and we can see further containments and increased nitrogen imports into Europe. At the same time, government actions continue to play a role in limiting global supply. Since October of last year, Chinese government policy has materially restricted Urea exports. We do expect a seasonal increase in Chinese export volume in the second half of the year, but it appears total exports in 2022 will be well below the level of last several years. In contrast, the supply of fertilizer from Russia, outside of ammonia has returned to near normal levels as trade flows have adapted over the last several months. This environment, together with typical seasonal demand led by India and Brazil, has created substantial demand outside of North America for all nitrogen products. We evaluate these opportunities on a daily basis. For the past several weeks, the value of all major nitrogen products has been substantially at parity on a nutrient basis. This allows us to use our manufacturing system flexibility to optimize our product mix and meet global demand in the form and location that maximizes margins. As a result, we have built our largest export book ever across all our products. Given the demand outside of North America, we offered a limited UAN fill program this year. We launched it at a price point about 40% higher than last year and completed the program quickly. Between Phil and our export book and our fall ammonia position, we are well positioned for the months ahead. In the coming months, we expect the highest margin opportunities to shift rapidly between regions where product is most needed, with resilient demand and constrained supply, the global nitrogen market is likely to be short fertilizer it needs if product prices do not incentivize greater production in high cost regions. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first half of 2022, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $2 billion, or $9.78 per diluted share. EBITDA was $3.5 billion and adjusted EBITDA was $3.6 billion. Based on our long term outlook we expect to generate substantial free cash flow over an extended period of time. This will enable us to pursue our capital allocation priorities of investing in growth and returning capital to shareholders. We continue to make progress on the clean energy initiatives at the heart of our growth platform. We recently signed a joint development agreement with Mitsui that provides the framework for the next steps in our exploration of new blue ammonia capacity in the United States. This includes a FEED study that we expect to begin in the second half of 2022 once we finalize the site and technology provider for the proposed plan. Additionally, our green and blue ammonia project at Donaldsonville are advancing. The site where a 20-megawatt electrolyzer will be located, has visible signs of progress, though the bulk of the construction will occur in 2023. Detailed engineering is underway for the dehydration and compression facilities necessary for the transportation and permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide. We expect to complete this project by the end of 2024. On an annual basis, expenditures for these clean energy initiatives represent only a modest outlay of capital compared to our expected free cash flow generation. We do expect to hold a higher level of cash on our balance sheet in the coming years as we intend to fund the Donaldsonville project and our portion of the proposed Mitsui joint venture project from cash on hand. Given our outlook, we believe we will have ample flexibility to pursue additional growth opportunities that meet our investment criteria. We also plan on returning substantial capital to shareholders over this period. Through the first six months of the year, we are well-positioned to exceed our goal of returning more than $1 billion in capital on an annual basis. This starts with our quarterly dividend which the Board increased by 33% in April, demonstrating its confidence in our outlook and recognizing the work we've done to reduce fixed costs. We also continue to execute our current $1.5 billion share repurchase program, which we view as both a return on and return of capital. Through the first six months, we have repurchased 6.6 million shares for $590 million. As you can see in our level of repurchase activity in the second quarter, we stepped in opportunistically to repurchase shares as our stock price fell despite positive industry fundamentals. Moving forward, we expect to maintain this approach with a ratable portion of our share repurchase program at $175 million per quarter and opportunistic purchases layered in at attractive levels. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for their outstanding work during the first half of the year. We ran our plants extremely well, leveraged our logistics and distribution capabilities and made continued progress on our strategic initiatives. Most importantly, we did this safely. Our trailing 12-month recordable incident rate was 0.21 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, significantly better than industry averages. Our consistently strong operational performance, along with nitrogen industry conditions favorable to North American producers have led to record financial results over the last year. In the last 12 months, we have begun investing in our clean energy growth initiatives, retired $750 million of debt and regained investment-grade ratings, and returned approximately $1.4 billion to shareholders. This includes $1.1 billion to repurchase more than 15 million shares, representing 7% of shares outstanding at the start of the period. We are well-positioned to build on our track record of shareholder value creation going forward as we focus on our mission to provide clean energy to feed and fuel the world sustainably. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Joel Jackson with BMO. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning, everyone.
Chris Bohn:
Good morning, Joel.
Joel Jackson:
Can we talk about the gas price differentials in Europe? I mean, obviously, what it seemed to me if there's enough demand right now to get into the European supply, we'd have a lot higher nitrogen prices, so can you talk about what's been going on there? What are the marginal costs around the industry? Is it just a seasonal thing? And as demand picks up later in the year, we'll get into where European gas costs are, or do you think about differently than the way I'm laying it out?
Tony Will:
I mean I think as Bert mentioned in his prepared remarks, nitrogen prices have to rise given where the cost of marginal production is. It's not just in Europe, it's in Asia as well. If you think about it, I think India has announced that they're not getting as much LNG import from Russia as they were expecting, they've curtailed some of their urea production, they're competing with Europe on LNG cargoes. And you're looking at a situation with $60 at TTF plus as Bert said, it's $2,000 ammonia that's not where the market is trading right now. So, in our view this is actually pretty constructive about the go forward. It means that the amount of production in those high-cost regions is going to be somewhat limited. The challenge there, of course, is it means the world is going to be incredibly tight availability of product as we get into both the winter and then into the spring next year, particularly if the situation in Europe is not resolved in the coming months because that just further pressures the whole system with winter coming.
Bert Frost:
Joel, this is Bert. When you look at what's going on globally, it's not just the gas, it's what the gas is changing and forcing and that's a change in trade flows, a change in movements and probably even a change in the type of fertilizer you'll be using because of an inability possibly to get ammonium nitrate, for example. Europe today represents 15 million tons of ammonia, probably 9 million tons of urea, 4 million tons of UAN and probably 9 million or 10 million tons of ammonium nitrate, that is a substantial amount of nitrogen that's constrained. And so, you're going to see the North African tons move that direction. But even from other places, they have to be supply in Europe. And so, like Tony said, either prices have to move up or you're going to see Europe become much more of an import-dependent market than it already is, both bode well for prices.
Tony Will:
Yes. And I think on that point, exactly on ammonia into urea production, you're talking about just the gas component of urea being over $1,400 a short ton. And so at $60 gas. So that's not where the market is trading. The market's got to move up substantially. And given our position as a North American producer, we're expecting to benefit from that.
Operator:
Our next question is from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes, thanks. Good morning everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
So, maybe following up on that kind of line of questioning. And you alluded in the prepared remarks to having a record export book. Tony, Bert, I'd love to hear you kind of just talk about some of the opportunities and challenges around increasing that and specifically thinking about UAN and what had been tariffs in Europe, but also would seem like nitrate producers in Europe are under a lot of stress at current prices. So, can you help us think about how to -- how you can grow your export business and actually serve some of these deficit markets that might be emerging?
Tony Will:
Yes, you bet. And I'll start, and then I'll give the mic over to Bert here in just a second. But the -- as Bert said in his remarks, the way product pricing sits kind of in the moment, we're kind of margin indifferent between the type of product that is being produced, which is unusual that ammonia pricing and margins are so high on a nutrient basis. That's pretty unprecedented. But it also means that there's no reason for us to make UAN and sell it at fill pricing into tanks or inventory at this point when the world is going so short ammonia. So, yes, we do have record exports. We are exporting some UAN. We had a very limited UAN fill program, specifically because our focus is on ammonia and exports right now. And I think that's going to bode really well for us, not only in the near-term based on what demand and margin opportunities look like, but also when it becomes spring time in the Northern Hemisphere next year because all of those skill tons are not going to be sitting in the system and the channel in the US. So, we're very constructive about what the forward looks like.
Bert Frost:
Good point, Tony, and that's exactly right. And we saw these dynamics building in Q2 and now into and is really a testament to the flexibility that's been built into our system with -- we can shift production mix on a production shift. So, it'd be in an eight-hour period to load out in Donaldsonville substantial, and we're even able to bring interior tons to Donaldsonville to load, whether that be through a midstream operation or off of our own dock. And so the level of exports is over, I think, 30 vessels today in our export lineup. And you're right, we saw these opportunities. It was based on the economics of the decision of not only the operating economics, but the global economics predicated on freight and margin return to CF Industries. And so we have shifted that production mix, and we'll continue to do so. I do see a tariff cut coming in Europe. They've already announced they're working on urea and ammonia. And we would expect that UAN would be in the same position just because of the needs of the tons and the requirements of Europe to meet their agricultural fertilizer needs. So, how do we grow and serve those markets? Every day, we're focused on that and communicating with our customers, our global customer base, and leveraging our system to do that.
Operator:
The next question is from Joshua Spector with UBS. Please go ahead.
Lucas Beaumont:
Good morning. This is Lucas Beaumont on for Josh. Thanks. So I just wanted to follow on from your comments on nutrients and pricing there and sort of translate that into your volume outlook. So, your gross ammonia production guide for the second half seems to imply that volumes might be down sort of flat to down slightly in the first half. You've also got your 3Q turnaround activity coming, but probably less than last year. So, could you please just discuss your updated volume outlook for us in the second half? And whether you expect to see product ton shipments above the first half levels? And how you see the product mix evolving between ammonia, urea and UAN?
Tony Will:
Yes. Normally, the bulk of our turnaround activity is Q3 and to some extent in the Q4, just given that, that's seasonally in the Northern Hemisphere that tends to be the weakest point of the year, both from a pricing and a volume perspective. And so, this year is no different. Our expectation around gross ammonia production, which from our perspective is really the critical driver on the rest of it. We make decisions about which products to upgrade based on instantaneous margin opportunities. But the one thing that if you're not making ammonia, then you don't have those other options. So, our focus is really on running our -- the ammonia assets at maximum capacity and onstream factor. And we're still in kind of 9.5% to 10% range on that for the full year. Again, as you point out, with a little heavier turnaround activity here in Q3. But Ashraf has the plants running really well and safety is terrific and relative to product mix, that's really a function of where margins are. And right now, we're favoring ammonia and we're favoring exports because that provides both the best instantaneous opportunity for monetizing the product and also just sets us up really well for come spring time.
Operator:
The next question is from Stephen Byrne with Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.
Stephen Byrne:
Yes, thank you. I was wondering if you had a view on how much nitrogen consumption was globally in the first six months of this year relative to historical levels. And two follow-ons to that. One being, what do you think that the impact might be on global crop production in 2022? And then secondly, do you expect a tighter market this fall, particularly in the US as you are – you have a strong export book?
Bert Frost:
Good morning, Steve, this is Bert. And I'm going to start with the third one first in the tighter market, yes. With what's going on globally in Europe, as we just explained and what we believe are low inventories coming out of -- especially at the retail level coming out of our spring in North America, coupled with delayed purchasing in other places such as India with their most recent tender, just 600,000 tons. And then the announcement yesterday that they are gas-constrained and is not shipping the LNG and that was purchased or expected and having to cut production there 10% of urea, that's going to create an additional import demand to meet their needs. And so, we're seeing, again, because of high prices in Q2, some delays that will be materialized in Q3. But the balance -- or the negative balance of that is lack of gas, lack of production in not only Europe, but other constrained areas. So, when you look at the market, we see a tight market through and then well into next year. When you look at consumption relative to historical, we had a little bit lower acres in the United States than expected and a late planting. So, I think that had an impact in North America. But when you look at, again, what -- how that's going to balance for the year, for CF, we have a great book and are eagerly looking to the back half of the year to supply that.
Tony Will:
And I would just add to that, Steve, that I think your point is a really good one, which is globally, there's no doubt that nitrogen consumption was down in the last 12 months because there was constrained supply. For periods of the year, you had Russia, Egypt, Turkey, China, all with export restrictions, and you had significant curtailments in Europe and Asia. And so the world just had less nutrients to go down. And I think from that perspective, we're not anticipating that there is any kind of substantial makeup relative to global stocks to use Suncor screens which is why we see this persistent demand on the ag side for longer. And I think it's really going to be an interesting proof point when all the harvest information is tallied globally around where yields come in, but our expectation is we're going to be in a deficit situation for quite a while and that just provides a longer runway relative to ag demand.
Stephen Byrne:
Thank you.
Operator:
The next question is from P.J. Juvekar with Citigroup. Please go ahead.
P.J. Juvekar:
Yes, hi, good morning. Tony, Bert, do you have thoughts on expanding your existing capacity given the US Gulf Coast advantage, especially as you do your blue ammonia projects in Donaldsonville and Yazoo City, while you go in there, can you expand those plants? And secondly, on green hydrogen with Mitsui, as you do the FEED study, what are the key variables on the in terms of like, for example, securing green electricity or the right electrolyzer technology? Can you just talk about some of the key pinch points on the FEED and what do you expect on green hydrogen?
Tony Will:
Yes, you bet. So, P.J., just to correct a couple of things there. The green ammonia project that we have is at Donaldsonville, and that's a 20-megawatt electrolyzer that's in process, and we expect that to be online in the 2024 timeframe. And that will be producing about 20,000 tons of green ammonia per year. So, it's a little bit of a modest first step in that direction, but we want to get comfortable and confident on the technology and the process and also really testing the market to see what the demand and the price premium is for green ammonia. The Mitsui agreement that we have is really about a brand-new blue ammonia project, so carbon capture and sequestration. And we're in the process of finalizing site selection and trying to get appropriate incentive packages worked out with state and local authorities to make that happen. And we're anticipating that would be about 1.3 million, 1.4 million ton a year ammonia plant that incorporates carbon capture and sequestration to produce blue ammonia. And yes, I mean we're really excited about the competitive position that North American natural gas affords and the ability, both from a regulatory regime, but also a geological perspective to be able to do carbon capture and sequestration here. We think it's great to be able to participate and take advantage of the natural advantages that we have here in the US. And we're – that analysis is going to be very site specific about what is required for that ammonia plant and also to get a pretty tight estimate on cost. And then we'll use that information and a thoughtful, disciplined way around making the investment decision or not. But our expectation is, particularly given where the cost of hydrocarbons are in the rest of the world and how chronically short Europe is and what the cost of building out and replacing existing capacity with green is that, that project, at least initially has terrific economics associated with it. And we just need to prove it out before we go ahead and greenlight it and move forward. But our expectation is, yes, we are absolutely going to be participating in the demand growth in this space. And what we like is being able to participate in the clean energy aspects of low-carbon ammonia. So that probably is not going to be an upgrade plant for fertilizer consumption. It's really going to be a clean energy plant. Relative to debottlenecking the existing system, we've done a lot of that over the years, and we've kind of hit sort of natural breakpoints on a number of our plants in terms of – it really makes more sense to invest in new capacity at this point than it does to continue to try to squeeze more out of what's already there because you end up hitting the limits on heat exchangers and other things that then you end up with reliability problems. We're very proud of the reliability and the on-stream factor of our network. We're running it really well, very safely and it's kind of finely tuned right now. So, I think you're more likely to see us do new plants than you are debottleneck existence.
Chris Bohn:
And P.J., this is Chris. The only thing I would add to what Tony said is, with the Inflation Reduction Act that is being proposed in Congress right now, everything you said about the low-carbon projects and the advantage of North American producers, specifically US, just becomes even greater with potential for an increase in the 45Q from $50 to $85, and then additionally, on the green side, potentially some hydrogen tax credits. So those are also things that we'll continue to evaluate as we look at these projects going forward.
Operator:
The next question is from Chris Parkinson with Mizuho. Please go ahead.
Chris Parkinson:
Thank you. So you have a lot of European producers importing ammonia. You've got the Moroccans taking product from the Caribbean and as far as Argentina. At the same time, in the ammonia market, you've essentially cut off a lot of the Russian tons via the two pipelines, which are down in Ukraine. An interesting dynamic in the third quarter, but how sustainable is that in the fourth quarter in terms of tightening? And from your perspective, is this ultimately going to be the catalyst that basically forces the you to go back to the Middle East, North Africa tons and then further tighten things not only for the West, but potentially the East? I mean, just how should we be interpreting that current dynamic and how sustainable is it in the 2023? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes, Chris, I'll start and then give it to Bert. But I think all of it is driven on gas availability and gas price into Europe and Asia. And if you're looking at $60 gas, those urea plants and just the pure ammonia plants, they're not going to run. You can't make that math work when you can import it instead. So, I think it's very sustainable. Everything that we're seeing in terms of the forward gas curves in those regions suggest the situation is not going to resolve itself soon. And that's of the reasons why we believe the is going to remain wider for longer and also gives us a lot of confidence around, kind of, what the intrinsic value of our asset base. And even though you didn't ask this question, I'm going to answer it anyway, which is why we stepped up share repurchases in the quarter because around how much -- what the demand looks like for our products, where the supply points are, what the energy spread differential and the margin opportunity is, and it makes us very bullish. So, that's my point. I'll turn it over to Bert.
Bert Frost:
No, I appreciate that, and I think those are all spot on. Chris, this is Bert. And I think when you take a step back, just the focus on EU, but you list out some of the areas and issues driving our markets demand and supply. You're going to see an additional, let's say, 3 million to 4 million acres of corn in North America for next year. On top of strong corn demand, ethanol is running at 90%. China is going to be importing a significant level of corn, and your protein sector is healthy. The dollar is very strong today and that's going to incentivize global production of feed grains. The problem in the United States is we've got a drought that covers 30% of the corn production area. So, it's a question, will we even hit the yields we want to? And then you look at what's going on globally, not just with gas, but with freight costs. It's $100 -- $70 to $100 to move product out of Russia and freight costs, overall, even coming out of the Middle East position CF as a domestic producer in a wonderful position, and there's not a lot of new tons coming on to add capacity to the market. And you've talked about the Russian ammonia pipeline is down. Those exports are down. So, you have 200,000 tons of ammonia per month, not moving to the North African phosphate producers. Farm incomes at its highest level, probably in 10 years. So, the money is there, not only for the American and Canadian farmer, but for the Brazilian and I think with -- because of the weak currency in Argentina, even more so in Argentina. And we're an import-dependent markets. We have to attract these tons as well now Europe and requiring more imports. And then you throw in what Tony just talked about with a gas shortage. And that's -- there is only limited supply of LNG now with India being 40% to 60% dependent on imported gas and unable to get it, they're going to have to import more urea. So, we're structurally with those issues driving our market, whether that be the grains, the livestock, ethanol, energy, all require what we're producing at a very strong level. So, for that reason, we're very constructive forward at least 2023, 2024.
Operator:
The next question is from Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. I guess I have a couple of questions. If the production cost of ammonia in Europe remains at $2,000 a ton or $2,000 a short ton, what should be the rational price of ammonia in the United States? Second, if I may. If you produce green ammonia, do you get hydrogen credits for that because hydrogen is a part of ammonia or don't you because it's not a separate product? And thirdly, in any blue -- any production of blue ammonia or blue hydrogen, is it unlikely that though that, that production can get a hydrogen credit because of the way gas leakage is or the CO2 effect of gas leakage is calculated?
Chris Bohn:
Yes. So, Jeff, this is Chris. I'll start with the hydrogen credit and production for ammonia. So, ammonia – the hydrogen is just an input into the ammonia production process. So, it's our understanding, we would be able to receive the tax credit that would – if one were to pass related to the green – the green ammonia with the hydrogen tax credit, which is quite substantial based on a number of criteria that we'd have to meet, but would make it definitely much more economical going forward. Related to your second question was some of the methane slip and such that may happen upstream. What we're talking about is, the blue ammonia is what gets the 45Q. So, we would be taking the CO2 with the dehydration and compression projects that both Tony and I spoke about sequestering that long term and getting that credit, which today Class 6 permanent sequestration sits at about $50 per metric ton, but is proposed in this latest inflation reduction to go up to $85, more than enough to cover the incremental operating costs and expense that we have in there. So, we're pretty bullish about the direction that the clean energy, low hydrogen or I mean low carbon ammonia is going.
Tony Will:
And on the first part of your question, Jeff, in terms of where should pricing be, nitrogen, in general, is a globally traded commodity. So, the world bids in a certain amount of capacity and for the most part, it's whatever that highest cost ton that gets built into production, plus freight differentials that ultimately set kind of global pricing. And right now, given the level of curtailments that you see across both Europe and Asia, the global operating rate is operating at a deficit relative to what normal build this during this period of time and so that just cascades forward. So, if you say that the forward gas curve for TTF is right, I mean, eventually, you're either going to destroy demand and ration a very scarce commodity or pricing is going to have to rise to turn on some of those assets. And so, if you're talking about marginal production cost of $2,000 plus or minus, that's where things could have. Now if we get a hopeful resolution to the conflict in Ukraine and gas starts flowing again and you see that [indiscernible] using then, that will ripple through the price deck. But the way that it sits today, it's shaping up to be a very scarce commodity as we move into the winter months.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks so much.
Operator:
The next question is from Michael Piken with Cleveland Research. Please go ahead.
Michael Piken:
Yeah, good morning. Just wanted to talk a little bit about your expectation for UAN imports into the US in light of the CBD ruling. How quickly can those imports arrive? And do you just expect that it may just be Canadian trade flows if you can end up potentially getting more to Europe or to other export markets? And where do you see your biggest growth potential in terms of UAN exports in that type of scenario? Thanks.
Bert Frost:
Hey good morning this is Bert. And regarding the expectation, we've been as high as, let's say, 2.5 million tons and as low in the recent times, which is last year of 1.5 million. So, a spread of about 1 million tons. And with what's going on today with the pricing that's available in Europe, the tons from Trinidad, which should then, I think, are going more to Europe, and that makes sense. Our tons are being bid at a higher price than the domestic market. And so some of our tons are going to Europe as well as to South America. And I think that's, again, what Tony referenced is the balancing mechanism of a global market and a global commodity and some of the advantages that we have in terms of freight and gas costs, it makes sense for us to make those economic moves. But regarding the trade case, we won round 1, we won round 2, then we won round 3. Round 4 was damages. And so they found that there weren't damages. And I would argue, obviously, that my position is that there were have been and without that remedy, there would be future. So we'll see how this settles out, but we're positively moving forward, and that's the position.
Tony Will:
But our focus is less around UAN per se, and it's more around what's the best margin opportunity once you've made ammonia, and that might be selling it as ammonia, might be making into granular urea, might be making UAN, but we're not fixated on UAN per se, and that's one of the reasons why, as Bert said, not only are we exporting, but we're heavily focused on ammonia right now because the value prop is better for us right there. So, that's why, again, our focus is not on 19 million or 19.5 million product tons. It's on 9.5 million to 10 million ammonia tons because that's really where you make the value, which is the conversion of methane into ammonia.
Operator:
The next question is from Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.
Ben Isaacson:
Thank you very much and good morning. One more question on the ammonia market. You talked about 15 million tons of capability in Europe. We're also hearing about demand destruction in various pockets of ammonia, whether it's on the nitrogen side or the industrial side or phosphate. Is it possible that when the Northern Hemisphere reengages in the fall that we won't need the Europeans at all? And essentially, they will be temporarily kicked off the curve. And if so, what does that mean for Asia's marginal cost of ammonia production? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes. So, there's no doubt that in a globally tight commodity price has got to ration demand, right, because there's just not enough supply to go around. So, temporary, whether you call it demand destruction or deferral, has got to happen because there's just not enough product to go every place that it's desired. And so certainly, those that are value it less are not going to have access to it. But that said, historically, those assets have run and have run at a reasonably high onstream factor and the globe has needed those tons in order to be able to run the food production system as well as the industrial applications of ammonia. And without those tons showing up, you're chronically short and something is -- someone's going to go without. So, think about the world as being approximately 180 million tons of ammonia production annually and -- or consumption and it needs that. If you've got 15 million tons, that's a huge percentage of it that's offline and that's just Europe, that's not even including what's going on in Asia and with curtailments going on in India and so forth. So, this is a big deficit that the world is facing relative to nitrogen availability as we move forward through the balance of this year and into next spring.
Bert Frost:
Yes, this is Bert. When you look at global capacity for ammonia, it's about 235 million, 237 million tons, but running at 80-plus percent onstream factory, you have about 190 million tons of supply and trade is about 17 million tons. So then taking out that whatever number you want to put to Europe of 10 million to 15 million tons of a lack of that supply, like Tony said, it just – it tightens it up and there's only so much available. And then it's where is the gas that's available to produce that ton, it's going to be tight.
Operator:
The next question is from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong:
Hey good morning. So, we always hear a lot about European NAT gas. You touched on Asia NAT gas a little bit. Can you maybe just like speak to that a little bit more, we don't get a lot of visibility into that part of the NAT gas market as much as Europe. How much if you added it up like the higher cost production in Asia plus Europe, like how much does that make up of your global supply and on your cost curve? And then just maybe separately, on industrial demand, what are you seeing there?
Bert Frost:
Yes. So, this is Bert. And when you look at the -- you're right, this is a global gas market just like it's a global nitrogen market. And the basis points that we follow are, obviously, Henry Hub for North America, NVP for UK, TTF for Europe and JKM for Asia, and those are traded points that are on the board. And so, you're able to follow that by the minute what those prices are. And what is happening and has happened is Asia and Europe are trading in concert. And the reason for that is they're competing for that ton. And over the last several months, it's almost like the Asian buying groups have been slower, and I think they were in a better position, and that has pushed more LNG to Europe to fill their needed storage and especially with the reflection of the limits on Nord Stream 1, that was a good move. So, the different groups have targeted a percentage of storage that we hope that they get there and that's just to operate and to keep homes warm in the winter. But that does have an industrial component. And I think that will limit industrial production in Europe, and there's many discussions going on with what can be cut, what levels for power or like BASF importing ammonia and they're not needing that gas for that type of their component or of their industrial footprint. But I think what's going to happen over the next several months is as we compete and get closer to winter, India short, we've already mentioned that. So, they're already asking for a 10% cut of urea production and half of that production is using imported gas. There are other areas, China also has areas that import in Japan. But there are other countries, Malaysia, Indonesia that have their own production and their own production of nitrogen. So this is going -- it's balance today. Price is bidding it, and we'll see where that settles out over the next several months. But there's a very limited amount of LNG that's available, whether that's from Qatar, Australia, United States, Indonesia, Malaysia. And with the Freeport explosion that took 2 Bcf a day off the market, it's just that much tighter. So, we'll see how it goes, but that's -- today, it's tight.
Operator:
The next question is from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Vincent Andrews:
Thank you and good morning everyone. Bert or Tony, could you comment on the sort of the psychology of the U.S. customer, a North American customer base since the end of the spring season? And I guess I'm just wondering why they're not being more aggressive to rebuild inventory going into the fall and into next spring? And you guys obviously have laid out some pretty significant dynamics that are going on, and we can all obviously see what's happening in the energy curve. So, is it the case that the US folks just financially don't want to hold that much dollar amount of inventory or a credit issue or sort of what's going through their heads right now? And how do you see that evolving as we move into the fall?
Tony Will:
Good morning Vincent, so I'll give you -- sorry, just a quick high-level perspective and then let Bert jump into some more of the details given that he's more actively involved in some of those conversations. But I think there's certainly a question and a risk off from just inventory cost position when you're carrying it for a long period of time, that does create a little bit of hesitancy. I think you also tend to, in some cases, trade last year's news. And if you looked at where we were trading last year, at this time, pricing was 40% or more lower than where we are today. And so I think that there is a general expectation of, well, this year is going to end up looking something like last year or the year before. And it's not really predicated on current situation of what's going on with gas spreads globally. And they don't have an urgent immediate need for it. So, the thinking is will it hold off because maybe tomorrow will be cheaper than today.
Bert Frost:
I think that last point is salient in that there isn't a need. They've had a fantastic year. Our retail, wholesale trader, checks and relationships and communication, they've all closed out on a fertilizer year, which is July through June, a very profitable year. And they don't want to start off in a negative position. So those who thought that some of the fill and fall prices were high, just chose not to purchase, which is fine. We want to support that group that wants to push it to spring. But with the dynamics we've laid out today, our communication to them is that's fine, but prices do move, it's a global commodity. And in a commodity market where corn and soybeans and wheat and cotton and sugar are all higher price and a high demand, there's going to be a significant level of demand, in addition to the industrial needs. So, I think that we'll see that mindset probably improving in the further into this quarter and next quarter.
Tony Will:
And Vince, I would just add that the longer you see high gas prices globally, the bigger the snap is going to be when it comes in terms of the price move because, first of all, with North American customers showing a little bit of hesitancy and the export book that we've laid on and the lack of availability of tons elsewhere in the world, it's just going to make it that much bigger of a price impact when the realization hits home.
Operator:
The next question is from John Roberts with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
John Roberts:
Thank you. I think you have five years left on the Mosaic ammonia contract. Do you think the changes in the ammonia, like we accelerate the renegotiation of that contract or might we have to wait to the expiration before you get a renegotiation?
Bert Frost:
John, this is Bert. And we have a great relationship with Mosaic. They're a very good partner. They built their harvest vessel, it ratably comes in and out of our facility loads very quickly. And we like being in partnership with some of these phosphate producers. We're also exporting to other locations for phosphate production. And so, you're right, there is a time life of this contract. We look at our contracts all the time and are in conversation with our customers, and we'll see how we progress with that.
Operator:
The next question is from Ben Theurer with Barclays. Please go ahead.
Ben Theurer:
Good morning. Just wanted to follow up a little bit on what you said around just rationalization and European production. I mean you've made the announcement on the UK side. Where do you stand there in terms of the negotiation redundancy you took obviously, $160-ish million in the quarter. But what are you seeing with amongst competitors in terms of similar restructures going on within the European/the UK market?
Tony Will:
Yes. I think most of what we've seen so far is curtailment as opposed to announcements of permanent closures. There have been a number of kind of green ammonia projects that have been announced, although those are probably at least five years away, and the cost of replacing existing conventional ammonia with green is very high. So, I'm not sure how much of that capacity actually gets built. But we have not seen a lot of announcements or at least I'm not aware of a lot of them that have talked about permanent closure of facilities. It's more been curtailments at this point.
Ben Theurer:
Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for any closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us this morning. We look forward to our follow-up conversations and seeing you at conferences throughout the quarter.
Operator:
The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries' First Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Michelle, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to our host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries' earnings conference call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first quarter of 2022 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the results, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks Martin and good morning everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted our financial results for the first quarter of 2022, in which we generated a quarterly record adjusted EBITDA of $1.65 billion. Our trailing 12-month net cash from operations was $3.7 billion and free cash flow was $2.8 billion. These results reflect continuing outstanding performance by the CF Industries team against the backdrop of a very tight global nitrogen supply/demand balance, and wide energy spreads between North America and marginal production in Europe. We ran our assets extremely well. Our North American manufacturing plant set first quarter production records for gross ammonia, UAN, and diesel exhaust fluid. We leveraged our extensive distribution network to serve customers in the corn belt and expanded our logistics capacity to serve customers on the East and West Coasts. Most importantly, we did this safely. Our trailing 12-month recordable incident rate was 0.25 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, significantly better than industry averages. This level of exceptional execution will continue to serve our customers and shareholders well as we expect the global nitrogen supply/demand balance to remain tight for the foreseeable future. Nitrogen demand will continue to be underpinned by the world's need to replenish global grain stocks. We believe it will take at least two years and possibly longer to accomplish this. At the same time, high energy costs in Europe and Asia are likely to lower global operating rates at certain times of the year. So, we expect nitrogen supply to remain tight with the marginal time being very high cost. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has exacerbated both demand and supply situations. First, by impairing Ukraine's grain production and exports; and second, by creating uncertainty about natural gas price and availability in Europe. Taken together, these factors make it likely that global nitrogen supply/demand balance will stay tighter for longer. Given these market dynamics, coupled with our position on the low end of the cost curve, we expect to generate significant free cash flow in the coming years. This will enable us to invest in our clean energy growth initiatives while also returning substantial cash to shareholders. We are excited about growth opportunities we see in the clean energy applications of ammonia. Earlier this week, we announced in conjunction with Mitsui, a potential new blue ammonia facility in North America. We also continue to advance both our green and blue ammonia projects at our Donaldsonville, Louisiana facility. We expect to begin making green hydrogen and green ammonia in 2023 and have up to 1.7 million tons of blue ammonia production beginning in 2024. These are important steps forward in the development of this exciting new market opportunity, one where we are clearly leading the way. In a moment, Chris will provide more details on our approach to capital allocation moving forward, including our capital expenditure outlook and our return of capital program. But first, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen outlook in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. Farm returns in North America for all crops are forecast to be historically high despite higher input costs, setting the stage for another strong year of farm incomes. This includes farmers who will be growing corn, wheat, cotton and rice. As you can see on slide 9, global coarse grain stocks-to-use ratios have not improved over the last six months, driving nitrogen-consuming crop prices toward record highs. The time line to replenish grain stock has been getting longer, not shorter. We believe it will take at least two more years and trend yields to fully replenish global stocks, supporting continued strong agricultural-led demand for nitrogen. We continue to expect healthy planted acres of nitrogen-consuming crops this year. Looking at new crop futures, returns for corn exceed those of soybeans, which supports our projection of 91 million to 93 million acres of corn planted in the United States in 2022 if weather cooperates. During the first quarter, our team leveraged the flexibility of our network to ensure that we were able to serve customers by helping prepare for this coming demand. Our rail utilization was at its highest level in years, and we increased UAN large capacity. We also chartered three times our typical volume of U.S. flagged Jones Act vessels to move UAN efficiently to the East and West Coasts. Rail service to some of our customers has become a serious issue in the second quarter, and we continue to work through those challenges. We believe that high crop prices and strong farm income will also drive demand for nitrogen in the world's largest urea export destinations. We expect the recent urea tender by India to be the first in a regular cadence of tender activity in the coming months. We also project urea consumption in Brazil to remain strong in 2022. We do not see many catalysts in the near term to significantly increase global nitrogen supply availability. We expect China to resume urea exports in the second half of the year. However, it is unclear how large the volumes will be given the Chinese government's focus on keeping food inflation under control and balancing the environmental impact of coal-based urea production. Marginal production in Europe that cannot export to the Southern Hemisphere will face difficult operating decisions during the Northern Hemisphere off-season if natural gas costs continue to be high. We expect Russian fertilizer producers to continue to export but at reduced rate due to sanctions, limited internal logistics and port outlets, difficulty arranging insurance and vessel shipping. CF Industries remained well positioned in this environment, even as natural gas costs in North America have increased. Natural gas forward curve suggests continued favorable energy spreads for North American producers compared to marginal production in Europe, as you can see on slide 12. We continue to work with customers on their requirements for the spring fertilizer application season, as weather has largely delayed planting so far. Farmers have proven that they are able to plant their acres in a short amount of time, once that weather window opens. While most customers are prepared for first applications, we will leverage our expertise and extend the distribution network to meet the top-dressed and side-dressed demand that will emerge after planting. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first quarter of 2022, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $883 million, or $4.21 per diluted share. EBITDA was $1.68 billion and adjusted EBITDA was $1.65 billion. The trailing 12-month net cash from operations was $3.7 billion and free cash flow was $2.8 billion. Given the substantial free cash flow we are generating today and our confidence in the company's long-term free cash flow outlook; I want to walk you through our expectations for capital allocation moving forward. First, we reached our long-term gross debt target of $3 billion in April, after we repaid the final $500 million of our 2023 notes. This level of debt and the work we've done over the years on lowering fixed charges provides us with financial flexibility now and through the cycle. We expect capital expenditures to remain in the range of $500 million to $550 million per year. This estimate includes planned maintenance activity, as well as our investments in clean energy initiatives that are in progress. We continue to advance the Green Ammonia project at Donaldsonville Complex and have placed orders for all major equipment. The construction of the CO2 compression and dehydration facility at Donaldsonville is expected to be complete in 2024, enabling us to be first to market with the significant volume of blue ammonia once sequestration is initiated. While we leveraged our existing network to create decarbonized ammonia capacity, we're excited to pursue organic growth in blue ammonia capacity through a joint venture with Mitsui. We believe the investment related to this effort in the next two years will be measured, with a FEED study beginning shortly and FID in 2023. The nearly 50-50 joint venture will support our ongoing commitment to disciplined investments in the emerging clean energy market and provide supply of low-carbon ammonia to support the global transition of clean energy. Given these relatively modest calls on capital, we expect to have ample capital to return to shareholders through our quarterly dividend and share repurchases. The Board's decision to increase the dividend by 33% was driven by two main factors
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to recognize the entire team here at CF Industries for their outstanding work during the quarter. Our focus continues to be on operating safely and leveraging our manufacturing and distribution network to serve customers, a role that is even more critically important today than ever. The North American agriculture sector, including CF Industries, is poised for strong results over the next several years as we collectively work to replenish global grain stocks. The geopolitical issues in Europe, particularly Russia's invasion of Ukraine only increases the importance of the role North American farmers play as well as the rest of the supply chain in providing food for the world. The last year has underscored the critically important role of ammonia to the world both for fertilizer and industrial applications. It has also confirmed our belief that new demand for ammonia in clean energy applications will grow significantly in the coming years. CF Industries will be a leader in supplying blue and green ammonia to meet this emerging demand, and we are excited about our progress in this area. We have tremendous opportunities before us and we intend to capitalize on them to create meaningful shareholder value in both the near and longer term. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. We will begin the question-and-answer session [Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please proceed
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone
Tony Will:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
So I was hoping to maybe dig in a little bit more on the decision to pursue the blue ammonia project with Mitsui. And maybe understanding that you have to still go through the full FEED study and FID next year, can you provide some rough parameters around capital cost that you've thought about to even announce this, how you maybe have ranked -- how -- why the blue ammonia project with Mitsui at the US Gulf as a greenfield and the first one you would have done in green lit in about a decade would have been the highest priority kind of opportunity of capital versus other things you could have done in the portfolio? And yes, maybe I'll leave it there.
Tony Will:
Yes, Adam, one of the reasons why it's going to be a greenfield instead of a brownfield is we do want a little bit of geographic separation from the Donaldsonville facility for reasons like we had last year with Hurricane Ida when it came through and basically took the entire facility out for three weeks. And I think the combination of having a geographically separate location to produce blue ammonia combined with the blue and green ammonia project at Donaldsonville give us some continuity of supply regardless of weather events like that such that we can enter into very reliable, long-term supply agreements for production of low and zero carbon ammonia with counterparties. And that's really the reason why that put it at a different location than D'ville. In terms of why blue ammonia as opposed to a full-blown fertilizer plant with upgrades and everything, it really speaks to both ours as well as Mitsui's conviction that this is an area of not only emerging demand, but very strong demand as we get out into the future. And so we believe the world is going to need this. We think that, particularly given that the US does not have a structured regulatory cost of carbon today, but most of the rest of the world or much of the rest of the world does, that an export-oriented facility where we can move those tons into the international marketplace and really leverage the skill set and capabilities that Mitsui brings as a partner is critically important and will serve us really well. And I think from an overall kind of, you had mentioned economics or capital. The reason we're going through the FEED stage is to really get a much better handle on what the cost of the project is going to be. But just based on our recent experience, both at Donaldsonville and Port Neal, adjusting for inflation that's taking place, it wouldn't surprise me if we -- for a greenfield facility, we're in the neighborhood of $2 billion plus or minus for this. But remember, it's basically a 50/50 investment for both of us. And it's paced out over five years. So think about that from our perspective as even though the money doesn't go out the door ratably like that, but you're talking about $200 million a year in terms of capital over the next five years. That's a relatively -- I mean, it's a significant amount of money. But given the fact that we generated $2.8 billion of free cash flow in the last 12 months, it's imminently affordable and not a crazy amount, and I feel really good about the prospects for that plant having a fantastic return profile for shareholders.
Adam Samuelson:
Okay. That’s really helpful color. I’ll pass it on. Thank you.
Tony Will:
Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. The next question in the queue is from P.J. Juvekar with Citigroup. Your line is open. P.J., we can not hear response.
P.J. Juvekar:
Sorry about that. Good morning Tony, Bert and Chris. Another quick question on this blue ammonia facility with Mitsui. On top of your blue ammonia at D'ville and Yazoo City, is the demand for blue ammonia in your mind going up, or do you think your -- the current 45Qs can cover these incremental costs, and you can make it financially attractive? And can you give some details on this incremental cost because others in the chemical industry, don't agree that you can really cover the incremental cost with 45Q credits? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yeah, P.J., I think the big difference between ammonia production and most of the rest of the industrial emitters is that as a byproduct of the ammonia production process, we capture and extract two-thirds of the CO2 from the process anyway. It's the process waste stream that comes from ammonia production using a steam methane reformer. And so we've already captured that. In some instances, we use that CO2 for urea production and others we end up venting the excess CO2 that we don't need. But the most capital intensive and costly aspect of CO2 sequestration is the capturing of CO2 to begin with. And because that's already baked into how an ammonia plant operates, what -- the incremental cost that we're looking at is really just the dehydration and compression of the CO2 stream so that it's suitable for injection into geological sequestration wells. And so for us, as we announced at Donaldsonville, we're looking at roughly $200 million for dehydration and compression and it's probably going to be in the neighborhood of $5 to $10 per ton of CO2 of incremental utility costs down there. And then there's going to be some transport and some injection costs as well. But that still leaves plenty of money available within the current framework of the 45Q tax credit to earn a very favorable return on the incremental capital that we need to put in place, which is only $200 million. And for a greenfield facility or a brand-new facility, it's basically the same plant, whether you're doing conventional or blue we're just adding the additional dehydration compression. So again, call it another roughly $200 million. And again, on that kind of basis, the 45Q tax credit provides a very attractive return profile for us. So that's why ammonia production is pretty unique in the industrial landscape in terms of most likely able to take advantage of the 45Q credit. I think if you were doing blue gas capture or other things, you're talking about probably $120 to $150 a ton that you need the credit to get to in order to justify it based on today's technologies. Now I do think that there will likely be ongoing improvements and developments to reduce the capital and operating costs going forward on blue gas. But where we are today, you need a much higher 45Q tax credit. Fortunately, we're not encumbered by that given that we already capture so much CO2.
P.J. Juvekar:
Great. Thank you for the detailed explanation, Tony. I will pass it along.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. The next question comes from Chris Parkinson from Mizuho Securities. Your line is open. And the next question comes from Josh Spector with UBS. Your line is open. Please proceed.
Josh Spector:
Yeah. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. I'm just curious about some of your assumptions around China urea exports in the second half. I mean you seem convinced that there'll be at least some that hits the market. I don't know from your thinking, what are some of the gating factors that drives whether material comes out of China or not, given the moves that they've made over the past six months?
Bert Frost:
Yeah. This is Bert. Good morning. And I think some of those gating factors are real and pronounced today with what's going on with inflation and the government's desire to control that internally and not really looking externally for how that is impacted. And there was an announcement today or information in the trade publications about a continued enforcement of those export bans possibly through or into 2023. So it's not clear how many tons will come out, when they'll come out. The previous position was in June that the export ban will be lifted. And so what we have seen is a very tight control of product, both N&P coming out of China. And China represents about 10% of the global trade, so a significant portion taken off the market. What we've seen internally to China is the price is controlled, almost half of what has been traded on the international market. So again, a reflection of controlling costs to the farmers and keeping that product in China. So we've been open that economically and from incentives as a marginal producer that they should be exporting on, again, on an economic basis. But on a governmental action basis, that probably will not happen. So let's just say we had probably expected 3 million to 4 million tons. It could be half or less than that, looking at it today.
Josh Spector:
Thank you. Very helpful.
Operator:
Thank you. And the next question is from Chris Parkinson with Mizuho Securities. Please proceed.
Chris Parkinson:
Great. Can you – hopefully hear me?
Tony Will:
Yeah. We can hear you.
Operator:
Yes, sir.
Chris Parkinson:
All right. Just checking. All right. So Tony and Chris, you're posing to generate a lot of free cash flow over the next two, three years. I mean, we could all go back and forth about spreads. But I think the conclusion there is pretty clear. When you think about all the opportunities you have with both – some of these smaller, high-return, low-risk brownfields, what you're looking suite, obviously, share buybacks, which Chris hit on. How should we think about, let's say, over a rolling two to three year period, the balance of capital allocation versus projects versus return to shareholders versus the last three to five, it seems like you're still juggling a lot of opportunities. So I'd really appreciate some intermediate to long-term color? Thank you.
Chris Bohn:
Yeah, Chris, thanks. This is Chris speaking here. As Tony outlined, and I did in our remarks, we have a number of projects that are laid out for the blue ammonia that will be happening over the next couple of years. That will take a couple of hundred million dollars. But as you point out, the amount of free cash flow that we have we'll be able to do everything from the share repurchases to the increased dividend that we just announced and also these projects. I think the one thing is there's – we're just talking about the projects that we've laid out here. We consistently look at other organic and inorganic projects. Over this past 12-month period, we've had almost $3 billion of free cash flow generation. And as Bert mentioned, some of the outlook that we see, that will be even greater. So I think it provides us a lot of opportunities to do a lot of different things. One is to do the growth plans that we talked about here. And then two is to also move into some of the share repurchase and return of capital that we talked about, not only the ratable portion, which is going to be $700 million this year, but also the opportunistic piece. And given the volatility in our share price, I think we're looking at potential opportunities, not only this year but in the coming years where we can get in and get quite a bit of shares out at favorable return for shareholders.
Tony Will:
And Chris, I would just add, and I agree with everything Chris Bohn said. But we are now at our desired level of long-term debt of $3 billion. We think we're well into the investment-grade ratings, even though we haven't been moved there yet. But if you just look at the strength of the business and how we're performing in the relatively small amount of debt that we're carrying, we feel very comfortable with that. And so as Chris said, even if we're ultimately decided to move forward on this new blue ammonia project, it adds roughly, as I said, kind of $200 million plus or minus per year to a range that's $500 to $550 million of capital per year. We don't really have additional debt reduction, so call it, $700 million to $75 0 million of capital going out the door that we've earmarked already. And as Chris pointed out, in the last 12 months, we did $2.8 billion of free cash flow. So, that still leaves a very healthy amount for return of capital to shareholders. And I think based on how the business is performing, we can do all of the above.
Chris Parkinson:
Got it. And just as a quick follow-up. There's obviously a lot of different dynamics going on with the UAN market. I mean some of the major producers, and obviously, Central and Eastern Europe are now completely cut off-line. You've got, obviously, a lot of other trade considerations as well, which have evolved over the last year. And I think a lot of us couldn't help but to see your mix this quarter. Tony and Bert, how are you thinking about not just the season but also the intermediate term outlook for UAN versus urea on end unit spreads and just how that's evolving? It seems like it's pretty favorable, but just any additional thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes, I'll give you a my just quick two cents and then I'll turn it over to Bert. But I think one of the things that we're seeing is a return to appropriate valuation for UAN, where it belongs compared to urea. It is a more costly product to make than urea given that there's significantly more capital involved in the production process. It also offers farmers a tremendous product with great efficacy from an agronomic standpoint but also gives them some efficiencies in terms of application of other chemicals, whether it's fungicides or herbicides or insecticides or whatever can be mixed in with the UAN. And so it provides benefits to the grower, it's higher cost to the producer. Therefore, auto trade, generally speaking, at a premium to urea on a per unit of nitrogen basis. And that's where it is, again, and I think largely because of the fact that the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission put in the duties on product that was being dumped illegally by the Russians and the Trinidadians. And so our expectation -- and I think generally speaking, as UAN should trade at this level premium to urea. In terms of kind of our plans going forward, I'll turn it over to Bert.
Bert Frost:
Yes, Chris, looking at what is going on in the UAN market, we're at the precipice of planting in applications, which are late in North America. But product continues to flow and move to the interior. And as Tony said, it is trading in a premium to urea. And we have benefited or moved to a higher production and remain that way through first quarter of favoring UAN over urea. And as long as that spread maintains, we will continue to do that. The outlook is favorable. The demand is there with 91 million to 93 million acres of corn and what is taking place with restrictions of feed grains coming out of Russia and Ukraine, the world where we rely on Argentina, Brazil and the United States and to a lesser degree, India and Australia to supply the wheat and some of the corn out of South America, especially. And that will take a lot of nitrogen. And we're seeing growth in UAN in those markets and continued demand in North America. Europe is constrained. With the gas spreads taking place today at $30 TTF against $7 to $8 in North America, it is difficult to produce and participate in the global market from Europe, as they have in the past. So we expect trade flows to change, especially as a result of Russia and then UAN from the United States to possibly go what's most urgently needed in a food-constrained world.
Chris Parkinson:
It’s great detail. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. And the next question in the queue comes from Michael Piken. One moment sir.
Michael Piken:
Catch a little bit on kind of what's happening from a logistical standpoint with the delayed spring and some of the issues on the rail lines. I mean, do you guys have sufficient urea, ammonia with your in-market storage up in the Midwest. And I guess, how is the delayed planting season, potentially playing a role into some of your outlook for the spring. Thanks.
Bert Frost :
Hey, good morning, Michael. Bert. And you're right, logistical issues have been front and center when we went public a week or so ago with some of the delays from the Union Pacific and some other rail carriers. We have been working with our rail providers to have good solutions in place, whether that be service and railcars and that is a work in progress today. And so we've been communicating with our customers on any potential delays or movements. But because of that, we've geared up with additional UAN large capacity as well as I mentioned in my prepared remarks vessels to go to the East and West Coast to just expand our capability to fully supply North America with needed UAN, and we've ramped up production, as we talked about in previous quarters. What I think is taking place then it gets to the delays because of weather. And we've had cool wet weather, which has delayed access to the fields, and that impacts ammonia. And so the conversations with customers today are very real of do you have enough in place? And if you're asking us to move it, don't rely necessarily on the railroads today, but what we can do with our distribution network. And I do think ammonia will be challenged. We still have a good portion of our ammonia to be applied to the ground. But I think you're going to quickly go to putting the seed in the ground, especially as we get closer to the middle of May and potential yield impacts of late planting. So yes, we have sufficient storage. Yes, we have sufficient product. We are running our plants at 100% capacity and working very long hours to make sure that we supply our customers with the nitrogen nutrients that they need.
Operator:
Okay. We'll go with the next question. The next question in the queue comes from Steve Byrne. Your line is open. Please proceed.
Steve Byrne:
Yes. I just wanted to ask a little bit about this project with Mitsui. Do you think that they will be able to secure long-term contracts with the Japanese utilities, either at a fixed price or maybe a fixed tolling fee with gas pass-through so that this project could ultimately give you a fixed return? And on the capital, is this a POX or autothermal unit so that you can capture all the CO2?
Tony Will :
Hi, Steve. Yes, I'd say we're still in final short stroke review and negotiations with various technology providers. So we haven't announced the vendor and the particular approach that we're taking at. And I think that we're taking all those things into consideration as we make those final determinations. But I couldn't be happier in terms of the partner we have here. I think there's no better partner to have out there than Mitsui with their capabilities and access and knowledge of the region in their contacts. I think we're -- we are in a very, very strong position, and we're really pleased about it. We're discussing a number of different alternatives, but the one that you talked about certainly is not out of the question in terms of more of a gas plus arrangement that earns a fair rate of return on the capital being deployed for us. But there's a number of different things that we're taking into consideration and more to come. So stay tuned.
Steve Byrne:
And then maybe a question about your use of free cash flow, the outlook relative to what you have as a commitment for share repo leaves a pretty big opportunity and gap. Would you say that you're just keeping your options open and thus could engage in a much more aggressive share repo, or do you want to keep your powder dry in case you want to go more aggressive on capacity expansions? And/or do you see any M&A opportunities down the road?
Tony Will:
Yes. The good news here, Steve, is I think we're generating so much cash, it's all of the above. But we're focused right now on the first $1.5 billion of repurchase authorization that the Board's put there given that our debt is now where we want it to be and we're generating so much cash, our expectation is we'll get through that in pretty short order here. And then don't be surprised if we put another one in on the heels of it.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. I'm with Tony on that one, Steve that I think there's enough to do a lot of different things, both organically, inorganically. But from a share repurchase standpoint, as I mentioned earlier, just the volatility that we see in our shares that really aren't backed by the fundamentals. We've seen that all the way back to December, where we stepped in pretty heavy and bought $5 00 million worth of shares within like a 20-day trading period. So I wouldn't be surprised to see that type of activity when we see disconnects along the way. But even doing that, as Tony mentioned, these next few years with what we see from a free cash flow generation and really with where CapEx is in a pretty manageable band, we should have plenty of opportunity to do some share repurchases and return of capital.
Steve Byrne:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. The next question in the queue comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital. Please proceed
Andrew Wong:
Hi, good morning. So has there been any change in some of the conversations you have with potential customers around the low carbon ammonia market or maybe potential for long-term agreements and that's what kind of gave you more confidence to kind of move forward with a pretty large project here?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean what we're having conversations on a daily basis with all kinds of potential customers and others that are working through technology, innovations and applications. And I would say the first two that we see developing in pretty large quantities are ammonia being co-fired with coal for electricity generation. And I think both Japan and Korea are going to be the epicenters for where that begins, but it's likely to spread. And then as marine fuel, because it's got zero-carbon emissions. And so I think those are the places where we see demand developing. And the marine application is so large, that it could with pretty, I would say, realistic assumptions double the amount of ammonia that is used in the world today. And so, we're really focused on those two applications. Again, I think we've got the right partner with Mitsui to go after them. And our intent is to lead from the front on this.
Andrew Wong:
Okay. That's great. And then, maybe just more around some of the more near-term operations kind of question, given that we're seeing higher prices internationally, are you considering more export sales this year? And then, just also with the wet weather and the start to the planting season may be a little bit slower. Do you have any view on the inventory levels, as we exit the spring season?
Bert Frost:
Yeah. So this is Bert. And when you're looking at the market, we're -- as I said earlier, we're at the precipice of planting. And you'll have stages of applications, whether that be, for corn, wheat, cotton, rice, canola. And as we move from south to north, the applications are already taking place in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. And we'll, I'd say, just next week, be going very strong in Iowa and then up in the Dakotas and Canada. And so when we're looking at, where we're going to move our product, it's where it's most urgently needed and where it's highly valued. And we continue to do that to look at our opportunities and leverage each of those. We're in conversations with people globally. And we have very solid, strong relationships with our customers and want to make sure they are well supplied. That's why we have inventory throughout the United States and in Canada, prepared to ship. And we have the logistical assets locked up. And they're moving daily. And so when we look at the opportunities for CF, they're very positive and will continue to be, we believe, for the next -- I'd say, for the next couple of years.
Andrew Wong:
Great. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. [Operator Instructions] The last question I have in queue at this time is from Vincent Andrews. Your line is open. Please proceed.
Vincent Andrews:
Thank you. Tony, maybe I could just ask a few more questions on the Mitsui situation. Could you maybe tell us a little bit more about the site? And I guess what I mean by that is, you through add it a $2 billion potential total number. Could you talk a little bit about how much volume you are anticipating for the $2 billion and despite that you are looking at maybe you don't want too much about it, but how much expansion capabilities are there? Is this sort of the opportunity to have multiple phases over an extended period of time? And so maybe we could just start there.
Tony Will:
Yeah, you bet, Vincent. So we are actually in some pretty advanced conversations with governments, both at the state and local regional levels, in a couple of different areas that will dictate where we ultimately end up. We've got sites in different states that have been identified, and this should be a competitive process like anything else is. And so we're heading down that path to get the best terms that we can because this is a significant economic boom to wherever it is that we end up putting the plant. The sites that have been identified are capable of supporting multiple units, I would say, four to five units based on the original land acquisition with possible extensions beyond that if and when appropriate and fantastic logistics in terms of deepwater dock access to make it export-oriented. And so that's really our focus in that way around the export marketplace. And I don't want to go too much more specific on location because we're come into the, again, a short straws here or strokes in terms of negotiating the package deal that looks attractive.
Vincent Andrews:
Okay. No, understood. But just on the amount of volume you think you're going to get for $2 billion, any insight there?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean I think, if you think about the equivalent volume the new Port Neal ammonia 2 plant would be the low end of it and the Donaldsonville Ammonia 6 new plant would be, sort of, the higher level of it, that's really the state-of-the-art in terms of volume today. But again, we haven't really finalized the technology provider and the different firms have slightly different approaches and rates and so forth. But in that range, $1 million to $1.4 million tons a year is kind of what we're targeting.
Vincent Andrews:
Okay, great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. The last question I have in the queue is from Jeffrey Zekauskas from JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeffrey Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. There's so much constraint in fertilizer production and trade in all the three major nutrients. Do you think that these constraints will have any effect on global yield of the major crops over the coming year?
Bert Frost:
Hey, good morning, Jeff. This is Bert. And you asked -- you're asking the question that we've all been trying to answer and have been doing a lot of work globally to put that quantitatively together to make decisions on movements of products and expectations for the forward curves. And when you look at what's taking place with restrictions out of the Black Sea on grains and oilseeds and even processed products, the world needs to increase the rest of the world's production and ability to ship, and that needs to happen in the Northern Hemisphere in the spring. And I think that's going to be constrained in Europe just with some limits on nutrients. I think we're fully supplied in North America and having good weather would be very helpful to a bountiful crop. And then it moves to South America, who plants in September, October, November, December, January for second crop and then the harvest thereafter. So it's -- to us, it's a 2023 issue. When these potential shortages can materialize --and it could be constrained because of lack of nutrients. With what's going on with restrictions or sanctions out of Belarus and Russia, and then you factor in 100% limitation because of the war out of Ukraine and then shipments out of the Black Sea and then governmental restrictions from China, you've taken out of urea, 25% of the urea supply. So, you then need to move things around, maybe use more ammonium sulfate to different applications and price probably will have to impact some of that. I do think some of your third world countries that are planting non-dollar-denominated exportable products, probably will have yield impacts that will require food imports. That's still to happen. And so these are things that we are watching, paying very close attention to and talking to our industry partners, whether that be grain companies, processing companies as well as distribution companies to make sure we're at the forefront of supplying the nutrients that we're capable of supplying on time and with a reasonable cost.
Jeffrey Zekauskas:
Okay. You mentioned at the start of the call that the TTF price in Europe was $30 an MMBtu. If you look at the curve, I think next year, it's in the 20s. Do you have a hedging strategy in Europe for gas, or do you have a philosophical view about gas? And in terms of the state of urea and ammonia shipments out of Russia today, could you describe them, what's coming out of the Black Sea, what's coming out of the Baltic? So I guess there are two questions stuck in there.
Tony Will:
So Jeff, our view is because Europe is not self-sufficient in the way of gas, if you don't count Russian supply as part of native European production then it logically during periods of the year is going to be in the third and fourth quartile on the cost curve. And that's why our view is that those assets will be running more intermittently, and you'll see lower operating rates as a result of it, which ends up making the supply-demand situation globally tight on an ongoing basis. And even when it runs pretty high cost marginal tons that are coming out of Europe. And the spread of -- even if the spread collapses down to $10 between North America and Europe, $10 times 34 MMBtus per ton of ammonia times 10 million tons of ammonia. You're talking about $3.4 billion just an ammonia value for us before you even get into the upgrades and the value of the logistics network. And that's only on a $10 spread. On a $20 spread obviously, it's twice that.
Jeffrey Zekauskas:
Yeah.
Tony Will:
So the kind of energy curves that we're looking at going forward give us a lot of confidence about the cash generation of this business. And our UK assets are pretty de minimis in terms of the contribution they make to the overall profitability of the enterprise as well as the ammonia production volume. It's really North America that carries the freight in terms of what drives this company. So, we are okay running our European business, our UK business and assets when it's profitable to do so. And we're also okay taking those plants off-line when it's not profitable to do so. And so our view is we want to be, generally speaking, more daily buyers of gas in Europe, given where they sit on the cost curve and not try to take a long position on gas hedging there because we think those plants ought to cycle on and cycle off given where they sit in the global cost curve.
Bert Frost:
But to your general question on gas and hedging and this is Bert. We are students of the market globally, just like we are with fertilizers, the key component of our cost. And it behooves us to be watching that diligently and buying and positioning ourselves appropriately. And today, as Tony said, that spread from North America to Europe is over $20, but even on the $23, $24 forward curve, it still is $20. So that's why you're going to see European production continue to be constrained and especially in the absence of Russian gas as we approach winter this coming fall and winter, I think it's going to be very challenged. Your question about Russian shipments, yes, we are tracking what's being loaded and where it's being loaded. And I think the -- there are several limitations. And as you take away the logistical capabilities and movements and flexibility of the Russian producers coming out of whether that be Siberia in the perm area or where they're loading internally to move to the external market, there's a tremendous change that has taken place due to the invasion and that's the limit of ports. So you had Black Sea ports Mykolaiv, Odesa and others that have been load ports, but that product has to get through there. Those are no longer available. Same thing with ports that have been like in Riga and other places in the north, they're not Russian owned or accessed. And so when you take the port capabilities down to probably 30% of the available outlets that then has a backup process of logistics, a backup process of storage and an inability to consistently move nitrogen phosphate and potash out as they did before. That will become more material as we move forward. Then you layer on, on top of that insurance costs and vessel inability to get vessels or vessels not desiring to load in those ports and thereby pushing pricing up. Today, it's -- I think, like a St. Pete to Brazil is close to $200 a ton that was less than $50 just a few months ago. And so these issues will continue to constrain Russian production on top of sanctions as we roll forward and if the sanctions do continue to be applied through 2022 and forward.
Jeffrey Zekauskas:
Thanks so much
Operator:
Thank you. The next question in the queue comes from Joel Jackson with BMO. Please proceed.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning. Bert, when we look at application rates for nitrogen this spring. Can you talk about any trends you're seeing in anybody, any farmers maybe dialing back then? I mean, are you seeing any difference between maybe higher-yielding acres versus lower-yielding acres or anything you've seen, please let us know?
Bert Frost:
Sure. I mean that is the -- that's actually a global question as well as a domestic question, domestic North America. And today, no, we're not seeing. At $8 corn and even looking at 2022 and 2023 beef at 740 -- and beef 23 I don't know, 640 those are incredibly attractive. And with ethanol running at its current operating rate of close to 90% and the attractive price position for protein being beef and pork, you have a heavy demand drive domestically as well as now exports because of the issues we've articulated about Russia and Ukraine and their inability to move corn and wheat out. So no, we're not seeing a decrease in applications. However, it is late. And as I said earlier, soil temperatures and application of nitrogen is delayed as well as PNK. It is going to be a very tight logistical window. And this is where CF shines. We have all the capabilities and the positions in place that others don't. So, we have a lot of customers calling and sitting down and wanting to move products promptly. And I can tell you we're busy and working long hours to make sure that happens.
Joel Jackson:
Tony, Chris, could ask the question about capital allocation a little bit differently. Talk about $175 million a quarter ratable rate or $700 million this year, you talked about maybe $1 billion spend possibly over five years for your part of that new JV. You're going to generate so much free cash in the next bunch of years that people have seen in this call already. And this is -- this might be the best you're ever going to have. I mean you just said in your other project that you have so much cash on the balance sheet is going to build here. Why not in this peak year or I don't want to say peak, but this is good as a guess here, let's say, why not be a little more aggressive on the buyback? Like what are you really seeing it looks like billions of dollars for?
Tony Will:
Well, let's not be too hasty to call this the top of the cycle. I mean I think there's a lot of runway, left and a lot of uncertainty out there. And the longer you see these kind of energy spreads and the longer you've got, which obviously is a tragic, terrible situation with conflict. But the longer that persists, the more it pressures both the demand side because of grain availability, as well as the supply side in terms of gas cost and availability. And so I would hesitate to call the – this is a one-year situation. I think it puts us in a very enviable position. And as Chris said, we are focused on a ratable basis now between the dividend and the ratable portion of the share repurchase program, returning over $1 billion a year to shareholders. And that still gives us a lot of capacity to go in strong when we see drops in the share price and discontinuities like that. When a couple of weeks ago, there was a rumor of ceasefire, we dropped $15 in one day, and then we ended up catching some of that back through the course of the day. But we have a highly volatile stock, and we want to be able to absolutely capitalize when there is drops in the share price that are not connected to the fundamentals of the financial performance of the business. And our belief is that, that is actually going to be in the best interest of our shareholders. And if that means we carry a little bit of extra cash on the balance sheet from time to time, so be it. I think when they see us like we did in the fourth quarter, taking out as many shares as we did at the average price of $60-some, that's a pretty attractive move. And so, the fact that we can continue to do that and return a big chunk of cash on a ratable basis just again proves, I think, the value of this organization and company and the asset base that we've got here.
Joel Jackson:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And the last question, the queue comes from P.J. Juvekar. Your line is open. Please proceed.
P.J. Juvekar:
Yes. Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. So my question is on your dividend, which you increased substantially, 33%, to $1.60 per year. I mean that's a big signal from a cyclical company. Because looking back, you would not have earned this dividend in 2017, 2018 and 2020 in the last five years. So I mean, to make that move, are you signaling that the nitrogen markets have stepped up permanently. That's sort of my question on capital allocation. Thank you.
Chris Bohn:
Yeah, P.J., this is Chris. I would say, there's two reasons. One, we do think that the nitrogen market has stepped up here where, given some of the supply constraints that we are seeing even prior to some of the geopolitical events was tightening. And those are things that Bert and Tony have been talking about for over the past year. So we've seen a fundamental shift in what our outlook is on that and seeing that for a longer bit of time than maybe even what we saw a year ago. But then additionally, I think it's all the work we've done on our fixed charges over time. The mantra we've had over the last three years is really to reduce our fixed charges, both through not only the debt reduction, but even the share repurchase where we had lower amount of aggregate dollars going out for dividends. And then, additionally, the work that Ashraf and his team have done through manufacturing to get our controllable costs down. So when you work all those things together, I think it's allowed us to increase the dividend without really changing our fixed charge outlook all that greatly. And then that, coupled with where we see the nitrogen market fundamentally shifting to made us feel very comfortable in and I think the Board is well with their approval of it.
Tony Will:
And I would just add one other factor, P.J., and that is where the shares are trading and should trade to, we believe, based on our financial performance and outlook, that the old dividend was not as relevant from a dividend yield perspective, and we want the dividend to be relevant and comparable to other S&P companies and frankly under 2% yield is -- it is certainly at the low-end of that range. And so while I'm not forecasting another increase, it wouldn't surprise me if longer term based on the factors that Chris said, both lower fixed charges as well as better industry fundamentals, and a high share price, meaning a low dividend yield, that you wouldn't see it go up again at some point. So we're very bullish looking forward. And I think all of the moves that we're making are tangible evidence of how we feel about this business in the marketplace that we're in.
P.J. Juvekar:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is all the time that we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us this morning, and we look forward to seeing you, hopefully, in person at upcoming conferences.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's teleconference. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Full Year and Fourth Quarter 2021 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Tawanda and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only-mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning. And thanks for joining the CF Industries Earnings Conference Call. With me today are Tony Will, CEO, Chris Bohn, CFO, and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the full year and fourth quarter of 2021 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we will review the results, discuss our outlook, and then host the question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find the reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted our results for 2021, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $2.7 billion, net cash from operations of $2.9 billion and the company record free cash flow of nearly $2.2 billion. These results were made possible by the exceptional performance of the CF Industries team. We manage through two severe weather events in North America, completed the highest level of maintenance activity in our company’s history, navigated runaway gas cost in the UK, and adeptly responded to a rapidly changing marketplace for our product. Consistent with our Do It Right culture, we did all of this safe way. Our year-end recordable incident rate was 0.32 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, outstanding by any measure, but truly remarkable given the challenges of the year. Several of the factors that drove these terrific results in 2021 are expected to persist into the foreseeable future, namely strong demand, high-energy spread differentials and outstanding execution by our team. Let's start with the robust demand component. Significantly improving grain prices drove strong agricultural demand while economic recovery led to high industrial use as well. With December corn trading at $5 90 this year and $5.56 for next year, we see strong ag demand for at least the next two years. On the economy driven industrial demand side, the last two years have seen inflation -- the last two months have seen inflation at 7% year-over-year, and that doesn't appear to be slowing down. So the combination of strong ag and industrial demand suggests overall global demand for nitrogen will continue at a torrid pace. Energy spread differentials between North America and high-cost Europe and Asia production exceeded $20 per MMBtu for most of the fourth quarter, which provided the opportunity for us to achieve record margins for our products. As we look forward, the energy spreads continue in the $18 to $20 range balance of this year and remain well above $10 for 2023 and 2024. Those energy differentials provide an extremely attractive environment for North American producers and give us a lot of confidence about our continuing cash generation potential. On top of this backdrop of very strong demand and high energy spreads were a set of factors that negatively impacted global supply in 2021. Turnarounds and maintenance activity originally scheduled for 2020 was deferred into 2021 because of the COVID pandemic and a desire to keep employees safe by limiting contractors coming on site. The catch-up in maintenance activities last year took an unusual amount of production out of the global supply. Two significant weather events in North America, Winter Storm Uri and Hurricane Ida further reduced production. The natural gas price spike in Europe and Asia, exceeding $30 per MMBtu for weeks at a time, caused plans to curtail or shut down in those regions, further reducing supply. And adding to these pressures, several important producing countries in an effort to ensure nitrogen availability and affordability in their home markets, enacted export limitations or outright bands, including China, Russia, Egypt and Turkey. The result was significantly constrained supply at the exact time demand was surging, which led to the predictable outcome of rapidly increasing nitrogen prices. These dynamics came to a head in the second half of the year, and in particular, during the fourth quarter of 2021 when global nitrogen prices reached record highs. This provided the market opportunity for the company to deliver an all-time record quarter, both in terms of EBITDA and free cash flow. This enabled us to return $800 million in capital to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends. We paid $500 million of long-term debt and return to investment-grade credit ratings, while adding roughly $1 billion of cash to the balance sheet. As I said earlier, we believe the market dynamics of last year have plenty of runway ahead. To this environment, we bring unique capabilities honed over the past decade. Our investments in people, safety and growth have built the industry's highest-performing manufacturing network, as shown on Slide 6 of our materials. Slide under -- Slide 10 underscores how this advantage is amplified by the low-cost position that North American natural gas provides us. As a result, we are able to capture the significant margin opportunities in front of us. Now let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen outlook in more detail. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. We believe industry fundamentals point to a continued tight global nitrogen supply and demand balance and an extended period of positive operating conditions for low-cost producers like CF Industries. Global nitrogen demand remains robust, underpinned by the need to replenish global grain stocks. As you can see on Slide 9, global course grain stocks-to-use ratios remain low, supporting high crop prices and another strong year for farm incomes. High demand for core greens leads to high demand for our products, as farmers are incentivized to apply fertilizer to maximize yield. This helped drive our strongest fall ammonia application season since 2012, and our expectations for a high level of coarse grains planting this year, we project that 91 million to 93 million of acres of corn will be planted in the United States, along with strong wheat, cotton and canola plantings across North America. We believe it will take at least two more growing seasons that trend yields to fully replenish global stocks, supporting continued strong agricultural demand. At the same time, increased economic activity is driving industrial demand for ammonia, urea and diesel exhaust fluid. We had record DES sales volumes in 2021 and expect continued growth for this important emissions control product. Against this demand outlook, we believe global nitrogen inventory today is low. This reflects the impact of both strong demand and lower global production in 2021. Looking ahead, we expect global supply to remain challenged by high natural gas prices in Europe and Asia, along with coal costs and tightening environmental regulations in China. This should continue to affect the profitability of producers in these areas and lead to lower operating rates. Additionally, natural gas forward curves suggest continued favorable energy spreads for North American producers compared to marginal producers in Europe, as you can see on slide 10. We are well-positioned for the spring fertilizer application season ahead. We are pleased with our order book, which we began to build at peak prices in the fourth quarter. Our manufacturing network is operating at a high level, and we look forward to leveraging our logistics and distribution capabilities to meet demand as fertilizer applications and planting begins in North America in a few weeks. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For 2021, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $917 million or $4.24 per diluted share. EBITDA was approximately $2.2 billion and adjusted EBITDA was just over $2.7 billion. Net earnings and EBITDA reflect pre-tax non-cash impairment charges of $521 million related to our UK operations. For the fourth quarter of 2021, net earnings attributable to common stockholders were $705 million and EBITDA was $1.2 billion, and adjusted EBITDA was $1.26 billion. Adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow in the quarter were both company records. These financial results allowed us to opportunistically accelerate capital return to shareholders at the end of 2021. In the fourth quarter, we repurchased 7.5 million shares for $490 million, effectively completing the $1 billion share repurchase program that expired at the end of 2021. Since 2019, we have repurchased nearly 19 million shares. We continue to view share repurchases as an important tool for return on and return of capital. As you can see on slides 13 and 14, over the last decade, we have invested in the business to grow free cash flow, while at the same time, lowering the outstanding share count. As a result, shareholders have accrued more of the asset base, doubling their free cash flow participation on a per share basis compared to our prior free cash flow record back in 2011. We believe our new $1.5 billion share repurchase program provides us a strong platform to build on this performance. At the same time, we remain focused on disciplined investments in clean energy that offer returns above our cost of capital. We have begun construction on the green ammonia project at Donaldsonville with completion expected in 2023. This year, we'll begin work on the installation of dehydration and compression equipment at Donaldsonville to enable production of blue ammonia. We believe these projects are well timed to accelerate the growth of a global market for blue and green ammonia. We also continue to have productive discussions with leading companies who share our belief in ammonia's clean energy attributes, and its role in decarbonizing economies around the world. Our estimated CapEx spending for 2022 of $500 million to $550 million includes expenditures for the Donaldsonville blue and green ammonia projects. And through 2025, we have committed $385 million in capital to these projects and installation of dehydration and compression equipment at Yazoo City. We also remain committed to reducing the gross debt on the company from $3.5 billion to $3 billion by the middle of 2023. We start 2022 with a strong balance sheet, positive multiyear industry outlook, and stable maintenance CapEx plans for the next few years. We also expect gross ammonia production in the years ahead to return to typical levels of 9.5 million to 10 million tons, supporting higher sales volumes compared to 2021. As a result, we expect to have significant excess free cash flow to deploy in the years ahead. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open up the call to Q&A.
Tony Will :
Thanks Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF Industries for an outstanding 2021. Our performance would not be possible without their commitment and dedication. Our results last year highlight the success we have had investing in the business to grow capacity and cash generation, while at the same time, lowering our share count. We are currently at an all-time low for shares outstanding. In fact, almost 20% below our IPO level. With a record year for free cash flow, coupled with our lowest share count, our cash flow per share is truly spectacular. Despite that, our equity appears undervalued given our free cash flow yield. I'd encourage you to look through our materials on slides 13, 14, and 15 to see exactly what I'm talking about. But what is really exciting and has all of us very bullish is the party is just beginning. We have reduced our fixed charges and debt levels and are again investment-grade. We have only modest capital requirements over the next couple of years, which includes our investments in clean energy and decarbonization. Futures for grain prices and energy spreads suggest we have a long runway ahead with significant margin and cash generation opportunity, and we are sitting at our lowest share count ever. In short, things are pretty good, and we are just getting started. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citi. Your line is open.
P.J. Juvekar:
Yes, hi, good morning.
Tony Will :
Good morning P.J.
P.J. Juvekar:
Quick question. Post winter, if European gas prices were to come down? And how do you see global nitrogen and urea prices would react? And what are you assuming for European gas prices as 2022 progresses?
Tony Will:
I mean I think our best information is where the forward markets are trading. So, you look at TTS for Europe or NBP for the UK, you look at JKM for Asia. And I said in my opening remarks, the differentials between Henry Hub in those locations are $18 to $20 of spread value. That provides a huge margin opportunity for our low-cost North American production base. And speculating on what happens if this happens -- I mean, obviously, if energy spreads come down, then we'd expect there to be compression in pricing. But clearly, the way the market is betting on energy spreads, that's not expected to happen.
Bert Frost:
Yes, I'd say, looking at the forward curves of what Tony mentioned on gas and the efficiencies from most of the European producers, they're still going to be troubled at that $750 to $850 a metric ton cash or full cost range. That's an incredible margin opportunity for a North American producer, when you have a substantial portion of the global ammonia capacity challenged. And so that, therefore, should then pass on to urea and UAN. And so, I think the projections that are out there for the correction in the second half of the year will be higher than what is at least thought of today in a very acceptable range for CF.
Tony Will:
And the other thing, I think P.J. is, global economic recovery is continuing at a pretty strong pace in the aftermath of the pandemic. And against that backdrop, Europe is not generating new sources of energy supply. So, as long as economic activity remains high, and there's no supply, it's not clear what's going to drive a drop in energy prices or gas prices in Europe.
P.J. Juvekar:
Great. Great. Thanks. That's really good color. And then secondly, as you build your green ammonia plant by next year, can you discuss your technological progress that you made in design and engineering of your electrolyzers? And any new update on cost of green ammonia, given your renewable electricity prices? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes. So we're not actually designing the electrolyzers. We're licensing the intellectual property and the design from our IP providers to do that. We are going with a conventional alkaline-water approach because it's been proven and tested and has good reliability record. But the cost of green ammonia remains, particularly in North America, where we've got access to low-cost gas and have options for sequestering the CO2 coming off of the ammonia plant. The cost of producing green ammonia is four to five times that of producing conventional ammonia. So in energy-starved regions like Europe, I think green ammonia has a real future -- in natural gas-rich, low-cost regions like North America, I think it's got some potential, but I think it's longer term because in the near term, I think blue is really going to dominate.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Steve Byrne:
Yes. Thank you. For your fourth quarter volumes, when would you say you really had the majority of that volume booked? How far did that happen? And going forward, how much of your first and second quarter volumes would you say are already booked?
Bert Frost:
So looking at the fourth quarter, we launched Fill for UAN at $285 for NOLA and took a substantial book for that. And then we launched the second round of UAN orders in the $420 or $430 range, if I remember correctly. And so, if you look back at the Q3 average and the Q4 average of around $400, that was a blend of Q3 and Q4 orders. Looking into Q1, we were taking orders in Q4 for our forward book at the prices you're seeing in the publications today at very attractive levels. Now when you look at that from a -- I'm going to take it back to a farmer basis or to a retail basis, that inventory is being built in the interior at those tranche levels. So some of the discussion that's going on in the farm centers around cost, they're taking the absolute peak cost of that UAN and not the blended cost that the retailer is sitting on that's available to the farmer at very attractive levels at $6.40 bought corn or $6 forward corn. Ammonia, we sold -- we began selling at around $600 and ended up selling probably at the peak of some incremental volume at $1,200. And so you saw the blended cost there. Urea, I think our average price for the quarter was $650, and that was built in Q3 and then early into Q4. So the majority of urea that we booked will be shipping out in Q1 at very attractive prices. So you've seen that built over time. Q2 ammonia has been sold at that $1,200 to $1,400 level. And so you can then model out that kind of structure.
Steve Byrne:
Thank you, Bert. And then, Chris, maybe a little bit on capital deployment. Should we assume you're going to continue this $0.5 billion a quarter share repo? And if not, what else are you guys looking at and-- wanted to specifically hear your view on whether there are any underperforming assets out there that might be stranded that you might be interested in acquiring, or are you looking at some brownfield expansions?
Chris Bohn:
Yes. So I'll start with the capital deployment. So as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, we look at return of and return on capital to the shareholders. And based on that, we've sort of talked about in the past few quarters of having a ratable stream of share repurchases going through. And then, an opportunistic stream, just given the amount of free cash flow we expect over the next several years. And really from that opportunistic side, you can see the volatility in our shares. You don't have to go back that far. You could probably go back just a couple of days and see how we move even when the fundamentals are extremely strong. So we think there'll be opportunities through the year, Steve, where we can make maybe some larger share repurchases. And based on that, we'll probably have, at times, higher cash balances than we have historically, periodically throughout the year, and really probably throughout the next couple of years, given the free cash flow. But as you talked about, the calls on cash right now, and Tony mentioned it in his remarks, too, are not all that great. We have a very ratable CapEx that's close to historic levels. And then additionally, just the $500 million remaining on the 2023 notes. So not much there were -- our expectation is we will have a substantial amount to deploy. Related to the growth side, as always, we continue to look at assets that are available and what -- where they're trading versus building new assets. And right now, you'd say that assets out there are trading at a discount to what new builds would be. We do fundamentally believe that ammonia demand, specifically in the back half of the decade here, is going to grow. And as a result of that, there's probably going to be some opportunities, whether inorganic or organic over time that we'll look at and evaluate. I think that's the important part of getting our balance sheet in order over the past few years that when those opportunities present themselves, we're prepared to hit them.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Christopher Parkinson with Mizuho. Your line is open.
Christopher Parkinson:
Great. Thank you very much. You hit on the solar earlier and naturally, there's an end unit correlation between UAN and urea. But can you just quickly comment on the near to intermediate-term respective SSDs trade flow developments, just given things are different in 2022? And then just also how investors should be modeling the relationship going forward? It seems that things are a little bit tighter in UAN these days. So any color would be helpful. Thank you.
Tony Will:
Let me just give you some high-level thoughts, and I'll turn it over to Bert for some more specifics, Chris. But UAN really should be trading at a pretty significant premium to urea on a per nitrogen unit equivalent basis. There's a lot more capital intensity around producing UAN and there's farmer efficiency and agronomic efficacy that favors UAN, particularly for certain types of crops. And therefore, both the fact that it costs more to make and that the -- it's more valuable and easier to use, suggested ought to trade at a premium. The fact that for a while there, it was not trading in a premium, I think, is directly related to some of the unfair trade practices and dumping activity that was going on by subsidized producers in certain countries like Trinidad and Russia. And we're starting to see things get back to where they ought to be on an economic basis. But I'd also say we have a fair bit of ability to move our production slate around in order to maximize margin opportunity depending upon where the different products are trading. So given where urea is trading today, versus where ammonia and UAN are trading today, we're going pretty much full on UAN and dramatically reducing our urea production. And in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if you see others in the world looking at that same math doing a similar kind of thing. So these things tend to even out over time, and it's not really the instantaneous spot price that matters. It's more the longer-term kind of relationship and benefits that they offer. But I'll turn it over to Bert for some more specifics.
Bert Frost:
Hey, good morning, Chris. What Tony articulated in terms of the structural nature of UAN and where it should be trading is 100% correct. CF invested $5 billion from 2012 to 2017 on the new assets with the majority of that production of UAN in Donaldsonville and additional incremental capacity in Port Neal benefiting the North American farmer, and that supply has not been available due to the dumping and anticompetitive behavior of the Russian and Trinidadian supply. So, that idle or available capacity is now being utilized to supply those needs. And so how has that moved our system around is we're much more active on the coasts. We've built tanks in California where we're now able to ship unit trains and almost looping those unit trains weekly and it will take I would say a very healthy share of that supply to California to supply those needs. Same thing with the East Coast and our vessel that we had build and now have contracted another vessel to move additional tonnage around to the East Coast all the way up into Canada. So, how trade flows are moving are a direct reflection of better position and a more even playing field, which we're now able to utilize our capacity. And so that is to supply the American farmer. So, we've decreased exports, we've maintained even a discount to the world price. The Europeans today are paying a higher price for UAN due to the high gas costs and high ammonia imports. And so product should be flowing in that direction based on economics. So, we will see how that flows. But -- so we have prepared and we have adequately staffed. We have now 5,000 railcars in our service as I already told you about with the vessels. So, you'll see that reflected in Q1 and Q2 with additional supply to the United States.
Christopher Parkinson:
That’s always helpful color. And just as a follow-up and Tony hit some of this in your prepared remarks, but just given all the moving parts for forward feedstock costs, so when we were thinking about cost curves for 2023, 2024, some of your long investors as well as the uncertainty in Chinese supply over the next, let's say, at least two years depending on what happens mid-year this year, can you just offer your updated thoughts on intermediate term operating rates for the entire industry? We can focus on urea I suppose, who you ultimately think a marginal cost export would be 2023 and 2024? And just your excystations for some new capacities coming on. There are also some recent facility closures. So, if you could just give us -- kind of the updated picture on the mosaic, it would greatly be appreciated. Thank you.
Tony Will:
Bert, go ahead.
Bert Frost:
When you look at what's going on in the world with operating rates, the world is running roughly at 80% operating rates, but that's distributed unevenly with United States and the capacity we built with the great job that Ashraf does with running those plants at 110%, conversely against China at 60%. And one of the interests of what's going on with the gas supply globally is this $20 gas to $25 gas in Europe is also the same structural cost for an Asian producer. And so you look at the Chinese gas importer, they're having to pay that. And India today is 50% -- I'd say 60% of their gas supply is LNG imports, paying that same type of price. So, it's natural that you see in India tender and their run rates be below what I think a lot of people in the investment community have modeled requiring therefore, larger levels of imports. And so these things are constantly moving in a -- and for the first time in history, we've had a lack of supply as well as a high level of demand. That's what's driving global prices. And so those prices are attracting. India had paid the highest price in the world on their – not this tender, but the previous one, and a very acceptable price of around $600 a ton. Why? Because their production costs are so high, and they have low inventory and they need that. That's a reflection of what's going on in the world. That's why we're so positive looking forward in the second half of – with low inventories and moderating production capacities, we see good pricing going forward.
Tony Will:
But I'd also say, back to Bert's point, in terms of LNG dependency, European and certain Asian producers are going to be very comparable in terms of high-cost production and competing in terms of what that marginal ton is. I think China is very serious about their environmental controls, and also trying to manage their coal and emissions and therefore, although, we expect them to return to be a supplier on the export stage. I don't think there's – I'm not afraid of this boogie man out there that's going to come, and don't access product into the global marketplace. And so what is really telling for us is the forward energy curves. Look, even if they compress from today's huge differentials to $10 in 2023 and 2024, that's still on a basis like $350 of margin differential for a North American producer per ton of ammonia. And those are energy spreads that, this industry has never really seen over a prolonged period of time. So the fact that, we're talking about three or four years of these huge margin opportunities for North American production is really a unique time in this industry.
Christopher Parkinson:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. Thank you. Good morning. I was actually hoping to maybe follow-up on some of the color you just provided, Tony, Bert, on kind of cost curve dynamics? And if you could just help frame what proportion of separately, ammonia, urea, UAN, seaborne product and global production actually is at the high end of the cost curve? Because I think there is some meaningful distinctions amongst the different products in terms of how much of the curve is actually buying that very expensive gas and just how we think about the differences in terms of the cost curve between the different products because certainly, the current ammonia, urea, UAN price are not telling all the same thing as it relates to cost curves today?
Tony Will:
Yeah. I mean, I would extract urea pricing at the Gulf out of this equation for a minute and look at UAN and ammonia pricing. And I think you do see a relatively more consistent story in that regard. I think, what you see with urea, particularly during a period of time where it's not going to ground in North America, is there's a tendency by certain rogue traders to want to try to manipulate the market and either build a position, or take shorts or do other things. And so there's not a lot of volume transacting at what looks like a pretty discounted price relative to the other products. And certainly, we're not anxious to go out and book forward on those kind of prices because we don't think that really reflects the underlying value that nitrogen provides as you get into the growing season. And so, I think the place to look at them really is more on global ammonia prices because remember, if you're making urea, you first got to make ammonia. And if you can make ammonia and sell it at a much higher margin structure as just ammonia, then you'll do that and pretty soon urea supply starts drying up pretty quick. So I mentioned this in response to a question earlier, which is I wouldn't fixate on the instantaneous price on these things, but really look at the broader kind of economics that underpin it. And Europe for a while had about 11 million tons of ammonia production off-line during the third and fourth quarter of last year because of very high energy prices. When you tighten up the market by that much, it's going to have a seismic impact across all products. So our view is, there is a very significant portion of the supply curve running at really high energy costs, and that's going to ultimately dominate where products should trade and the value of those products. And if there's some short-term discontinuities because of some sloppiness or some trading activity in urea that doesn't really tell the story. Ammonia is a much clearer picture.
Bert Frost:
Yes. And just some further commentary on the support of the end products to be able to pay for these prices. And when you look at the subsidized markets, subsidize on the outputs of Europe and India, it's an amazing opportunity because the farmers are still going to make money at these prices. When you look at a market like the United States, that has subsidies of crop insurance, but the prices today relative to total inputs is going to be the second best year of profitability in the last 10 years. And then even in Brazil for the second crop corn is profitable even at lower levels of yield. And so when you look at the cost curve dynamics on the production side as well as the demand side for the output, we have a very solid structural basis for the future like we've articulated.
Adam Samuelson:
Okay. That's all really helpful. And maybe just separately, thinking about the carbon capture and sequestration that you're evaluating down in Louisiana. Can you just help us think about what still has to happen before that can actually move forward? And how 45Q would play into that or what it would take to ensure that you're getting that 45Q credit?
Tony Will:
We have Board authorization to move forward with the dehydration and compression that are engaged in. We've done some preliminary engineering and are engaged in the detailed engineering and beginning to place orders for the larger pieces of equipment. So, we expect that to be online probably in the next 2.5 to 3 years. And even under the existing 45Q credit, it still is very attractive returns, and it's the right thing to do because we want to be able to decarbonize our network and we also believe that there's going to be a premium on blue ammonia that we'll be able to produce. So for a lot of reasons, we're excited about that. But if some of the proposals that have been talked about that increased the price of carbon actually get turned into policy, then those investments are going to look even more attractive. But we're full steam ahead. It's not like we're waiting on some other approval or anything else that needs to be done. We're moving forward and commencing construction.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. And we feel confident about the transport and sequestration side, whether it be EOR initially and then the Class VI, there's a lot more activity going on with Class VI. So we should expect some of those and in the locations of some of our plants, specifically the Donaldsonville and Yazoo City. We're in quite a few discussions with different groups on that. So we don't view that as a risk either. And as Tony said, these projects even at their existing, going to provide very good returns to the investment.
Adam Samuelson:
All right. Great. That's really helpful color. I’ll pass it on. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson:
Hi. Good morning. I wanted to follow-up a bit on Adam's question, some of the answer that Bert and Tony gave. Is such a big discrepancy between cost curve support for urea, looking at European gas costs and what we're seeing in NOLA, why don't you just ship urea to Europe and take advantage of the arbitrage or is it not that simple?
Bert Frost :
This is Bert, and that is possible. But we've made a commitment to the American farmer, and we believe that the supply and demand balance here is such that we need to supply and utilize our distribution system and gain the end market premium as well. But there is an opportunity. We have exported. We're looking at that all the time and looking at arbitrage opportunities and timing against our commitments. And you've seen us act against or for of those opportunities in the past, and we continue to evaluate them today.
Tony Will:
But Joel, I'd say even on top of that, because vessel freights are pretty high for some of those things. As we look at it, we've got terrific opportunities just to maximize UAN production and keep that here as well as sell ammonia, because both of those products are far superior on a margin per unit event basis than urea is right now. So, we're really dialing back our urea production. And we tend to be net back driven focused. So if that means export, then we'll do that. But to Bert's point, there's really good opportunities for us. When you think about cost of vessel freight and demurrage and supply chain costs continue to go up for us to keep a lot of that production domestic and focus on the products that are not as manipulated as you urea is.
Joel Jackson:
And my second question is different. Tony, Chris, you -- CF doesn't give guidance. You all know that. But over the last handful of quarters, you started to dabble in giving guidance. I mean, you gave a little bit of maybe what Q1 is going to look at -- sorry, Q4 is going to look like -- sorry, the current quarter, some near-term guidance. So the question is, why did you decide not to give any kind of input so far into what Q1 might look like? And then part of that, can you talk about do you think that Q1 earnings will be similar, higher or lower than Q4?
Tony Will:
So let me start off with. Historically, we had not given guidance. There was so much kind of rapidly evolving movement of price and everything that was going on last year. And we had felt like we had a pretty solid order book on both forward product as well as gas prices that when we did our Q3 earnings call, which was November, we thought we were in pretty safe ground to give full-year guidance. Well, four weeks later, here we are announcing a press release that we completely missed it, and we were off by like 25%. So that's why we don't give guidance because the pricing environment is so volatile that within the span of four weeks, we got it really wrong. Suffice it to say that 2021 was a fantastic year for us. And if you look at where we're entering 2022 versus where we entered 2021, we're miles ahead of where we were last year. So we're pretty excited about where we sit today.
Joel Jackson:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeff Zekauskas:
All right. Thanks very much. There are suggested tariffs that are placed -- that would be placed on the Russian companies. And the tariffs are different on -- or the proposed tariffs are different on the different Russian companies. Akron has one level and EuroChem has another, [indiscernible] got another -- when you look at the imports of UAN into the United States from Russia, can you sort of divide up what percentage would have higher tariffs, what percentage would have lower or how the tariff calculation would actually work on an average basis?
Bert Frost:
And so where we are in this process, we brought the case forward in June of last year, and that was adjudicated by the International Trade Commission, and we won on all accounts unanimously. Then it goes to the Commerce Department to determine the next step. And so we're still in the middle of that process where the final results will be known. We expect at the end of Q2 or beginning of Q3, I don't have the exact date. And so the basis of those findings, though is that they were dumping, they were anticompetitive. We won, all good. And so yes, there are different levels for different companies. And I would take it to a generalization of there's roughly 1 million tons of Russian imports into the United States and 1 million tons of Trinidadian imports into the United States. And UAN supply and demand, demand is roughly, I would say, for North America. So you have some Canadian production, 16 million tons -- and so of those imports, you extract that out. And the United States, like I said earlier, we have the latent capacity, we're able to replace those. And so what we expect to happen is through this case, that some of those tons will be redirected to other markets and whether that be South America or Europe, and that the United States will be fully supplied by North American production.
Tony Will:
Yes. I think that's really the key point here, which is North American producers have the ability to satisfy all of the demand in North America. And that's really from a logistics standpoint and everything else, the right -- the most efficient way to make that happen. And so -- we don't anticipate that there should be larger in any as far as that goes longer-term imports from Russian and Trinidadian producers because domestic producers can take care of the local market.
Jeff Zakauskas:
Okay. Great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Piken with Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael Piken:
Yes. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the pace of imports of urea into the US. It seems like the number -- total amount of imports are up year-to-date despite the fact that NOLA has been at a discount to the rest of the world. And then also with respect to the last India tender, it looks like they took about 1.4 million tons, but it looked like there were about 3 million tons or so that people were offering. So how do you see kind of these trade flows going? And is this increase in imports a function of the shift in production toward UAN among domestic producers, or any color there would be great.
Tony Will:
So you're correct in that the imports to-date on a fertilizer year, which is July through June, so July of 2021 through June of 2022, so July through and our February estimates. I'll give you, let's say, through January. Our imports on a year-to-date basis compared to last year as well as a three-year basis are higher and that was a reflection of higher prices for -- so shipments that were from, let's say, North Africa or the Middle East that departed in September and October, arrived in October, November, and we're at a higher level. However, you have to remember that production was lower in North America due to the hurricane and due to some turnarounds. And we project that inventories coming into the fertilizer year for June of 2021 to July of 2021 were also at historical lows. So the estimates today are around 1 million tons over that estimate or over the comparative basis from the year before. But as you add back or take out inventory and add and take out production, you're probably less than 0.5 million tons. Now you have to remember, the UAN or the urea market in the North America is roughly 15.5 million to 16 million tons. We import about 5.5 million tons. So we still have a significant amount of imports to make up. And those India tenders have basically soaked up the late or the available shippable capacity that might come to North America or might go to Brazil and Europe is behind and they need to order or put those vessels on the water to replace the production there. So we see a fairly positive environment going forward, not only for North America but for the world based on those dynamics.
Michael Piken:
Thanks. And then just as a follow-up. I just wanted to clarify in terms of your volume commentary and getting back to 9.5 million to 10 million tons of gross ammonia production. And then I think later in the remarks, you mentioned that you guys could potentially produce up to 110% of nameplate capacity. I guess, I'm assuming you probably came into the year with low inventories, but if you shift more production from urea into UAN this year, like what should we be thinking about in terms of the total number of product tons or a range in 2022 for that? Thanks.
Tony Will:
Well, yes, as you shift urea into UAN, you certainly make more UAN tons, but you also end up with less ammonia tons. But net-net, product tons go up a little bit. We really think about it in terms of nutrient tons even though we report sort of product segments lines. And the nutrient tons goes back to the ammonia production to begin with. So as you said, Michael, we're looking at 9.5 million to 10 million ammonia tons. The 10 million is probably a little bit on the outside range just because our Ince plant in the UK continues to be down right now, and so 10 million is probably a stretch. But somewhere in that range is very likely. And then Bert is going to manage the product upgrade slate in order to maximize netbacks for us. And that typically has gone anywhere from 19.5 million to 20 million tons and maybe a few more here and there. As you said, low inventories coming into the year. I would think we're still probably in the 19% to 20% range depending upon what the product mix ends up looking like overall. So it's pretty much of a normal year for us.
Chris Bohn:
Yeah. The only thing I would add is with the UK plants being a little bit lower from an ammonia production. If you recall, we've mentioned before that really, the profitability that comes from the UK is pretty de minimis from that level. So really, the margin benefit that Tony mentioned of, even with being below the 10 million is still going to be comparable to what we saw historically.
Michael Piken:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of John Roberts with UBS. Your line is open.
John Roberts:
Thank you. Maybe another attempt to maybe get you to give us some guardrails on how much stock you might buy back. If you're stock stays over a 10% free cash flow yield, could the slope of the share reduction look like the green -- the light green line in figures 13 and 14, at least the earlier years?
Bert Frost:
Well, what I would say is, John, I don't think we're going to give an actual number as to what we're going to be repurchasing on the opportunistic side. But obviously, you've pointed out a very true point that where the free cash flow yield is now an per share shows that our share price and what our outlook is not only for the remainder of 2022, but into 2023 and 2024 shows that they're very undervalued. I think I'd point back to really the volatility in our shares and opportunities throughout the year. So while we don't have a lot of calls on capital this year when it comes to CapEx and other things, we will be deploying that to share repurchase. The timing of that is going to be different throughout the year just based on not only the free cash flow yield, where we see that, but also on the volatility of the shares.
Tony Will:
Yeah. And I would just amplify that. As Chris said earlier in his remarks, there's a component of this that is going to be ratable. And then there's a component that's going to be opportunistic. And I think we want to be in a position where if there is some sort of a negative movement in our share price, we're in a position to really capitalize on that for the benefit of our longer term shareholders. And so we're going to be aggressive when the time is right. And -- but there is a ratable portion of this that will just continue to chug along day in and day out.
John Roberts:
And then how long do you think it's going to take before we start having more ammonia capacity announcements by the global majors like you and Nutrien and Yara, or is this a little bit like the oil and gas industry where there doesn't seem to be a supply response to the high oil prices?
Tony Will:
Yeah. I mean, I think the important thing here is, by the time you decide to announce a project, it's probably four to five years until you're actually on stream. So what's less important about that decision is where today's prices are trading. What's more important is the longer-term S&D balance and what you believe is going to happen. As Chris mentioned earlier, we firmly believe that ammonia and hydrogen are going to play a critical role in de-carbonizing economies and that demand is going to well exceed supply. The question is kind of when do you begin that build process. And right now, as Chris also said, the existing capacity trades at a discount to new construction. So as we think about it, you preserve the S&D balance, you get immediate cash flow, you're buying it at a relative discount, if you can find existing assets that you like as opposed to build new. But the world is going to need more ammonia by the time you get to the back end of this decade. And I think those announcements are coming. But I think they're going to come in a different form from how they've happened in the past. In the past, there's been fertilizer plants that have been built. And I think what you're going to see is more clean energy ammonia plants being built, ones that are either purpose built around carbon capture and sequestration for blue ammonia production or possibly green production that you'll – announcements like have happened in Australia and the Middle East and in Europe. And so – and those tend not to be “fertilizer plants” those tend to be more energy-oriented plants. And I think that's what we'll see more of. The cost point on those is substantially less than building in fully-integrated fertilizer complex. And so I think John, it's probably not too far in the future before you'll start seeing some real interest there. And you've already seen a raft of announcements around green projects. But I also think, there's only a few places in the world where you really want to go build a blue plant and North America is one of them. We've got access to very plentiful low-cost natural gas. We have the right regulatory and legal framework, and we've got the regulations in place in order to facilitate carbon sequestration. And so I think, this really is the ideal place for blue production to really develop and become a significant part of the clean energy source for the world.
John Roberts:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent Andrews:
Thanks for taking my question. I'll leave it at one given the lateness of the hour. Given everything we've discussed. Is there any consideration for maybe refinancing the 2023 maturity rather than paying it down? And how are you thinking about the balance sheet now given sort of the parameters that you outlined for the earnings power over the next few years?
Chris Bohn:
Yeah. I think – I don't think there's any change to that, Vincent. Our goal is the $3 billion, and it's really looking at it over a longer wavelength and allowing us, as we said, to have a balance sheet that's strong enough where we do see opportunities so we can take advantage of those. I think historically, sometimes taking on a little too much debt when those opportunities came we may not have been able to go in both feet. So right now, there's nothing that's changed from our balance sheet commitment to be at $3 billion in the take out those 2023s rather than refinancing those.
Tony Will:
I mean the good news is based on the -- what we're seeing in the marketplace looking forward is it's not impeding us from doing all the other things we want to do. We can easily take out the $500 million of maturities coming due next year and still do all the other things. If you just look back to last year, we returned $800 million of capital to shareholders, while we took $500 million of debt out and added $1 billion to the balance sheet, and that was last year. So again, we're feeling like we've got capacity to do all of the things we're looking to do here, based on the op environment in front of us.
Vincent Andrews:
Okay. Great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would now like to turn the call back over to Martin for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us, and we look forward to continuing conversations at the conferences we have coming up in the next few weeks.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the first 9 Months and Third Quarter 2021 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Erica and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time all participants are in a listen-only-mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today. Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick :
Good morning. And thanks for joining the CF Industries Earnings Conference Call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice-President Investor Relations. With me today are Tony Will, CEO, Chris Bohn, CFO, and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its results for the first 9 months and Third Quarter of 2021 yesterday afternoon. On this call, we will review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook, and then host the question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and will involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find the reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
A - Tony Will :
Thanks, Martin. And good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted our financial results for the first 9 months of 2021, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $1.5 billion. These results reflect the drastically improving industry fundamentals that we experienced over the course of the year. Nitrogen prices are at their highest levels in over a decade. A strong demand and lower worldwide production have tightened the global supply demand balance considerably. At the same time, energy spreads between North America and high-cost regions have widened dramatically supporting margin expansion for our cost advantage network. The CF team also continues to perform exceptionally well navigating a couple of severe weather events in the U.S. our highest levels of turnaround and maintenance activity ever, and a challenging natural gas situation in the UK. Most importantly, they did so safely. Our recordable incident rate at the end of September was just 0.24 incidents for 200,000 labor hours, significantly better than industry averages. These factors have driven substantial cash generation over the last year. Our trailing 12-month net cash from operations was $1.7 billion and free cash flow was $1 billion. As we look ahead, we're excited about the opportunities to build on this performance. We have good visibility into the fourth quarter of 2021. We have priced virtually all of our product shipments through the end of the year, while also hedging our natural gas requirements. While there is always some uncertainty about the volume of ammonia that will be applied in Q4 given the dependency on weather, we would expect full-year 2021 Adjusted EBITDA to land between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion. Further out, we believe nitrogen industry conditions will remain positive for an extended period. As Bert will describe in a moment, we see a very strong demand, constrained global supply, and wide energy spreads between North America and Europe to persist for some time. These factors support our ability to continue to generate significant free cash and to deploy that capital to create shareholder value. Our priorities remain the same. Invest in growth where opportunities offer returns above our cost of capital, and return excess capital to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. We remain focused on disciplined investments, and are excited about the 2 new projects supporting our clean energy growth platform. Once completed, these projects will enable us to produce over a million tons of blue, or carbon-free ammonia. Chris will share more about our announcement yesterday in a moment. We're also pleased to have achieved investment-grade credit ratings, which recognizes and underscores all of the work we have done to remove fixed costs in the business, reduce debt, and highlights the positive industry fundamentals for a North American producer. On the Balance Sheet, we are quickly closing in on our target of $3 billion of gross debt, and expect to repay the remaining $500 million outstanding on our 2023 notes on or before their maturity. However that still leaves a substantial amount of excess free cash flow we expect to generate. And as such, the Board has authorized a new $1.5 billion share repurchase program to facilitate the return of capital to shareholders. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen outlook in more detail. Then Chris will follow to talk about our financial position and clean energy initiatives, before I return for some closing comments, Bert.
Bert Frost :
Thanks, Tony. The last 6 to 9 months we have seen a dramatic tightening of the global nitrogen supply and demand balance. High crop prices and increased economic activity continue to drive demand. Meanwhile, global -- lower global production and government actions have created a supply constrained global market. The impact of this can be seen on Slides 11 and 12, where both our spot cost curve and 2022 cost curve are much higher and steeper than in recent years. As you can see, the margin opportunities available to our network have expanded greatly due to a wide energy spread between North America and marginal production in Europe. We expect strong global fertilizer demand to last into at least 2023. As you can see on Slide 8, global stocks-to-use ratios for both grains and oil seeds, are at their lowest levels in nearly a decade supporting high crop prices. These prices will support farm profitability in North America, even with higher input prices incentivizing farmers to plant acres and maximize yield. Based on our order book, we expect the fall ammonia application season will be the largest since 2012, demonstrating farmer commitment to planting corn and applying fertilizer. We believe farmers around the world will make similar decisions, with import demand continuing to be led by India and Brazil. We believe global supply will remain constrained in near-term, with relief unlikely to appear anytime soon. We believe inventory in the channel is very low. Global production has been lower in 2021 due to severe weather in North America, higher maintenance worldwide, and ongoing European shutdowns and curtailments. Further, the Russian and Chinese governments are discouraging nitrogen fertilizer exports through the Spring. These factors suggest the potential for strong fertilizer demand to last beyond 2023, even if some regions are unable to secure enough product in this supply constrained environment, resulting in lower yields. If this were to happen, demand will be deferred into future years as it would take more than 2 growing seasons to replenish global grain and oil seed stocks. As we prepare for the spring application season, we continued to receive substantial interest for any product we offer into the marketplace. We are building a solid order book for the first quarter of 2022, at the prices you see in the market today. Similar to what we did for the fourth quarter, we are adding natural gas hedges as we make first quarter product commitments in order to lock in margin and protect against significant energy price spikes. As a result, we believe we're in a strong position heading into 2022. In this dynamic market, we remain focused on leveraging our manufacturing, distribution, and logistics capabilities to serve our customers and look forward to the opportunities before us. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn :
Thanks, Bert. For the first 9 months of 2021, the Company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $212 million or $0.98 per diluted share. EBITDA was $984 million and Adjusted EBITDA was approximately $1.5 billion. Net earnings and EBITDA reflect the recognition of a non-cash impairment charges related to our U.K. operations. As discussed in the earnings release, our results for the first 9 months in third quarter are preliminary, pending the completion of the impairment analysis and finalization of the non-cash impairment charges. We continue to monitor market conditions for the U.K. assets, which accounted for 2% of our gross margin in 2020. The Billingham complex is operating due to recently improved carbon dioxide contracts and industrial contracts that pass through natural gas costs. Operations at Ince remain halted. Free cash flow -- free cash generation remain strong. The trailing 12 months net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.7 billion and free cash flow was $1 billion. We believe we have a good opportunity in 2022 to build on these results, based not only on our positive outlook but also on increased production from our network. In 2021, we completed a record level of maintenance activity that included turnarounds at 7 of our 17 ammonia plants. We will return to a more normal level of turnaround activity in 2022. As a result, we expect to return to our typical high ammonia utilization rates with gross ammonia production between 9.5 million and 10 million tons. We expect to sell everything we produce and achieve sales volume between 19 million and 20 million tons in 2022. As we sell these product volumes into a favorable market environment, we expect to continue to generate substantial free cash flow and create shareholder value. As Tony said, our Board authorized a new $1.5 billion share repurchase program, which becomes effective January 1, 2022. We continue to operate under our existing program which had – has enabled us to acquire more than 11 million shares to be repurchased since 2019. This program expires at the end of the year. At the same time, we'll continue to evaluate clean energy initiatives to meet the demand for ammonia's clean energy capabilities that we expect to emerge in the second half of the decade. This includes positioning our network for the production of blue and green ammonia to support the development of a market for low carbon ammonia. Constructing carbon dioxide dehydration and compression units at Donaldsonville and Yazoo City are necessary step to enable blue ammonia production through carbon capture and sequestration.
Chris Bohn :
These projects leverage our existing asset base, and represented an efficient use of capital with a return profile we expect to be above our cost of capital. Once sequestration is initiated, we'll be able to produce more than 1 million tonnes of blue ammonia annually while reducing our carbon emissions in a meaningful way. With our strong Balance Sheet, we are -- we also have the flexibility to evaluate additional opportunities in the years ahead. We continue to collaborate with global leaders where we can provide value, including jointly exploring with Mitsui the development of blue ammonia projects in the U.S.. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will :
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to recognize our team here at CF for their strong work so far in 2021. Their commitment and dedication continue to be the foundation of our success. We are excited about what lies ahead for CF Industries. In fact, I think the Company is better positioned today than we have ever been in our history. We are again an Investment Grade Credit issuer, we have the fewest shares outstanding ever. We expect the business to produce between $2.2 billion to $2.4 billion of Adjusted EBITDA this year. And as we look forward to next year, we should have significantly more tons to sell at overall average higher prices than this year. The business should generate all-time records for free cash flow per share. We see demand for low-carbon ammonia developing that should provide a long-term growth platform for the Company. And with our investments in both green and blue ammonia production, we will be at the forefront of this exciting opportunity. Taken together, we have never been in a better position to create value for shareholders. With that, Operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you. The floor is now open for questions. [Operator Instructions] We'll pause for just a moment to compile the Q&A roster. Your first question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. You may please go ahead, sir.
Adam Samuelson :
Yes. Yes. Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Tony Will :
Morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson :
So Tony, Bert, Chris, I guess what I'm trying to reconcile and think about is the risk of demand destruction at current nitrogen and fertilizer prices broadly. I mean, you talked about record demand for ammonia in the fall, those prices were also booked several $100 ago relative to where the stock market is. And so, as you think about the order patterns into the First Quarter, do you see any risks on farmers and their application rates? And obviously, nitrogen is less discretionary, but do you think that could have any impact on agronomic yield given where affordability is today?
Tony Will :
When you look across the world and where we are starting with just supply, it's just not there. This is more of a supply constrained market. The demand is definitely there. You're seeing we're desperately trying to pull in tons and we'll continue to do so through, I expect into their next fertilizer year, which begins in April. Brazil is ahead 10% year-on-year and probably will continue at that pace through importing urea, at least through February for their safrinha. And then we hit our spring in the Northern hemisphere. With what's going on in Europe with gas prices in the level of shutdown, there's over 11 million tons of ammonia that is currently not being upgraded into ammonium nitrate, urea, or CAN, and so tons need to flow, which were not planned in the supply and demand scenario to Europe. We were in a supply limited market and that's what's going to keep prices elevated. The demand side of the equation is still very strong and you're correct. What we sold for fall and we're applying today was sold at levels much lower than the current market, which is probably over $1,000 for ammonia. That being said, we're selling $1,000 ammonia for fall application on the -- on incremental tons that are available. Where as I said on my prepared remarks we're selling urea and there is significant demand at that $730, $750 short ton NOLA, it's even higher in the interior at over $800, which we've transacted a poor deal. And you've seen in the publications, the UAN reaction and the demand pulling, and I just looked at the analysis of where we are to date with order books and demand. And again, at a very good place of $550 UAN, calculating all that forward with current trend yield at 177 bushels per acre on the trend yield. That's not considering the Ince dates where you will be 275 bushels. Even with rent as land, at today's economics, your cash positive. You're actually profitable at a pretty healthy level if you own your land even more so. There are ways to economize. And so if you have a firm, you can look at different options, but that's not going to come at the expense of nitrogen and probably even at fertilizer. It's going to come at some other issues. We're constructively, as I have said positive. I would say very positive. And the customer advances continue to come in, and so we are working with our retail partners to make sure that that supply is available and our retail partners are buying that. And moving on there's going to be a substantial amount of cash coming into our retail friends
Adam Samuelson :
through year-end as farmers prepare for 2022.
Tony Will :
I would just add one thing, Adam, which is, as Bert said, demand is clearly there. If you look at our customer advances, our order book is strong and continue to sell forward, and it looks like farmer economics are positive. But given the supply shortfall, particularly now with both Russia and China, withholding tons from the export marketplace, there is a real shortage of nitrogen and price has got to basically arbitrate who's going to get the scarce tons that are out there. And so it's not so much that you are going to destroy
Chris Bohn :
demand, there's going to be a lot of unmet demand that's going to be pent-up. And so, we do think yield is going to be on a global basis off next year. Again, not because demand destruction, just because there's not enough tonnes available. And what that means is it's going to promote favorable supply-demand dynamics and core screens as we get out into 2023 and probably beyond. Our view is that this is a very, very healthy dynamic that leads to a much longer period of positive fundamentals for our business.
Adam Samuelson :
I appreciate all that, Collin (ph). I will pass it on, thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets, please go ahead.
Joel Jackson :
Good morning everyone.
Chris Bohn :
Hey Joel.
Joel Jackson :
Just thinking about your order book and Bert I don't want to misquote you, but I think you've talked about before when prices go up, you tend to book more product more floor it can no longer dated order book as prices go up. Prices have really gone up. So would that be the case that really you book more product into Q1 than you normally have at this time, normally have it at the other time?
Tony Will :
So we're pleased with our order book and like the position that we've placed ourselves in, with the opportunities that the market has given us and you're right we have seen an accelerated market we started the year at $350 per ton of urea, moved to $400 by April, moved to $500 by July, $600 in September, and $700 in October. We had index contracts at every week price and you can see in the publications we started our fill program in July at $285 NOL equivalent and then moved to $435 in
Martin Jarosick :
September and then in October $535. And so as I said, we are booked for Q4 and the majority of the $285 UAN was shipped in Q3 a little bit in Q4. And then those other prices will blend in. As we look forward to Q1, we're starting to book those values today. And so you're looking at that's $530 to $550 for Q1, and $700 to $750 probably for urea. And we have yet to price Q2 ammonia. And once we book out Q1, then we'll look at Q2, but if there's substantial demand for Q2, we would rather sort Q1 first.
Joel Jackson :
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne, from Bank of America. Please, go ahead.
Steve Byrne :
Yes, thank you. You laid out the significant levels of disruption in supply that are going on. And most recently, you have Russia jumping into that theme, and I wanted to get your view on how significant is that? I understand that essentially, all of the ammonium nitrate that Brazil imports comes from Russia. If that is the case, and -- where are they going to get it now? And are there regions of the world that you think are just flat out not going to be able to get nitrogen for the Spring?
Bert Frost :
Yes. So when you look at the Russia announcement, I would say in -- contextually, the Chinese announcement is much more significant. Because of what has come out traditionally from China, the 4 to 5 million tons of urea exports and also phosphates that is going to have a -- because that's the incremental ton that is continually bid in. So in a world of 50 million tonnes of world traded urea to take out up to 10% is going to be felt on top of the demand as I mentioned earlier from Europe, that needs to move. So you're going to see North African tonnes moving into Europe and there's going to be a hole. Like Tony said, somebody is going to have to struggle or pay up. The Russia announcement was a little bit of a surprise. The Russian demand for nitrogen fertilizers has been fairly consistent in that 5.5 million to 6.5 million tons of demand per year, and they've exported the remainder. And so when you look at from year-on-year what Russia has consumed and what Russia has exported, on the margin, there's probably going to be a shortage of up to 0.5 million tons. So Brazil will be able to get their ammonium nitrate. And I believe the suppliers from Russia; EuroChem, Macron, and the others, will do that, as well as supply some of the portion that's needed in Europe. So It's going to come again on the margin and every month there'll be less tons available from an expected source, which further exacerbates this supply-demand imbalance that we've been discussing.
Steve Byrne :
Maybe a question for Chris, the decision to focus on Yazoo City as another carbon capture project in addition to Donaldsonville, do you have any more clarity about where the demand was going to be coming from for the blue ammonia. Are you increasingly confident that you can move those tons and generate a sufficient premium to offset your capital investment and generate a return?
Chris Bohn :
Yes. Thanks, Steve. Yazoo City, as you know, has excess CO2 and that's why that was one of the sites also chosen to do the dehydration and compression unit there. As with Donaldsonville, we're in pretty extended discussions with different sequestration areas whether it'd be EOR or people who are in the process of filing their Class VI permits related to both those areas. I think when you look at the economics, Steve, both at [Indiscernible] and Yazoo City, given what's been proposed from the 45Q tax incentive. It allows us to not only more than fund those particular capital expenditures, but also see a return above our cost of capital. And the reason for that, as you know better, that a lot of people do is because we're already capturing the CO2 off of our ammonia process today. That equipment is already in place and that's limited the amount of capex that we will need, and therefore increases our return profile on that.
Tony Will:
But I think, Steve, we are confident we'll be able to move that product into position. And even if that demand is international, make that effectively show out at E - ville (ph) for not very much cost and be able to export it as appropriate. It's not very far from Yasuda to D - ville. And we feel comfortable that there's a ready market for that time for those times. The other thing that makes Yazoo attractive as Chris said is a lot of excess CO2 it's very close to existing CO2 pipeline capacity with [Indiscernible] and there's a lot of options in the area. The geology there is really attractive. So Yazoo was an obvious add-on with the D - ville project.
Chris Bohn :
And I think when these projects do come online, because it will take 2 to 3 years, you'll also see domestic demand for blue specifically at the levels that we've been producing at Yazoo.
Steve Byrne:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Jeff Zekauskas :
Thanks very much. When do you expect to produce 1.25 million tons of blue ammonia? And how do you think about the price of blue ammonia? Is it relative to the price of agricultural ammonia or is it independent or it's relative to fuel prices? And so with all -- with those issues, how do you think about the returns on selling blue ammonia?
Tony Will :
Relative to the value of blue ammonia, at a minimum, I would say the value is equivalent to a regular conventional ton plus whatever carbon jurisdiction you're talking about. In Europe, you're talking about EUR50 or above a ton. In the U.K. it's more like PS50. Other regions are going to have different cost structures from a regulatory environment. And so at a minimum, I would say you're able to get whatever prevailing value of carbon is on top of a regular traded ton and, as Chris highlighted, if you think about the total variable cost required to produce a ton of blue ammonia, we probably have somewhere in the neighborhood $5 to $10 a ton of electricity cost on plant site. And then we're in pretty advanced discussions with a number of potential parties on the transport and injection. And believe that that is a very manageable number from an overall cost standpoint and so the all-in the variable costs that we incur is less than the value of the 45Q credit. And so the differential will go towards paying back the capital even before you put any premium on blue ammonia. So just on the value of the 45Q, we feel comfortable that we'll get returns above our cost of capital. And then to the extent you're able to realize margins and additional premium on blue. That just further adds to the attractiveness of this investment for us.
Jeff Zekauskas :
Okay, and for my follow-up, some farmers say that they really can't secure nitrogen product for the second quarter. And in your commentary, you said you're really trying to put together your first quarter order book. Is that a generally correct description that farmers can't really get commitments into the second quarter just yet?
Bert Frost :
Yeah I would say that's not necessary true and we don't deal directly with farmers we do what we're -- kind of the retail, wholesale trader group
Tony Will :
which is the first time since I've been here in 13 years that all of our railcars are occupied. Product is moving to market, product is available. Now that being said, CF is not pricing Q2 as of yet. And that's a pricing position. That's not a volume nor a commitment situation. I believe if retailers wanted to take that out or a farmer wanted to get a quote or an offer that should be available in the market. And there will be sufficient tons to meet spring demand, is not only from CF, but from the broader industry group. Imports are up, domestic production will recover, and yes, we will have a spring. Jeff, I realize I didn't -- sorry -- I didn't see your first part of the question about blue ammonia in terms of when is it going to be available.
Jeff Zekauskas :
Yeah, thanks.
Tony Will :
We've gone ahead and launched those projects now, we anticipate probably end of 2024 or early 2025. So by 2025, we expect basically a full year of operating on that basis.
Jeff Zekauskas :
Okay. Great. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.
Vincent Andrews :
Thank you and good morning, everyone. Tony, what -- would love to get your thoughts on just sort of as we think about the next few years or 3 to 5 years or you want to frame it. When you carry a situation now with obviously very tight grain stocks and now we've had this spike in gas and coal prices and so forth and having a lot of food inflation and Bert laid out a very plausible scenario where we could have lower yields because of the inability of everybody get nitrogen and so forth. So what do you think the global response to this is going to be over time in terms of trying to manage the food supply and make sure that we don't get into extreme situations like this into perpetuity, but at the same time we need to balance our climate goals and our green energy aspirations and so forth. So how does this [Indiscernible] get thread in your view?
Tony Will :
It's a great question. And I think as you point out, there are a lot of competing priorities out there that have second order and tertiary knock-on effects that not everyone understands well. So the push to reduce availability and affordability of fossil fuels because of a focus on climate change and move towards renewable, I think is directly part of what's going on in Europe right now with extremely high natural gas costs. And that means that all of those plants that Bert talked about earlier curtailed are offline. At the same time, you've got a number of governments around the world that are very focused on trying to limit the rate of nitrogen fertilizer in particular because of their concerned about nutrient loss to the environment and runoff and whether it's nitrous oxide produced on the field, but it's pretty potent greenhouse gas, or whether it's other run-off into waterways and so forth. There is a real push in some areas, Canada notably and in other places as well to reduce application rate. And if you do that, you're going to have a year with impact on yields. There are a number of, I would say, competing priorities out there. All of which generally speaking, I would say benefit North America producers. Because we do have ready access to low-cost gas. We're on the very low end of the supply curve. And as yields continue to struggle due to either lack of availability of nutrients or these programs designed to reduce nutrient application, that's just going to keep grain prices higher for longer. Ultimately, I think where this goes as governments are going to have to capitulate to the requirements of their people and provide affordable food which means some of those priority is, that they have here before held out as being these holy grails. They are going to probably have to take a backseat for a while, just to make sure that we can feed the people the world. But I think that you will see people backing off. Again, Germany has decommissioned their nukes and they've brought on coal-fired power plants. That's not exactly what I would call a green initiative. You've seen the same thing in China as well in the UK, and Continental Europe are struggling with high gas costs. I do think there is going to have to be a reassessment of what is required to -- for the planet to be able to eat and fuel itself.
Vincent Andrews :
Thanks very much. I appreciate all those thoughts.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of John Roberts from UBS. Please, go ahead.
John Roberts :
Thank you. And back on the earlier question on the blue ammonia, do you do you expect to sell it as fuel or do you expect to sell it as fertilizer, and have some carbon credit broker gets you the revenue for the sequestration values?
Tony Will :
Yes, John. As Chris mentioned, and we've highlighted earlier, we do have this in place with Mitsui, we're having very productive conversations with them. I think there is a real emphasis, particularly in Japan, but in some other regions as well to go into, coal combustion of ammonia with coal to reduce the CO2 emissions out of those plants. And we think that that is something that I will develop into a pretty sizable market. Estimates can be as much as 5 million tonnes by the time you get to 2030, or possibly even before. And that's a huge increase in terms of the total amount of ammonia being consumed, particularly what you've got curtailments and outages and -- across broad swaths of the production universe here in Europe and the U.K. And so we're excited about the Clean Energy attributes that blue ammonia has. We think that that's probably where the majority of value sits, at least in the near term. Well, I think there is certainly the possibility to get some incremental value off of carbon sequestration in the soil from an agricultural application given that most of that is going into the voluntary marketplace today where values are traded at a pretty small discount to where structured carbon trades and the rest of the world. I think that's probably the last place just because of lower values that we would go now that the U.S. develops a more structured approach to the cost of carbon and you can get a scientific valuation placed on carbon capture to sequestration and the soil than that may change the math. But I think in the near term what we're really looking at is more of a clean energy source and we're working very closely with Mitsui to help develop that and bring that about. The other point though that I would say is we believe these projects are attractive just based on the 45Q credit that we ought to be able to generate a return on these projects without any embedded premium on Blue. Now, our expectation is there's going to be a sizable premium on Blue. But to be clear, we're able to make the math work pretty easily just with the 45Q credit.
John Roberts :
And then how are you thinking about the pace of buyback under the new authorization? Is it going to be opportunistic, or are you thinking something that's just going to be more structured over the 2 years?
Tony Will :
Yes. I think based on what we're looking at in terms of not only current year performance but our expectations for next year, there's going to be a lot of cash that needs to find a home. And so while -- we'll certainly buy more on dips or at lower prices, I think it needs to be the volume that we're talking about is sizable enough that it probably needs to be a bit of a structured leg in there as well. So ultimately, probably a combination of approaches.
John Roberts :
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson from Mizuho. Your line is open.
Chris Parkinson:
Great, thank you. Just over the last 5 years, there's been a plethora of variables that's still driving a bit of volatility in the end unit UAN pricing versus urea. Just given the current supply and demand dynamics, trade flow adjustments over the last few years, and the recent DOC case, can you just comment on your outlook for UAN pricing for '22, '23 as it pertains to UAN versus urea. Thank you so much.
Tony Will :
You're correct, in terms of a lot of variables, a lot of volatility. In the last year-and-a-half, we've traded as low as $115 a short ton for UAN, and as high as $550 in NOLA. What drove that volatility? We believe we were pushed down low because of excessive imports of subsidized products and consigned products. And therefore, we took the case forward to the Department of Commerce and the ITC, and were successful. We're pleased with that result, and we believe that that information will come out with what the ruling will be and how that will be applied. Step 1. And so the discount to urea took place for several years, and that was an inappropriate response to a more
Chris Bohn :
valued product and expensive invested product and an asset base that we've invested several billion dollars to maintain and construct. So we're entering probably a normalized market now where UAN again, is trading at a premium to urea for the reasons I just articulated, and it should. So through spring, most definitely it will trade at a premium, will reset in July as we always do. We believe at a higher level for the reasons we have articulated. We're in a differentiated global market driven by a lack of supply with high levels of demand that is not going to correct itself probably for a couple of more years.
Tony Will :
And so in that context, we see UAN trading at advantaged position to urea, as well blue ammonia and ammonium nitrate. And that market, we don't see demand destruction, we see differences of supply availability.
Chris Parkinson:
That's great color. And just as a quick follow-up, just given on -- given what's going on in China, what's your intermediate to long-term view of export trends and what the ultimate price will be for those tons on an MMBtu basis? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yeah. So while you're looking at export trends, I would look at the globe -- at the Chinese economy holistically. And looking at what they're trying to do with energy and where they are, you've got the risk of entering winter and grammar may not be able to have heat in some of these big cities. Are you going to value the urea production, are you going to value of the population and the ability to heat homes and to produce value-added products or a commodity product? I would bet on the latter than the former. And so -- or the former rather than the latter. There you go. And so what we're seeing in China is a result of several factors coming to play, whether that's pollution, economically driven decisions, higher polluting level production taken offline. And then this restriction to have products available. You've seen their production capacity for static capacity fall from 90 million tons of it's peak to probably 75 million tons today. And then you take an operating rate that's ranged from 55% to 75%. In China, you only have available probably 53 to 55 million tons of urea per year. Domestic consumption has rebounded and is over 50 million tons. So there is not that substantial amount of tonnage to export. And why export a value destructive product? That's where we see the future of China and
Chris Bohn :
other production's going to have to come on-stream in other locale. You have Nigeria coming up, Russia coming up; we need more. And so more construction will probably take place, but it's long dated. So you're not going to see this market correct for the arrival of new production, even though we need it.
Tony Will :
But -- and I would also add, Chris, just based on what the forward curves look like, it's moved really Europe, and in particular Eastern Europe, into what I would call the marginal production ton in the world as opposed to out of China. But the factors that Bert was talking about means that China's not going to overwhelm the global marketplace with excess exports. And so that's going to maintain what we believe is going to be a relatively tight supply side equation. And just based on energy spread differentials that you can look forward, it's a much steeper supply curve than it's been recently, and that gives us a lot of opportunity here to generate cash in the U.S. So we're very constructive about all of these trends.
Chris Parkinson:
Great color as always. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar from Citi. Your line is open.
P.J. Juvekar :
Hi. Good morning.
Tony Will :
Good morning, P.J.
P.J. Juvekar :
There's all these resource nationalism going on about nitrogen that you talked about, but yours is still a net importer of urea. So how did this play out? Would growers switch from corn to soybeans at the margin, or maybe the industrial demand has to back down to make room for agricultural demand. In your mind, how does this play out in the medium-term?
Tony Will :
I think that the U.S. based on crop prices inefficiency of growers and requirements on the industrial side is able to bid away tons from other parts of the world that are less able to do so. Particularly those economies that require government subsidies in which to bring tons in. And so our expectation is that there's going to be availability of products here in North America. And honestly, I don't see a scenario where industrial demand starts backing off based on ag demand. I see a situation where you end up with inflation in terms of the industrial goods as opposed to some reduction in economic output. But I think ultimately, as Bert talked about, you see some new projects on the drawing board, but not very many, and particularly not enough with respect to some of the closures and shutdowns or even curtailments that you see out there right now. Ultimately, I think what's going to have to happen is, you end up seeing more capacity at it because the world just needs more than what's available. That's before you even get to clean energy applications for ammonia going forward. So I think the net of all of that suggests that there are new plants that the world is going to need to construct in order to be able to feed itself and utilize ammonia in these kind of new alternative applications versus what we've seen in the past.
Chris Bohn :
I think it's a false narrative, PJ, that those two are competing. I think we're in the -- you have to go back to -- in the U.S. or in North America, we're in the resource-rich region of natural gas and energy products. We have the capability to construct and move with the infrastructure that's in place, whether that be rail, barge, truck, pipe. And we are set up to do that very efficiently. What I can see over time is these other economies progress into lower carbon output or lower carbon consumption using natural gas or renewables. You're going to see the natural gas spreads continue to expand or stay expanded. Maybe not at its current level today of $20 per MMBtu, but maybe it's $10 rather than $6. And that maintains North America as a low-cost, high-margin region in the world. And I think you'll see maybe some industrial production and other areas compromise that would be Europe, and maybe some even in China over time as we move to a new market.
Bert Frost :
On the corn to soybean competition, today, it's favoring corn and it has been. And this is the time when it makes sense -- that when it's very good for us to have that favorability because that's when today or in this period is when farmers are making that spring planting decision and allocating their resources accordingly and therefore booking fertilizer, which is positive for us. We're seeing very strong industrial demand in our book and we balanced both of those. We think well as well as our industry, so I think it's a net positive.
P.J. Juvekar :
Great. That's good color. And just one quick one. Tony, when you talked about, and thank you for giving the details on blue versus green ammonia. It seems like blue ammonia will be more costly to make by $20 or $30 or something like that per ton. And so why would growers buy more expensive ammonia unless they're incented to buy? What's the mechanism for them to spend more?
Tony Will :
So remember, $20 to $30, that might be in the range or it might be a little high relative to our expectations, but that's not a crazy number. Remember, the 45Q tax credit, the way that it was originally constructed was going to be 45 - ish to $50. In the current RAGs, it's substantially above that. Although it's a little bit more expensive for us to make, if you net against it the 45Q tax credit, it's actually a discount relative to conventional ammonia from a producer side. But the reason why a grower would pay for it is if they want to be able to make carbon labeling claims that go into consumer products companies because they're going to care about that; or if you're trying to produce low carbon ethanol that might be qualify for California's clean fuel standards, that might be a reason for it; or even in the voluntary market, if you can get $5 to $10 a ton for sequestering carbon in the soil being a grower. There are a couple of high-profile transactions that happened along those a couple of months ago. I think there's a lot of value there potentially for growers to try to differentiate what they're doing versus just a commodity bushel of corn. And so based on where some of those pockets of value are, we would expect there to be some margin opportunity for us or at least some incremental demand for that product. And again, to the extent that the U.S. actually adopt some more regulated and structured cost of carbon. Then there is real economics available to the farmer if they can demonstrate the sequestration and sell those credits into a structured marketplace.
Chris Bohn :
I was just going to add to that. I think one of the benefits of this is the incremental demand that Tony is speaking of, is the agriculture is already using ammonia, but as you start to see more of the industrial move in, that's where you'll start to see the bidding on ammonia go up and more constraint. So it's really about the demand addition that we think is going to occur here.
Martin Jarosick :
Plus you have to remember, if it's $50 more a ton, let's take it there then conventional, to a farmer that's $10 an acre. That's two bushels. So the cost is insignificant to the farmer based on the benefits that Tony articulated. And we already have people wanting to buy blue ammonia. So we think there's going to be a demand challenge, which is very good for our business in the future years.
Tony Will :
And that's also honestly why Donaldsonville and Yazoo City are not the last dehydration compression projects that we're likely to build. We want to continue to evaluate other places with ready access to sequestration and continue to build out our network, because our belief is it's a project that pays for itself and also gives upside opportunity on access in the clean-energy market in a way that is differential for us versus other market participants.
P.J. Juvekar :
Thank you. You guys almost give great color. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. Please, go ahead.
Michael Piken:
Hi. Thanks for the question. Just wanted to discuss in a little bit more detail on the status of your U.K. operations. I know they were down for a couple of days, and then you guys were -- reached an agreement with the government to restart it. When you talked about getting back to the 19.5 million to 20 million tons, the implication I assume there is that those plants are going to run full next year. Maybe you could just talk about the status of those plants? And are they going to be profitable, or -- what type of returns we're looking at there, given the higher gas costs?
Tony Will :
Michael, thanks. So the first thing that I want to just highlight is the relative importance of the U.K. in terms of the overall portfolio. As Chris mentioned, if you look back to our results in 2020, it represented 2% of our total gross margin. So from an aggregate profitability standpoint, it's on the small end of the scale. Now, it does provide a little bit of a natural hedge for us when global energy costs are low and relatively flat, then we earn a better return there when energy costs are high, we earn a much better return in the U.S. on a larger production base. It's a little bit of a natural hedge in that regard. But as you mentioned, because of a huge spike in gas cost in September, we took the plants offline. We worked, I would say very constructively with the U.K. government to restart the facility at Billingham and be able to provide CO2 into the U.K. marketplace, that's pretty critical for the normal functioning of a number of different industries over there. And during that period of time, the U.K. government also is very helpful and us -- working with us and the CO2 off take. Company is the industrial gas Company from Billingham to restructure those contracts in a way that makes that plant viable. So we're really pleased with how that whole process developed. And the Billingham plant is up and operational and we expect that to be viable in the long-term. The Ince plant in the Northwest is not yet back online. We're evaluating a number of different options and scenarios there, including being able to secure a vessel to bring ammonia into the facility so we can at a minimum run the upgrade plants. Given again the high cost of natural gas through the winter, it doesn't look like ammonia production there is going to make a lot of sense, but being able to bring in ammonia will allow us to run the upgrades and make an appropriate return on those products. So we're in a little bit of a wait and see mode in terms of what the longer range situation develops in the U.K. But I think for now, Billingham is up and operation al. We expect that to happen. And again, we expect to be able to turn the back end of the fertilizer portion of the plant up and running. And hopefully soon within the next couple of weeks, once we get the ammonia vessel squared away.
Michael Piken:
Great. And then just understanding a little bit longer-term, by the time some of these blue ammonia projects are up and running, is this going to increase your number of product tons? Is this going to come out of some of your other products? How should we be thinking about the cadence of your product tons sold over the next, call it 3-5 years? Thanks.
Tony Will :
Yes. We already run our ammonia plants at full operating rate within -- with the one exception of the U.K. which we just talked about. And so it's not necessarily a situation where there's new tons unless we engage in some debottlenecks, or new capacity or other things like that. And so this is definitely a, pulling tons away from the least profitable portion of our segment of our business, and reallocating them to a higher-margin application. And so it's a margin upgrade as opposed to new production at this time.
Michael Piken:
Great. Thanks.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Wong from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong :
Thanks for taking my question. Just going back on blue, green ammonia here, can you talk about how the blue, green ammonia market could impact the dynamics around the gray ammonia market in the future? And we have projects like [Indiscernible] and Yazoo turning some of the volumes from gray to blue. And as those tons are sold in between ammonia applications, like maybe with Mitsui, does that effectively mean a loss of supply for the gray ammonia market? And then on the demand side, like the molecules are the same, could there be a scenario where demand and supply maybe aren't matched up properly. So you have some application that maybe need blue green ammonia, but if there isn't enough, you use a little bit of gray. Just some general, does the emergence of a blue green ammonia market mean potentially a tighter gray market in the future? Thanks.
Tony Will :
I certainly think that's where we see things headed. I also think that's where not wanting to interpret things for them, but I think that that's consistent also with where your products and others see things headed. Hence the announcement both of the Neom project in Saudi Arabia, but also the recent announcement they had in Louisiana around a blue project. And I think a number of the market participants see this coming. I think ultimately what that's going to mean is, you've got more demand than what current supply is in ammonia. It's going to be at the end new production, new capacity, which the world is going to need. And that -- that's pretty attractive relative to valuing existing assets. So we think, overall, this is a terrific set of factors that create a revaluation or rethinking about what the value of our asset base is being that we're the largest ammonia producer in the world.
Andrew Wong :
Great. Thank you.
Tony Will :
And I think the situation is not unlike what we've got today, which is, today, as Bert mentioned, it's more of a supply side constraint given a bunch of curtailments and shutdowns and other disruptions. But in the future, even if those plants are often running and you see demand continue to exceed where supply is capable of reaching, you see price escalation like we're experiencing right now.
Andrew Wong :
Yes. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Adrien Tamagno from Berenberg. Your line is open.
Adrien Tamagno :
Hello. Good morning. Yes. As a follow-up from the previous question, from a CF industries perspective, in the combination of the world being shore of ammonia, as you described. And with current technical deficiency to make significant volumes in a low carbon way, would that make you thinking about going for Greenfield ammonia at some point in time or it's out of question for you?
Tony Will :
Well, we constantly are evaluating ways to add capacity that are appropriate. I think that our biggest focus area and the thing that we use as a lens to make all of those decisions is ultimately cash flow per share. And if we can find an opportunity that allows us to expand capacity, whether that's a debottleneck inorganic acquisition or an organic kind of growth, where we believe that that's going to grow our free cash per share, then we'll take a serious run out it. I think these context we'd be much more likely to think about partnerships, structures, or other things like that if we were going to move forward on any of those things. But I do think it's a positive sign when others out there are making announcements about adding capacity. I do believe we're the best operators of ammonia plants in the world. And so if there's opportunities for new capacity additions, we ought to be thinking about that along with other people and I do think the world is going to need it. It's a question of when and in the interim, are you better off buying existing assets or debottlenecking what you already have versus building new, but I think those are appropriate questions that anyone in the industry today is moiling over and really thinking about.
Adrien Tamagno :
Yeah. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick :
Thanks everyone for joining us, and we look forward to speaking with you throughout the quarter.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Half and Second Quarter 2021 CF Industries Holdings' Earnings Conference Call. My name is Kristel (ph). I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I will now turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, you may proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries ' first half 2021 earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice-President of Investor Relations. With me today are Tony Will, CEO, Chris Bohn, CFO, and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development, and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its first-half 2021 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries ' results in detail, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that is not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President, and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin. And good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon, we posted our financial results for the first half of 2021, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of approximately $1 billion. billion. Strong nitrogen demand and lower overall production have tightened the global supply-demand balance supporting much higher prices than in recent years. At the same time, energy spreads between North America and high-cost regions have expanded considerably increasing margin opportunities for our cost advantage network. These factors helped drive an increase in adjusted EBITDA of nearly 25% compared to last year. And we produced our strongest first-half financial results in six years. Additionally, the business continues to generate strong free cash flow, giving us tremendous flexibility as we focus on achieving investment-grade metrics and executing our clean energy initiatives. The first half was not without its challenges, including the natural gas-driven production interruptions we described on the first-quarter call. The first half also saw a continued demonstration of the harm the UAN industry in the U.S. faces from subsidized and dumped imports from Russia and Trinidad. Until the last few years, UAN earned a substantial premium over other upgraded nitrogen products due to the higher capital investment required to produce it and the meaningful agronomic and operational benefit it offers to farmers. As you can see from our recent results, UAN now trades at a significant discount on all upgraded nitrogen products due to unfair trade practices. We have taken the necessary steps to address the situation by petitioning the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission to initiate anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations. We look forward to the result of the ITC 's preliminary vote later this week. Looking forward, we are very bullish about the next 2 years. As Bert will describe in a moment, the need to replenish global coarse grain stocks driving agricultural demand, along with the impact of increased economic activity driving industrial demand, should support all-time record global nitrogen demand over the next 2 years. Forward energy curves are also very favorable over this timeframe. We expect these factors to help keep the global nitrogen supply and demand balance much tighter than we've seen in recent years, supporting an extended period of higher nitrogen pricing and higher margins for our cost advantage network. Longer-term, we believe increased demand for ammonia and its clean energy attributes will become a significant factor in the tighter supply and demand balance, driving further value for our network. We continue to see broad interest in clean hydrogen and ammonia to help meet the world's clean energy needs. As we continue to have discussions with market participants, our focus remains on being at the forefront of this significant opportunity from positioning our network to be the world's leader for blue and green ammonia production to collaborating with other global leaders where our unique capabilities can provide value. We are pleased with the progress we've made and look forward to additional developments in the coming months. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen outlook in more detail. Then, Chris will follow to talk about our financial position before I return for some closing comments. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The global nitrogen supply and demand balance remain far tighter than we have seen in recent years. Underpinned by strong agricultural and industrial demand, plus higher energy prices in Europe and Asia. This has created a highly favorable pricing environment that has persisted into the second half of this year. Based on the agricultural and energy outlook we see today, we believe a positive pricing environment for fertilizer will remain in place, at least into 2023. Strong global nitrogen demand is being led by the world's need to replenish coarse grain stocks. The global coarse grain stocks-to-use ratio was the lowest since 2012, entering this year's spring planting season, commodity prices have risen significantly in response, and farmers are incentivized to maximize yield with fertilizer applications. Given this, we expect to see sustained demand in the second half led by India and Brazil. We expect similar strength from North America and Europe leading into the 2022 application season. We had a positive start to meeting this demand a few weeks ago when we launched our UAN Fill Program. We have built a solid order book for the third quarter at a no-load equivalent price of $285 per ton, though prices remain at a significant discount to urea for the reasons Tony mentioned. Further out, we expect that high demand for coarse grains, especially from China, will contribute to persistent low global stocks into next year. As a result, we believe that stocks won't still need to be replenished at least into 2023, supporting continued strong nitrogen demand. Increased economic activity is also driving higher global industrial demand for nitrogen. In North America, we've seen diesel exhaust fluid sales rise above pre-pandemic levels. Our first-half DES sales were a Company record and we expect overall demand will continue to grow. We've also seen higher demand for ammonia and nitric acid from our industrial customers. Globally, industrial-related demand in China and from phosphate producers has also increased. While we expect demand to remain strong for some time, we believe that global fertilizer inventory in the channel today is low and will need to be rebuilt. So far in 2021, high energy costs in Europe and Asia have lowered operating rates and reduced supply availability, particularly for ammonia and urea, further supporting global pricing. As you can see on Slide 9, energy costs in these regions have increased to over $14 for MMBtu. And Eastern European producers will become the global marginal producer for the time being. The higher energy costs have steepened the global nitrogen cost curve substantially. increasing margin opportunities for low-cost producers, such as CF. The forward curve suggests CF will benefit from favorable energy differentials for the foreseeable future. As a result, we believe we have a tremendous opportunity ahead of us that we leverage our manufacturing, distribution, and logistics capabilities to deliver for our customers. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first half of 2021, the Company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $397 million or $1.83 per diluted share. EBITDA was $994 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $997 million. The trailing 12 months net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.2 billion and free cash flow was $700 million. Based on the outlook Tony and Bert had shared, we're well-positioned to build on these results and continue to generate significant free cash flow. I want to provide additional context to the 2 items we covered in our press release. First, we raised our estimate for capital expenditures for 2021 from around $450 million to approximately $500 million. The increase is driven primarily by our decision to pull a significant maintenance event scheduled for next year into this year. We believe that performing this activity in 2021 is best for the asset and reduces the risk of an unplanned outage during the 2022 spring application season. Going forward, we expect capital expenditures to return to the range of $450 million per year. With this additional maintenance project, the high level of previously planned maintenance, and the additional maintenance from severe weather in February, we estimate that gross ammonia production and sales volume will be around 9.5 million tons and 19 million product tons respectively, both at the low end of our forecasts earlier this year. Looking into 2022, we have a more typical maintenance schedule and would expect to return to approximately 10 million tons of ammonia production and sales volume of 19.5 million to 20 million product tons. Second, we are taking additional steps in line with our focus on achieving investment-grade ratings and positioning the Company to execute our clean energy initiatives. We have announced that we will redeem $250 million of our Senior Notes due June 2023. Which will reduce our gross debt to $3.5 billion. We expect to lower our gross debt to $3 billion by or before the maturity of the 2023 notes. We'll also continue to return cash to our shareholders through quarterly dividends and opportunistic share repurchases at attractive levels. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to recognize everyone at CF for their strong work during the first half. They successfully managed many challenges in the first 6 months of the year, setting us up well for the second half. Most importantly, we did this safely with our recordable incident rate at the end of June at just 0.28 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, significantly better than the industry averages. As we look ahead, we expect strong agricultural and industrial demand to create all-time record global nitrogen demand. The forward curve show very favorable energy spreads to Europe and Asia over the same timeframe which should support robust margins and cash generation. We see good progress on our clean energy initiatives. Taken together, we are well-positioned to create significant shareholder value in the near and longer-term. With that, Operator, we will now open the call to questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets.
Joel Jackson:
Hi. Good morning, everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Joel.
Joel Jackson:
It's very rare where your second half EBITDA is higher than your first half EBITDA. I think it's been a decade. Is that a situation you were expecting this year? And then maybe as you answer that, maybe you could talk about what type of pricing you think you -- visibility you have in the third quarter which happens to fourth-quarter? Thanks.
Tony Will:
We're really pleased with how the year is shaping up. Obviously, we were disappointed with where UAN values were as a result of Russian and Trinidadian dumped imports in the first half of the year. And -- but as you look at our balance sheet at the end of the second quarter, you see it -- our customer advances have basically all of that had moved through the system. And when we launched Phil at 285 [Indiscernable] for UAN, that's a substantial uptick and that's really the price environment that we're looking at in the third quarter of the order book going forward. And then, subsequently, we've been able to get a little bit of further appreciation off of the 285 number. So we're really pleased with how the order book is set up right now and what the back half of the year looks like. We've seen strong interest in ammonia for the fall already, Urea continues to trade in a reasonable spot, and, as I said, UAN looks very good. So, we're really excited about the second half, and we think that it's not just the second half, but it sets up well for both 2022 and 2023.
Joel Jackson:
Okay. Thank you for that. And just on -- maybe following up on free cash flow. Do you think that this year you'll end up with more free cash flow than last year? Obviously, prices are higher and you've got some working capital outflow in the second quarter. [Indiscernible]
Chris Bohn:
Good morning, Joel. From a free cash flow, standpoint is, we talked about in the prepared remarks, we expect to continue to see significant strength. As you mentioned, in this particular quarter, we had a few working capitals, both with accounts receivable and then as we talked about the bleed through the customer advances, which was pretty -- that was about $0.5 billion between those 2. But as Tony just got done mentioning, we're seeing pricing strength due to the energy differential spreads that we're seeing globally for the second half of the year. We still do have, as we mentioned, our product tons will be on the lower end, probably around 19 million product tons. But outside of that, we see a really strong second half of the year from our free cash flow standpoint.
Tony Will:
And overall for the year, as Chris mentioned in his remarks, we are seeing higher Capex this year, principally due to all of the major turnaround events that we've done. That -- that's a little bit of a hit, relative to where we were last year. But we're really, again, really excited about where we sit and what the forward picture looks like.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes, thanks. Good morning, everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
Good morning. The first question on the balance sheet and capital allocation and was hoping to just make sure to clarify, the value you see in having the investment-grade rating, I guess, I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of repaying early status sub 3.5% when your stock trades at, what I think would be north of 10% free cash flow yield. And just where you see the value of the investment-grade credit rating over the long to medium term as you think about the green investment figure you were contemplating.
Tony Will:
I'll take the first cut at this Adam, and then I'll turn it over to Chris for probably more and insightful comments. But there are some real frictional costs that we face in the business from not having investment grade that has to do with lines of credit and some other embedded derivatives with our CHS venture, and those frictional costs go away if we go ahead and regain investment grade. I also believe that there is a signal to the equity holders about the stability and strength of the Company with an investment-grade rating. And we think both of those things are important. So, that's really our focus on why to get back to investment grade.
Chris Bohn:
Yeah. And I would add to that. As we look at some of our growth plans going forward with having the Senior Secured Notes, which are 2026, does limit a little bit of some of the asset moves we can do within our structuring to get the most efficient, whether it be from a tax basis or others in an asset. By getting investment-grade, that Senior Secured drops off of that and allows us a little bit more activity. But I think really where your question's going is, with a return to capital and different things like that, I think what we see over the next several years here with free cash flow generation is we're really going to be able to reduce our debt to that gross target of $3 billion, invest in our clean energy initiatives, specifically those that we've announced already. And then additionally, return cash to shareholders. I think what we're seeing over the next couple of years will allow us to do all 3 of those.
Tony Will:
And the investments that we're looking at right now, both from a green and from a blue perspective, are not huge dollars and are managed easily with our cash flow. And the issue, as you mentioned on the yield, while the yield flow we've got -- we've been building some cash on the balance sheet which is terrific, but for which we're not really earning any kind of return. And so even though it's taken out something that looks nominally like a fairly low-interest rate, it's still better than what we're generating on the cash. And while you're certainly correct that the equity trades at a higher effective overall cost to the business from a cash flow yield perspective, I think that by getting rid of some of those residual costs and drag on the business having the flexibility that Chris talked about in terms of internal structuring of assets to optimize the tax consideration, all of those things that are pretty important things for us to be able to do, and we want to do that first.
Adam Samuelson:
Okay that's really helpful. And then a quick follow-up, in the second quarter, you had about a $100 million year-on-year of incremental costs in the business related to maintenance and the fixed cost absorption with higher turnarounds. And I'm just trying to get a sense of how we should think about the second half in that light, seems like the turnaround maintenance activity is going to be heavy again in the second half. And just thinking about the P&L impact of that for the balance for the year.
Tony Will:
Yeah., so 2 big pieces I would put in the cost side that, and I want to compare it to a year ago. Based on the amount of turnaround activity and other maintenance work that was going on, we ended up with almost $60 million of incremental maintenance and fixed cost write-off associated with the plans in Q2 versus last year. And then on top of that, we ended up with about $100 million that hits the cost of goods salting through the first half of the year. That's based on purchased products for resale, and part of it was based on the commitments we had made to customers. With the plant outages and the turnarounds, We needed to cover those positions and make sure we could provide reliable supply on our commitments. And so, we went out to purchase both urea and ammonia to cover some of those requirements. And so, in an average, or in an otherwise normalized year, you wouldn't see that $100 million hit the COGS line in that kind of way. And so, those are 2 big pieces that I'm thinking we won't have to the same magnitude second half. But you're certainly right that there is ongoing pretty significant turnaround activity in the second half of the year and that may very likely lead to some ongoing fixed costs write-off. But --
Chris Bohn:
Yeah. I would say probably the best way to look at that is just that the total gross ammonia production we talked about at 9.5 million tons and then the product tons at 19 million tons, if you look at that as what we're going to produce in the second half of the year, I think that gives you a pretty good indication of the additional work. But as Tony mentioned, we did have some additional drag here in the first half of the year that we don't expect in the second half.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citi.
P.J. Juvekar:
Hi, good morning. You're purchasing 100% fuel energy in the UK, which could be renewable energy, which is a great step. What is the cost of renewable energy in the UK? And how does that compare to your prior electricity contracts?
Tony Will:
Hey, P.J. Good morning. The incremental cost to us is pretty at de minimis actually. As we are looking at it, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of like 60,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds just to move to renewable versus what we're paying today. So the incremental cost will not be noticeable at all in the system which is why it's so easy to -- per year, the 60,000 to 100,000 is per year, which is why it was very easy to go ahead and move to the 100% renewable on this and reduce our scope to emissions. We're looking at similar opportunities in the U.S. where we can get some incremental renewable energy into the system without significant cost to the overall operations and so we're trying to do this where it makes good sense. We provide a really good baseload for some people because of the consistency of drawing that we have of the network and so we're able to negotiate pretty good rates on that.
P.J. Juvekar:
Great. Thank you. And then today's miss, if you want to call that, came from higher maintenance activity, which you outlined just now, and also higher natural gas costs. How much higher were gas costs compared to your forecast? And I know it can change anytime, but what's your -- based on your hedges and all that and forward curve, what natural gas cost do you expect for you in the second half? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes. P.J., on the cost of gas, what I'd say is more important than the absolute cost that we face is what the energy spread differential is. And so while last year, you saw very low gas costs both in the U.S. and also in the U.K., you also saw global energy costs that were dramatically reduced, partly COVID - driven. And as a result, although our costs were low, our margin opportunity was also compressed because you saw really high operating rates. Right now, what you see is energy cost differentials between the U.S. and Europe, and Asia. It's like $10 or $11 per MMBtu. And so you see a huge margin differential between what the high-cost producers are running at and what our network runs at. And so, as we think about it, despite the fact that our costs are going up, our margins are expanding much more rapidly than what our costs are going up, this is a great environment for us. In fact, I think -- and this is a chart that we'll likely be producing in the future. We've looked at this analysis, that the higher the gas cost is in Henry Hub, because the U.S. is such an important contributor into the LNG market, particularly on more of a spot basis, which you tend to see as higher energy differentials in LNG import regions. And as a result of that, there's typically margin expansion when our cost structures are a little bit higher. This is a good thing for us instead of a headwind. But as we look forward, we tend to just believe in the forward energy -- where the forward curve trades on the NYMEX and some of the other major pricing indices, feeling that we don't have a lot of additional insight over where the market puts forward.
Chris Bohn:
Yeah. P.J., I agree with everything Tony just said. And maybe instead of looking at the overall COGS in total, it's the controllable COGS side that was really hit by maintenance because, as Tony mentioned, when we see expanded gas, sometimes that helps us even more from the pricing. So, the controllable cost per ton, which generally runs in the mid-80s and is significantly higher than that over this first half of the year. We expect that to get back closer to the mid-80s when next year, as we mentioned, we'll be back to normalized operating rates of around 20 million product tons.
Tony Will:
And to add to that what Chris just said, we're -- in a normal year, we do about 4 major turnarounds, which would be an ammonia plant plus some associated upgrades. Because of COVID last year and us trying to protect our employees and minimize the number of contractors we had on-site, We reduced it to just 2 major turnarounds last year, which is one of the reasons we set an all-time ammonia production record last year because we had fewer turnaround activities. This year, we've got 7 instead of 4, so the 2 that we were supposed to do last year that we moved forward, the 4 that were already scheduled for this year. And as Chris mentioned earlier, we're bringing 1 of them from next year backward into this year to make sure that we've got a reliable operation on that asset. In addition to being seven instead of four, two of the turnarounds were our major expansion plans. So our two biggest plants in the network, both the Donaldsonville Six and Port Neal Two ammonia plants and those tend to be a little longer and a little more expensive than the rest of the network, or the average size plants. This is the first time they've undergone a major turnaround. But our expectation as a result of this is that we're well-positioned to be looking at potentially able to set an all-time production record next year for ammonia, and that's one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure that we got Port Neal 2 done this year because our view is, as good as the pricing opportunity is right now, we think next year looks very strong as well and we want to make sure we can run flat out. So, what we're really doing is setting up for the future here and I feel very good about where we're positioned.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of John Roberts with UBS.
Lucas Beaumont:
Good morning. This is Lucas Beaumont on for John. I just wanted to follow up on your discussion there on the gas costs, if I can. I take your point that the differentials are super high right now between Europe and Asia and North America. But just looking at where Chinese coal is, that's probably quite a bit more of a normal historical spread. Just as we look forward then, I was just wondering what gives you confidence that the European and Asian spreads are going to persist as opposed to come back to a more normal level and Chinese coal shifts back into being the marginal cost reducer?
Tony Will:
I think currently Chinese coal is about $9 an MMBtu on the anthracite side. So you're still looking at a $5 relative differential to Henry Hub. $5 is a great place to be. And we don't see indications that China is trying to reduce coal prices. If anything, it wouldn't shock us to see further restrictions on urea exports or really trying to push that down instead of up. And so I think that just the lack of substantial availability, and also a pretty stable price outlook on that suggests to us that China, while always important, may not be the global price setter going forward. Again, Lucas, as we look at the forward curves, we tend to look at what TTF and JKM are and -- as well as the NYMEX on Henry Hub. And if you just look at those differentials, that provides a really terrific margin opportunity for our network.
Chris Bohn:
Yeah. I think, to that point, the spreads right now on the TTF and NBP are $11 compared to Henry Hub, and next year, Strip has them over $7 for the average of the year, so significantly higher than anthracite. And as Tony mentioned earlier, and Bert in his remarks, the supply side is so tight that you have to bid at that particular higher cost. so right now, the marginal producer is European and other Asian producers. And you're seeing that in prices. So the cost curve in a demand-driven market was well above what cost curve economics are right now.
Tony Will:
And as I also mentioned in my remarks, we're expecting an all-time record global nitrogen demand next year. And so as Chris said, what we're really talking about is the very, very highest cost production that needs to be bid in. And in a demand-driven market, we're trading above where the cost curve economics are right now. So again, all of that provides a really great operating environment for us.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne with Bank of America.
Steve Byrne:
Yes, thank you. Tony, you mentioned a forward book on UAN and the 285 or maybe higher in the third quarter. Can you just comment on your forward book in urea and ammonia, how much of your third quarter volumes do you think you already have locked in, and roughly the price? Can you shift volumes to urea just, given it's got a higher gross margin per ton?
Bert Frost:
Yeah. We're -- good morning, Steve. This is Bert. And we're pleased with our -- I'd say very pleased with our order book going into Q3. As we exited Q2, and you can see from our information that we had worked through our order book from the first half and entered into Q3 with very few orders on the books, we built a nice ammonia book for fall and the public pricing in there is $600 to $640 at the terminal level, and then we launched the UAN Fill Program at that 285 NOLA and then stair-stepped it up as we go through -- up through the Midwest, and built a healthy order book for Q3, and now have looked at Q4 pricing. For urea, the market has stayed in the range of $420 to $440 FOB NOLA. And then obviously stair-stepped up to the Midwest and into Canada. And so we have a healthy book on for all 3 products. And we look forward to, as Tony and Chris have both articulated to their comments and questions, we see just due to the structural nature of the global markets for grains and oilseeds, and just some of the climatic difficulties that have taken place, both in the U.S., the Upper Midwest, and Brazil, and just low inventories. All these things coupled together and low inventories of fertilizer probably see a positive pricing environment for Q4 and into the next year. So we're anticipating a nice year.
Steve Byrne:
Thank you, Bert. And just wanted to drill in a little bit on the blue ammonia opportunity for you. It sounds like the engineering to capture and treat that carbon is pretty well understood and underway. But is the rate-limiting step to move forward in that less about demand and more about sequestration? And if so, would you ever consider pursuing a Class VI injection well on your own property just to have control like at Donaldsonville?
Tony Will:
Hi, Steve. Yeah. Currently, the availability of Class VI permanent geological sequestration is potentially the limiting factor. Although, there are opportunities to sequester CO2 tomorrow if we had the dehydration and compression in place for EOR applications. And even for EOR, you are provided some level of the 45Q tax benefit from that. It's not quite the full benefit, but it's available now if we're ready. And that's one of the reasons we're pushing so quickly on dehydration and compression because we want to get that in place and really have that up and running, availing ourselves of the opportunity available now and be able to go immediately into ejection wells when those permits are issued and are ready to go. Relative to us wanting to get into that, that's not really our area of expertise. That's one of the areas where we look to other market participants and want to rely on their expertise. And there's a lot of subsurface geology and things that we just are not set up to do. And so instead of trying to replicate that, we want to partner and work with other people that that's their bread and butter.
Steve Byrne:
Thank you, Tony.
Tony Will:
I would say there are a number of people that have come to us and said the geology within just a couple of miles of Donaldsonville is well situated for Class VI permits and they're going after those kinds of things. And so what we're talking about is, generally speaking, a pretty short-haul run in order to get to them. And -- so that's very encouraging, just in terms of what the overall timeframe and cost structure look like to do the injection.
Steve Byrne:
Thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Vincent Andrews:
Sorry. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Tony, last October when you brought the green and blue strategy to the investment community. Obviously, the free cash flow outlook was a lot different and obviously a lot lower than it is today. And I think at the time, you characterized what the spending levels would be with, at least initially, it was going to be within your annual Capex budget. You mentioned a few questions ago that you weren't talking about big sums of money for the types of stuff that I think you've had in the press release overnight. But maybe you could just size for us over the next few years, as we think about these efforts, is there a dollar range that you're anticipating spending within? And is there a max level that you would spend or any parameters you want to put around this for us?
Tony Will:
Yes. So, the ones that we've announced, the green hydrogen/ammonia project at Donaldsonville, is in the range of $100 million. The dehydration and compression systems that we're looking at for CO2 in Donaldsonville is probably in the range of about 200 million and that should be able to provide us with about 1 million tons of blue ammonia, and I think we can get there in 2 years or by the beginning of 2024. And then, we're also looking at, potentially, a similar dehydration compression unit in Yazoo City, Mississippi, which should be able to provide us another, call it 300 000 -- 250,000 tons to 300,000 tons of blue ammonia. And that would probably be in the $70 million to $80 million range. The projects that we've announced so far are sub 400 million spread over the next 2 to 3 years. And based on the increased margin and cash flow that we're seeing from operations that easily account taking care of, just based on normal spending levels. Plus with the big slug of turnaround activity that we'll have in the rearview mirror here going next year back to more normalized rates, I think we're in a good position to be able to manage all of that. The thing that's exciting though is, as you mentioned, a couple of our announcements, both with the Singapore port ITOCHU consortium looking at ammonia as a marine fuel, which we think there are real legs to that, and probably happening sooner than we initially thought, along with our Mitsui announcement around evaluating blue ammonia opportunities. Since there is a very likely -- chance for us to potentially accelerate some of those opportunities and help this market develop more quickly. And so we're certainly interested in thinking about additional investments above and beyond. But I think again based on our enhanced free cash flow generation right now, we're not worried about being able to fund that. We feel that we're really in a great spot given our ability to leverage our existing asset base and get to blue and green ammonia much more -- both quickly and much more cheaply than other people can replicate that.
Vincent Andrews:
So that -- is it fair to say then that the probability of a very large-scale announcement with a big price tag on it over the next, say 3 years, is pretty low?
Tony Will:
Look, we're excited and believe, just like Mitsui and a lot of other participants, that blue and green hydrogen, blue and green ammonia is going to be to be in short supply relative to the demand that's coming. I think the world is going to need more of it than what exists today. That suggests some of it's got to get built, blue in particular. And if you think about who the best ammonia operators are in the world with the largest network and where there ought to be significant scale advantages, it's us. I'm not taking anything off the table. I'm also not saying there's going to be something that happened. We're going to see how things develop here. But we're excited that there's already an opportunity for us to generate significant volumes at a very low dollar investment.
Vincent Andrews:
Okay. Very clear. Thanks for the update.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly with Stephens.
Mark Connelly:
Thanks. Tony, expectations for corn acres are obviously pretty solid next year. Assuming we continue to have the kinds of logistic challenges that we've had for the past year, is there anything materially different you would do? Given the flexibility of your system, I'm just curious if there's something you learned, and said, "Bert, if we had known this at the beginning we would have changed this?"
Tony Will:
Yeah. I'm going to turn that over to Bert here in just a minute. I would say we continue to look opportunistically at expanding some distribution assets and whether that means incremental UAN tanks or other points of in-market distribution where we can either lease them or buy them, but just to make sure we've got that product staged in-market and take full advantage of supply chain disruptions. I think those kinds of things are easy to do, but I'll turn it over to Bert and ask for other things.
Bert Frost:
I agree. You're spot on. I think the biggest step we've taken is this case with the International Trade Commission. We've been monitoring this for years and suffering for a number of years with the innovation of product coming in at subsidized levels with -- whether it be gas or freight, as well as on consignment to some of the end receivers in the U.S.. And so those 2 issues we brought to the front and advocated for our case, and we believe we'll have a positive outcome. With that, we've been, as Tony said, structurally moving over the last several years in anticipation of supplying a greater amount of UAN into this market. UAN is growing. It has traded as a -- at a discount to urea over the years because of the reasons we have already articulated but planned on growing that and supplying a higher portion of the U.S.' needs with a system that is built for the logistics on all the major railroads, on the rivers, and now with our reach in California and on the East Coast, we feel very good about our position for the future. And I think that another thing, where we've talked about blue and green ammonia and blue and green products, as we were able to bring those products to the market, we believe ammonia in the Ag market and blue ammonia being able to create a low valued -- or low carbon value chain, will bring substantial value to the agricultural community, as well as to CF.
Tony Will:
And one other thing I would add, Mark, we didn't -- we weren't specific about it although Bert touched on ideas. He and his team have worked really hard to try to develop the best relationships we can on the rail side. That can be challenging with certain carriers at some times but we have very competitive rates now out to California. We've invested with some partners out there around tank space and our logistics into that region are really attractive for us, and so our ability to go ahead and satisfy domestic U.S. demand is better now than it's ever been. And again we're really looking forward to the ITC verdict here at the end of the week.
Mark Connelly:
Sure. Just switching gears to Brazil for a second. Brazil farmers clearly want to plant more corn. Last year, they didn't quite get there. But the trend is for more corn down there. How will that -- if you look at this global cost curve and the import situation, if Brazil does finally start to see that corn tick higher, is that going to improve your situation in terms of competition in the Gulf? You've talked about price parity issues being out of whack every once in a while, and I'm curious if that's a partial resolution to it?
Tony Will:
Mark, I think anytime you see international demand continue to tick up and we're seeing record levels of demand for imports in Brazil, India, this year, it's really, really strong. That helps take a little bit of the relief valve pressure off of the U.S. Gulf in terms of product, trying to find liquidity out there. So I think that that's always a good thing. But given where soy prices are, and in fact, given what we view is going to be increasing movement toward biodiesel, and a lot of that coming from oilseeds, I think you'll see ongoing competition between the acre, whether it's soy or corn. And so I think all of this is good because on the one hand, what we don't want to see is a huge oversupply of corn acres, driving a high stocks-to-use ratio, and then you end up being depressed. So I think a nice healthy balance where acres are being competed for is really good, particularly given the fact that now in the -- as economic activity is picking back up after COVID, We're seeing all-time demand into the industrial sector for nitrogen products. And so we don't need to see huge increases in corn acres. In fact, that would be a bad thing for us. I think nice, steady-as-she-goes with the increase in industrial demand is just what the doctor ordered here.
Bert Frost:
In terms of -- what we're seeing in Brazil is exciting for urea demand, or I just say overall nitrogen demand because ammonium sulfate has also increased in imports. We're close to 7 million -- a little over 7 million tons of demand. And the growth in corn acres was negatively impacted by the drought this year, and that's going to impact that whole region. And it has, especially for shipping on the Parana, the river there coming out of Argentina. And so what we're looking at is some structural changes that are taking place in Brazil with ethanol production, especially in the interior, and then combined feeding which is also consuming more feed grains. So when you look at the whole picture and what they're looking at in terms of it doesn't necessarily require more acres, but just higher yields. Higher yields are driven by more nitrogen. So the combination of looking at what they're doing structurally in the interior, and for exports, for higher-end protein production, all combined for a positive nitrogen environment for Brazil.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Piken with Cleveland Research.
Michael Piken:
Yeah, good morning. Just wanted to get a sense of how your ammonia price realizations may trend. I understand that you guys booked some products around 600 and I know Tampa's gone up, but you also have the Mosaic contracts. Could you talk a little about how the price realizations might look for ammonia in the third quarter, and moving forward in terms of the meta volume you have committed, that kind of cost-plus?
Tony Will:
Yeah, you're right. We have a cost-plus contract with Mosaic that is consistent with month-by-month consumption. And we like that contract. They're a very good customer and a good partner. And you have the industrial contracts that are -- many of them are based off Tampa, and Tampa is at a high price today and we anticipate that continuing just due to the global issues we articulated in our preparation as well as Q&A remarks. Just to the high-cost structure in Asia and Europe, they're consuming all the low-cost produced ammonia which is then shipping to those regions, keeping the market tight. And then you look at fall ammonia demand in the U.S.. We're really anticipating corn acreage increasing, probably over 94 million acres. And last year, we had an exceptionally good ammonia season. And we've got a lot of that booked for this fall at those prices that we articulate within a short time, you have to remember. And so we have some very good margin opportunities going forward in the ammonia book.
Michael Piken:
Okay, great. And then you just talked about, on the call being towards the lower end of the volume guidance, 19 million product tons. In terms of the split of where some of those tons might have come out versus last year, could you give us a rough breakdown of how much of it's going to be ammonia versus urea versus UAN? Thanks.
Tony Will:
When we look at it on an ammonia basis, it's easier to communicate that on ammonia because then you're right. The upgrades are moved around, but we shift our production based on margin. And today, we've got some very good margin opportunities across the board. It's a fight for the ton. And I would say at this point with the projections for urea and UAN, that fight will continue. I would say more to come.
Michael Piken:
Okay, thank you.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets.
Andrew Wong:
Hey. Good morning. So just given the very strong cash flow that you'll probably be generating and it seems like it's more than enough for your Capex priorities and debt reduction, would you consider a bigger share repurchase program or some sort of special dividend?
Tony Will:
Probably not a special dividend, but certainly are considering what we would do in the way of a share repurchase program. Although as Chris has talked about in the past, I think we are much more likely to be larger, bigger chunks opportunistic as opposed to a ratable program. We think that going about it that way provides even additional leverage and return opportunity for our equity holders but, certainly, that's one of the things that we're talking about.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Duffy Fischer with Barclays.
Duffy Fischer:
Good morning. Just a question on the timing around the anti-dumping, so a favorable versus unfavorable decision coming up here. What are the steps after that? And then if it's favorable in the near-term, do you think you'll see a similar phenomenon here with UAN as we saw with phosphate where the parties this is against extensively just stopped delivering and fought this until some kind of conclusion [Indiscernable] What should we expect from this process before its final and its impact on the market?
Tony Will:
Morning, Duffy. The decision I think is coming out on Friday. Our expectation is that if we get a favorable outcome, we would expect UAN to go back to the historical practice of trading at a premium to other upgraded nitrogen products. That's really where I should trade as I mentioned in my remarks, it's both more capital intensive, and therefore, you need to earn an appropriate rate of return on that incremental capital investment to incent people to make that product. And it also has significant agronomic and operational efficiencies for farmers. And so because it's both good for the grower and its higher cost to produce, it ought to carry a premium, and that's where it was, and that's really where it should be in the absence of dumped tons. So that's where we think it goes to the longer term. The U.S. domestic manufacturing capacity is sufficient to serve the U.S. demand. And so there's really no need for those imported, particularly the subsidized tons to show up over here. And so -- think we're well-positioned to satisfy U.S. demand and what it does then is it just means we don't have to export those tons not like we used to. In terms of overall timing on when imports would stop showing up, I think that's a little bit TBD but we're talking about relatively short-term on that. In the event that it's not a favorable outcome, I think it's just business as usual because that's the world that we're living in currently. So it's not like there's a downside to what today is that -- we're operating with all of those dumped tons coming in today and we're finding a way to navigate it despite the fact that it's challenging. Bert, do you have other thoughts on the timing?
Bert Frost:
Well, we've been given some timing ideas and expectations and that -- the official first response is on Friday. And then something by early Q4, we're expected to have a result. And then final decisions could go as long as into Q1 of next year. But I want to address more of the customer position. We have long-term relationships that are obviously decades-long but also contractually laid out and some soft contractual commitments that we work very closely with our customers on supply. And so those who have been with us or against us in this case, we've been talking to and will continue to work with. And that's why we did a Fill Program in anticipation, just as a good faith that was appropriately priced based on the constraints of today which, again, are high levels of imported subsidized product. But going forward, we will still work with our customers and be aligned with what is an appropriate price in the market and continue to communicate and support and help them grow their business which in the long-term helps the American farmer and the American economy.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. My understanding is that in the third quarter and at some other times, you sell ammonia to industrial customers on a cost-plus basis. Should those legacy contracts be revisited? That is, are you giving away too much in this environment? Can you move the contractual terms, or are you just stuck because they buy seasonally in a weak quarter for you in terms of volume?
Tony Will:
Jeff, most of our industrial business, part of the reason that it tends to be lower priced because is it's ratable. It doesn't tend to be seasonal. And so there certainly is some level of our business that is on a cost-plus basis. A lot of those contracts either come up every year, every couple of years for reevaluation. And we think about what the market dynamics are from an S&P balance in terms of how much of that business we want to look at and what the -- how big the plus is in terms of the adder. Some of those contracts at various points in time were pretty attractive to us. Obviously, right now, the ammonia supply agreement with Mosaic is far in their favor but for a number of years, it was way in our favor and that was a very helpful contract when the rest of the business was under pressure to have enhanced margin coming out of that. So some of those end up being a natural hedge for us which isn't a bad thing at all. But it's certainly one of those things that Bert and his team evaluate how much and how high. And those are the things that will come probably under a little bit of pressure more than anything else as we see ammonia applications in clean energy beginning to expand. And so when we're able to make the blue ammonia that we're talking about earlier and are able to service the demand that we'll pay appropriate premiums for it. The place that's going to come out of it is the relatively lower value industrial business that we serve today.
Bert Frost:
The reason Q3 ammonia is the lowest generally, is because Q2 and Q4 are our Ag ammonia movement periods, and they're obviously at higher prices. So the actual price throughout the 12 months for our industrial book is fairly consistent, gas-based or Tampa-based. But you'll see that, I think, do well, just based on where the Tampa average is today.
Jeff Zekauskas:
And then for my follow-up, I realize that CF has been a pretty good stock this year but if you look at it over a longer period of time, the share price has struggled. And it sounds like you don't really want to buy back shares in that you want to buy them at a more attractive price. And historically, CF has really not been interested in raising the dividend. And the market doesn't seem to want to pay a high multiple for your cash flow, for whatever reason. So, what do you do? How do people make money in CF over a longer period of time? You don't want to lever up. What are the levers that are going to lead to an above-average return over time, or are those out of your hands?
Tony Will:
Yeah. No, Jeff, I appreciate that question. And I think you have to look at our return in the context of other companies within the space or within the nitrogen space. And I'd say if you look at, I think 10-year return numbers, we're at the top of the heap in terms of where our peer group has been. And I think that, certainly, there have been some challenges in the interim during that period of time. But I also think we've done some things that make the Company stronger today than it's ever been in the past. And if you look at how much cash flow we're generating today and how many shares there are outstanding, the ratio is better today than it was even back in the highest-priced days of the stock and/or the highest EBITDA that we were generating in the Company's history. And so I think the sector may not be in that much favor right now in the marketplace, but I think the fundamentals of this business are better than they've ever been in the past. And I would also say, we've taken out, I think over 50 million shares out of our share count through repurchases. And it's probably even more than 50 million shares. And that actually has not led to any dramatic improvement. And so I'm not sure to share repurchase is the answer. I think what really does drive value for investors in the near term, it's the fundamentals that we're looking at, which are better than anything we've seen in the last 7 or 8 years. And in the longer term, it is the fact that ammonia and hydrogen, I think, are really the clear, clean energy sources of the future as economies decarbonize. And we're in the best position to capitalize on that. And as demand starts ramping up and exceeding supply, I think what you'll see is asset values will tend toward replacement costs, which is way above where they are today. And so it gives us the opportunity to think about how we want to participate in that market place and it puts growth clearly back on the radar screen, whether that's inorganic or organic. But the fact of the matter is, I firmly believe that you move the clock forward several years and ammonia is going to be in tight supply, and people are going to be racing to need to build it. And when that happens, you see a dramatic uptick in terms of asset value. So we're very optimistic about the return profile that we offer to our investors.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Adrien Tamagno with Berenberg.
Adrien Tamagno:
Good morning. I have a question about the UAN volumes. It seems it went down much less than urea and ammonia in Q2. Can you explain why it was that the case and if these products will be more subject to maintenance in H2 relative to others?
Bert Frost:
The UAN volume, we did a very good job of moving that product but, as Tony mentioned in one of the first questions, the pricing was lower and we had a book to carry it in from Q1 and Q4 and then just finished out in Q2. And so, as we've talked about, we have a competition for value in the Company. And after the freeze-offs in February, we stepped in and purchased urea -- a substantial amount of urea compared to our historical actions in that market to cover our customer commitments which we value and make sure that we do cover, because of our ability to produce more UAN s. So if it's not easily available to go into the market and purchase UANs, we chose to purchase urea and some ammonia and run UAN on a very high level to meet customer commitments. So across-the-board, on every product we were able to deliver on time, and even with the substantial disruption that took place in February and March. And so that's why you saw a volume uptick. And we covered the volume deficit with urea, and you will see how that goes going forward.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks to everyone for joining us this morning. And we look forward to speaking with you in follow-up calls and also at upcoming conferences.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Quarter 2021 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Beth. I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF, Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning and thanks for joining the CF Industries' first quarter 2021 earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its first quarter 2021 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we will review these results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday afternoon we post our financial results for the first quarter of 2021 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $398 million. These results are really the story of nitrogen prices that increase throughout the quarter, somewhat offset due to lower production and corresponding sales volumes. There were a lot of things happening during the quarter, such as winter weather driving up LNG demand and corresponding gas prices, and one very large winter storm event in the U.S. But if you take all these impacts together, they roughly offset each other. Let me provide a bit of color on our response to these events. But I'd like to refer you to slide six and seven in our posted materials. Back in February, meeting the Presidents' Day Weekend, an extreme winter storm hit the U.S. Gas suppliers in the several of our locations curtail gas deliveries and we were informed that we would likely face force majeure hard shutdowns. Our team mobilize quickly, discussed various options, and decided on the following course of action. Given we're facing the loss of gas delivery in to our plants and would be shut down anyway, we opted to effectively sell the gas we had contracted for back to our suppliers by net settling our gas delivery contracts at prevailing market prices. We also reduced operating rates to minimum levels at some plants that we're still receiving gas, and sold the excess gas above those minimum levels back to suppliers. The result was a gain on sale of gas of $112 million. Slide six provide some details of how we mitigate gas price risk and how the February storm affected gas prices. However, there were pretty significant impacts for operations as a result of the shutdowns that freeze us. We experience some prolonged outages and the increased maintenance expense, including fixed cost write-offs as a result of the abrupt disruption and extreme cold. And of course, gas price rose for that portion of our gas that was not hedged. Because we lost a fair bit of production, we chose to go to the market and purchase urea barges so that we could meet existing customer commitments, which also cost us a small amount. The net result of all of this is shown on slide seven of our materials. Net-net, our sale of gas mitigated our increased costs, so we came out of it basically even. Now, we did lose production and the corresponding positive margins we would have received. So the full picture was a net loss for us. But at least we recovered our out-of-pocket costs. Hopefully that provides some context for big, unusual moving pieces. Even with all the challenges we faced in the quarter, we feel very positive about where we are at this point of the year. We had solid results. And Bert is now going to take you through the two main factors of why we are so bullish. First, coarse grain stocks to use ratios are extremely low, meaning, we expect grain prices to remain strong through several growing cycles and farmers are incented to maximize yield, driving increased demand for nitrogen. Second, global energy spreads have continued to widen, such that production costs for Eastern European plants are actually higher than China now. Meaning that nitrogen cost curve is not only steeper, but substantially wider for fourth quartile producers. Therefore, nitrogen pricing is expected to remain quite strong. With that, let me turn it over to Bert.
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. As we look at the first quarter and into the foreseeable future, we believe that positive conditions in the global nitrogen market are likely to prove resilient for some time. Since late 2020, global commodity crop prices have been rising steadily driving strong nitrogen demand. Global urea prices rose alongside this demand and prices for other nitrogen products followed. Our team did a good job of capturing these opportunities in the first quarter, especially as they dealt with the impact of the severe winter weather on our production volume. I will note however, that our UAN segment results do not fully reflect the positive environment at hand. We continue to face challenges there from subsidize Russian UAN imports that have depressed prices in North America. Coming out of the first quarter, the spring application season in North America has progressed very well. Nitrogen prices have remained high, demand is strong and supply is tighter than the market expected. As we look further out, positive agricultural fundamentals are setting up an extended period of strong margins across the entire value chain. Strong global demand for all major commodity crops has resulted in low stocks to use ratios and higher commodity crop prices. Given where those ratios are, as well as the continued robust demand for commodity crops, we do not believe stocks will be replenished in just one growing season. In fact, if you look back to the last time we had stocks to use ratios, this low, it took several growing seasons to recover, as you can see on slide nine. As global stocks recover slowly, commodity crop prices should remain higher for some time, supporting strong financial conditions for all aspects of the channel, from producers to wholesalers to retailers to farmers, to green originators, to green processors and protein. We believe this will underpin heightened demand for nitrogen into next year and likely beyond. CF is well-positioned for this opportunity due to an increasingly favorable global energy pricing environment. As you can see on slide 10, energy costs in Europe and Asia have both dramatically increased from the lows of last year and returned to sizeable differentials compared to Henry Hub prices. This has steep in the global cost curve significantly. Additionally, with European natural gas at around $9 per MMBtu today, and the outlook from the forward curves, we expect that Eastern European producers will act as a marginal producer in the near term. These conditions have created a very positive environment for the company. The steeper global cost curve increases margin opportunities for low cost producers such as CF. We also expect their traditional nitrogen price reset in the third quarter will be at levels well above the last few years. We are operating in the most favorable environment we've seen in many years. And we believe this will have a relatively long tail. We expect that the need to rebuild global stocks will persist at least through next year, resulting in strong economics across the agricultural value chain and robust global nitrogen demand. At the same time, forward curve suggests CF will benefit from favorable energy differentials for the foreseeable future. As a result, we believe this will have a tremendous opportunity ahead of us as we leverage our manufacturing distribution and logistics capabilities to deliver for our customers. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks Bert. For the first quarter of 2021, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $151 million or $0.70 per diluted share. EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA were $398 million. The trailing 12 months net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.5 billion and free cash flow was approximately $1.1 billion. These results reflect generally higher year-over-year prices, partially offset by lower year-over-year volumes and higher realize natural gas prices. They also reflect how we offset the challenges we faced in the first quarter through management actions. As Bert described, the nitrogen pricing outlook through the rest of the year is very favorable in comparison to last year. Partially offsetting this benefit will be a number of factors. We expect gross ammonia production to be around 9.5 million to 10 million tons compared to 10.4 million tons last year. This reflects the impact of the plan turnaround activities and the production we lost due to the weather. This level of production, along with lower inventories to start the year will likely result in the company selling between 19 million and 19.5 million product tons this year, compared to over 20 million product tons last year. We also expect our natural gas cost will be higher compared to last year. Based on forward curves, we would expect our average MMBtu price at the end of the year to be similar to 2018 or 2019. Finally, we anticipate that our capital expenditures for this year will be in the range of $450 million. This will be much closer to our capital expenditures in 2018 and 2019, reflecting a return to normal level of plan maintenance and turnaround activities. That said, the positive nitrogen industry conditions we have described should support expanded margins for the company compared to 2020, driving significant free cash flow this year. We will continue to invest in growth in line with our clean energy strategy. The recent announcement of our partnership with thyssenkrupp on our Donaldsonville Green Ammonia project was an important step forward in our efforts. The cost of this project fits within our typical annual capital expenditure budget. We also continue to advance discussions with other potential partners for green and blue ammonia, validating the broad opportunities we believe will be available in the future. In March, we repaid the $250 million remaining on our senior secured notes that were due in December. As we remain focused on investment grade, and positioning the company to execute our clean energies growth strategy, we'll continue to evaluate opportunities to further reduce gross debt over time. We will continue to return cash to our shareholders through our quarterly dividend and opportunistic share repurchases at attractive levels. With that Tony provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for their fantastic efforts during the quarter, especially the time when many of our employees were still working remotely. I am particularly proud of our teamwork and collaboration, critical thinking and data driven decision making, and our agility at recognizing and capitalizing on disruptions in the market. We are very optimistic about where the company is positioned. We believe our first half results will be strong. And our outlook for the remainder of this year and into next year is very positive. Nitrogen industry dynamics for producers in North America are the most favorable we've seen in years. This along with the progress we were making on our clean energy growth strategy positions us well to create shareholder value in the near and longer term. With that operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. [Operator Instructions] As a courtesy to others on the call, we ask that you limit yourself to one question. Should you have additional questions, we ask that you re enter the queue and we will answer additional questions as time allow. Your next question is from Joe -- our first question is from Joel Jackson from BMO. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson:
Good morning, everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Joel.
Joel Jackson:
Tony, I know you don't really give guidance. It would seem like Q2 is setting out extremely well, when we think about order book lags and where nitrogen prices have trended across the quarter in Q1 into Q2. Can you give us a little bit of color on how good Q2 could look versus Q1? Like could we see 50% higher earnings in Q2 versus Q1? So any color you can add would be really helpful to understand how well prices -- stronger price are going into your P&L?
Tony Will:
Yes, Joel. As you mentioned, I'm not going to give real firm guidance, but just a little bit of color here. Gas price is behaving itself in North America. So our cost structure is kind of where we expect it to be. And gas prices internationally have really blown out. So the TTF price in Europe, the JKM price in Asia, it's very high. So to bid production into the marketplace in those regions requires strong nitrogen pricing. And that not only sets up really well for Q2, but I would anticipate that that's going to be, and Bert is going to get into this, I'm sure later, that's going to mean that the reset in terms of what our fill program is -- our expectation is that'll be quite a bit higher than it's been in recent years. So, I don't think this ends at Q2. I think we've got a really strong rest of the year in front of us. And in fact, based on, as Bernard talked about the stocks-to-use ratio, and it taking more than one growing season to recover. We think this is at least into 2022, if not beyond, so we're really excited about it.
Operator:
Your next question is from John Roberts from USB. Your line is open.
John Roberts:
Thanks. Could you discuss the UAN results. It looked like there was some something unusual that happened there?
Tony Will:
No, I think it's a reflection of several things like I articulated in the prepared remarks. We have had an influx of low cost subsidized Russian UAN consistently and that's pressure, obviously, all of the importing regions, which is East Coast, Gulf Coast and West Coast. And then, I think you have to remember, we're coming out of a pandemic. And when we were in 2020, it was a risk off market for globally. And so you saw low prices in different regions and inability or not a desire to maybe to purchase at first. And so we had a low price environment in Q3, Q4, and into Q1. And then our situation, I think, as well as others, you have logistical assets that move as well as plant production, even with the disruptions that you have to keep moving. And so we always have a forward book on. The prices started moving up for UAN, mid Q1. And so you're not going to have an immediate price realization anyway. And so we expect to see more of that in Q2. And then as Tony mentioned, the reset will be at a different level than it has been, and we expect that to be very positive. So more thing or better things to come, we think. And we're watching all the variables and keeping our focus on that.
Chris Bohn:
This is Chris, John. The other thing I would add is. In the UAN segment there, it's a little misleading gross margin there, because the items that Tony spoke about, the natural gas settlement, we put was booked all to ammonia, where those higher maintenance costs and fixed costs write-offs were against all the product lines. So if you adjust sort of that out, you're closer to something that's more similar to what it was last year during Q1.
John Roberts:
That's helpful. And then could you discuss the competition between the industrial markets and the agricultural markets for ammonia, because you've got industrial recovering here at the same time?
Bert Frost:
Yes. So I think industrial caught up. We had lost our spring program in December. And then prices moved up also in Q1. And so we have a fairly attractive Q2 Ag application season, not only volumetrically, but you're right, prices improve. And I think that's going to reflect well for the fall. Fall application takes place in November. And we would project today based on corn prices and availability, that that price will be very attractive. On the industrial side, that's a reflection of globally and really for all the products; urea, UAN, ammonia nitrate and ammonia, we have a very tight market. And as Tony articulated driven by energy cost differentials, high cost producers it has been attractive to import and buy and decrease or even stop that production of ammonia, that quickly tightened up the global ammonia market in the Baltics, Blacks as well as in Tampa, and you've seen prices move up to above $500. It's been many, many years since we've been at that level. Yet healthy margins on the phosphate side. So the phosphate producers are trying to acquire enough ammonia for their operations. And then you've had a recovery economically, which is driven the industrial demand for synthetic fibers in different areas along the Gulf Coast, as well as globally, you're going to see a tight ammonia market through this year and probably into next. And I think you're right, the competition for that time, there's a portion of our book that's consistent with industrial demand. And then we normally get a better margin uplift from Ag, but we'll be watching that and moving appropriately, or as necessary to capture that opportunity.
Operator:
Your next question is from Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson:
Thanks. Good morning, everyone. So maybe, Bert, to your point on -- the cost curve has deepened pretty materially. I'm trying to think one, with $9, Eastern European Gas. How do you think about that kind of helping set a floor price at NOLA? It's below where it is now. But it's well above where it's been the last couple of years, I'd imagine. And against that, how do I think about the ammonia and UAN kind of end values? Seems like those spreads versus the urea and value have returned to more normal levels here in the last couple months, where they've been pretty depressed for the last couple of years. I'm just trying to think about how you think about that going forward?
Bert Frost:
Yes. So your question on setting a floor at NOLA, I would kind of take it to a global, it sets a global floor. And you're going to see that in the -- we've already seen in the India tender that was open this morning or yesterday, and the prices that reflect probably an AG number of 320 to 330, a metric ton FOB. And you have significant amount of demand that needs to be covered without heavy inventories globally. So coupled with expensive, or a high cost producers now having an inability to export or participate in the export market, low inventory levels globally, a need for Brazil and India to consistently be in the market and purchase from now from this point forward. And then, you'll get into -- our season will pick up later on in the year. You have a very good platform for a very healthy floor level, probably higher than what people are anticipating.
emergence:
Operator:
Your next question is from Ben Isaacson from Scotia Bank. Your line is open.
Ben Isaacson:
Thank you very much and good morning, everyone. Quick question on UAN again. You keep talking about subsidized Russian UAN imports. You saw what Mosaic did on the phosphate side. Can you talk about whether that's something you guys are exploring or will explore in terms of potential countervailing duties?
Tony Will:
Good morning, Ben. Yes, in reference to the comments, it's just a fact. And so I just wanted to lay out there that situation that has taken place. And you're right from the Mosaic situation that was subsidized gas. And so, I just think as more we've had several questions reflecting the poor UAN performance. And when you peel back the onion and look at that, there's a direct correlation to the incoming product, and the resulting nature that drove down prices, so it's just more to inform you.
Chris Bohn:
And that, I'd say, Ben, the other thing I tack on here, which is the ammonia that goes into MAP and DAP is a relatively small percentage of the aggregate total cost of production. The gas that goes into producing UAN is 70$ or 80% of the cost of production. So when FTC found that there was subsidized gas and therefore duties that the Russians needed to pay, if that's true on MAP and DAP, it should be doubly true in UAN. So I'd say it's something we're continuing to take a hard look at.
Operator:
Your next question is from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hey. This is Steven for Vincent. Thanks for taking my question. Just wanted to ask a question on the carbon capture initiative. And whether or not there was kind of any more color to provide around substance and timing in regard to those discussions, and anything of that nature would be much appreciated?
Tony Will:
Yes. I think it is something as we talked about that we continue to have conversations with quite a few different people who are looking to partner on that. And it's really because of, I would say, the ability are actually what we're doing today by capturing our CO2. There are lot of industrial organizations today do not have that capture. So we have a net position where we're already removing the CO2 from our ammonia stream and capturing that. So that puts us ahead of a lot of other parties from that. But we're being diligent as we look at what opportunity we want to join. There is no known right now at this particular time classics permits that have sequestration points. But there is obviously a tax credit also for EOR. So I would say right now we continue to explore those opportunities and we're talking to several parties on that.
Chris Bohn:
And I'd say not just the Donaldsonville but there's opportunities in a number of places across our network, including both of our plants in the UK.
Operator:
Your next question is from Steve Byrne from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Luke Washer:
Hi, good morning. This is Luke Washer on for Steve. So you guided ammonia shipments this year to 19.5 million to 20 million tons. And I guess just thinking about the outages that you had in 1Q, how are your ammonia plants running right now as you enter into 2Q? And how does that set up the cadence of your shipments over the course of the year?
Tony Will:
So, it wasn't ammonia shipments that we were talking about between 19 million and 19.5 million, its total product shipments, ammonia production is kind of 9.5 million to 10 million tons. We tend not to break out sort of current operating status of our plants. That's one across the entirety of the network is just one of those things that we believe is kind of competitively sensitive. So we tend not to provide a real time update on all of that. But I think our guidance reflects both the increased level of turnaround. So we had this year versus last year. And on the fact that we did have a big winter storm event that didn't have some knock on kind of outages associated with it. So when we look at those two things together, we feel pretty comfortable about the guidance that Chris provided both in terms of ammonia production for the year and an aggregate sales volume in terms of product tons for the year.
Operator:
Your next question is from Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael Piken:
Yes. Just wants to get in a little bit more in terms of your thoughts. I know you mentioned that you expect higher seasonal lows. How are you thinking about summer fill for UAN. And just in terms of balancing the desire to keep imports out versus the more favorable supply demand backdrop? And I guess, in phosphate, there's already been some fill. A little bit of sales done. When you sort of expecting to come out with a fill price? Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yes. When you look at summer fill, we've had different programs for different years, depending on when demand materializes, what our situation and what the kind of the opportunity is for inventory. And we believe this year, because of the tail that's needed for applications, that you're going to have a later season than normal. The latest we've gone is August, the earliest we've gone as June. So I would tend to be on the latter side of that spread for moving the or announcing the field program. Inventories are going to be low for all products. And just looking at the imports to-date and the production to date, feathering in what was lost in the winter storm in February amongst the different producers. And again, we're projecting 91, 92 million acres, when you look at it today, and talking with some of the different participants in the grain markets, you're probably going to be leaning or at least me personally leaning more towards 94 million acres. And then, as I talked about earlier, additional applications for yield, you're going to have a very robust demand coming probably -- starting, it's already has started and pulling contracts early. So I don't see big inventories. And you're going to need to fill those inventories because on the back of this year and the back of this yield, if it's even average or good, we're going to have to repeat that in 2022. And so, when you're looking at the fill programs, as well as the fall application of ammonia, I'm not going to give a price today. We've had several customers asking us for that. But we expect it to be at a higher level. One, because it's worth it. Nitrogen is what's going to give you yield. It's at a good value. And as I said earlier, every one of the value chain, even at whatever levels we come out with is at a healthy profitability level and balance sheet position. So this is a very good time for our industry. And we're going to be excited to launch our full program and work with our customers to make it a success for them as well as us. Beth, do you want to go to the next question?
Operator:
Yes, sir. Your next question is from Andrew Wong from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Andrew Wong:
Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just following on an earlier question about just the coming quarters. I know it's hard to give us guidance. Can you just help us maybe qualitatively understand how much volume was sold forward into Q2 and Q3? And how we should think about realized prices versus some of the pretty high prices we're seeing in the market today, given the nitrogen prices have kind of moved up pretty quickly and pretty sharply. So that can kind of throw the expectations or unrealized prices off sometimes? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes. So qualitatively, I think I mentioned on the last review, we're in a very, very good environment. So that's kind of the statement that's giving you the guideline. Quantitatively, we don't have anything sold for Q3. And we'll be looking at that and assessing it as we move forward. For Q2, as I said earlier, when we always have a book going into the quarter, and we have been active every day in the market, if you do your channel checks, we're selling, we still have products to sell for Q2. So there are different products move at different times. And ammonia is generally first. And so those programs are part of our program was sold in December and part of it was left open for this period. And then you move into urea and UAN for wheat and then as you move further north and we're just starting those applications in the north as well as Canada. That's for ammonia and that will move then to urea and UAN. The bulk of the UAN market will be in the latter part of May and early June. And we think we're well positioned for that also and have tons available for the pivot run which is your irrigated runs as well as the rice run. So more to come. But we like where we are.
Operator:
Your next question is from Mark Connelly from Stephen Inc. Your line is open.
John Rider:
Good morning. This is John Rider on from Mark. So, we saw a fairly normal seasonal swing to coal this winter in China and as far as we can see a pretty normal shift back where are you seeing Chinese operating rates right now? And what are you assuming in your global forecast for Chinese operating rates in the rest of 2021?
Tony Will:
I'll start, John with coal, Chinese coal. There had been a lot of discussion about Chinese coal softening and specifically anthracite over the past year. And what you've seen is it's been relatively consistent at about $160 per metric ton. Therefore, really on an energy equivalent, we've seen the seven to 750 per MMBtu , equivalent of gas on that. So from a Chinese perspective, we've continued to see them be the marginal producer, but as Bert mentioned, in his remarks, we started to see here is with the expansion of energy differentials is that you're actually seeing Eastern European and Asian be equivalent to those marginal producers and a widening of the cost curve in that fourth quartile along with the deepening of the slope. So I'll let Bert talk maybe about what type of exports he's expecting for this year from China.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Specific to China, and obviously, we're following it, because they do represent roughly 10% of the export market, and Yara [ph] have been the marginal producer that expanded contract, as pricing allows, and have been active participants in the India tenders. So on a percent of capacity, we estimate, just like some of the publications, they've been in the 70, 71 72. And that would be laying out for the year, about 56 to 57 million tons of production. As exports, we're estimating around 5 million tons. But the thing we have to remember and pay attention to is consumption in China. Consumption in China over the last four years has risen from 48 million tons, we estimate to 52 million tons. So an additional 4 million tons. What is happening? Well guess what? They need to also fertilize for yield. And the tremendous imports that have taken place in China of corn and soybeans this year, is a reflection of their inability to produce that. One, it's a shortage of water, and soil. But it seems to me that they're now trying to take care of some of that, at least for the next growing season. So positive dynamics out of China, that as a 5 million ton exporter, and I think the majority of that will go to India. We're expecting India this year to be a 10 million ton importer. So the swings and the ability to move the market out of China is not the same than it was, let's say, six or seven, eight years ago.
Chris Bohn:
And I think point Bert, we are seeing increased economic activity within China. And so, that means, on the industrial side, there's more usage, it goes to your -- Bert's point on consumption. And the other thing that we're watching very closely, and Bert mentioned this about India, is our expectation is that domestic production in India is going to be down. And therefore, based on consumption, they're going to be larger importers, which likely China is going to take a big piece of that. So, again, we're very constructive not only in terms of the overall SME [ph] balance, but with energy differentials, where they are and the costs of the high end where it is that suggests, a very favorable nitrogen pricing deck for North American producers.
Tony Will:
And one last thing you got to remember about China. In the last three years, there have been 12 million tons go offline and closed. That's a significant move. When you're adding this year we estimate of exportable tons, 2.5 million tons. And so the closures which will continue, make China basically a domestic producer with a marginal ton that's coming out. That's okay.
Operator:
Your next question is from Rikin Patel from Exane. Your line is open.
Rikin Patel:
Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. And just firstly a follow up on the market and your comments on India. I think you said production is expected to be down this year. How does that play into your expectations or views on some of the new plants that are ramping out there right now? And then secondly, just on free cash flows in keeping with the guide for $450 million of CapEx this year. Can you just help us understand the phasing of that into Q2 and H2? And then secondly, on customer advances, I saw there was a slightly higher step up this quarter. Does that mean that we can assume a higher outflow in Q2? Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yes. So I'll deal with a couple of those and then I'll turn them over to Bert and Chris. On the India front, there's been a number of new plants that have started up over the past couple of years, [Indiscernible] and Matix and, and others, and what we have not seen as an aggregate increase in the amount of domestic production. So, it looks like as some new production comes on, some older productions either curtail, they're taken offline, and particularly with where LNG is trading right now, our expectation is that in most cases, it's going to be cheaper based on the efficiencies or the inefficiencies of some of those older plants to import domestically trade or globally traded urea as opposed to try to run those. There's also as we understand it's been because of the impact of COVID and what's going on over there right now, real challenges on supply chain and labor issues. And so, again, our understanding is, our expectation is for the full year, we don't anticipate there to be excess production coming online on a net basis in India. I'm trying to remember the other questions.
Rikin Patel:
The other question was on capital expenditures?
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean, in general, we like to do turnarounds during the portion of the year where pricing is the lowest. So that suggests kind of end of the second quarter and into the third quarter. And then, we'd like the plants to be kind of up online, again, fully running, so that we can hit fall application of ammonia and kind of pre stock for Q1 and Q2. So, most of the time, as you get into the back end of Q2, and most of Q3, that's where the vast majority of our turnaround expenditures happen, at least at the plant level.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. I think if you look at our historical quarterly spend on CapEx and use that Tony mentioned, we're pretty set when we're taking plants down and doing the turnaround work, that would be a good proxy to allocate where you would see that fourth, fifth this year.
Bert Frost:
And if you look at India over the last six or seven years, they basically produced between 24 and 24.5 million tons since 2015 year-in, year-out even as Tony said with the addition of these new plants, and from our channel check, they're late. And they don't -- when they do come up, they don't run a capacity, they don't come immediately up to 100% of capacity. So this is a multiyear issue. And we're still seeing multiyear growth in import that may not continue at the current pace, but it's going to maintain a healthy level in the foreseeable future.
Tony Will:
And then on the customer advance front, as Bert indicated, we have not taken a bunch of Q3 orders right now. So the customer advances that are on the books are really for Q2 deliveries. So to your point, as we go ahead and fulfill those orders, we'll get the rest of the cash in. But our expectation is that customer advance number will correspondingly get whittled down. And Bert also talked earlier about kind of thoughts on timing, which for launching fill, it also corresponds to a new bank of kind of customer advances in orders that he's looking more likely than not toward the later end of the window as opposed to the earlier end of the window. So all of that suggests a lower customer advance number is we're kind of working our way through the quarter.
Operator:
Your next question is from Roger Spitz from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Roger Spitz:
Thanks. Good morning. Regarding your comments in the prepared remarks, on your focus on it ratings, are you specifically pushing for an IQ rating from agencies? And what have they been saying to you about what it might take to get that rating? What do you need to do?
Tony Will:
Yes, so Good morning, Roger. Thanks for the question. Related to as we are looking at getting back to investment grade, the one thing we believe right now is our metrics are in place for investment grade. If you look at what we've done, just recently here, you're taking our gross debt down to $3.75 billion and really our net debt under $3 billion. That puts us on an LTM at 2.1 times net debt to EBITDA. And with the strong outlook we see happening here in the market, not only as Tony and Bert mentioned, through 2021. But in the 2022. We see an opportunity not only to invest in sort of our growth projects, but also take down a little bit more debt, and also return cash to shareholders as well. So I think we'll probably want to take down a little bit more debt, and we believe that should be able to get us to investment grade. What we're hearing from the rating agencies is really just to see how the market develops. And I think right now, what we're seeing is a very strong, not only this year, but in following year.
Bert Frost:
Yes. I think the other thing I would just add to that Roger is, as we got into kind of the spring and into the summer of 2020 last year with a big kind of risk off position in the equity market and some real questions in terms of what was going on in demand. Broadly, the rating agencies were taking a very conservative view of materials and industrials. And there was a lot more downgrades or negative watches than there was anything positive. And although our results were down a little bit sequentially in 2020, over 2019, demand for our products remained really strong. And it was really a pricing environment. And as Chris said, based on the pricing environment that we're seeing now, and this is a prolonged period, along with continued reduction in debt. I think we have a very strong argument even without taking down incremental debt, the word investment grade company at this point, but we're continuing to have those conversations, I wouldn't say they're quick to respond. They tend to be fairly risk averse. So they want to see that its there for the long run before they make a move like that and give us the bump up. But we're optimistic that'll happen here sometime soon.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all that we have for questions for today. I would now turn the call back to Martin for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today and we look forward to speaking with you on upcoming conferences. Have a great day.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day. You may all disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Full Year Results Conference Call. My name is Crystal. I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF, Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning and thanks for joining the CF Industries' year-end 2020 earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported this year-end 2020 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we will review the CF Industries' results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Before I jump into our financial results, I want to highlight the entire CF team for amazing execution across all areas of our business. We set all-time company best records for safety, ammonia production and sales volumes despite the challenges that 2020 hurled at us. There was no playbook for how to manage through a global pandemic, yet this team developed and implemented plans to keep our people safe along with everyone who came on to our sites. To date, we have no known transmissions of COVID-19 within any of our facilities. On the safety front, we ended the year with only four recordable injuries and zero lost time injuries across the entire network for the whole year. As is typically the case, safe operations are also more productive and we proved that again with an all-time ammonia production record of 10.4 million tons. Our sales and logistics team rose to the challenge and set all-time sales and shipping records of over 20 million product tons. Truly a remarkable performance by all. Thank you for the great work and keep it up. Turning now to our 2020 financial results, which we posted yesterday afternoon, we generated adjusted EBITDA of $1.35 billion, also terrific performance. Looking ahead, we are very optimistic about 2021. As Bert will describe in a moment, the global nitrogen pricing outlook is much more positive than a year ago. With strong commodity crop prices and significantly higher energy prices in Asia and Europe, we are seeing a robust demand environment, coupled with the steeper global cost curve. The current conditions in the southern plains in Midwest have thrown another crisis at us, but as usual, the team has done a fantastic job responding to and navigating through these new challenges. We have been able to quickly adjust our plant operations based on close communications with our gas suppliers. Disruptions have been widespread across the U.S. nitrogen industry and this should result in further tightening of nitrogen supply for the spring planting season in North America. Additional support for an already strong 2021. Longer-term, we are pleased with the progress we are making on our commitment to the clean energy economy. We continue to advance discussions with technology providers and partners, and we have seen new opportunities develop since our announcement. These underscore how broad the demand for green and low carbon ammonia will and also the value of our unique capabilities. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen market, then Chris will follow to talk about our financial position and capital allocation outlook before I return for some closing comments. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. Global nitrogen dynamics today, with low-cost producers like CF, are the most positive, they've been since 2014. Strong demand driven by high commodity crop prices and a steeper global cost curve are creating a tighter nitrogen supply and demand balance. As a result, prices have risen significantly in recent months and they're well above 2020 values. Global demand is robust and broad-based. Farmers in North America have seen nitrogen-consuming coarse grains reach multi-year highs for both near-term and futures contracts. For corn, we've seen lower than expected supply and high global demand led by China. As a result, the USDA is projecting that the corn stocks to use ratio for the marketing year will be at its lowest level since 2013. This supports our projection of 90 million to 92 million planted corn acres in the U.S. this year with upside potential. Through the balance of the year, we continue to expect positive demand in most growing regions, particularly India and Brazil. We expect to urea tender volumes in India this year will be well above the five-year average and close to the 10 million metric tons of last year. For Brazil, we project 2021 imports of urea to be approximately 6.5 million to 7 million metric tons similar to last year. As demand was increasing the cost curve steepened significantly. From July 2020 to July - to December 2020, the Dutch TTF natural gas price and the Asian JKM LNG price both increased about 5 times greater than the U.S. Henry Hub natural gas price. This had a number of impacts. First, margin opportunities increased for low-cost producers. Second, the significant increase in energy prices for producers in Europe and Asia pressured their margins, not only leading to lower operating rates but creating demand for import ammonia into those regions. This contributed to an even tighter global market. Over time, we expect the global nitrogen market to tighten further and faster driven by several factors. In the near term, the need to rebuild the stock of commodity crops will underpin demand growth. Longer-term, a key driver will be emerging demand for ammonia for clean energy applications. We believe this level of global demand will require more production from the highest-cost plants until prices rise enough to incent greenfield construction and other parts of the world. We are well-positioned as we approach the spring application season and have the flexibility necessary to address any challenges that arise. We believe that the recent weather conditions in the U.S. or disruption that we built our system to overcome. We were looking forward to working with our customers and leveraging our optionality to ensure that these requirements are met as they make - as our customers make their final preparations for spring. And with that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks Bert. For 2020, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $317 million or $1.47 per diluted share. EBITDA was $1.32 billion and adjusted EBITDA was $1.35 billion. Net cash provided by operating activities was $1.2 billion and free cash flow was approximately $750 million. These results reflect year-over-year global nitrogen - lower year-over-year global nitrogen prices, partially offset by higher sales volume and lower natural gas and SG&A costs compared to the year before. The results also demonstrate our continued efficient conversion of EBITDA into free cash. As you can see on Slide 9, we converted more than 55% of our adjusted EBITDA into free cash in 2020, which is the highest rate among our peers. Our free cash conversion continues to support our capital structure and allocation priorities. As we noted in the press release, we have decided to repay early, the $250 million remaining on our senior secured notes that are due in December. This will lower our gross debt to $3.75 billion as we remain focused on investment grade and positioning the company to execute our clean energy growth strategy. We will continue to evaluate opportunities to further reduce gross debt over time. We remain excited to invest in the clean energy growth opportunity given the expected return profile. We will also continue to return cash to our shareholders through our quarterly dividend and opportunistic repurchases at attractive levels. As we look ahead to 2021, I want to share some of our expectations for the year ahead. We anticipate that our capital expenditures for 2021 will be in the range of $450 million. This reflects a return of - to a normal level of planned maintenance and turnaround activities in the year ahead and the first expenses associated with the green ammonia project at Donaldsonville. We also expect SG&A levels to return to a level closer to 2019 than 2020. Our annual cash interest expense will fall to $175 million with the repayment of the 2021 notes. With our planned maintenance schedule and recent gas-driven curtailments, we expect gross ammonia production to be around 9.5 million to 10 million tons. This along with lower inventories to start the year will likely result in lower product tons sold than in 2020. As we indicated in the press release, we believe overall sales volume will be between 19 million and 19.5 million product tons. Additionally based on forward curves, we project our natural gas costs will be somewhat higher in 2021 than in 2020. However, we expect margins to improve this year given the positive nitrogen pricing outlook that Bert described. As you can see on Slide 12, increases in our realized urea price have a much greater impact on EBITDA than higher realized natural gas costs. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call for Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to again thank everyone at CF for a tremendous 2020. Their commitment to our values and unwavering focus on safety and execution are truly the foundation of our success. We feel very positive about the year ahead. As Bert described, nitrogen industry dynamics for producers in North America are the most favorable we have seen in nearly a decade. And longer term, the developing demand for ammonia in clean energy applications provides exciting growth prospects for us where we are uniquely positioned to be a global leader providing clean energy for a better world. Economies will continue to focus on decarbonization and hydrogen will be a key solution with ammonia, a critical enabler of hydrogen as a clean fuel. We have seen tremendous interest in our strategic direction since our announcement last fall and to see substantial opportunities ahead for clean and low carbon ammonia. This will provide a growth platform for longer-term shareholder value. With that operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from Chris Parkinson with Credit Suisse.
Chris Parkinson:
Good morning. And I apologize for the shorter-term oriented question. But over the past few seasons, especially in '16 and '19, there is a tendency ammonia producers they send a few extra cargos in all of which, at times is a bit disruptive to U.S. prices even mid planting, but this year, that just seem like a lot of the suppliers are indicating they're sold out through at least mid-April and longer in some cases due to global demand elsewhere, which should present, let's say a bit - looking more stability if not an opportunity for U.S. inland prices throughout spring. So just what are your broad thoughts on the different dynamics emerging in '21 versus let's say the past few seasons? Thank you very much.
Bert Frost:
Good morning, Chris. This is Bert and a good question because that has been an issue in the past with overwhelming sometimes a positive market. And then we see a correction in April, May or June, and some of those corrections can be pretty wicked like we saw last year, which I would say, it was more COVID related than a risk-off timing, not necessarily as much of a supply situation, but that has been and has happened. But today, I think we're in a different market. I don't see those extra cargoes coming, our imports are running below last year's levels, you also have to look at supply, there has been a number of turnarounds that have taken place in that region and in others that have taken tons offline. And then when you look at the gas costs that have increased as related to North America, and Europe, and Asia and other places that incremental ton that may have come online or may have been operating probably is not. So those three factors plus increased demand in India and Brazil, with Brazil taking additional cargoes in January and February has soaked up a lot of that supply and we still have Turkey and Thailand and a few other countries that are short and we'll need supply as well as Europe. So as we approach spring planting, which are only probably six weeks away, the likelihood of getting that extra cargo in line offloaded and depending on river froze - the rivers that are frozen today falling and the snow that we're experiencing today on the speed of that thaw and river levels and the ability to get those tons into the Midwest, that window is closing very quickly. That is why we are so focused right now with this situation on gas and production of making sure we have adequate supply for our customers positioned in the right place at the right time to make sure that the supply is there.
Operator:
Your next question comes from John Roberts with UBS.
John Roberts:
In the new Hydrogen Forward Coalition, since you're the only fertilizer participant, do you have exclusive rights to anything ammonia-related and would CF participate in any activities away from your existing facilities?
Tony Will:
So the coalition is really about coming together and trying to advance adoption of hydrogen as a clean energy source. In fact, we have no real interest in trying to limit participation by other producers. In fact, I think having adequate supply availability is going to be a critical enabler for demand to develop appropriately. So we're actually working with and trying to support and rally others to develop similar kinds of programs and solutions because I think it will benefit us in the long term, and we're really focused on developing standards and trying to get some movement across policy decisions that are being made, all of which can support demand for hydrogen going forward. In terms of our interest and willingness to participate in projects outside of kind of the four walls of what our current network is, I think we're always evaluating opportunities for growing the business, as long as the return profile looks attractive and as we mentioned in prepared remarks, there has been significant interest and outreach to us in the wake of our announcements last October. And so, I would fully expect us to have a lot of opportunities to continue to expand the types of things that we're doing.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Piken with Cleveland Research.
Michael Piken:
Just wanted to understand a little bit, you guys stood beyond on your total tonnage expectations for 2021, how much of that was just that volumes got pulled forward from 2021 into 4Q on the strength of the fall season and how much your demand do you think might be lost in the spring because of the big fall? Or are we going to see higher application rates? Thanks.
Chris Bohn:
Michael, I'll try to jump in a little bit and then turn it over to Bert. I think the much larger impact is that given the COVID situation last year, we were trying to minimize exposure to our folks by reducing the number of contractors that we had come on our sites. And so anything that we could differ in the way of turnaround activity or scheduled maintenance, we tried to push. And so we ended up with higher utilization of our assets because we did have a couple of very significant turnarounds that we either dramatically reduced the scope of or pushed entirely into 2021. And so that was part of what help set an all-time ammonia production record. So as we look at 2021, we not only have the normal slate of turnaround activity, but also the things that were deferred from last year. So that is by far the largest contributing factor to the reduction in tons available for sale this year. As you're aware, we run the plants 24/7/365. And so, if you're - we over the course of the year, pretty much produce what we sell or we produce and sell in the year that has more turnaround activity, there's just less production available. There is a little bit impact in terms of starting the year at a lower inventory position than we were last year, but that's the small end of the stick, not the large.
Bert Frost:
Regarding the fall season, we did have a very good fall ammonia season and overall, good Q4 with volume and movements for each of the products, and that was on purpose. One, the weather helped, but when you look back to the lost time or several years where we had good fall seasons '12, '13 and '14, we also had extraordinary spring seasons and what we're projecting now or today for acreage amongst the nitrogen consuming crops, it's going to be high, and I would say higher with probably additional application for yield just due to the price - the attractive price structure that is available to farmers today. So we're anticipating a very healthy spring. I think also you have to remember, we have been in a COVID environment and our focus has been on the safety, well being of our employees, but also making sure our customers receive their product on time as well as making sure we can move that product, and so as we are looking to the spring into Q1 with this projected polar vortex which was projected to come, we took the prudent action of moving additional tons out in December but as Tony said, we will be well prepared for spring and have that supply available and anticipate a pretty healthy spring.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets.
Bria Murphy:
This is Bria Murphy on for Joel. Thanks for taking my question. From a capital allocation standpoint, be on paying down the $250 million in debt, should we assume buybacks will be less prioritized as you build dry powder for green ammonia projects later this decade? Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yes. I think, in the past, we've looked at investing it back in our business at higher return projects. And as we look at our return of capital to shareholders, the one thing that we're looking at is being a little bit more opportunistic at what level we'd go back in and repurchase building a little more dry powder. Additionally, having probably a more measured approach both to debt reduction and capital allocation back to shareholders. If you look at the past year, our share prices swung quite a bit from $19 to where it is now at $45. So the way we look at it is we see some pretty good opportunities in which we could go in if we have the capital on our balance sheet in order to do that.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. I was hoping maybe a little bit more color, Bert, Tony, Chris, on the kind of the market environment last week, in particular with the spike in gas in North America and just the impact that not only just on your own operations but what do you think has happened to the industry as a whole, especially in the parts than the plans and in Texas that might not have gas? And how much product do you think might - how much production domestically you might think be lost just with the last days and gas prices where they are?
Tony Will:
So Adam, I'm going to let Bert do most of the talking here but because he is not going to do it, I'm going to sing his praises a little bit. Bert runs the gas procurement organization and they made some great decisions in terms of basis hedging for us, so that while the cost in local markets blew out like crazy, it really didn't affect us dramatically given that we had already hedged basis off of Henry Hub. But in terms of gas availability and ongoing kind of impacts and loss production, I'm going to turn it over to Bert and let him talk about those things.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Thanks, Tony. Regarding last week, it's been an exciting, I'd say, six to eight weeks when we saw the first week in January, pricing go up for products and that was more of a demand-driven surge and then we had the gas limitations in Asia and supply curtailments made it a supply-driven market and then we got to this week where our own gas situations. And so, we did gather as a group, we did with the benefit of our team, I think is we're small and we've been together for a number of years and we work very well together and we could ascertain and communicate very quickly what was going on and make some decisions around the plants and around what we were going to do with our gas positions, but it's still an evolving situation with what plants are down, what plants are operating and when they will come up. But I think you hit the nail on the head is the impact. And so we've been trying to run those numbers both internal and external, and that's not too difficult to do. And there have been a number of plants that have been on turnaround that have extended those turnarounds unrelated to gas. And so the lost production tonnage on an ammonia basis is probably several hundred thousand tons. And then when you take that to upgrades, you're probably at many several hundred thousand tons. But we're still in this situation, it is still very cold in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas and these plants if they were not shut down appropriately will not come up appropriately. And I think that's where you have can have some confidence with CF and our production team and a shout out to them of how we manage that process and communicate and do it safely, but we have been also purchased urea, so when all those came together, there was again back to taking care of our customers and meeting our commitments, we have been active in the market and buying an appropriate amount of tonnage to make sure we're ready once things open up again.
Tony Will:
And I think the other piece around purchasing urea as it gives us tremendous flexibility in terms of the product mix that we end up producing at Donaldsonville because we've got an ability to basically take all of Ammonia 6 into granular urea or run full on UAN, we've got huge kind of operational flexibility and the plants, for us anyway, that were impacted by this weather, have been our Oklahoma plants principally which are - which tend to be more UAN driven. So the purchases of urea that Bert talked about not only provide cover there but gives us a lot of flexibility to think about running diesel at a higher UAN mix maybe than we have in the past in order to backfill, for us anyway, any kind of disruptions, but I agree with Bert. I think none of the plants to note in that area will have steam tracing or other kinds of cold weather protections in place and you could see disruptions from some of those plants that could extend weeks or months. So the tightening of North American supply could be noticable in terms of outages as a result of the weather.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Steve Byrne with Bank of America.
Steve Byrne:
Tony, when you have talked about the longer-term opportunities for green ammonia, there has been multiple legs to that stool and would be curious to hear your view on which of those various end markets would you see is likely having the most potential, whether its ammonia as a fuel blend for ships or as a fuel blend in power production? Curious, how those discussions with prospective customers are going. And given your electrolyzers won't be on stream for a couple of more years, do you see it as likely that you will have sales of either gray or blue ammonia to those customers in the interim?
Tony Will:
Yes, Steve. So I actually think that we will likely be producing what we're calling blue ammonia, which is ammonia that we produce by conventional means where then the resultant CO2 is captured and sequestered before we produce our first ton of green ammonia. Because I think where we're not that far away from being able to produce blue ammonia through carbon sequestration. And I do think one of the things that we've talked a lot about both at the Hydrogen Council and also within hydrogen forward is the notion of transition and improvement and so using gray ammonia or conventional ammonia as a way to get momentum toward reducing overall carbon emissions is significant. And then as you transition gray ammonia to blue and green, you get further benefits. So I absolutely believe that some of these applications, including Houston power plants will begin with conventionally produced ammonia gray ammonia transition quickly to blue, and then ultimately end up in green But I don't really think that there is kind of one sector where we're putting all of our chips. I firmly believe that hydrogen is going to represent a significant portion of the energy deck across many, many industries, including some very hard to abate industries like transportation and heavy industry. And in those applications in particular ammonia plays a really, I think a starring role, but you've seen announcements just this week from Maersk, and others. So initial applications are very much going to be I think utility and energy use shipping and transportation fuel. And we're also getting a lot of interest in terms of low carbon inputs into the farm because we are a big believer as are many people that carbon sequestration in the soil is going to be available to growers. And if you have a lower carbon input, there is significant value there for the farmers. And so when we can produce blue ammonia for, basically the same cost structure as conventional that provides real value to a farmer. So I think we're going to see demand for these products not only in industrial and transportation utility areas but also in our traditional core market of agriculture.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank.
Ben Isaacson:
Thank you very much and good morning. Tony, when you think about the growth of really any new energy technology over the past decade, whether it's EV or ethanol or wind or solar, they've all required significant government support at either the federal or both the federal and the state levels. Where are you getting support from the government right now in terms of green ammonia, whether it's through subsidies, tax benefits, accelerated depreciation? Can you just talk about where that is right now and how that will help accelerate the growth of this market?
Tony Will:
Yes. So, currently, there are the 45Q tax credits that are available. There is also some dollars there being freed up for R&D funds, but a lot of the subsidies that existed for solar and wind are not in place to the same extent yet for hydrogen. So we would expect there to be further support and helping to develop and augment this industry and frankly, the other piece that will really I think be strong support for development and implementation of hydrogen and as a fuel is going to be, if we put in place a cap and trade or a carbon tax, more of the stick side of the equation as opposed to the carrot side because I think the minute you start providing not only economic incentives for people to shift but real pain, if they don't, you'll see a much quicker migration. So we're very hopeful with the new administration that there can be a firm commitment around putting in place a real cost of carbon because I think that that just accelerates the adoption and movement towards hydrogen and low carbon ammonia.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Mark Connelly with Stephens.
Mark Connelly:
We've started to hear a talk again about China export duties, which used to be sort of a regular thing but not for quite a while. I'm just curious what your people are saying about the probability of that?
Tony Will:
Yes. When you look at what's going on in China producing between low 50s to 70% operating rate and coming with 50-50, let's say, 55 million, 56 million metric tons last year exporting around five, majority of that to India and some of the South American countries, but we see, again with high-cost gas, Asia peaked to probably in the low '20s has since fallen back to $6 to $7. One, they're going - if they're going to operate those gas and coal plants, where the coal is all sort of a higher level, it needs to be at these levels. So we have seen them position but small amounts. Right now, we don't see them aggressively pursuing export tonnage whereas if you go back several years when they were overwhelming the market, they were exporting over 1 million tons December, January, February, that's going to be minimum in this year. And so that further supports what we've been saying about the supply and demand balance. We're projecting that China will be in that similar range around 5 million tons and it will be interesting for this India tender that we expect in the next few weeks to see what level of participation they will have but they're are bidding four exports to date at a fairly aggressively high level.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Jonas Oxgaard with Bernstein.
Jonas Oxgaard:
Your slide on your utilization versus competitors is intriguing. And I have a two-part question if you don't mind. First, could you just touch on what is the differentiator? And as a follow-up, I mean, what does that suggest that there is a value proposition for you guys to consolidate this industry, not just for consolidation, but simply to run other plants better?
Tony Will:
Good morning, Jonas. So I think the - what I would attribute it to is a couple of things, one of which is culture. So we have very much a culture in our facilities of not only as I talked about during my prepared remarks, safe operations but that also translates into very productive and efficient operations. And part of that means, at the first sign of any issues, we go ahead and take plants down and do preventative maintenance or maintenance on them as opposed to run till they break and then try to fix on which break-fix as a poor operating model in these kind of plants. We've also deployed a lot of predictive technology and algorithms to help us to identify issues well before they begin whether it's bearing vibrations or small changes in heat profiles. And so what we'll end up doing is, for instance, taking the back-end of a plant down, cooling it off a bit. keeping the front-end hot, making some minor maintenance fixes and then getting back into the loop without losing significant production where it allows us to hit the kind of numbers that you see here on Page 6 of our materials. I think the other thing that plays into it is the scale. Given the number of ammonia plants that we have that are of similar vintage, we're able to maintain a very efficient spare parts pool that we can move back and forth very quickly between our facilities and get terrific leverage out of. And I think honestly, we can attract terrific talent and have some expertise, whether it's in rotating equipment or in other kinds of areas that is pretty unique to us. So I think it's a combination of all of those things that ultimately drive the significant difference in capacity utilization and asset utilization you see on Page 6, and I think you know those things absolutely are leverageable and can be transferable to other assets. One of the things we've seen with the Terra plants that were acquired back in 2010 is that they did take a while to - for us to invest in maintenance procedures, change culture, get the right approach from an operation standpoint, but they're producing every bit as efficiently now as the historical Medicine Hat in Donaldsonville CF plants were. So I think it absolutely is transferable, scalable and a real value prop that we bring, if not overnight, there is a fair bit of investment in order to change culture and so forth, but I do think that's one of the things that we look at when we're evaluating synergy potential, which is what kind of asset utilization could we ultimately expect to get out of some new equipment as opposed to how it has historically been running.
Operator:
The next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets.
Andrew Wong:
Just starting to enroll in a low carbon market aside from being a producer, what other roles could CF play as the market kind of develops over the next five, 10 years?
Tony Will:
Yes. In addition to production, our network of terminals and other assets whether it's railcars, barges or docs and shipping infrastructure, allow us to play a pretty significant role. I think in terms of logistics and transportation and storage, right now, we don't view ourselves getting too far downstream in terms of actual sales of hydrogen or retail that type of thing, but I think the - sort of the production transportation, wholesale, which is the sweet spot of how we operate our business from an ag perspective certainly fits within that framework. And while I wouldn't take priority, take anything off the table if it's something we can do and do well and bring value to, we'll consider it. One of the first things that we're really focused on today is helping to develop a set of standards worldwide that I think, allow for the adoption in migration into hydrogen and clean ammonia because we've done poorly or improperly that could really be a deterrent for the development of these technologies and so we're working very hard with a number of different organizations to make sure that the right kind of standards and approaches are adopted.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Duffy Fischer with Barclays.
Sean Gilmartin:
This is Sean Gilmartin on for Duffy this morning, and thanks for taking the question. Just wanted to get a sense on China grain demand has been historically strong, kind of particularly on the corn side, and so has been a bit difficult from our end rates a difficult to triangulate what is happening in China. So I just wanted to get a sense from your standpoint, is this level of demand out of China sustainable/will persist through 2021 and kind of if so what in your view will drive that strength? Thanks for the color. Appreciate it.
Tony Will:
When you look at China, they really haven't been that big of a participant in the feed grains market to the degree that they are or they did last year and now we're seeing them stepping in and buying incremental ethanol, which is helping the system at least our system operate more efficiently and move product around. So with the rebuilding of the hog herd that needed to take place after that Asian swine flu swept through China and decimated the production of pork, you're seeing a rebuilding take place and they drew down there in the property last several years, drew down that stockpile that was there. We were never sure. But we believe that that it was drawn down to a very low level. So that - those two coupled together accelerated demand for U.S. corn, which was just kind of fuel to the fire for the U.S. system and we do see that continuing into and through 2021 and beyond. The corn yields in China are not as healthy as United States or other places in the world, and the price level of being able to import corn from the U.S. or Brazil is still very profitable for the Chinese trading houses and processing groups. So on an economic basis, it will continue and then on a demand basis, I think also, they are going to need to.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Unidentified Analyst:
This is [indiscernible] on for Vincent. Thanks for taking my question. Sorry to come back to maybe your order book for the spring to the degree, maybe it's so forward and at what prices you look forward?
Tony Will:
Yes. When you look at Spring, it's been an - obviously, like I said earlier - in some earlier comments we've seen just an explosion of values in January and carrying through February, and we expect that to continue through spring. And the CF, kind of how we manage our order book is we are selling forward, you have logistical assets and plans to operate, so you need to have a forward book on that's adequate, we think we manage it appropriately because we did believe that there were values out there that would be attractive for us to secure and safe to sell in the spring market and that has happened. And so I like where we're positioned. We are now in the process of logistically moving our tons by pipeline, barge, rail and truck into position at our terminals, we have agreements with our customers in place and we have opened tonnage available to sell and we'll probably be active in the market in the next several months as we get through planting season.
Operator:
Your next question comes from Rikin Patel with Exane.
Rikin Patel:
Thanks for taking my question. You mentioned the other day, that global demand currently requires more high-cost production. I'm just curious in the long term, what sorts of urea price you think will incentivize new Greenfield capacity in low-cost locations like North America?
Tony Will:
Well, I don't know that I would necessarily classify North America as a low-cost location. I think it's low-cost from the standpoint of variable or operating costs from a gas supply standpoint, but that there are significant capital cost challenges with constructing new facilities in North America and at some levels of capital and it doesn't matter whether the gas is free, you're better off building the plant someplace else. So the place where new capacity is currently being added are the regions that I would expect kind of the next round to continue to see additions. So you're talking Nigeria, Iran, Russia, those are places both with plenty of supply of natural gas, where you can do contract at OSTK, kind of construction. And if you can bite off the political risk, I think that's where you will likely see the new construction happening. But we would expect pricing needs to be kind of $300 plus for a full year to really provide that sort of incentive and depending upon leverage rates and so forth, maybe a little bit lower than that, but at $300 ammonia based on what construction costs are in North America, you just can't make that math work. So again, I think you're going to see additions, other places before you see it here.
Bert Frost:
I think there are additional steps to take, it's not just building a plant, it's secure gas and what Tony mentioned is secure political environment. When you look at - in South America, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia and the Mexico assets, even though they're older, none of those are operating and they probably won't. They were built in the wrong place where they don't have gas supply that coupled with what's happening in Trinidad and some of the places in Asia, building a plant and operating it, these are long-lived assets, and it should be like ours operates 30, 40, 50 years and many of these are less than 10 or 20 years old and are not operating. So I think that is the challenge as an investor, where are you going to build, and how are you going to move it and how long will your asset have a payback.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone for joining us and we look forward to speaking with you at the various virtual conferences that are coming up over the next few weeks.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the CF Industries Holdings Nine-Months and Third Quarter 2020 Results and Conference Call. My name is Joanna and I will be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning. And thanks for joining the CF Industries year-to-date 2020 earnings conference call. I’m Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported year-to-date 2020 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we’ll review the CF Industries year-to-date results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict, therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you’ll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin and good morning everyone. Yesterday we posted our financial results for the first nine months of 2020 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA just over $1 billion. We feel good about our position as we near the end of the year. As we review our results on this call, I’d like to remind you that we evaluate our performance based on half years and full years, rather than a single quarter. This is because there can be significant shifts across quarters due to weather or other events. However, that spikiness tends to smooth out over time. So longer time period provides a better picture of actual performance than focusing on an individual quarter. As of today, with two months to go and most of the fall ammonia season is still ahead of us. We continue to expect that our full year 2020 results will end up within plus or minus a few percentage points of our 2018 performance for adjusted EBITDA. Our outlook hasn’t changed since back in February, when we first gave our expectations for the full year. Overall, the CF team continues to execute exceptionally well. Asset utilization remains high and our sales volumes through nine months are a new company record. We also continued to efficiently convert EBITDA into free cash. Most importantly, we are operating safely. Our 12-month rolling recordable incident rate at the end of September was 0.17 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, which is a new company record and substantially better than industry benchmarks. This is a tremendous accomplishment and we’re extraordinarily proud of our teams unwavering focus on safety, particularly in the face of the pandemic. Speaking of which, our pandemic related precautionary measures have been working well, and we have not had a single known transmission of the COVID-19 virus within any of our locations. With these precautions in place, we were able to complete safely, critical turnaround activity at several locations during the quarter. As we look toward next year, the company is well-positioned for the opportunities ahead. As Bert will describe in a few moments, we expect solid global demand and widening energy spreads, which will create greater price realization opportunities during 2021, compared to this year. Given our position at the low end of the global cost curve, we believe these dynamics will support continued strong free cash flow generation. We are very excited about our announcement last week and our commitment to the clean energy economy, which provides a real growth platform for the company. As we discussed, hydrogen has emerged as a leading clean energy source to help the world achieve net zero carbon emissions and ammonia is one of the most efficient ways to transport and store hydrogen. Because CF is the world’s largest producer of ammonia, we are uniquely positioned with our unparalleled asset base and technical knowledge to serve this developing demand. As we decarbonize our network and aggressively scale our ability to produce green and low carbon ammonia, we believe we will be able to realize the clean fuel value for ammonia rather than its nutrient value. In doing so, we expect to realize a substantial premium compared to the value of ammonia as a fertilizer or a feedstock. Last Thursday, we announced our first steps in ceasing this growth opportunity with the green ammonia project at Donaldsonville is the centerpiece of initial investments. We look forward to sharing our progress and our follow-on steps in months ahead. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the global nitrogen market. Then Chris will follow to talk about our financial position and capital allocation before I return for some closing comments. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. Year-to-date the global nitrogen market has been incredibly resilient in light of the pandemic. Demand for agricultural applications has grown in 2020, and industrial demand continues to recover from the disruptions in April and May. Looking ahead to 2021, we expect solid global demand led by North America, India and Brazil. We also project improving price dynamics as the global cost curve steepens with rising energy prices and wider energy spreads compared to North America. As we noted in the press release, we are projecting a healthy level of corn planting as well as increases in wheat and canola plantings in North America, supporting good demand in the region. We are forecasting approximately 90 million planted corn acres in the United States in 2021. This is in line with levels over the last 10 years and supported by improved farm economics due to higher corn futures, government payments and lower input prices. If weather conditions allow, we would expect to have a strong fall ammonia season due to the farm economics I just described and the attractiveness of ammonia prices today compared to the other nitrogen products. We expect that industrial demand will continue to recover in line with economic activity. We believe industrial demand for ammonia has been mostly tied to the state of the economy due to the pandemic. In contrast, demand for feed grade urea and diesel exhaust fluid has been relatively resilient. Our year-to-date, DEF sales volumes are up 6% compared to 2019, which would have been difficult to foresee in April, when economic activity and miles driven declined so dramatically. Outside of North America, we continue to expect positive demand in most growing regions, particularly India and Brazil. We believe India is likely to exceed 9 million metric tons of urea imports through tenders in 2020. We also expect demand for urea imports into Brazil of approximately 6.5 million metric tons, will continue to be supported by improved farmer incomes and the lack of domestic urea production. As we look at our cost curve projection for the next year on Slide 12, we see opportunities for greater price realizations during 2021 compared to this year. In 2020, the convergence of global natural gas prices in the first half led to a largely flat global cost curve. Formerly, high-cost producers pursued this temporary margin opportunity available to them, increasing operating rates and pressuring product prices. In recent months, energy prices have risen across the globe, but at a much higher rate in Europe and Asia than in North America. These higher gas costs and the steeper global cost curve that results increases opportunities for low cost producers like CF to achieve greater price realizations. Indeed, some of our most profitable years has been when our own natural gas costs were higher than energy spreads were wider. We are well-prepared as the nitrogen market dynamics adjust over the coming year and the direction of the global response to the pandemic becomes clear. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks Bert. For the first nine months of 2020, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $230 million or $1.07 per diluted share. EBITDA was $982 million and adjusted EBITDA was $1 billion. For the third quarter of 2020, we reported a net loss attributable to common stockholders of $28 million or $0.13 per diluted share. EBITDA was $196 million and adjusted EBITDA was $204 million. As you know, the third quarter typically has our lowest realized prices, lowest volumes and highest level of maintenance and turnaround activity. This quarter was no different. However, both our year-to-date and quarterly results reflect the same overall factors. Lower year-over-year global nitrogen prices partially offset by lower natural gas and SG&A costs. On a trailing 12 month basis, net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.2 billion and free cash flow was $756 million. At the end of October, cash on the balance sheet was well over $600 million and we are well-positioned to fulfill our commitment to repay the remaining $250 million on our 2021 notes. We expect capital expenditures for 2020 to be approximately $350 million as we maintain our high standards of reliability and safety. As we noted in the press release, this is lower than our initial estimate, due largely to the deferral of non-essential activity as a result of the pandemic. We expect our capital budget will return to our typical $400 million to $450 million range in 2021 and beyond. Each year, our capital – CapEx budget includes not only turnarounds and other sustaining activities, but also investments in improvement projects that allow us to pursue strategic opportunities. Recent examples from the lighter category, include the nitric acid expansion project announced this year and the diesel exhaust fluid unit completed in 2017, both at our Donaldsonville facility. The green ammonia project at Donaldsonville will fit into this improvement portion of our capital expenditure budget over the next three years, which allows us to maintain our overall CapEx at normal levels. That said, we expect that additional steps we will take to enable the production of green and low carbon ammonia will require investment beyond this $400 million to $450 million annual range. We are excited to invest in the growth of the company, given the expected profile – expected return profile. And we see a lot of opportunities ahead to do just that. So after the repayment of the $250 million in 2021 notes, we would expect that our primary use of cash in the coming years will be in supportive of our strategic focus on clean hydrogen and ammonia projects. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for their continued outstanding execution. Our team continues to demonstrate their focus, operational excellence and the strength of our business during the most unusual of years. I also want to recognize the winner of our annual Wilson Award for excellence and safety. This year’s winner is our Courtright nitrogen facility in Ontario for their deployment of wireless technology to better predict and prevent equipment failures. This award is a great reflection of our safety culture at work. And I encourage everyone to view the impressive ideas from this year’s finalists, which can be found on our website. As the world focuses on decarbonisation, hydrogen will be a key clean energy source and ammonia is a critical enabler for the storage and transport of hydrogen. CF Industries is the world’s largest producer of ammonia, and we will leverage our significant competitive advantages, which include the strength of our team, our operational excellence, technical knowledge and unparalleled asset base, advantages that will enable us to deliver green and low carbon ammonia at scale, years faster and billions of dollars less capital intensive than many others looking at this opportunity. This will propel us to the forefront of hydrogen supply being a leader in producing clean fuels for a sustainable world and providing a growth platform to create shareholder value. With that operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson from Crédit Suisse. Your line is open.
Chris Parkinson:
Great. Thank you very much. Just regarding the focus on ammonia as a fuel source, in the intermediate to long-term, just what appears to be there – which this ultimately appears to be a reflection of the Japanese efforts? Can you just speak to the potential intermediate term growth of blue NH three in the context of the current merchant ammonia market? So, generally just out of the 20 million or so tons, what percent of these will actually could be utilized for fuels, just given the required retrofit technology infrastructure, et cetera. It seems like the Saudi’s and ultimately you guys North America are well positioned, but what about others? So just how should we be thinking that? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes, Chris, I’ll handle this and also ask Bert and Chris to chime in as we go here. But as you said, initially, I think the first sources of demand that we’re seeing right now are really coming from some of the Japanese utility providers. As you know, in the wake of the terrible tragedy at Fukushima, the nuclear fleet was decommissioned in Japan and that necessitated a movement back to coal-based electricity production. Obviously that’s going the wrong direction from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective. And so they are very focused and moving aggressively toward alternative clean sources of energy to help offset the coal-based production of electricity and injecting ammonia is one of those ways that they’re going to improve their footprint from a country perspective. But we see a number of other applications that are rapidly developing as well, including marine transport, where ammonia can be used directly as a fuel, as well as disassociated into hydrogen to be used as a fuel. And there’s a number of other off-road and industrial applications that are being pretty rapidly explored along with vehicle traffic. And so, our view is that this is actually going to hit a tipping point pretty soon. And the more infrastructure that gets developed, the faster that’ll happen. And then you’ll see really rapid evolution. But obviously that can’t occur until you start developing the supply base. And so we’re on the front edge of this to be able to develop the supply base and help facilitate – really getting to the infrastructure and the tipping point faster. So we’re really excited about this opportunity. I think it’s the only way the world is going to make a dramatic dent in the overall greenhouse gas emissions profile. And we’re excited to be leading the efforts. Bert, Chris…
Chris Parkinson:
Thank you. No, that was helpful. And just a very quick follow-up, just very simple, given it’s been a year since UAN trade close of Europe, can you just give us a quick update on your projections for UAN parity pricing? Do you still set the discount in the U.S. in 2021? Or do you expect that to normalize ultimately?
Tony Will:
Yes, what we’ve seen through 2020 is again that price discount relative to other nitrogen opportunities, especially in North America, we’ve seen a substantial increase – or kind of as North American production is ramped up, we’ve seen a continued import that has probably been in excess of what is needed. That pressure price is lower. It was just about a year ago when the EU sanctioned went into full effect and that play out is – was played out for that – price reflection was more of the impact in 2020. So I think with growth and what we’re seeing with acres in 2021, and depending on how the fall application for ammonia goes, we expect to see greater increases of UAN consumption, which should improve the pricing profile.
Operator:
Thank you so much. Your next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Luke Washer:
Hi. Good morning. This is actually Luke Washer on for Steve. You talked about average selling prices being pressured over the course of the year due to lower energy prices, spurred increased production rates. Was that meaningfully skewed towards one nitrogen product in particular like urea or ammonia? And with nature gas costs now coming back up, have you started to see that global supply starts to normalize? And what regions are you seeing that normalize?
Tony Will:
Yes, I’ll give a little bit of an answer and then ask Bert to chime in as well. The places where you see it manifest in terms of lower prices, particularly in the highly traded and commodities for which there’s a lot of additional supply. So that’s particularly in ammonia and urea. Obviously, for the previous question that Bert talked about, with the UAN rebalancing, there’s still some downward pressure on UAN as well. But I think in response, what you’ve seen is some of the higher cost producers or production facilities globally have actually curtailed or shutdown. There’s been at least three significant plants in Trinidad that have curtailed for a extended period of time. And the benefit that we see going forward is, you see energy spreads expand between North America and Europe and Asia in particular, even if the overall energy complex is going up, it’s the spread that actually matters a lot because that’ll push the high cost second tier or second quartile, third quartile people into the fourth and dramatically pressure margins to the point that during parts of the year, where it was pretty sloppy this year from excess supply, you won’t see that excess supply next year. And that’s why we think there’ll be pretty significant improvement opportunities in terms of pricing. And so we’re excited about getting of the normal energy spread differential back to where it should be.
Bert Frost:
Yes. I think, two things, the energy issue is the – probably the cost side where we fell to as low as $1.50 in North America, but also equally cheap in Europe and the UK, which brought on their continued high cost capacity to operate. But the pandemic was a big impact. And in April and May, we went from $270 $780, a short ton canola. And by May and June, we’re down to $190 to $200. So substantial fall or decrease in pricing and then some inventory carry over and so you just had an imbalance and then a perception of where value lied and what type of risk would be taken on by either the retailer wholesaler group. And the one positive or two positives that have really pushed the market back into a normal operating rate have been India and Brazil. And so we see the positive factors going into 2021 are the economic position. Hopefully we get through this pandemic, good acre plantings and good international support with a higher cost curve that should improve prices.
Operator:
Thank you. We have our next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar from Citi. Your line is open.
Kendall Marthaler:
Hey, good morning. This is Kendall Marthaler on for P.J. So just sticking with prices, obviously, your U.S. urea prices are at a pretty big discount to international prices right now. So how high do you think those could go to meet international parity in the first quarter next year? And I guess in order to meet that parity, do you see any decline in international prices or is it mostly just growth in U.S. prices to get back up to parity?
Bert Frost:
So when you look at the urea discount today, you’re correct. We are operating at a $30 to $40 differential negatively to the world market. And again, those are goes to the issues that I just mentioned for the last caller. But what is – where we are today and the most recent India tender in the $270 metric ton delivered to China story. And China’s operating rates today are around 55 million tons of supply with 4 million to 5 million tons exported. And what does that price level with the RMB at currently $6.7 and coal costs where they and the marginal producer is going to be pressured and probably will not be participating in the international tenders that coupled with increasing Chinese demand for urea and crop production, as well as production of NPKs. We don’t see China being as big of a force probably post-November in the international market. Again, coupled with good demand globally, where we see the key markets driving in Europe yet to buy, we see healthy demand going into spring that should tighten up the market. We’re at – I think through September 600,000 tons of imports into the United States, that’s probably below where it should be. And so at some point, we need to start catching up and digging in those tons from either North Africa or the Middle East or Russia. And so that should drive pricing, as we get closer to spring. And again, corn plantings could be higher than what we’re projecting with a $4 corn position out there today.
Operator:
Thank you. We have our next question from the line of John Roberts from UBS. Your line is open.
Lucas Beaumont:
Hi guys. This is Lucas Beaumont on for John. Just wanted to follow-up on the energy costs. So in terms of the normalizing differentials, do you see any risks around the normalization either from lack of availability or supply in North America as demand picks back up and which some supplies shut in? Or on the demand side from Europe with the deteriorating kind of conditions they’ve lost 4 million to 6 million because they’re sort of increasing COVID related shutdowns?
Tony Will:
Yes. I think, rising energy costs in North America is actually a good thing for us, because what that means is, the LNG cargoes from a replacement economic perspective starts to becoming incrementally more expensive. And that’s really what’s going to end up driving the energy price differentials or that spread. What happened this last year was in the – as Bert talked about in the aftermath of the economic slowdown driven by COVID, you had very cheap natural gas costs in the U.S. and you had a lot of excess cargoes of LNG floating around it, for which there was really no home. And that led to a massive over supply. And the result of that was extraordinarily low cost gas into Europe. There was a big chunk of the year we were paying less for natural gas in our UK facilities than we were in North America, and that’s completely upside down from normal. So that led to the abnormally high operating rates in the rest of the world and excess supply, which kept pricing for nitrogen. And I think in a rising price for natural gas environment, where the demand is really trying to kind of spur back on again. We’d expect there to be – given the reduction in LNG exports, return to normal differentials, and that provides a much better price environment, even if our cost structure is higher. I think Bert mentioned in his prepared remarks, but some of our best years from the standpoint of profitability actually were with a relatively higher natural gas cost in North America compared to a real low cost. And so, we think that this actually portends well for us looking forward.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson from BMO. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning. With your – you are focused here now on green ammonia. If we think about down the road and kind of M&A opportunities in which you start, you’d be very cautious on maybe some smaller deals, but would this imply that you really wouldn’t do any kind of smaller nitrogen acquisitions, obviously taking gas as destock unless you thought you could have some secret station to those assets. Like, how do you think about how your newest focus might affect your M&A strategy over the next decade?
Tony Will:
Yes. I think Joel, it really comes down to the particular assets in question and access to renewable energy, access to sequestration and also access to end markets from a logistics standpoint. And I think, at the end of the day, this all really is a price value and what would the investment have to be compared to making those investments and modifications to our own existing asset base. And as you know, we put a bunch of money into the – that will tear our assets when we finished up that acquisition. And now all of those assets are running at extraordinarily high utilization rates and on-stream factor. I don’t know that there’s another set of assets out there that are close to ours. So, one of the embedded costs of M&A is, you have to first start off with assets that are probably not as well maintained and get them up to our standard before you make additional investments on top to convert into low carbon and green ammonia. So, while it’s certainly a possibility, and again it comes down to price value, I really like our asset base and we’re excited about the opportunity to continue to reinvest in it.
Joel Jackson:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson from Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Ben Isaacson:
Thank you very much. Tony, in the past, when the fall ammonia window was narrow, CF has talked about demand being made up in the spring. So I guess my question is, is the reverse true when you have a strong or wide fall window? Are we going to start to see some sales and the spring get cannibalized? And does that matter by product mix? And then second, can you just touch quickly on the kind of ban on Australian coal imports? Is that propping up the nitrogen cost curve right now? And is that at risk of going down if that dispute gets solved? Thank you so much.
Tony Will:
Yes. You bet Ben. So I’ll start off a little bit here and then pass it over to Bert. But in general, if you’re a grower, you need a certain amount of nitrogen load. And if you’re able to apply some of that in the fall, that requires less nitrogen in the spring. But we really like ammonia going down, whether it’s in the fall or the spring, because we have a differential asset base that allows us to realize terrific values for ammonia. And if you end up with poor ammonia application, then we end up having to export ammonia and the price realization for that tends to be lower. And in general, we sell everything that we make and we run our plants full on. And so, the benefit that that we have is, given the North America is an import region that – we’re not really worried about “cannibalizing” sales out of next year to be able to move from this year, we run our plants at capacity. We sell everything that we make over the course of a year. And so, we either get it in the fall or we get it in the spring, but basically it’s the same number of tons, ultimately they’d go down. And there is sort of love/hate relationship we have with ammonia on the one hand, again, we’ve got this differential asset based that allows us to exploit and realize terrific values. But on the other side, the less anhydrous ammonia that goes down, it means the more upgraded product that goes down. And basically you’re putting on 2 tons of urea for every ton of ammonia that didn’t go down or about 3 tons of UAN for every ton of ammonia that didn’t go down. And the margins on a per unit of nitrogen basis tend to be better on upgraded products. So, in a strong ammonia market, we’re going to do really well because we get great value. In an ammonia market that doesn’t move a lot, we’re going to do really well because of the volume of upgraded products that we make. So, it’s a really good kind of a natural hedge position that we have based on our product mix. Bert, do you want to…
Bert Frost:
Yes. I’d say, we’ve had some difficult ammonia seasons where it was either too wet, too cold, and that moved to spring and we’ve had some difficult springs where you had river floods and excess moisture and inability to apply. And did well in both of those markets because of our ability or adaptability to transition and put the right product into the market at the right time. Also to remember with precision ag, the impact to fall ammonia is less than it was 20 years ago where you’re actually – probably applying less on that one pass-through and doing multiple applications, whether that be some ammonia in fall or spring, and then urea or UAN on top. And so the impact of a negative fall is less. And again, what Tony said, our ability to manage through it is pretty solid.
Operator:
Thank you so much. Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Wall from RBC Capital. Your line is open.
Andrew Wall:
Good morning. Going back to green and blue ammonia, is there a market for that product in the ag and fertilizer space? Could there be some future drive to decarbonize farming that results in demand for the low carbon nitrogen?
Tony Will:
Hi, Andrew thanks. We see that’s a possibility, I would say, it’s not real strong right now, although there’s a number of growers and actually other entities that are beginning to look at the ability to do carbon sequestration within the soil and end up in a regime, that’s got a cap and trade system or so forth, that can be a fairly valuable source of income for farmers. And so potentially in that environment, if you’re using lower carbon inputs, you can get even additional benefits associated with in-soil sequestration. And so I think that’s a possibility. I’d say, right now, that doesn’t really exist. But particularly if we end up projecting forward around a set of carbon regs and legislation that may be developing here, I could imagine that that might be something pretty attractive. And Bert had a number of conversations with customers of ours and others that are looking at modeling carbon sequestration at the farm level and the value of that can provide.
Bert Frost:
Yes, that’s exactly right. So we’re meeting with the leaders. As an input provider and a key part of that value chain there is a recognition obviously for what we bring to the table with the strength of our network and team. But that value of live at the farm gate, so it’s how do you help that farmer achieve through seed technology, crop protection, nutrients, farming practices and then put together with or married with other opportunities, whether that’s hedging or derivatives that are out there for weather and crop insurance, and then tracking the level of production correlated with the potential for what percentage of carbon is being captured. And I think that’s measurable. And that’s the next step for this industry. If we’re able to achieve that, we’ll play a critical role because of what we believe we can do with our network to help that solution.
Andrew Wall:
Okay. That’s interesting. And then just maybe just in regards to the rollout of the green ammonia capacity across the network. I guess, just versus the $100 million CapEx, initial CapEx for Dville, is that typical of the cost that you would need for future capacity? And just generally, like how would you finance that? You have cash flow, but if you want to build that up a little bit more significantly, it seems like you might need a little bit more cash than your general cash flow. So what would we be your preferred approach for financing that.
Tony Will:
Yes. Andrew, so in terms of the initial investment for – call it circa 20,000 tons per year, so $100 million. I think, as we talked about last week, a lot of that investment then becomes scalable. So subsequent improvement in capacity come at a discount as long as you’re adding to the same plants. And so, in subsequent chunks, we can get some capital efficiency, but every time you move over to either a new complex or a new plant within the same complex, there’s going to be some baseline that you’re starting from. However, we would expect on our second and third ones of these that we’ll end up with a lot of learnings and some efficiencies and improvements. And so subsequent investments we would expect to come down. But I think, at least the initial one or two, we are generating plenty of cash to be able to self-fund those out of cash flow from operations. And Chris, do you want to just talk about it?
Chris Bohn:
Yes. I think also what we’re going to see here is, efficiencies and innovation that comes from the electrolyzers and even the renewable energy side, where those costs are going to come down as well. So based on the initial project that we’re looking at here, we feel confident of what we’re seeing from a return profile. And I think that profile just continues to get better as we expand. And as Tony said, based on scalable units with having [indiscernible] already in place, that’s going to put us ahead of many other of our peer groups.
Tony Will:
I also think, Andrew, as we look forward and expect there to be a significant premium associated with these tons, you’d expect to see growth on the EBITDA front. And that can certainly support additional debt. I know our focus the last sort of four or five years here has been really to delever. And we’re back down once we finish the $250 million that Chris talked about, back down to a very comfortable level of debt. So if you’d correspondingly see some growth on the adjusted EBITDA line that can certainly support some incremental borrowings that can be used basically self-fund some of this CapEx that we’re looking at.
Operator:
Thank you so much. Your next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
So a question just on the urea market and just want to make sure I’m clear on the expectations on supply and capacity expansions. There’s a couple of big projects in Nigeria that are supposed to start up next year, projects in India and Iran late this year, early next year that they’re starting up. So just want to make sure, when you talk about the global market for global nitrogen demand growth exceeding that capacity additions. Is that actually true in 2021? And if so, where do you see capacity closures in the next 12 months? Thanks.
Bert Frost:
Good morning, Adam. And I agree with you on your list. You got the [indiscernible] plant that’s coming on or it’s probably ready to come on, the Dangote project in Nigeria, and then you have the projects in India. All of these projects have been delayed and we expect continued delays. And then it’s the ancillary issues of connections, feedstock, startups and the ability to export that being the case of Dangote with peer imports and loadings. And so if that’s the list, there is not a great list of capacity coming on, coupled with where we see growth and economic recovery on the industrial side and being what we’ve already articulated. So we see a tightening market and what we’ve seen in Trinidad with 1 million tons of ammonia coming off and a rising energy market, where we’re now at a – looking at the JKM gas market, close to $7 and NBP in Europe and the UK over $5, $5.50 that’s a good spread. And that does make higher cost producers at current pricing for ammonia on economic. And so you would expect to see, trade flows start to adjust back to where they were, lower cost areas, moving to higher cost areas, and that would tighten up the market. But we’ve had very good demand in 2020, all things being considered. And we expect that to continue in 2021.
Tony Will:
Adam, the other I want to just tack onto that to Bert’s comments is that, there’ve been a number of plants in India that have come online in the last couple of years, but in aggregate Indian production has not actually increased. So what you’ve seen is a number of the older less efficient plants have shut down. And in fact, I think Bert this year for India was a record urea import.
Bert Frost:
Yes, we’re seeing above 9 million, but it’s going to be closer to 10 million. So a very good healthy demand.
Tony Will:
Yes. So despite the fact that you’ve seen as capacity additions, there’s been rationalization, that’s been coincident with it. So, we’re not looking at those plants as being problematic from the standpoint of trade flows.
Adam Samuelson:
I appreciate that color. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Jonas Oxgaard from Berstein. Your line is open.
Jonas Oxgaard:
Good morning. Wondering one of the industrial gas companies announced green hydrogen this week as well, but sourcing bio gas instead of electricity. So wondering if that’s an approach that you have considered and if you can talk a little bit about the plus and minuses.
Tony Will:
Yes. I don’t know quite enough about what the consistency and regularity of the bio gas production stream looks like, and whether you can actually run a commercial operation off of it. I know that for instance, the [indiscernible] plant in India had all kinds of problems trying to get coal steam methane because of the lack of – sort of consistent regular compressability of a gas stream into the plant, which created all kinds of [indiscernible] and as you know, Jonas, that it is never good for these kind of chemical plants to be up and down and see disruptive supplies associated with it. So I don’t really know enough about what the source of gas looks like coming off of these bio sources. But it’s an interesting idea.
Jonas Oxgaard:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael Piken:
Yes. Hi. Just wanted to delve in a little bit more on the UAN strategy. I mean, are you guys sort of expecting more imports to come in as the year progresses. And I guess, just wondering if we start to see urea prices move higher or are you kind of waiting for that or just any more thoughts in terms of how you’re thinking about managing kind of your UAN pricing and the flow of imports and exports over the next several months. Thanks.
Bert Frost:
When you look at the UAN market in North America of about 15 million tons of demand, you break out domestic production, we’ve been receiving around 2.5 million tons to 3 million tons of imports, principally from Trinidad and Russia. And so one, there’s the side of demand with increased acres possibly in 2021. We think that demand will be stable to increasing, but looking at where the market is overall, there hasn’t been a lot of new capacity coming in. You’ve had Acron a producer in Russia drop a urea plant in to decrease their production in that market. You’ve had growing demand in Argentina and Brazil, which has helped support the market. And then you’ve seen some of the moves that we have made with DEF and nitric acid to take that existing stream into further higher valued products. And so, as we have repatriated our tons from Europe, we have not fully pushed those into the market. And that is how the market at this point has been balanced. But we see some very good opportunities for our end market plants and continue to value UAN as a key, if not the key product of the company.
Operator:
Thank you. We have our next question coming from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent Andrews:
Thank you and good morning, everyone. Just want to just sort of ask on next year and make sure I understood Tony, what you sort of characterization of the market was going to look like with the movement within the cost curve, because I’ve seen on your slide, you have it kind of moving up $5 to $10. So I’m just wondering, when we think about the year or what you’re trying to get across to us, that we’ll see higher lows during the year, as well as some higher highs. But when we think about your average realization for the year, it’s going to be more because the low end of the period is going to come up and is going to stay sort of in the middle range longer during the year then that might’ve been the case this year. Is that how we should be thinking about as we look at our quarterly models?
Tony Will:
Yes. Vincent, that’s a great explanation. I’m going to throw it over to Chris here and let him talk about it.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. I would agree with your characterization there. Essentially what we’re expecting to see is – as Bert and Tony have talked about with these energy spreads beginning to widen $2 already in Europe and $3 for JKM. That the expectation is it’s going to put pressure on margin and you should see lower operating rates by some of those mid tier call it, sort of third and fourth quartile players. And this year, as you saw, we’re at much the low end of the range for the cost curve. And that is really predominantly because we were right on top of each other from a differential. As Tony mentioned, we are paying less in the UK than we were here in the U.S. So I think what 2021 is going to provide us is not only a higher end of the cost curve, but also during particular times of the year more pricing opportunity than what we’ve seen specifically this year.
Vincent Andrews:
Okay. And just as a follow-up. Does the shift into the green arena, we’ve been talking about sort of the desire to get back to investment grade. Does that sort of make that even more of a desire or does it make it less of a desire or does it not change anything in terms of how you’re thinking about your balance sheet overall?
Tony Will:
Yes. I think we still have a strong desire to get back to investment grade. I think having another source from a customer base that is fundamentally different, helps get a little more diversification in terms of the end market with higher margin associated with that base. And because we can go ahead and fund this first round of investments out of operating cash, we can continue to delever at the same time. So I think all of those are positives.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. I think as we mentioned that this first sort of wave is going to be within our $400 million to $450 million of CapEx, and as project – subsequent projects that we’re reviewing here, some of those specifically with carbon sequestration, there are incentives from like 45 to tax credit. And the thing to remember is, we already have the capture and the removal process in all of our plants right now, because we use that share to fund – puts us in advantage. So I think both, when you look at the initial projects laid out, the incentives coming in, the early periods here, we feel pretty good about just funding this straight out of cash flow.
Vincent Andrews:
Okay. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Your next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly from Stephens. Your line is open.
Mark Connelly:
Thank you. Tony, I was hoping you could give us your perspective on the proposed UK ban on sold urea. It seems like it’s sort of going in the wrong direction. What’s happening with green and blue? And how would you respond to that?
Tony Will:
Well, I think part of the rationale Mark is around the volatilization and decomposition of the urea, which then releases the CO2 back in the atmosphere, even though it’s been kind of temporarily sequestered in the urea granule. And so, I think that fundamentally gets to the issue of the UK being very serious about trying to reduce aggregate emissions and from agriculture as well. Relative to our North American production base, that’s a little bit challenging, but in the UK we make ammonium nitrate, which is the – really the fertilizer of choice in the UK, given the soil conditions and the climate and the crops that are grown over there. And so, reducing a substitute from – away from our UAN business is actually very helpful over there. But I think we’re prepared to support the UK farmers regardless of which direction they end up going. But I think, again, it just speaks to how serious certain countries have gotten around carbon reduction. And we’re excited about some opportunities that exist in the UK for us to be able to produce green and low carbon ammonia over there as well. So I think we’re really well positioned when you start seeing movements like that.
Mark Connelly:
But as a policy position, doesn’t this concern you direction wise. I mean, it’s the UK and your wealth position there, but if this starts to spread, it starts to hurt everybody.
Tony Will:
Well, I mean, I think one of the questions that sort of it’s going to raise the ultimately, Mark is what’s the price of food, right? Because to the extent, you take what is currently the most ubiquitous form of nitrogen fertilizer at globally traded and start reducing demand, you’ve got to substitute other forms of nitrogen for it. And that then starts putting incremental demand with a relatively captive supply that doesn’t expand readily. And so if you ultimately, you’re driving up price of nutrients to the farmer, that’s going to work its way through the supply chain, into the price of food on the grocery store shelf. And that’s sort of a question then that governments are going to have to wrestle. I think it’s probably easier to be managed at in some more affluent areas of the world than it is in others. But I guess we’ll see how it develops. The good news is because we’re moving early on decarbonizing. Our network will be in a position that whether it’s ammonia, that’s a low carbon, whether it’s AN, that’s low carbon, whether it’s a different form, we’ll be in a position to be able to supply whatever is needed, both at for an energy source and a nutrient content. And I think it’s a movement that is actually very, very helpful for our business.
Mark Connelly:
Great. And just one follow-up. There was a lot of excitement earlier in the season for a Big Brazil corn crop, and that’s maybe been tempered a little bit by the late planting. As you think about Brazil, are you assuming a steady increase in Brazil acres and steady increase in nitrogen demand there?
Bert Frost:
It’s exciting for what has been happening in Brazil over the last decades. When you’ve gone from, let’s say, in 2000, 16 million tons of fertilizer demand to probably 38 million tons this year and probably heading towards 50 million tons not too distant future. It’s been a steadily increasing demand. I think one of the issues that we’re dealing with – what Tony’s comments climatically relate directly to Brazil and opening new acres and what – where they’re opening those acres and how they’re opening those acres. And Bolsonaro has been a pretty aggressive of opening up the outer reaches of the Savannah. And so that’s been controversial globally, but there is a substantial land available, that’s two cattle feeding today, grass fed that could be opened up with not too much difficulty in Mato Grosso do Sul or even Goiás and some of the outer reaches of area Bahia. And so the opportunity in Brazil is there. They’re taking advantage of it with the devaluation of the currency that we experienced this year down to, let’s say 5.70 to the dollar. That’s been super attractive for the Brazilian producer and what have they done. They’ve done exactly as they economically should, which is increase areas, increase yields through fertilization. And the sophistication of the Brazilian farmer is on an equal basis with the American farmer on equipment, on technology, on the things that are happening. So we’re fairly bullish, what can happen. You’ve seen urea grow from 2 million tons 20 years ago of imports to 6.5 million tons this year. And guess what? You seen a consummate increase in yield. They have further yield to go in corn, especially the late planting was more related to dryness than it was anything else. So I think you’re going to see – you may see a yield impact again, due to that dry weather pattern that has hovered there and then the late plantings. We’ll see what happens with safrinha which is the second crop corn that gets planted because of soybeans have planted late. That means the second crop form will be planted late. So more to come we’re constructive, we’re participating in the Brazilian market and like to see what’s happening down there.
Operator:
Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Mr. Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks everyone for joining us this morning. And we look forward to speaking with you on upcoming conferences.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries Holdings’ First Half and Second Quarter 2020 Results and Conference Call. My name is Jenny; I’ll be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries’ first half and second quarter 2020 earnings conference call. I’m Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its first half 2020 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we’ll review the CF Industries’ results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you’ll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin and good morning everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the first half of 2020, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $808 million. These results underscore the resilience of our business model and the outstanding performance of the CF team. In the midst of a difficult and uncertain environment, we maintained our focus on safe and reliable operations, worked closely with all of our partners to avoid disruptions due to the pandemic and delivered company record first half sales volumes. These efforts exemplify our team’s sustained operational excellence, which along with our position on the low end of the global cost curve drives our cash generation. On a trailing 12-month basis, we have produced more than 10 million tons of gross ammonia, sold roughly 20 million product tons and generated $973 million in free cash flow. Most importantly, we have done all of this safely. Our rolling recordable incident rate at the end of June was 0.31 incidents per 200,000 labor hours, which is a new record low for the company. Protecting the health and wellbeing of our employees, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic remains our top focus. Our safety culture, along with the safety protocols we’ve put in place, have kept the number of employees, who have tested positive for the virus to a small number and we have not experienced any known transmission within a CF location. We continue to have in place numerous precautionary measures across our network to protect our employees and those critical contractors, who come into our facilities. In contrast to the uncertainty and challenges faced in much of the broader economy, the nitrogen industry has performed well, driven by robust demand and low energy costs. And over the past few months, our outlook for the next six to 12 months has become both clear and much more positive. As you will hear from Bert, strong demand in India and Brazil is supporting the global nitrogen market with urea prices rising significantly in recent weeks. We’re also more confident that 2021 corn plantings in the U.S. will be within a normal range. Chinese anthracite based production remains the high-cost marginal ton. And despite all the doom-and-gloom prognostication over the past 12 months, suggesting coal prices in China will fall that hasn’t happened. As you can see on Slide 13, the cost advantage per metric ton of urea remains robust for North American producers compared to the marginal production. Additionally, we expect that the cost curve, which had flattened due to lower energy costs for many producers, will steepen again going forward. Since the beginning of the year, U.S. LNG exports have declined significantly. As this works its way through the market, production cost for Europe and Asian producers should rise. As you can see on Slide 14, futures’ prices suggest to return to more normal energy differentials in Europe and Asia. As this occurs, we expect margins for North American nitrogen production to increase compared to producers in these regions, which is particularly important during periods when China isn’t exporting. Longer-term, we expect to remain on the low end of the global cost curve due to our access to low cost and abundant North American natural gas. That combined with the fact that we operate in regions, which are important dependent, should enable us to continue to generate substantial free cash flow in both the short and the long-term. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who’ll discuss the market. Then Chris will follow to talk about our financial position and capital allocation outlook before I return for some closing comments. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. CF had a solid spring, then highlighted our team’s continued outstanding execution. We had strong production, record sales volumes, and navigated the uncertainty related to the pandemic extremely well. We had robust demand across all our products. This was supported both by higher planted corn acres than in 2019 and much more favorable planting conditions, which linked in the application season. Early in the second quarter, we did see a pandemic related decline in demand for industrial uses of our products, strong agricultural demand, and our production flexibility helped to mitigate sales volume impacts. Since June, industrial demand appears to have moved closer to normal levels, especially for products such as diesel exhaust fluid. As industrial activity is closely tied to the economy, we will continue to watch this area closely and are prepared to adjust our production mix again, if needed. Because of our heavy volumes during the first half, we ended the fertilizer year in June with very low inventories of all products. In July, we conducted our prepay and fulfill programs, all of which were in line with our expectations. We believe that those, who participated will see a good return in the future, given the rapidly changing and improving nitrogen dynamics in North America and around the world. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects 92 million acres of planted corn in the U.S. for 2020, 5 million more acres lower than its earlier forecast. This should alleviate concerns of a substantial oversupply scenario. at the same time, demand for corn globally has increased significantly, led by purchases for China. Additionally, we have seen a good recovery in ethanol production and margins, supported by an increase in U.S. vehicle miles traveled. as a result, we believe planted acres in 2021 for the U.S. as well as total nitrogen use will be similar to the 10-year average. This improved North American outlook over a few months ago has been bolstered by a positive demand driven developments globally. Current global nitrogen market sentiment is being driven by India and Brazil. Imports of urea into Brazil are up 13% through the first half of 2020. And we expect continued strong demand through the remainder of the year and into next year. in India, urea sales from April through July are up nearly 50% over 2019 due to favorable growing conditions, which could lead to a second straight year of record urea imports. global urea prices have risen substantially with this demand as recent India – Indian urea tenders have secured lower than expected volumes. at the beginning of August, India issued its third urea tender in 22 days and it’s six since the end of March. we believe frequent urea tenders by India could continue through the end of the year. These positive demand developments have occurred alongside important with those smaller supply developments. We have seen some high-cost ammonia production in Trinidad come offline. We’re also seeing profitable delays in the startup of new capacity due to the pandemic. So, as we head into the second half of the year, we feel positive about industry dynamics and in particular, about the demand outlook. as always, we are prepared to leverage our manufacturing and distribution network to meet any challenges and capture opportunities that arise. with that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. For the first half of 2020, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $258 million or $1.20 per diluted share. EBITDA was $786 million and adjusted EBITDA was $808 million. These results reflect the impact of lower year-over-year global nitrogen prices, partially offset by lower natural gas costs and higher sales volume. Natural gas continues to be a strong tailwind for the business. for the first half of the year, our cost of natural gas and the cost of sales was lower by nearly $1 per MMBtu, or about 30% than in the same period the year before. management focused on strengthening our balance sheet and managing controllable costs responsibly, also continues to support our results and financial flexibility. As we have said before, our fixed charges for 2020 are approximately $190 million lower on an annualized basis compared to 2017. Additionally, controllable costs per ton were lower in the first half of 2020 compared to the first half of 2019, even with the special bonus we provided to operational employees from March through June. This continues to support our cash generation. on a trailing 12-month basis, net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.5 billion and free cash flow was $973 million. cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet at the end of the first half were $563 million and our $750 million revolver is undrawn. As we look ahead, our approach to allocating capital will continue to be balanced. This is especially important given the uncertainty in the broader economy. first, we’ll continue to invest in our assets to support safe and reliable operations. As we noted in the press release, we expect capital expenditures to increase in the second half of the year, compared to the first half, because of the increased scheduled maintenance and turnaround activities. These activities will also somewhat reduce gross ammonia production in the second half, compared to the first half of 2020. We estimate that capital expenditures for the full year will be approximately $350 million. Second, our focus in the near-term is building liquidity. Given the uncertainty in the broader environment, we expect to be above our target liquidity level in the near-term. In line with this approach and similar to most companies, we did not repurchase shares in the second quarter in order to increase cash on the balance sheet. We believe this will give us the flexibility as a response to the pandemic continues. as conditions in the economy normalize, our approach will also give us additional capacity along with our free cash flow generation to continue to create long-term shareholder value. with that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open up the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
thanks, Chris. before we move on to the questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for a strong first half. our team continues to demonstrate both their focus and work ethic during trying conditions, as well as the resiliency and strength of our business model. We’re extremely proud of how our team has navigated the pandemics so far and that effort continues at all levels of the business. As I said before, in the short-term, we see a much stronger nitrogen outlook over the next six to 12 months than we did just a quarter ago. Global demand is strong and we project 2021 to have normal corn acres in the U.S. longer-term, CF remains among the best position companies in our industry. We have an unparalleled manufacturing, distribution and logistics network that underpins our consistent operational performance. We expect to remain on the low end of the global cost curve and benefit due to operating primarily in the import dependent regions. We are also the most efficient converter of EBITDA into free cash in the industry. We believe these factors along with our strong balance sheet will enable us to drive superior free cash flow generation through the cycle. This will allow us to continue to build on our track record of long-term shareholder value creation. with that operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And we have our first question from Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets.
Joel Jackson:
Hi. good morning, everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning, Joel.
Joel Jackson:
Can you talk about what you’re seeing now for the setup of the fall season in the states, I guess in Canada too, a lot of moving parts going on, is it a normal order book what have you locked in where the cautious – where’s the caution, where’s the opportunities? Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yes. So Joel, we’re seeing – it’s pretty interesting, because we’ve come off this year of 97 million. Now, it’s 92 million acres of corn, a little bit weaker kind of grain and oilseed market. But amazingly, we had a field program for ammonia, which is fairly small and then started billing the book for the fall application season. as you remember, those tons sit in our inventory. So, whether we sell them now or sell them in the fall, we’re very comfortable with our ability to move those tons and get them into position, had to navigate a few river issues, river closures, but we feel very, very good about the ammonia season for the fall, setting up one with how the current crop is maturing and will come off, and then have time for applications, both soybeans and corn and then just the pricing structure. So, what we think is a fair level for ammonia is out there and has been taken up. The next one is UAM, which is a bigger program and we’ve had different size fill programs in the past from a month or a month and a half worth of supply all the way up to maybe four, let’s say four to six months. And this year was right in line with the average, we had good uptake. I think prices were very attractive. And I had those in my prepared remarks about the opportunities available to some of our channel partners. And so you’ve seen us being active in the export market. So again, a balanced approach to the market and I think fall will kind of roll out in a good way. We’re expecting in 88 million to 90 million acres of corn for next year. So, there’ll be good application in the corn states. And we’re also seeing with, as I mentioned globally, what’s happening with the other large agricultural markets like India, Brazil, Argentina, the valuations coupled with support, and just good pool and good movement to China on the demand side for those products like corn and soybeans, as well as protein supports a nice global oven. That’s why you’ve seen urea bounce all the way up to now in NOLA, 250 or even 255 has been done for August. So setting up, I believe very nicely for the fall and then into 2021.
Operator:
And our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar from Citigroup.
P.J. Juvekar:
Yes. my question is a little different; companies like air products are getting into green ammonia as the means of hydrogen transport. And I feel like no one knows making in transporting ammonia better than CF. Just that you may not have experienced in green ammonia or green hydrogen, but is that something you would consider in the future, or is that not interesting to you? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Good morning, P.J. As the world leader in ammonia production, we’re very focused on all potential applications and uses for ammonia and I think moving forward, particularly as the world is challenged with traditional hydrocarbon based fuels and looks for cleaner fuel solutions that a hydrogen-based economy using ammonia as a carrying plate for that is an outstanding solution. So, it’s certainly something that we are focused on and spending time on is. As you know, we have a pretty deep relationship with Tyson Crop OODA. They built our last two large expansion projects. I think they’re one of the world leaders right now in the electrolyzers. And so it is conversation and investigation, and we’re spending a lot of time on, and it would not surprise me to see us move into a situation, where we have a full slate of offering at some point here in the near future with anything from conventional ammonia to blue ammonia to green ammonia and some various combinations. But I think longer-term; it’s certainly the direction the world is moving and needs to move. And I think we are going to be a significant beneficiary of that, because we’re – we’ve already got all of the backend plus logistics and capability in place and it’s about modifications on the front-end. And again, we’re in the best position to capitalize on that. So, we’re pretty excited about that.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Michael Piken from Cleveland Research.
Michael Piken:
Yes. good morning. just wanted to get your take in terms of what’s happening with Chinese urea exports. it looks like they haven’t been as active in some of the recent India tenders and just sort of wanted to get your sense in terms of how you see their production and operating rates playing out in the back half of the year and is there any kind of China in urea that’s in the market as well? Thanks.
Tony Will:
It’s been an interesting year for watching China as we’ve gone year-after-year with lower, lower level than last year, a little bit of an uptick on their exports. We expected 3 million to 4 million tons for this year, and we’re trending lower than that through the first seven months of the year. So, their operating rates have been around, let’s say high 60s, low 70s percent, which we equate to about a 53 million to 55 million tons of available supply. Domestic consumption seems to have been higher. similar to India, incentivizing domestic production for a supply of corn and rice and other obviously fruits and vegetables are about 50% of their urea demand. But that is correlated well with internal demand and then not pushing product out to the international market. I think when the market hit on a metric ton basis 235, 240. We had expected more supply to come out of China. It did not. they’ve avoided the last two India tenders, just kind of on a perfunctory basis has participated. And so looking at this tender that will open early next week, I would expect some additional tons, but those tons now have been bid and sold in the $250, even up to $270 a ton FOB. So, very supportive to the international market, very supportive trend for the remainder of the year, which we believe will be probably fewer than last year export tons and at higher prices.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Steve Byrne from Bank of America. Steve, your line is open. Steve, please check if you’re on mute. And our next question comes from Ben Isaacson from Scotiabank.
Ziad Saada:
Hi. this is Ziad on for Ben. Thanks for taking my question. How has industrial demand for ammonia progressed over the last quarter and how are you seeing that recovery over the rest of the year and then also into 2021, particularly with how it’s impacting your realized ammonia prices?
Tony Will:
So, we had a – there are two sides to the ammonia equation. One, like you mentioned is the industrial side, which is you can include end upgrades for that segment, ammonium nitrate, urea, UAM, and then the industrial as a chemical intermediate or into nitric acid or phosphate production. And so we did see a dip in demand on the industrial side due to COVID, some of that on the phosphate production, but just overall industrial capacity declining. We’re seeing that recover and seeing a good pull from our customers for that part of our business, which is a healthy percentage of our ammonia business, it’s a 365/24/7 type business for us, where the agricultural applications are really a few weeks in November and then a month and a half, maybe in April and may and into June. for the fertilizer side, we saw a nice recovery for ammonia. We’ve had some difficult application years in 2018 and 2019 due to whether it was cold wet weather in the fall or cold weather in the spring, which delayed and moved some of that consumption to the upgraded products of UAN and urea. So, we’re pleased this year to see that and see our channel partners work with us on the custom application business. So, feel good about where we are and what that – or pushes forward for us is a healthy lower inventory level going into the fall and we expect to see, as I said earlier, a good fall application season.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. Hi, good morning. I was hoping just on the – on capital allocation, I was hoping to get the views and while it would take that to restart repurchases, it sounds like the outlook on the market has improved. Cash position is good, liquidity position is good. Just help me think about the decision process from here on buybacks.
Tony Will:
Yes, Adam. I think the big issue is just kind of the broader economic uncertainty. I think we feel very good about nitrogen and in our business, particularly, here in the U.S. and the UK. So, it’s not really an issue around anything to do with the fundamentals of our business much more so just kind of broadly what’s going on in the economy and I think during periods like that, holding more cash rather than last is the sensible thing to do. We always have the opportunity to then turn around and distribute that cash when there is a solution to this pandemic situation and we do have a little more clarity around broader economic certainty. And so – but I just think in the near-term, it makes all the sense in the world for us just play the long game here and not rushing to share repurchases. So, we’ll be building cash as you know and Chris talked about it, we’ve got $250 million coming due next year that we’ve committed to redeem. Some notes do honor before the maturity date. And as we start getting kind of the world moves past the pandemic situation will return to normal course repurchases.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse.
Chris Parkinson:
Great. Thank you very much. Just given the recent urea rally, just how should we think about the sustainability of the run-up in terms of just how you’re thinking about the SD dynamics on the second half and 2021 as well as the cost curve. So, if I’m just sitting back thinking about FX and then relative input costs on an MMBtu basis, fourth quartile versus first quartile. Where do you see the current spread versus earlier this year versus your presumed outlook for 2021? Thank you.
Tony Will:
So Chris, I think, based on where anthracite is today, it would suggest about it two 60 delivered NOLA price, that’s above where we are today. So, we’re continuing to trade at a little bit of a discount to international parody, which is not really that uncommon given that when people need to find liquidity for cargos, this is the place they come. That’s said, I think we’re trading in a range that reflects actual underlying economics and I think that’s been shown the last couple of Indian tenders when you haven’t seen huge participation coming out of China. And I think the world is operating very rationally, at least within the nitrogen industry today. As I said, we expect given the absence of LNG cargoes that once the surplus has kind of worked its way through the system, you’ll see energy costs in Europe and Asia climb back up to an appropriate differential off of Henry Hub again. And so almost regardless of whether health prices move, what we really look at is that differential costs and that differential becomes increasingly important during periods when China isn’t exporting. And so we’re very constructive about what the margin structure of this business looks like going forward, which we kind of indicated next six, 12, 18 months look pretty positive from our perspective.
Chris Bohn:
Yes, I agree. I think the nice – I think where we are today and where we are going to – I think we’re projecting with the India tenders alone, taking the producer longs from North Africa and the area of Gulf into September that kicks those positions forward, but you still have substantial buying probably 0.5 million tons per month for Brazil through January and into February. projections today are India will be over 10 million tons of consumption of imports, which is – will be an all time record. And so the rally, I believe last for – at this point, into Q4 and then the United States has to start buying for its spring demand. And we are – we believe the channel inventory in North America is fairly low coming out of our application season, as well as production turnarounds that ours, as well as others will have taken place. And so when you look at the cost curve, where anthracite coal is today on an MMBtu basis, that’s about $6.5 to $7 on gas. And then if they’re able to export those numbers, those are – that’s very positive for the market, because those tons are being bid in and they need to make it all the way to the port, which are even additional costs. So, a good floor right now for the market.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.
Vincent Andrews:
Thanks. Hi, everyone. just looking at slide 17, the potential Indian range and just you mentioned that it is a record this year. I mean, do you think that I guess, the monsoon would have to repeat next year in the same way to get the same amount of demand, but where do you think the actual base level of demand is in India that we should be thinking about for 2021?
Tony Will:
Well, I mean, I think part of the issue Vincent, is not only just the underlying demand, it’s the – what’s going on from a production standpoint. People have been again, kind of very gloomy about the notion of new production startups and what that was going to portend for imports into India and a number of those plants; Trimble, Madex and others have started up and similarly older plants have know shut down or curtailed substantially. So yes, while this year looks like it’s pretty strong year from the standpoint of application, a lot of it is just, I think the recognition that it’s more efficient from the standpoint of the general industry – Indian economy to be importing urea as opposed to being, trying to run older high cost inefficient facilities. So, again, we’re very constructive about the direction that this whole market is headed. Bert, any other?
Bert Frost:
it’s exactly right. And with the level of imports coupled with domestic production to be an all-time high for urea consumption, but you have to remember, we’re going to approach again 50 million tons of kind of the export market. So, this is a global rally. It’s not just dependent on India. There are a number of countries that are consuming more and we’ve seen a few shutdowns. So, it’s a balanced position to what’s driving and we seem to have something like these things happen every year or two, a positive push to the market and we’re in the middle of one. I think to tack on to that, in the situation, where you’ve got these huge global disruptions like the pandemic, the move towards food security is something that most governments really want to push toward. And so optimal fertilization trying to encourage complete growth is something that is top of mind, I think for many, many regimes out there. So, I think again, underpinning the strong demand in nitrogen, we’ve actually been in an odd way, potentially somewhat beneficiaries of the whole situation.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Mark Connelly from Stephens.
Mark Connelly:
Thank you. I’m just wondering about freight rates. If they stay low, how much does that affect CF given all this positive outlook for India and Brazil? And if things do change and you ended up needing to export more in the second half, fall application came up short. How would that affect your overall expectation about your competitiveness?
Tony Will:
Well, generally speaking, high freight rates are good for us. Because we’re – we operate in import dependent regions. So, anything that adds frictional costs into the freight market is great for us. When we think about fall application; the fall application really, isn’t ammonia story. It’s not a urea, UAN story. And so if it’s lower application, you’re talking incrementally, not that much from an export, because the way that Bert has managed the system from a balance standpoint. So, fall application isn’t really going to have a tremendous impact in terms of what our export profile looks like. Our exports are really going to be driven more on what’s the net back opportunity to move product out versus keep it here. And I think right now, again, if you look at where things are trading in the margin opportunity available to us, even in a low freight environment, we’re feeling really good about how the business is performing and if freight rates climb again, even better.
Chris Bohn:
Yes. Well, when you look at freight rates where we are globally, they are weaker, especially dry products; you probably got $17 to $20 from the ag to Brazil or North America. And so that is probably a little more attractive than it’s been in the past, a little bit higher depending on the product coming from the Baltic. But when I look at or think about freight, I think of it as a destination to our customer, and that includes rail and truck and terminals and we’ve been working very closely with our rail partners. Some have been more supportive, some have not. But in a weaker economic environment, all of a sudden we might become popular again and we’ve had some of those discussions and are working on new terminating opportunities, leveraging some of those options available to us as well as truck. So, I like, where we are structurally on the whole freight equation and we’re looking, you’ve seen CF be an efficient operator and that’s all we – or at least we drive that through our analysis of costs and where we can squeeze out additional value for the shareholder and that is represented in freight and freight costs such as rail cars and things like that, that we’re aggressively looking at.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Jonas Oxgaard from Bernstein.
Katherine Gallagher:
Hi. this is Katherine Gallagher on for Jonas. Thanks for taking the question. Do you see any impact on nitrogen demand with the Chinese flooding we’ve seen this summer?
Tony Will:
That’s an interesting one, in terms of when you plant, when you apply and when you harvest we’re in these different cycles and when the flooding took place post application time. So, I would expect you’re going to have some either quality with the harvest or the crop that’s been planted, or the actual availability of that product making it through those rains and flooding situations. So, on an aggregate basis and a generalized answer to your question, I would expect that that would drive in future use of that agricultural land to achieve higher yields to replace that loss product.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. I think I have a three-part question.
Tony Will:
Jeff, get out our pad and paper here, so we can keep track of all three parts.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thank you. On Slide 18, you show less production from Brazilian real players. What happened in Brazil and does that production ramp back up in 2021? That’s the first part.
Tony Will:
Well, Petrobras – I’m sorry. Go ahead.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Okay. The second one is in response to P.J.’s question about green hydrogen, you made some suggestive remarks, but I couldn’t tell whether that meant you wanted to build a new ammonia facility that was supplied with green electricity, or what you wanted to do is, find a green power source for the ammonia that you’ve already got. I was wondering if you can clarify that. And then lastly, is your interest in green hydrogen, because you believe that the financial returns of green hydrogen will be higher than the financial returns for agricultural ammonia?
Tony Will:
So, I’ll let Bert talk about Petrobras and then I’ll grab the other two.
Bert Frost:
Thanks. So, the interesting thing in Brazil is those plants, which were owned by Petrobras and Bahia or Paraná and then the plant that never got started in Matagorda Sul, have been operating for decades and have been, at times, exporting plants generally supplying import needs also. those were old inefficient without good gas sources. The plant in Paraná, close to Paranaguá was actually supplied by a product from a refinery, which was next door. So, they have been – I would say not profitable for years. And I think, through this whole rationalization process that Petrobras is going through with their whole portfolio of assets and services that was one area that just made sense, and there was an opportunity for another company to look and take those over and operate them, but that has not been able to happen probably due to gas supply. When you look at the available gas and gas pipeline network in Brazil compared to the United States or any Western country, or let’s say European or North American opportunities, it’s so small. And so – and then the Bahia plant, for example, is just out of the market, where they were trucking some of that urea all the way across the country, 1000 miles to Matagorda Sul did not make sense. So, shutting them down was economically intelligent, as well as operationally smart. What that has done is then increased the need for imports, and it’s been very good for the international market as we’ve talked about India. So, we talked about Brazil. Brazil will now be close to a 7 million ton import market for urea that puts the U.S. market as the third largest market, India being first; Brazil, second, and United States, third for import demand, so, a very good growth for that international ton to move to.
Tony Will:
And I’ll handle the other two questions, Jeff. So, in terms of building new green ammonia plants, that’s not high on my list of things that, we want to do over the next five years or so. The economics around that are pretty challenged. I think, and let me describe a couple of different ways that we can though participate in all of this. The first one being we are actively investigating geological sequestration for the process CO2 gas that comes out that we capture, some of which we turned into ammonia. But you can – we can go ahead and sequester that, and then get offsets as a result of that and certify some set of the production, like even today as blue ammonia, if we were going to do that. similarly, then the next step would be to put in some electrolyzers and put in free hydrogen either into the backend of the process or potentially in the frontend of the process. And by renewable energy, in a number of our locations which is available, wind, in Port Neal Iowa, you got a hydro and chloride in Ontario. you’ve got some green options in the UK as well. And then from that, you can actually certify some of the production is green, and all of those things are relatively low capital cost implementations in order to be able to move a section of the portfolio from conventional to green and blue. I think to do a wholesale swap out, you’re basically talking about, replacing the frontend steam methane reformers with huge electrolyzers and that is a lot more capital, economically today that doesn’t make sense, because the price of North American natural gas is so reasonable compared to the other prices of energy, particularly if you’re talking about renewable energy. However, a lot of that is dependent upon what the price of carbon is or isn’t, and at a high enough carbon costs or a high enough product price demand for green ammonia, you could absolutely, see the justification from an economic return for doing that. So, my answer to that question is we’re evaluating all of these different approaches. We haven’t made any announcements yet, because our belief is rather than a big fanfare of kind of smoke and mirrors and vaporware. We want to wait until we’ve got something real that we’re doing and then announced something at that point in time. But we’re evaluating all of this and we think we’ve got a great path forward to actually in the very near term, be able to produce some blue land or green ammonia, but not have it be a huge capital outlay in order to get there. I think longer-term though, if you project out to, let’s just take the 2050 number that a lot of people are using, you could absolutely see a number of our plants be full on green running off of renewable fuel here and I think the benefit that we have is the capital investment in terms of the backend of the process, along with all of the storage and shipping logistics and terminaling capabilities is that we’re in the best position to benefit from it and anything that drives demand for ammonia, whether it’s green, blue, or otherwise is good for us, because it just increases the price of ammonia globally. So certainly, something we’re excited about from a development standpoint.
Operator:
And our next question comes from John Roberts from UBS.
Lucas Beaumont:
Good morning. This is Lucas Beaumont on for John. Thanks for taking my question. So, I was just having, could you please talk us through your assumptions around new supply growth the next two years, underpin your supply demand assumptions? So, I was just wondering, particularly, as it’s changed now that we’ve had a few more months to assess the impact of COVID disruptions on project completions. We’ve previously talked about difficulties like getting personnel onto sites and engineering providers being able to provide the required equipment. Additionally has your view changed of the industry’s ability to complete normal sort of maintenance activity given the similar difficulties? And do you see that impacting the supply also?
Tony Will:
I’ll let Chris go through the nitty-gritty details, but let me just kind of start off with a high level comment on the switches. The world has sufficient nitrogen capacity. It’s just a matter of at what price does it get bid back into production on and what you’ve seen as Bert indicated in his prepared remarks, early on is when deep water ammonia prices crashed in response partly to the pandemic situation. You’ve seen high cost producer shutdown in Trinidad and actually, in other parts of the world. And so – and similarly, when you’ve had these new plants come online in India, you’ve had other plants, whether it’s Brazil or India or other places in the world shutdown. So, while there’s tremendous microscopic attention paid to the specifics on supply demand, what ultimately happens in this situation is, the market rationalizes, how much supplies ultimately available, because the high cost production shuts down and where that high cost production is actually, it moves around a little bit, because Trinidad was viewed as first or second quartile assets for a long time up until just recently. And now they’re the ones that were actually shutting down. And so what I would suggest is, while all of the timelines to build, have lengthened substantially and availability of some parts have been pushed out into the future, making it difficult for some people probably to operate that generally speaking, it’s going to be the cost curve and the slope of the energy differentials that are going to drive. What the margin opportunity is? Not whether there’s an extra plant coming on and certainly understand or not, but Chris…
Chris Bohn:
There’s not a lot to add to that. Because I think, Tony covered it, but on a more detailed point, we are seeing delays in some of those plants, whether it be in India or you Uzbekistan. So, you’re starting to see some of those delays related to actual turnaround and maintenance activity. I think it’s definitely more challenging and maybe, extended longer. But I think that’s the same challenges you have with just overall operational risk with whether a number of operators get the virus or not as well. So, I think you’re going to see some of these small disruptions. But as Tony mentioned, there’s plenty of capacity and it’s just for that capacity to be bid back into production.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Duffy Fischer from Barclays.
Sean Gilmartin:
Hi, good morning, everyone. This is Sean Gilmartin, on for Duffy. Thanks for taking the question. Just real quickly from me, early on in the year, and granted things have changed, but yet kind of given soft guidelines around EBITDA between $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion for full-year 2020, just curious, given the solid first half, the dynamics you’re seeing in the market today, kind of inflection and positivity. Can we get to the upper end of that range in your opinion and given kind of flat to down a little bit, year-on-year corn acres into 2021 maybe a bit better pricing dynamics? How would you encourage folks to think about 2021 EBITDA levels? Thank you.
Tony Will:
Yes. We’re not really talking 2021 at this point. This business is hard enough to forecast three months is a future let alone 18 months into the future. We just – we see some very positive signals about what demand is likely going to show up. I think the rest of the story is all about what the slope of the curve is and what happens in terms of energy differentials from a region-to-region basis. So, we’re going to wait until we get to further in the year, maybe, even a Q1 call before we approach that subject. But we still feel very comfortable with our recent guidance around where we expect the year to show up, we’ve – as Bert said, we had a successful build program, met our expectations, both in terms of take rate and pricing. And so as we sit here today, most of Q3 or much of Q3 is in the bag already and what we see looking forward through Q4 looks pretty attractive. So, we feel very comfortable with our guidance.
Operator:
And our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar from Citigroup. P.J., your line is open. P.J., you might be on mute. [Operator Instructions] And we have no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks everyone for joining us today. We look forward to follow-up conversations and some virtual conferences over the next couple of months.
Operator:
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. this concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Quarter 2020 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Natalia. I will be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries First Quarter 2020 Earnings Conference Call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its first quarter 2020 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Before we jump into commentary about the quarter and our outlook, I just want to say how good it feels to be here today. It's a beautiful sunny day in Chicago, and it is both my privilege and my pleasure to be sitting around our conference table with all of the Deerfield-based senior leadership team. Of course, we're maintaining appropriate social distance. But it's been almost 10 weeks since we closed our headquarters office, and although we have a standing conference call every day, it's great to be back together again in the same room as a team. This team has done an amazing job of not only keeping their organizations engaged in executing our business, but also keeping our people safe. Globally, we're an organization of 3,000 people, and we've only had a total of four employees test positive for COVID-19. At the end of March, three of our employees tested positive in our Donaldsonville plant and all spent the month of April at home recovering. I'm delighted to say all three have fully recovered and are back at work. The other individual is a very recent event and works in our Deerfield headquarters. Given this result today, I'm particularly proud of the processes and procedures this team has established to make sure we keep our people safe and our operations running. Last night, we posted our financial results for the first quarter of 2020 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $318 million, approximately 4% higher than the same period a year ago. These results reflect the impact of higher sales volumes and lower natural gas costs, partially offset by lower product prices across all segments. The underlying story of the quarter, however, is the CF team. Our facilities are part of the critical infrastructure in all regions where we operate because we serve a vital role in helping to feed the world. Our operations employees continue to come into our facilities and run our plants while our non-operations employees are supporting them remotely. The whole team is performing exceptionally well under the difficult circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We produced 2.7 million tons of ammonia in the first quarter. This is the second highest quarterly volume in the company's history and continues to demonstrate our outstanding track record of asset utilization. Most importantly, we are working safely. As of March 31, we achieved our lowest-ever 12-month recordable incident rate of 0.34 incidents per 200,000 labor hours. As we've said many times, we evaluate the company based on full year and half year performance rather than on individual quarters. This is because weather can significantly shift volume from one quarter to another. Those temporary shifts tend to smooth out over longer periods. That said, we're fortunate that 2020 has started with strong volumes in Q1 and good demand in shipments so far through Q2. So at this point, we have good visibility on the first half of the year. As Bert will describe, we see strong nitrogen demand for the spring in North America and the U.K. Compared to the last couple of years through this point in the calendar, the weather has been significantly better for fieldwork and planting. And to date, we have not experienced any significant disruption to our business from the pandemic. We feel good about how the second quarter is progressing, and we expect our first half 2020 total product sales volumes to be similar to the previous three years. Looking forward, there is more than the typical amount of uncertainty for the second half of the year and into 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although we have not been impacted directly by the pandemic, and we are seeing very strong agricultural demand as the global economy contracts, industrial demand does soften. However, I'd like to provide some context for the magnitude of the uncertainty we're talking about. First, nitrogen is the only nondiscretionary plant nutrient. Unlike potash and phosphate, which can be reduced or skipped entirely for a year, nitrogen must be applied. Second, our plants are some of the most efficient, lowest-cost operations in the world, and we're on the very low end of the global cost curve. Further, we produce in import-dependent regions, so our logistics cost to get our products in the market are lower than imports. Third, North America has some of the most productive, fertile farmland in the world. Additionally, the U.S. government has historically supported agriculture in times of distress. And already, there has been $19 billion of aid approved with more expected to come in the future. Given this, we continue to expect our full year production sales volumes will be between 19.5 million and 20 million tons, just like it's been in the last several years in a row. So the uncertainty is not about our sales volume, it tends to be more about price realization. And while it is true that energy prices are generally lower globally, Chinese-based anthracite coal remains the high-cost marginal production in the industry. Chinese anthracite coal is currently over $7 per MMBtu on an equivalent basis. So with our gas costs currently trading below $2, we have a significant built-in margin structure. Additionally, we're beginning to see somewhat of a supply-side response with announced curtailments in or closures in Europe, Asia and South America, particularly for those plants that were principally serving industrial demand, which has softened. ] I said on our last conference call that we expect 2020 full year EBITDA to come in somewhere between 2018 and 2019's performance. So far this year, our first quarter results are pacing ahead of 2019. As I said, we also expect good volume movement in Q2 this year, but we are comping against an all-time record Q2 volume from 2019. Furthermore, prevailing prices are lower than last year, and given the additional uncertainty for the second half of this year, that leads to me to think we are likely to be more in the range of 2018's full year financial performance. Now there is a lot of the year still to play for, and we are off to a strong start with the business running well. So we feel really good about our situation compared to many companies in the industries out there today. Given the uncertainty we face in the second half of the year, we are focusing our efforts on controlling those things we can control. First and foremost, as always, our top priority is protecting the health and well-being of our employees and contractors at our locations. Next, we remain focused on operating safely and achieving high asset utilization. As you can see on Slide six of our materials, the CF team has delivered consistently strong performance. In fact, on a trailing 12-month basis, we have produced 10.3 million tons of ammonia, and sales volumes have exceeded 20 million tons, both of which are company records. Finally, we continue to manage the company responsibly for both the short and the long term. As Chris will describe, we are ensuring that our capital expenditures, manufacturing controllable costs and SG&A expense all reflect the broader economic environment. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will discuss the market, then Chris will talk about our financial position before I return for some closing comments. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thank you, Tony. For the first time in several years, weather patterns in North America have been relatively normal for farmers. This allowed a strong spring ammonia application season to develop at the end of March through April. As we noted in our press release, we have moved the highest volume of ammonia for agricultural application for the month of April since 2015. On this day on one day this past month, we had more than 1,600 ammonia trucks pick up over 32,000 tons of ammonia from our facilities, the highest single-day volume in about five years. We believe that this level of activity and our order book going forward supports our projection for an increase in nitrogen-consuming corn and coarse grain-planted acres in North America. We continue to anticipate 92 million to 94 million acres of corn will be planted in the United States in 2020. This is lower than the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate of 97 million acres from March but it will be about two million to four million acres higher than in 2019. To meet this demand, we have been in constant conversations with our customers and transportation partners as we collectively navigate the COVID-19 pandemic. From our perspective, the fertilizer supply chain is operating efficiently. This is due to the professionalism and dedication of everyone involved, including our rail and barge carriers, trucking companies and truckers, and distributors and retailers who provide these essential materials to farmers. We believe that global demand for agricultural use remains strong overall for 2020 growing seasons led by increased corn and wheat acres here in North America and demand in India and Brazil for urea imports. India just issued its second urea tender of the year, which we expect results for soon. The country likely won't reach last year's urea import levels, but we expect it to continue to drive market sentiment in the second half. Demand for urea imports in Brazil should also be positive in 2020, given that domestic production in that country is not expected to operate this year and currency devaluation makes growing corn more profitable. As Tony said, there's a great deal of uncertainty ahead due to the negative impact to the global economy of the pandemic. We are monitoring how the pandemic will affect the global nitrogen market in the rest of the year and into 2021. Some of the impacts are clear today. Demand for nitrogen for industrial use, such as explosives and emission abatement, has declined along with economic activity. We expect demand for these products to increase as economic activity increases. In the meantime, we can leverage the flexibility of our system to change our product mix. For example, producing as much diesel exhaust fluid and urea liquor, as we do today, we can granulate more urea. We're also watching closely the economic impact on farmers. Challenging conditions for ethanol and feed industries have caused crop future prices to fall. We do not believe the challenges those industries face today have affected significantly planting decisions for 2020. Should those challenges persist, we would expect an impact on planting decisions for 2021. However, those decisions are at least six to 10 months away and will be based on conditions then, a forecast that would be difficult to make today. Additionally, any government efforts to protect farm income and the impact of crop insurance payments will also factor into farmer planting decisions in the fall. Because we are seeing such high demand now, we expect to end the first half with low inventories. This will give us a great deal of flexibility for fill programs in the second half based on economic and demand considerations as farmers, customers and the industry at large, adapt to the challenges caused by the pandemic. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Christopher Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. As the pandemic developed in early 2020, we constantly evaluated our financial position to ensure we have the flexibility we needed to manage the uncertainty that we anticipated ahead. As we sit here today, we feel we are well positioned for this unprecedented event, both operationally and financially. This starts with the actions management has taken over the last three years to create a strong and flexible balance sheet. This includes reducing our gross debt by nearly $2 billion and fixed charges by $190 million compared to the beginning of 2017. We also benefit from our operational and structural advantages that support our cash generation capability. For the first quarter of 2020, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $68 million or $0.31 per diluted share. EBITDA was $314 million, and adjusted EBITDA was $318 million. As Tony noted in his remarks, these results reflect the positive impact of higher volumes and lower realized natural gas costs that were partially offset by lower product prices. For the first quarter, our cost of natural gas and our cost of sales was more than $1 lower than the same period in 2019. Looking ahead to the rest of 2020, we expect natural gas costs to continue to benefit the company and offset in part the impact of lower year-over-year product prices. Our trailing 12 months net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.5 billion, and free cash flow was $912 million. We remain the most efficient converter of EBITDA into free cash flow in the industry, and we expect to continue to generate substantial cash flow through the remainder of the year. We also have the liquidity we need to manage the company through the pandemic. At the end of the quarter, the company had about $1 billion of liquidity, comprised of cash and cash equivalents of $753 million on the balance sheet, and $250 million available on the revolver. As we noted in the press release, we drew $500 million in borrowings under our revolving credit facility. We repaid the revolver in full on April 20 when it became apparent the credit markets had stabilized. Today, our cash balance is $500 million, and our total liquidity is over $1.2 billion, including the now undrawn revolver. We also continue to focus on managing our spending during this uncertain time. Our manufacturing controllable cost per ton were 10% lower in the first quarter of 2020 compared to the first quarter of 2019. Additionally, we reduced certain activity in light of the pandemic, contributing to lower SG&A spending in the first quarter of 2020 compared to 2019. We expect that trend to continue throughout the year. We have also adjusted our capital spending plans. In line with our focus on protecting the health and well-being of our employees, we are deferring certain activities scheduled for 2020 that would have brought hundreds of contractors onto our sites. These activities may also have faced delays in receiving equipment fabricated in areas heavily impacted by the pandemic, such as Italy. This is why we lowered our estimated range for capital expenditures in 2020 from $400 million to $450 million to $350 million to $400 million. We will not forgo any activities critical to our ability to operate safely. And we expect our capital expenditures to return to the $400 million to $450 million range annually in 2021 and beyond. Our capital deployment focus remains the same. We are committed to redeeming the remaining $250 million of our 2021 senior secured notes on or before the maturity date. We also continue to view share repurchases as our primary way of returning excess cash to shareholders. As Tony and Bert both pointed out, there is uncertainty ahead. With our strong capital structure, substantial free cash flow generation and ample liquidity, we believe we are well positioned to continue to do what is best for the long-term health of the company throughout the pandemic. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for a strong quarter and for their commitment and dedication, continuing to work safely and responsibly to do what we can do as part of the critical infrastructure in each country where we operate. Most of all, I want to congratulate them for their tremendous safety achievements. The CF team brings our do-it-right value to life every day, which continues to drive our success as a company. Since I've been with CF, we have faced two other periods of challenging conditions
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Your first question is from the line of Chris Parkinson with Credit Suisse.
Chris Parkinson:
So you've done a pretty solid job of getting the Midwest prices back to attractive levels, especially in UAN. Can you speak to the current inland supply demand dynamic now that we're in May for both urea and UAN? And also just touch on any additional expectations, at least initially for summer fill activity.
Bert Frost:
So looking at the premiums in the Midwest. What we achieved, the team did a very good job of positioning product and moving product, working with our transportation partners and terminaling system in Q1 to have product in position when it was ready to go. And we caught a wave where the urea price and then the N price valued increased in value during that March, April time period, and we sold into that. So I do think that there will still be a very healthy carry going into through Q2 for those inland positions just because of the logistical difficulties of getting product for this volume of acreage that needs to be planted and fertilized through June. So I would expect that the normal premiums we see, let's say, $30 for the interior, will probably be extended and expanded and continue that for the quarter. Our expectations for fill, we've done a lot of different things in fill programs over the years in terms of when they start, duration, volume. And what when we look at those things, it's with the view of an economic value, what is the value to the company and what is the value and value at risk to our customers, and trying to incorporate many of those questions and variabilities together to put together a package. It's been as small as a month of volume and as large as six months in volume. And so when we get to that point and again, depending on our inventory, which we expect to be low, which gives us a lot of flexibility going into that program. If the global price is low, you'll see a smaller program. If the global price and then the NOLA price is better, you'll see a bigger program. And then we'll flex the production mix accordingly.
Chris Parkinson:
Just a little bit more of a longer-term question, I'd say. So there's obviously been a lot of discussion about the future global urea cost curve regarding concerns on U.S.-associated gas at the low ends versus Chinese anthracite at the high ends. Can you speak to the current slope of the cost curve? How it may change, positively or negatively, in your view? And then also just touch on your expectation for new supply as it now appears some construction is now idle and supply chains appear disrupted?
Anthony Will:
So in terms of the shape of the cost curve or the supply curve, it's pretty clear that there's been some massive dislocations in the energy market lately when you've got for a period of time, oil trading at, on a spot basis, negative numbers and things just cratering. Obviously, there's been a lot of craziness going on out there. But sort of the longer-term dynamics that we firmly believe in is now that oil is back in the, call it, $30 range, the LNG-based contracts that are linked against oil are well above where Henry Hub is priced today. And then the spot price of LNG on the sort of extraneous cargoes, there's been some sloppiness in there. So we've actually paid, believe it or not, some days in this last quarter, U.K. gas cost below what we've been paying at Henry Hub. And that is almost unprecedented from at least from my time in this industry. So there has been some strange occurrences, but we think that, that's really just sloppiness in terms of inventory working its way through the system on the LNG side. So again, the oil index contracts are trading well above where hub is. And eventually, the inventory of LNG works its way through the system and replacement economics because all of that spot gas that's coming from NOLA has to trade at NOLA plus. So our view is as you see beginnings of the economy on a global basis, kind of recovering, you'll see energy prices kind of stabilize and come back up a bit. And then the rest of the world, from a spot LNG standpoint, will be above where NOLA is. So we'll continue to operate at the very low end, and you'll probably see some increase in terms of the slope of the curve. Now the high end of the curve has been established by Chinese anthracite. As I said in my remarks, that's above $7 or $7.25 or something today on an equivalent basis. Even if it softens a little bit, we still have a really substantial cushion with less than $2 at hub today. And then we got basis differentials that put us at lower cost yet still inland. And in our view is with gas at the $30 range or maybe even strengthening a bit, there's an awful lot of wet gas plays that come back into profitability at that point. So we're not taking a doom-and-gloom view of where U.S. natural gas trades. And we think the rest of the world will likely be paying higher prices compared to where we are over the mid- to long term.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citigroup.
P.J. Juvekar:
Tony, hello?
Anthony Will:
Yes, that's better.
P.J. Juvekar:
So you mentioned about China anthracite coal prices. China coal prices haven't come down, but that hasn't stopped the recent urea slide. Is that more of a short-term supply-demand imbalance? And then talking about China, what are their expectations for what are your expectations for Chinese exports this year for urea?
Anthony Will:
Yes. So China exports year-to-date are running a fair bit behind where they were last year. I think last year, total exports were in the range of about five million tons. This year, we're expecting somewhere in the three million to four million tons coming out of China. So we actually think there's going to be a reduction in the amount of material coming out of China this year. I think part of what's going on with the softening in urea pricing is given the fact that we've had really favorable early spring weather in the U.K. and also in the U.S., now there's been a lot of field work that's happened earlier in the year. And what people are afraid of in the channel is ending up with inventory and material that cascades over past planting into the into the fall. So I think you're seeing kind of a lot of just-in-time purchases where they can do back-to-back and get it out the door again because they don't want to be holding material, and that's led to a little bit of softening. Prompt shipments is much stronger than if you're talking about plus 60 days in terms of pricing, and I think that, that tended to weigh on things a little bit. But we're very constructive in terms of on the supply side. We think you're not going to see some of the new plant start-ups that had originally been planned for the year. As I said, you have seen some announcements on curtailments or shutdowns, particularly on industrial-focused plants around the world. And yet, our plants are running as well as they do every year, day in and day out. So we feel really good about, I think, the overall S&D balance. Bert, anything else you want to add?
Bert Frost:
I agree. Considering where we are in the cycle, where we are with the pandemic, where we are with costs, I think it's remarkable what we achieved, but also your question on the urea slide, it is that. It's an inventory release. And then you're going to have to build that back up. So there will be a floor, and the Chinese cost we expect that's going to be expressed in this India tender that you won't see as much participation. And the world is not long, and so we will eventually recover back up to an acceptable level.
P.J. Juvekar:
And Bert, quickly on your answer on summer fill that you expect. There is increased caution and then going back to last year, growers who bought UAN last year ended up losing money, who bought early, ended up losing money. And you think that experience might change their behavior this year?
Bert Frost:
I disagree that they lost money. When you if we launched in August at about $150 NOLA, we're above that today. And so and the interior values were are below where we are today. So those that purchased right and then layered in, one, logistically got it delivered; two, were prepared for spring; and three, priced appropriately with the retail margin that comes with that base. So the feedback from our customers on this fertilizer season, which started in July and will go through June is they're well positioned. And especially with these large acres, they're going to work through all of their inventory. So I think we'll be positioned, and they will also, well for the next phase. If that comes later, fine. If that comes earlier, we're good with that, too.
Anthony Will:
P.J., the other thing is retail pricing to farmers was a lot stickier than wholesale pricing was. So even though you saw a little bit of softening in on the wholesale side or some volatility, the retail price was pretty sticky. So I'm with Bert on this one, which is the retailers that layered in and went with us on fill got a really reasonable return on that purchase.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets.
Joel Jackson:
Just on the guide first for 2020, two things on that. So I think on the last call, you talked about achieving you thought you could achieve roughly the same free cash flow in 2020 as 2019 even if EBITDA was a little bit lower. So I wanted to just check in on that. And also, I mean, I think you're about $20 million ahead of on the year in Q1 versus 2018 and 2019. You seem to be guiding down maybe $50 million or $75 million now versus your prior expectations for EBITDA. Where are we seeing that? Is that in pricing in the second half of the year? Is that ammonia? Any granularity you can give a bit on the lower guide would be great.
Anthony Will:
Yes. It's the big issue is, year in and year out, our plant utilization rate is very high. And so the total tonnage that we produce is very consistent, and we can really only sell what we make, right? So our sales volumes don't shift much. The change between $19.3 million, $19.5 million, $20 million, a lot of that has to do with product mix because the more ammonia and urea you sell, the more nutrient content is going out the door, so the less total number of tons you're selling. The more UAN, you sell, the more product tons go out the door. So as Bert tweaks the dials on what the product mix is, it changes our volumes a little bit, but it's very consistent, right in that range. So the change in expectations for the year is all being driven off of the price side. And that's if you look at where our pricing is today versus where it was a year ago, we're softer across the board. And even though gas price is down a lot relative to where it was, and as Chris mentioned, our controllable costs across all segments are down quite a bit relative to where they were, there's a lot more leverage on the price side than there is the cost side of this equation. So when prices are softer, you can't really make all of that back up on the cost side. But look, we feel very good about where we are. And even at the 2018 kind of range, we can generate a heck of a lot of free cash flow. And we're in good in a really good position.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank.
Ben Isaacson:
You talked about weak industrial demand and some closures you've seen around the world. What is CF's exposure to various industrial end markets? And are you considering curtailing any plants?
Anthony Will:
Yes. So we're not as I mentioned, our expectation is our production and sales volume this year are going to be the same as it's been the last three years in a row. So we're not anticipating any kind of curtailments and our operating rates to remain high. We do have a fair bit of industrial business, but a lot of that is on contractual basis, whether it's take-or-pay or indexed off the different things where there's required patterns of movement. And so again, our expectation is, at least for the customers that we tend to serve, which is in a lot of spot business, is it's going to be very consistent. And our for instance, two of our bigger industrial chunks of business, one is with Orica and Nelson Brothers on AN and the other one is with Mosaic on ammonia, and both of those are kind of cost-plus-based contracts, and both of them have take-or-pay requirements associated with them. So we feel really good about our ability to continue to run our assets well and to have movement of all of our products. Bert, anything to add?
Bert Frost:
Yes. Just in terms of the industrial mix in that segment, there's a diverse mix of customers and segments from mining to phosphate to emissions control to resins, and then as feedstock for raw material, nitric acid, urea liquor, ammonia. And so no one product is dominant nor is no one segment dominant. And then as a mix between ag, when we look at our business between ag exports and industrial, we view that as a key component to the 24/7, 365 offer that with ag being a seasonal product, helps balance our production. And that percentage of our business is, we think, a very good place, and we'll keep that size of that segment in our mix.
Anthony Will:
The other thing is the places where you're tending to see shutdowns are ones that don't have the same cost position that we have in the U.S. There's been, I think, five four or five gas processing plants in Trinidad, not processing, but gas input-based plants in Trinidad that have curtailed or shut down. And those are based on the fact that the old Caribbean-style gas contract had hit its end. The government NGC and the government renegotiated a higher cost that's frankly not competitive based on where today's cost structure is. So I think what you're seeing is supply coming out in the regions of the world that are a little bit higher cost, which is exactly the places that it should contract.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Steve Byrne with BofA.
Steve Byrne:
I'd like to drill into the fairly significant differences in gross margin between your various nitrogen products. Is are those differences logical to you? Or is there something in there that's has to do with how you allocate internal costs. But more importantly, the margin on ammonia is so much lower than the others. Is that driven by your need to move that volume because it's counter-seasonal in the fall? Or is there an option for you to push price there because the margin is lower? And if growers don't take it, you could pick up more volume in urea and UAN. A - Anthony Will Yes. One of the things is the costs are allocated on a manufacturing cost basis. As you know, everything starts with ammonia. So the ammonia cost structure just flows through to the other products, and then we go from there. So it's not a cost-allocation piece. It really is a couple of things, one of which is ag ammonia tends to be pretty good pricing, and industrial ammonia, particularly right now, if you look at where Black Sea price is and even Tampa price is, very low price. And that's why you're seeing industrial contract-based ammonia production around the world shut in because it's not competitive. And so in quarters where we're doing less ag ammonia, you'd expect ammonia gross margins to be compressed because the sales volume is going to be driven off of the industrial sales. And again, as we talked about, deepwater-traded, industrial kind of ammonia is cheap. In quarters where we have a much higher percentage of our ammonia business being done by ag, then you'll see that margin expand back out again. And ag application of ammonia, it's a very seasonal thing. And so you get a little bit of it in Q1, that spreads into Q2. The really big days of shipment that Bert was talking about where April day is. So we're going to have more ag shipments of ammonia in the second quarter than we had in the first quarter, and then sometimes we see a little bit in Q4 as well. But largely, Q3 is almost 100% other than a little bit of side dress here and there, almost 100% industrial, and a big chunk of Q1 is also industrial. So the product that's going to have the most variability and seasonality across the year is going to be ammonia. And that's also one for which the U.S. is really the biggest and almost only market for direct application for agricultural use. So there's not a lot of other places to take that product other than here. So we're very fortunate that we've got our big terminaling and distribution network across the U.S. It represents a great value to farmers. It's one of the reasons why they put ammonia down because it tends to be the cheapest form of nutrients that they can apply to their fields. So it's a good value to them, and we're pleased with it.
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. The other thing I would note, Steve, is if you look at it from an adjusted gross margin, so adding back to the depreciation, as Tony mentioned, we produced a lot of ammonia and sold a lot of ammonia. So there's a higher depreciation level. So on an adjusted gross margin, the percent is the same as Q1 of 2019 for all the reasons Tony just talked about.
Anthony Will:
Yes, that that's also a big piece, which is the D'ville plant and the Port Neal plant have a lot of depreciation associated with them. So when you take out the depreciation portion of COGS, and you're really looking at just the manufacturing...
Christopher Bohn:
The cash cost.
Anthony Will:
The cash cost. You've got numbers that are a much better representation of the true economics of operating the assets.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Jonas Oxgaard with Bernstein.
Jonas Oxgaard:
I was wondering, so before COVID hit, I think the forecast was for something around 10 million tons of new ammonia capacity to be built in the next three years. Do you have a sense for what that number looks like today? Are we seeing cancellations, delays, anything of that sort?
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. Jonas, this is Chris. I think what we're looking at here is largely in line with what Tony and Bert have been talking about, that not only are you seeing curtailments, but probably a shift in the time frame when those particular projects are going to be coming online. And that's really a couple of fold there, similar to what I talked about with our own CapEx. That being a lot of the fabricators that produce the vessels and the equipment for these particular projects have been in lockdown mode, some of which are beginning to come back on in Northern Italy. But then additionally, with that, it's the amount of contract workers that come on site. So I think our expectations over and above the general delays that we see just by these projects running longer than what people estimate is going to be that there's just going to be an overall shift along with probably continued curtailments, specifically for those that are oriented towards industrial production.
Anthony Will:
Yes. And the longer you see kind of a global economic hangover effect, I think the longer those kinds of supply-side restrictions are going to be. And in that sort of environment, it's really hard to justify new projects or even continuing to put work into things that have started if you're still a long way to go because the payout based on where deepwater-traded ammonia is today just doesn't warrant putting new assets in the ground.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Don Carson with Susquehanna Financial.
Don Carson:
Bert, a question on the outlook for the fall season in the U.S. It looks like with an early planting, we could have an early harvest for the first time in three years, which should be positive for demand. But obviously, a lot of uncertainties as to the outlook for corn next year given feed and ethanol outlook. So how do you see those two playing out this year? Do you think it's going to be above-trend fall season for ammonia in the U.S.? And then just one cash flow question. Are share repurchases off the table in the interim, just given some of the uncertainty out there in the market right now?
Bert Frost:
So first question, I'll take and then Chris and Tony will take the second. Regarding the fall season, you're correct, we are seeing and with the planting information that just came out this week, we are ahead at over 50%. I expect that trend to continue with the weather we're seeing. And so looking towards fall with a good dry out. We would see the beans and corn coming off of those with corn on corn or following beans with corn. We would expect to see you talk about the season, what is a healthy fall season because we've had several be interrupted by bad weather or different circumstances. And so we are looking forward to the fall, and we think ammonia will be priced attractively. And those who are who have been able to apply have been rewarded with being able to get in the fields on time and plant for spring. So we expect probably a healthy ammonia season for the fall. And the outlook for corn, I think when you look at where we are today on the board with kind of a harvest price at $3.30 to $3.35 today, you're getting close to a low number with or a number that is you get below $3, it's difficult for any rented land to be profitable. When you throw back in government payments and like Tony said, $19 billion to date, we're expecting more on top of that. When you throw in all of the costs for a farmer and all of the revenue options with revenue guarantee program that's said in the February at $3.70, you can make a pretty good case for this year's harvest and the profitability coming off the farm and then next year with what acres would be being hopefully above this level. So like we said, we're structurally positive for this year and then watching but anticipating, not as bad as what everybody is thinking or saying for 2021.
Anthony Will:
On the share repo question, as we have an open authorization, we did repurchase about $100 million of shares in Q1. And our target really is to make sure we're maintaining at least $1 billion of liquidity. We think that, that's completely ample to be able to support the kind of ups and downs in the business as we move forward. And as Chris said, we've generated some good cash flow here. Year-to-date, we're at $500 million of cash on the balance sheet and an undrawn revolver today. And particularly given where the share price is and the fact that, that is our preferred method to return cash to shareholders, it's something that we're spending a lot of time talking about. I will say, just given the broader uncertain global economic outlook, we're probably going to err a little bit on the side of caution, but I think it's certainly available to us. And as the balance of the year unfolds, if a fill program comes in, in somewhat of a normal fashion although that's kind of an oxymoron, given that every single year in fill is different from the previous year, so I'm not quite sure what normal looks like. But as long as we're comfortable in terms of cash flow generation and where the year is trending, I think we're going to certainly leave ourselves open to avail ourselves of taking out some price some shares at low prices.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. So I was hoping I mean, you talked about this on the urea cost curve and I guess, ammonia too, but just UAN specifically. And there, I mean, the markets had some changes in demand patterns with the EU tariffs the last couple of years. You've got some reduction in production in the former Soviet Union, but I would still feel like there's some high-cost production out there that doesn't seem particularly economic at these prices. Maybe just your thoughts on how that looks over the next 12 months given the changing energy landscape.
Bert Frost:
Yes. I think that you hit on several components put together for the complete analysis of UAN. And I'm really pleased with the UAN team and what they've done in conjunction with all the disruptions with the EU changes, which forced us to move 700,000 to 800,000 tons that were going there back into the U.S. market. We've moderated production a little bit for increased urea. But what we've done and what we're going to do is continue to expand our terminal operation where we can reach markets we probably weren't that focused on, like California, the PNW and the East Coast and plan to continue to do that. So for what we're seeing in UAN overall on demand is some positive things in South America and Brazil and Argentina and as well as in the United States. In production, with what Acron has done, dropping in a urea granulation unit, we anticipate fewer tons coming from the from Russia into North America over time, and that makes sense. As we stay around the 90 million-acre plus or minus range, the demand for UAN is about 15 million. We should be importing about two million tons, and we will be an import-dependent market, and that can be supplied by a few of the suppliers that we have today.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of Michael Piken with Cleveland Research.
Michael Piken:
Just following up on the last question. Is there any update in terms of what's happening in Europe in terms of potentially getting some of those antidumping duties reduced or eliminated? And how does that sort of play into kind of your longer-term thoughts?
Anthony Will:
No. I mean I think those duties are going to be with us for the foreseeable future. I don't the EU court does not have a history of going back and changing their mind about things once they put those things in place. So I'd be shocked if that changed.
Bert Frost\:
That being said, I think, like I said in the last call, we've prepared for what Tony said that eventuality, and we have good options available to us with some changes to our system. And I think we're going to at least for CF's sake, we'll be fine and see a positive market going forward.
Operator:
Your next question is from the line of John Roberts with UBS.
John Roberts:
You're deferring some maintenance. Are we likely to see maintenance globally being deferred so that product availability globally is going to be down a few percent and likewise excuse me, up a few percent this year? And then likewise, down a few percent next year as we get a lot of maintenance done next year that wasn't going to get done this year.
Anthony Will:
Yes. Let me we can only talk about the maintenance aspect of it. So for instance, as Chris mentioned in his remarks earlier, we've got some new vessels, replacement vessels on things like high-temperature shift and so forth that are being fabricated in northern Italy because those are some of the premier shops in the world that do this kind of work. And obviously, when northern Italy went on lockdown, they noticed force majeure that all those deliveries were going to get extended out in time. And so part of the issue is critical spares or critical equipment that was coming to us to be installed during turnaround activity didn't reach us. And the other piece was we didn't want to have 500 contractors in sort of a relatively hot spot area of NOLA in the Gulf Coast show up in our facilities and put our employees at risk. And so for us, what we're doing is not really deferring. We're just waiting until we get the right equipment and until we feel we can bring people into the facility in a manner that's safe. And I think that probably more of that is happening than last on a global basis. So I would think for us, because we're very much focused on high uptime, high onstream, we do preventative maintenance, we don't run stuff until it breaks, I think we're going to be fine relative to not having any kind of unusual outages relative to our plants and equipment. I think other people that run a little closer to the edge could well see significant downtime. And that's another piece that doesn't always get calc-ed into the supply-side equation, but there's a lot of companies that don't really run their asset, plants on a basis that is really long-term thinking about high onstream. And so as you start deferring some of this maintenance or putting it out, you're going to get a lot more kind of break-fix issues, which tend to lead to a lot of up and downtime. So overall, I would expect industry operating rates to drop over the next couple of years for that reason. And it's not obvious that things are going to "return to normal" anytime soon. So it could this trend could push out not just from 2020 into 2021, but it could be sort of a cascade effect over the next couple of years, I think. Chris, or...
Christopher Bohn:
Yes, I was just going to add that. I mean, there's a difference between planned outages and unplanned. And I think what you'll see is less planned outages, but more unplanned outages. That being exactly what Tony said, where you're going to have some operating rates that are going to be on and off just because of CapEx that hasn't been spent over the years, unlike what we've done with our program.
Operator:
Your final question is from the line of Mark Connelly with Stephens Inc.
Mark Connelly:
In the interest of time, I'll just keep it to one. Your controllable costs were down a lot more than I expected. Can you just walk us through what happened there?
Christopher Bohn:
Yes. Controllable costs, really, there's two elements of it. Obviously, it's the asset utilization that we had during the quarter, that being high, producing more tons. But then it's also on the spending. So having seen this beginning to go and even prior to that, we started to take a focus on really what are the essential projects we need to be working on, and only working on the critical projects. So you saw less maintenance spending because of the asset utilization, but less engineering and professional services spent because of the focus we had on what we really needed to be focusing on. So the expectation is that we'll probably continue with the lower controllable costs than what we've had in the previous year over the next quarters. In addition to that, one of the elements that I talked about also in the remarks was on SG&A, too, just given the level of travel. As you look at Q1, we were down about $4 million quarter-over-quarter, and that was really before any impact of the closed office. As Tony mentioned, we didn't close the office until mid-March. So the expectations would be our run rate on Q1 SG&A, maybe a little south of that, too. That will provide us some cushion. So everything that we can control, back to Tony's comments, we're focused on controlling.
Anthony Will:
The only thing I'd add to that, Mark, is Chris highlighted a couple of these things. But spend really goes along with activity. And as you dial back the activity, then spend comes down quite a bit. And I don't think our travel expense is going to bounce back anytime soon. We've learned to function pretty well on Webex and Zoom and Teams doing conference calls and so forth. So we're going to try to keep that going. We have provided our employees, that have to go into the facilities every day to keep the plants running, a kind of the equivalent of a hazard duty pay. So we've provided sort of a monthly bonus to that group of people, and we're going to keep that in place here for the foreseeable future. So there's one element of cost that's come up. But despite that, all the other costs have come down, and we're running as a result to net positive. And I'm just really proud of the team and the organization, that they've continued to run and keep everything operating, keep themselves safe. It's really been remarkable given the conditions we're facing out there.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would now like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us, and we look forward to your follow-up calls. Have a great day.
Operator:
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries Holdings Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2019 Results and Conference Call. My name is Michelle. I'll be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, CF Investor Relations. Sir, please go ahead.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning and. And thanks for joining the CF Industries full year and fourth quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its full year and fourth quarter 2019 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks Martin and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the full year 2019, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $1.6 billion a nearly 15% increase over 2018. We efficiently converted our EBITDA into cash, generating over 900 million in free cash for the year. As shown on Slides 6 and 7of our materials we're the most efficient converter of EBITDA into cash in the industry. Additionally, we have the best free cash flow yield. These results reflect the impact of lower year-over-year natural gas costs for the company, higher product price, realizations and outstanding execution by the CF team. We operated our plant extremely well all year and set a new quarterly ammonia production record in the fourth quarter. For the full year, we produce more than 10.2 million tons of ammonia and delivered sales volumes of 19.5 million product tons. Most impressively, we did all this safely. Our 12 month rolling recordable incident rate at the end of 2019 was 0.48 incidents per 200,000 work hours. This is the lowest year end rate ever at CF. We are tremendously proud of this achievement. And I want to thank everyone at CF who makes safety their top priority every day. In 2019, we delivered a one year total shareholder return of 13%, which was well above each member of our fertilizer peer group for the year, as you can see on Slides 9 and 10. We have outperformed our peer group index over one, three, five, seven and 10 years for total shareholder returns. And we were the single best performing company overall with one of these time periods. We believe this consistent long-term out performance relative to our peers reflects the enduring structural and operational strengths of our company. Our structural advantages are clear, we provide a nutrient that is non-discretionary and for which demand continues to grow. We are among the lowest cost producers of nitrogen in the world due to our access to low cost and plentiful North American natural gas and we operate in import dependent regions. We also have created operational advantages for our company by investing in our assets and our people. We have the highest ammonia utilization rate in North America and our production sites have the flexibility to switch quickly between products to meet demand and maximize profits. We also have outstanding logistics capabilities in North America's most extensive distribution network. These advantages have enabled us to efficiently generate significant cash flow. Since the beginning of 2017, we have deployed nearly $4 billion in cash to strengthen our balance sheet, increase shareholder participation in our nitrogen business and return cash to shareholders. We believe we are the best position company in the industry to continue to build on this track record of creating long-term shareholder value in the years ahead. Looking forward to 2020 we remain focused on safe and reliable operations and disciplined management of the company. As we've said before, we believe our operational performance will consistently deliver sales volumes between 19 and 20 million product tons each year and we expect to do this with one of the lowest controllable cross structures per product ton in our industry. With that let me turn it over to Bert who'll talk more about current market conditions and our outlook. Then Chris will cover our financial position before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks Tony. Since the start of the second half of 2019 low global energy prices have supported higher industry operating rates and increased nitrogen supply availability. This pressure global nitrogen prices in the latter part of 2019 and into 2020. Global demand in the second half of 2019 was a bright spot highlighted by strong urea imports into India and Brazil. India tendered for a record volume of urea during the year due to favorable growing conditions and flat domestic production despite the startup of new capacity. This demand along with the effect of lower energy prices and favorable exchange rates brought additional Chinese urea exports to the market, exceeding our expectations entering the year. Demand from India should remain strong in 2020, with the next India urea tender expected in March or early April. We also expect urea imports and demand in Brazil to increase over 2019 supported by the recent idling of a Petrobras ammonia urea complex and additional planted corn acres in that country. Just like the rest of the world, North America saw lower year-over-year nitrogen prices throughout the fourth quarter. This has been reflected in North American nitrogen prices as we begin the year. Urea barge values in New Orleans at the start of 2020 were $220 per ton, compared to $275 per ton at the start of 2019. Barge prices have appreciated recently as the industry has begun to take stock of potential spring demand. However, even with the increase prices today are still lower year-over-year. Additionally, UAN prices in North America are lower than at this point last year and priced at a discount to urea due to an influx of imports as trade flows adjust to the impact of European Union tariffs. We expect strong nitrogen demand in North America during the upcoming spring application season, which we believe will support prices. Last year we saw record prevent plant acres in the US and a weak fall ammonia season due to poor weather. Despite a challenging year, however, farm income is improved for most farmers and input costs are at decade lows. This should result in an increase in planting corn acres as a whole over 2019 if farmers see typical planting conditions. We believe this should favor demand for nitrogen. Crop features continue to support an increase in the planting of nitrogen consuming crops. We estimate planted corn acres in the United States will be in the range of 92 million to 94 million acres. We also expect positive demand for spring ammonia, as well as upgraded products, which typically see greater demand following poor fall ammonia seasons. We're well prepared for the active spring application season we see ahead. While our expectations are for normal planting conditions, each spring brings new opportunities for CF to leverage our extensive logistics and distribution capabilities. We are ready for whatever arises and look forward to working with our customers for a successful spring application season. With that let me turn the call over to Chris.
Chris Bohn:
Thanks Bert. For the full year of 2019, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $493 million or $2.23 per diluted share. Our EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA were both approximately $1.6 billion. Lower natural gas costs year-over-year were a substantial factor in our financial performance in 2019. This was especially true in the second half when significantly lower natural gas prices compared to 2018 supported our results despite lower product prices. Looking ahead to 2020 we expect natural gas costs to continue to provide a tailwind, particularly in the first half of the year. This should partially offset the impact of lower year-over-year product prices. Our full year net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.5 billion and free cash flow was $915 million. In 2019, we continue to deploy capital in line with our long standing priorities. We redeemed 750 million in debt, lowering our gross debt to $4 billion. We returned $265 million to shareholders through dividends and we repurchased 7.6 million shares for $337 million. As a result, cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet at the end of the year were $287 million. This is in line with our stated target of $300 million to $500 million of cash on the balance sheet. Given our significantly reduced fixed charges, and our undrawn $750 million revolver, we believe this provides the liquidity we need to run the business through the cycle. Looking ahead to 2020, we will continue to pursue the balanced approach we have taken to manage the company, prudently allocate capital and return to investment grade. This includes increasing shareholder participation in our underlying business. Since the end of 2017, we have increased shareholder participation by nearly 10% through growth initiatives, and repurchasing nearly 8% of our outstanding shares as you can see on Slide 12. Given the current share price and our strong free cash flow generation, we believe our shares are the most attractive investment in our industry. Returning to investment grade also remains a priority. We entered the year with greatly improved credit metrics and financial flexibility, compared to just a couple of years ago. Since the beginning of 2017, we have lowered our debt by $1.85 billion and have reduced their fixed charges by approximately $190 million on an annual basis. We are committed to redeeming the remaining $250 million of our 2021 senior secured note on or before the maturity date. We believe this will further strengthen our case for investment grade and will also achieve our goal of a strong and flexible balance sheet that is well positioned for the future. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open up the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for their great work throughout 2019. Their focus on safety, operating reliability and delivering for our customers continues to drive our success as a company As you've heard from Bert and Chris, lower global energy costs have pressured product prices in both Q4 of 2019 and Q1 of 2020 compared to the prior year periods and we expect this trend to continue to the first half of the year despite the expected increase in corn acres. The impact of lower year-over-year product prices should be partially offset by lower gas costs. But our results are much more sensitive to movements in product prices than they are to movements in gas costs as you can see on Slide 13. So as we sit here today, in the early part of 2020, with most of the year still to play for and understanding the highly volatile and sometimes unpredictable nature of global commodity prices, we would expect that full year 2020 EBITDA would fall somewhere within the range of our 2018 and 2019 results. But our focus is on free cash flow rather than EBITDA and as a reminder in both 2018 and in 2019, we generated over $900 million in free cash flow. So given that we would expect to continue executing on our capital deployment priorities of regaining investment grade, while continuing our share buyback program, investing in the most attractive shares in the industry. Longer term, our company remains among the best position in the world. Our structural advantages are clear. We produce the only non-discretionary nutrient nitrogen. We have access to low cost North American natural gas and we operate in the important dependent regions. We believe these advantages will continue to drive strong free cash flow generation through the cycle and enable us to build on our track record of creating superior long-term shareholder value compared to our competitors. With that operator we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
As a courtesy to others on the call, we ask that you limit yourself to one question should you have additional questions, we ask that you ranch the queue. And we will answer additional questions as time allows. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Christopher Parkinson of Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher Parkinson:
Great, thank you very much. Regarding the UAN market, can you just talk about the evolution of global trade flows and how you see them kind of moving in 2020, including out of the US? And then also the progress you've made in Latin America, regarding your market development efforts. And if you could hit on that, as well as just the USs net position, from your perspective, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Tony Will:
Good morning, the UAN market has been growing. We believe that it is a very good product, due to its flexibility and adaptability and blend ability. And we're seeing that growth taking place in South America as you mentioned. So the changes that have taken place to the global market or the recent UAN European Union sanctions that came in place at the tail end of 2019 last year, we exported – we continue to export into Europe and this year, I don't think we will. And that has really blocked a lot of the Russian or most of the Russian product, as well as Trinidadian. We don't believe that this is a fair nor just nor correct result. And we think that there will be some issues and contentions and disputes regarding what the decision was. But what that has caused a disruption in the flows. And so our position is that it takes a while for those flows to rebalance for different companies to make different products and to develop different markets. We've been focused on that end of the situation developing different markets. Since we brought up the production in 2000 or before we brought up the production 2017. So we've been working in South America as well as what we were shipping in Europe. And our growth markets have been Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, shipping to all those and not much of that existed outside of Argentina five years ago. And we projected that will be a million ton market in 2020 and growing every year from there on out. When you look at UAN as the balanced product to CFs portfolio, well we start with ammonia, then we make different sub products and so what we've been able to do because of the decisions we made in construction – constructing the new facilities, was we had tremendous flexibility of maximizing urea or UAN or sub products like DEF and nitric acid and we are utilizing those capabilities today and producing less UAN. So you've seen a reflection of CF bringing less UAN into the market, rebalancing our customer portfolio, pursuing more business on the east and west coasts, developing some new terminals in the interior as well as what I just explained in South America. So we're – we feel like we're well prepared, you're going to see us continue to execute and focus on growth and opportunities. And we believe that UAN is a very good product and on a price differential where it's under urea today, we believe that over time rebalance would be equal to or greater than urea.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Stephen Byrne of Bank of America. Your line is open.
Stephen Byrne:
Yes, just may be continuing on this topic, Bert. When you look out at the spring demand in the US, you look at, say channel inventories. You look at the lineup of imports coming into the US. Do you see the potential that urea in the spring could get short? And conversely do you expect UAN to remain long and how have your outlook for these products affected your forward sales book for these products?
Bert Frost:
Good morning, Steve and so I'm always optimistic, but I always played defensive game and that's preparing for eventualities and not to put the company in a negative position. So it's a combination of what you just explained. Channel inventories we think are adequate especially for the first round as product starts moving to the ground, but when you look at what we've – what has happened with ammonia, ammonia being the building block not only of producing the upgraded products, but to the farm community ammonia has always been a base load for the ice states as well as Nebraska and some of the outlying states. And that has generally been about 4 million ton product per year moved through our terminals and the other providers terminals. We had a poor fall ammonia season, so that end needs to transition to spring. And so we're projecting to have a healthy demand for ammonia around that 4 million ton range urea, around 11 million to 12 million in UAN, exceeding 15 million tons. And so for a global market, North America is three quarters of UAN demand today, around that number. And so looking at what has come in, we have received too much up and into the market. And that's reflected in pricing, especially on some of the coastal markets. And so do we need to balance? Well, we've added capacity and others have added domestic capacity. And so there's probably about a 2 million ton requirement of UAN and imports and we're probably a little bit over that. And again, that's reflected in pricing urea. We're importing 4 million to 5 million tons and if you look what's been brought in to date and what's in the lineup, we still have substantial needs to meet. And we're preparing for that demand to materialize with our interior storage and production and positioning product. And so we have a good order book on and we're going to continue to build on that order book and have product in place for that second round and third round when people need just in time inventory. So our outlook is positive for the spring, especially for the interior.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Roberts of UBS. Your line is open.
John Roberts:
Thank you. Could we gain your thoughts on the new Gulf Coast ammonia project and what that may mean for reinvestment economics? Do you consider that kind of a one off situation or the sign that where we might see some future expansion from the industry more broadly?
Tony Will:
Yeah. Good morning, John. My perspective is that if your air products, this is a great project, because they get to – get better utilization of their existing hydrogen production along the pipeline, they get to expand their pipeline and build a new SCR and as long as you've got a credit worthy off taker, you can get very good returns on that kind of business. So I can absolutely understand why your product wants to do it. I think if you are the back end of the ammonia process it's less clear as to this project actually makes sense. And our understanding is the sponsors who are the off takers from their products suggests that they need a dramatic increase in ammonia pricing, kind of getting Tampa up north of $350 per ton in order to make a reasonable rate of return on that kind of project. And today Tampa isn't anywhere close to that number. So my hope is that they actually earn a great return on that project because that would suggest that the rest of our business is coming along really well. But it's a bet on the comp and based on where global energy prices are and the amount of ammonia production is in the world, it's hard to see that that's certainly not a bet that I would be making today. And it's hard for me to believe that there's a lot of other people stepping up in line to double down on that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Don Carson of Susquehanna Financial. Your line is open,
Donald Carson:
Yes, Bert, just trying to get a sense of how much of the fall ammonia application season we missed and what the implications are for additional demand this spring. How much the growers have to make up? How much do you think they'll make up in ammonia versus urea or UAN?
Bert Frost:
Yeah, looking at the fall of '19 compared to the fall of '18, in the fall of '18, we had a wonderful run in Canada, the northern tier weaker in the southern tier. In '19 it was kind of weak everywhere. The north never got started Canada, North Dakota and that area, Minnesota, just due to cold wet and then snow. And that was delayed in the south. But then we had a warming trend in December and got some loads out in the southern Illinois area. So really throughout most of the Midwest, Iowa was okay, what we expect is that for precise number, I would say several hundred thousand tons need to move into spring. And probably that will be made up with upgraded products we're expecting a normal spring for ammonia which we didn't have in '19. And where product is priced today, urea is a little bit higher and UAN is a bit of a value right now as well as ammonia. So it's going to be interesting to see what value plays, what tradition plays, what practices farmers will apply in 2019 and that's why our balanced approach seems to work pretty well.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Joel Jackson of BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning, everyone. I had a question about some of your price realizations for urea and UAN. In the last four or five quarters, you've achieved really good price premiums to somewhat arbitrary NOLA benchmarks. In '17 and '18 especially for UAN what you were realizing versus NOLA benchmark was kind of flipping up and down between a premium and a discount, this goes back maybe some of the numbers you would have seen a few years ago. So I guess I want to ask, is there something going on that in terms of your book in the market that import and export dynamic that lets you now achieve sort of a better premium than sort of good consistent premiums to these benchmarks or maybe help me understand the dynamic Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yeah, Joel, I mean, my flipping respond was – response would be the team and – but I actually want to give credit to the team we've over the years have built an internal team of talent and diverse talent and with an effort towards utilizing different skills and languages and experiences and that takes time and we've put some people in some positions that have really done a great job and I like the way our incentive program works where we as a team, everybody works towards the same goal which is the betterment of CF Industries. So we're all rowing in the same direction that really helps with focus on – if urea or UAN and those product leaders are more focused on what's better for CF, we have that conversation every day. The other issue is the river and there have been logistical issues which we identified early or have been able to capitalize on later because of our distribution system and unique logistical assets. And so it helps to put the company in that position as we prepared in the past. And then so what we're seeing is we have differentiated production in Canada and Northern Iowa, as well as the Donaldsonville. So we have arbitrage exports against imports and when that is advantages to the company we've chosen to export, so a combination of all those factors that put us in a good spot.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews and Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Jeremy Rosenberg:
Hey guys, this is Jeremy Rosenberg on Vincent. Thanks for taking my question. Just want to ask one on n China. Thinking about the headlines we've been seeing on the coronavirus. I want to get your thoughts on if that could potentially weaken domestic urea demand in China and free up even more tons for export and I saw your export expectations were brought up from 1 million to 3 million to 2 million to 3 million, but just not fun and coronavirus there. Thanks.
Tony Will:
So the impact as we see it is unfolding. What was announced yesterday with the additional deaths and disclosures is scary because it's probably spread farther, further and deeper than we're understanding. So what is the impact of that? It's the ability to operate. The demands today that are being made to please show up to work from the Chinese government for your national duty is troubling when you're risking potential injury to you or your family members. So our take on the virus today, its impact is on logistics and production. Will the mines be opened their short call today and inventory levels from our reports are at low levels? And so the ability to move and to keep that moving and then that extends into feed and just in time deliveries of feed for protein growth. And so the potential is you unravel this thing where does urea shipments to exports rank in the pantheon of needs is probably not very high. And so I think it's going to be not much urea comes out of the Hubei province, its more phosphate. So I think the first price differential will be on phosphates because of limited exports when China has been the marginal producer in that area. But overall, we're predicting fewer exports out of China anyway. And this will just further exacerbate that situation. And that's why we're more comfortable and confident with a tightening of the market. China was the marginal producer and more tons did come out than we had expected in 2019. We don't see that repeating in 2020.
Bert Frost:
Yeah, I completely agree. I think if anything, this is going to be a negative impact on supply from coming out of China as opposed to negatively impacting demand because on the demand side, people are still got to eat, so – and this bird says that whether it's coal mines or urea plants, those are the places where I think you're going to see a reduction in labor hours. So we would expect it to be kind of nothing like this has ever a net positive, but from a humanity perspective, but relative to urea supply, it probably will tighten it up.
Tony Will:
And I'd say we're positive then protein exports to China, and then positive the feed grains and oil seeds from the United States and Brazil. So that's going to be – again, the thing has to unfold, but those are the areas that I would see needs materializing from China.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Mark Connelly of Stephens. Your line is open.
Mark Connelly:
Thank you. We've seen some increases in freight rates in a number of markets. I'm curious if that's having any impact or if you expect it to have impacts just on where urea products going whether it's yours or somebody else's?
Bert Frost:
Yes, the IMO impact is being felt. And you're right, there were some increases – we saw more substantial increases in the liquid rates coming out of NOLA, as we looked at some exports to South America at the turn of the year. And then we believe we'll have further costs – we think the net benefit because we're such a domestic producer is increased costs for those coming to the United States. And so is that a $10, $20 we've seen substantial bids in the short-term, does that balance out longer term, but I think it will add structural costs and that would add to our cost curve for those bringing tons into NOLA or the – either west or east coast, so for us, it's a net positive.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jonas Oxgaard of Bernstein. Your line is open.
Jonas Oxgaard:
Hi, good morning. Looks like national gas price in North America are now at borderline absurdly low levels; is there any thoughts about trying to lock in these kind of low rates long-term? Are you continuing to do spot is the strategy?
Bert Frost:
Yeah. No, good question. Where gas is trading today is about $1.85. It's been as low as $1.76 at Henry Hub, the basis weighed to CF it's even lower. So it's a very nice place to be and we're very thankful for being a North American producer locking in North American gas. But you're right. The question is do you lock in or do you play the daily or a combination thereof and that's what we have chosen to do is to play a combination. There's time period during the year, where risk mitigation is the responsibility of the natural gas procurement team and that's winter, November, December, January, February, and sometimes into March we have cold weather and high demand and you're pulling gas from the storage cavities that are placed throughout the United States. Then sometimes basis blows out like we've seen in these polar vortex years where they can be $50 or $100 over the spot price. And so a combination of protecting the company is prudent, but a combination of realizing that there are excess gas availability and limited places for it to go until pipelines get built out or increased demand and power generation or LNG exports materialize. Net-net worth positive end of that curve and so you've seen us achieve better realized values than the market is predicted and that's because we've played a balanced game of how we acquire that gas for the company. I can't –
Tony Will:
But I think as we sit here today, Jonas we're getting close to the end of winter, although it's snowing in Chicago, but as you look at the number of cold days last week, it's been a mild winter, storage levels have increased, gas production continues to be very high. In our view there's probably price pressure coming instead of this is the low point. And so we're very positive in terms of buying daily or month ahead as opposed to taking long-term lock positions. The other issue though, is in terms of the forward curve, you can't lock two years out or three years out at today's values because the curve starts increasing. And so that's why as Bert said, there's a little bit of a mixed bag in terms of how we approach it. But structurally we're very optimistic about low gas costs through the balance of the year.
Bert Frost:
What I do like is the forward spread to Europe and to Asia and the NBP and JKM. If you look at that, we expand out to a $2 to $3 spread, just based on forwards for each of the markets. That's again and when you throw in the previous question on freight rates puts us at a very good cost position for the Western markets being North America and South America and positions as well for the future.
Operator:
Our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar of Citi. Your line is open.
P.J. Juvekar:
Yes. Hi. Good morning.
Tony Will:
Good morning.
P.J. Juvekar:
So you mentioned lower energy prices incented nitrogen production last year. As we start 2020 it seems like energy prices are even lower. What does that mean for global production this year? And then I just want to make sure that I heard you right. I think Bert you said that you expect more imports of grains and pork into China, as a result of this virus outbreak. I just want to make sure I heard that right. Thank you.
Bert Frost:
So the question was speculation. And so the answer was in line of potential outcomes and a potential outcome clearly would be increased because the question was, if urea production is unable to produce at the rate that they need, and then move that into the market, as they're entering their spring peak demand, which is about now that would be a yield impact of corn, wheat and vegetables and fruits. Therefore, the need would be to augment or replace that value – carbohydrate value and protein value with imports. That's where I was going with the thinking. Regarding your question on – yes, increased end production happened as well as increased output in exports in that export curve, but as a combination or flexion of higher prices. As we entered 2019 the NOLA price was $275. As we entered 2020 it was s $220 for urea. The Chinese tons that came out and went to India at one tender averaged $280 a ton metric FOB, the next tender was $260 a metric ton FOB. So energy prices were lower and product prices were higher. And guess what happened over time product prices fell to a level that doesn't make it attractive enough. We believe for some of those extraneous or excess tons to make it in the market. Therefore a correction takes place and a slowdown which we're seeing in production. China has run based on let's say 78 million tons of static capacity has run between 55% and 70% and that's how we get to our numbers of what was produced, exported and consumed internally. And that and some other questions I think with like Brazil, the Petrobras plant shutting down and some others that are experiencing higher gas values and an inability to bring in the low value LNG will correct the market then so – and I just think that's where we're going to be and while our expectations of trade at higher values as we progress year-on-year.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Piken of Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael Piken:
Hi, I just wanted to talk a little bit about your strategy on UAN here in the US and I know you had the initial summer fill program and you had a recent fill program. Maybe you could talk to us about kind of how that program sort of reached your expectations and how you sort of balance the needs of some of your customers and making sure they're not underwater versus the need to keep imports out. Now, it's always a tricky balance. Thanks.
Bert Frost:
Yeah, we are a North American participant, a large 90 plus percent of our volume is directed, focused and attended to this market. And we do participate in the export market and we built some great relationships, but we utilize that as an arbitrage when the value is attractive or timing is attractive, for example, when we're in a low demand period and some of those places are in higher demand periods. So our UAN strategy is and has been focused on the United States. However, in previous years before our capacity expansion, there were areas due to logistical difficulties we had – we weren't able to reach and so we added capacity. We have rebalanced our system and then have worked with some of our logistics providers to access some of those markets and then started targeting places where we should participate and we're adding some tanks in California converting some tanks in other areas that are already owned, leasing some tanks in other areas where we think we should be participating. And Cincinnati is a good example. We were not active in Cincinnati, today its several hundred thousand tons for CF, a very good market. We will continue to grow in areas like that utilizing our domestically produced tons where we're logistically favored and then the remainder is what we'll export, so we feel pretty good about that. We work with our customers. We have an extensive customer list from a few hundred tons per year to a million tons per year. And you're right that conversations, we want our customers to make money. They need to make money and that's the business that they're in is serving the farmer. We serve the wholesaler, the retailer, the coops that serve those farmers and so that's a combination of conversation and understanding where they are and what farmer economics are to make sure our products are appropriately priced and generally against imports. That is our competitor and to position – and then out marginal ton in some of the coastal markets we're competing directly with Russian and Trinidadian production, we'll continue to do that.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Adam Samuelson of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes, thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe continuing in UAN and say different light and Bert, Tony I was hoping to get your thoughts on the UAN cost curve. I mean, it's obviously different focus, Trinidad, US, Russia are the principal producers with NOLA prices kind of where they are in the in the 110 to 120 range. Are some of those producers now underwater? I mean, how do we think about capacity rationalization there that might be getting forced at these price levels and/or just on the other side, the demand response domestically of UAN trading at such a big discount to urea. I'm just trying to think about how this price disparity kind of closes over time.
Tony Will:
Yeah, I mean, I think, I don't know, I'll give you sort of my quick take and then I'll throw it over to Bert for the real answer. But my view on this one is the companies that are – or the region that is probably the most at risk from an economic standpoint, I think is going to be Trinidad because most of the favorable Caribbean gas indexed contracts are kind of rolling off or have rolled off and the renegotiation with NGC has happened that higher price levels. You've seen a couple of plants on the island actually close as a result of not being competitive any More. And given that Europe is no longer really a destination option for that production, I think that puts a pretty big challenge on those plants. Relative to Russian production and in the US, we're still fine. If you look at UAN, the margin structure is still well superior to that of ammonia and on a $1 per nutrient ton it's still a very attractive product for us to make relative to having excess ammonia. I think anyone know that has an ability and flexibility in their system to upgrade into different product types like we do into producing more urea, urea liquor, DEF and nitric acid and not making UAN that turns out to be a great margin opportunity for us. And I think some of the Russian producers are making more AN and doing some other things with upgraded products as well. So our view is the – over the longer term, I think you're right, given where values are today to a farmer you might see incremental growth in terms of switching toward UAN in the near term over the longer term because it is a more capital intensive process to make UAN that it is urea, you've got to earn a fair rate of return on that incremental capital otherwise people stop investing in it. And so we would expect margins to kind of – once you get through the trade flow rebalance to get back to as Bert said earlier, kind of net neutral between UAN and urea or even positive UAN. So I think this is kind of like what we saw in '16 and '17 where the new capacity came on and it took a year or two to – for trade flows to rebalance. And for us to really kind of get our sea legs under us and the same things going on right now globally with UAN and the European anti-dumping situation. Bert?
Bert Frost:
No, I think it's good.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Benjamin Isaacson of Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hi, this is Ziad on for Ben. Thanks for taking my question. Just maybe dragging back to the inventories you were talking about earlier. I believe you were describing them as like adequate inventory levels now and how the system kind of demands about 4 million tons of ammonia. Could you talk maybe a little bit about what those inventory levels are specific to that in light of the week application season specific to ammonia where people – where farmers have been consuming other end products to kind of make up for that. Thank you.
Tony Will:
The ammonia system from an inventory standpoint is that there's a cap on it because it's really sitting for the most part with three major producers Coke, Nutrien and CF are the ones that have the y cryogenic storage tanks or terminals in market. And while there's some storage at plant locations generally speaking, it's not more than 50 or 100,000 tons. And so the vast majority of the inventory sits with the three producers and there's a limit in terms of what that looks like. So in order to get the 4 million tons out, you actually need relatively – given a week fall, you need to be able to resupply some of those tanks. So if you end up in a situation where weather is not cooperating in terms of being able to dump the tank and then resupply it and get more than one ton in the spring, it's going to push farmers toward upgraded products simply because you can't get the amount of nutrients that you need to from the ammonia system. That said given the weak, fall we think the tank situation is relatively full and ready to go. So I think in terms of whether you get to the 4 million tons is really dependent upon kind of how early the fields open up to begin ammonia application and how long that lasts for and if you have a situation like we had last spring, you're not going to see anywhere close to 4 million tons get out.
Bert Frost:
When you look at how that system is balanced, it's in a combination with your – or our and others logistics – or industrial customers and those that have a ratable 360 day demand and we supply that as well as exports. So we've been exporting and then rebalancing the system through shipments to our terminals or our plants and that gives benefit or we have the benefit of our logistical options. We have the ammonia barges, we have the ammonia pipeline, we have our own rail cars and we lease or work with our truck providers to move that products. We feel very good about whatever will take place in the spring that will be ready.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Andrew Wong of RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. If your telephones muted, please unmute.
Andrew Wong:
Hey, good morning, sorry about that. So with investor interest in ESG picking up a lot over the last couple of years, can you just maybe highlight what CF can do or maybe has already done to raise its profile in that area? Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yeah, I mean, I think from an ESG perspective, there's four or five planks here that we're focused on. The first is that nitrogen is actually a product that is very beneficial to, from a global perspective, carbon emissions. And the reason for that is, even though agriculture certainly depends upon which agency look at is estimated somewhere between 25% and 30% of – responsible for 25% to 30% of aggregate greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of that comes from land use. And so as you are cutting down carbon sequestering for us in order to cultivate those acres, you're releasing a lot of carbon and you furthermore don't have the mechanism to further sequester carbon going forward. And so the use of nitrogen allows you to increase crop density and increase yield per acre, which means that in order to feed the world's population, you need less acres in use, and net-net the world is a much lower carbon footprint by producing and using nitrogen than you are not producing nitrogen and cutting down trees in order to feed the growing population. So that's number one, which is actually our product on a net basis is beneficial instead of that negative. The second issue is, particularly with our new plants, we're among the lowest carbon intensity producer globally. And with our plants turning on you've got Chinese coal based plants that shut down. And that, again, is sort of good from a global perspective. So I think this is one of those questions you have to ask, writ large instead of very locally. Now in addition to that, we're very focused on responsible use of the product and have invested heavily in kind of the four R plus program, which is teaching farmers best management practices to both reduce nitrogen loss to the environment, but also reduce volatilization in a way that creates nitric oxide or other emissions that are high from a carbon intensity perspective. And then finally we are investing in our asset base in order to further reduce of what our footprint looks like on a sort of act locally kind of basis. And so, I think if you look across all of those things that we're doing, we have an exemplary yes ESG standpoint and we're reporting on a comprehensive GRI basis from a transparency and disclosure perspective. We're one of the very few number of companies that actually reports on the GRI index on a comprehensive basis instead of just on a spot or line item basis. So we feel very good about our ESG profile.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jeff Zekauskas of JP Morgan. Your line is open.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. Since the beginning of the year, the price of Brent has gone from I don't know $68 a barrel to $54. How much of a difference do you think that makes to the global nitrogen fertilizer costs curve? And secondly, in fourth quarter of 2019, there were very large imports of urea into India. And how do you see India urea imports in the first half of 2020 and for the year versus the year ago period?
Tony Will:
Jeff, let me handle the first part of the question and I'll throw it over to Bert to deal with India, which is – as you think about Brent coming down, there's no doubt that anyone that's receiving oil index based LNG or import gas is in a more favorable position today than they were a year ago. That said the real marginal production costs globally is still Chinese, anthracite coal. And Brent price does not really affect Chinese anthracite coal price directly. And in fact as Bert indicated, whether it's coronavirus or other things going on, you've seen actual coal price strength and a little bit. So the high end of the cross curve has gone up or stayed flat relative to what looks like a bit of a windfall for some other people in more third or early fourth quartile. So it's not really affecting global pricing today, the fact that Brent has come down. Bert you want to deal with the Indian situation.
Bert Frost:
Sure. So India, surprise to the upside, importing close to 10 million tons when you include the tons, so almost a 30% increase over the previous year, production stayed relatively flat, about a 25 to 3% increase and stocks are a little bit higher. So a healthy consumption base, good monsoon seasons and then good demand, big country and they've got to feed themselves and some exciting things are taking place in India with the Modi government regarding investments, infrastructure and in terms of an educated population growing population. So when I look at – we look at the going forward, we expect another tender probably late March, early April and kind of running on the same pattern, whether being equal of continued import and being the largest importing country in the world. There are two plants that are said to come on stream at the end, kind of this year, early next year. And generally those plants have been late. And then there have been issues with feedstock supplies, and so not sure when that overall production will come on. But there are some old especially in the naphtha base plants are suspect. And so even with the increased production in 2019, or run rates they have been fairly stable in their production really, over the last five to eight years and so we see good things and we've mentioned both India and Brazil in our prepared remarks in terms of growth – growth of demand and not necessarily too much of an increase in supply.
Tony Will:
Yeah, the one thing with respect to that is despite new production coming on in India that Bert mentioned this earlier you saw aggregate production within India remain relatively flat. And so that means whether it's because of production problems at the older plants or just the fact that they're not economic to run them relative to be importing, you haven't seen this negatively impact India's imports and so that I think is a very optimistic sign around global S&D balance going forward.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Chris Willis of Exothermic Global. Your line is open.
Chris Willis:
Good morning. Thank you for taking the question. I was just curious with the length in the market and I recognize there's a pretty big spring potentially in the offing. Why wouldn't you have to cut back some ammonia production, maybe idol, some production in the fall and idle – throttle back a little bit some of your derivative products just to tighten things up a bit as we move into the spring? And I'm just wondering about the – what was the rationale behind doing a tender in the UAN market?
Tony Will:
Thank you, Chris. I'll handle the first one on the production side and then I'll let Bert talk about our UAN programs. We're among the lowest absolute cost producer globally and so our assets should be the last ones to turn off, not the first. And there is enough production out there on a global basis that if we were to curtail, I wouldn't expect that to move the market a bit because there's sufficient supply elsewhere in the world. And so our business model is all around asset utilization, our up time and production efficiency and on the stream factor is among the highest in the world and certainly the highest in the US. And because we're able to achieve those kind of levels, we basically get kind of the equivalent of an additional ammonia plant worth of production compared to the utilization rates that our North American competitors are able to achieve. So that's a huge competitive advantage when you think about the capital that goes into it. And even at the low prices that we're seeing out there for ammonia, it's still a very attractive product from a margin standpoint for us. And again, we would be kind of the last producer to shut down, not the first and on a full year basis last year we still just generated 21% gross margin in our ammonia segment, which is pretty remarkable that in a lot of businesses to talk about that being a depressing situation for an industrial business to achieve 21% gross margin for the full year is pretty outstanding result.
Bert Frost:
Regarding the UN tender, we are always seeking ways to effectively communicate with our customers, different messages and treating our customers equally. And so there are times when some people are willing and ready to buy and want to and so announcing a tender where we have a specific period where we're receiving quotes or offers and we go through that and then select what's attractive with kind of a price point in mind allows us to have a conversation directly with customers as small as several hundred tons and up to several thousand or even larger than that. And so we've utilized that now for the second time at different points and it's I think a unique form to have that conversation that sparks further conversations. This isn't a static market because we're a commodity that is used to make a commodity, but we're buying a quality of all these interactions, as well as logistical interactions and time and values are different at different times. And that's why we want to interact as much as possible and have that dialogue to make sure we're positioning our company correctly.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks, everyone for joining us today. We look forward to your follow up calls and seeing you at the upcoming conferences.
Operator:
This concludes today's presentation. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the 9-Month and Third Quarter 2019 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Kevin, and I'll be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions]. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Thank you, Kevin, and good morning. Thanks for joining the CF Industries 9-Month and Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Chris Bohn, CFO; and Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain. CF Industries reported its 9-month and third quarter 2019 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF industry's results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the first nine months of 2019, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $1.3 billion, after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. These results reflect higher year-over-year global nitrogen prices, lower natural gas costs and continued strong execution across all elements of our business. I especially want to highlight the great work of the CF team. Throughout this year, we have run our assets well, managed through logistical challenges and ensured our customers received product when and where they needed it. Most importantly, we did it all safely. Our 12-month rolling recordable incident rate was 0.61 incidents for 200,000 work hours, significantly better than industry averages. Our team's great work, combined with positive industry fundamentals, drove a 21% increase in adjusted EBITDA compared to this point last year, and we continue to efficiently convert the EBITDA we generate into available free cash flow. On a trailing 12-month basis, our free cash flow is $830 million, which today provides our investors with an industry-best free cash flow yield of 8%. As we've said before, we believe we will generate superior free cash flow through the cycle compared to most of our global competitors. That's because our cash generation capability is built on an enduring set of structural and operational advantages. Our structural advantages are clear
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The CF team continued to perform at a high level during the third quarter, positioning us well for the remainder of the year and spring 2020. First and foremost, we met customer needs in July as the spring application season in North America was drawn out due to poor weather earlier in the year. Following the extended spring, we focused on building a good order book. This included a well-received UAN fill program, which launched about a month later than normal and was met with strong demand. Demand for other products was positive as well, and we essentially shipped what we produced in the third quarter. As a result, we ended the quarter at seasonally low inventory levels. This gives us flexibility in the months ahead as the fall and spring application seasons develop. Looking at spring, we continue to anticipate strong corn plantings in the United States. The current soybean-to-corn futures ratio supports higher U.S. corn plantings in 2020 and is comparable to last year's ratio at this time. We are ready for the fall application ammonia season to begin which has already started in some areas. We believe our customers are expecting a positive fall ammonia season, given expected strong corn acres and attractive nutrient pricing. As always, the weather will drive how positive the fall season will be. If a good application window opens, we believe farmers will take advantage of it. If a good window does not open, we have ample storage capacity to position product to meet customer needs in the spring. We expect that the remarkable stability we saw in the global nitrogen prices this year will continue into 2020. Global demand has been healthy overall and has required additional tons for marginal producers in China to be bid into the market. As you can see on Slide 13, our global cost curve projection for 2020 suggests that the average price per ton for urea delivered to the U.S. Gulf will be similar to 2019. Longer term, industry fundamentals remain positive. As Tony said, we continue to expect that global demand growth will be net above capacity additions over the next 4 years, given the limited number of projects currently under construction. We believe that low-cost North American natural gas will become an even bigger advantage for CF in the years ahead. Average annual NYMEX Henry Hub futures from 2020 to 2023 are all lower than 2019 NYMEX settlements through October of $2.65 per MMBtu. Not only will this keep the majority of our production firmly at the low end of the global cost curve, it should also support margins compared to 2019. As the global supply and demand balance continues to tighten in the years ahead, we believe that our margin advantage will grow even more. CF is well positioned for the rest of 2019 and into 2020. We look forward to working with our customers in the near term and positioning the company for the industry dynamics we see developing over the longer term. With that, let me turn the call over to Chris.
Christopher Bohn:
Thanks, Bert. In the first nine months of 2019, the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $438 million or $1.97 per diluted share. Our EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA were both approximately $1.3 billion. Our trailing 12-month net cash provided by operating activities was approximately $1.5 billion and free cash flow was $830 million. Cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet at the end of the quarter were over $1 billion. Since the beginning of the year, cash on the balance sheet has increased by $337 million after investing $297 million in sustaining capital expenditures, repurchasing about 5.7 million shares for approximately $250 million, issuing $200 million in dividend payments and distributing $186 million to noncontrolling interest. Given our liquidity position, which as of yesterday was approximately $1.2 billion in cash and cash equivalents, our strong cash generation and positive outlook into 2020, we announced earlier this month that we will redeem the remaining $500 million in senior notes due in May 2020. Additionally, last night, we announced that we will redeem $250 million of our 2021 senior secured notes in December. Retiring this debt is the latest step and the balanced approach we have taken over the last 2 years to manage the company, prudently allocate capital and return to investment grade. These actions will produce -- reduce our gross debt by $1.85 billion. They also support our focus on reducing fixed charges in order to provide us the greatest long-term capital flexibility through the cycle. As you can see on Slide 10, our annualized fixed charges in 2020 will be $186 million lower than they would have been without the steps we have taken since 2017. This includes reducing annualized interest payments by about $121 million, which achieves our goal of annual interest payments below $200 million. It also includes lower level of dividend payments due to share repurchases as well as the elimination of the cash distribution to Terra Nitrogen unitholders. Additionally, we have focused our capital expenditures on safety and reliability. Not only has this supported our industry-leading asset utilization rates, but has also kept our capital expenditures for the past few years at around $400 million per year. These actions, along with the industry recovery from the trough conditions of 2016 and '17 have greatly improved their credit metrics. As a result, we believe we have built a strong case to earn investment-grade ratings. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Chris. Before we move on to your questions, I want to provide some summary comments to frame how we're thinking about the future. We had a great first 3 quarters of 2019, with adjusted EBITDA increasing 21% year-on-year. On a last 12-month basis, we generated $830 million of free cash flow, which is truly a fantastic year. We also have the highest conversion efficiency of EBITDA to free cash flow in the industry. With all the free cash that we generated in the last 12 months, we have returned approximately $750 million to shareholders through share repurchases and will have retired an additional $750 million of debt by the end of this year. That accomplishes our objective of bringing our balance sheet back into investment-grade metrics and drops our annual interest expense well below $200 million per year going forward. Looking ahead, we're excited about our outlook for 2020. While there are always moving pieces, we think that overall 2020 will be similar to 2019. As we've explained, we expect our sales volumes to be similar from year-to-year. Our 2020 global cost curve projects average nutrient prices to be in a similar range as 2019. And the NYMEX Henry Hub forward curve suggested natural gas costs in 2020 will be lower, which all means, we expect another fantastic year in 2020. And since we have already repaired our balance sheet, all of the free cash flow we generate will be available for us to deploy for value-creating growth or to return to shareholders. This company is a highly efficient cash-generating machine. We've driven over 10% accretion for our shareholders in the last 2 years by investing in accretive growth and share repurchases, while fixing our balance sheet at the same time. With our balance sheet now investment grade, we look forward to driving additional shareholder value by continuing to invest in accretive growth and further share repurchases. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions]. Our first question comes from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson:
So I guess, first, Tony, Bert, I'd be interested just to get some perspective just on the near-term kind of market dynamics as we think about the fall. I mean, you've seen urea prices fall somewhat counter seasonally in the last month or so and NOLA started to trade at a pretty healthy discount to some offshore destinations and just get your views on the drivers of that and kind of what would get that -- get that back to parity? And then I just have a follow-up after under this -- on the decision to repay the debt, if we could.
Anthony Will:
So when you look at the market today, as we look at the 9-month performance of CF and the industry overall, we've seen a fairly stable market, operating in that $240 to $260 short ton NOLA range and on a metric ton probably the same $240 to $270 FOB year of Gulf-type range. And so coming off of those numbers in the last month or so has been a bit of a surprise, but I do think this goes to -- it's a global market, and we've bid in some tons due to some of the India tenders and some of the changes. You've seen the India number -- volume purchased increase but as well seeing the Chinese export numbers increase. And so we would have predicted a 2 million to 2.5 million ton export coming out of China. It has turned out to probably will be at 4 million to 4.5 million ton export, so a doubling coming out of China. Why is that happening? Looking at the cost of production there with energy cost being coal, it's down about 8%. And then you look at the RMB, the devaluation, averaging probably around 7.10 now. So it's another 5%. It has allowed the Chinese producers and some of the higher cost producers to sell at around $250 a metric ton FOB. So those tons have made it into the market, and you've had low gas costs in Europe through the summer and through Q3. So combined, you probably had higher operating rates globally, which has pushed the exportable ton, there's not a finite but kind of an average of 45 million metric tons that are traded annually, a few more tons into that market mix. And so we have traded below international parity recently, and we think that's an anomaly. We're probably significantly below where -- we've been averaging, let's say, $10 over the last year, and that number today at $210 to $215 a short ton is probably $20 to $30 below the international market. We see increased demand coming or continued demand coming from India, another tender or two, so another 1.5 million tons demanded there. Brazil is behind on their imports, another 1 million or more tons needed in Brazil. And then we think Europe will step in, and we're looking at a very positive 2020 with 93 million to 94 million maybe even 95 million acres of corn, so that incremental demand -- and I'm trying to figure out what will happen with the ammonia season that could go to upgraded products and push then urea higher. So I don't think this market lasts -- could last through this quarter, but that's -- our position is that we're able to bridge over that. We have inventory space available. We think there's a lot of buying left to be done, and then we'll see what happens in the spring.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Christopher Parkinson with Crédit Suisse.
Christopher Parkinson:
Given the magnitude of your cash flow generation. Can you just remind us of 4 capital allocation priorities outside of share buybacks, including any potential for low-risk, high-return brownfield as well as the potential for M&A? Just on the latter, are there also -- there have been -- there's been some news of a few potential assets floating around in the U.S. as well as Europe. So can you just comment on your willingness to do something a bit larger as well as your general stance on asset bases outside of the U.S.?
Anthony Will:
Yes, Chris. I mean, look, I think from a capital allocation perspective, we have said for a long time we want to get the balance sheet back into investment-grade metrics. And with the recent announcement, I think we're there. We've got managed our annual fixed charges down to a level that it's very comfortable, even in sort of trough conditions of '16, '17, we'd still be net pretty significantly cash-flow-positive during those kind of trough conditions. And we think that, that's representative of an investment-grade rating, and we're very comfortable with the sustainability of the balance sheet through kind of down cycles. So once that was behind us, then we look at, obviously, sustaining capital to maintain what is the highest operating rates in the industry on our ammonia plants, is this number one call for capital; number two would be, if we've got accretive growth where we can buy assets in a way that we believe creates value for our shareholders, and that would be number two. And in the absence of doing those things, then I think we look to return cash to shareholders in the form of share repurchases as our preferred mechanism, given that we already have a pretty robust dividend that's in place today. So that's kind of our priorities. We're relatively open to geographic expansion. I do think when you start clustering assets together, you're able to better realize synergies from larger network effects than if you've got them spread around. But I think at the end of the day, it all comes down to as long as there's a set of assets that we believe we can run well and really leverage our organizational capabilities against, then we'd be open to considering a number of places. But it all really depends upon price point. And they've got to be at a place where we feel it's creating value for shareholders because our alternative is to buy back more of what's already the best asset base in nitrogen of the world, which is our own share. So instead of overpaying for poor quality assets, we just buy more of our own.
Operator:
Our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar with Citi.
P.J. Juvekar:
Just quickly, Bert, I think you talked about increased China exports and falling coal prices, do you think that puts a lid on urea prices in the range of whatever you talked about $250 per metric ton. And then a question on your cost curve. Your cost curve is delivered prices to the U.S. Is that the right way to look at the urea market in your mind? Because most of the Chinese exports go to India. So maybe I can get your thoughts on that?
Bert Frost:
So regarding increased China and is that a lid, this is a constantly changing and evolving discussion. If you go back several years to the peak of exports where they were dominating 35%, 38% of the global trade. That was a significant impact, and we saw the impact of that driving NOLA prices down to $150 a short ton in the United States. And so when you look at some of the changes that are taking place in China, I think it's a positively evolving issue. The recent devaluations due to all these trade conflicts or our questions, is that sustainable? Is that desirable? I don't know. I would say they would probably be better off trading in a range where they were in the 6 80s [ph]. But when you look at what's happening in China with capacity coming off the peak capacities, where today our estimate is probably 80 million tons of capacity, there's estimates as low as 70 million. And then the operating rates has hit 70% per the publications. We think they're operating in the 65% to low-60 range. So that makes available today, probably 52 million to 53 million metric tons. And then when you look at what ag is fairly constant. Industrial, also fairly constant, and it's the export swing volume. So we don't see the capability to move a significant amount of tons. And we say many times in some of our investor discussions. If you idled these assets over a period of time and don't idle them appropriately, it's very difficult and very expensive to bring those assets back into production. And I don't think that's an attractive thing to do basically export energy from China and continuing to pollute both water and air. So I think that China is stable at that range of 2 million to 4 million tons. And I think, economically, it is not attractive today to export at these levels. And yes, on the cost curve, your second question, we do look at it because we're primarily North American producer and participant. And so that's the market we really want to focus on with 90-plus percent of our tons staying in North America. But you're right, those Chinese tons are basically staying in Asia. They are trade restricted now to North America at their peak, probably 1.5 million tons came to North America. That's not happening, it won't happen. So I think that -- again, as India has been fairly consistent at 6 million to 8 million tons, they're probably going to draw 1 million to 2 million to 3 million tons from China if the Iranian sanctions go away, maybe some from Iran and the rest from the ARM Gold for North Africa. And then we see the world market balancing, and that's still 45 million metric tons of export demand, and that does drive the global cost curve.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Vincent Andrews:
Just wondering if you have any sort of latest thoughts on the potential for the Indian capacity to come back. There have been some moving parts on some of those facilities going forward, some of them not? And then there appears to be more lower cost gas available to them. So just your latest and greatest thoughts there would be helpful?
Anthony Will:
Yes, just as the previous question, that's also an evolving issue in our industry and with Prime Minister Modi's decision to be India-centric and India-driven and industrial policy revamping -- and it's not a revamp. We visited, and we've been following these plant additions, and we'll be there next year. These are new constructions, basically. Now you have plans for today that are new and idled. The Matix plant is still not running. And there are pipelines to be built and infrastructure to support these plans. So will they come on. We have them in our S&D going forward. And I think that will be a hit to imports, probably going down a couple of million tons. But the long-term projections today, natural gas globally is inexpensive. The North American shale producers have done a good job of driving that down globally, which is positively impacted Europe and some in Asia, specific to China. And I think India will be a net beneficiary in the short term. Longer term, that's not going to be the case. And so it gets back to the cost curve. And as the Indian government willing to subsidize these plants to an extraordinary amount or not, and we believe they won't. And so I think that this import demand will continue to be in a range, probably, let's say, 5 million to 8 million tons, but that's in 2 or 3 more years. So more to come.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank.
Benjamin Isaacson:
On one hand, you talk about new supply not keeping up with demand growth; and on the other hand, when we look at coal prices in China, they've gone from, I think $12.80, a couple of years ago to $11.80 at the start of the year, now they're at $10.80. Can you talk about how you see coal prices developing? Why have they come down? And does the government really manage this within a range, how low can they actually go?
Bert Frost:
If you look at coal costs, I mean, that's another globally traded commodity, and that's driven by several things
Anthony Will:
I mean, I think the other thing I would add to that is, with LNG prices having fallen dramatically on an MMBtu equivalency, coal price has to come down in order to be viable. And China, at the end of the day is still a coal-driven economy. And so back to Bert's point, while there is, I think, a bunch of external factors that are -- have provided some pressure on coal, there is increasing demand for coal utilization. And we think, ultimately, that ends up supporting prices there. So we're not terribly concerned about the top end of the cost curve, doing something dramatic.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Duffy Fischer with Barclays.
Patrick Fischer:
Just a question around demand in North America. So starting in the fourth quarter last year, we all talked about the bad fall application season, we talked about the short window in the spring. Given the crops we planted this year in North America, how much do you think we shorted the North American market on nitrogen? And then if we get the bump to, let's say, your $94 million midpoint acres of corn next year, how much more does that add? So kind of 2 buckets of incremental nitrogen growth over the next 12 months versus the last 12 months, if you could help break those 2 buckets out?
Bert Frost:
So looking at North American demand, it's a use it or lose it type. We say nitrogen is the only nutrient that is absolutely necessary, and you can't carry it through from one season to the next. So you're right, last year, Q4 was not a good ammonia season, and we've had a couple of those in a row, and we needed to make that up in the spring. When we moved in the spring of 2019, it was wet. It was difficult, and ammonia did get down at some form and fashion, but a lot of that moved to upgrade, urea and UAN. So the total in applied, I don't have that number in front of me. But I don't think we shorted it. What I do believe is that we exited Q2 with low inventory throughout the system, both retail and producer and imported inventory. And so when we're looking today and out the window in Chicago, it's snowing. It's not conducive to ammonia application today, at least in our backyard, but we've generally applied ammonia through early to mid-December in most years, and we would look for a warming trend. And the temperatures look conducive in Iowa and Nebraska and Southern Illinois to get that season done. But as I said in my prepared remarks, if that eventuality is -- we're unable to do that, we believe that at least at CF, we have the ability to make it through into spring, and that makes that even much more of a challenge. And then that adds value to our distribution and end market production assets and our logistical ability to move product quickly into the market, and I know there's going to be a timing game. So that's what I would say, we -- the corn-to-bean ratio is attractive for this 94 million acres of corn. And what's going on in the protein market, I think that's going to continue to be attractive.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Mark Connelly with Stephens.
Joan Tong:
Good morning. This is Joan Tong on for Mark. Just question -- quick question on nitrogen application practice, in general. It seems like nitrogen application is a key area of focus in digital ag as well as some of the ag tech trend. Are you seeing any of those new technology or newer products affecting the way farmers are buying or applying nitrogen or affecting their interest in pre-buying?
Anthony Will:
When you look at these new technologies and the new biostimulants or biologicals or different things, everything is in the testing phase, and it's in the theoretical and they're starting to put out what that could be in the practical. And so for us, no, we have not seen changes in application. What we are seeing, and this is over years with precision ag; with the education around when to apply; and the 4Rs [ph], which is the right place, the right time, the right product at the right rate you're seeing very good farming practices. And there's a whole education going on in our industry, which we are funding and supporting. And that is also focused on watershed improvements and the issues of just good environmental practices. And that's being, I think, spread amongst companies amongst groups and especially with custom applicators, such that you don't see fall application of ammonia starting until about right now when the soil temperatures are at the right -- the optimal temperature and moisture profile to hold that nitrogen. And so we looked at these positive changes. And if they were to achieve what they're promoting, these new technologies, we see that as accompanying nitrogen consumption and then you'll have a yield boost, which I think is good for the farmer and good for the low-cost North American producer or farmer being able to compete in the global economy.
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Roberts with UBS.
John Roberts:
Back to the earlier question on capital allocation. New plants typically have some low-cost debottleneck opportunities. When you get to the first major downtimes coming up for your new plants, do you think we'll see some capacity expansions kind of on the order of magnitude of 10% or more?
Christopher Bohn:
John, no, I think the issue right now is based on operating rates globally of ammonia plants and where Tampa ammonia price has been settling lately, we look at ammonia debottlenecks as not a terribly interesting proposition from a standpoint of a return on investment. Now that said, there is a significant uplift in margin per nutrient ton going from ammonia into the upgraded products, urea or UAN, and we are looking at potentially debottlenecking on the upgrade side. But that -- the benefit of that is it doesn't add any nutrient ton capacity to the global S&D, it just changes the form of nitrogen. And those kind of debottlenecks are, I would say, relatively efficient from an overall cost perspective and largely fit within our $400 million to $415 million a year. It wouldn't take us outside of that band. So I think those are certainly things that we're looking at and considering, but it doesn't really change the cash flow dynamic on the business or what we've talked about.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Joel Jackson of BMO Capital Markets.
Joel Jackson:
In the Democratic primary, there's been a bit of a switch of the frontrunners. And one of the frontrunners that could win here has expressed the concern about fracking. We could see a change in fracking in the states in the next little while if couple of things work out that way. Have you started to think about what your risk appetite maybe for gas hedging? Or how you have to change your strategy if it's a change in that kind of political stance? And would you want to get ahead of some of that things?
Bert Frost:
Yes. I mean, I think there's a real question as to whether or not the authority that's be espoused by that individual actually exists within that office or whether that requires -- that's a -- I think at some level, that's more of a Supreme Court-related issue, because it's more of a state's rights versus federal government thing. So it's not obvious to us that, that power actually exists within that office, but that's for other people, I think, to decide. And I'd say, that is a huge kind of macro U.S. economy kind of decision if it was made. It wouldn't affect not only our business but the economy as a whole. And I don't expect -- I think it's a lot of rhetoric, actually. I don't actually expect something like that to show up.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Steve Bryne with Bank of America.
Steve Byrne:
Tony, you were just talking a little bit about nutrient tons shifting. I just wanted to ask a little bit more about -- if you look at your gross margins by product, it looks pretty slim in ammonia. Do you have the ability to shift more out of ammonia? Or at this time of year, you need to move some ammonia just because it's a product that you can move now? And also related to ammonia, just wanted to ask you about the impact of the Magellan pipeline closure, does that have maybe a differential impact on your competitors in terms of distribution costs, more so than it does for you? And does this lead to a higher corn belt ammonia price longer term?
Anthony Will:
Yes, Steve. I mean, I think a couple of things are going on. I would focus more on the 9-month numbers for ammonia than I would on the third quarter because the third quarter really has virtually no agricultural ammonia. And so all of the ammonia that moved in the quarter were really driven off of industrial kind of contracts, which tend to be much more Tampa-based pricing, in general. And the Tampa price has been pretty low, which why -- which is why we're not that excited about further ammonia debottleneck because they just -- they don't pay out. We do run our upgrade plans kind of at 100% capacity. And so that's why if we're going to be able to shift more ammonia and to upgrade, we're going to have to be doing some of the debottlenecks that were asked about earlier, I think, by John. But we have a great end market distribution network for ammonia. And you saw that in the second quarter when we moved a lot of that volume and got very good price realization and very good ton movement. Clearly, I think what you've seen is with the Magellan pipeline going down, you've had coke and Enid announced a big urea debottleneck expansion, which again is reducing the amount of excess ammonia that they have. You've seen other people make moves away from anhydrous into upgraded products. We have the benefit and verdigris of being able to barge ammonia out of that plant, either for use elsewhere in the system or to be able to export it. And so I think we still have a fair bit of flexibility relative to the plants and other people are making moves to try to reduce their dependence and cost structure of moving ammonia around the system. But our end market terminal is to provide a really nice lift for us during the application season, but the spring tends to be the big application. As Bert mentioned earlier, as we look out the window here in Chicago, it's snowing, so I'm not sure we're going to see much of a fall application season this year. But what you don't get in the fall in the way of ammonia just put increased value on the upgraded tons as we get into spring.
Christopher Bohn:
And the only thing I would add, Steve, this is Chris, is that as you look at the ammonia segment, as Tony mentioned, looking at the 9 months is for -- probably more indicative, but if you look at the adjusted gross margin, you'll see that really a large part of that was depreciation, and it's pretty much in line with the prior year quarter. Additionally, the tons are up a little bit. As Tony mentioned, that Q3 is a higher maintenance period. So we had slightly higher ammonia output than we would have in a typical quarter.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Jonas Oxgaard with Bernstein.
Jonas Oxgaard:
From what I can tell at current ammonia prices, your Trinidad plant is running at negative margins, and that looks like it's going through into your equity line as well. Is there room for renegotiating the raw material pricing? Or how you're thinking about that in the current environment?
Anthony Will:
Yes. I think, for the most part, Jonas, the Trinidad plant that you're seeing at the negative margin is related to a tax amnesty program that we, along with our joint venture down there in that partnership, agreed which was related to withholding taxes from the year 2011 through current, and that was about a $16.5 million settlement that related to our portion of that. I think when you look at the Trinidad asset, it's still producing at a cash margin, given that the cash cost of natural gas down there is related to ammonia as well.
Bert Frost:
And we're actually one of the few people that have -- look, we announced, I think, about a year ago that our 5-year extension with NGC, National Gas Company of Trinidad had been extended. And so the price at which we're buying is commensurate with historical kind of Carib-based gas deals. Most of the other producers on the island have annualized through their contracts and have had to renegotiate. So we're -- we believe we're in a favorable cost position relative to the other producers on the island. And as Chris said, I think the results you're seeing there and that's a -- is a onetime tax issue as opposed to an ongoing operating performance issue.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Piken with Cleveland Research.
Michael Piken:
I wanted to talk a little bit more about the UAN situation. I know you guys had a good build program, but it seems like efforts to increase prices have been a little bit challenging going forward. How are you sort of thinking about the fill program kind of going -- or not the fill program, but UAN sales going forward, in terms of the timing and what we might expect in fourth quarter versus next year?
Anthony Will:
Yes. So as I said in my prepared remarks, we were pleased and continued to be pleased with the fill program because of spring planting being late and wet we were -- we carried applications well into late July and inventory was fairly low when we launched the program in the last week of July, first week in August. And we built a healthy book which allows us to operate the plants full and utilize our distribution assets, railcars, trucks, barges as well as vessels because we're still participating in the international market. And so as we look into, I would say, today, we're looking into Q1, I think we're very well positioned. As I mentioned, our inventory has continued to stay low. We have low gas costs. And UAN has been ranged bound in NOLA. It has traded close to what the publications are talking about, maybe on a little bit on the high side. But as we look towards spring, we believe that the interior -- and it's already reflecting this a larger margin spread in the interior. So we're constructively positive, UAN and the demand. And again, just as in last year, if the ammonia is unable to go down, it makes it very challenging to get that much in onto the ground. And so we're planning to participate in that market. Now we've done some things. You're correct that the UAN, the sanctions in EU, which we've been communicating about. So you can see from our numbers, we've cut our exports almost in half, the majority of that being decreased participation in Belgium and France and the EU markets. And we've repurposed a lot of those tons to different places, and we've been expanding our distribution reach in the United States. And so we think we're prepared for the future. And if that future is heavily reliant on North America, we think we will do that and do that well, but continuing to participate in a small way or smaller way in the international market.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Don Carson with Susquehanna Financial.
Donald Carson:
Just a question on your price outlook for next year. You talked, Bert, about how you thought prices might be flat, but was that a NOLA comment because there's some very strong pricing in the corn belt this year due to all the river issues? Are you expecting a repeat of that in 2020? And then just quickly, are you taking advantage of some of these higher offshore netbacks in urea by increasing your exports out of diesel currently?
Bert Frost:
So looking at the price outlook, we were fairly benign in our comments saying that we're projecting 2020 to look fairly close to 2019. And that's due to the review of the cost curve and what we think is capable and where tons will move and the puts and takes of the business. So yes, it was more of a NOLA comment. River close has already taken place. River close means that barges can no longer traverse up to the northern territories, and if they do, they are stuck up there until spring and they have to pay storage. So where we are? Again, we think inventories are low, and a lot of P&K is in inventory space, which makes it a little bit difficult for urea to get into the dry spaces. So we think that will be a positive outcome for us. We have a lot of space available to our -- to ship to in our pine bend and Medicine Hat in Port Neal, production and storage facilities. But when you look at the previous question on exports, we're off about 50% from our exports from comparing 2018 to 2019, and the values just weren't there relative to what we could achieve in North America. If these values continued to stay where they currently are over the last month, then we would participate more in the export market. We're ambivalent to where our tons go, it's margin-driven. So if we can get $1 or $4, $5 more overseas, we'll load it up, and we can ship a lot of product out of Donaldsonville.
Anthony Will:
And Don, the question about the end market premium, which did kind of blow out during the spring, given logistical challenges and how we're viewing that kind of next year. I think, given the end market distribution and production that we have, we always expect to at least capture kind of the transportation spread but what we find typically during high demand periods or short replenishment windows is that that's when the power of that network really shines. And the last couple of years have seen more volatility as opposed to more smoothness in terms of the operations and what's required and demanded and what the market is willing to pay for. And I think that there's a little bit of more of the same kind of the assist embedded in terms of how the spring runs, particularly when right now you've got NOLA trading at such a discount to the international space. What that really means is the very few imports are coming this direction because if you're an exporter out in the Middle East or someplace else, you can get better values by going to other parts of the world. So North America is not paying enough to attract imported tons at this point, which means that, that's going to further sort of stress the system relative to be able to resupply in the market, and again, that's when our network shines. So from our perspective, the fact that during the low demand volume quarter, Q3 prices lag a little bit relative to the international markets. Net-net, that's sort of not a bad thing.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Brandon Dempster with Consumer Edge Research.
Brandon Dempster:
I just wanted to talk about maybe what you think is the range or the price point rather in North America that you'd have to hit or maybe sustain that would bid in greenfield capacity? And maybe that's thinking more in a 3- to 5-year horizon?
Anthony Will:
Well, I just -- I just don't see it happening. And again, anyone that's interested in building one, come -- send them our way, and we'll sell them a plant at replacement cost. I'm happy to do that. I think you got to get urea prices sustainably up north of $350 on average for a full year to even think about it. And then if you're going to do that, you're still better off building in Nigeria or Russia than you are building over here just because labor costs are so uncontrollable here.
Christopher Bohn:
And I think, just to build on Tony's comment, that's a sustainable price above $350 in order to get something that's in low teens type of return for what they would be spending on labor and equipment.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks everyone for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you at the upcoming conferences.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's presentation. You may now disconnect, and have a wonderful day.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Half and Second Quarter 2019 CF Industries Holdings Earning Conference Call. My name is Amanda, and I'll be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries first half and second quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President of Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Dennis Kelleher, CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries reported its first half and second quarter 2019 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about the factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you'll find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the first half of 2019 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $936 million after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. Adjusted EBITDA increased to 23% over the first half of 2018 and 63% over 2017. Meanwhile, sales volumes have remained constant at $9.8 million product tons in each of the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. Weather impacts significantly the timing of fertilizer applications often forcing shipments out of one quarter and into another, but sales volumes have remained constant over the first halves of the years. This really demonstrates the uniqueness and power of the CF Industries business model. That despite the most extreme weather on record and uncertainty and shifting of planted acres by crop type, our first half sales volume has been steady through the past three years ever since our capacity expansion project started up at the end of 2016. North America has some of the best, most productive farmland in the world and it will be planted each year if at all possible, even in the year like this one. As it is planted, it requires nitrogen fertilizer. The only nondiscretionary nutrient. This year also demonstrates why quarterly comparisons year-over-year are less meaningful than the compensability of first half results as quarterly volume is impacted by weather, but the first half volume remains constant. Our terrific results were driven by two factors; higher year-over-year nitrogen prices and outstanding execution by the CF team. Nitrogen price increases were underpinned by a tightening global supply demand balance. We also benefited from higher than normal in-region premiums due to weather-related logistical issues that limited product supplied to some inland locations. Meanwhile, the CF team and network performed exceptionally well during the first half. We set an all time record for ammonia production. We took advantage of our system's flexibility to favor higher margin urea production over UAN, leading the all time records urea production and shipments, and we leveraged our distribution terminals and our logistical capabilities to reliably deliver for customers. Most importantly, we continued to work safely. Our 12-month rolling recordable incident rate remained at 0.6 incidents per 200,000 work hours, despite the high level of activity that included a record 5.7 million product ton shipped during the second quarter. As we have stated, we believe that we will generate superior free cash flow through the cycle compared to most of our global competitors. As shown on Slides 6 and 7 of our deck, over the last 12 months, our free cash flow was the industries best at nearly $1 billion. It is clear that not all EBITDA is created equal. Many of our competitors cash from operations is consumed back into their business to keep the lights on in the plants running. While we convert a significantly higher percentage of ours into available free cash flow. This efficiency of EBITDA conversion into free cash means that although most industry participants’ equity is valued within a similar band of trading multiples of EBITDA, investors in CF Industries are rewarded with significantly higher free cash flow yield than for any of the other industry competitors. Why is that important? Because we use that industry best free cash to increase shareholder accretion in our business as measured by tons of nitrogen capacity per 100,000 shares. As seen on Slides 9 and 10, over the last 24 months, we have driven approximately 9% accretion for shareholders by investing in attractive growth, returning cash to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends and we were also able to significantly reduce our outstanding debt levels at the same time. We believe that we are well positioned to build on this track record over the next several years. As Bert will describe in more detail, there are a number of factors supporting our positive outlook. First, we expect strong nitrogen demand in North America over the next two years, as farmer economics strongly instant corn plantings. Second, the forward curve for North American natural gas remains a very attractive compared to the rest of the world. This will continue to provide CF Industries, a significant cost advantage, keeping us on the lower end of the global cost curve. And third, we expect global demand growth for nitrogen to outpace net capacity additions over the next four years, further tightening the global supply demand balance. Because of these three critical drivers, we see tremendous opportunities ahead for us that will continue to support our generation of substantial free cash flow. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will talk more about how we deliver these strong results in our outlook for the next few years. Then Dennis will cover the financial items before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. The first half of 2019 demonstrated the tremendous flexibility of our manufacturing and distribution system and the skill of CF's people. We showed 9.8 million tons in the first half, including a Company record, 5.7 million tons in the second quarter, achieved higher prices compared to year-ago, and ensured our customers receive product when and where they needed it. We're very proud of this performance given an extremely challenging spring application season, historic flooding, disruptive planting, applications in rail and barge transportation in many parts of the United States. Our focus under these conditions was to be a reliable supplier to our customers. We did this in three ways. First, we had strong production at our facilities, including shifting our production mix to favor urea over UAN to capture higher margin opportunities. We also benefited from having inland production sites given the transportation challenges. Our Port Neal, Iowa still they ran very well, which enabled record urea shipments that achieved higher – are the normal premiums to prices in New Orleans. Second, we've positioned product well at our distribution terminals in advance of the spring season. This was critical to our ability to ship 1.2 million tons of ammonia, a quarterly record for the company, despite a limited window for application. Third, we put our transportation flexibility to full use to overcome river closures during the flooding. We put your extra railcars that enabled us to rail a significant volume of urea from our Donaldsonville Louisiana facility to Minnesota, in order to capture higher margins. We also secured additional barges that allowed us to focus on river terminals along the Ohio River, which remained open through spring. Additionally, we had record levels of truck shipments. All this activity continues through July as nutrient applications went much later than normal across the United States. This is why we didn't launch our UAN fill program until earlier this week, the latest we have ever done, so. As you look ahead, we believe that industry fundamentals are very favorable over the next several years. We expect farmers to have a strong price incentive to increase corn planting significantly in the United States over the next several years. We believe that the U.S. will have around 85 million planted corn acres this year, much lower than anticipated heading into 2019. Additionally, late planting will lead to lower yields. As a result, we expect ending corn stocks to be at their lowest levels since 2013. It should take several years of higher corn acres to return to normal ending corn stock. Forward cures for North American natural gas continue to be extremely favorable compared to 2018 and to the rest of the world. Natural gas production in the U.S. average the record 88 Bcf per day during the second quarter, which is almost a 10% increase over the second quarter of 2018, supporting continued low natural gas prices in the region. With Henry Hub forward price curves averaging well below $3 per MMBtu through to 2025. We expect our production cost advantage to remain robust for the foreseeable future. Globally, we anticipate continued strong demand for urea in Brazil and India. We also continue to expect that global demand growth will be above net capacity additions over the next four years given the limited number of projects currently under construction including none in North America. The flexibility we built into the CF system served us and our customers well during a challenging spring season. We're looking forward to the rest of the year continuing to work with our customers and preparing for the strong demand we expect in the years ahead. With that, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis Kelleher:
Thanks, Bert. In the first half of 2019, the Company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $373 million or $1.67 per diluted share. EBITDA was $973 million and adjusted EBITDA was $936 million. There are two items affecting our first half results that I want to highlight. Our net earnings include an after tax gain of $35 million recognized during the second quarter on the sale of the Company's Pine Bend dry bulk storage facility in Minnesota. Our net earnings also include a previously announced net incentive tax credit of $30 million recognized in the first quarter. During the first half net cash provided by operating activities was $693 million and free cash flow was $453 million. We repurchased about 4.2 million shares for approximately $178 million under our current $1 billion share repurchase program. We also distributed $133 million in dividend payments. Cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet at the end of the quarter or $858 million. Since the end of 2018, we've added $176 million of cash to the balance sheet even as we have returned $311 million shareholders to share repurchases and dividends. This demonstrates CF free cash flow power as Tony described earlier. Our strong cash generation has provided us the flexibility to repay $500 million in debt on or before its maturity in May of 2020. It also allowed us to deploy excess cash in line with our longstanding capital allocation philosophy that is to pursue growth within our strategic fairway and in the absence of those opportunities to return excess cash to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. Capital expenditures for the first half of 2019 we're $154 million. For the year, we continue to expect to spend approximately $400 million to $450 million. As we noted in the press release, we expect ammonia production in the third quarter to be somewhat lower than the first and second quarters as we enter the heaviest period of planned maintenance for the year. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks, before we open the call to Q&A.
Anthony Will:
Thanks Dennis. Before we move onto your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for their great work in the first half of 2019. They'd put all of the capabilities we've talked about for years into action to enable us to deliver for our customers and to generate strong financial results. Most importantly, they operated safely. I also want to recognize the team that are Ince UK facility who won the Stephen R. Wilson Excellence in Safety Award for their innovation that protects people and equipment while servicing high voltage switch gear. As I close, I want to offer for a special thank you to Dennis Kelleher on his final earnings call with us. As you know, Dennis is retiring from CF on September 1 after eight successful years is our Chief Financial Officer. Dennis has been a tremendous leader in our Company and an invaluable partner to me and to our whole senior team. As the scale and complexity of our business has grown. He's played a pivotal role in all of our significant initiatives. Our major capacity expansions, our capital return program, our M&A transactions, our balance sheet management and navigating some of the most challenging nitrogen industry conditions in over a decade. We will miss him and wish him continued success. Dennis? Thank you.
Dennis Kelleher:
Thanks Tony. Appreciated.
Anthony Will:
As we announced, Chris Bohn will be appointed as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Chris is very familiar to many of you having led our Manufacturing and Distribution group for the last three years, in addition to holding other senior roles in the Company since joining CF in 2009. Chris brings deep knowledge of CF in the marketplace to the role and will provide continued strategic leadership as we capitalize on our future opportunities. Chris and Dennis had been working closely together the past several months and we expect a seamless transition. CF’s future is bright. Our unique and powerful business model has enabled us to generate and return to shareholders nearly $1 billion in free cash flow over the last 12 months. With our structural and operational advantages along with the favorable industry fundamentals we see ahead, we are well positioned to drive substantial cash generation and long-term shareholder value creation in the years ahead. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone.
Anthony Will:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson:
So I guess Bert, Tony, Dennis just interested for us the market dynamics as we come out of spring and what did this quarter in spring kind of has shown about the U.S. marketplace? Thinking about the premium that urea has kind of captured to UAN specifically, you obviously shifted the production pretty sharply towards urea, but still with UAN and some of the more limited export opportunities. How do you see that marketplace evolving over the next 12 to 24 months? Do you just see things rebalancing is people who can flex to urea and the nitrate premium returning just seems unusual for that to trade at such a sharp discount on a nutrient ton basis for a prolonged period of time?
Bert Frost:
Yes. It's interesting you've pointed out the market dynamics and what we've seen over the last several years are those dynamics in play. And again back to the creativity and the flexibility of the CF system. We've seen heavy springs where we have – and falls, where we find a lot of ammonia and the past fertilizer year being the fall to spring limited ammonia, and what was going to happen, how were those end tons going to make it to the ground. And so when you look at what we've done and what the market has done, when we look to future dynamics, what has shifted these tons has been more weather driven, not necessarily agronomic decision making driven. And so we're seeing small shifts over time, urea to UAN, UAN to urea. But when they can apply the products, they choose the product that is economically or system advantageous for that producer. And so that's where you see the balance that we have in our system with all the products that we make, all the markets that we have access to, all the rail lines, pipelines is very good for us. Specifically focusing on UAN and why it is trading at a discount today and it is. As I think the reflection of the EU antidumping duties that is forced additional Russian tons to come to the United States. And during the indecision time, probably additional Trinidadian tons to come to the United States. And as well as CF, we have focused on building out a greater access to the North American market for CF and that has happened. So we have repatriated more tons to the coastal regions as well as additional tank spacing that we thought would be good for our system where we had holes. And then, I think what you're going to see over time is as the Trinidadians have a lower penalty rate, we'll probably focus more of their tons to the EU and then we'll see what happens with the market overall. We'll still be active in South America and some of these other areas that we're developing. So I think right now it's natural that UAN would trade at a discount to urea. I think over time as it balances, we'll come back and we anticipate UAN to trade at a parody or even a premium. And the interior spreads that you mentioned, this is something we have articulated year-after-year that we believed that that was something that was structural to the United States and achievable as well as maintainable. And this year we prove that in states, where these expansions just went way out and we profited from that.
Anthony Will:
And Adam I'd add to that, kind of what Bert was saying. I think one of the things that the EU antidumping duties did is that, it led to some globally inefficient behavior. So you've got a set of EU producers that are basically running full that on a purely economic basis. I've thought been shutdown, where at least largely curtailed. So that the lower cost Russian and Trinidadian tons and even our tons, could of back filled in about marketplace. But the sort of the real kind of irony, I guess on all of this is – what you've seen is UAN prices to the European farmers. In particular, the French, farmers has gone through the rough and UAN pricing and the rest of the world has been relatively maintained. And so what Brussels really did is put a huge tax on the European farmers and turn it around and given it to the inefficient European producers, some of which around, ironically by Russian entities. So that kind of taxed the French farmers and funneled the money back into the Russian oligarchs’ pocket. So it's kind of a weird twist of the way that worked. But as Bert said, we've got a lot of different levers to pull and we're navigating it as best as possible.
Operator:
Thank you. And next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson of BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning, team. A question about ammonia, I think that the feeling was – I think a milling inventories there are higher in the country. And so I think the play was to be exploring a lot of ammonia in June into July and August, I guess exports lower netback, your a million netbacks were incredible in the quarter Q2 because of the Midwest and then premiums. How should we think about that export dynamic? How you're dealing with it and sort of the convergence of maybe some lagging MN premiums, but also having to export at lower net back? Thanks.
Anthony Will:
So we look at ammonia, we look at a balanced portfolio always. And so we're constantly focused on the highest netback, which is our ag business. And you see that that we did very well and the team executed extremely well. Part of that is in the preparation of where we placed the tons and utilizing our terminals and our logistical capabilities. Part of that was – Chris, and the plant's running extremely well. And so we were prepared, I'm not sure if our other market participants were as prepared as we were. And so we did execute and did achieve very good netbacks. But look there is a system when you look at the total consumption of ammonia per year on a fertilizer year, fall to spring. It's around 4 million to 4.4 million tons of ammonia. And from fall, we knew that number was low. And now we expect that the spring number was also lower than normal. So there is less or there was less ammonia consumed. And so of all of our systems, that's the inventory – that's higher than normal, but manageable. And we believe we executed extremely well based on that industrial export ag, and then spot sales during the quarter positioned us to get to fall and then participate in that ammonia season, and capitalize on it. We will be exporting. We have export. We export it more on a year-to-date basis than last year. And like you said, that's to be expected, but I don't see that significantly higher and so premiums are good, market is good and we expect good things for this fall.
Dennis Kelleher:
I mean, I think the other thing I'd add to that, Joel, as Bert said, because the ammonia system ran so well and we set an all time production record in the first half. We're really pleased with the volumes that that burden the team got down on the ground from ag perspective because ammonia still represented a great value to farmers compared to the on a nutrient basis compared to ammonia, or UAN and in Urea. But historically Q3 is always our lowest volume and typically lowest price quarter for ammonia. And then when you get back into the application season in Q4, you see more of that ag business come through again. And so, I wouldn't expect that to be anything different this year than it is in every other year. And as Bert said, we've got the right plans in place to be able to manage. The inventory, it also helps that we're entering the period of the year where we've got the most planned maintenance and some downtime, and so the combination of some incremental exports, some of the industrial business that we've taken on as well as the plan maintenance. We feel very comfortable with managing the inventory situation.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Christopher Parkins of Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Harris Fein:
Hi, good morning. This is Harris Fein on Chris. Just given the current energy price stack and construction costs? Can you update us on your views on Brownfield versus Greenfield economics for both U.S. and global players? Thank you.
Anthony Will:
Yes, I mean, I think what you'd see is in limited locations, it's actually isn't – labor costs and your ability to lock in fixed costs labor is as important if not more so, in some cases and then absolute gas costs is that you'd expect new capacities to be added where it is being added. So places like Nigeria, Iran and Russia are places where you can actually get fixed labor cost and in a place like that current economics, if you can get reasonable gas costs and manage the political risk situation. I'd expect there to be some level of building in those locations and I think you've seen kind of that those announcements here and there including people like your came and others looking at incremental units. I think the challenge in North America is that the labor costs because it's on a reimbursable basis and not on an LSTK basis, no one's willing to take that risk. Is that a urea prices would have to rise, quite a bit where - over where they are today for someone to really take a serious run at it. And if anyone's talking about it or actually thinking about it just means they're completely inexperienced in terms of dealing with major construction projects over here or just not that's an essentially astute to because we just don't see the current price deck being supportive of newbuild here in North America. By the way, if you find someone that wants to build, we'll sell them the plan for the cost of new construction.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent Andrews:
So my question is that we've seen Chinese exports pick up year-to-date and on one hand that's a good thing because obviously you needed higher prices in order to get the experts out of the country. But on the other hand Chinese production is supposed to be declining for environmental reasons and so forth. So how do you reconcile those two things and do you have any visibility on how much other shadow capacity might be there and sort of what incremental prices would be needed to get it out? Or just in general how you're thinking about the market?
Anthony Will:
I’ll give you the general and then let Bert kind of dive into more of the specifics. I think what you're seeing is based on where coal prices are, we absolutely believe that Chinese coal-based capacity is the marginal production capacity, particularly given where gas prices in Europe today. And so we do think that there's a fair bit of capacity that gets campaigned and it runs for a portion of the year or runs it's slightly below or somewhat below a 100% rates for portions of the year. And so what - that's why their operating rates depending upon what publication you look at and what the denominators they use is somewhere in the 60% to 70% range. So we do think that there is a fair bit of capacity that can turn on and economically will turn on when - what when it's profitable to export. And so I do know that there's a sort of the bear thesis out there that says upside in pricing is somewhat limited because of this overhang or this shelf of capacity. And I'd say, yes, there probably is some truth that I don't see urea going back to $450 or $500 anytime soon. I just - I think that bids in way too many plants in the interim and people can find a way to make reasonable money as price comes up. But the price indication from – India from Brazil, from the world in total in terms of the demand side, on that production in the China and the world really needed those tons. And I think, as our first half results indicate, even if price doesn't go up dramatically, we're very comfortable operating in this sort of environment. We can generate a lot of cash. And I do think our view over the next four years is a somewhat tightening S&D balance going forward, which means that we don't see prices retreating versus where they are today. They may not double, but they're not going to retreat. And so I think the overarching view is I think China will be there to export when the world demands those tons, it'll be sort of the flywheel that gears up or down depending upon what global demand is. And it's really going to be cost curve driven because they're much more economically or acting in a much more economically rational way now. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Yes. Just some key points about that issue, is that 5 years ago where China was producing 71 million, 72 million metric tons to today at 52 million metric tons. They do have a domestic consumption base, which is the largest in the world of approximately 50 million tons, what I would say 48 million to 50 million tons. And so the disposable incremental ton that will be exported has been consistent in the numbers that we've been talking about the last couple of years of 2 million to 3 million tons, and this year that looks to be 3 million to 3.5 million tons. So in a global exportable ton of around 45 million metric tons, you're talking about an additional 1 million tons. And so I don't think a bear or bull case, it's no fun being a marginal producer and the United States used to be in that position in the early 2000. And so I don't think they can gear up a system to be a major exporter when it's idled a portion of the year. And let's not forget that a portion of those tons that are being exported today are Iranian tons. And so many Panamax’ have been loaded in Iran and discharged it, I mean that's a loose word into China and then reexported or moved or reflaged to other locations. And so I'm not sure all of that 3.5 billion tons is really Chinese. And so if that is the case and let's say a 1 tons of Iranian product has been moved in, then we're still back to that original thesis of 2 million to 2.5 million tons, and that's digestible by the international market.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Don Carson of Susquehanna. Your line is open.
Donald Carson:
Thank you. I just want to go back to the very high in-market premiums we saw this year. The call saying you sold some product out the gate to Port Neal for 400 when NOLA was below 300. Does that become a headwind next year on pricing along with somewhat lower gas costs offshore? So could you quantify what that in-market premium benefit was to you in EBITDA this year?
Bert Frost:
So we did experience a very nice position in our in-market premium. And while we're seeing over time is, like I said earlier, the premium expands and contracts. And so it has maintained over the years with this new capacity because we're an import market and you're bidding in tons that have rates and have costs. And so as you have difficulties moving tons or as you have delays or advancement of the season, let's say we have an early season next year. Those issues come into play and come into value. You're exactly right in terms of a tailwind on gas, gas has been as low as 215 on Henry Hub and on a basis weight that's below, that's actually very cheap in Canada and then some of the places that we produce like in Oklahoma. So those are tailwinds. I don't necessarily see this issue as a headwind in terms of the in-market premium to get something to execute.
Anthony Will:
I mean, I think Don in that regard, the U.S. remains an import-driven marketplace and we need to attract, still a fairly sizeable amount of tonnage coming here, particularly when Bert’s team is exporting out of diesel, it even requires more tonnage coming this direction. And it's always a question in terms of where those exporting regions go with their tons and they're looking for the best netback. And so the U.S. has to bid those tons away from India, from Brazil, from Europe, from other places in order to get them here and then someone's got to get them into the marketplace. And what we've seen during periods of time, even during fairly what I'd call normal operating conditions, is you get some spikiness in market depending upon the particular year in question. And it has to do with availability of product when and where people are applying and planting because there's a high urgency factor when they're doing the field work. And so that's one of the benefits that we have with the in-market plans and the distribution network that we've developed, which is we typically can capture some of that when it pops up. It just happened this year. It was a little bit more prolonged, but we've had river issues in the past. We've had rail line embargoes on some of the major rail carriers, other things like that that have created these kinds of opportunities on a more spot basis. This year, I'd say it was a little more widespread, but that is kind of the power of our system, which is we can capture that when opportunities present themselves.
Dennis Kelleher:
Yes, Don. The other thing I'd add is, you asked about the cost curve. Think about lower gas price internationally and let's just focus on LNG in Western Europe. Western Europe is not the marginal producer. And I think that we – that's proven by the fact that it's taking high prices that we're seeing currently to bid tons out of China that are produced by coal people – coal based manufacturing. So that really hasn't changed much. And I think if you look at our slide on – in the deck, you'll see that the cost per ton of ammonia, whether it's using a – whether you're using a anthracite coal in China, which is basically the marginal producer today or TTF gas on a forward basis, average for the year. We still have a very substantial cost advantage and we expect that to be maintained. The gas prices we saw earlier in the year in Western Europe like $4, ourselves at our plant gate. I think if you think about into the Great Britain, the marginal and MMBtu being seaborne LNG. At $4 plant gate, our plants, it's very clear that didn't have value chain. There are people who are not getting paid and so we don't view those prices as sustainable, and if you look at the forward curve, in fact it rises quite significantly above that.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly of Stephens. Your line is open.
Mark Connelly:
Thank you. Tony, a couple of quarters back, you commented about non-U.S. producers making some suboptimal decisions about where they were shipping in international parity. And clearly since that time, the opportunities into the U.S. haven't been that good. But as things normalize, do you think we're going to continue to see producers favor the U.S. over markets where they might have better economics?
Anthony Will:
Yes. Mark, I think in a lot of cases the U.S. access a little bit of a clearing house for some of the tons where there's timing differences between when there's enough inventory for exporters' to send it out and where the demand regions actually need to consume it. So I think during those shoulder periods, NOLA will probably trade at a bit of a discount to international parity just because there's not that much demand in some of those regions. And then I think there's other times of the year where NOLA is going to trade at parity if not a bit of a premium. If there's high demand periods like we saw earlier this year. I also think the trade flows are realigning a bit better than where we were a couple of years ago. I think there were an awful lot of traders and importers in the U.S. that really lost a lot of money over the last couple of years. And I think you've seen a number of the big names dramatically scale back trading operations and some of that activity in response to that. And I think there's just more discipline because the people in the channel that are taking inventory positions, it's not to their benefit to see prices fall after they've already committed. So I think people are being a little bit more responsible about the volume of tons they're bringing in, and the inland price back to the earlier comment from Don. It wouldn't surprise me to see a little bit of a gapping out between inland price and NOLA price, just if you end up with NOLA being kind of again the liquidity clearinghouse for the world during periods of time. I don't think you'll see that price necessarily reflected back inland because you don't have the bad behavior that existed before. So I think there's a lot more rationality taking place and that's a good thing.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrne of Bank of America. Your line is open.
Luke Washer:
Hi, this is actually a Luke Washer on for Steve. I wanted to touch on the farmer in North America. Did you see a shift in ammonia applications to side-dress this half and did growers, do you think growers applied more than normal, perhaps due to wet weather anticipation for some that would be lost? And just general commentary on if you saw any changes in farmer behavior compared to last year would be appreciated as well. Thanks.
Anthony Will:
So regarding North America, yes, we did see a shift to side-dress and we had ammonia going out into July for side-dress. So the change in behavior was that – was a behavior driven by economics as well as weather, and decision making. There comes a point in time where you have to plant and get your seed in the ground no matter what crop you're planting. And when I state as well as, I guess even Northern corn states, are trying to put seed in the ground in mid-to-late June. You better have the nitrogen there and ready to go. What happened was they came to the point where you couldn't do pre-plant application wait and then plan they had to get the seed. So we saw a lot of movement late in June and early July of ammonia, as I address on once you had emergence. And so did they apply more? No, I don't think so. And we can see this from – some of our crop inspections and work with other people and just information on how much N was applied on average in some of the places that we watch. And you're seeing that holds the historical averages. The interesting thing for me is going to be the yield. The USDA is still projecting a high acre number as well as a much higher yield number that we think is possible. And I still think there at 166 and I think you'll be lucky to be at 160 and it's going to significantly impact the stocks used ratio coming into this harvest season. And so…
Anthony Will:
When also harvested acres were, I mean they're at 91.5 where do you think that's good?
Dennis Kelleher:
Well, were our internal numbers probably 84 million, 85 million and so that's what's really still to play. And again, getting back to the nitrogen, but what was applied and was taken up by the crop will be represented in yield? And so we'll see. But I don't think more was applied this year than any other year.
Anthony Will:
I mean the other point to highlight is the side-dress of ammonia extending out is not unprecedented before we've had kind of late wet springs and you see ammonia application on the side-dress that through the ice states in particular that is moved out through June and then June, July. And as Bert said, if you look at the total amount of nutrient tons that went down it is more reflective of the kind of numbers that we're thinking about from acreage, not in “over application of nitrogen” in any way.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson of Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Ben Isaacson:
Good morning. Hi, can you hear me now? Thank you. I just a quick question on ammonium nitrate, I noticed your volumes were down year-over-year and everything else was so strong. Was that deliberate? And maybe you can just talk a little bit about how that market's doing right now?
Anthony Will:
When you look at ammonium nitrate for CF, we produce in the UK as well as it Yazoo City. And so as we talk about flexibility, this is now on the North American side, Yazoo City, Mississippi. The flexibility we have at that specific site as we make agricultural grade ammonium nitrate, industrial grade ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, UAN ammonia and DDS. So that's a very versatile plant for us. And so during this period we saw some opportunities as some of the other products that we were able to segment and move tons to that direction. The other side is the UK assets. We have two plants there that make ammonium nitrate and NPKs. And in that side of the business, we focused less on exports and decided to produce at a different mix. We also make ammonia at that location – or my make and sell ammonia at those locations. And so that was a little bit of the balance change, but not – I don't think it was a big shift.
Dennis Kelleher:
Yes. And I actually think of first half volume was up not down, but overall it was – first half was up and again, we really think about this business in half not in quarters, because I think that there was pretty good shipment in Q1.
Anthony Will:
Well, okay. There ag season started really early.
Dennis Kelleher:
So think about half, not quarters.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of PJ Juvekar of Citi. Your line is open.
PJ Juvekar:
Thank you. Dennis, first of all, congratulations on your retirement.
Dennis Kelleher:
Thanks.
PJ Juvekar:
I have a comment and a question. My comment is, first of all, kudos to you guys for executing in this difficult environment. I mean, how did your urea volumes go up if you have 10 million plant acres and supposedly it was so wet that farmers couldn't get the tractors out. All the urea volumes you’ve sold, do you think all of that was applied on the ground or do you think some of it is sitting in some of the bins and distributors? And then secondly for Tony with your strong free cash flow, any thoughts on the M&A possibilities?
Anthony Will:
So first of all, thanks for the comment. I think the whole team did an outstanding job this spring. And we do well and things are good, but really when it's challenged, when there are challenges out there is when the flexibility of the network really and the capability of the people really shine. Bert, you want to handle the urea. Did it go down or inventory question?
Bert Frost:
So looking at the whole system, obviously we're up quarter-on-quarter, six months on six months and feel very good about that. Again, it goes back to a lot of the discussion that we had in the prepared remarks and as well as some of this Q&A the whole issue of preparation. And when it became apparent to us that ammonia season would be challenged. We called in extra railcars. We'd already gone to maximum urea with an interesting side note that we didn't realize was how do you move all that urea just from the plant to the logistical asset, barges, railcars. And I give the team a lot of credit with coming up with creative ways working with ARTCO, our barge to fleet as well as power enough barges and get extra barging capacity. So we started working on this in April and with a flooded river or at least a high river at that point, slowing barge movements, we focused on getting those barges up into places where we could unload them and not send them up to St. Louis where they thought they would be embargoed and they ended up being so. But another side note is we had record truck shipments. So another issue to work with our customers and truck providers. We had urea during the peak of demand. We know some of our urea went 1,200 miles to meet spot demand and trucks are driving a long distance. We designed the Port Neal facility to load up to 10,000 tons a day by truck. And that happened. So when you take all of these individual movements in a totality as well as building inventory from Q1 to Q2 on purpose, that set us up to be in place and back to how we executed and achieved some of these record high prices and premiums because we were a supplier that had products that could deliver on time.
Anthony Will:
But I think PJ, your question about did it go to ground versus is it sitting in a shed at someplace? Our experience with UAN, which is the vast majority of product that we shipped out in July was for prompt delivery and application, which is why we didn't launch the UAN infill program until just earlier this week because we were still seeing demand at spring pricing level, indicates that people weren't stuffing this product into bins and tanks because typically there's a price reset when you reach the application season and moving to the shareholder season. So all the stuff that we were selling through June and even into July was at spring pricing indicating to us that all of it was going to ground. There was no one that was going to put that stuff into a warehouse because that’s the long hold period for relatively firm pricing.
Bert Frost:
Our channel checks for urea and UAN ours as well as our customers is low. And we believe that's represented like you just said, Tony on all this immediate demand, but you just talked about for UAM with the same issue for urea. We do think based on knowledge of barge and barge loadings and that there is a high level of P&K in the market, but not of urea or UAN and especially on the river.
Anthony Will:
And PJ, your second question around free cash flow and how we think about that. We have a very, very high conversion rate of EBITDA and free cash on this asset base. And so it puts a high bar out there for us in the way of acquisitions because our focus really is, cash flow per share. That's what we want to drive accretion on. And so are we interested in growth? Absolutely. Are we interested in M&A? Sure. Does it have to be accretive on a cash flow per share basis after we're all said and done? It absolutely does. So we're looking at things, but if it doesn't pass that test, then we're not going to execute it. And by the way, we've got great other options, which is a share price that yields the free cash flow yield that is still 2x to 3x better than anybody else in the space. So I think we've got a long way to go in terms of our own share price and we don't feel like there's a gun in our head that we have to go and do something that is dilutive.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Duffy Fischer of Barclays. Your line is open.
Sean Gilmartin:
Hi, good morning. This is Sean Gilmartin on for Duffy. Thanks for taking the question. Just real quickly, could you maybe give us your take on how we should start thinking about your overall volumes in the back half year in 2019, kind of given the late start in planting and maybe the potential for a late harvest? And I know you mentioned kind of your 2019 view on corn acres and I know nutrition kind of pegged next year's corn acres around 95 million. Curious if you had a view there. Thanks.
Anthony Will:
I mean I think Duffy, on the tonnage, if you just look back the last couple of years were sort of between 19 million and 20 million product tons given sort of what the maintenance schedule looks like in the particular product mix. That's not a bad estimate because we basically are, as long as the plants aren't down for maintenance, they're running 24/7. And over the course of a year, we shipped what we make. So just like the first half of each of the last three years we'd been in 9.8 million, the back half has been relatively consistent as well. So I think that's a pretty good guide for what the volumes are going to look like second half.
Bert Frost:
I'm pleased with our order book. I think we're in a good position for their products. We're in good position with managing inventories in the production rates. We talked about ammonia being a little high, but we have so many options at our disposal that I agree with you Tony, that that we'll manage to what the market demands. However, I think your point on a late harvest is interesting. I was just in Canada, last week and then driving to Michigan and Ohio and did some walks and runs as I go through four cornfields and I was shocked at what I saw was knee high to waist high and fields in need of nitrogen and not that many heat degree days left. So the likelihood of having that driven by a frost date, and if we were to have an early frost, you're not going to see maturities. And so that product could be cut for silage or just will be a low yielding. So the late harvest, it depends on dry down and then how much people want to spend on propane. And so the 2020 acres were bullish. I think 95 as a low end, and don't want to give a higher end. But when you look at stocks to use ratios where we are, we're back to 2013 type levels where corn was up to $7. Now corn today is trading in the 410 range. So what could corn go to? But I think it's going to go up, but it's going to be, I think people are waiting to see on these harvest results acres results, but it's a positive economic proposition for a farmer today to focus on corn for 2020 and those acres will be available and especially the acres that weren't planted on the preventive plant or the silage acres, those would be planted early. So you're going to see ammonia going down I think just as we do normally. And if we have a late harvest or and dry down, then we'd have ammonia generally always applied in December. That can happen again.
Anthony Will:
I mean I think it's also fair to say that we're probably more bearish on both yield than acres then USCA or in fact than a lot of people are. So to us that says acres next year, both corn price, where it goes off the board this year after harvest and acres next year are going to be in our opinion stronger than where the market's pegging it today.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Wong of RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Andrew Wong:
Hey, good morning. So I guess just following onto that, sounds like from your commentary, you expect pretty strong nitrogen demand in North America over the next several years, not just next year and it's pretty clear next year it's going to be a really big corn acreage year. But I'm curious about your thoughts on how the crop balance sheets and the pricing changes over the next several years, given your confidence on providing some of that guidance so far out? Thank you.
Anthony Will:
Yes. I mean I think when you look at stocks to use down in the mid single-digits, which is where we believe, it's going to end this year that you need 95 plus acres just to get back to where you began this year, which is also a relative. Well, and so we had this year at least initial and intentions being sort of 92 million, 93 million acres and I would expect if next year is 95 million, you're probably back in the 92 million, 93 million the year after because I just think, the price signals are there. I also think we expect, ongoing and continued weakness in beans. And whether that's because African swine fever culling of the hog population or ongoing kind of trade concerns or just other related issues and also bumper yields in other growing regions on the bean side. I think you end up with very, very strong incentives on, certainly a mid-term basis, short and mid-term basis for farmers to grow corn. And so we're – that that really is the backdrop against our bullish view of corn and also nitrogen demand in North America. Bert, you got?
Bert Frost:
Nope, I agree. I think your numbers are spot on where you see a positive market.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of John Roberts of UBS. Your line is open.
John Roberts:
Thank you, and congrats to Dennis as well and also the Christopher. And I wanted to go back to your earlier comment that prices are not high enough for expansions. Was that directed just towards Greenfield since nutrients announced some small expansions recently? And I would guess your new clients have some pretty low costs. Incremental de-bottleneck opportunities?
Anthony Will:
Yes. I mean it clearly, well I was talking about John with respect to expansions are putting in a whole new – ammonia urea complex, not incremental bottlenecks. I think generally speaking, once you've got the infrastructure in place at de-bottleneck is going to have much favorable economics to building a whole new plant. And it was really, whether it's a Greenfield or a Brownfield, building a new ammonia plant and then upgrade facility. But we're certainly evaluating similarly de bottleneck opportunities and additional flexibility. I think this year in particular highlights the value of product flexibility in the more levers Bert can pull in order to manage what the product, slight mix looks like the better off our returns are. And given our strong cash flow and ability to invest some of that into some high return projects that that add flexibility to the network, but are still fairly low cost in terms of the scale of a new plant is a great return. So we're looking at that kind of stuff too. But most of that can be accomplished within the framework of our normal CapEx budget, when we say 400 to 450 that include some growth capital in there. And I think that's a pretty good number for us going forward and gives us some upside in terms of both product mix flexibility margin and absolute tonnage.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jonas Oxgaard of Bernstein. Your line is open.
Jonas Oxgaard:
Good morning, guys. We early on talked about the economics of new plants and then completely agree that the economic starting to urea plant doesn't really make sense today. But we are also seen as LNG price have fallen so much and you realize now the most profitable use of natural gas. And so two part question, are you seeing any indication from places like Trinidad that they're going to allocate more natural gas towards urea over LNG, so reversing the trend for the last several years. And second, what do you think the risk and outlook is for places like your Iran works Trinidad to sanction urea just to find the least bad version to get rid of the word - to export their method?
Bert Frost:
Yes, I mean I think Trinidad in particular has had some challenges with respect to gas availability at the low costs that they had promised long-term contracts on. And so when most of those Caribbean based contracts have come up for renegotiation they'd been reestablished that a fundamentally different kind of profit sharing as well as floor price than initially envisioned. And it's not clear to me that there's enough new gas available in terms of the supply price that they're willing to offer that would instant capacity going into Trinidad. Again I think that much more likely to see that in the places like Nigeria and Russia and so forth. Relative to if there is some sort of reallocation of the hydrocarbon molecules in some of those regions so that they can generate more tax revenue, I think you don't have to look very far to figure out that the returns on urea are far superior to methanol today. And if there was going to be some sort of did you say embargo or whatnot, I think you'd see some rationalization of methanol operating rates in favor of urea. But there aren't a lot of urea plants in those regions that are sitting idle today. Everything is running in full on. So it's really more of a four year fix because you'd have to build a new ammonia urea complex and that's a long time in the future to be looking at that. You certainly could go through a methanol cycle that reverses course in that time horizon. So I know that's not one of those things that we look at and are terribly worried about.
Operator:
Thank you. And the next question comes from the line of Michael Piken of Cleveland Research Company. Your line is open.
Michael Piken:
Yes. Hi, I just wanted to touch base a little bit on Iran and your expectations for 2019 uranium exports every day, sending a lot of product into Brazil we'd heard. So just your thoughts there and how you see the potential for exports trending mattresses here, but over the next couple of years?
Anthony Will:
Good morning, Michael. I think, look our view has always been there's too much money at stake for those plants to run or not run. That they're going to run and they're going to find some way to get those times out. And whether it's sending them to China and re export them, send them direct to India or Brazil and barter or do something in the way of an exchange. Our view is those plans have been running and will continue to run. And I think the only time where you may see any sort of upset in that process is if they go down for maintenance or turnaround issues and are not able to get either the technical support or the catalyst or the critical vessels to bring them back online. And so I think that's really where you might see a pressure point, but that's a little bit longer wave length. That's not this quarter or next quarter. I wouldn't anticipate. So I think those plants have been running and they continue to run. Bert to you.
Bert Frost:
Yes, just there has been the various behavior, you've seen these tons, as Tony mentioned for a price people will do certain things and those prices have been low. So they're not a very attractive business for the Iranians, but they have been creative in bartering re-flagging, re-exporting from China. And I do think their tonnage will be lower as a result of these sanctions continues, but they've been creative so far.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks everyone for joining us. And we look forward to seeing you at conferences over the next few months.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Quarter 2019 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Justin and I'll be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We'll facilitate a question and answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning. And thanks for joining the CF Industries’ First Quarter Earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will CEO; Dennis Kelleher, CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market development and Supply Chain and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries reported its first quarter 2019 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries’ results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in these statements. More detailed information about the factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC that are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Martin. And good morning everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the first quarter of 2019 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $305 million after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. We're really pleased with this performance, especially against the backdrop of another first quarter with cold and wet weather that delayed the application season even more so than last year. Despite lower sales volumes we exceeded our first quarter adjusted EBITDA from last year as selling prices were significantly higher for urea, UAN, NAN. We also operated extremely well. We set a quarterly production record for urea and ammonia production was our third highest ever. Most importantly, we continue to work safely as our rolling 12-month recordable incident rate remained at 0.6 incidents per 200,000 work hours. As we have said many times in the past we plan our business on a six-month increment. Weather patterns may move product shipments out of one quarter and into another but we run our plants 24/7, 365 and over the course of the year, we're going to ship everything we make. We believe this year will be no different. April saw much improved shipments and we are now ahead of where we were a year ago on volume. As Bert will outline shortly, we expect high demand for nitrogen due to increased corn acres in the United States amplified by low ammonia applications last fall. At the same time, we expect continued disruptions to barge and rail transportation due to the lingering effects of weather. This is tested in the industries logistics capabilities to move upgraded products to farmers, when and where they needed. We believe these challenges plays right into our strengths. We have significant in region production, unparalleled logistics capabilities and an expansive distribution network, these position us well as the spring application season progresses. Longer term, these same operational advantages, along with our structural advantage of operating in an import dependent region and our access to low cost North American natural gas will continue to drive our cash generation capability. Before I turn it over to Bert, I want to comment on the expected impacts of the European Commission's announcement of provisional duties on imports of UAN. We strongly disagree with the Commission's conclusions, which we believe ignore the market fundamentals of the globally traded commodities like UAN. See our purchase is natural gas our primary input at prevailing market prices. We use that in our highly efficient plants to produce UAN and then sell it at prevailing market prices. The key difference between CS and Eastern European producers is that we have newer, more efficient, more reliable, more climate-friendly and lower GHG plants than they did. We also have access to low cost North American natural gas. That said, we fully expect that these duties will impact global UAN trade flows and that will take some time for the industry to adjust. Fortunately, CF has more options than many others. And we have been taking appropriate steps to mitigate the financial impact to our company. We exported roughly 850,000 tons of UAN to Europe last year, and this is how we think about realigning those tons going forward. We'll make more granular urea unless UAN which will absorb between 300,000 to 700,000 tons of that depending upon the specific production mix decisions we make. We continued to build demand in South America and leverage our relationships there and so we expect to increase our exports into that region. Finally, in the last six months we have leased additional access to UAN space within North America. Based on those, based on these actions that Burt and Chris and their teams have taken, we can easily realign those tons that we previously sent to Europe without a significant financial impact. In the short term we also benefit from an increase in corn acres in North America which coupled with poor fallout, ammonia applications will significantly increase UAN demand here this year. So net-net we're well prepared to deal with the loss of access to the European market. With that let me turn it over to Bert who will talk more about the spring application season. Then Dennis will cover a few financial items before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks, Tony. As has been well-documented wet and cold weather delayed fertilizer applications in North America. However, in April, the weather was favorable for field work and fertilizer applications currently as well in the Midwest and field work has slowed. Over the past several weeks, we saw significant activity at many terminals from Eastern Nebraska to Western Illinois and Northern Missouri. To give you a sense of the movement on one day in April our Albany Illinois term loaded 263 trucks. To do this the loaded trucks for 24 hours straight for more than 5,000 tons of ammonia at just one terminal. And this week urea truck shipments of Port Neal reached nearly 10,000 tons in one day, a record for the facility. Applications have begun to shift North and East more recently as would be expected. In fact CF ammonia shipments are now ahead of last year's pace. We continue to expect nitrogen demand in North America to be strong during the first half of the year, driven by an increase in planted corn acres in the United States. And though, we have had a late spring it is not too late for farmers to catch up on applications and plantings giving the technology they use. If farmers switch to other end products, we have all three ready in position. As of this week corn plantings run pace with 2018. We also anticipate strong demand for upgraded products this spring in order to make up for the lighter than normal fall 2018 ammonia applications. We believe the industry's ability to supply all this volume and the timing manner will be challenged. Most significantly barge transportation has been disrupted by the after effects of the winter and spring rain. Barges are moving slowly and we don't expect regular access to Minneapolis for a couple of weeks. This is the latest opening and at least 30 years. This has two effects. First, prompt urea barges in Orleans so far into the second quarter have been in high demand. Barge need to be moving north for spring applications. Pricing is reflected this has no urea barges pricing approach $300 last week before retreating this week to 270. Second, product already in region is trading at a significant premium to Norway barge prices. CFS then it sort of from this from this due to that our strong production at our Port Neal facility, and inventory and position. We have also leveraged Donaldsonville logistics flexibility by railing urea into the upper Midwest in anticipation of the high demand. All of these factors should enable us to capture higher prices across most segments, compared to the second quarter of last year. The first quarter was challenging because of the weather, but these challenges play into our company's strengths. We're well prepared for the next two months and as a team assets and flexibility to meet our customers’ needs. With that, I'll turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis Kelleher:
Thanks, Bert. In the first quarter of 2019 the company reported net earnings attributable to common stockholders of $90 million, or $0.40 per diluted share. EBITDA was $301 million and adjusted EBITDA was $305 million. Our first quarter 2019 net earnings of $0.40 per diluted share included $0.13 per share net income tax benefit. This was the result of the net income tax credit of $30 million recognized during the quarter. As Tony and Bert have described, our results in the quarter were higher than a year ago as higher product price overcame lower sales line, supporting strong cash generation. During the first quarter, net cash provided by operating activities was $306 million. We returned $127 million to shareholders during the quarter, including $60 million to repurchase approximately 1.5 million shares and $67 million in dividend payments. Due to the seasonality of the fertilizer business we evaluate our company's performance against our peers on a rolling 12 month basis. Looking at the most recent period with our reported financials, you can see on Slide 6 the CF generated $1.5 billion operating cash flow in 2018. After deducting capital expenditures and distribution to non-control interest we generated $936 million, significantly higher than our peers in both an absolute sense and as a percentage of our April 30, 2019 equity market capitalization. This demonstrates CF’s free cash flow, power, which we believe provides ample flexibility to repay $500 million in debt on or before its maturity date in May 2020 and deploy excess cash in line with our longstanding capital allocation philosophy that is to pursue growth within our strategic fairway. And in the absence of these opportunities, return excess cash to shareholders through dividends and share repurchase. Capital expenditures for the first quarter of 2019 were $80 million. For the year, we continue to expect this trend before the 450 million. We end quarter with $671 million of cash on the balance sheet. This does not include $55 million in proceeds received in April from the sale of our Pine Bend dry bulk storage and logistics facility in Minnesota. With that, Tony will provide closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
Tony Will:
Thanks, Dennis. Before I move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for their great work in the first quarter. They operated safely, made the most of the opportunities and helped us to be well positioned for the remainder of the first half of 2019. When we spoke to you on this call one year ago, our reprices at New Orleans were about to hit the low point of the year at roughly $200 per ton. Today New Orleans barge prices are about $270 per ton and our price for urea in the Midwest is over $370, more than $100 per ton premium, reflecting the logistical challenges the industry sees currently. We are also benefiting from lower natural gas prices, the cost of natural gas at Henry Hub in the first quarter was lower than a year ago and through the end of 2019, Henry Hub natural gas futures remained well below $3 and below 2018 prices. Added to that is the benefit we received from basis differentials in Alberta and Oklahoma. These factors highlight the operational and structural advantages that we enjoy and that will drive our long-term cash generation capability. With that operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open for questions.
Adam Samuelson:
Thanks, good morning everyone.
Tony Will:
Good morning.
Adam Samuelson:
So I guess I wanted to dig a bit more into the European Union tariffs on UAN, and just the impact both on the company, and you're adjusting and just more high level market impact. In the quarter you've shifted the capacity utilization in the production more heavily to urea versus UAN. I know there is a more room to go based on the flexibility you have at Donaldsonville but, is this a decent representation of what the forward product mix looks like or is it even more skewed urea versus UAN.
Tony Will:
I mean, it's really a question of – it's really a question of where prices are for the various products or trading. If we make more UAN, it uses both ammonia that would otherwise go into the nitric acid to AN piece in urea, if we dial back UAN it will make more urea we're getting urea and some excess ammonia out of it. So what Bert and Chris are doing is they're looking at the relative values of the various product prices where we sit in inventory with the demand profile looks like and then are trying to optimize what the production mix looks like. And as we talked about in the comments in the script, we've got sort of pretty ample room to move probably between something like 300,000 to 700,000 tons of what we historically shipped to the EU into granular instead and make that just disappear. We've also got exports and more tank space and it doesn't necessarily have to show up as granular, it can also go out the door as either urea liquor or DEF, which – the demand for that continues to grow. So when we built the projects, we built a lot of flexibility into the product mix side. And Bert and his team have done a great job of continuing to open up additional markets for us. That effort has been on its way – underway for like last four, five years. So I think, even though it's disruptive and it removes a little bit of our flexibility, it's something that we're in a position to manage going forward.
Adam Samuelson:
And along those lines and the part, I mean your flexibility will impact certainly, but I mean historically UAN has commanded a premium on a nutrient basis to urea given kind of the value it adds to the farmers from a flexibility perspective and the added transportation logistics costs, is that a liquid product, does that change at all, as the market reorient itself and trade flows readjust.
Tony Will:
I mean, I think, they're going to kind of bounce back and forth for a while, as the market sort of adjust the new trade flows and people figure out what sort of product mix – because other people have flexibility, particularly the Russians have some flexibility between NPKs, and AN and other options as well. So I think, what you'll see is those relationships kind of bounce around a little bit. Long term, I think, there needs to be a premium in UAN in order for people to justify putting the incremental capital into acid plants and the UAN plants because otherwise, if it doesn't command a premium, which you'll see us people stop putting maintenance into acid AN plants and just produce granular going forward. So I think long-term eventually, you've got to see that return. But I don't know whether long term in this context means three months, six months or a year and a half, but we feel pretty comfortable that we'll get back there. And in the near term, we've got a lot of options in terms of how we deal with it.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open for questions.
Joel Jackson:
Hi, good morning everyone. A couple of questions. Last year during the Q1 release you did talk about, that you should expect that similar volumes in the first half of the year, as the year before you didn't have that commentary in this release. You did speak you can maybe it’s not too late to catch up. Could you give a little more color? Do you think you can get the same volume as last year – first half of the year, sorry?
Tony Will:
Yes Joe, I'll turn it over to Bert to give you some specific commentary here in a minute. But through April, we're ahead of where we were on volume shipments last year. And so May or the first quarter was a little bit behind, but we've more than cut that up through April. So we're very comfortable with where we sit from a demand profile, Bert?
Bert Frost:
Yes, just looking at it from an agronomic swing as you if you're planting corn or nitrogen consuming crops, which we still are estimating 92 million to 93 million acres to be planted them out of the short-cycle or long cycle. We still have a month left of field work in time to get the crop in which is plenty of time. We've proven that the market can move or the farm community can move in a matter of days to weeks with new equipment that's available. And so if you plant you're going to apply nitrogen P&K will take a little more at risk depending on what was put down in the fall. But we have a lot of fall to make up that was lost in terms of ammonia that will be made up as well as if we do have to transition from ammonia to UAN or urea. We think that there is sufficient lease from CF and we would plan to train our inventory to pickup all that volume in Q2. And so I think it's just an understood that we would move that volume in the first half. And so that's probably why it wasn't stated.
Joel Jackson:
That's great. And my second question on pricing. So we see where the Midwest Premium is trading now. We see that you realize for urea and UAN, some of your largest premiums to NOLA benchmarks for realized prices for years. So should we expect in the second quarter elevated realized pricing versus benchmark in NOLA. Thanks.
Tony Will:
Well, as we went through the first part of the year, we positioned product in interior. We have the tanks for UAN, as well as the ammonia, we have the dry storage for urea the barge capacity to move it, the rail capacity to move it and the relationships in place to receive it if it's even not under our own control. So with that being said, yes, there is a premium to NOLA today and has been, and it has been expanding. I think it's also expanding for P&K. And that's the reflection of proper planning and distribution. And so I do think you'll see that carry through in the for Q2 realizations a nice spread.
Bert Frost:
It's a nice conversation to have as suppose to us trying to defend the notion of an in-market premium being sustainable when people a few years ago, were talking about, that's getting wiped out in the fact of the matter is the evidence doesn't support that thesis. Like we're trading in a $100 in market premium right now because of supply disruptions and another issues and that's kind of what we've said all along. And we really enjoy the benefit of our network. As a result of that.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Isaacson from Scotiabank. Your line is now open for questions.
Ben Isaacson:
Thank you and good morning. On the logistic challenges and you talk about your in region production and transportation distribution network, how are their advantages. Can you talk about that $100 premium and how much of that you benefit from and how much of that is the cost?
Tony Will:
Well the costs haven't really changed. I think there were some disruptions in Q1, which I think have been communicated to the market relative to flooding that took place, that limited some rail service from the BN and UP as well as just poor service from the CP coming out of Canada. That has been corrected. The barge logistics, there has been a lot of accumulation of barges in the northern end of for river opening. But I think part of it is just a dislocation. Some tons were sold short not supplied and so, a bit of a squeeze got put on. And also I just think that with the additional acres and the timing that moves to our advantage with our assets in place and our short moves from where our assets are in the heart of the Corn Belt and so that spread has expanded and we've followed that and taken advantage of it.
Tony Will:
But I think also Ben on that point, the big issue is we've got a lot of rolling stock, we've got access to multiple rail lines , we've got our own barge network in our contract in place and traders and people that are bringing tons over who don't have access to that. And so what the in-market premium is really kind of reflecting is that there is instantaneous challenges of moving products from the Gulf other ports into the interior and we've got an ability to move diesel tons into the interior. We also have Port Neal and Verdigris and other end market plants that are already there. And so from the coast it's probably or from diesel, it's $30 to $40 to move most of those tons kind of up into the Corn Belt. And so the spread between that price and what we're realizing today is it is sort of just the arbitrage that Bert was talking about earlier of either short squeezes or inability for traders to move tons because they don't have access to logistic.
Ben Isaacson:
Great. And just quickly. My second question is, maybe just to expand on Joe's question you talked about how you are through April you're ahead of where you were a year ago. I think you mentioned for ammonia specifically, but what about urea, UAN and ammonium nitrate?
Chris Bohn:
Yes, I mean shipments in aggregate are off at this point year-on-year. So we feel very comfortable both with kind of how demand is shaping up for this year what are, what our inventory position is what our book looks like and kind of again where prices are and where gas is, we're well ahead of what last year look like. So all of that shaping up to be a really solid first half for us.
Ben Isaacson:
Great, thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Michael Piken from Cleveland. Your line is now open for questions.
Michael Piken:
Yes, hi, good morning. Wanted to touch base a little bit more in terms of the outlook for Chinese exports. You said that you're looking for relatively flat levels of Chinese exports, year-on-year. Where do you see them on the cost curve and where do you see the Europeans right now?
Tony Will:
Yes, relative to China they're producing due to some of the shutdowns and lower operating rates. We estimate the 53 million to 54 million metric tons per year run rate. They did export more in Q1. We believe that was a reflection of a couple of issues, one being the higher prices in Q4 that were realized and then product moved into position and exported in January and February as well as possibly some of the Iranian tons that have come in and have been re-exported. And so for that reason we're fairly confident with where pricing is worldwide and where it's whether you're looking at the Arab Gulf, Asia price, NOLA price and the cost curve with their cost generally driven by coal. Gas today is around $5 in China, the forward strip, especially for Q4 late Q3 and Q4 is back in the $7 to $9 range. And so that would curtail you would expect if we stay at this current pricing level. And so that's why we feel fairly comfortable estimating in the two million ton range for China to export.
Michael Piken:
Okay, great. And then if you could talk a little bit about your expectation for the Iranian urea in terms of how much product is theoretically available at this point. If you think India, who has been aggressive in tenders, or is it China, or where could the product theoretically go and what's your expectation?
Tony Will:
I mean, our expectation is that all of that production finds its way out in the public marketplace. There is enough people and the world demands that product and there's enough people kind of willing to chase the dollars that we're just planning on all of that production coming out. So we don't believe all of a sudden, there's going to be some huge disruption to the supply side. That said, if the U.S. actually does get on sanctions and makes it more difficult bidders there's possible upside there for us, but we're certainly not planning on per year there.
Chris Bohn:
No, I agree, I think the surprise was the tonnage has gone to Brazil that was partnered for soybeans or corn that was a new development. I think you're seeing further restrictions and especially the sanctions that were announced recently that tighter full on sanctions royal which will transition to urea. We believe it does make it difficult for those extraneous markets and then I think there is an issue to the sustainability of their production with an inability to work with the providers of services and products and materials at longer-term if this stays would make that probably a question mark on production.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Mark Connelly from Stephens Inc. Your line is now open for questions.
Mark Connelly:
Thank you. So a big seed company surprised us recently by saying that it sees corn acres moving back to soy or maybe moving back to soy. So I'm curious what your market intelligence says about the extent of that risk.
Bert Frost:
At this point, I think it's too early to tell, you can if you look at the, really it's an economic decision on the corn to being spread and that's still attractive to corn and if I were to look at it and being able to yield it on trend with corn and/or soybeans, looking at what the difficulties could be out there with soybeans and the production that's expected to come out of South America and already has as well as the consumption in China with the possible impact of the African swine fever that – what that could be or communicated demand. So I think of safer choice would be to stay with corn, I don't think we have gone through wet years, we've gone through dry years and as Tony articulated and as Dennis and I did also that there is still plenty of time to plant and we believe that people will make an economic choice.
Dennis Kelleher:
I mean, the other thing I'd add Bert if I can, Mark is if you look at stocks to use soy is really high and corn is actually kind of down to 2012 or below levels. And so as we just look at our own we don't have Intel that the seed guys do. But as we look at our order book and where product prices are for nitrogen, as we look at with the in-market premium is and the urgent demand for our products and just kind of what the overall shipment pattern has been despite it being a pretty tough first quarter. We are very comfortable with Canada, what the acreage numbers look like and what we see developing for the first half of the year.
Mark Connelly:
It makes a lot of sense to me. I don't know how easy it is to separate the sales, but how are you thinking about transportation costs this year versus last and first half versus second half, we obviously got hit a lot with transportation last year, but now we got all this logistics noise. So, just curious if you can figure out what's happening and whether we're going to see a benefit in the second half.
Tony Will:
I would say it's probably roughly flat, maybe up or down just up a little bit is what I'm getting the math around the table. But I think it's, whatever small amount gets moved there if you think about it on a per MMBTU kind of cost in terms of the gas content of the product, we're going to see that a favorable impact in terms of the price that we're buying gas relative to the distribution costs. So net-net, on a COGS basis in terms of moving those tons in the market, they ought to be at a lower aggregate cost. I think we're also seeing a movement in the form of transportation. We're seeing a little less barge availability just given what's going on in terms of the river and as Bert talked about Iselux still in the Northern part, inability to access Minneapolis and so forth. So we're seeing a bit more rail and probably a bit more truck less parts. So that's a little bit higher mode. Cost, but I think it's not going to be one of those things that jumps off the page is all the sudden Wow I'm shocked that this numbers is what it is.
Bert Frost:
I guess Mark, the only other thing I'd add is, as I said in my prepared remarks, we think of our business is a six month business at least, more like a year and I've been in this company now for eight years and I've never seen a so called typical first quarter, typical second quarter and what we saw and where we saw it, differs every year and that changes the mix on transportation.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. Your line is now open for questions.
Graeme Welds:
Hi, good morning everyone. This is Graeme Welds on for Chris. Piggybacking on an earlier question around the global cost curve, you mentioned the fact that you expect gas prices in China increases as we go through the years kind of curious, you had a flat a couple quarters back that kind of spoke to the average range that you saw for NOLA pricing kind of based on the global cost curve. I'm curious, if there any updates on that kind of roughly where those ranges would kind of shake out based on what you're seeing now.
Tony Will:
Yes, I mean, I would give you just a quick jest and I'll toss it over to Dennis. But we publish kind of an estimated cost curve for the year, only about once a year and it’s one of the things that change is very dynamically. I mean obviously the day that it's published, which tends to be October, it's already out of date because the stuff moves very quickly. Obviously, because of a fair bit of a lot of LNG gas prices in Europe for instance are lower than the normal sort of oil index basis would have traditionally had then pegged that, but if you look at the forward curve for NBP and TTF, it's got to going back to $7 plus by the fourth quarter. So we think in the near term there's a little bit of dislocation, but honestly, if you look at where the price curve was that we published, last October it projected price range of like $260 to $300 and we traded within that range and we're still within that range today. So even though it's kind of a little bit older, and some of those buyers have moved. It's not wildy inaccurate that’s still where urea is trading today.
Dennis Kelleher:
I just want to just expand a little bit on Tony's point. If you look at Western Europe and Eastern Europe, you get gas or oil linked contracts. If you look at those forward curves into the next two years or so, what you see is that the gas price restores to it's sort of, if you will, relationship to oil around 60% to 65% price on an energy equivalent basis. So although we see it as sort of anomalous period right now with – in LNG glut because of the warm winter in Asia affecting Europe, both Eastern and Western, their market certainly expects the historical relationship between oil and gas to be restored in the relatively near-term.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Byrne from Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Luke Washer:
Hi guys, this is actually Luke Washer on for Steve. I wanted to touch on the logistics challenges in the upper Midwest. I appreciate the detail there. But do you see – and I know you talked about your in region production, but do you have any urea in barges that are – can't get to the upper Mississippi, you talked about challenges in Minnesota because of these lot closures and flooding, and is there any risk that some of your product was could be challenged in getting to the retail channel, a little bit too late.
Bert Frost:
No, I think for how we manage our relationships with our customers who are the retailers and the wholesalers, we're actively selling that product on an FOB basis NOLA and if we send barges up the river selling them along the way. And then we have barges, the only place that we received CF material is in Minneapolis, which Tony mentioned, we've been supplying by rail. We do have barges set to go up to Minneapolis, but we also supply Cincinnati, which is a rented facility by barge that has not been constrained. And so when you look across our network in Medicine Hat, where we ship out by rail and truck Port Neal. Also, as I mentioned, we shipped one day of 10,000 tons by truck that's not constrained at all. So we leverage each of those points which the each of the modes possible in order to operate them efficiently, safely and with the economic receiver opportunity available to us.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Andrew Wong from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open for questions.
Andrew Wong:
Hi, good morning. I just wanted to ask about capital allocation plans, so beyond your current repurchase program and the debt payments that you have planned, what thoughts do you have on just growing the business either organically through debottlenecks expansions or maybe just looking externally and adding to your business. Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yeah, I mean we obviously look at all kinds of things whether it's organic or inorganic and I don't see us do a big sort of bold brownfield or greenfield kind of expansion, like we did back in 2012 because assets trade are trading below replacement cost. So there's no reason to go out and do that kind of thing. What you have seen that the industry undertaking a fair bit of upgrade kind of projects, so Coke and nutrient and the coal gas and others have taken on urea projects and other things that have been converting more ammonia into urea and those are – it doesn't change the nutrient balance from an SMB standpoint, but it improves economics for those people to do it largely because there is a very expensive transportation logistics costs around ammonia. And then when you have, weather vagaries and in the fall and in the spring, sometimes you're not able to move as much ammonia as you want in the ag space. And so it's just more predictable and reliable, if you've got upgraded products. So we certainly would think about that debottleneck or do on some upgrades. I don't know that we need a lot more ammonia right now, just because we've got a lot of ammonia as it is, but I could envision us thinking about doing debottlenecks on some of the upgrades and converting more ammonia into upgraded product. And we're constantly looking at logistics players and other things to make our existing network more efficient, whether it's exporting out of D’Ville or moving product into the interior, giving us different access to multiple modes of transportation, so we can – our different lanes and so forth. That's kind of what we're thinking about. And on the inorganic side, it's always a question of, is it cash flow accretive or are there other alternatives and if there's something that we can find that fits within our capability set where we can leverage our skills and create some value that's cash flow accretive, we think about it, but in the absence of that we're very comfortable continuing to drive and improve our existing network.
Andrew Wong:
Okay. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Don Carson for Susquehanna Financial. Your line is now open.
Don Carson:
Thank you. Tony a question on offshore ammonia, we've seen the Tampa price just hit $237 for May which is a 20 month low. So what's going on in offshore ammonia? Is this pressure for just lower cost product out of, say Iran or the lower global cost curve? And what business imply for your export opportunities in ammonia at these kind of price levels?
Bert Frost:
When you look at – what has been taking place in ammonia globally. There has been additional supply that has come on the Russian plant that came on recently the full world scale, there are others in terms of new additions. But with – we have also seen a weakness in phosphate and so a little bit less industrial demand not only in North Africa but in – with Mosaic shutdown of Faustina – not Faustina, excuse me, of the Florida asset. And so with less available demand at this point and additional supply the pricing had – I think come down to a level that where it has, and that's also reflective of some of the gas movements that we've seen globally. We do expect that to improve have obviously as gas prices modulator move back to what Dennis talked about on a global comparison to its – to the energy equivalent of oil, as well as some of the other high-cost plants coming off an increased demand as phosphates and industrial demand improved. We see that improving.
Tony Will:
But obviously Don, the current prevailing prices, ammonia exports in the industrial space are kind of our last resort. So that goes into the math as we think about mixed decisions on UAN versus urea and whether we've got options domestically to take more of that product or we’re forced to export some of it and ammonia exports right now don't look good for anybody regards urea.
Don Carson:
And then as a follow-up, there is some talk north of the border of extending the carbon tax to industrial uses of natural gas. If that happens what does that do for the competitiveness of Alberta production and could that raise the price floor in the Midwest, given all the urea and ammonia that’s coming down from Western Canada to the Corn Belt.
Tony Will:
Yes, I mean carbon is one of those things, and we spent a fair bit of time talking to regulators on both sides of the border about this which is as long as any regime that's put in place is applied to imports as well as local production then it just raises the bar for everybody and ultimately it's passed on to the consumer. And the problem is, if you just apply it for domestic production and don't apply it to imports, then what you're doing is shifting production and jobs offshore and you're going to end up effectively closing domestic manufacturer and that's just poor economic policy because it's carbon leakage. We operate some of the most efficient plants in Canada. There's already a tax regime on carbon in Alberta and we're working with the regulators up there. It's obviously changing dynamic given the new parties in power in the provinces and that's a shifting dynamic. But I don't anticipate that it's going to have a dramatic effect one way or another on pricing in the U.S. or in Canada or in terms of our financial results.
Don Carson:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar from Citi. Your line is now open.
Dan Jester:
Yes, hi guys. It's Dan Jester on for P.J. So with all the talk on the call today about the in-market premium and logistics challenges. I'm wondering if you could just comment, why you chose to sell your Pine Bend facility in-market-logistics facility? And just maybe to longer-term, is there an opportunity for a bit of investment in sort of the upper Midwest to capture a few extra incremental tonnes whether it's storage or logistics more broadly. Thanks.
Tony Will:
Yes. I mean we view Pine Bend the same we do, for instance, our phosphate business back in the day and so forth, which is we divest economic owner for it or somebody else. Are we getting maximum value. What's the return on capital employed as we think about what is – what the market values worth and can we solve that at different direction? That asset was the legacy from the period of time where we were a co-op and we were sourcing all kinds of products for our member owners and holding it there and moving it around and it became sort of incrementally less valuable to us when we sold our phosphate business because we used to move a lot of phosphate there and also became incrementally less important when we built the urea plant at Port Neal because that gave us access to that same region on a truck reach basis and the fact of the matter is we were just under utilized in that space, there's over 200,000 tons of space there, and we were using, about 20 of it. And so it didn't make sense for us to continue to own it. The agreement that we reached with Mosaic it gives us access to be able to continue to put tons through that facility, and they are much better economic owner of that asset, it’s good for them, it's good for us and so like any other decision we make this is strictly on who is the right owner.
Bert Frost:
Yes. And looking at it, we were already working with Mosaic and a few others providing services and we just didn't see ourselves as a service provider in that space. As Tony said, they were the best economic owner and kind of reverse flow that we became a service-taker and moving our products on an as needed basis. So we have an agreement to move our urea up to Pine Bend for utilizing the space that we need and then Mosaic has the rest for P&K. And we have 130 maybe a little more 1,000 tons of space of Port Neal, as well as space in Medicine Hat. We have been out not acquiring, but at leasing and opening up new space for our UAN throughout the Midwest, so that has been accretive to us also.
Dan Jester:
Great, thank you. And then just a quick one for Dennis about the free cash flow conversion from EBITDA. You've got this nice chart in your slide deck. I'm just wondering over the cycle is that two-thirds of EBITDA in the free cash flow a reasonable benchmark or is there been onetime factors over the past year or two which has boosted that. Thanks.
Dennis Kelleher:
The question is where do you sit with sort of your operating cash flow and sort of EBITDA. If you think about our CapEx, what we said is we intend to be sort of around $4 million [ph] to $400 million a year that's kind of flattish. So that piece of the equation, we're showing doesn't change. Obviously as the EBITDA and cash flow of our company's CF changes, it changes as well for a non-controlling interest distribution, which is to CHS and obviously they own a piece of our biggest subsidiary, CF, and so that's going to move up and down. So what I'd say is, a lot of the pieces are going to move up and down with EBITDA in that equation except for CapEx, so that fixed portion will have somewhat muting effect on that.
Dan Jester:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hi, this is Jeremy on for Vincent. Thanks for taking my questions. So I wanted to start on the Chinese export, I just wanted to circle back on that. We've seen some data that suggest that China may even be considering importing urea in the near-term. Does the kind of expectation for flat urea exports depend on that dynamic?
Bert Frost:
No, I think that has been a reflection of kind of where market pricing was in Q1, you saw the Qataris move some prilled urea into China into the northern ports. I think as well as the Iranian tonnage that has been moved up into the same area and where the preponderance of production is in the south. And so I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation over time that as these inefficient plants go offline or cost to transport become more market-based that you would see additional imports or incremental imports into China during that Q1 as they're ramping up into their peak consumptions season. I think that's a positive for the market.
Tony Will:
I also think it demonstrates a real commitment on the part of the Central Government around their environmental policy, which is urea production, particularly in China, which tends to be largely coal-based that carries a very large environmental footprint, whether it's scarce water usage particular matter emissions and so forth. And I think with the question of the rightfully asking, is this something we need to be doing given the toll it’s taken on the environment, and I think the answer is no there is plenty of freely traded urea out there, they're importing soy, they’re importing corn, they’re importing other things why go out of their way to be self sufficient to our core access and urea production when it carries a big hole. And I think you're seeing a recognition that doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Charles Neivert from Cowen. Your line is now open for questions.
Charles Neivert:
Good morning, guys. Just one question, given the fact that things seem to be delayed and then maybe there is a chance that some of the N that would typically go down pre-plant, it’s going to go – isn't going to get down? Does it look like there is going to be a longer-than-normal side-dress season? Or larger than amount of normal product going in on side-dress and therefore maybe getting pricing and volume that extends out maybe even into early 3Q this year, as opposed to normally sort of ending – during the late part of 2Q?
Tony Will:
Yes. For sure. I mean, I think you're spot on, just because it's not in the pre-plant does not mean that you lose that you get the post-plant side-dress, top-dress, the application technology that's available as well as, this is why we're aligned with the retail network. And why the retail network adds value and why we want to have these relationships with our customers like CHS and grow market nutrient and people like that, Helena, that are active in the market dealing with these issues. They can run 24/7 and will and will move from end-to-end to make sure that that product gets supplied and the crops are fed. So I can see us going well into – not well into, but into July for sure. And we normally do with the pivot season in Nebraska in the irrigated acres does go into July. I would bet more of that – more tons move that direction because of this later application.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from John Roberts from UBS. Your line is now open for questions.
John Roberts:
Yes, thank you. So bit of a tangential question, does IMO 2020 reflects some of the global trade in fertilizers late this year? It's lot of ocean-going product obviously and they've got a sort of time. I guess the switchover in their fuels that’s there. So maybe some shipments occur earlier in the year, so they're not right at the year-end deadline when the shipping companies have to deal with that issue?
Tony Will:
Go ahead, Bert.
Bert Frost:
Well we've experienced similar issues with positive train control and the changes that are required legislatively or by government bodies and this is something that the industry has been watching. I'm not sure if there will be delays or extensions allowed. But it is a big change going from the bunkering system that we have today and how either vessels are retrofitted or just jumped and new vessels are built to accommodate these issues. I think that we – for us there is more to come.
John Roberts:
Okay. You're not hearing anything at this point about maybe doing shipments earlier in the year just to avoid a year end kind of logistical challenge possibly.
Tony Will:
No, I mean I think the issue though is the industry runs 24/7/365, and so it's hard to kind of quote unquote pre-ship stuff because it's not that you're running on a shift basis and building a bunch of inventory disgorging it. You got to ship it as you produce it. And so, there really isn't that kind of opportunity to do that in any meaningful way.
John Roberts:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would now like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks everyone, and we look forward to speaking with you in the next few weeks and then we'll see many of you at several conferences over the next month.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This concludes today's program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2018 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Tiffany, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick:
Good morning and thanks for joining the CF Industries 2018 full year and fourth quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President; Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Dennis Kelleher, CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries reported its full year and fourth quarter 2018 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about the factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for 2018, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $1.4 billion, a 45% over 2017 adjusted EBITDA of $969 million. These results reflect a backdrop of tighter global nitrogen supply demand and generally lower North American natural gas prices. But it was the hard work and outstanding execution by the CF team that allowed us to capitalize on the market conditions. And even though it was the efforts of the entire CF team that delivered these great results, I want to highlight Chris’ and Bert’s organization in particular. Let me call your attention to slide 7 of our materials. This data taken from an analysis conducted by CRU indicates our superior operating performance. We've talked about being great operators in the past, but this may be the first time we've quantified the impact for you. We've been able to achieve a 10% greater utilization in our ammonia plant production than our North American competitors. Based on the size of our network, that translates into roughly 800,000 tons of incremental ammonia per year that we produce versus what our competitors would be able to do with a comparably sized asset base. Or said another way, we basically have a full additional world scale ammonia plant worth of production every year based on our operational capabilities. Given that a world scale ammonia plant in North America would cost over $1 billion, our operational expertise is a significant competitive advantage. On the supply side and -- on the supply chain and marketing side, we realized higher selling prices across all products year-over-year. We also achieved lower costs of goods sold for the year. This execution across all parts of our business enabled us to generate an increase in adjusted EBITDA of 45% versus 2017. We operated well and most importantly, we did so safely. We ended the year with a recordable incident rate of zero point six incidents per 200,000 hours worked, and we accomplished that despite a very heavy turnaround in maintenance schedule. I am really proud of the CF team for a truly fantastic year. Looking ahead, we're excited about 2019. As Bert will explain in a moment, we see a continuation of the favorable market conditions from last year. Based on January and February, actual gas costs along with the forward strip 2019 gas could be lower than 2018 by almost 50 million. Additionally, year-to-date index pricing at the U.S. Golf for major products as reported in the publications is also running ahead of last year, and we anticipate a substantial increase in nitrogen demand in North America given our expectations for increases in both corn and wheat acres compared to last year. All of that suggests a strong first half of 2019. Weather will have a big say as to if that materializes in the first quarter or the second quarter. But either way the first half in total should be strong. The second half of the year is always a reset, and therefore somewhat uncertain as we sit here in February. But, we continue to be bullish about the long term trends that extend out to 2022 and beyond. New global nitrogen capacity is growing more slowly than demand, further tightening supply and demand. And the forward curve from North American natural gas looks really attractive compared to the rest of the world. So our story is more than just about a great opportunity in the first half of 2019. We are very well positioned for the next four to five years. In 2018, our business generated $1.5 billion in cash. We deployed that cash consistent with our longstanding capital allocation philosophy. We invested in sustaining and improving our existing assets. We grew by acquiring the previously outstanding units of Terra Nitrogen LP. We paid our regular dividend and we returned our excess cash to shareholders by announcing and then completing a $500 million share repurchase program. As shown on Slide 9 of our materials, the share repurchases by themselves should drive a roughly 5% accretion in 2019 over 2018. We closed the year with almost $700 million in cash on the balance sheet and given our positive outlook for the next four to five years, our board has authorized a new $1 billion dollar share repurchase program that runs through 2021. In addition, we again reiterate our commitment to retire the $500 million in debt honored before its maturity in May of 2020. With that, let me turn it over to Bert, who will cover our market outlook and then Dennis will discuss our financials before I return for some closing thoughts. Bert?
Bert Frost:
Thanks Tony. The CF team performed well throughout 2018 with total sales of 19.3 million product tons. This included a record volume of urea and near record volume for UAN. Ammonia sales while benefiting from higher prices were notably lower in 2018 compared to 2017. This was due both to a higher number of plant turnarounds in 2017 and a fall ammonia season negatively affected by poor weather. Global prices reached 2018 highs in October. Since then, they have been under pressure; first due to moderating energy prices in Asia and Europe, and then due to seasonally low demand in the northern hemisphere. We believe that as demand begins to materialize, industry fundamentals will support global nitrogen prices in 2019. As a result, we see substantial opportunities to build on our 2018 performance. Net global urea production capacity additions are projected to be modest for the year at approximately 3.5 million metric tons. Additionally, we believe global nitrogen demand will be solid in 2019. Most notably, we expect strong nitrogen demand in North America during the first half of the year. The new crop soybean to corn futures ratio favors a substantial increase in corn plantings in the United States, which are projected to rise by 4 million acres to 93 million acres in 2019. We also expect a 1 million acre increase in wheat plantings. These acreage shifts should drive incremental nitrogen demand in North America. Additionally, the poor fall ammonia season supports further incremental demand, areas that did not apply ammonia in the fall will likely need to make up the resulting nitrogen deficit in the first half of the year with applications of ammonia or upgraded products in the spring. With the demand outlook in North America, we anticipate barge, rail and truck logistics assets will be in high demand and price at a premium through the second quarter. As we look ahead, we expect sales volumes to increase compared to 2018. In any given year, CSL is around 19.5 million product tons, which can be higher or lower based on turnarounds and maintenance inventory levels during the year and product mix. We also expect it to continue to benefit from our access to low cost North American natural gas. We weathered spikes in the fourth quarter well, and the forward curve looks favorable. We continue to benefit substantially from basis differentials particularly in Oklahoma and Alberta and are actively managing our natural gas requirements purchasing forward the lock in basis differentials to remove near term price spike risk. Each of these factors make us optimistic about 2019. We're well positioned for this environment. We have demonstrated our ability to effectively leverage the flexibility of the CS [ph] system to navigate market conditions and we're confident our ability to maximize our overall margin through the year and into the future. With that, I'll turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis Kelleher:
Thanks Bert. The company reported net earnings of $49 million or $0.21 per diluted share and EBITDA of $349 million for the fourth quarter of 2018. After taking into account the items detailed in our press release, our adjusted EBITDA was $341 million. As the global nitrogen recovery has taken hold, our cash generation has increased in turn. This has allowed us to play excess cash in line with our longstanding capital allocation philosophy. As you can see on Slide 6, net cash provided by operating activities is approximately $1.5 billion dollars in 2018. We use $422 million for capital expenditures on sustaining and improvement projects. We also invested in growth by purchasing all of the publicly traded common units of Terra Nitrogen in April. It also enabled us to return $780 million to shareholders in 2018, which included $280 million in dividend payments and $500 million in share repurchases. The repurchase program reduced our share count by approximately 11 million shares. As you can see on Slide 9, taken together, these have increased shareholder participation in the underlying assets of the business by approximately 5% or 2 tons of nitrogen for 1000 shares compared to the end of 2017. As we look ahead, we believe, we will be able to build on this track record. We ended 2018 with Apple liquidity. Our cash and cash equivalents were about $682 million and our $750 million dollar revolving credit facility was undrawn. We expect capital expenditures in 2019 to be $400 million to $450 million dollars. And as Tony explained, we also expect substantial cash generation in the years ahead. As a result, the board approved a new $1 billion share repurchase authorization to the end of 2021. We also remain committed to repaying $500 million in debt on or before its maturity date in May of 2020. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks.
Anthony Will:
Thanks Dennis. Before we open the call to questions, I want to again thank all of CF’s employees for their outstanding work in 2018. Their commitment and dedication drives everything we achieve as a company. We're proud of what we accomplished in 2018 and we're looking forward to the opportunities we see ahead in 2019 and beyond. We're well-positioned to leverage our considerable strengths and take advantage of the favorable industry fundamentals we see for the foreseeable future. We expect us to drive our substantial cash generation capability and we can enable us to continue to create long term shareholder value. With that operator, we will now open the call to questions.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Michael Piken with Cleveland Research. Please proceed.
Michael Piken:
Yes, hi good morning. I just wanted to find out a little bit about your thoughts on the Magellan pipeline, potentially being shut down and what that means longer term for both your business as well as the future for ammonia?
Anthony Will:
Yes, thanks. Regarding the Magellan, we are disappointed, but not surprised by their decision to shut down the pipeline. They've had operational issues for the past several years which has challenged them to support or shift the tons of wheat we've wanted to move up in the upper Midwest. We ship about 4% to 5% of our ammonia on the Magellan and kind of projecting what we thought would happen. We've been working with our system, with our team to create options and different avenues to move our tons up into that market. One is barge loading out of vertebrates which we're able to do now, as well as increasing our storage capabilities in certain terminals and working with our truck providers. So we believe that we will be in an okay position moving forward to continue to move those tonnes into the market and we expect that the pipeline to shut down by the end of the year. Realistically Michael, it was just the [Indiscernible] tonne, so with the predominant tons that that we transported down to the gallon as Bert said, we've got a good barge options coming out of there. So I think Bert's team has done a really nice job of preparing for this eventuality.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Ben Isaacson with Scotia bank. Please proceed.
Ben Isaacson:
Good morning. Thank you. When you think five plus years out, can you give us an update on how you see the growth of the U.S. LNG market impacting U.S. nitrogen economics and specifically CS position on the cost curve and do you have kind of strategies to manage that? Thanks.
Anthony Will:
Yes. Ben, I think both Dennis and I will take a look at this. But, the good news is from our perspective that construction costs in North America are extremely high. And so anybody that’s building an LNG liquefaction capacity in North America is putting a fair bit of dollars into the ground and are expecting a return on it given that those are all for profit entities over here. And the result of that is given an expected rate of return. We see gas costs in the rest of the world continuing to be in a position where North America is substantially advantaged relative to our competitors abroad. And I think from a resource base in North America if you look at what's happened just in the last couple of years we've gone from high 60s low 70s Bcf production into the 80s or mid 80s now. And the supply response is very quick in North America and gas price is below three bucks. So, we don't think there is an issue of the resource drying up quickly and North American gas spiking and we don't see the new LNG capacity dramatically lowering the marginal cost of production elsewhere in the world. So for the next four to five years, we think it's business as usual for U.S. producers.
Dennis Kelleher:
Yes. Ben I think the key thing for you to look at on the resource side is what is sort of the resources to production ratio, and I've seen that anywhere from 80 to 100. And when you've got a ratio that high, typically when you've got money, you can tap into the resource with short cycle time, low cost, land rig projects, the production response can be as Tony has talked about or outlined it. And so, the small increments that we see in LNG capacity that have come or that will come are pretty small compared to what the resource base is capable of producing in a fairly short timeframe.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Christopher Parkinson with Credit Suisse. Please proceed.
Christopher Parkinson:
Thank you. Given we're approaching the challenge of capacity expansions over the last build cycle was half decade or so. How do you believe urea trade flows are going to evolve given the decreasing importance of Chinese exports? And if you could also touch on how you believe the UAN trade flows will evolve in the context of European anti-dumping duties, both of those would be appreciated? Thank you.
Bert Frost:
So you're right. Regarding expansions, we're as I said, in my notes that about 3.5 million tons are coming on this year, a declining amount of tonnage, new tonnage coming on and with the expected growth we expect that the urea market will be good and positive going forward. However, the capacity of expansions that have come are from lower cost production areas, Nigeria, Northern Africa, Middle East. I'm not sure about the Indian additions that there are announced just because there'll be having to pay high cost LNG. And we do believe that China over time is moderating down to this level of about 2 million tonnes of exports. So trade flows. I think you've seen the additions come on and operate well in the United States. We're going to move down into a lower level of imports and stay in that range of let's say 4 million tonnes, and we expect growth in Brazil as the Petrobras plants are shut down. So moving from 5 million tonnes to over 6 million tonnes, still expect India to be a net six to seven million tonne range for the next couple of years. And so it's a classic supply and demand and high cost and marginal producer back to those economics and the cost curve will work and that these higher cost, higher LNG markets will have to moderate down and absorb the lower cost tonnes and that's a direct reflection of these EU discussions. We're actively participating in and cooperating with this analysis. We expect an announcement to come out in the next month or month and a half and they can lead to duties, no duties or continuation of the same duties, which we paid today at 6.5% while millions of tonnes come this way and pay no duty in the United States. So our position on that one is pretty clear, the low margins of the European producers is completely unrelated to the U.S. imports that we have shipped or exports we have shipped over to there, but it's caused by a combination of what we would experience a lower price UAN and urea global prices and then higher European production costs driven by high gas costs, whether that be LNG or Russian imports. And so, we expect, and I would if you were thinking economically and reviewing the economic analysis that we and others have provided that that analysis should come out that we did something that was shipping tons at prices similar to what the United States were and was not anything close to dumping.
Anthony Will:
Yes, I mean, I think on that point as Bert said, we're cooperating actively with the Commission investigation. We are not dumping, it is a global price point for UAN and our delivered price into France and Belgium is above what our net back price would be using a Jones Act Vessel that hit the East Coast of the United States. So those are very rational, kind of moves for us to make. And at the end of the day, it is not the Western European producers that are filing this complaint. It is -- it's not Euro Cam [ph] it's not OCI, it's not Yara, it is the Eastern European producers; Lithuania, Romania, Poland, [Indiscernible] that are bringing this. This lawsuit and as Bert said, they're running very inefficient, very high cost, and logistically challenged plants, because if you look at where the center of mass of U.N. consumption is in Europe, it's France and Belgium and where those plants are located in the East, they have as high of transportation costs to land that product as we do, or even higher. So the fact the matter is, if the European Commission goes forward with some sort of duties, what they're basically telling us the French farmers you have to subsidize the high cost eastern European producers. And if you're sitting in Belgium, that's probably not a terribly attractive message to be sending out to the French farmers particularly given the yellow vest situation and so forth. So we'll see how it develops. But Bert, you want to talk about plans that we've made to deal with the situation if it goes that way, if the farmers are subsidizing high cost producers.
Bert Frost:
Yes, either way, it's regarding your question on trade flows. We're constantly looking at our options and optionality to the system whether that be moving it to this market or that market we're ambivalent to where the tons go. We like to move them to the highest net back. But, that being said, we've constantly review, we brought on 1.8 million tonnes of capacity in 16 and 17 of UAN, and we've had additional capacity growth because the Port Neal plant, the urea plant is running so far above capacity we have extra liquor, and we’re making extra UAN up there also. So when you look at the buckets that are available to us, it's the production mix that we choose to work with each. We can move really on a ship, let’s each day to week, and probably right now we're running a little higher urea mix because that is more attractive. We're looking at extra terminating opportunities in the United States and on the coasts, and we're working with our domestic customers for additional tonnage to remain in this market. And then you've heard us talk about the development of South America, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico all of those markets have grown substantially in the last five years and we're at the forefront of that effort for very attractive margins. So we look at least CF’s UAN book we think, we'll be able to continue at the same level or above that we're participating in the market today, and see good opportunities going forward.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Please proceed.
Joel Jackson:
Hi good morning guys. The last few months, we saw a lot of volatility around Indian tenders, which urea tenders, which you don't participate in. But maybe from your perspective, you can comment on what kind of volatility the market has created among -- participants in terms of different trade flows going in between China and India, senior [ph] China and Iran, but also there's a lot of discussion of maybe some of the bid volumes into that tenders were double counting different ways. So maybe talk about how the different play on the Indian tender has affected your market that you participate in? Thanks
Anthony Will:
Yes. When you look at the India tenders, they do, depending on the size and the timing, can have a big impact. They're the only country in the world that purchases this volume, this amount of tonnes, six, minutes let's say five and a half to seven million tonnes depending on the year. And in the past, that came principally from Iran and China. As we've talked about over the last couple of years, these trade flows are changing. And we see a decreasing amount of tonnage coming out of China, over the next couple of years and that has happened. And then, with the sanction on Iran, that has been difficult if not impossible to participate in the recent Iranian tenders. So that tonnage has moved to the Middle East principally supplied out of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and some of those countries as well as Nigeria and some northern Africa. And so I think, as traders and producers have participated, some producers are going direct, and some traders, you're right, some people took some shorts and then covered later. And so that does have a disrupting impact on the overall market when you get it in and buy a million plus tonnes in a week, and then that ships over a six to eight week period. So, we look at that for us and how we manage our position and how we manage what we expect to come into North America. And I think for us, that's a good outcome that Indian buyers are buying, and the Middle East Eastern producers are shipping it's like a $7 freight to go to India rather than spending $20 to $30 to come to North America. But this goes back to my earlier comment that, this is just how economics works. Low cost providers are providing into a market that's attractive for them, and so trade flows will continue to evolve. We have some spot tonnage that comes into this market as well as Brazil. And when that is too much, that overwhelms the market. That's what happened to Brazil and that's what happened to us in the last couple of months. We think that will moderate, and we see a positive market going forward.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Mark Connelly with Stephens, Inc. Please proceed.
Mark Connelly:
Thanks. Just a quick follow up on the pipeline issue. With cold weather affecting the barge season, there's already talk of high barge demand through second quarter. Is that going to drive your freight costs higher?
Anthony Will:
For CF, we’ve contracted our barge logistics and as well we have our own railcars were 5000 and we have our own trucking group that’s managing an increasing amount of our truck logistics. You're correct. I think with the cold weather, the ice, and ice lot probably will be a little bit later, but the volume of water that's probably going to be going down the rivers will make barge traffic going up slow. So, the impact of the Magellan for us is ammonia, and we do barge ammonia for Verdigris as well as Donaldsonville, and we are already putting that. What we believe will happen into motion and I think we’ll be fine. But I do think that barge freights probably will go up and we can see what’s other competitors and customers are doing, locking up lows points like Saint Louis and CF for Midwest or securing large logistics versus the spot vessels that are coming in for its inability to get that, that’s what I think will be impacted, but these vessels are coming without barge service connecting to the sale might suffer an inability to get service for a short period of time.
Anthony Will:
The other thing I would add, Mark to what Bert has said is, generally speaking much of the tightness in the barge market is focused around dry product and we have – we own our own ammonia toes [ph] and have long-term leases on the other ones. So we’ve got pretty ready access to the vessels and have power on long-term lease as well. And because of the bases differential favorability in Oklahoma we can actually move Verdigris ammonia down into New Orleans for about the same price or even some days cheaper than what we can produce it in Donaldsonville, and because Donaldsonville already on the Newstar. What we tend when we do an ammonia export is lot of times end up making that the Verdigris tons that go out. So, on the glass half full side of the equation high barge costs and freight costs in general just increase the in-market premium that we get. And so given the in-market network and capacity that we have -- that’s actually a really good thing for us as opposed to a bad thing, high oil, high freight costs, high scarcity of a vessel another options all play to our advantage instead of becoming a detriment to us.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Please proceed.
Steve Byrne:
Yes. Good morning. What would say contribute to your UAN net realized price in the quarter that seems more and more below our spot expectations for the quarter? Was it in particular key end markets who were selling into that weight on that or maybe it was forward sales? And then in terms of your outlook for UAN with respect to pricing that has been a little bit weak here in the last two months, what gives you the conviction that the channels not already full -- your outlook for more corn and the fall application season was light, that seems very supportive, but how do that channels not already full or your competitors haven’t already sold forward?
Anthony Will:
Steve, let me answer the first piece of that and I’ll turn it over to Bert to handle the forward look. So, I’m going to take you back to our November transcript. I’m not sure how much clear we could have been about saying, look our forward order book, we liked to the price when took it, we didn’t see the huge run-up coming in the fall and expect most of the fourth quarter to contain a heavy dose of fill from the summer. So I understand that a lot of people sort of having “miss out there on UAN price” but its not clear to me what we could've done differently to have provided visibility in that what people should’ve been expecting. And my only sense is, and I say this with the most respect for your work like you got to listen what we say instead of what the publications are posting for spot price, because we gave you the script for what was to happen in terms of the fourth quarter results. But that said, I’ll turn it over to Bert and let him talk about our view into the first half of 2019.
Bert Frost:
Yes. So, looking at, I don’t believe that’s general fall. We’ve spent considerable time on the last several years identifying tanks and size of tanks and the ability of the distribution system to absorb the tonnage that’s produced they imported. Today the UAN market we believe for North America will be above 14 million tons. And I think demand for specifically UAN will be robust given that the fall ammonia season was so light. And when you look at the fall ammonia season comparison, 2018 was a very poor year comparable to 2016 [ph], the difference being that in 2016 we didn’t get a lot in Canada and the Northern tier, but did in the Southern tier. It was the opposite this time. And we did get a lot of movement and product supplied in Canada to Northern tier and did not in the Southern tier which is a bigger consumption area. That means that kind of the industry taking about 40% went down, so 60% did not and that could be considerably 700,000 to a million tons of ammonia. That will be impossible for that to all go out as ammonia. It will have to go to upgraded product. And so, we believe our customers are preparing for that and realizing that they need to get those logistics in place, those logistics can reserve and that is with us and others. And so competitors may have sold forward, that’s fine. The market in terms of the being weak on an end base, is actually very strong with urea trading where it is in NOLA at the current UAN price which trading above its historic premium. And we think positioned very well and we’re probably, I’d say, four to six weeks away from spring starting and that’s just plays right into our strengths with our storage network, end market production and we think that UAN pricing will fare fairly well in Q1 and Q2.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Don Carson with Susquehanna Financial. Please proceed.
Don Carson:
Yes. I had question on – your thoughts on the moderation of Asian and EU energy prices on the global cost curve. Normally in your presentation you’ve got a cost curve and what the implications are for what you think U.S. pricing would be. For example, in Q3 you are implying that – then cost curve would give you a 260 to 310 NOLA urea price range in 2019, you went through some of the your cost advantages over TTF [Indiscernible] site. So can you update us on where we are now compared to what you’re talking about the third quarter given lower energy prices? Thanks.
Dennis Kelleher:
Yes. Don, this is Dennis. When we talk last time we’ve been – as you said the range was as you laid it out little bit $300. What we’re saying today is basically the floor that we talked about because the shelf fits is roughly the same sort of that– say, 250, but the ceiling has come down to say sort of 285 to 290 to account for what’s happened to oil prices than to related effects that they’ve on gas prices. So we still face a pretty steep cost curve even with what’s happened in energy prices. And if you look at those two numbers I just gave you, you can see it way at the left-hand side of the cost curve, that there is still as Tony and Bert have been discussing, a tremendous margin opportunity still left in the business. And we’ll have to see what happens to oil prices. What we’ll see now is that OPEC compliance has been reasonably good. OPEC plus and price from upper I think at $64 Brent today, I’m not sure exactly what the forward curve is going out, but it looks like its perking up just a little bit.
Anthony Will:
And I would just add Don, on that one. You’re absolutely right. When we published that curve, I think Brent was at 70 -- mid-70s and now it's low 60s. The one thing that moderated against that a little bit is internal to China, not what they're importing but internal China at least according to the Woodmac [ph], their coal prices have remained relatively flat if not increased a little bit. And so as Dennis said, you may have a couple of those bars on what was otherwise a fairly flat shelf that have changed positions a little bit here and there, but -- and you got compression in terms of the width of that high to low, but its not like the low end to that has collapsed up by any stretch of the imagination. The other thing that we’re pretty excited about honestly is after we published the curve in October you got into November and December in U.S. gas price, it’s spiked for quite a while. It looked like the forward into the first quarter was up with a four handle on much of that and when you look today it’s come down dramatically. We’re in the mid 2s now. And so there is -- I think it goes to what we spoke about earlier terms of the supply response in the U.S. and just how much capacity there is to gas around here. And if anything our cost structure is favorable to when we produce this chart back in October and we’ll have to see what happens to the rest of the year. But we’re very pleased to be largely open gas right now and -- because I think there is some upside for us out there.
Bert Frost:
Yes. Don, the other thing that I’ll point out, but its always important I think to remind people who look at the cost curve what they are facing what they are a good indication. So what average prices would be for sort of the year if the energy prices that we lay out in the detail we’re prevalent? And it really is a price floor not a price ceiling. And so you can get into the periods during the year and you can get in two years in which the demand is a lot stronger than the immediate supply and you can get prices on average that rise above the cost curve as we have seen in prior years. And one thing that I think that they’re going makes us confident in this perspective, that as you look forward going from the 2019 through 2021, 2022 the rate of growth and capacity is outstripped by the rate of growth and demand, And so despite demand balancings moving in the right direction for us.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Duffy Fischer with Barclays. Please proceed.
Duffy Fischer:
Yes. Good morning. Two questions of the impact of the floor application fall season in North America. First is, if we get the big expected spring like you think does that change the mix of nitrogen products between urea, UAN and ammonia or will the mix be normal. And then two, what is that do to your inventories both dollar amount that you carried through the year? And then how much kind of product you have replaced to meet a big demand season?
Bert Frost:
So impact to the floor fall you cannot – as you enter floor we plan for a normal season and we got decades of to shows what normal is. And some of that presold and some of that is sold fast. As we roll through the fall it was evident early, I’m talking about by the 10th November we would not have a fall ammonia season. And so we quickly pivoted in and redirect the tons to different markets and position the plants differently. Our intension is always to run our plants full and to then prepare for the spring and position those products for demand starting kind of now in the Texas and Oklahoma market and as the market moves north those markets come into play. So first, Spring, we are playing for a big spring with 93 million acres were constructively positive what can happen in the corn sector, one because of the low stock use ratio on corn. We believe that the $4 position today corn has some upside, beans probably has downsize, but carry out almost 100% increase in the carry out in soybeans, very difficult to store and to move and special if you don’t some revolution as Chinese limitation on imports there, plus you’re going into the Brazilian shipment [ph] season now. So we’re planning out a lower level of soybeans exports from the 24 billion ton type range going forward. And that I think put pressure on soybeans. So the attractiveness of corn I think it goes to 95 million acres. And then moving this additional demand from the fall to the spring will make it difficult to get all those tons out on a timely basis. The ammonia season moves in a period of days and weeks and that’s where I mentioned earlier trucks and other logistics become paramount. And so, I do believe the mix is going change, let’s say about 700,000 to a million – 700,000 to a million tons of ammonia did not go down in the fall. If you bucket that three different positions just dividing it by a third, 300,000 tons of ammonia will move to the spring, we’re ready for that. And then get it multiplied by the N factor because UAN is 32%, Urea is 46% and ammonia is 82%. You’re going to see a substantial amount of urea and UAN, being needed in the upper Midwest and inventory wise we plan to go in full and prepared and then the challenge will be resupply. So we’re having our railcar position to move those tons as well as our barging assets and we’re up to the challenge.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Please proceed.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Thanks very much. In your fourth quarter results can you talk about how much your volume was limited by short season? And how much it was limited by your own turnarounds? And can you also say something about the level of imports of nitrogen fertilizer you’re expecting to the United States in the first half of 2019?
Anthony Will:
Jeff, let me handle kind of the first pieces of that or at least the piece of the first piece of that and then I’ll throw it over to Bert.
Jeff Zekauskas:
Sure.
Anthony Will:
The turnaround activity while it’s high for us really -- had we had extra ammonia in the fourth quarter that would’ve either had to go out as exports which the ammonia exports are fine. They make some money. But they're certainly not as valuable as the end market ag sales are. And so the volume shortfall on ammonia was really a seasonal issue as opposed to a turnaround issue. And we had a pretty good movement of the upgraded products. And at the end of the day that was a couple hundred dollars tons we’re talking about. So it’s relatively small number in the context of 19.5 million tons. But I would largely point that to the volume of ag ammonia that didn't go out versus what a normal season is as opposed anything else. And then Bert, I’ll let you kind of comment on the rest.
Bert Frost:
Yes. So, looking at the imports where we are to-date, I would say, we’re ahead expecting 4 million to 4.1 million tons of urea and one probably needed 1.5 million tons of UAN and we’re currently trending towards above that level. So I think you’ve seen the weakness in NOLA. And Jeff, remember New Orleans is one of the few markets in the world that has liquidity at all times. In Brazil you have to bring that vessel in and nominated and it sold. You don’t have to do that in NOLA and then there you walk off tenders. And so we’ve seen some traders. This is what has happened over the years, the traders bring product in, market gets lower and they take or some of these taking these losses and we believe that’s decline over time as we’re going from 8 million tons in first to four, but takes time for people who learn lesson I think. And so we expect that inputs coming in Q2 would be probably lower just because of total demand in position. And we think the market will balance that like.
Jeff Zekauskas:
But I want to just comment a little bit on – so you do have [Indiscernible] imports kind of swapping around in NOLA but in market premium what’s happen to that given the constraints on being able to actually move that product out of the region?
Anthony Will:
Yes. I think a direct reflection of the importance of logistics contracts positioning and timing is where we are on both the market premium for urea and UAN and the ammonia for the matter. Ammonia is trading below $300 in Tampa and at $500 in the end market terminals. Urea is trading in 240 in NOLA and trading at $290 to $300 in the interior, UAN trading at 185/190 in NOLA, trading it say, 210 to 240 in the interior depending on the production location. So you exactly right. This is something we’ve talked about and we plan on continuing, because there is a value to being able to pick up and not has such a substantial position taking a vessels of 30,000 tons at prices several million dollars where you been taking it by the truck loads and I think that’s called just appropriate positioning risk for our customers who want to provide that opportunity for them.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar with Citi. Please proceed.
P.J. Juvekar:
Yes. Hi. Good morning.
Anthony Will:
Good morning.
P.J. Juvekar:
So, with the lower fall application that goes into spring, farmers can decide to apply little bit of ammonia, but maybe more likely urea and UAN. And how do you think that will play out in terms of volumes of each, because your margins are different on each product. So how do you maximize your profit while helping your growers and related just quickly how much urea did you export during the off season here and what was the net back on the export? Thank you.
Anthony Will:
Okay. So, looking at that question and we don’t sell directly to farmer, we work with our retail and channel partners to do the optimal decision-making for the farmer. And that is directly connected to the 4Rs for planting the right product at the right rate, at the right place, at the right time. And so we make these products and we can move our products in different places whether that would be export domestic, up to the river, on the rail, with the trucks, through a pipeline, with the idea of having or the idea of having that product in place for our customers to pull. And so, when you’re looking though at corn farmer who is planting for yield and their trend yields this year is of 176 bushels an acre. If you’re in the [Indiscernible] space, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and probably Nebraska pivots irrigation areas, your target is probably 220 to 280 bushels an acre and that’s what it was pulled off last year. So, as you’re planting you’re pulling nutrients off the soil and those nutrients will be needed and especially needed for seed, optimal seed growth. What we’re seeing is a combination of that application but ammonia play the pivotal role in the initial growth stage of the corn crop and then either urea or UAN or a combination there of both application. And so, yes, margins are different for upgraded product as we go, but we’re driven. I think to serve the needs of the farm center and retail center and that’s what we’ll continue to do. On urea exports, what we [Indiscernible] where our products go and that driven for that market also. So when there is an attractive opportunity we will export and we did that last week. We took a vessel to Chile [ph] where we’re going to be loading in next week and that was positive net back compared towards the domestic market was giving us. Last year we export a little over 400,000 tons of urea, 450,000 and UAN cost to 1.5 million tons focused on Europe and South America, but we shipped to Australia and Ukraine also. And so those are great opportunities for us. We were happy to build our customer base as a global participant in this market and as those opportunities come to as we will execute against them.
Dennis Kelleher:
And in particular on Urea I would say much of the year last year or the U.S. was a little bit of the port of last resort for a number of international producers. And so what you saw was NOLA trading at a bit of a discount international parity. And so on, virtually every one of those exports that we conducted last year that net back was substantially above what NOLA was offering. And so I think from the standpoint urea in particular export is a great option for us.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from John Roberts with UBS. Please proceed.
John Roberts:
Thank you. Was the buyback activity in the fourth quarter about the max rate that you can do in an open market program or could you bought back a lot more stock? And just I think it is about the pace of buyback that we might expect?
Anthony Will:
So, John, we had an authorization that was capped at 500 million and in mid October we were – the share price was trading in the mid-50s, and then as you wound toward the end of the year we had dropped to the low 40s. So I think what you saw was a increased activity that was reflective of where the share price was in the fact that taken shares out in the low 40s is also providing about a 3% after-tax yield for us given the dividend on the share. So, we think that's a great opportunity to take that down. And going forward I think what you'll see is a pace that is going to be reflective of market conditions and cash generation as well as where the share price is and with lower share price expect us to buy more in. So that’s kind of the how we think about the world.
John Roberts:
And then on slide 16 in the back on the expected closures in China, about half of the expected closures are assumed rather than actually announced. Could you talk about the assumptions behind that estimate?
Bert Frost:
Yes. The assumptions that way into that is looking at where the coal prices are as well as electricity price and the internal pricing versus being able to get kind of import parity. What are the number of plants that are below breakeven from the standpoint of cash flow perspective? And so, we have a sense of that the aggregate loss from a cash perspective on the number of those plans and that's what goes into that that assessment. We can’t tell you which ones do you turn off the lights first, but we see that as likely coming. And we think there's going to be about 5 million tons of closures as we make our way through this year. Lot of those plants may not be producing today. They could be on curtailment or shut down, but because they haven’t been announced these closures they haven’t yet list yet, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it doesn't change the net balance from a Chinese production demand standpoint. It's just there going to be moved in permanent closure as opposed to temporarily curtail.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed.
Unidentified Analyst:
Hi. This is [Indiscernible]. Thanks for taking my question. Question on just from a modeling perspective for 2019, any puts and takes to think about whether there would be the tax rate or really just – anything that slide from modeling perspective would be helpful? Thank you.
Bert Frost:
Yes. I mean, from a tax perspective what we’re looking at is probably a federal tax rate of around 25%, with sort of mid 20s, so there will be 21% statutory rate plus some state and foreign taxes. Remember that there are largest foreign jurisdiction in Canada has a higher tax rate that we have here today. That however is for provision purposes from a cash perspective you'll see in the in the 10-K, we have a substantial amount of net operating loss carry forwards which are laid out there. But in addition to that we have the ability to take bonus depreciation is to deduct 60% of the cost of capital in year and we’ve got a capital budget next year for four to 450. So I'm sure how good that our earnings from a tax perspective, you all have different perspectives, but we’ve got way to shelter those, so I wouldn't expect in 2019 we’ll be paying a significant amount of federal cash taxes despite that what we have in the provision.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Jonas Oxgaard with Bernstein. Please proceed.
Jonas Oxgaard:
Hi. Good morning, guys. Thank you. You mentioned in your press release you’ve been monitoring the Iranian sanctions and the Chinese re-exporting. I was wondering is there a role to you taken more active stands than just monitoring? You do have pretty active market intelligence as far as I know. How we see this playing out? Can its Chinese traders keep exporting with no interference from the U.S. government?
Anthony Will:
Well, I think there’s certainly is the option for some of that to continue and then more recently there's been I think some discussions about doing direct business with India and trying to do some currency payments and movements that don’t touch the international wire system. So, that would allow some of that activity to happen. Our view all along has been that the gas is virtually free, the plants are built. They’re going to run those plants and those tons are going to find a way into the international market through some vehicle and it does created a bit of an overhang and some disruption, but our view is that that was just part of the global supply picture and we were counting on them not happening. I would say that the U.S. government is well aware that those tons are coming out and some of the stuffs are just outside the areas that we can provide or that the government can provide appropriate pressure against. But I do think longer term the as long as the sanctions stay in place whether it's access to technical expertise, access to new parts particularly some of the more exotic materials that need to be fabbed in Europe or other places that are more directly affected. You may see either a reduction in operating rate or slowness for like the Lordegan plant coming up kind of thing. So I think, what's running is going to continue to run, but depending upon how long this goes on, that could drop off a little bit.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed.
AndrewWong:
Hey good morning. So this is regarding the $500 million of debt that's due next year. Do you plan to repay that? Or do you plan to roll it over? And maybe just more of a general question on capital allocation, aside from debt repayments and share repurchases, is there anything else that you look at investing into maybe expansions or M&A things?
Dennis Kelleher:
Well I mean, if you go back to our capital allocation philosophy. We would like to invest in growth for our business where we can do that and have it be accretive on our cash flow per share basis and above our cost of capital. There are however not a million of those things for us to do, and we're pretty picky about the projects and the M&A prospects that we look at. So, absent anything of significance in that area, we want to return the cash to shareholders, but we want to do that within a frame -- in a framework that it reflects our commitment to long term investment grade metrics. And so what we've committed to the market is, we're going to repay on or before its maturity date, which is in May of 2020, the last of the $500 million of the 2010 or 20 I think it’s 2010 bonds. Those are the carrier coupon rate of about 7 and 8. So, when we finally get that done, we'll be sitting at an interest cost per year cash and just cost of below $200 million per year, so a significant reduction in fixed charges. I think, it's also important as Tony pointed out, that we also do share repurchases as a means of returning cash to shareholders in [Indiscernible] like a 3% ish after tax yield on that, and it does eliminate a lot of fixed charges as well. So we believe that both taking the debt out and also reducing the fixed charge associated with dividends are credit positive.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I'd like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick:
Thanks everyone for joining us. And we look forward to following these conversations at various conferences we’ll be over the next few months.
Executives:
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Ben Isaacson - Scotia Capital, Inc. Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Donald David Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets Mark Connelly - Stephens, Inc. P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC Jason Miner - Bloomberg Intelligence Sean Gilmartin - Barclays Capital, Inc. Alexandre Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Third Quarter 2018 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Victor, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I'd now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning and thanks for joining the CF Industries third quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Dennis Kelleher, CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries reported its third quarter 2018 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the third quarter and for the first nine months of 2018, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $300 million and approximately $1.1 billion, respectively. This compares to adjusted EBITDA of $134 million and $709 million for the same periods in 2017, a 50% increase year-to-date over 2017 results. We added $294 million of cash to the balance sheet during the quarter, while at the same time repurchasing 1.8 million shares for $90 million. Including activities after the quarter end, through October 31, we have repurchased a cumulative total of 3 million shares for approximately $150 million, which leaves $350 million still remaining under the current share repurchase authorization. Cash on the balance sheet stands at approximately $1.1 billion as of this call. These results reflect continued strong execution by the CF team against the backdrop of an improving market environment. We are operating well, and most importantly we're doing it safely. Our rolling 12-month recordable incident rate at the end of the quarter was 0.67 incidents per 200,000 work hours, considerably better than industry averages. And as Bert will discuss, we are very well-positioned for the fourth quarter and the upcoming spring application season. Longer term, we believe global market fundamentals will continue to enable CF Industries to generate significant cash through the foreseeable future. First, we expect the global nitrogen supply and demand balance to continue to tighten. Global demand for nitrogen has grown at a long-term annual rate of approximately 2% per year. At the same time, net global urea supply additions are expected to fall short of this rate as you can see on slide 10 in our materials. All the new nitrogen capacity in North America has been running for some time and there are a limited number of new plants expected to be started up globally through 2022. Because it takes roughly four years to construct an ammonia/urea complex, it is unlikely that significant capacity will come online during this time period beyond what is already visibly under construction today. Second, we believe global energy fundamentals are likely to drive international hydrocarbon prices higher, while at the same time, North American natural gas prices should continue to remain low. CF benefits greatly from this spread as it elevates production cost for the upper half of the global nitrogen supply curve, while keeping our production costs low as estimated in our 2019 cost curve shown on slide 15. As Dennis will go into more detail later, global investments in oil and gas exploration and development since 2014 have declined dramatically. U.S. shale, however, has seen increased investments. This resulted in higher production in the U.S., which kept natural gas in North America trading around $3 per MMBtu, despite the strong growth in U.S. gas demand. In fact, the NYMEX forward curve for gas is priced well below $3 per MMBtu through 2025. We believe these factors will support CF's structural cost advantages in the years ahead. Along with our consistent operational performance, this should further strengthen our cash generation, and allow us to create significant shareholder value. Now, let me turn the call over to Bert, who will talk about the market environment in more detail, then Dennis will discuss our financial position before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. Our performance during the third quarter has positioned CF well, as we work through our fall ammonia book and continue preparations for the spring application season. First and foremost we had solid shipments in the quarter. This included a successful UAN fill program, along with 780,000 tons of UAN and urea exports combined. These efforts kept our plants running at full rates and allowed us to capture international sales when domestic customers were unwilling to take a position. We also built a strong book of business into the fourth quarter as customers accepted that significantly lower nitrogen prices were unlikely. This includes shipments from our UAN fill program, which will continue well into the fourth quarter. As a result, we are very happy with our position across our network, and have the flexibility to capitalize on market conditions in the spring. Looking ahead, we believe there is substantial support for the current price environment. During the third quarter, higher LNG and natural gas prices in Asia and Europe caused marginal producers in those regions to curtail production significantly. In fact, reported global urea outages, not including China, affected approximately 5 million metric tons of nameplate capacity, the highest for any quarter that we have on record. We believe the winter heating season will likely keep natural gas and LNG costs high for producers in Asia and Europe. China's declining role in global urea trade also contributed to higher global prices. Through August 2018, China exported less than 1 million metric tons of urea, a 72% decrease from the same period last year due to the high cost of feedstock and rigorous enforcement of environmental regulations. Additionally, the market is still absorbing the impact of U.S. sanctions on Iran. In the short-term, it appears that Iran will have fewer destinations for its exports, which could limit their participation in the global market and further reduce supply. The global nitrogen supply may be lower than many expected, demand in the short to mid-term maybe stronger. We project 93 million acres of corn to be planted in the United States, which is about 4 million more acres than 2018. This should support a good fall ammonia season. Ammonia represents a solid value to growers, and with a favorable corn to bean ratio, we expect growers to apply ammonia if weather conditions allow. Otherwise, we expect greater demand for upgraded products in the spring as farmers try to maximize yield. Additionally, industry observers think that India will tender 1 to 2 times before March and large nitrogen consuming regions such as Brazil and Europe still have to catch up on purchases. Overall, we believe this leaves CF in a very strong position through the first half of 2019, and we are looking forward to the opportunities ahead. With that, I'll turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the third quarter of 2018, the company reported net earnings per diluted share of $0.13, EBITDA of $308 million and adjusted EBITDA of $300 million. During the quarter, we added $294 million of cash to the balance sheet. Our cash and cash equivalents balance was $1 billion as of September 30. At the end of October, our cash and cash equivalents balance was around $1.1 billion even after having invested approximately $150 million to repurchase about 3 million shares of common stock. Capital expenditures in the third quarter were approximately $130 million, as turnaround and maintenance activity increased. Looking ahead at the balance of 2018, we still have significant turnaround and maintenance activity ongoing. As a result, we expect our capital expenditures to total approximately $425 million for activities this year. Given the favorable trading conditions in the global nitrogen market, we expect that fourth quarter results will significantly exceed those of the same period last year. Longer term, as the cyclical nitrogen recovery continues, we expect to generate substantial amounts of cash available for deployment. All of this has been enabled by excellent operational performance and an improving world marketplace. As Tony indicated earlier, we expect North American natural gas to remain plentiful and low cost compared to the rest of the world. Our view is reinforced by the multi-year decline we have seen in overall oil and gas upstream investment globally. From 2016 to the current year, overall upstream investment on an annual basis is down roughly 40% compared to 2014 according to the International Energy Agency. Although global oil production of around 100 million barrels per day has kept up with growth in demand, it has done so by cutting into spare capacity, which is down to only 2% of daily global production and declining. Exploration activity has been drastically reduced. Conventional oil and gas discovery volumes in 2017 reached an historic low of 6.8 billion barrels of oil equivalent, just 25% of the 2000 through 2015 annual average. This likely means that there will be fewer major greenfield development projects in the future. Similarly, from 2015 through 2017, greenfield project investment itself fell dramatically with the volume of conventional resources sanctioned dropping roughly 50%. Some of this capital has been redirected towards already producing areas so-called brownfield assets, which has helped to stem base production decline, but much of this investment does not address the longer term need to supply growing demand. On the downstream side, LNG liquefaction investment is down significantly as can be seen on slide 14. Although the market will still need to absorb fully, the capacity increases of recent years, significant increases in LNG imports, particularly in China, will lead to – will likely lead to a tightening supply and demand balance post 2020. Lastly, as can be seen on slide 14, China has been aggressively reducing investment in new coal production. This trend underpins our belief that it is likely China's nitrogen industry will remain a much smaller participant in the global nitrogen marketplace driven by higher input costs and governmental efforts to burn less coal. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we move on to your questions, I want to recognize our employees for their outstanding work. They continue to execute our business exceptionally well. In the past 12 months, a highly volatile period that included very low prices, our employees remained focused on operational excellence, and as a result, we're able to generate nearly $900 million in free cash flow over that time. Our focus on disciplined capital stewardship enabled us to deploy that cash generation along with cash from our balance sheet to create value for our shareholders by accomplishing all of the following. We retired $1.1 billion in high interest debt, paid $280 million in dividends to our stockholders, invested in additional North American production by repurchasing the publicly traded common units of Terra Nitrogen Company for $388 million, repurchased $90 million worth of our shares, and still ended this quarter with more than $1 billion of cash on the balance sheet. As we look ahead, we are even more excited about the future, because we expect the following factors will only further enhance our business results. The continued tightening of the global nitrogen supply and demand balance, higher energy costs in Europe and Asia with continued low natural gas cost in North America, and because higher energy costs and environmental enforcement actions have effectively removed China from global urea export participation. Our focus, capabilities and asset base positions us exceptionally well for the years ahead. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Our first question comes the line of Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. You may begin.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe a question or two of unrelated pieces, please. The first one just, could you talk about the outlook for the UK business given the gas outlook? I mean, is there opportunities potentially to start redirecting ammonia from the U.S. Gulf to the UK, improve your cost position in Europe? And then second, balance sheet wise, you ended the quarter with about $1 billion of cash. You've got the $500 million bonds left to repay, and you've targeted $300 million to $500 million of targeted cash on hand for the balance sheet. Should we think of any excess cash moving forward really going to share repurchase in the absence of any strategic opportunities that emerge?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Good morning, Adam. I'll handle the UK bit, and then hand it over to Dennis for the cash piece. On the U.S., we have purchased some spot ammonia cargos. Economically, it's a little bit better for us just to export straight out of D'ville (00:15:06) as opposed to try to move it over into the UK operation and then buy into the UK, just from standard global trading positions of ammonia as opposed to move diesel production over there. But we have moved some ammonia into the UK operations periodically, and been able to benefit based on where the spikiness in gas was in the UK this year. I will say that there's a fair bit of our industrial business over there. It's actually indexed back to gas. So when gas price goes up, we pass a lot of that through. That's not as true on the AN side for the Ag marketplace. But AN pricing has been kind of keeping up reasonably well, and been tied pretty closely to what's going on with European gas cost. So, it's a weird – a little bit of a weird situation. We're making okay money over there. But in fact, when the gas cost in Europe is real high, and we're only making okay money over there, it creates a huge opportunity for our U.S. asset base. So in some ways, it's a little bit of a natural hedge. And on the cash on the balance sheet, capital deployment, I'll hand it over Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, I mean, our capital deployment strategy is unchanged which is, first and foremost what we like to do is invest excess cash in our business, and our strategic fairway is to see if we can generate returns in excess of our cost of capital, and do something that is incremental on our cash flow per share basis accretive if you will to our base business plan. So that's how it's going to be our preference. Having said that though, there're not an infinite number of opportunities to do that. In the current environment, we certainly don't want to be investing in building new plants, because assets trade on Wall Street at a significant discount replacement costs. Now, if you look at the inorganic side, there has to be something for sale to buy that we want to buy that's actually going to be accretive, and there's not an infinite number of those opportunities out there. So, I'd say is, in keeping with our share – at our capital allocation strategy, we want to return excess cash that we don't need for the business to the shareholders. We have been biased in the past and currently towards share repurchases, because we believe that the share price today greatly undervalues the business. And I think that that's something – that philosophy is unchanged as we go forward into the future. What I would point out is that just with the 3 million shares that we bought leading up to October 31, that we've already created over 1% accretion to our shareholders, and as time goes by those – that gets bigger. And so when you think about accretion to our base business plan, it has to be something really, really attractive.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
For us to do something different.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Do something else.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson from Scotiabank. You may begin.
Ben Isaacson - Scotia Capital, Inc.:
Thank you very much. Just two quick ones. You talked about not wanting to invest in new plants, because assets traded at discount to replacement cost, but what environment do you need to see in the U.S. for investment to start building for new capacity? We've seen Methanex start to talk about a new methanol plant, and of course the commodities are different. But in some sense, the economics are somewhat similar. And then my second question is on your cash conversion cycle. I've noticed over the last couple of years it's been changing quite a bit in terms of your accounts payable being due a lot more quicker than in the past. Can you just talk about both of those?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
On the kind of what you'd need to see to add new capacity over here? We've done a fair bit of analysis on kind of the return profile required at least for us to think about adding new capacity. And basically the problem over here is that for the most part it's difficult to get fixed price labor contracts or LSTK kind of bids that are anywhere close to being reasonable. And so you're facing a real uncertain construction costs profile out there, and every single project that has been executed in North America has run over, particularly in the area of labor cost, because productivity has been particularly poor. And when you are increasing the cost profile of a project by about $250 million of capital, that's sort of equivalent to $2 of MMBtu benefits you have to gain in order to pay for it over the life of a project. So, if you can do a fixed price contract in other places in the world that have $5 or $6 gas, generally speaking, you're going to do better from an economics return standpoint than you are by building projects in North America. So, I have a hard time believing that it would make sense for anybody to build over here just given how difficult the labor market is. And in particular, if you look at the amount of both ethylene and methanol or ethylene cracker and methanol projects that have been announced, the war for skilled labor is getting increasingly more challenging, which just drives up construction costs even farther. And based on the tariff regimes that are in place right now, certain of the exotic steels that you have to bring in from offshore are also fairly expensive. So, when we look at building in in North America, we think it's a little bit of a fool's game to try to do that. There's other parts of the world where it makes a lot more sense. And then, on the working cap piece, I mean, I think we're running at negative.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I think we've – I mean, the way I look at it is, I don't think that we're selling our products under different terms to people from the accounts receivable perspective. We had – back when we were doing the expansion projects, we had higher accounts payable obviously, because you had a lot of money going out the door to pay for the expansion. But in addition to that, what I would note is, you probably have seen that on cash flow statement. The delta in customer advances is very significant this quarter compared to what it was last year. And what that reflects really is, we think a growing confidence on the buyer side in the price deck for nitrogen going forward. And so that's a very healthy development for us. There was a point in time in this cycle where we weren't sure that customer advances would ever come back, and they've actually come back quite significantly. So we're basically a negative working capital type company. And I think, that will be with us at least for some time given where we are in the cycle.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. You may begin.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Great. Thank you. In terms of your just asset base, can you just walk us through some initial thoughts on 2019, including just your projected operates versus 2018? Any changes in product mix, as well as the preliminary acreage outlook. And when you think about North American nat gas, what are your current thoughts on the AECO and Mid-Con basis? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, good morning, Chris. So we have more turnaround activity in 2018 than we had in 2017 or 2019. So I would expect, year-to-date, I think we're down a couple of percentage points versus last year. I'd expect that to return kind of back to normal, but that's sort of more on the margin, so a little bit more production. In terms of our product mix, Bert really makes that decision on the fly, and it has to do with, are we better off having incremental granular in hydrous or are we better off having the incremental UAN. And so he looks at kind of what the pricing realization is, what the inventory positions are, what the demand is. And at the end of the day, a netback margin decision on how to optimize kind of the – or maximize the company. So we have ranges of kind of what we produce. And I'd say somewhere between 7 million and 8.5 million tons of UAN is probably where we're producing, and the specific of where we land is highly determined by margin in any given period of time. But given that production profile or sales profile for the year, that means we're producing and shipping, call it, on average about 700,000 tons of UAN every month. And we only have about – from a working inventory standpoint, about a month, maybe six weeks of usable production during that period of time. So we really need to be consistent producers and sellers as we move along, because you don't have the option, given how big we are, just to step back from the market for extended period of time, at least with respect to the UAN.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
With respect to the differentials, Mid-Con and also for Alberta, those closing up is going to be a function of how fast the evacuation capacity comes on versus how much production capacity they develop. So if you look at the forward curves at least in the Mid-Con, I think it's two years out or so, three years out, maybe you see a drop off in that – those differentials. With respect to Alberta, Shell has announced, I think, about a $31 billion LNG project in British Columbia. But that's going to take a very long time to build. $31 billion, it takes a long time to spend that on a single project. So I think the Alberta differentials are going to be with us for quite some time. I suspect that the Mid-Con differentials will stretch out just because even as you build out evacuation capacity, there are times when the prices are right, the development of additional production capacity exceeds that, so we'll have to see how that develops. But right now it's a good dynamic.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Stephen Byrne from Bank of America. You may begin.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes. Thank you. Were any of the lower volumes that you had shipments in the third quarter actually intentional? Where you were holding back on perhaps selling some refill product? And then had a question about the slide 11 that shows actually declining demand in China. To what do you attribute that to?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, Steve. So, relative to third quarter, I think our ammonia production was darn close to where we were last year, it was basically flat. And if you look at our inventory from the standpoint of where we said we're $50 million lighter in terms of our inventory from a balance sheet perspective, than where we ended Q3 of last year. And given that gas cost is lower and we're putting inventory in it, with the cost of production, that's quite a bit lower from a tonnage standpoint. So, we have kind of been able to maintain our volumes for the year, despite being a little bit lower on production, because of turnarounds by squeezing inventory. So, I wouldn't say that we did a lot of holding back, and in fact, that's kind of what has positioned us so well for the go-forward, which is we have a lot of inventory space that enables Bert to kind of think about when we want to make sales, and when we want to go ahead and take the foot off the accelerator. And I don't remember what the second...
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
On the second question regarding Chinese consumption, we have seen some variability over the last five years ranging from let's say 53 million tons of consumption up to 57 million tons of consumption, some of that's economically driven in terms of industries, because it's a very large percentage of their consumption is used in industrial applications, as well as we believe just declining end base a little I'd say steady end-based consumption for the crops. So, on an overall basis it's like a – when you look at over last year, it's actually up 2%. And so I don't see that much of a decline.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But I think part of it, Steve, is the central government has come out with this strong position saying kind of net flat urea consumption through 2020. And what you're seeing here is, I think in response to some of those initiatives actually taking root. So, we don't think that there's some big drop off coming. We think that a lot of that has already been socialized and implemented in China. And so from here going forward, we think there's a fair bit of industrial demand growth still remaining there, and that's what gives us a fair bit of confidence about what the demand side looks like going forward.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Don Carson from Susquehanna Financial. You may begin.
Donald David Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Yes. Thank you. Bert, what percentage of your third quarter volume was at summer fill prices? Just trying to get a sense of the price momentum as we go into Q4 and next year? And how much of this September-October run-up in nitrogen prices that you'll realize in the fourth quarter. And I noticed you had about $313 million of customer advances. What – were these at the old summer fill prices or this is at the new higher prices?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, when you look at the summer program I'd say Q3, you're rolling out of Q2 heavy demand into Q3 very low or non-existent demand. So you are incenting customers to purchase products that they will store for a period of time, and could be until spring. And so, we launched the UAN fill program the second week of July. And as that rolled out, and then shipments began rolling out in later July. So, a majority, all of Q3 UAN volume was a part of the fill program, and as I mentioned, some of that will also well into Q4 we'll be shipping – continue to ship on. For urea, when you look at, we were rolling out of a weak pricing period in the low 200s, and then we booked several exports early in let's say July and some in late June for Q3 as well as some programs for moving Midwestern product, and those tons shipped through the quarter, and we look at urea being more market based in Q4. And then for ammonia, a lot of the fall demand that's being shipped today, some of that was booked in Q3, and some of that will be booked in spot. And then when you look to Q1, we're wide open for 2019.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. You may begin.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Thanks. I had two questions. Actually, I want to follow-up on that last question. Bert, we've obviously seen some of your competitors look at doing less fill in the past. Is that something as you've looked at this summer's fill program, you could – CF could also look at doing maybe not really doing fill doing more of a month-by-month or does your storage not allow you to do that?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Morning, Joel. I'll jump in first, and I'll turn it over to Bert. I think going back to what I said earlier, we're producing about and meeting the ship about 700,000 tons of UAN a month, and I think if you're a bit of a smaller niche player, you probably have some opportunities to not be in the market every day, and to pick and choose timing. So, I would expect those people should be able to get on average better price realization over the course of the year, because you can pick and choose your timing a little better. Because of just the scale of this business, it's pretty hard to take a month off and say, no, we're not going to be there. And what we found when Bert launched fill is that there was pretty strong appetite. And so we were able to kind of build a bit of a book, and then that's what helped us take prices off was the fact that there was such a demand increase. So, I think it's – part of the recent demand rises in this kind of environment is because of the actions that Bert and his team have taken. So we don't really have the option of not being out there just given our size and our scale. But Bert, do you want to...
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I look at it in terms of the optionality available to the company, and what is going on. There are several factors that drive our decisions being global demand, domestic demand, this is new international market. And we're constantly monitoring what's going on globally on the Ns, UAN, urea, ammonia. And so we're taking decisions that obviously are driven by profitability. So if we believe in terms of the gas costs and the structure available to us, it's a profitable decision, we will do a fill program. However, if we believe that it's not attractive to us, we won't do a program to the same degree, which you saw in 2016. And so when you look at the options available to the company exports, distribution, product mix, making more urea and ammonia and less UAN or vice versa, mode of shipment, vessel, barge, a truck or rail, we're weighing all of those. And then the pricing – laying the pricing over top, and we work together as a team to make that decision and discuss with the management team and then we execute, and we feel very positive about our position today and especially our position going into 2019.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. You may begin.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Hi, good morning. I just wanted to get a sense for some of the proposed European anti-dumping duties on UAN, and how that might impact global trade flows, and if they put restrictions on Trinidad, Russia and North America. Do you see a change in European nitrogen consumption habits? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Good morning, Mike. So the big issue around the EU Commission is, this is largely I would say an effort that was brought forward by the Eastern European producers. So you've got the Poles and Romanians and Lithuanians. And the challenge for them is they're paying near $10 per MMBtu gas, and then they're not even producing in the region of consumption. So they've got a fair bit of logistics cost to get much of that product over to France and Belgium, and so forth. And frankly they're losing money like crazy, and they can't run and so they turn to the EU Commission to looking for support. And for us, I think, we sell less of our product over there than a couple of percent in aggregate. And I think it's less than 1% of our profits. So it's not really material for us if we end up having to shift where we ship that product. The bigger issue is this is really bad news for EU farmers, because what it's going to do is, it's going to jack-up pricing on what they view as their most effective form of nitrogen. And as a result, the other products are going to fall in line, you're going to see increases, not only in UAN, but also in in AN, CAN and urea, that are going to be going into Europe. And so, European farmers are the ones that ultimately are going to feel the real sting of where this all shakes out at the end of the day. And one of the things the Bert and his team have done a tremendous job of is developing relationships in outlets and demand for us in Latin America. And so, it's just as easy for us to send our UAN into Latin America as it is to send over to France and Belgium. And so I would just expect there to be some subtle movements in terms of where kind of the product flows. But at the end of the day, it's pretty non-material for us, the people that are really going to lose here are the EU farmers.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. You may begin.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks, and good morning everyone. Tony, you talked about sort of the greenfield opportunity and the labor issues. I'm just wondering what maybe the brownfield opportunities are within the company, and I'm thinking in particular to the two new facilities you constructed typically, new facilities have some capability to expand, is that not attractive, and just as an aside to that, I did read something about some expansion in Medicine Hat, just a headline, so if you could maybe fill it in as well. Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yes, good morning, Vincent. The new plants are running extraordinarily well. Chris and his team have them running at about 20% over original nameplate which is absolutely astounding. It's kind of we built two plants and ended up with three almost. And – so they're already kind of really firing on all cylinders. There may be some incremental opportunities to enhance them a little bit, but those are relatively smaller. And as we look at kind of the cost and challenges of moving anhydrous around, that was really what was making us think about Medicine Hat from the standpoint of incremental investment. We've got two ammonia plants out there, only one urea plant were very long ammonia and the rail rates are challenging up there. And so, we've been looking at, do – is there an upgrade plant or something else that can be done up there, because you're dealing with AECO gas that's some of the cheapest gas in the world, and that was part of why Bert and his team signed the deal with J. R. Simplot Company that be able to export through their Portland Terminal, so we get good margin realization out of that production. As we've looked at Canada, the Trudeau government and some of their carbon backstop legislation makes it really challenging for us to want to put any kind of new capital up there right now, because I think they're doing things that are really anti-business and make it very difficult for us to want to spend money in that particular area. So I think we've looked at it a bunch of times. It's difficult because of labor costs up there and some of the governmental actions, and creativity of Bert and his team in terms of finding alternative outlets means that we've got really good solutions. So it's something we continue to think about, but we're not thinking about it actively, if that makes sense.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Wong from RBC Capital Markets. You may begin.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Hey. Good morning. So just regarding the cost curve that you guys put out, I like how you show that the demand has this monthly volatility. I was just curious on the cost curve, and I understand it's a little bit complex to show the volatility, seasonality on a single slide. But could you maybe just talk about your view on the seasonal changes in the cost curve that you could see coming out?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
When you look at the cost curve and what's going on, how we follow it is we're constantly engaged in different growing regions of the world, South America, Australia, India or Asia, Europe, North America, not much is happening in Africa, although we would like to see that to take place over the next couple of years. But when you look at the seasonal variability, it really is a North/South, except when you extrapolate out crop changes, whether that's corn and what's going on in South America today with the tariffs, and extreme probably growth possibility of soybeans in Argentina and Brazil, you could see some changes there on demand mix. But that drives kind of how that cost curve in shipment rates and demand and pull rates and application rates then drive that seasonability.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Andrew, I'd like to make two other points, which is if you look at the cost curve, what you see is that – in that yellow band, that's kind of our estimate, what you see that, I'm going to call it volatility it's a variability seasonally. And if you look to the left of that, what you see is that there's a very flat shelf from where it sits. So even if it moves to the left significantly, you don't really get a significant downshift in price. The other point that I would make is with respect to the width of the bars themselves, we make rather conservative assumption that installed nameplates capacity runs at about 95% of capacity. And so if that were to contract significantly, really anywhere in the middle of the cost curve, what that would do is, to the degree we had seasonal variability above the cost curve or even below, what you're going to have to do is be bidding in the higher cost tons, more of the higher cost tons to the right on the cost curve. So there's fairly conservative view of sort of what price outcomes would likely be in a supply driven, cost curve driven marketplace.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The other thing Andrew that I'd just add on that is, this is a static view of 2019 based on where things from an input standpoint sit as of today, right. So if you see a dramatic change in Brent crude or China coal or even exchange rates, all of those things start having an impact in terms of the shape of that curve, and those things evolve over time. But as we sit here today and as we look forward, and as we've kind of taking a look at what the forward energy curves look like, and the freight markets and so forth. This is sort of our best estimate of what the year will look like, although there's a lot of volatility out there, so things do shift. We don't tend to update this on a regular basis just because it moves all over the place. So this is meant to be directional what we expect to happen with a fair bit of volatility around it.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly from Stephens, Inc. You may begin.
Mark Connelly - Stephens, Inc.:
Thanks. Two questions. We've clearly seen fall ammonia application rates in the U.S. dropped sort of on a secular basis. So when you say that you're expecting a pick-up in fall application, do you see that as a shift from that long-term trend, or is that just a response to the increased acres? And then second question let me start on now, notwithstanding your earlier comments on buybacks. So I was a little surprised to see your capital allocation slide referenced your dividend growth rate. With the dividend flat for three years, is that slide suggesting that raising the dividend is something you think is important?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I'll take the first question. Regarding fall ammonia applications, there are two drivers for fall application. Number one is weather. And so when you – and we've had some constrained seasons in the last couple of years in the fall, where either snow came early or wet and cold weather came early. Last year, we had a very good window that was opened into December. And so, there's that issue. The other is price and value to the farmer. And so, what we've learned, I think, over the last, I'd say, five or so or maybe even longer years is you needs to be in an attractive value for the farmer to put down in the spring or in the fall, and we want to incent that. We want fall application of ammonia to continue, it's a good agronomic opportunity for the farmer. It leaves in the position to be able to quickly get into his field with his basic nitrogen needs fulfilled, and then can continue as they move with precision farming to variable applications in the spring, maybe some urea, some UAN to complement the fall application of ammonia. We, at CF, we value that that pool on our system. Because, as Tony has mentioned, we produce 24/7, 365, and we have our terminals throughout the Midwest to serve that business that were developed 40 or 50 years ago. We maintain them. We spend a lot of money, and we want those assets to be utilized and that product to go out a certain percentage of it in the fall. And so, I don't see a shift – actually I see a shift in trend probably returning to a higher level of fall application relative to today at $4 a corn for fall of 2019, that's attractive. The pricing that came out in Q3 and Q4 for a fall application is attractive, and we're seeing that product move to the ground today.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And Mark on the dividend growth rate, I don't think this slide has changed much in the last couple of years. So it's the same sort of slide with the same arrow on it that we've had, maybe with just an additional year tacked on. And really let me talk a little bit about kind of our philosophy on the dividend, which is that there are a number of our shareholders, large institutions that value having the dividend and want to see that grow and need to have that in there for us to be in the portfolio. And as you look back through kind of 2012, 2013 into 2014 and 2015, we started increasing the dividend in order to try to maintain what I would call a more average yield from the standpoint of the S&P 500, so that we were not an outlier one way or another. Now the unhappy consequence of the share price drop in 2015 and in through 2016 and 2017 is that the dividend yield look like it really blew out, although the dividend itself stayed the same amount. And now it's kind of coming back into a more normal range. And I would be delighted if we're in a place where our dividend looks meager by virtue of yield from the rest of the S&P 500, because it means our share price is back up where it belongs, and then we'll think about whether a more even handed approach between increasing dividend versus share repurchases make sense. But I think in the near-term back to Dennis' comments earlier, we view our shares as being a tremendous value right now, and that's kind of where our focus is.
Operator:
Thank you. And next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar from Citi. You may begin.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Yes. Hi. Good morning. Your pricing outlook for 2019 is $260 to $310 which is flat to down from where we are today. That doesn't match up with your bullish outlook, and the cost curve that you mentioned. Can you just slice that out for us? And then secondly – sorry, go ahead and I'll ask my question later.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, I was going to say look, a full year of $260 to $310 is above where this year has been so far. So, I think that is actually up year-on-year, and that's also sort of the floor cost. I think there's always back to Dennis' point, if you see demand developing, there's a point of view that there's a fair bit of catch-up demand that's got to show up in the Northern Hemisphere, both in terms of in Europe and North America. And so, inventories are kind of light in the channel, and with India tendering another one or two times, you could see the demand-vertical bar on the supply curve move farther to the right, and all of a sudden, you could be well above that number and entering into a demand-driven marketplace. So, what we're not doing is projecting what the year is going to be. What we're saying is, this is what the economics tell us as of today. But you end up with a lot of variabilities that can drive different outcomes. And then extrapolating that urea value to the other end values paints a pretty nice picture for 2019.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And then P.J., and I will just remind you what I said earlier which is that we assumed in these bars that the nameplate capacity for all of them runs at 95%, and obviously, you're well aware that that generally doesn't happen. The other point I would add is, Iran is likely going to be out of the marketplace. So, this is really a cost of input situations, and not just sort of saying the price will therefore be within this range. It may well be, I'm not saying it won't. But I wouldn't say it necessarily ends up in that way.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But the last point, so year-to-date, our average urea selling price is, call it, $260, $259. So, the midpoint of that range ends up being at like $285, that's $25 ahead of where we are today. That's another $350 million of EBITDA. So, we're not unhappy about that forward view of the world.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Good. You answered my question. I was going to ask you if you're being conservative. But let me ask you this, you mentioned that you're unlikely to build a new plant. So, do you think – given your comment on buy versus build, do you think M&A is attractive and is that something you would consider and in which geographic regions? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, I think, as Dennis pointed out earlier from a philosophy standpoint, spare or excess capital we'd like to be able to deploy back into the business and grow. And the benefit of buying versus building is, it's – you get immediate cash flow, you maintain the S&D you're not subject to all the risks of cost overrun and everything else that go along with it. And so, I think from that standpoint, buying particularly when assets are trading below replacement cost makes a lot of sense. For us who want to do it, though, back to Dennis' point, it's got to be clearly accretive versus our other alternatives. And our other alternatives are buying our shares back, at we believe a very attractive value. So, we're – in some ways, there's more synergies if the plants would be North American based, because they would just tuck directly into our network and our system, and there's logistics and other efficiencies that come along with that. But we'd be open to facilities outside the U.S. if the value proposition was such that we believe we could make a risk-adjusted return that was in excess of alternative uses of that cash. So, it's certainly something we're interested in, we're thinking about, but there's a relatively high hurdle that it's got to beat which is what else can we do with the capital, and right now, we can buy shares back at what we believe are pretty attractive prices.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Jonas Oxgaard from Bernstein. You may begin.
Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC:
Good morning, guys. If we can stay on that cost curve a little bit, you have Eastern Europe, Lithuania, Ukraine there on the right hand side. But in the history of urea, price has not once corresponded to the cost of these guys, right? So, they don't operate on price. They operate based on gas availability. That to me suggests that they're running flat out anyway. And so if we run into a shortage, shouldn't we blow right past them and into either the very high end of China intrasite or even into East Asia gas which is not on your cost curve, since it's a marginal producer?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Jonas, when you look at the cost curve and some of those countries that are in the far right side, and your point on they have operated, they have. They have domestic demand that is difficult to reach with some of the seaborne traded tons. When you look at this whole graph, what we're trying to present is where we think that price will trade of the seaborne traded ton and specifically to NOLA. But you're right, the Gazprom priced gas that goes to some of these Eastern European producers in Croatia or Hungary or Romania, yes, they have some of their own gas, Poland, does place them as high cost producers. And by the way, some of those plants are the ones that took extended downtime that we identified in this 5 million tons so they do take downtime. There is times when they can't compete, they were $9 gas this summer with pricing at the $250 level, and so they took one, two and three months or even more down or we're buying spot ammonia as did the Poles this past quarter. And so this is a fluid situation. Those were also older assets that we don't believe have been maintained as well. And so when you get into a difficult environment, it's difficult to make reinvestment or investment decisions for the future. And that's why I think as part of harking back to a previous question on the EU dumping case, there was an issue that some of those producers that were part of the EU dumping case did not invest to make other products that are more demanded in Europe like calcium ammonium nitrate or other products that have a higher value. And so there are several issues with that that drive specific to your question in those producers, but the cost curve is real, and we've seen it drive, you may get extraneous movements up and out or below like we saw on 2016 and 2017 in the summer, but then like this summer, we saw that move above and now that cost curve reflects $310, and we think there's a possibility that in 2019, it could go higher than that.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And Jonas, let me just tag on to the Bert's last comment there which is the last couple of years have been very difficult for the marginal producers globally. And so a lot of those plants have not been well maintained or the ones that have been offline for some period of time will have a very difficult time coming online with any sort of reasonable reliability. And so, I think that's kind of embedded back into your question as if you see some seasonal volatility just to the high side in terms of demand, you could easily bust through the top end of that curve and kind of be in a runaway demand driven part of the cycle in the near term. And honestly, that – there's a reasonable chance of that happening this year with the extra 4 million tons of corn acres increased with acres and so forth in the U.S. and the fact that there just is not a lot of excess material out there. So that doesn't suggest what could happen to the upside, it's just – that's what we think sort of the four conditions are.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of John Roberts from UBS. You may begin.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you. Could you give us a sense of your geographic mix of sales for 2018 U.S. versus international? And then maybe break international into export versus your UK operations?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
When we look at the mix that we have, we're about a 20 million ton producer of all – including Trinidad in the UK and movement of those product ton basis. In 2018, we will probably export around 1.4 million tons of UAN and about 400,000 tons of urea, and on ammonia probably 200,000 tons, maybe a little above that. And so, that does not include Trinidad ammonia. And so, when you look at what we do, you can just run that on an average, but we're not looking to the market – in terms of market-driven, we're price-driven and value-driven and profit-driven, we're not market share-driven. And so those numbers you can see as we see attractive places or attractive opportunities in North America, those tons could stay home or those tons can move abroad. And so, we liked what the export package brings to us in terms of the flexibility and optionality to the plants and to our mode options. And so we plan to continue to grow that if profitability is there.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. And then back on your global demand outlook on slide 11, do you think that India demand could stall out in the next year or so or even decline with the higher prices, and therefore greater subsidies they need? And their need to import from further away from Iran – than Iran?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, most of the Indian demand is basically for sub-susistance farming, a big piece of it is. And so, a reduction in major gen availability will lead directly to reduction in yields. And I think the one thing that the government does not want to have is a food crisis on (00:58:20). So, we do not see a reduction in the Indian consumption going forward.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We see growth. India is a huge planter and consumer of sugar, of wheat and end consuming crops, and they have grown in terms of their overall demand over the last several years has been positive, and those are the years when you go back to 2008, when urea was $500 to $900 a ton, their subsidy bill was $15 billion, if I remember correctly. So they have participated as the market has rolled up, they have continued to buy. There has been some announcements of new rebuilds of plants, but those were high cost plants that were shut down, because they were not competitive in previous years, so we don't know why they would be competitive today buying LNG at $10. So we still see them as a good export destination market. Their imports have averaged between let's say, 6 million to 8 million tons over the last five years and production holding fairly steady at 24 million tons. So, there are 30 million to 32 million ton consumer of urea and that's the end that they do consume, they're not an ammonia or UAN market, and we see that steadily growing on that 1% to 2% growth rate that we've projected for the world.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jason Miner from Bloomberg Intelligence. You may begin
Jason Miner - Bloomberg Intelligence:
Thank you. There's been a little buzz here about implementing E15 possibly. I wonder if you could talk about what you see as a possible impacts to nitrogen demand from that, and how you think those might unfold over time?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, we're positive, any movement of ethanol, I've told the team I would put it on my lawn if I could. But E15, the implement – probably, we're not going to see the impact of that until the summer months, and then as it rolls out and is available, but it is a positive, and it's a positive incremental gain on the consumption of ethanol. That as well as the exports when petroleum is above that $60 to $70 level and corn is around that $4 level, the ability to produce ethanol and export it to different countries even though China has cut that off, we're still seeing good growth and good demand externally. So the combination of E15 and exports is a nice boost for the ethanol business and that's about 50% of the grind today where you've got corn on feed, corn going to ethanol and then the remaining being exports, great sustainability for the demand for that product. And that's why we're seeing – when you're looking the corn to be in ratio, being positive, the extra juice has the ability to move that products. So if you're a farmer you're probably going to choose the insecurity with soybeans, you'll move more towards corn and that's why we're projecting at 93 million and possibly even 94 million acres of corn which is that incremental demand for nitrogen that as we're seeing is a positive movement for 2019.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Duffy Fischer from Barclays. You may begin.
Sean Gilmartin - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Hi. This is actually Sean Gilmartin in on for Duffy this morning. Thanks for taking the question. Real quickly, I was hoping you could just walk through kind of your longer term view on Chinese urea exports and kind of the main factors that are underpinning that view. Obviously, I'm assuming that the environmental regulations are holding. Is there anything else that we should be thinking about there? And if that longer term view doesn't hold, what's gone wrong? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I mean, I think if you look at what's going on with the reduction in coal production and really clamping down on some of the zombie industries and excess capacity, it's been fairly consistent in terms of the central government's approach. And urea is not a big employer of people, and it is a big environmental footprint from the standpoint of both particulate matter emissions as well as fresh water usage. And so, I think with the emphasis on trying to improve environmental quality, urea has got a big target on its back in terms of one of the worst industries One of the worst industries that allow access capacity to exist in. Our belief that was counterbalancing that food security and access to self-sufficiency from a nutrient perspective is important. And so, we believe that they want to maintain a self-sufficient industry. But you can do that pretty readily at existing levels which is why we've said that our view going forward is there're probably about 1 million or maybe 2 million ton exporter a year, probably pretty consistent with what happened this year in 2018 which effectively reduces their impact on the global trade coming off of when they were almost 14 million. So, this has been a tremendous benefit globally. And I think from our perspective, we don't see it coming back. Once these plants get turned off and are down for an extended period of time, and it's extraordinarily difficult to rebuild them. The one thing that is kind of concerning to us is, when you end up with like the Trudeau Government in Canada with the greenhouse gas regulations that they've put in, it's entirely possible that you'll shut down very low cost, low emitting plants in the rest of the world, which will keep Chinese plants operating because the world needs that kind of production. And really what Canada thinks is being like think globally, act locally is absolutely backwards. They're doing something that's harming the global environment instead of helping it. But our hope is that the Chinese regulators will continue to focus on improving local environmental quality and that will take care of itself over time.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Alexandre Falcao from HSBC. You may begin.
Alexandre Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc.:
Good morning. Thanks for the question. India has announced that they should become self-sufficient in five years in urea, no imports. How feasible you think that is? And I saw that in one of your slides you actually anticipate one of the plants in India to 2019, so is there any risk that this plan is probably delayed? That's the first question. Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We've been watching this in some of these plants are moving forward that were mothballed and when we went and visited as well as looked at pictures of what mothballed means in India it's abandoned and it's trees growing up in the plant. So it's a complete rebuild. Now obviously labor is cheaper in India and probably some costs are cheaper in India. But the net effect is you've got to operate these plants because it's the same technology worldwide and it's so many MMBtu of gas and then your operating costs. And so when you're importing LNG at $10, you're starting effectively with the urea cost just for gas of $240, and let's say their cash costs are less. But it is difficult in an environment that we just demonstrated with our cost curve to stay profitable. And so this was the issue with these plants 10 years ago when they were shut down, they weren't – or even longer, they weren't profitable, and they still have to build the pipe – the gas pipelines and the infrastructure to receive the gas. And there are plants that were built the Methanex plant that was built in India probably six or seven years ago that still really hasn't operated full speed. And so countries can do what – and governments can do what they want, and subsidize what they want, and those conditions can occur or go on for a period. But it's difficult to fight the gravity of economics.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The plant that's projected currently to be coming on line in 2019 is Chambal. And Bert and I met with them. We were in India last. And my sense is that their own internal projection, I'd take the over probably on that one, but we are betting in. But the government's initial desire was to try to get all of these plants built by private funds and the amount of uptake on that has been close to zero I think the Chambal plant was that was the only one so far. So as Bert said, it's always a risk. But if they're running them on $10 imported LNG, we're pretty happy if they actually run, because that means that with $2.80 gas in the U.S., we've got a pretty good spread there.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I'd like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks everyone for joining us. We look forward to seeing you at the various conferences this fall and winter.
Executives:
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Donald David Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Oliver S. Rowe - Scotiabank P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Joan Tong - Stephens, Inc. Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC Robin Fiedler - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the First Half and Second Quarter 2018 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Howard. I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are as listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning and thanks for joining the CF Industries first half and second quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President, Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Dennis Kelleher, CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Developments and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries reported its first half and second quarter 2018 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning everyone. Last night we posted our financial results for the second quarter and first half of 2018 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $468 million and $764 million, respectively. This compares to adjusted EBITDA of $303 million and $575 million for the same periods in 2017. These results reflect both higher global nitrogen prices as well as lower North American natural gas costs. Our results were also enabled by our unmatched network of plants, terminals and logistics capabilities which allowed us to effectively move our products in the weather shortened application period this year. We were able to ship a company record 5.5 million product tons in the second quarter with almost 4 million tons of that in May and June alone. As we look ahead to the rest of 2018, we are optimistic. Increased energy costs, particularly for producers in Europe and China, have raised and flattened the upper half of the global cost curve necessitating higher nitrogen prices. Longer-term, we expect the global nitrogen supply and demand balance to continue to tighten through at least 2022. Over the next several years, demand growth should outpace net global capacity additions as shown on slide 10. Because it takes roughly four years to construct an ammonia urea complex, it is unlikely that additional plants will come online during this time period beyond what is already visibly under construction today. At the same time, announced closures will offset much of the new capacity that does come online. In fact in 2018, the 4.3 million metric tons of nameplate urea capacity coming online is more than offset by the approximately 7 million tons of urea capacity expected to close permanently in Brazil, China and Kuwait. As a result, global nitrogen price recovery is underway. Because we are one of the world's largest producers of nitrogen products and enjoy among the very lowest energy costs, this price recovery should benefit CF Industries disproportionately in the years ahead. Our outlook for both the second half of 2018 and the longer term is increasingly positive. For these reasons, our board has authorized a $500 million share repurchase program, while we also reaffirm our commitment to repay the remaining notes due in May 2020 on or before their maturity date. Now let me turn it over to Bert, who'll talk about the stronger market environment in more detail. Then Dennis will discuss our financial position before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. When we spoke in May, we were confident that fertilizer demand delayed by unfavorable weather would fully materialize by the end of the first half. Once farmers got into their fields in May, this is exactly what happened. The technology that farmers use today enables them to catch up on plantings if there is a late start to the season. Our system is perfectly positioned to support a situation such as this. We're able to shift production to the most profitable product, store a significant amount of product for months, and move tons through to our network including exports to maximize our overall margin. As a result, we were ready this spring when farmers planted 89 million acres of corn in a short amount of time and required fertilizer in a very tight window. We waited for demand to emerge and sold our production and inventories into favorable market conditions. Prices in North America rose from the lows of early May. And our terminals were often the last source of prompt product in many areas. This allowed us to capture solid prices through the end of the spring season and the end of the quarter with low inventories for our system, as we always planned to do. Entering the third quarter, we are very pleased with our position in the strongest global nitrogen market in the last few years. Energy costs in other region have increased significantly. In Europe, the price of natural gas per MMBtu at the Dutch TTF natural gas hub was 53% higher in June 2018 compared to June 2017, leading to the idling of several plants. The Dutch TTF forward curve suggests continued increases in the price of natural gas in Europe into 2019, which will continue to support global nitrogen prices. The same case holds for Asian LNG. Chinese producers are facing higher energy costs as well with the price per metric ton of anthracite coal 32% higher in May 2018 compared to May 2017. Additionally, the enforcement in environmental regulations continues to reduce production. As a result, Chinese urea exports declined dramatically. China exported 710,000 metric tons of urea from January through June 2018, a 74% decrease from the same period in the prior year. This has supported urea barge prices at New Orleans at levels well above the unsustainable lows they reached during the second and third quarters last year. Through the first month of the third quarter, the price of urea at New Orleans has averaged almost $80 per ton higher than July 2017. Additionally, global demand should maintain a higher floor for global nitrogen prices. We expect strong demand in Brazil through the end of the year as that country makes up for lower imports in the first half of the year and the closure of the two Petrobras nitrogen plants. Providing further support, India closed their urea tender yesterday. We believe our positive outlook for nitrogen is shared by many of our customers, as reflected in the solid order book we have for fall ammonia applications and shipments for UAN and urea. Our successful ammonia and UAN fill program saw the return of some forward buying. All of these indicators point to the most positive nitrogen environment we've operated in for several years. With that, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the second quarter of 2018, the company reported net earnings per diluted share of $0.63, EBITDA of $470 million and adjusted EBITDA of $468 million. These results reflect our strong operational performance, higher global nitrogen prices and lower natural gas costs compared to the prior period. These factors along with lower interest payments due to our repayment of – last year of $1.1 billion in debt and our now full ownership of the Verdigris Nitrogen Complex drove substantial cash generation in the quarter. Our cash and cash equivalents balance was $728 million as of June 30. Toward the end of July, our cash and cash equivalents balance was around $900 million as strong demand and higher prices continued into the third quarter. As the cyclical nitrogen recovery continues, we expect that our cash generation will increase. As we have previously stated, we expect to repay the remaining $500 million of public senior notes on or before the May 2020 maturity date. In addition, and in line with our long-standing capital allocation philosophy, we are able to begin distributing excess capital to shareholders through the $500 million share repurchase program our board of directors has authorized. This will support our goal of increasing shareholder participation in our underlying business as measured by tons of nitrogen capacity per 1,000 shares. Looking ahead to the end of the year, we continue to expect our capital expenditures to be approximately $400 million to $450 million for new activities. Capital expenditures through the second quarter of 2018 were $145 million. As we have said previously, we have a higher number of planned turnarounds in 2018 compared to 2017. The majority of our turnaround activity will take place in the third and fourth quarters. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we move on to your questions, I want to recognize all of our employees for their outstanding work through the first six months of the year. They continue to execute our business exceptionally well. Most importantly, we are operating safely and efficiently. Our 12-month recordable incident rate continues to be well below 0.7, which is also well below industry averages. What's particularly impressive though is that our employees don't just avoid injuries, they actively work to prevent them through great safety innovations. We highlight the best of these each year through our Stephen R. Wilson Excellence in Safety Award and the finalist videos are posted on YouTube. This year our winning facility is the Woodward Nitrogen Complex. They designed a custom-built fan break and lockout system to improve the way we stop and control driveshafts for the large fans in our cooling towers. We believe this will improve safety not just at our facilities where we have more than 100 such fans, but across our industry and other industries as well. I encourage you to look at the finalist videos as they truly demonstrate the passion our employees have for safety and improving the way we work. CF is well positioned for both the near-term and longer-term. We continue to operate exceptionally well. We have a cost advantaged platform and industry fundamentals should continue to strengthen over the next several years. Because of our focused portfolio and our scale, we expect to benefit disproportionately. With that operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Our first question or comment comes from the line of Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
I guess all my question center just on the outlook for the industry and the cost curve. Clearly, you've seen the energy prices rise in Europe and China. I'm just trying to think about some of the changes you've made to announce closures on the urea side. I think you've forecasted 1.9 million more closures in China this year on the urea side. And also want to think about ammonia and what that does in Europe to ammonia prices and how to think about the merchant ammonia market for the balance of the year?
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Okay. Well looking at our outlook, we were pretty clear in terms of what's happening around the world at different supply points with cost of production whether that'd be European gas costs being in the $7 to $8 range, coal costs increasing year-on-year as well as the limitations on pollution and we're seeing that today. There was announcement that came out that China is estimated to be operating at 51%. At that level of operation, that barely supplies the Chinese market. So the millions of tons that we have seen come out of China over the last several years is likely to continue to decrease to the levels of maybe even less than 1 million tons. And then the other announcements that Tony discussed, Kuwait and Brazil; and so all those on the net positive or on the net supply and demand position of nitrogen is positive for the market.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The increase in the closures in China is based on additional announcements that have come out since then. So we're just compiling public announcements made by companies and roll those together. And to your last point on ammonia, as you've seen the market move, whether that be Tampa, Black Sea or Baltic on the values of FOB ammonia, have increased month-on-month and we expect those to continue to roll up or increase as a result of some of these plants that are now offline and were buying or importing ammonia to run their upgrade just on a competitive position. And CF has done that ourselves at our UK facility, bringing in extra ammonia at a cost lower than we can produce in the UK.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. As Bert said, its $7 to $8 gas. If you're a European producer, you're talking about something well north of $250 to probably closer to $300 of cash cost. And so, it's a tough market out there.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. And the other thing I'd add – this is Dennis, sorry. If you think about our outlook, our outlook as Tony stated, is for tightening market and also a higher cost curve as we go into sort of the period now to save the early 2020. And the reason for that is not just the forward curve on the various hydrocarbon inputs that are part of the cost curve, but also some leading indicators. If you haven't read it, I encourage you to read the IEA July 17, 2018 report. And what it shows is that if you think about it from an upstream perspective, exploration spending is down significantly, has been for a number of years now and it's at the lowest point as a percentage of the major's total investment. Greenfield investment in oil and gas is also down. We do see increased spending in shale in North America primarily in the Permian, and that is subject obviously, as you know, to steep decline rates. We've also seen onshore brownfield investment increase, but that's mostly by NOCs, national oil companies and a lot of that is rate acceleration which means the barrel produced today can't be produced later. Liquefaction investment is down from a high in 2014 of about $35 billion to $15 billion in 2018 and it's going down. And IEA believes that LNG will tighten significantly between now and 2023. And in addition to that, coal mining and washing is down 13% year-on-year, 17% to 16% and in China, it's down 15%. So as we think about the various elements of the cost curve and we look at these things as leading indicators, that gives us confidence that the sort of the forward pricing curves that we're looking at while there will still be volatility around those things, our sense is that they will be around a higher structural mean.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Other than in North America where of course the forward curve is very attractive.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yes.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So again, that's really – it's both the S&D balance in nitrogen and also the global cost position where we said that give us a lot of confidence about the future.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Great. Hey, guys. So just given the final ramp up of some of UAN capacity in the U.S., can you just talk a little more about how you're projecting the balance for the U.S. UAN market given the current production mixes as well as your long-term expectations? And then just also just any quick update on your international product development efforts especially in LatAm? Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning. Well, so looking at the UAN capacity, we have seen the plants that were constructed over the last four, five years, ours included, come online and operate fully in 2018. And so as we've talked about 2018, it's been a year of transition, these plants figuring out their new logistical limitations, constraints and opportunities. And I think the balance in the United States what we've seen is imports have come down from over 3 million tons and we think that will level off probably into the 1.5 million ton range or need to. And you've seen CF expand into different markets out of the need to balance our production going into more of the East Coast of the United States, West Coast of the United States, as well as, like you mentioned, the international development. And we've been very successful in moving our UAN to South America, Australia, Europe and even Ukraine. And these are markets we've enjoyed developing and developing not only the relationships with the supply opportunity for us. And so, as Tony mentioned, with our low cost gas structure, we believe and obviously the opportunity we have on freight coming out of NOLA which has been advantaged. It positions us very well. And so, in South America we have been developing. We're the largest supplier in Argentina. We've been spending considerable time in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Mexico for those markets to help grow. We believe they will continue to grow especially Brazil.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And we see what, a couple hundred thousand tons more likely growth next year in terms of Latin America consumption?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I'd say it's conservative.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. And it's one of the – I think Bert and his team have done a tremendous job of, which is really opening up different markets for us. And Chris, because of the question about what else is going on and what are we doing particularly in Latin America, I just want to bring up one topic that has been sort of talked about a little bit. We have not received formal notification of this yet, but there's a rumor out there that the European Commission is looking at an anti-dumping case relative to UAN imports into Europe. And from our perspective, nitrogen and UAN in particular, it's a global market. We're price takers like everybody else and prices are basically set by other nitrogen alternatives, but I think what this really demonstrates is how economically challenging it is for the European producers given their cost structure. And life is tough in the fourth quartile. They already have a 6.5% protectionist tariff for imported products and yet they're still really struggling economically. And this is essentially a move to try to prop up the European producer economics really at the end of the day at the expense of European farmers. And so while the Commission may go and do this evaluation, I think it's politically going to be really hard for them to want to go ahead and essentially sponsor kind of increased cost to the farming community when it's already in the area that requires a fair bit of support and subsidy. And for us, Europe is not that critical. It represents only about 1% of our EBITDA. And because Bert and his team are really developing Latin America and other alternatives for us, we can usually redirect those tons someplace else regardless of what the European Commission may or may not do. Again, this is all a little preemptive because we haven't received formal notice yet, but I just don't want people freaking out if and when it comes, because we've already got mitigation factors in place. And again, at the end of the day, all that's going to happen here is European farmers are going to have to pay more for their product.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Hi. Just wanted to delve a little bit deeper into the fill program. I know you mentioned you had successful UAN and ammonia fill. And I know the UAN fill came out a little bit earlier. But maybe you could talk about how your forward book looks versus last year and kind of your strategy going forward. It seems like you might have been able to sell a little more than you did. So any commentary on the fill programs would be good.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, Michael. I think we're – I don't think, actually – I know we're pleased with our fill programs this year and how we executed and how the team performed and worked with our customers to do this in a logical and organized manner. And so each year the fill programs are different depending on the economics, the economics of fertilizer, the economics of corn and soybeans and what's going on at the farm gate as well as global economic conditions. And we've had the program start as early as early June and last year we went in late July. This year we launched on July 9, figuring that was an opportunistic time because of those factors that I earlier articulated aligned and positioned the company well with expectations with our customers. So we put a program out on UAN and it was, in terms of overall volume, larger than the previous year. But you have to remember in 2017 and 2016, those were both very small years for a fill program, purposefully set out that way by CF because pricing or nitrogen pricing during that period was very low. And so it was not very attractive for us to put a big program. Roll into 2018, and as I mentioned urea is at $80 over last year's July posted pricing. And UAN in the same vein, we were able to launch at a higher level, received well by our customers. We think it's a good economic opportunity for them as well as ourselves. And so we're pleased with it. And same thing with ammonia. Ammonia was launched in mid-June for fall applications. And we thought that pricing structure was attractive for fall. There are two periods of application of ammonia in the United States, November generally and April. And so we wanted to have a portion of our book out for that period and there's still more to be done. And so I think we're well-positioned for the latter half or back half of 2018 with ample opportunities to move our product for each of the plants, which is a logistical challenge always. And then we'll see what happens in Q4.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
All right. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Don Carson from Susquehanna Financial. Your line is open.
Donald David Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you. Yes, Bert, can you comment on your overall level of export activity across not just UAN, but ammonia and urea as well? And what are the prices relative to what you can realize in the NOLA area? And are you still seeing some of this index-linked imports coming into New Orleans and depressing prices?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Hey. Good morning, Don. So the overall export program, we view it as an opportunistic leverage point for our whole complex of operation. And so as we develop relationships in different countries, we're developing relationships in the United States and Canada also. The beauty of Donaldsonville is its leverage capability, it's on the pipeline, it's on the water, it's got deepwater docks, it's got rail loading, it's got truck loading. And so exports, as it's currently configured, is we're able to load close to Panamax size vessels of dry product as well as 40,000 to almost 50,000 tons of UAN. So the total volume is roughly 1.5 million tons of UAN, it looks like, for this year, probably 0.5 million tons of urea, and then ammonia is also opportunistic as we roll into the fall and see how that goes if there are better opportunities. But pricing-wise, it's similar to generally better. We were surprised when we went to IFA in June this year and what we were able to transact for what NOLA was pricing, as NOLA has been in a discount. And so if we're able to move product, we're ambivalent to where that product moves. If we can make more money exporting product, we will continue to do that. If North America is more attractive, you'll see exports decrease. And that's kind of how we look at it. It's kind of a flywheel to our system.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But I think, Don, though we do see less tons actually showing up in NOLA or some of the other import on an index basis. I think a number of the Middle Eastern producers sort of recognize that they were leaving money on the table by doing that. And in fact, some of the people doing the importing were not able to realize any kind of price appreciation on the capital that they were putting out for inventory given the excess amount of tonnage that was coming through. So we are beginning to see, I'd say, a more rational behavior out there on the importer side. And I think that's constructive. My guess is it'll take another six months to a year to really shake itself out but certainly an improving dynamic.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks, and good morning, guys. Just looking at your slide 22 and it's a little different from the one in the last presentation just because you removed 15 and added 22, but there're obviously some other changes as well. And particularly, we already talked about your expectations for 2018 closures but it looks like in 2019 the expectations for closures is also higher. So could you just address that? Is that just public data or is that a forecast? And then in 2020 – now 2022 is on the slide, it wasn't on the prior slide. So any changes to sort of the cadence of capacity additions in the out years things delayed, et cetera? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. So what's baked into this chart is really kind of the details on a lot of that. It is shown on the next page, on 23, which kind of gives you the kind of the new global urea plants. And then on 24, it shows you kind of what has been identified in various announcements and filings around shutdowns. And so what we've got in here basically is all announced other than there is one slug in 2019 that are based on where those plants set in the global cost curve and where pricing is. And what we've looked at is the amount of volume on plants that are losing more than $25 per ton on just an energy cost basis. And those that are in places where there is a pretty rigid enforcement on some of the emissions and environmental standards. And that kind of was baked into what that number looks like. So, there is firm announcements underlying all that kind of 2 million tons. And that 2 million is based on, again, a pretty rigorous both economic and kind of environmental political view of what's going on in China.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. And just as a follow-up. In the second half of the year, I think we're all aware there's some truck issues in Brazil. Are you hearing any reports of sort of the uncertainty around that causing any issues in terms of getting deliveries in country or just raising cost or changing economics? Any comments about that?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We have. I was in Brazil last month and I have my own kind of channel checks and conversations with the people I used to deal with. And it's caused us significant amount of angst, cost and disruption both on the product moving down the port and product moving up or fertilizer moving up into the market. So delays, again, costs and restructuring and that's still to settle out on what the decision point will be, on what changes within investment in logistical asset. So I do believe though, however that product will be delivered and they will exceed the tonnage that was shipped last year and consumed, but it's going to be hundreds of millions of dollars that will be wasted.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thank you very much.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Vincent.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Ben Isaacson from Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Oliver S. Rowe - Scotiabank:
It's Oliver Rowe on for Ben. Thanks for taking my question. So it sounds like once you pay back the next $500 million of debt, you'll be at your target leverage. Is it all buybacks from there or do you think there's still opportunities in nitrogen consolidation that you could take advantage of?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well I mean as we've talked about, I do think the industry is going to continue to go through waves of consolidation. It's one of the ways to drive efficiency into the supply chain, and at the end of the day that's good for all market participants including farmers. It's interesting that you asked that, because as we look at it, we are continuing to invest in what we view as the best fleet of nitrogen assets out there by virtue of our share repurchase program. And we think about it kind of as $1 billion of capital that's been allocated and half of that is going towards share repurchase and half of it's going towards the debt repayment. But as you say, once the 2020s are gone, we feel like we've gotten the balance sheet to a place that is efficient and sustainable. And so, we'll see what comes along. But right now, our best investment is in our own shares and we're excited about it. As Dennis mentioned, we closed the month of July with about $900 million of cash on the balance sheet and we feel like we're in a really good position to be able to go out and invest in our own shares.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. And I think the other thing in that share repurchases to plan out to people on the credit side is that the shares come with roughly less right now of 3% yield, so all the shares that we do take up pursuant to a share repurchase program also have the effect of reducing fixed charges, increasing our funds flow. So I think the actions that we've talked about today, obviously reaffirming one and announcing other both of those things I think are credit positive.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar from Citi. Your line is open.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Yes. Hi. Good morning.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, P.J.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Tony, if your shale gas advantage continues, why shouldn't we expect a second wave of urea or nitrogen plants similar to ethylene? I mean you are still a net importer of urea and should a low-cost region be a net importer?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean I think the issue really comes down to one of what is the economics associated with the cost of building a new plant and what is your expected return profile on that incremental capital that you're putting into play. And the analysis that we've done sort of suggests that $2 per MMBtu of cost advantage can cover about $250 million of CapEx, but what you see in North America is that because you cannot get LSTK lump sum contracts on the construction side, typically the cost to build in North America is well more than $250 million, and in some cases, it could be $400 million to $500 million to $600 million of incremental cost. And so at some level, even if gas is almost free, it's really hard to want to build new plants here because the labor cost is so high and so unpredictable. And so our expectation is, like you see going on, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, places that you can much better control what your capital costs are and still have access to low cost gas, albeit you're biting off a fair bit of political risk, are the likely places where you're going to see capacity added going forward, but also I mean it's great to have assets here, but it's tough to want to build new ones. I think that's the way that I would think about it.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Okay. Thank you. I'll follow-up with you on that one offline.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Okay.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Secondly what are your expectations for Chinese exports in the second half? Do you see slightly more exports in the second half? And longer-term, do you think China will become a net importer of urea? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean I think for China to become a net importer is sort of in some ways more optimistic than what we are planning on. We think that China exporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million tons to 2 million tons a year leaves on the very reliable and much healthier kind of internal industry and it also means that they're kind of self-sufficient. And so, I wouldn't expect exports in the back half of the year to look dramatically different than the front half of the year. I think what we're seeing kind of behavior out of China that's very consistent with the position that the central government has taken with respect to closing down excess capacity zombie industries, with respect to try and put some real teeth in terms of environmental regulation, and emissions reductions, and trying to have a sustainable and viable kind of coal industry and power industry. And I think all of those things are continued to be demonstrated by the actions that they're taking and there's nothing there that we've seen as being inconsistent.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Andrew Wong from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Hey good morning. So as you've highlighted, energy prices definitely have supported higher cost curves and looking at what happened last year during the winter months, we saw LNG and your own nat gas prices spike up, which I think could potentially happen again this year. So we didn't see a cost curve that you published this quarter which is understandable given all the moving parts, but I'm just wondering what's your view on the cost curve range for urea prices this year and maybe what's the normalized price range given today's energy environment? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Andrew, we typically only do kind of one cost curve a year because as you point out, it's very much a moment in time view forward. And as currencies change, as oil and energy costs change, coal costs change, it moves all over the place and we would be forever publishing and then only to find that the day later it's out-of-date already, but as you said, or as we talked about, the higher energy deck (00:38:05) and in particular the higher forward curve going forward as we put forward on slide 13 in our materials sort of portend a much higher global cost curve. And the way we think about the curve is that on kind of energy costs that we see around the globe, that somewhere in the kind of $250 million to $290 million range is pretty much what's required in order to keep the total capacity operating that the world is demanding. And so the prices that are being exhibited today in terms of what India was able to close their tender at, which was pretty close to $275 million prices in NOLA, are all consistent with that. We think the world actually is operating in a pretty rational range right now vis-à-vis the cost curve.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from John Roberts from UBS. Your line is open.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you. Nice quarter. I think the North American crop may mature a little bit early this year, which may give a little wider window for ammonia applications in the fall. Do you expect a larger than normal seasonal shift to ammonia this fall? And would that actually be a good mix shift for you?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We do expect the crop to come off. Both beans and corn are maturing early and that'll give extra time for field work and position ammonia application as early as late October if the weather and temperatures cooperate. And so on the value spread today that we project between fall and spring and what is available, I would expect that those who are focused on those issues, which should be every farmer, would be encouraged to apply fall application ammonia. So we're positive on that.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And the good news really, John, for us is we're well positioned to capitalize on a fall application run. And if weather doesn't cooperate from the standpoint of making it conducive to put it down, then we're well positioned to take advantage of the increased demand come spring. So we feel pretty good about our distribution network and the optionality that we have there.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Stephen Byrne from Bank of America. Your line is open.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes. Thank you. You have this global nitrogen demand buildup chart on slide 12, that's very interesting. I'd like to hear your views on what you think is going on in China that has led to kind of a moderation or even a contraction in their demand. Do you think that is in the acreage shifting or more just prudent use of nitrogen there?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Go ahead.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think you're seeing a combination of both. I think what's happening in China is, you have to remember, 50% of their urea demand is used in fruits and vegetables, and it's a smaller percentage used in corn as in the United States. We're obviously heavily driven by corn, then wheat and cotton. And so in terms of demand, that's where I would expect you're seeing some drop off.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. And I do think, Steve, that there has been a real push towards being a little more efficient and appropriate in terms of application rates in China. And that's why, as we look forward in terms of what the aggregate demand profile looks like, it really is at the end of the day, being driven by a combination of global population increase. Protein consumption per capita is continuing to go up, particularly in parts of the developing world. And you've got global GDP that is really driving the industrial use. So we feel very comfortable in terms of the sustainable and consistent demand growth that kind of underpins our view of what is driving the tightening on the S&D side of nitrogen. And it's borne out sort of over a pretty long time horizon here, that while there's a little bit of volatility, the numbers continue just to march forward.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Mark Connelly from Stephens, Incorporated. Your line is open.
Joan Tong - Stephens, Inc.:
Good morning. This is Joan Tong for Mark Connelly. Quick questions on hedges. As you guys – the hedges are running off. I'm just wondering if you're considering any further changes in your hedging strategy.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We're really pleased to be kind of spot buyers of North American natural gas. I think what's been demonstrated is, don't bet against the technology innovation of the people doing E&P. And the fact that we're able to really take advantage particularly in some of the in-market basins, SCOOP/STACK and the Permian and so forth is tremendous. So we're really comfortable in North America being kind of spot buyers. I will say we do think about basis differentials off of Henry Hub. And once in a while, we'll take advantage of what we think is an appropriate basis differential, but that's not hedging the underlying molecules. It's just locking in the spread. We may think about Europe as being in a little bit different quadrant than North America, because they are sort of chronically gas-short and there's much more volatility to the upside there. And so, we've thought about at point in time, does it make sense to lock some of our European gas for the UK? The problem is the forward curve is pretty unattractive right now. And so we haven't done that, but I think philosophically, we're in the same spot relative to North America, which is it's great to be a buyer of North American gas.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Jonas Oxgaard from Bernstein. Your line is open.
Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC:
Good morning, guys.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Hey, Jonas.
Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC:
First, with your commitment to safety I'm somewhat surprised to see slide 18, that ergonomic setup does not look safe to me, but you need to give him a higher chair.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We'll work on that. I think they're height adjustable. Maybe he just likes to sit well, but we'll work on that.
Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC:
That said, I was wondering, we've seen the closure of the Kuwaiti plant earlier this month. We're expecting the Brazilian ones later this year. Are there possibilities of other plants outside of China closing like this on the gas availability? I would never have thought that that would be a reason to close the urea plant in 2018, but here we are. And as a follow-up on that, is there an opportunity for you guys to go in and buy those decommissioned plants for cheap and keep them on standby in case there is another up-cycle at some point in the distant future?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, Jonas, there are a couple of other plants that have had some real problems including the CFT2000 plant, (00:45:52) which Coke has a big position in, in Trinidad. They were offline for several months because they were – our inability to get appropriate gas contract with NGC in Trinidad. You've also seen while it's not directly in our business, but Proman also in Trinidad is taking down one of their methanol lines. And I think any of the Trinidadian operators that have gas contracts that are expiring are facing real problems in terms of being able to secure supply at a level that allows them to even make enough cash to conduct turnaround activities. Our interest in terms of buying some of these real marginal plants that already have been capital starved in other parts of the world is pretty low. I'd rather take that cash and deploy it against share repurchases instead, but as we look around the world, there are other geographies that are really challenged. And again it's because they've been kind of starved in the plants of capital and running on fumes and the profitability is really tough and I'm including places like Croatia and Romania. And I think the sanctions in Iran are creating some challenges too. So Siemens has closed their offices there and moved everybody out. Their ability to get technical expertise for commissioning or maintenance activities, availability of spare parts means that over time we would expect there to be, from an operating rate perspective, some real challenges there. So I think, again, just stepping back big picture, it really is helping to drive our optimism around the kind of the intermediate term here.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I think, Jonas, what I would add to that is as we look around the world and think about opportunities, we think strategically about the source of supply for feedstock. And what we look at is, is the feedstock there? If it's not there, is the investment going in to put it there if it's missing. And if that investment is going in, what's the timing and development cost per MMBtu, what are the lifting costs and therefore what does that portend for a potential gas price into a facility? So we look at all those things and I would just echo what Tony said. It's really good. It's good to be us and good to be here.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And the one other thing that I'll point out is if you look at, on a global basis kind of announced turnarounds, this is a record summer for the amount of global capacity that's coming offline. And I think that also really helps support our view of the second half of 2018, which is just there's not going to be the material that's floating around out there and we see a very constructive price environment going forward.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Robin Fiedler - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. This is Robin on for Joel. Thanks for taking my questions. You mentioned that you expect higher number of turnarounds this year versus last. Can you give us an idea of how many turnarounds have already occurred in the first half? And maybe if you can break down a split for turnarounds in Q3 and Q4? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. We typically don't give that information. And to be honest, I'm not going to start now. Our operating rate in the first half of the year was consistent with our production in the first half of last year and we did say we're having more turnarounds and those are really second half events. At the end of the day, we expect our aggregate production to be within about a couple of percentage points of where we were last year from the total tonnage standpoint. So we're not talking about huge numbers, but as we talked about in the first quarter, given the weather delayed application that was going on and the fact that first quarter volumes were low, we pretty much sell what we make and we run the plants 24/7 365 to the extent that we can and that really came good in the second quarter. So that's why we think about it as the first half results as opposed to just second quarter because you got to understand kind of what opportunity weather gave you in the first quarter versus not. And so, think about the second half of the year as being we're going to again pretty much try to sell what we make and we'll be within a couple of percent of aggregate volumes of last year.
Robin Fiedler - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
All right. Thanks. And just lastly, should we expect concurrent buybacks as the 2020s are repaid or will you wait until after that's done?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I don't know that I would necessarily think about those as being one for one concurrence. I think we're leaving ourselves some flexibility in terms of how we allocate it, but if we're – when we pay back the 2020s, there's a make-whole associated with them where we're effectively paying for the use of that money anyway. The difference between leaving them outstanding and paying them early is pretty trivial. So, given the fact that we're effectively paying for the use of that money, I'd rather take out shares because taking out the shares does, as Dennis mentioned, lower our fixed charges based on the dividend yield whereas paying the bonds early, that cash is going out the door in the form of the make-whole. So no, I would not expect it to be ratable one-for-one.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question or comment comes from the line of Charles Neivert from Cowen. Your line is open.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Good morning, guys. Just a quick question on the summer fill; the amount of tonnage you guys did into the fill programs for the fall, how much of the third quarter is sort of already taken care of and how much do you still have to sell, so to speak, in percentage terms or tonnage terms however you care to answer it. So, how much forward are you guys at this point?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. So we generally don't give that information out in terms of our book and we're generally either positive or negative in terms of our communication. And so I'd just reiterate we believe the program was very positive. It went out at the price levels that we had targeted and we're able to position each plant in good shape in terms of logistically in what they're able to; one, operate; two, move; and three, then leverage our terminals. And so for each ammonia, urea and UAN, I think we're solid through Q3 and then we'll take a look at how we roll forward for the back half of the year and close out the year.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean Charlie, the other thing I'd say is, obviously if you look at where pricing is this year compared to last, it's well up and there was good appetite on the part of buyers, but Bert has been judicious in terms of the appropriate amount of book-to-bill that gives us a lot of operating flexibility and yet leaving us enough gas in the tank to take advantage of opportunities as the balance of the year develops. So we're really comfortable with kind of how all of that's been positioned and again that's part of what has driven our authorization to do the share buybacks beginning now just because we're feeling really comfortable about this year and the longer-term.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks everyone for joining us on the call. And if you have any additional questions, feel free to reach out to me.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This concludes the program. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Robin Fiedler - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC Joan Tong - Stephens, Inc. Alexandre Pfrimer Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc. John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by, and welcome to the First Quarter 2018 CF Industry Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Huey, and I'll be your coordinator for today. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries first quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, CEO; Dennis Kelleher, CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development, and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries reported its first quarter 2018 results yesterday afternoon. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail, discuss our outlook, and then, host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC, which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on the website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the first quarter of 2018, in which, we generated adjusted EBITDA of $296 million after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. We also added $100 million of cash to the balance sheet, which is on top of a temporary increase in working capital from higher inventory as a result of delayed spring shipments. As product shipments continue to progress in Q2 and inventory levels fall, we will pull that extra cash back out. This is solid performance in the quarter where cold and wet weather delayed fertilizer purchases and applications across the Northern Hemisphere. It reflects strong execution by the CF team, capitalizing on lower North American natural gas costs and higher global nitrogen prices despite the delayed spring and delayed shipments. Our safety performance continued to be outstanding through the quarter as our rolling 12-month recordable incident rate was down to 0.60 incidents per 200,000 work hours. This is our lowest rate ever and well below industry averages. It is a tribute to our employees' ongoing focus. And because of their focus and commitment, our plants continued to run very well. Despite multiple disruptions of electricity supply at our Donaldsonville plant, along with plant turnarounds and maintenance activities across the system, we produced more than 2.5 million tons of gross ammonia, equal to the first quarter of last year. Additionally, we continue to enjoy the benefits of location as our structural advantage from access to low cost North American natural gas is growing. While energy costs in many other parts of the world were rising, ours were falling. In fact, during the quarter, the majority of our inland plants had natural gas costs lower than Henry Hub due to favorable basis differentials. We expect this favorable situation to persist. Our in-region assets have access to some of the most productive gas basins in North America. Technology is improving rapidly and increasing the ability to extract natural gas at ever lower costs. As a result, we expect to remain at the low end of the global cost curve. Along with the favorable North American natural gas environment, we are seeing more balance in the global supply and demand for nitrogen driven by reduced production in high cost regions, notably Eastern Europe and China. This is supporting global urea prices well above the lows of 2017. Producers in China face high energy prices year-over-year along with increased environmental regulation and enforcement. The impact of these factors is best illustrated in the dramatic decline of Chinese urea exports. Through the first quarter, Chinese urea exports were 77% lower than the same period in 2017. But the impact is not limited to China and Eastern Europe. Two unprofitable urea plants in Brazil are expected to close later this year and production in Trinidad has been interrupted due to gas availability. The factors that helped drive our first quarter performance will support our cash generation over the long-term, access to low-cost North American gas, the strength and flexibility of our network, our best-in-class safety and asset utilization and the consistent ever growing demand for nitrogen. With the recovery in nitrogen already underway, we expect to benefit disproportionately going forward. Now, let me turn the call over to Bert who will talk about the current market environment in more detail. Then Dennis will discuss our financial position before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. Weather was a dominant theme for the industry in the first quarter. Wet and cold weather delayed fertilizer applications across the Northern Hemisphere. The impact of these delays was particularly pronounced given how early the spring application season started in parts of North America in 2017. We are well prepared for this environment. Our team has done a great job leveraging the more than 3 million tons of ammonia, UAN, and urea storage that we have in North America to meet our customers' needs over the next two months. Indeed, demand should be strong. We expect nitrogen consumption in North America to be approximately equal to last year given anticipated crop plantings. Despite delayed spring, farmers are far better situated today to catch up on plantings given the technology they employ. Further, we have seen later and reduced pre-plant applications of ammonia because of the weather. Growers unable to apply pre-plant have the option to apply post-plant and side-dress ammonia. We also anticipate strong demand for upgraded products in order to make up for the lighter than normal, early spring ammonia applications. We believe the industry's ability to supply all this volume to all areas will be challenged by the significant logistical constraints of poor rail service, stretched trucking resources, and tighter application windows. All of these factors should enable us to capture higher prices across most segments compared to the second quarter of last year. Over the next quarter, NOLA urea barge prices averaged – or over the first quarter, NOLA urea barge prices averaged about $13 per ton higher than the year before. In the first five weeks of the second quarter of 2018, they have averaged nearly $40 per ton higher compared to the same period in 2017. However, NOLA prices remain at a discount to international parity. NOLA urea barge prices traded at an average of $13 per ton below global parity during the first quarter, a spread that has grown in the second quarter. These prices continue to discourage excessive imports into the region. North American urea and UAN imports from July through February has fallen 38% and 35% respectively. Even with these declines, North American urea imports will be the third highest in the world, and we will remain an import-dependent region for the foreseeable future. The first quarter was challenging because of the weather, but these challenges play into our company's strengths. We're well-prepared for the next two months and have the team, assets, and flexibility to meet customer needs. And with that, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the first quarter of 2018, the company reported net earnings per diluted share of $0.27 and EBITDA of $302 million. After taking into account the items detailed in our press release, our adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was $296 million. We generated $101 million of cash during the quarter and our cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet rose to $936 million as of March 31. Subsequent to the end of the year – sorry – subsequent to the end of the quarter, we used $388 million of our cash on hand to purchase all the remaining publicly held common units of Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. The impact of this purchase will be reflected in second quarter cash flows. Interest expense was $60 million compared to $80 million in the first quarter of 2017 due to our repayment of $1.1 billion in high-cost debt in December of 2017. Capital expenditures for the first quarter of 2018 were $68 million. For the year, we continue to expect to spend approximately $400 million to $450 million for new activities. As we have said previously, we have a higher number of planned turnarounds in 2018 compared to 2017. The impact of these on our capital expenditures will not be felt until later this year when most of them are scheduled to begin. I will now provide some thoughts regarding our expectations for 2018, understanding that this is subject to changes in market and other conditions. So far in 2018, our product prices have generally been higher than the same period in 2017 and we expect that trend to continue. Natural gas prices have also been favorable so far this year and we expect our natural gas costs will be lower in 2018 than in 2017. As I mentioned earlier, we have more turnarounds in 2018 than 2017, and this will have a modest impact on production volumes in the second half of the year. Taking all of these factors into account, we believe it is likely that our adjusted EBITDA for 2018 will exceed our 2017 results. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we move on to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for their hard work this quarter. At times, it appeared that spring would never come. But the team kept their focus, worked safely, and made sure we were well positioned for the application season when it arrived. As we have said in the past and it continues to be true today, we view this business on a six-month and a full-year basis. Weather patterns may move product shipments and applications out of one quarter into another, but we run our plants safely and efficiently 24/7, 365. And over the course of an application season or a year, we are roughly going to ship what we make. Gas cost is low with basis differentials in our favor. Nitrogen pricing has begun its cyclical recovery. Our plants are running very well, and spring is finally upon us. We're excited about the opportunities ahead. With that, operator, we will now open the call to your questions.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Our first question in queue will come from the line of Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Just to start maybe a little bit more discussion about the spring would be helpful. And as we think about the next two months and the late planting, I mean, how, can you guys help size the risk to ammonia shipments in the second quarter, and what that could do to the urea and UAN markets? And given the lower imports that we've seen of both of those products, how pricing could play out in inland markets if people need those for side and top-dress applications in May, June, and potentially even into July?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Good morning, Adam. This is Bert. And it has been an odd spring. In my 10 years back in North America, this is the latest we've seen movement. We've had some early springs and some late, and ammonia generally does go down. Over the last several years, more ammonia has moved to spring from the fall. And I think this challenges that thinking. As we're looking at where we are today, we've seen a lot of ammonia go out the door over the last week, last probably 10 days. And so as we look at the two months forward, there is a risk to pre-plant ammonia – the volume of pre-plant ammonia that could go down. But as I said in my prepared remarks, I do anticipate some of that to move to a post-plant or a side-dress application. Now, instead of putting down 120 pounds to 180 pounds per acre, you might put down 50 pounds to 100 pounds per acre. So, if that does happen, I think you'll see some transition into urea and UAN. And you're exactly right, that premium in the Midwest probably will either hold or expand during that period as the logistical rush to move those additional products. Because if you lose 200,000 tons to 300,000 tons of ammonia, that could be 1 million tons of UAN. So, we're pretty positive going into the next couple months, but it's going to be fast. We need to get, I think we'll see a planting report coming out next week with a large or a big acceleration in the acres planted and the percentage planted, and that will signal that the seed's in the ground and that we're having to move to urea and UAN.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from the line of Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Your line is now open. Pardon me, Steve. Your line is open. Please check your mute.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi, Bert. Can you hear me?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We can.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We can.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Sorry about that. I, just following up on that line of questioning you just had there. Would you say that some of the volume shortfall in the first quarter may have been somewhat intentional in that you were holding back on some of your spot sales knowing that your second quarter could get tight as you saw imports well below prior year levels?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. As you're looking at imports into the United States or into North America, since July and really since the beginning part of the year, they are lower. As I said, 38% and 35% respectively for urea and UAN. We have seen additional tons come online through new capacity from our domestic industry but there will be tons moved from Q1 and Q2. And yes, we did build inventory in anticipation of probably a normal spring and some of that will then move into Q2 just as a result of the weather as I said. So I do expect it to be tight, yes, especially up in the Midwest.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citi. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Yes. Thank you. So, a quick question. NOLA moved to a bigger discount in 2Q compared to, sorry, 1Q compared to last quarter. And it looks like the 2Q discount has grown again. And in the last quarter, you talked about, I think, that NOLA should go to a premium, so U.S. can attract all the imports. And that didn't happen. And now you're saying that no lobbying at a discount is a positive because it's discouraging imports. So, there is a little disconnect, and I'm a little confused. Can you explain your comments and drill down on this premium discount issue?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. P.J., let me go ahead and start, and then I'll throw it over to Bert here in a minute to follow up. But there's sort of an interesting phenomenon going on which is if you look back a couple of years and in sort of over a fair bit of time, a number of the Middle Eastern producers became enamored with this notion of market share in different regions. And I don't know whether this is sort of an outgrowth of the philosophy they have around oil production or other things, but they had this notion that they wanted to maintain market share in North America regardless of the fact that there was going to be this new production starting out. So, they signed long-term off-take contracts with a number of importers that basically said we're going to ship X number of tons over to NOLA or one of the coasts and deliver it on an index minus 2% kind of basis. And effectively, what's happened then as a result of that is the Saudis, in particular, and a number of others are leaving a bunch of money on the table because there's better places from a netback perspective to take those tons, and they'd be far better off by just tendering those tons to the trading community on a FOB basis. But instead, they've signed these agreements, and so, those tons are coming here regardless. And it's a result of that that kind of put a ceiling I think a bit on NOLA pricing, so that we haven't had to go out and actually attract the incremental ton because there's already been too much committed here. Now, from the importers' perspective, this is a great deal, right, because they sell a cheap barge. They drop the price. They tank it. They're effectively taking money out of the Saudis pockets. And then, they turn around and export those tons to other places in the world. And they're making money on the backs of the Saudis who could otherwise save a fair bit of money and keep it in their own coffer. So, we think over time, they'll wise up and they'll actually start to do things that are a little more in their own interest, instead of in the interest of the importers over here. But that's going to take some time.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I also think, don't discount the fact we are in a late spring, and you've had a pile up of these barges that Tony mentioned, and an extra month to come in, of around 800,000 tons, and that, I think pressured the market, which we didn't anticipate. Like I said, we anticipated a normal spring. And I think that discount would have evaporated sooner.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Robin Fiedler - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. This is Robin on for Joel. Thanks for taking my question. When you indicate similar nitrogen demand in the first half year-over-year, how much demand destruction would you expect year-over-year due to the poor weather and lower corn acres? And with the expectation of a shift to UAN and urea, should we expect higher volumes year-over-year in Q2 from those segments? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Regarding demand destruction, we're projecting 88 million to 90 million acres of corn similar to what the USDA is projecting. Last year, we were a little bit above that. And so, when you look at the total structure of end consuming crops in North America, it's pretty constant. And so, as we extrapolate that forward to what the total consumption will be, it's fairly similar to last year. Wheat acres down, canola down in United States, wheat acres up in Canada, cotton up in the Texas region, and then corn staying as I said at 88 million acres to 90 million. And so, demand should be fairly stable. And yes, we will see some higher volumes in the aggregate especially for North America. Specific to CF, as Tony said, we produce what we produce. And then if we have excess inventory, that will be bled off in Q2 but we anticipate similar volumes to last year.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question in queue will come from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thank you and good morning, everyone. Tony, if I'm right, there's some new strategy or cap allocation slides in the deck at least versus last quarter, and maybe I'm being a little semantical here, so correct me if I'm wrong. But in a couple of these slides you talk about being a leading chemical company and a lot of them seem to be about your capabilities sort of around your ability to operate assets and so forth, and then there's sort of the pursue growth within the strategic fairway quote. So, I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about what is the strategic fairway right now. How wide is it relative to what you're doing now? Are there things outside of fertilizer you might be interested in over time or just sort of where is your head at on all this?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Vincent, good morning. Part of the reason why we put forward, as you said, kind of a bit of the strategy and our strategic capabilities was a little bit in response to a desire, I would say, from the investment community to get some more disclosure and transparency on a number of topics, one of which was kind of just a specific crisp articulation of strategy from – and this was BlackRock that was asking for this and New York City comptrollers and a fair bit of others. And this has not changed. This has always been our longstanding strategy. And we've talked about our strategic fairway in this context going back for five or seven years. So, there's nothing new about this. The only thing that's new is that we have put pen to paper on it and actually been pretty crisp about articulating it. And part of that is because we're in the process of doing a bit of a refresh on our board. We've had some long-serving board members that are getting close to retirement, and you don't want a big slug of board members moving off at one time and then having to add a bunch of new ones. And so when you talk about what the strategy is for the organization, it then leads into what sort of skills and capabilities you're looking for in terms of your board members, and then we can evaluate what skills are rolling off, what do we need to replace those with. And to be able to do that in a very transparent and open way is, I think, part of what is a hallmark of good governance and good interaction with our investors. So, there's nothing in here that's new other than we're trying to be very transparent with the outside world about what's going on. As we think about what's within our strategic fairway, I would say wherever we can leverage our core capabilities to create value is something that is somewhat open. Now, that said, I think we always have to compare that against other investment alternatives i.e. buying back our own shares. And I think we are maybe a little biased in this regard, but we believe we've got the best collection of nitrogen assets in the world. So, it puts a fairly high bar out there in terms of what something else would need to look like from an opportunity set to get us to want to invest in that, in something different other than our own assets. And that would either have to be a lot of very tangible, clear, easily identifiable, and quick to capture synergies. Those kinds of things are more likely than not to show up in other nitrogen assets or it would have to be just an absolute screaming deal that on the face of it, everyone would look at and say yeah, that makes sense. The problem with screaming deals is there's often a reason why things are low priced to begin with, and we're pretty hesitant about that. So, it's a long way of saying there's got to be a pretty – it's a pretty high threshold to get us to think about doing something other than investing more into our own assets because we really like our asset base.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Our next question will come from the line of Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Unknown Speaker:
It's Oliver on for Ben. Thanks for taking my question. So, Chinese demand has been quite weak over the last couple years. There's been the removal of the corn subsidies, environmental policy, and now we're seeing a trend for NPK applications over direct urea which seems to be eroding some demand as well. What's your view on these, and I guess just Chinese demand going forward over the next couple of years?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think China is going to be challenged anyway on production of grains, not necessarily oilseeds – they're importing a significant amount of oilseeds – but challenged to produce the grains not necessarily due to nutrients but due to water. You have to remember 50% of the nitrogen that's consumed in China is for fruits and vegetables which are their majority crops, and they tend to be moving towards imports of the commodity crops. The NPK change is a reality, but you have to remember there is an N as a part of the PK and that N is just urea that's melted and put into the granular for the NPK. So, we see the demand for nitrogen as being stable, stable in the context of the total production for industrial and agricultural use in China of around 52 million tons, 53 million tons. We've been watching China for several years, and we've seen a lot of this production capacity built up and now come offline, and China seems to be moving towards a state of self-sufficiency, if a little bit in a deficit. We've seen their operating rates go down as low as 50%. Today, they are estimated to be in the 60-plus-percent range. We actually think it's higher because the denominator's changed and a lot of production has come offline permanently. So the China story continues to evolve. We're structurally positive what is happening and think it's going to be better for the global supply-and-demand basis where more Asian tons will be supplied by the Middle East, less tons available for the Americas, which should improve the pricing structure in NOLA longer term.
Operator:
Thank you sir. Our next question in queue will come from the line of Chris Parkinson with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Thank you. When you think about your long-term natural gas needs, has there been any changes whatsoever as it pertains to your thoughts on hedging? You've seen a lot of favorable developments in terms of basis in Oklahoma. So, has there been any way the change you're thinking about even hedging long-term basis? Just any color there would be appreciated. Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I'll comment a little bit and then ask Bert and Dennis to both weigh in on this. But we have a high degree of confidence in the technical capability and the resourcefulness of the engineering innovation that's going on and there are not a lot of pipeline developments that are happening quickly these days. And so, what that's doing is it's backing up gas into certain regions, Oklahoma being one of them in particular that some of our lowest cost gas in the entire system. And so, in the near-term, we think that that's likely to persist eventually when gas and when new pipeline capacity shows up that may disappear in terms of the significant basis differential, but also if you look forward in terms of being able to hedge out that basis differential, that differential collapses on the forward hedge. So, what we – we'll look at it and evaluate it. We do hedge basis a little bit here and there particularly in places like Dawn which feeds our Courtright facility because it was more prone to weather freeze-up challenges during the deep winter. But it's not something we're anxious to run out and do but we might do it a little bit opportunistically. It's much more likely to be on a basis spread though than it is on Henry Hub basis. Dennis do you guys want to...
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
No, I agree to what you said in terms of the only thing is it's a developing story in the scoop and stack which is Oklahoma which feeds our Woodward and Verdigris plants. And that collapse that happened Q1 is currently going, has allowed us to purchase gas in the $1.30, $1.40 maybe even $1.50 range. It's extremely attractive. And so we're evaluating as Tony said and we'll see if there's some opportunities but we're structurally positive what the gas industry is providing to us and not only is North America now when you layer in the pricing that we're able to achieve in the Midwest, the cost structure that we have in the Midwest and the logistical cost to deliver to the farmer, net net it's the lowest cost basis highest margin location in the world. Great place to be.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question will come from the line of Michael Piken with Cleveland Research. You may proceed your question please.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Just wanted to touch base a little bit on your dynamic. You know, NOLA urea prices have come off quite a bit but UAN has sort of held in there. Typically I know they don't always trade one to one but they, UAN tends to lag urea. Do you think UAN prices have the potential to firm a little bit or do you think they'll kind of stay where they are through the spring and then any sort of thoughts on till pricing. I know it's a little bit early but any sort of thoughts there, early reads on till?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, we're encouraged about where we are with UAN, how we've positioned ourselves for the spring. And as I said earlier if you do have this dynamic of lower ammonia volume you're going to see that transition most likely to UAN. What I like about this whole UAN urea dynamic is the premium. The premium in the Midwest and something has been talked about in our industry would collapse, quite the contrary. It's holding and has firmed at times. We're achieving a nice level of premium for our Iowa production as well as our Canadian production, and that's on urea as well as UAN. So, most likely what will happen, you'll see the traditional spread between the two products widen a little bit in favor of UAN just because, as you said, urea has dropped off in NOLA, and we're currently trading in the $220 range for urea, and the $180 range for UAN, so you can do the, and numbers as you move up into the Midwest, that UAN number gets as high as $220, maybe even higher. And so, we'll see that unfold. We have another couple of months before we want to talk about fill. So, we'll lay that – leave that to the next conference call.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Our next question will come from the line of Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Hey. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. So, just a few questions on the supply and demand looking at slide 10. I know it's not new, it's the same slide as last time, but I'm just thinking like 2019, it looks like the capacity additions are outpacing demand. So, what does that mean for prices next year? Does that indicate that the market's getting a little bit more oversupplied? And then, just longer term, I mean, a couple years ago, there's the notion that there's no new projects really being built 2020 because – 2020 and beyond because prices are too low and the market tightens up considerably. But it does look like there's still more projects coming online. What does that mean for a longer-term pricing recovery in the nitrogen market? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
When you look at the supply and demand situation worldwide, we're generally always in an oversupplied market. But then, you get into the nuances of gas cost, logistical cost, domestic consumption for the producer, and the international market. We do anticipate with growth being at the 1% to 2% range and growth coming from industrial demand to continue globally and that will add on the demand side. Yes, there have been some new plants that have come on and new projections in Nigeria and Iran and a few other locations that are low cost supply points. But when you look at the global structure we've seen that the significant move in China and we're seeing the Petrobras tons come off in Brazil. OPZ just announcing they're permanently offline in Ukraine. These are the things that happen in our industry and the inability to operate in this type of structural market relative to pricing and the economic opportunity available to a producer. So, we do see it maybe not tightening but maintaining a – heading into a good trend as we go into 2020.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I think the other thing I'd say, Andrew, on that is as we do our, this is as you know, this is a net capacity addition slide. So, it basically nets out what we can see coming against what we estimate closures to be. And, typically, we're pretty conservative in what we count as potential closures. We really do wait till it's pretty clear from an announcement perspective that stuff is going to be closed before we actually put it in there as closures. So, there is, I think, some upside to this chart and the closures could as the next few years unfold be larger in magnitude than we've estimated here.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
To that point exactly, Dennis, I think you look at what's gone on in Trinidad right now as the shape of things to come. So, TNC was off for several months because of a lack of a gas contract saying that the terms that were being offered made that plant unprofitable and they couldn't afford to do a turnaround on it. They eventually struck a deal but it's only kind of sounds like it's marginally squeaking by. And I think the next rounds of gas contracts that come up continue to be equally challenged, if not more so, in Trinidad, particularly as you look at the fact that they've curtailed molecules going into the Atlantic LNG train there. So, our view is there are areas of the world that today are pretty substantial producers that may experience some pretty rapid decline going forward, and that's not baked into this chart.
Operator:
Thank you, gentlemen. Our next question will come from the line of Jonas Oxgaard with Bernstein. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC:
Good morning, guys.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Jonas.
Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC:
Curious, with these persistent discounts in NOLA, it seems to be a very inefficient global system. Is there an opportunity for you guys to do trade arbitrages? And follow up on that, is there anything that can be done to close these apart from simply waiting for the Middle Eastern producers to shape up?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, we sort of do look very carefully. Do we want to send an incremental cargo up into the Midwest from Donaldsonville or do we want to export it? So Donaldsonville's got a very good set of docks and ability to export, and we've got the opportunity to do that. So when we have a chance to get better netbacks to D'ville, we'll go ahead and export urea. And that's been happening, I would say, on a somewhat regular basis for us here given the fact that where NOLA is trading. I think it's one of those things that when the Middle Eastern producers wake up and realize that they're basically leaving $20 per ton on the table, they'll start changing those things but it's probably going to take a couple years for it to fully work itself out. Those things will come up for renegotiation. And when they do, we'd expect them to get sorted in the most economic way possible.
Operator:
Thank you sir. Our next question comes from Mark Connelly with Stephens Incorporated. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Joan Tong - Stephens, Inc.:
Good morning. This is Joan Tong for Mark Connelly. Just staying with the export question or answers that you just talk about. Are your export capabilities from Donaldsonville fully up and running at this point? I'm just wondering if there are any limitations on what you can do with tonnage there or any sort of ramp in export capabilities beyond just finding the customers?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. We did over 2 million tons last year of exports coming out of Donaldsonville or close to 3 million, and we've got the ability to probably export as much as 7 million. On urea is right now the place where it makes probably the most sense because with NOLA trading at a discount and it being kind of the same cost to get product up into the Midwest as it is to get it to areas in Latin America or other places around the world, we have the opportunity to get a little bit of additional cash by exporting. UAN, because it tends to not be used quite as widely as urea is and you're shipping a lot of water, while we've done a lot of UAN exports and continue to look at it, the opportunities there are not quite as easily achievable, but Bert and his team have done a great job of establishing relationships in Europe and also in Latin America on the UAN front. So, it gives us a lot of optionality. Bert, you want to?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
No, that's it. We're netback driven. And as we can make profitable decisions for the company, we will export as much as necessary. We like the opportunities. We like the relationships we developed and like the flexibility it gives to the company. So, we'll keep doing it.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question will come from the line of Alexandre Falcao with HSBC. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Alexandre Pfrimer Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc.:
Thanks for the question. With respect of not having any further delays or second quarter picking up the – just like for the first quarter, the England contract and the surge in oil prices, when do you think you guys are going to be able to reassess your guidance for the year? It seems like if weather is not really going to affect your numbers, it seems like it's – the outlook is more positive than we – when you provided the guidance. Is that a fair assumption?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, we don't – we try not to give – point estimate numbers or even tight ranges because this business is pretty volatile and subject to weather and other vagaries. And so our position is to try to discuss what the major factors are that are driving it, so gas cost in North America, energy costs elsewhere, kind of where nitrogen is trading, and kind of what we think the demand profile is, and then use that as a way to provide kind of directional information, which Dennis did. It's consistent with where we were the last time we were on a call which was after the fourth quarter results. And so I don't know, when you say update our guidance, I wouldn't expect to update it in a different direction. And if were – as long as we're providing directional information, I think it's going to be pretty consistent. You'll likely hear the same thing from us in the next call. But we're not going to go to providing specific numbers or ranges. That's a level of precision that we just don't have in this industry given the volatility.
Alexandre Pfrimer Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc.:
Okay. But you would say that when you first provided those views, is that a more favorable environment than it was before?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, I think when we said that before, I don't know that gas has changed that dramatically versus where we were. And I think pricing is moderated a little bit but not a lot and demand has been delayed out of the first quarter into the second. But again, we expect to continue to move all of the tons that we produce. So, I don't know that there has been a substantive change in our outlook.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question in queue comes from the line of John Roberts with the UBS. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Yes. Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on China's corn ethanol plant? I've been skeptical, but I've seen some recent refinery consultant presentations that say China is going forward with E10. But from a corn balance perspective, it's seems pretty hard to envision.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
When you look at – yes, we have looked at that and that would be an exciting change because then the imports of corn would go up and that would satisfy the need to move Brazilian as well as our excess corn to a new demand center. There is construction taking place or plans for additional ethanol production. We've heard about this mythical corn stock that is an aged stock of corn in China and that it's probably not or has degraded some, and probably ethanol would be the best next use of that corn. And so the scale and the size and the timing of the exact construction of these assets I'm not aware but the movement to ethanol as an oxygenate as part of their environmental cleanup makes sense. And they would have dual supply not only out of Brazil I think for their excess production as well as our own. So I think there's more to come on this story.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. At this time, presenters, I am showing no additional questions in – as I say that there, we have one additional question that just came into the queue, comes from Jonas Oxgaard with Bernstein. Please go ahead, your line is open.
Jonas I. Oxgaard - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC:
Hey, guys. Looking at the very last slide in your deck on the Chinese closures, and it seems like that slide hasn't been updated in a while. Not implying that you guys haven't been working on it, I'm just saying that most of those closures on there are from 2017 – or most in fact, 2016 or early 2017. But we've heard a lot of closures in 2018, particular winter, we'd expect more. Can you talk a little bit about what you're seeing right now in China and how you – well, is there incremental to the slide that you have in your deck?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, Jonas that was the point that I made earlier which was we don't tend to put that stuff in our slides until we can convince ourselves that those things are actually permanently closed down. Okay? And so that may be the delay you're seeing in just our process. But what we are seeing in China today from an overall dynamic perspective is we are seeing more aggressive enforcement, we are seeing increased regulation and reductions in subsidies and the like, and higher coal prices. And also in addition to that, an exchange rate that's gone the wrong way on the Chinese versus where perhaps people would've thought it was going to go a year and a half, two years ago. So all those dynamics point in the direction of additional closures through time. But again, our process is such that we're only going to count that as a closure once we can get ourselves comfortable that it's confirmed actually really closed.
Operator:
Thank you. And we do have an additional follow-up from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citi. Please go ahead, your line is now open.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Yes, hi, another question on this China shutdowns and exports. Exports declined, I think you said 77%. And clearly, appreciate that China has been shutting down capacity among this pollution control issues. But in some other industries, where China had shutdown capacity, the producers are getting in over there, they're relocating plants, installing for pollution control equipment and to bring some capacity back. Now, again, this may not happen right away, but looking forward do you think there's risk in urea of that?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I don't see that same dynamic playing out in urea. Part of it is because there is a pretty sizeable environmental footprint that happens outside of just the emissions coming out of the urea plant itself from an air quality perspective. There's, it's a pretty sizeable water user and you've got all of the particular matter and other emissions coming out of the mines as well. And there's been a big push by the central government to get rid of the zombie industries and leave healthy, profitable, smaller industries behind and that's been particularly true within the coal sector. And so when you look at effectively producing excess urea in order to export it at a net loss relative to what their cost structure looks like when it takes a high environmental toll, when what you're effectively doing is exporting energy and then importing in the form of urea from coal production and then importing LNG at $10-plus on top of it. That's a pretty negative arbitrage. And we just don't see that happening. It's not like it's affecting their self-sustainability in terms of food production. And again, it's taken a pretty heavy environmental toll. So when you rack all of that together, we just don't think that there's going to be this big slug of Chinese capacity that comes back on the marketplace.
Operator:
Thank you. And at this time, presenters, I am showing no additional questions in the queue. I'd like to turn the call over to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks everyone for joining us this morning. We look forward to seeing you at conferences in May.
Operator:
Thank you, presenters. And thank you to all of our attendees for joining us today. This does conclude today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect. Have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Martin Jarosick - IR Anthony Will - CEO Christopher Bohn - SVP of Manufacturing and Distribution Bert Frost - SVP of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain Dennis Kelleher - CFO
Analysts:
Michael Piken - Cleveland Research Steve Byrne - Bank of America Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets Ben Isaacson - Scotia Bank Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Christopher Parkinson - Credit Suisse Donald Carson - Susquehanna P.J. Juvekar - Citi John Roberts - UBS
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2017 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Cynthia. I will be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF, Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin Jarosick :
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries' fourth quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President-Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, our CEO; Dennis Kelleher, our CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution and Eugene McCluskey, Vice President of Tax. CF Industries reported its fourth quarter 2017 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries' results in detail, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
Anthony Will :
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the 2017. For the fourth quarter, we generated adjusted EBITDA of $260 million, and for the full-year we produced 969 million of adjusted EBITDA after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. These results reflect outstanding execution in all aspects of our business. The CF team has produced, sold and shift more product volume than ever before. Most importantly we improved on our already excellent safety performance setting a new company record as our safest year ever. It was a tremendous achievement by our manufacturing, distribution, sales and corporate teams. This level of execution was crucial in a year where nitrogen prices and the cost of natural gas were significant headwinds. Despite this we did what we do best. Focus on what we can control. As a result, our production levels, sales volumes and cost management efforts more than offset the challenges we faced. As we look ahead to the balance of 2018, we expect the environment to be better than what we navigated in 2017. As Bert and Dennis will cover in more detail, the U.S. dollar is weaker against key global currencies notably the Ruble and RMB. Global oil price along with corresponding mutation safe cost are higher, while European gas and Chinese coal prices are meaningfully higher. Meanwhile North American natural gas cost is significantly lower to 2018 versus 2017. Additionally, global nitrogen demand and pricing remains higher than last year. These factors higher international cost structure, weaker U.S. dollar, cheaper U.S. gas and better nitrogen prices create a set of the industry conditions that make us optimistic about the year ahead. Along with the more positive market environment CFO realized the benefits in 2018 from our recent actions to lower fixed charges, reduce controllable cost and run the company more efficiently. In December we repaid 1.1 billion of our most expensive debt with the blended coupon rate of about 7%. This lower our debt by about 19% and our interest payments by 25% or $76 million annually. Last week we announced that we are exercising our right to purchase all of the publicly traded common units of Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. This will help to simplify the structure of the company and reduced the administrative cost associated with operating TNCLP as a separately listed public entity and deliver network optimization benefits. As shown on slide 32 the expected results of these actions would have increased EBITDA by approximately $45 million and generated about $110 million of additional free cash flow. Moving forward we also expect to benefit from the recently pass changes in the U.S. tax laws. CF has long had a cash tax rate close to the historical 35% statutory rate. There are lot of moving pieces with tax reform that Dennis will cover but it is clear that a lower corporate tax rate will generate earnings and cash flow that drops straight to our bottom line. Additionally, the new tax law will create a more level plan field for U.S. base manufacturers like CF. This is good for the country, our company, employees and shareholders. We're proud of what we achieved under difficult circumstances in 2017 and we are looking forward to the opportunities we see ahead in 2018. With that let me turn the call over to Chris to review our operational performance. Then Bert will cover our sales and market outlook and Dennis will discuss our financials before I return for closing thoughts. Chris?
Christopher Bohn:
Thanks Tony, our manufacturing and distribution systems continue to run well in the fourth quarter as it has volume, we produced 2.6 million of gross ammonia in the quarter, our annual gross ammonia production was a company record 10.3 million tons. We also did an outstanding job moving all of the product with sales reaching record 20 million product tons for the year, we moved more than 7 million product tons by marine transport including barge, vessels and export vessels we also loaded more than 50,000 rail cars and more than 240,000 trucks at our facilities during the year. What's most impressive about this level of activity is the commitment to and focus and safety in all our plants and facilities. At the end of the year our 12-month average recordable incident rate within 0.6, 0.7 incidents for 200,000 work hours, this is the lowest rate we have on record for the company. We also had a run of almost 4.5 million work hours without a loss time injury in 2017. To do this while making and moving so many products is a remarkable accomplishment by the team. In the fourth quarter we continued our momentum on cost management for the year, we reduced our controllable manufacturing cost, $13 per ton or about 14%. As a result of cost reduction initiatives and product deficiencies due to increase volumes. Going forward we will maintain our focus and driving further savings and efficiencies but you should not expect the large quarter over quarter improvements we have delivered in 2017. Capital expenditures for the fourth quarter of 2017 were 183 million, for the full year 2017 capital expenditures were 473 million of which approximately 350 million was for new activities. We expect CapEx for new activity in 2018 to be in the $400 million to $450 million reflecting a higher number of plant turnarounds in 2017. As a result, we expect production levels to be slightly lower than the record volumes we experienced in 2017. With that let me turn it over to Bert.
Bert Frost :
Thanks Chris, our sales volume in 2017 demonstrated the advantage we created through the optionality we filled into our manufacturing and distribution network. For the year we sold approximately 20 million product tone which was a company record. This included record sales for each product segment as well. It’s a 4.1 million of ammonia about 4.4 million tons of urea and 7.1 million of ton of UAN. These totals include the impact of our work over several years to grow our global customer base. We exported about 3 million product tons during the year maximizing our overall system market. We have the capability to export even more, however we anticipate that exports in 2018 will be lower, mostly due to greater domestic shipments under our long-term ammonia off take contract. Our sales volume in 2017 also reflect the tremendous progress we've made building our diesel fluid business from the ground up. This is important because DES typically sells at a substantial premium to granular urea on a urea equivalent basis. To support growth in this business we completed in 2017 a new 400,000-ton urea equivalent ton per year DEF unit at Donaldsonville. This facility started up on time and under budget with returns well above our cost of capital. With a partial year of additional capacity in Donaldsonville sales of DES in 2017 has 400,000 urea of equivalent tons a 75% compound average growth rates over seven years. As a result of our outstanding 2017 performance we entered 2018 with lower inventory and a solid order book. This has positioned us well for the first half of the year which we believe will be noticeably stronger in the same period in 2017. The North American and global nitrogen market is in a former position compared to this time last year. Supported by fewer export out of China continued imports into India and Brazil and less important in the United States during this fertilizer year. Imports of the urea and UAN to North America from July through December decline 37% and 24% respectively. Projected imports for the first few months of 2018 are also running lower compared to the year before. This is not surprising as you reabsorbed prices at more liens average to $25 per ton below international parity during the fourth quarter. Discouraging imports. Because North America is and will remain an input dependent region for the forcible future it will need to attract substantial offshore volumes to meet demand this spring. The urea price discount international asperity at [Nolan] is therefore not sustainable. Further prices in North America do not yet fully reflect a substantial steepening of the global cost curve since mid-2017. Since the beginning of July 2017 higher energy prices outside of North America, higher freight cost and a weaker U.S. dollar pushed up to global cost curve. Particularly at the high end. Energy cost of [rhythm] for marginal producers in China and Europe the price per metric ton of Chinese [indiscernible] coal has risen nearly 30% since the middle of 2017 to the beginning of February. While the price of natural gas at the Dutch TTS [ph] hub has risen approximately 25% for MMBtu over the same time period. Ocean freight costs are risen for all nitrogen exporters reflecting higher oil prices and a tightening vessels freight market. The cost to ship a metric ton of urea from the Middle-East to the Gulf of Mexico has risen nearly 30% from July to the beginning of February. Putting further pressure on exporters is the weaker U.S. dollar. The RMB has appreciated significantly against the dollar since the middle of 2017 moving from approximately 6.8 to 6.3. Currencies and other producing regions have also increased this is pushed up to deliver cost of the nitrogen fertilizer exports and U.S. dollar terms. The impact of these factors has been evident on Chinese urea exports. China's role in global urea seaborne trade have already been shrinking with urea exports they are planning about 65% in just two years from over 13 million metric ton in 2015 to 4.7 million metric tons in 2017. We anticipate that China's net urea exports will decline further in 2018 given the global factors we just discussed and the ongoing impact of environmental regulation enforcement in that country. The removal of more than 8 million metric tons of Chinese urea from the global marketplace has helped offset some of the recent increases in capacity elsewhere. At the same time global demand has been robust driven by India and Brazil as well as Australia, Mexico and Turkey. All of these factors point to global nitrogen prices sustaining levels above where they were in similar periods in 2017. This includes the second half of the year when we expect the traditional resets following the completion of spring applications in North America to be at a higher price in the unsustainable levels you saw in the summer 2017. We're well positioned for this environment, we've demonstrated our ability to effectively leverage the flexibility of the CS systems and navigate market conditions and we're confident in our ability to maximize our overall margin through the year and into the future. With that I will turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis Kelleher:
Thanks, Bert. The company reported a diluted loss per share of $1.98 and EBITDA of $224 million for the fourth quarter of 2017. After taking into account the items detailed in our press release, our adjusted diluted loss per share for the fourth quarter was $0.02, and adjusted EBITDA was $360 million. Our adjustments included a $3 million unrealized net mark-to-market gain on natural gas derivatives and a $14 million gain on the sale of our joint venture in [indiscernible] Oklahoma facility. It also includes a large one-time income tax benefit of $491 million resulting from the impact of the new U.S. tax legislation. Let me take a moment to outline the impact of the new U.S. tax law on our income statement and balance sheet in more detail. The $491 million tax benefit is a onetime item that is two principal components; first it includes a $552 million tax benefit due to the revaluation of our net deferred tax liability to reflect the new lower federal test rate of 21%. On the balance sheet this is reflected by the reduction in the net deferred tax liability. Second, it includes a $57 million onetime tax expense associated with the deemed repatriation of previously on tax profits, the repatriation tax we paid over eight years commencing [ph] 2019. Approximately one third will be spread across the first four year and the remaining two thirds we paid during the final four years. Offsetting this $36 million alternative minimum tax credit they are fully refundable by 2022. On the balance sheet AMP credits have been reclassified from deferred tax assets to a long-term receivable in other asset. From a cash tax prospected we generated income tax net operating losses in 2017 and therefore did not pay U.S. federal cash taxes. As markets improved and experience higher margins and higher taxable income, we expect our longer-term cash tax rate to settle into the low to mid 20's range which accounts for federal state in foreign taxes on our roll income. As Tony mentioned we reduced our debt by $1.1 billion in December by redeeming all $800 million of our 2018 bonds and purposing $300 million of our 2020 bonds, these actions reduce annual interest payments by approximately $76 million or about 25%. At this level of debt interest expense for 2018 would be approximately $230 million. Our cash and cash equivalents for $835 million as of December and our $750 million revolving credit facility was undrawn. I will now provide some thoughts regarding our expectations for 2018, understanding that this is subjective changes in market and other conditions. So far in 2018 prices for our products have generally been higher than the same period of 2017, because of this and all the development have heard and explained earlier, we believe it is likely that our financial results for 2018 will exceed our 2017 results. With that Tony will provide some closing remarks.
Anthony Will:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we open the call to questions, I want to thank all CF employees for their work in the fourth quarter and for the full year. This past Monday marks the 72nd anniversary of CF's founding, CF is a vastly different company today than when it begins over seven decades ago. It's also a very different company then when I joined 11 years ago. In that time, we've grown from 6 ammonia plants to 17, exited the phosphate business, developed new product offerings and expanded our global presence. In doing so we consistently improved operations and safety, delivered synergies and enhance the free cash flow generation capacity of the company. Our ability to do this is the result of what hasn’t changed about CF. The enduring performance culture our people have built. Our culture drives our commitment to safety and operational excellence, disciplined capital allocation and corporate Stuart chip. These have made CF industries more efficient, agile and forward-looking than ever before. We are one of the best commodity chemical companies in the world and we are well positioned to meet the market challenges and to make the most of the opportunities in the years ahead. With that operator we will open the call to questions.
Q - Michael Piken :
Maybe we can start a little bit with kind of the current market dynamic in terms of the trade flows and when does the UAN and Urea imports need to arrive in the U.S. to sort of guarantee on time level for the [Indiscernible] season, if you can kind of give us your color on that, that would be great.
Bert Frost :
The current market we just return from the TFI, The Fertilizer Institute meetings in San Diego has just interact with our customers as and just get a feel for where we are in the market and we believe we are in a very good place, imports have then lagging behind and you are right there is a window of when those urea and UAN vessels need to right to be how to make it on to a barge or a rail car and move up into the Midwest. And I wouldn’t say that just by arrival mid to late April at worse and that means you maybe get on the water probably by early to mid-march and so we're watching those vessels and we have been lagging behind on imports and we expect that to continue. However there has been additional capacity that has come online our own in the United States and others that is coming or yet to come online and so we have to wait and see how this plays out. I think the risk is that arriving too late into this market would penalize the importer and probably put them in a bad position as we get the reset position in June or July. Pricing is firm and probably getting firmer, applications are yet to start normally they start in Texas we have seen some of that but it's a little bit dry in Oklahoma and Kansas for the lead top dress market, were rain is expected in the next week or two so we expect that to kick off and then we have spring applications in Romania starting they have already have settled a little bit in Southern Illinois so I would say we are weeks away if we have an early spring it could be pretty good.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Unidentified Analyst :
Good morning. This is Neil calling in Vincent. It seems that a lot of the upside in volume in the quarter was from Ammonia and given the stronger ammonia running up in the fall could that lead to less urea demand in the sprint or do you think there is still pent-up urea demand?
Bert Frost :
We did have a very good ammonia fall, we had record shipments but that includes exports our agreement with Mosaic our industrial contracts as well as fall applications of ammonia. We think the industry did very well on fall applications but there is certain market that are fall and there are certain markets that are spring and so your ice states and some in the Nebraska are generally pretty big fall ammonia application markets, the spring markets are more in the East, Canada did pretty well in the fall but there is still quite a bit to go up in Canada as well as the Dakotas. So, we're ready and believe that we will still have a fairly large ammonia spring and I don’t think that will impact urea applications nor UAN, at the price of UAN today, we believe that UAN still has some upside but also attractive end for this spring application.
Anthony Will :
I think if you look at the aggregate amount of the ammonia that went down in the fall, I don’t think its statistically outside the sort of the historical numbers and as Bert said, we had a little bit of improvement in terms of the ag application, fall of '17 versus fall of '16 but a lot of that volume was industrial, we don’t think its robbing nutrient demand for the spring at all.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Your line is open.
Steve Byrne:
So the last slide in your deck has this roster of Chinese facilities that look like they have been down for the last one to two years, would you say that whatever it is 10 million tons of capacity that does not alone account for the sub 50% operating rate in China, I assume is there -- is your view that the capacity that’s running at a slower rate there because of say environmental initiatives there is likely to come back on stream and do you have visibility to how much inventory they have there, could that market get tight this spring.
Anthony Will :
So, on the likelihood of this to come back, I think that the combination of gas plants that are down there in the winter and some of the gas production could come back on depending what L&G price shows up as you get into the spring in summer, but most of the plants that are facing set down or curtailment as a result of the environmental rigs, we don’t really expect those plants to like to comeback. The cost associated with the scrubbing and elimination of the emissions is so high and given where kind of the product is trading on a global basis it just doesn’t make sense. We think that ultimately the kind of the denominator is going to continue to shrink in terms of available capacity in China, relative to are they going to be sort of just reducing export volumes versus [technical difficulty] that import and I'll turn that over to Bert.
Bert Frost :
I think you covered this, the factors that we’re watching and we do believe that they will continue, they’ve already imported some from Gulf and some Iranian supply and we believe that that will continue especially in the Northern ports. They have announced an inventory build programs we think that's a little bit late when you look where they are on operating rate and production output coupled with demand and inventory, we think they are going to be challenged to meet their spring requirements.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson :
Looking at some of our price realization versus the NOLA benchmark, can you give some idea of what we could see for urea and UAN, in the first half of the year versus second half of the year, some of the ships going on in the market and your domestic and export mix to some of the premiums you've achieved have been a little bit that best can be versus the benchmark?
Anthony Will :
We always have to remember Joel as your roll through the fourth quarter the prices were when you roll into the quarter and as you are selling into the market what that looks like, so you read it today as about $255 per short-term in NOLA. UAN is probably $170 plus per short term in NOLA and we've moved volumes at those numbers and we believe that those numbers will increase as we get closer to spring and so like we've said in our in the prepared remarks to bring a vessel in from the Arab Gulf, at today's prices urea needs to value probably closer or above 270 and UAN probably at a discount on an end basis needs to increase in price also just to be at parity with urea.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets.
Andrew Wong :
So, the market commentary you provided today sounded very positive more than has for a while I think. When I look at the publish cost looks like the costs range for the marginal process maybe only up about $10 per ton year-over-year so just trying to reconcile those things together and are we maybe at a turning point where the market price is meaningfully above where the cost curve is?
Anthony Will :
So historically what we've done is we've tried to put out the next year's cost curve as part of our third quarter call and then we cannot to do a lot of updating on it during the year. And so the cost curve is on page 25 of our material but page 26 has the embedded assumptions in it, so in that curve which was generated kind of back in the September timeframe for publish and in October and November, the RMB exchange rate was 6.8 versus 6.3 today and Henry Hub gas has also come down kind of $0.10 or $0.15 and what's not shown in there is the basis differentials and a lot of the locations where we're actually buying gas has also gapped out in a favorable way for us. So, on as we look at what the forward curve of gas plus basis differential is into 2018 versus 2017 were about a $100 million favorable '18 versus '17 just in gas alone and meanwhile putting in the exchange rate and ocean free factors into the cost curve increases the top end of that curve can I call it $15 to $20 maybe $25. So, the balance of those things has created a pretty favorable tailwind for us and if you think about kind of our opportunity to participate in and improving nitrogen environment. A urea price of $25 translates into about 350 million of incremental EBITDA generation for us over the course of the year. So that's why you are hearing some pretty more positive commentary from us than we've said in the past. We also although expect there to be a normal reset comfort quarter given where European gases and Chinese cost structures, we don’t think we're going to be back in the world of 160 urea this year what we were last year, we were there for three months, almost four months last year. Both the combination of simply favorable first half indications as well as our belief that the lows don’t get anywhere close to where they were last year, that makes us pretty optimistic about where the year ends up.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question Ben Isaacson with Scotia Bank. Your line is open.
Ben Isaacson:
So recently in ammonia plants that closed, they were shut down due to the supplier and producer not been able to bridge the bid ask spread on gas pricing. Are you having any issues over there, what's the status of your gas contract and be may be your thoughts on the outlook for gas play, fill in the region.
Anthony Will :
We have 50% of one ammonia plant down there as [indiscernible] nitrogen limited and the original gas contract on that plant ran through 2018, we have a unilateral right to extend it an additional five years and NGC Gas Company Trinidad was kind disputing our right to extend, we went to arbitration in London and won, so they upheld our right to do it and NGC has recognized that fact and so, we have a gas contract in place through 2023, we're getting a 100% of our requirements and we're pretty pleased about that. We do think longer term that does based on pretty sizable challenges around being competitive just based on where the cost structures compared to North America natural gas. And I say from our prospective, that’s not a bad thing, we rather give up the economics on one half of one plant and see all the rest of that production challenged from the global basis and then have that be a low-cost production source. So, we're pretty constructive on the impact that has overall.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson :
I wanted to talk a little bit about the spring outlook and really understand may be made it by product, which mean urea, UAN, ammonia kind how you're thinking about the price trajectory from here, kind of the upside and downside risk to the base outlook, ammonia the offshore prices have started to come off a little bit, meanwhile urea UAN, the imports are well down as you highlighted it, could be setting the U.S. market up short but just trying to think about how you think about the puts and takes around that outlook that could really change things one way or the other.
Anthony Will :
Just starting with like I said really the weather and the possible negatives, are that we're having some drought type conditions in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas and just looking at that area but that represents may be 200,000 to 300,000 total tons of urea. So not a big impact on a 11-million-ton market and even if that goes in urea price rallies we're believing that that would just then move to Canada and you would see greater applications of plantings for your spring and then in the P&W. So, when we look at urea today, we're behind on our imports and well it be needs to be in place to satisfy demand, we do believe that some of the other plants have not operated optimally and that product is probably not in position. We have operated well, we do have product tin position and when you look at the global pricing structure of 265 out of where it goes today on a vessel and on a barge without the margin that lands with NOLA about 270 per short ton were not there yet and we need to get there and I believe that we will and probably exceed that number. UAN has been trading into 160 to 170 range and has been trading at a discount to urea which just traditionally not the case and again our plans have been operating at capacity, we've exported a significant amount of product but it's also been working to get our inventory positions in place and again we look around that some of the other operating units in the North American markets are probably have not operated at capacity and the imports are down on UAN also and that’s a harder product to get into position as you are moving the liquid product either from the east coast all the way to the Eastern Midwest or at the Gulf coast up in the Midwest. And so, we believe as we've moved into our spring application season especially if it's early that could be a very good dynamic for us. You are correct on the international ammonia market it has weaken that's a reflection of lot of ammonia plants that were on turnaround extended turnaround during the low prices periods of Q3 and Q4 have since come back on especially in Northern Africa and so some of those prices have moderated down a bit. But we're seeing healthy demand over the phosphate market as well as Asian industrial demand and so we believe that will hit a nice floor and probably operate in a higher price range than we had last year.
Bert Frost :
The other things on that one Adam in terms of Ammonia is that last year the vessel was already so we weren’t able to ship to Mosaic or kind of to our supply agreement and we ended up having to export a bunch of that ammonia this year there is the work shipping against that contract which is between call it 600,000 and 800,000 tons of ammonia that will shipped alone and the impact to that means that we're not because that's a gas plus base deal we're not really looking at ammonia exports for the year and because that's a gas plus arrangement where less exposed to kind of where international ammonia prices trade because there is not a one for one co-relation between the international ammonia price and Midwest and ammonia because if you don’t have the terminal we can't get the product there anyway. So, the good news is even though it's weakening we are pretty insulated against that price change.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Mark Connelly with Stephens.
Unidentified Analyst :
Hi, this is [indiscernible] for Mark Connelly. Just wondering if the U.S. dollars remained weak past applications season we more likely to see imbalance in the U.S. market or do you think that during that your net back [ph] would still support exports on balance? Thank you.
Anthony Will :
Well, I mean these structural changes incur in season that are short-term issues generally and they are driven by economic as well as economic policy and interest rates and what is perceived to be growth or opportunities driven by those various economies. And so, the weak dollar could be around for quite a while especially with what we're seeing coming out of Washington with fiscal spending or lack of fiscal control. And so, when you look at an imbalance obviously we are pretty focused on calculating what we produce and moves as well as enters the United States, however we don’t view CF as a balancing mechanism, we're market driven and if we make more money going to the international market, we will export as I said in our prepared remarks, we can export even more. And so how we look at this market as there is a natural build up and draw down in the North America market as we work through the agricultural cycle. And then we layered into our business, our industrial book which is an important part because of 24/7 in terms of demand. And then we look at as we roll out of the spring season in United states that opportunities that are available to us and we have consistently and constantly worked with our international customers to be able to be a nice receiving point for our product, [indiscernible] with our deep water docks we can load several vessels at a time. And so, yes, the net backs are attractive for us, whether Europe, South America or even Asia when we’ve done all of the above last year. So, we’re ready for that eventually if it does come and we do believe it will be net back attractive for the company.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Christopher Parkinson with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher Parkinson :
I don’t want to get ahead of myself but given the significant degree of deleveraging you've undertaken and consequent interest rate reduction, what are the next stages of capital deployment especially as the market is now relatively more stable. Do you still feel industry consolidation is necessary and generally what you see as your own potential role in the overall the process and should we limit our thinking to North America? Thank you.
Anthony Will :
I think on the role of capital deployment we have been pretty consistent saying that we want to take out the rest of the 500 million of 2020 bonds that are at a relatively high interest rate. And then it will get us down to one foot, one status taken out to a place where we feel is a very sustainable amount of leverage for the business across the cycle. And so I would say another kind of 500 million and then we will start thinking a little bit more broadly about other opportunities, obviously we went out with just under 400 million to buy in that [TN] CLP units that were out there, because it represented a tremendous opportunity for us both in terms of will it will add on a free cash flow basis and also just simplifying our perfect structuring and cost reduction efforts back here in the home office. So, can saying, start deploying capital and what I would turn it in more offensive way. I think on going industry consolidation is inevitable and it's really a function of what the market prices require to clear trade in terms of when that kind of stuff starts happening. We're open to being outside of the U.S. as you seen with our UK acquisition that has been a tremendous benefit for us and we're really pleased with it. But there are some regions in the world where we’re more likely to go than others, that’s a U.S. company, subject to SEPA and [OFAC] and other challenges and certain regions and more difficult than others. And were difficult than others. We will focused on places where we think we can operate in ways that are and in keeping with our culture and the stripped interpretation of the law. So that limits to unites to some extent.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Donald Carson with Susquehanna.
Donald Carson :
Bert you’ve talked about how imports are down significantly what's their psychology of the domestic buyer I know in the past they've started of new U.S. capacity would lead to lower prices and the tenant have lower channel inventories how is that situation now. And then just one clarification on 17 you said for 2018 that 10% of your gases has that 321 to 20% is nationally hedged through your industrial contracts I noted if that's the same as third quarter so is this kind of your ongoing policy on hedging to be relatively un-hedged going forward which should be a market break from what you've done in the last two years?
Anthony Will :
So, let me answer the gas question first. You are correct in where we're hedged and you're correct that from our previous announcement that has not changed. So never say never but the opportunity available to us on gas at today's production rate it almost hitting 80 per day and where consumption is and you look at the build into fall of 2018 we feel very-very good where we are with the resource base and the activity that's going on and now with oil around $60 for TWI the associated gas it's going to be coming online with that production is puts us in a very comfortable position and as Chris or Tony mentioned the collapse or the basis has made it even more attractive not to position ourselves with hedges and so our people stay in this current environment through 2018 and so we look at these things monthly for the gas committee. On the psychology of the retail wholesale and trader group and of our customers is interesting because a lot of people got punish last year a lot of access material came into the United States pricing collapsed in late February or early March and just works steadily down weak-by-weak as we entered May and early June that I want to say that low as of$160 per ton for urea and NOLA and stayed there well into Q3. And I think because of the losses that were incurred there is a lot of hesitation and taking large import positions and bringing them in and distributing them. That's why in our communication with our customer why we believe we are well positioned in that our customers provide truck at a time, a railcar at a time, a barge at a time, take larger positions if they want to and we've structurally positioned ourselves with inventory throughout the United States to pick-up that opportunity. So, I would say I would classify that the retail wholesale and trader group as risk averse but positively inclined to participate in the market this spring believing that we are going to have 89 to 91 million acres of corn, buy lower levels of wheat, higher levels of soybeans but overall good applications of NPNK [ph] and we're preparing ourselves to participate in a good way this year.
Operator:
Our next question comes from P.J. Juvekar with Citi.
P.J. Juvekar :
Couple of questions on China. Can you talk about coal price in China and is there potential for coal prices to drop post winter? And if that happens how much capacity comes back online? And secondly you mentioned that China has become an importer here near-term. I guess strategically don’t you want the high cost player in the export market? Thank you.
Anthony Will :
On the coal side, P.J part of what is helping on the coal a little bit of government hand in terms of managing output production at the mine. So there has defiantly been some restrictions on the number of operating days and the number of mines that have closed is in astronomical number. And additionally, you see the see borne coal rates have gone up quite a bit. Now could they reverse that trend, sure but I think that’s going pretty much against what they stated policy has been which is try to make the companies that are remaining more profitable both from the coal side all the way through the conversion and get rid of the some of the zombie industry problems that they had. Additionally, there is strong desire from an environmental prospective to kind clean up the environment and review submissions. So, we don’t believe that you will see the coal price go back down again. And there are lot of factors that are impacting the economics there, coal being one, the exchange rate being another one, the elimination of subsidies to chemical plants and on rail and for electricity being another, so I think there is a lot of factors that are driving the reduction of production in China. And going back to the notion of on a global supply basis, to the extent that those plants are running and China continues to need to feed its population that’s just going instead of putting tons out into the marketplace that’s going to soak up tons. And so, from our prospective that’s an outstanding result because ultimately there are going to be buying of tons and it's going to further tighten up the overall SMB balance. If you look at [indiscernible] on a per ton basis in 2016 it was like $115 a ton in '17 it was up to 151 currently it's like almost 180. Again, that is a dramatic increase in terms of the cost structure there and we really don’t see that turning around and going the other direction.
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from John Roberts with UBS. Your line is open.
John Roberts :
On slide 39 in 2018 and beyond all most all of the capacity that you have to start up is by emerging market players. Are these almost all experience firms with good track records of bringing capacity up online and really don’t know may be those companies that well.
Anthony Will :
You look what’s coming on in terms of these new plans in the various regions you articulated. Generally, I do [indiscernible] in contract with in terms -- if the major equipment comes through from the builds whether it be German, Italian or -- and then with support so we believe that we're not holding back thinking that these are substandard groups we think they are world scale capabilities.
Bert Frost :
I think the other thing I would add to that John is that if you look at the experience that we've had here in North America with companies that actually are in the business of doing this, if things have tended to cost more and things have started up later than what people thought here in North America. It's sort of hard to believe as you look at some of these other places that you've likely see sort of a different experience, in some cases you might see experience that’s adverse compared to what we experience.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back over to Mr. Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin Jarosick :
Thanks, everyone, for joining us on the call this morning. We look forward to speaking with you at various conferences in the next few months.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes today's program. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Christopher D. Bohn - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Donald David Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Ben Gottesdiener - Bank of America Merrill Lynch P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Oliver Rowe - Scotia Capital, Inc. Alexandre Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc. Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Third Quarter 2017 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Vin. I will be your coordinator for today. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, and thanks for joining the CF Industries' third quarter earnings conference call. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President-Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, our CEO; Dennis Kelleher, our CFO; Bert Frost, Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries reported its third quarter 2017 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries' results in detail, discuss our outlook, and then host a question-and-answer session. Statements made on this call and in the presentation on our website that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any statements. More detailed information about factors that may affect our performance may be found in our filings with the SEC which are available on our website. Also, you will find reconciliations between GAAP and non-GAAP measures in the press release and presentation posted on our website. Now, let me introduce our President and CEO, Tony Will.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the third quarter of 2017, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $134 million, after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. I am particularly pleased with our performance and results for the quarter, especially considering how the quarter began with prices meaningfully below 2016 levels. As nitrogen prices rose from the unsustainable lows of the summer, our team responded extremely well, dramatically ramping up shipments and capturing the improving prices. Our team demonstrated impressive execution across all parts of the business. Operationally, our plants ran really well once again. We produced 2.5 million tons of gross ammonia, but most importantly, we did it safely. Our 12-month recordable incident rate was down to 0.85 incidents per 200,000 work hours. Our team has also achieved more than 3 million hours without a lost-time injury. This is a tremendous achievement considering the level of activity across our system. Our sales volume was the second highest quarterly volume ever. This is particularly impressive, because the third quarter is historically a lower volume quarter for us due to the seasonality of applications in North America. During the quarter, we participated in the North American in-region demand, sparingly at first, but with increased enthusiasm as prices rose. This included our successful UAN summer fill program. We also leveraged Donaldsonville's ability to export to a greater extent than ever before as North American nitrogen prices remained below global parity. During the third quarter, we exported 1 million product tons, which is a new CF record for any quarter. These export sales allowed us to balance our system and manage inventory positions to maximize overall margins. When North American customers were unwilling to purchase products at netbacks comparable to international prices, we increased exports and built inventory by pulling back from selling in North America. As prices began to recover, we chose to sell more actively and were able to capture better pricing on very strong volume. Our export capability combined with our extensive inventory and distribution network are unique to CF, and are critical elements to maximizing cash generation in this business. We have also additional ability to grow export volumes even further should North America continue to trade below international parity. As I have mentioned, global nitrogen prices strengthened significantly during the quarter from the unsustainable lows of July, producers in high-cost regions curtailed production, and global supply was also reduced by planned and unplanned outages in a variety of regions. When demand increased during the quarter, especially in Brazil and India, product was in limited supply and global prices rose. Prices in North America rose as well, but remained below international parity, and global trade flows rapidly adjusted to this pricing discount. During the third quarter, far less imported product arrived in North America than in the first half of this year or the same period in 2016. In fact, North America was a net exporter of urea in July, and approximately net neutral on imports-exports for the third quarter as a whole. The significant price fluctuations we have experienced in 2017 are symptoms of a market in transition, as new capacity ramps up and global trade flows adjust, and this transition is not yet complete. This is particularly true in North America, where we expect the final set of capacity additions to ramp up to full rates by mid-2018. Should the importers not fully take this additional capacity into account, we could end up retesting the nitrogen pricing lows we saw in the spring and summer of 2017. However, after we get through 2018, we continue to expect global demand growth to exceed new capacity growth and set the stage for a more sustained nitrogen price recovery. We believe our performance this quarter demonstrates how CF is the best positioned company to benefit from the recovery. Our operational advantages, absolute scale, production flexibility, significant in-region storage, and export optionality allow us to set volume records and maximize cash margins in a period of seasonally low demand in North America. Our structural advantages, access to low-cost North American natural gas, operating in the import-dependent North American region, and the long-term demand growth for nitrogen are well established and enduring. Taken together, we believe CF will benefit disproportionately from the improving price environment we see ahead of us. With that, let me turn the call over to Bert, who will talk more about the commercial environment during the quarter and our forward view. Then, Dennis will discuss our financial results before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. CF's performance in the third quarter demonstrated the strength and agility of our team and the system. We shifted our product mix when needed, employed our logistics and storage assets, and carefully selected opportunities of when and where to sell. As a result, we maximized the overall cash margin available to us, while achieving close to record shipments. We believe we are positioned very well going into spring 2018. The quarter began with NOLA urea trading at approximately $155 to $160 per short ton. These price levels were the lowest seen in a decade, excluding 2009, and we're at or below full production costs for many producers around the world. Prices remain low through July with the expectation that the quarter would close at similar pricing levels. However, the continued low level of Chinese production and exports, combined with a weaker U.S. dollar, and energy and production cost increases in various areas of the world, helped to lift prices through August and then move higher in September. As we exited the quarter, urea prices around the globe continue to show strength supported by low inventories and higher than expected demand in India and Brazil. However, North America lagged the rest of the world in terms of pricing and demand throughout the quarter. While urea prices followed the sharp upward trajectory, ammonia and UAN did not increase as dramatically. CF again achieved very solid export volumes for UAN and ammonia and a record level for urea. Late in the second quarter and early third quarter, the netback available from international destinations increased and exceeded the netbacks available for domestic shipments. The team was able to pivot to exports and build a book for the various products that allowed CF to load and ship record volumes at favorable values. We exported 200,000 tons of urea, 300,000 tons of ammonia and almost 0.5 million tons of UAN. These shipments allowed us to improve our results in three ways. First, we delayed the launch of our UAN fill program, so we could capture higher prices for June and July applications. Second, we did not participate in the extremely low ammonia prices initially offered, by some, for fall applications. And third, we were patient with urea sales and were able to capture higher values later in the quarter. Additionally, Mosaic began taking ammonia shipments from Donaldsonville early in September at the contract price, which was favorable to prices available for either domestic or export destinations. Going forward, the amount of ammonia we expect to have available for export will decline significantly due to the supply agreement with Mosaic. Now, let me provide some thoughts on our broader outlook. The global market remains in a period of transition as new capacity comes online and global trade flows adjust. These changes make it harder for participants to interpret market signals, and this leads to greater volatility. Buyers in North America remain risk averse with more purchasing in a just-in-time manner or selling and purchasing back-to-back. They also appear to be keeping lower inventories through the year. All of these changes play to the strength of our North American production and distribution network. They also make import options less attractive as internationally sourced material often involves longer lead times and importers bearing significant inventory risk. In any case, we will continue to work with our longtime customers as well as our growing list of new customers to meet these challenges and deliver tons to the right areas at the right time, utilizing storage and adjusting product mix. We have demonstrated our ability to do just that, and are well-positioned as the global nitrogen market continues to transition. With that, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. The company reported a diluted loss per share of $0.37 and EBITDA of $139 million for the third quarter. After taking into account the items detailed in our press release, our adjusted diluted loss per share for the third quarter was $0.39, and adjusted EBITDA was $134 million. Our adjustments included a $7 million unrealized net mark-to-market gain on natural gas derivatives. I want to highlight the cost reductions we have achieved across our system. This is a result of our targeted efforts to reduce costs in our head office and in our plants. Our SG&A was roughly flat compared to the same period last year, demonstrating the scalability of our business model. We increased our capacity by about 25% and sales volume by 33% since last year without incurring significant incremental head office costs. In fact, despite adding significant production, we have among the lowest SG&A as a percentage of sales in the fertilizer space and commodity chemicals generally as you can see on slide 12. Looking at SG&A on a per ton basis, we reduced SG&A per product ton by 23% since 2015. At our manufacturing sites, reduced plant level activity and better procurement practices have decreased professional services, payroll and maintenance cost, resulting in a lower controllable cost of sales. As you can see on slide 11, we have reduced controllable cost of sales per product ton by almost $12 compared to third quarter 2016 and more than $15 on a year-to-date basis. Our balance sheet remains strong. Our cash and cash equivalents are $2 billion as of the end of September – as of September 30, and our $750 million revolving credit facility was undrawn. Monday, we announced that we will redeem the May 2018 bonds on December 1, 2017. We estimate that the total cash payment will be approximately $817 million. This action fulfills the commitment we made over a year ago to redeem these bonds with cash and reduce our annual cash interest expense by $55 million. Capital expenditures for the third quarter of 2017 were $105 million. For the full year, we expect to spend approximately $375 million for new activities in 2017. Additionally, as of September 30, 2017, approximately $158 million remained accrued, but unpaid related to the capacity expansion activities in 2016. Most of this unpaid amount originated from disputes with certain contractors and vendors. On our second quarter earnings call, we provided our thoughts concerning the third quarter and our view that it was unlikely that we would exceed prior-year's adjusted EBITDA. This was based on our view that the benefits of higher volumes and lower controllable costs would be more than offset by higher gas costs and lower product prices, and the July's sales volume is somewhat driven by the poor pricing environment, were fairly low. Compared to that starting point, prices, particularly for urea improved dramatically in August and September as Bert described. Additionally, our team took advantage of rising prices and offshore demand to sell and ship approximately 300,000 product tons of more than we expected. We also achieved greater cost reductions than we expected. As a result, our adjusted EBITDA for the quarter came in substantially above our expectations at the time of the second quarter call. I will now provide some specific thoughts regarding our expectations for the fourth quarter of 2017, understanding that this too is subject to changes in market conditions. We expect to see higher volumes and lower controllable costs per ton compared to the fourth quarter of 2016. We also expect higher nitrogen prices across all products and for gas cost per MMBtu to be essentially flat compared to the same period last year. However, I'd like to point out a few things worth mentioning. First, quarterly sales volumes are difficult to predict, and we believe it is better to think in terms of 6-month or 12-month timeframes. It may turn out that some of the robust volumes we achieved in the third quarter pulled forward volumes that we otherwise would have sold in the fourth quarter. Second, some of the volume we sold in October was priced before the price went up in the third quarter had fully materialized. And lastly, the fall ammonia season is just beginning in much of the Corn Belt. A growers' decision to apply ammonia is very sensitive to weather condition during a narrow window of time. Therefore, a significant amount of volume and price risk for ammonia remains in the fourth quarter. So, based on our view of all of these factors today, we believe it is likely that our financial results for the fourth quarter of 2017 will exceed $133 million of adjusted EBITDA reported in the fourth quarter of 2016. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we open the call to questions, I want to highlight a couple of things. First, our business has demonstrated its resiliency, even during the most difficult environment our industry has seen in over a decade. Slide 13 shows how we've grown cash on the balance sheet by $828 million through the first three quarters of the year. Even excluding the federal tax refund we received in the second quarter, along with a one-time voluntary contribution to our pension program, we increased net cash by $72 million. This means the cash we generated even during this challenging period has more than covered our fixed charges, including CapEx, interest, dividends, and distributions to non-controlling interests. With the bond repayment Dennis mentioned, we will further reduce the interest portion of fixed charges by $55 million per year. The second item I want to highlight has been our team's execution over the last 15 months. On slide 26, we compare the achievements discussed today to the commitments we made on our August 2016 conference call. At that time, we laid out four targets for the business. First, complete and start up the expansion projects by the end of 2016. Second, reduce annual CapEx to less than $450 million in 2017. Third, reduce our controllable expenses. And fourth, reduce leverage on the balance sheet by repaying $800 million of debt due in May 2018. Our team's efforts have yielded excellent results on all four targets. We completed the expansion projects by the end of 2016, and all new units are reliably running more than 15% above nameplate capacity. New CapEx in 2017 is expected to be approximately $375 million. We have reduced controllable expenses per ton by 16% and SG&A per ton by approximately 23% year-to-date. Finally, earlier this week, we announced that we will redeem the 2018 bonds early, reducing our leverage. Importantly, we achieved all of this with excellent safety performance. Given the heightened level of production and shipping activity over this period, along with normal turnarounds and maintenance, that is an outstanding accomplishment. With that, operator, we will now open the call for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. As a courtesy to others on the call, we ask that you limit yourself to one question. If you have additional questions, we ask that you re-enter the queue, we will answer additional questions as time allows. Our first question is from Adam Samuelson of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Maybe first, for Tony, just some thoughts on the market, and really product pricing and premiums, as you've seen them evolve over the third quarter, and really this year, where the U.S. has continued to trade at a sustainable discount to the rest of the world, the UAN since the summer has traded at a discount to urea, which is fairly unusual. Can you talk about kind of how you think those evolve what – in particular, for the UAN premium gets that reversed, and how to think about your own realizations against that construct with your realizations versus benchmarks are actually quite good this quarter?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sure. Thanks, Adam. This is Bert. And the market has evolved in a little bit of a strange way, coming off the lows as we mentioned of urea. And looking at that point in July when we were at $155, $160, and launching our UAN fill program at the end of July to where we are today is remarkable. The market is up close to $100 in North America, and internationally, even more. And you're right, we're trading at a discount to the world as frustrating as that is. But I do think that's a reflection of this transitionary period that we've been discussing, where we have a little bit of a stop-and-go-type market with purchases and positioning. And so, we become adept at accessing all markets at all times and in conversations with customers around the world. And working with different customer partners to move our product at the margins that we deem appropriate. And so, when you look forward for product pricing, we're positive to what's taking place around the world. There are still capacity to come up in North America, and there's idled capacity in different parts of the world that will probably come up off of turnarounds and maintenance in – late in Q4, Q1. But we've seen robust demand to support that. And this current situation in India with the tender that is just closed and been priced, we think is attractive. You still have a few more months of Brazilian activity, as they prepare for a second crop corn planting in February and March. So, imports will arrive probably into early February there. And then you have the North America season starting at that point with a significant amount of imports still to take place to support planting in spring. Relative to the UAN summer fill program, we are very pleased. The team did a great job of working with our customers, broadening our customer base, our geographic imprint. But, you're right, UAN has traded at a discount to urea, and that is historically an anomaly. And we do see that over time and believe that UAN as the, we believe, a very good product will return to its premium status, but that may take a while as we talk about this transition year in 2018.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The other thing I want to just add that – a point that Bert makes off and on the UAN side, which is below urea is kind of ubiquitously traded. UAN is principally only used in a few markets, so you've got North America, a couple of markets in Europe and Argentina. We're just beginning in Brazil and a few other places. But there's much less international demand for it. And with the new Donaldsonville plant operating at over 6,000 tons a day, that's over 2 million tons of capacity we brought on. Weaver has brought on more than a 1 million tons, and because at Port Neal, we were urea-limited in terms of our UAN, with the new urea plant we've brought on, we've added a couple of hundred thousand tons of UAN capacity in Iowa as well. So, when you look at that, the U.S. has added 3 million, 3.5 million tons of capacity. That's a huge percentage increase. And I think it's just going to take a little while for the marketplace to absorb that, before you see the urea UAN kind of pricing premium renormalize.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And that is the benefit of, as we talked, about our product agility or product mix configuration. We can produce all that Tony talked about or move some of that to dry urea, liquid urea, DEF, and we're balancing utilizing those different tools.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Don Carson of Susquehanna, your line is open.
Donald David Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Yes. Bert, a question on just the domestic market. I mean, to what extent was some of this price rise we saw in Q3 kind of a scramble by dealers to source product as they saw that Enid and Weaver weren't going to fully ramp? And what's your view on the premium between NOLA and the Corn Belt on urea, UAN and ammonia as we go forward? I mean, should your strong exports maintain that premium or do you think it comes down with all the new capacity in market?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, looking at the premium today, I'll answer that part first, it's holding, and we're positive to the premium. There is a direct cost to move product, no matter if you're moving it from Galveston or NOLA or the East and West Coast to hit the consumption markets from, let's say, Ohio to Nebraska, the Dakotas to Texas. And we're fully intent on that premium holding, because again, there is a cost. Now, ammonia has had some lower prices in historical, in terms of the spreads, in terms of the absolute product values as a divisor based on their nutrient content. I think that's an anomaly also. I think as we balance this, a few of the producers probably had excess ammonia going into the quarter, because the upgrades weren't prepared, and needed to move that product. So, I think this fall is an anomaly based on what will probably happen in the future with ammonia applications for corn. But you're right, we've seen a nice move in the market. I do think several of our big customers, as well as medium and small customers, did position themselves well at the UAN fill. But we look at as urea, we've had fewer imports and probably fewer produced tons than anticipated. So, I do think there is a market that needs to be fulfilled going into Q2 to be ready for spring. So, I do think there will be some needs and need to be purchasing, as well as logistically moving those tons, over the next, let's say, four to five months. So, that's why we're constructively positive.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Don, let me just add a couple of thoughts to that, which is the U.S. still is going to need the import, another what, Bert, about 3 million tons of urea or so.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I'd say 4 million.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
4 million tons. So, you can't get there if North Africa is trading at a significant premium to where we're trading. The prices at NOLA eventually have to rise. The other point that I'd make up is, we've demonstrated this last quarter, our ability to export Donaldsonville. So, in a lot of ways, Donaldsonville tons should be considered really an international plant, because we're not going to just pay the transportation cost to move those tons into the Midwest and not recover that cost. We could move those tons into the international marketplace and get better netback. And so, that's another reason why from our perspective the whole question about whether the Midwest premium hold is a bit of an odd one, because we're not going to incur that cost when we've got other options, and the Midwest is chronically short product even if we put all of the D'Ville stuff up there. So, someone has got to pay the freight to move the product up there. We see no economic reason why there's even a question about the Midwest premium.
Donald David Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Christopher Parkinson of Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Cool. Thanks. You guys have clearly done a pretty solid job reducing controllable costs, but can you comment on whether this was mainly focused D'Ville and Port Neal after the respective ramps, any start up costs, et cetera, or was it fairly broad based across your facilities in the Southern Plains and even Canada? In other words, just how much better do you believe you can get in 2018 and 2019? Thank you.
Christopher D. Bohn - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Chris, this is Chris Bohn. To answer the second part of your question first is that as Tony and Dennis mentioned, these initiatives we put in place last year in the third quarter. So we're beginning to see some lapping of it. So, I would expect that we'll still see some benefit specifically from volumes since we didn't bring on Port Neal till late Q4 last year. So, there'll be some volume benefits that we continue to see. As far as being focused just at the new expansion projects, I think you're correct in the assumption that this is broad based. What we really did is, we started to focus and be much more diligent on our spending, primarily across professional services, engineering activity and maintenance and payroll expense. And we've seen that come down at all our facilities, so it's not just directed at those two.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Great. Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Chris, one other just a bit of follow-on there. So, we've got a fair bit of engineering capability at the plants. Historically, we've had a lot of that focused on bottlenecking and improvement on the capacity side. As you know, we've looked at a more difficult market environment, where the value of the incremental ton is perhaps not as high as it used to be. Chris Bohn has done a great job of redirecting that talent base away from improvement which then it begets more CapEx and expense on the professional service side to really focus on maintenance and turnaround activities, so that further reduces our expenses going through those activities. So it's, I'd say, a double benefit that we've been able to achieve there.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Joel Jackson of BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Thank you for taking my question. You talked a little about ammonia sales are quite strong. You've obviously had a lot of capacity. I think you spoke generally a little about possibly some pull-forward volume for some products in Q4 and Q3. At least for ammonia, was there some pull-forward ammonia? Maybe give a little update on that dynamic. Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
No, it wasn't. The ammonia sales in Q3, Damian did a great job of – as we talked about this whole export capability and leveraging, where we talk about moving 300,000 tons, in absence of the Mosaic contract which we had planned on, their vessel was late, so we had to pivot and do different things, and one of those was working with some of the destination markets for those sales. And so, we do have some Ag sales of ammonia in Q3, and majority of that is for weed applications in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas area. And so pulling forward Ag sales in Q3 is pretty difficult, because the corn application have already started by late October and will run through, hopefully end of December. And so, we're anticipating a normal ammonia season, still to be determined. We're looking out the window today in sunny Chicago to rain and clouds. And although we're not in corn country, we are following the weather maps, and it's colder up in the northern territory like the Dakota's, but for great application in Nebraska and Iowa. So, we're anticipating the ammonia season to kick off and be strong for the next 30 days.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Steve Byrne of Bank of America. Your line is open.
Ben Gottesdiener - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Good morning, everyone. This is Ben Gottesdiener on for Steve. Can you discuss your estimates of channel inventory levels of nitrogen in the major grain-growing regions of the world, U.S., Brazil, India, and how that compares to historical levels?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sure. When you're looking at India, we had projected based on 2016's performance of tenders, there was an absence of tenders from September all the way to April, and very limited import volume. That then pushed excess inventory into the market in the beginning of 2017. What we believe happened was a significant drawdown of inventory in India. And you're seeing that represented today from September through December, a tender a month or a more and additional consumption of probably 1.5 million tons to 2 million tons just in India. So, we think that that inventory, and it's represented by the statistics, is low in India, and they will continue to tender probably even into January, positive for the market. Brazil is up about a 1 million tons to-date. Difficulty to store urea in Brazil over time. Imports started early in March and April, and it's continued forward to exceed 4 million tons for this year. So, we're positive on Brazil but don't see them carrying a lot of inventory past February. And then looking at our market, we believe coming out of second quarter in June entering in July, inventory for all products was very low and, hence, we had a positive pull for our UAN fill program that we thought appropriate pricing level around $125 FOB NOLA. And so, we're shipping against that, but we've had an incredible amount of exports, and probably limited production as reported by some of the publications in some of the newer plants that were supposed to come online. So, I would expect that inventory is at an average to below average level for UAN and urea. For ammonia, that mostly stays with the producers, and our inventory is adequate and we're prepared for a robust fall, should that happen.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from P.J. Juvekar of Citi. Your line is open.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Yes. Thank you. Coal prices have gone up in China even before the winter. So, what's your outlook there? And then secondly on China, China has shut down significant amount of anthracite capacity. If urea prices stay about $250, let's say, how much of that capacity in China do you think can start back up?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, P.J., relative to Chinese coal, we're pretty constructive on where that's headed. One of the folks that we've added to our board recently is John Eaves, who's the Chairman – our CEO of Arch Coal. They obviously watch that very, very carefully. We coordinate a bit of intel with them, and we remain very constructive on Chinese coal prices going forward. I think the other issue is, I don't think anymore it's just purely a matter of what the energy cost is in China. We really do believe that the current administration is very focused on environmental reform, and there are a set of those plants that just don't meet emissions requirements that won't come back regardless of where urea prices hit on the international front. Or, Dennis, yes?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think looking at the coal cost on a structural basis for competitiveness, you're seeing probably a $20 to $30 cost increase directly reflected in urea. That combined with low-production capacity utilization, 59, 60, 61, whatever the publications or our industry has put out, puts production around 60 million metric tons to 61 million metric tons. Exports, we project, are 4 million metric tons to 5 million metric tons; leaves a domestic market of around 56 million metric tons. And we believe, there are also – just like India, there was significant destocking that took place in the spring. And today in several areas of China, the interior price is greater than the exportable price. And so, I think $250 is a little low. I would say prices need to go probably over $300 for them to be bringing back any production. And I agree with Tony that that production that's environmentally challenged, I don't know the prices what brings it back to the market.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, I think the other thing I would add is that from an exchange rate perspective, as we modeled into our cost curve that you see in the slides, we are sort of there about RMB 6.80 per dollar. If you go back to sort of this time last year, people were predicting to be well above RMB 7. And so not only coal prices moved in the right direction, the environmental stuff that Bert talks about, but in addition to that, the exchange rate helped as well.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks, guys. On the export program, a couple of things. One, how fully baked are you in terms of the various regions or partners that you'd like to trade with? Are there more relationships you're still looking to build, or do you think you are where you're going to be? And then secondly, is there going to be, going forward, a base level of volume, that you're going to need to export regardless of the comparable netback, whether it's in the U.S. or in the export market just to sort of maintain those export relationships, or how nimble can you be?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think we're going to be incredibly nimble. Based on the product mix that's available to the company and the spreads between ammonia, urea, UAN, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, DEF, UL, I think those optionality, as well as domestic options and inventory, when you take the whole matrix and look at what is available for us to move, do, and work with, I don't think we have to do anything. And, yes, we are always building relationships both domestically and internationally. And our customers – I think our total number of customers has doubled over the last five years, and that's on purpose. We've added sales staff. We've added regions. We've as well as added international staff that we're actively participating in leveraging those relationships for the long-term. We've worked with several traders, as well as destination markets in Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and actively want to grow in that area, because we believe in the long-term structural advantages of farming down there. In the European market, Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, also active for us, and leveraging our UK operations with the people that we have based in Ince. And so when you look at that across the board, we say this all the time, but we participate in a global market, and anytime if there is an arbitrage or an advantage, we want to participate and know about it. And so we don't have a specific tonnage or allocation per market, it's all driven by netback and optionality.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But, Vincent, to that point – I mean back to Bert's point on netback and optionality. I mean, I think it's pretty easy for us to get north of $5 million product tons a year if the opportunity were better for us to export than it was to keep those tons home. I think year in and year out, it's probably going to be closer to 0.5 million tons per quarter. But I want to be clear, we're not going to just export in order to make room for other people. I think people import product into this marketplace at their own peril, because we're going to run our assets very hard. And you get on the wrong side of one of those trades, then you could end up losing a lot of money. So, we'd prefer our tons stay in here, and people need to be cognizant of that.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Andrew Wong of RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Hi. Good morning. Thanks for having me on the call. So, I'm just wondering, could you help clarify or maybe just provide some more details on the fourth quarter guidance? Because, I mean, I think being above last year's EBITDA is pretty understandable with the new volumes and higher prices and maybe some of the lower cost. But could you help maybe on the magnitude or help quantify how much higher you see that? And then just on the cost curve, how do you see that evolving out to like 2019 if assuming input prices don't really change? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, Andrew, I'll tell you, we're just kind of dipping our toe in the water relative to providing some thoughts around expectations. We don't go out more than sort of one quarter, because, as was evidenced in our second quarter call with respect to what we were thinking, third quarter might end up being, we didn't see the magnitude of the pricing change, and that has a material impact on what ends up our results being. So, I think we've said about all we want to say in terms of directionally where we expect to be. As you get out to 2019, 2020, 2021, there's an awful lot of things that start influencing what the shape of that curve looks like and the absolute magnitude of it. One of the main ones as Dennis indicated earlier is exchange rate, coal price, gas price in Europe and so forth. So we try to give our best view of expectation for 2018. But again, there's enough variables involved, particularly as you think about the possibility for tax reform in the U.S., and how that might affect strengthening or weakening U.S. dollars, how interest is treated in terms of deductibility or not, economic expansion. All those things drive exchange rates, and that's a big input to that cost curve. So, we haven't published anything that goes out to 2021. But I would say we feel very good about North American natural gas costs, and we believe we're going to continue to operate deep in the low part of the cost curve, and we feel really good about where we sit.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Okay. I appreciate all of that. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Michael Piken of Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Hi. Just wanted to touch a little bit more on the cost side here. If you could just give us a flavor for any updates on natural gas hedges in 2018, that'd be helpful. Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
On gas, we are hedged, as we exited Q3, as we've given previous guidance, we were 10% hedged for 2018. And we have our industrial contracts that are tied are gas based for additional 20%. So 30% roughly of our production is covered. And we have not added any additional hedges for Q4 or 2018 or forward.
Operator:
Our next question is from Ben Isaacson of Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Oliver Rowe - Scotia Capital, Inc.:
It's Oliver Rowe on for Ben. Thanks for taking my question. Over the past couple of years, we've seen your AN and other prices performing pretty well relative to urea and UAN. How much of an impact of changes such as GrowHow and sales mix into products like DEF had, or is this mainly due to AN being a lot less elastic than UAN and urea? Do you see other drivers of the move?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, I would say a couple of things and then Bert jump in, one of which is it's been a tremendous benefit for us to be the 100% owner of the former GrowHow business, the UK, CF Fertilisers UK. So we've brought a lot of discipline both from an operational perspective and a marketing perspective to that business. And then separately, at the beginning of 2017 was when the kind of long-term supply agreement with Orica, Nelson Brothers kicked in, and that contained in it some pricing provisions that were more attractive than historical. So, it's the combination of those two things that have really made the AN business improve pretty substantially for us relative to what it would have looked like a couple years ago, and we feel very good about that segment.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Alexandre Falcao of HSBC. Your line is open.
Alexandre Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc.:
Thank you. I have two questions. One is, you've been painting a very positive scenario for 2018. My question is, if anything goes wrong, where do you think we're going to see the biggest probability of going wrong? And second on, specifically on Brazil, seems to be a very strong market, and you guys are still not fully penetrating there. Is it just a ramp-up phase? Is there anything in particular, could expect more of that market from you guys going forward? Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, what could go wrong, actually, I'd say, what already went wrong in leading from 2015 into 2016, 2016 into 2017, were a strong dollar, low-priced, low-valued soft commodity markets, corn, sugar, wheat, cotton; low vessel freights; and a flattening energy curve; and low-priced energy in Europe and most places in the world; cheap coal. What's changed? All of those. So, as we go into the end of this year, freights are up. You could ship from China to the United States for less than $10, today it's probably over $20, maybe $25. We still have a flat energy curve, but looking positive with coal pricing increases in Australia, China, and I think a positive market there. A weakening dollar with the euro at one point approaching $1.19 and RMB also stronger, ruble stronger, those are good. Brazil a little weaker which is good for agricultural production down there. And so what could go wrong is, we've talked about, and that's why we believe it's still a transition year with additional capacity in North America coming up. Capacity was offline or in maintenance coming up, and demand patterns going forward. So, I think we're in a year. But as we talk about growth, as market grows both industrially and agriculturally, growth eventually catches up and surpasses, because there's not a lot of new capacity coming on post-2018, and that's when we believe the market becomes more of a demand-driven market than a supply-driven market. Relative to your question on Brazil, Brazil is a great market, where you have a lot of good friends down there, meet with them regularly. As a matter of fact, one of our staff is there today. And we integrate and are active in understanding the demand patterns and price points. The reasons why we're active in Brazil are two reasons. It's one of the lowest priced markets in the world. And today, it's recovered. It's a $300, let's say, plus or minus metric ton, but as you work back to freight, that hasn't been that attractive for urea and it's a predominantly a urea and a sulfate market. We are trying to grow the UAN market and are consistently shipping products in there. So, I don't see us ramping up necessarily to a market to be a participant unless it makes economic sense. And so when that changes or when that becomes attractive, you'll see us actively participate in a greater degree.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The other comment I would make about 2018 is that, I don't know that we've necessarily tried to paint an overly rosy picture about it. We've pretty much consistently said our view of 2018 is going to be a lot like 2017. There's going to be pricing volatility. There's going to be ups and downs as the new capacity that comes online that's absorbed into the marketplace. And that leads directly to what could go wrong, so you get a couple of traders, importers that think they're smarter than everyone else. They bring too much product in here. Prices crash, because they don't appreciate how much real capacity there is in North America, that could certainly affect it. So, until those kind of trade flows work their way through the system, there's going to be some uncertainty and volatility out there, and we're not counting on 2018 being much different than 2017.
Alexandre Falcao - HSBC Securities USA, Inc.:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Sandy Klugman of Vertical Research Partners. Your line is open.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you. Good morning. Does the company have any SWOTs on China, potentially moving its gasoline market to an E10 blend. By my estimates, it could translate to up to 2 billion bushels of incremental corn demand which would obviously be very positive for CF?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sandy, we agree that that would be incredibly positive for CF. And we are following that through our ethanol friends. There are exports taking place as you've seen over the last couple of years when sugar prices were high in Brazil and more sugar was committed to that rather than ethanol in Brazil, we were exporting down there, and I like how we're trying to build markets. Ethanol is a great oxygenate and a good product for some of these markets that are trying to make the transition, either away from ethanol or doing different things with their supply mix on gasoline. So our take is yes, that is positive. But it's a long way to go, whether it's a domestically produced product which again pulls more domestic-produced corn or imports, I think we're a couple of years away from seeing that take place. It's probably E1 right now. And so, more to come.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from John Roberts of UBS. Your line is open.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you. When you say you expect continued price volatility, do you think similar lows and similar highs to 2017? And I ask that primarily on the low side, because once you go below the cost curve, it's really hard to tell how low, low is?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, I think, John, obviously we don't have a crystal ball in this regard. I think the lows kind of get tested when you have excess material floating around, because you're in the shoulder periods between applications and you've got big slugs of new capacity that comes online, and then people have these lost positions that they're trying to unwind and get away from, and it really just drives pricing well. But as you saw this year, prices can't sustain those levels for very long. People shut down as that material gets absorbed, it's a pretty quick response, back to more in the $300 per met, which is kind of the global price point right now based on the attenders and what's being sold out of North Africa. So, we do think volatility will be there whether it overshoots as much as it happened on the downside this coming season. I think a lot of that is going to depend upon whether importers and traders find some discipline.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Mr. Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us on the call. We look forward to speaking with you, and we're having our next call in February.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the program. You may now disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Christopher D. Bohn - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc. Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2017 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Danielle and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question and answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President of Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, our President and CEO; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and CFO; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its second quarter 2017 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, LP. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question and answer session related to the company's financial results for the quarter. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to the conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide two of the accompanying presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This conference call will include the discussion of certain non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, a presentation of the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and coinciding reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is provided in the earnings release and the slides for this webcast presentation on the company's website at cfindustries.com. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the second quarter of 2017, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $303 million after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. The story of the quarter was exceptional execution by the CF team. Record production and sales volumes, outstanding safety, good price realizations and cost reductions against a backdrop of difficult market conditions. The global market was impacted due to an excess amount of traded material. Low cost export-oriented production has increased, while at the same time other regions have also brought on new production, decreasing their import requirements like in North America. This has led to an excess of available tons and resulted in sloppiness in the market. Although we fully expect that some high cost producers will be forced to curtail or permanently shut capacity and for product flows to adjust, it will take time for the global trade flows to realign. We do see some encouraging signs that this is beginning to happen. As we have summarized on slide 13, however, there is still a ways to go. China is supplying less nitrogen to the international market because global prices are below the cash cost of many Chinese producers. Urea exports from China this year through June totaled 2.8 million metric tons, a decline of 46% from the same period last year. In February, we projected that China would export between 5 million to 6 million metric tons of urea in 2017. With operating rates at approximately 60% of capacity, actual exports may in fact be below our estimate. Exports are also down from other marginal producers in Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Ukraine. Based on public announcements, we estimate that more than 10 million metric tons of ammonia capacity and 8 million metric tons of urea capacity in these areas have been curtailed for extended periods over the last year. Although we are seeing improvements like those, more is needed. In the quarter, certain producers and traders with excess tons needed to unload positions and find liquidity and unfortunately North America was the dumping ground. North America urea and UAN imports through May were down 22% and 10% year-over-year respectively. However, these levels were still substantially higher than what is required given new North American capacity. Consequently urea barge prices at New Orleans averaged $30 per ton below international parity during the quarter and broke through 2016 lows in June. Even with NOLA barge prices so low, shipments continued to arrive in second quarter. It is clearly uneconomic to force more tons into North America than what is consumed here, driving prices below international parity only to have those same excess tons re-exported again later. Product movements like those are part of the trade flows that need to rebalance in order to eliminate obvious inefficiencies in the global system. Looking forward, we project that nitrogen prices will be challenged through the remainder of 2017 and into 2018. Global energy prices remain low and still more production capacity is yet to come online. Despite modest urea price increases we have seen since the end of June, the third quarter typically has the lowest demand and prices of the year for all products as you can see on slide 16. If substantial imports arrive during the quarter could see pricing test new lows. However, our longer-term outlook remains very positive and is well grounded in industry fundamentals. Post 2018 we project the rate of net new capacity additions will be well below expected global demand growth, which should help pull the industry out of the cyclical lows we are experiencing today and lead to sector recovery over the next few years. Now I want to highlight some of our outstanding execution in the quarter. We ran our plants really well. We produced an all-time record 2.7 million tons of ammonia while doing it safely, achieving a 12 month recordable incident rate of 0.91 incidents per 200,000 hours worked. This is especially remarkable considering the number of new operating units and the number of new people we have added in the last two years. The new Port Neal ammonia plant ran at more than 115% of nameplate capacity during the quarter and we had 10 other ammonia units that ran above 99% of their stated capacity. This was truly a system-wide accomplishment. Our sales and logistics team took that record production and turned it into record sales volumes. They did a great job of navigating challenging conditions and moving tons to the right place at the right time. In some cases the right place was offshore. During the quarter we use the destination optionality we've created to export nearly 100,000 tons of urea from Donaldsonville. These exports averaged more than $10 per ton higher than prevailing NOLA urea barge prices at the time. We also took advantage of export opportunities for more than 200,000 tons of ammonia and 300,000 tons of UAN. As a result, we proactively managed our system inventory, kept our plants running full and realized good overall cash margins for the business. With that, let me turn the call over to Bert, who will talk more about the commercial environment during the quarter and looking forward. Then Dennis will discuss our financial position. Additionally, we're going to try something a bit new for us here at CF, Dennis is going to highlight some key market data points and provide some handrails for people trying to model our third-quarter performance in an attempt to help them calculate a more accurate result. So I encourage you to listen to what Dennis has to say. Okay, with that I will now turn the call over to Bert.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. CF's performance in the second quarter demonstrated the strength and agility of our team and system. We employed our storage assets, shifted our product mix as needed and sent product to twice as many countries as he did in the second quarter of 2016. As a result, we set company production and sales volume records and maximized the overall margin available to us despite the challenging business conditions. New capacity and low energy costs worldwide continue to pressure nitrogen prices. As Tony said, the market is in transition and global trade flows are adjusting. We expect that this process and its effect on pricing will continue through the remainder of 2017 and into 2018. Low nitrogen prices are affecting most of our segments, but we saw localized factors play a role in our performance as well during the second quarter. Wet and cold weather in North America that lasted from mid-March through April disrupted the spring application season for ammonia, urea and UAN. For ammonia, this resulted in lower application totals as some demand moved to upgraded products. We moved the balance of ammonia we had expected to sell to agricultural customers, as well as the incremental tons produced from our expanded capacity into the export channel. Export sales were higher than expected as a result and lowered our average sales price for ammonia during the quarter. We expect our ammonia exports to decline significantly by the end of the year when Mosaic's vessel is ready and they begin taking ammonia delivery from our Donaldsonville facility according to our supply agreement. Turning to urea, high imports in the first quarter led to a price reset at NOLA that was more pronounced and earlier than expected. The urea barge price at NOLA fell 38% from the Q1 high to the low of Q2, as weather slowed demand and distribution channels in North America already had sufficient inventory. With the NOLA barge price $30 below international parity, we were able to take advantage of export opportunities at a premium to NOLA barge prices as Tony mentioned earlier. We believe the price disparity between NOLA and the rest of the world is not sustainable and that urea pricing will converge as trade flows adjust. While we produced record levels of ammonia and urea this quarter, we made less UAN than the same period the year before as we adjusted our product mix to reflect better opportunities with other products. The wet and cold weather led to late planting and slower growing conditions, delaying UAN purchases and applications in North America. We were able to use our storage assets to capture the resulting late season demand that stretched into July. We've seen continued volume momentum with UAN as we launched our fill program last week at the equivalent of $125 per short ton at NOLA, or about $15 to $20 less per ton than last year, depending on location. Ammonium nitrate continues to be a bright spot for volumes and pricing due to a long-term supply agreement that commenced in 2017 and additional AN volume produced and sold in the UK. We continue to grow our sales of diesel exhaust fluid. We expect DEF sales in North America to exceed those in Europe for the first time ever this year. Our new DEF unit in Donaldsonville gives us additional capacity to meet this growing demand and additional product mix flexibility to adjust quickly to changing nitrogen market conditions. We expect the global nitrogen market environment to remain challenging. We are in the midst of the quarter where we typically see our lowest prices and sell the least volume. There is additional capacity in North America coming online over the next few quarters to which trade flows need to adjust and that will take time. Buyers in the region remain risk-averse, with more purchasing in a just-in-time manner or selling and purchasing back-to-back. They also appear to be keeping lower inventories through the year. All of these factors, on top of the supply-driven global market, will restrain prices through the remainder of 2017 and into 2018. We are well prepared for this challenge. We will continue to work with our customers and seek to deliver good overall margins for our business by moving tons to the right areas at the right time, utilizing storage, adjusting product mix and developing customers in new destinations. We have demonstrated our ability to do just that and are well positioned as the global nitrogen market continues to transition. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the second quarter of 2017, the company reported fully diluted earnings per share of $0.01 and EBITDA of $275 million. After taking into account the items detailed in our press release, our adjusted earnings per share for the second quarter was $0.10 and adjusted EBITDA was $303 million. Our adjustments included an $18 million unrealized mark-to-market loss on natural gas derivatives. As you've seen in recent quarters, the number and size of adjustments have decreased significantly compared to last year as we have reduced activity and completed our capacity expansion projects. We also restructured inter-company loans to reduce the impact of foreign exchange rate changes on these loans. These non-cash effects were significant in the first half of 2016, but not in 2017. Our balance sheet remained strong. Our cash and cash equivalents were $2 billion as of June 30. At the end of the quarter, our $750 million revolving credit facility was undrawn. As we disclosed in June, we received $815 million in federal tax refunds due to the carryback of federal tax losses in 2016 to prior periods. These tax losses were driven primarily by federal tax bonus depreciation on our capacity expansion projects. We intend to use the proceeds from these refunds to retire $800 million of debt coming due in May of 2018. Once this occurs, our quarterly interest expense will decline from $80 million to approximately $66 million. Depreciation and amortization expense was $217 million for the second quarter of 2017, up from $181 million in the second quarter of 2016. We expect full year 2017 D&A to be approximately $875 million. As we've discussed before, higher D&A this year is affecting gross margin per ton for all the applicable segments. We have again included segment tables in the press release and a chart on slide 9 to help you compare the gross margins in the second quarter to prior periods. In these tables and charts, we adjust depreciation and amortization and unrealized mark-to-market gains or losses on natural gas derivatives from gross margin as reported to show an adjusted gross margin. We believe this will give you a better sense of the underlying cash generation capability of each segment. Capital expenditures for the second quarter of 2017 were $91 million. For the full year, we expect to spend approximately $400 million for new activities. Additionally, as of June 30, 2017, approximately $175 million remains accrued but unpaid related to capacity expansion activities in 2016. Most of this unpaid amount is the subject of disputes with certain contractors and vendors and it is too soon to estimate the timing or final resolution of these matters. I want to highlight the cost reductions we've achieved across our system. This is the result of our targeted efforts to reduce cost in our head office and at our plants. Our SG&A is down slightly compared to the same period last year, which is a meaningful achievement considering our increased production volumes and ever increasing regulatory and reporting requirements. We have the lowest SG&A as a percentage of sales in the fertilizer space and among the lowest in commodity chemicals generally. At our manufacturing sites, reduced plant level activity and better procurement practices have decreased professional services, payroll and maintenance cost, resulting in a lower controllable cost of sales. As you can see on slide 10, we've reduced controllable cost of sales by $28 million compared to the second quarter of 2016 or about 15% per product ton. Year-to-date, these efforts have lowered controllable cost of sales by $45 million. Now, I would like to provide some specific thoughts regarding our expectations for the third quarter of 2017. We expect to see higher volumes and lower controllable costs compared to the third quarter of 2016, due to our expansions and the cost reduction activities I just mentioned. But we believe these positive impacts will be more than offset by lower product pricing in the market today as well as higher gas cost compared to the third quarter of 2016. As Bert mentioned, we launched our UAN fill program at $125 per short ton NOLA, which is about $15 to $20 lower than the last year. Tampa ammonia prices are $190 a metric ton today compared to about $280 a year ago. NOLA urea barge prices have recently moved up to around $185 per short ton, similar to last year. If you compare natural gas prices with the third quarter of 2016 to the third quarter of 2017, Henry Hub prices are up about $0.25 per MMBtu and NBP prices are up about $0.80. Based on our typical consumption and factoring in our hedge position, this is about a $30 million natural gas headwind on its own. Taking all of these factors into account, we believe it is unlikely that our financial results for the third quarter of 2017 will exceed the $83 million of adjusted EBITDA reported in the third quarter of 2016. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we move on to your questions, I want to recognize the winner of our 2017 Stephen R. Wilson Excellence in Safety Award, which was created to help us identify, honor and share the most impactful safety innovations and improvements made across our company every year. This year, our winning facility is the Courtright Nitrogen Complex for their innovative implementation of technology that eliminates the risk of high voltage arc flash incidence during infrared scans of our electrical equipment. They've also been nominated for an Ontario Electrical Safety Award for the idea. We're very proud of them and how this will improve safety across our system. I want to thank all of our employees for their work during the quarter. They operated safely, they operated well and they operated as a team. Their execution is even more critical during the current challenging market environment and has positioned CF well for long-term success. With that, Operator, we will now open the call to questions.
Operator:
Thank you. And our first question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Great. Thanks, guys. So, clearly, the market is under pressure, which is dominating the headlines, but I think most will be happy to see you're not sitting idly at all. Just putting the market aside for a second and your views, can you just walk us through a little more on the controllable per ton costs, the versatility (20:07) of your assets, especially given your new DEF unit, as well as any transportation logistics benefits inherent in your strategy and how you think these should help you further weather the storm so to speak for the back half and into 2018? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Chris. I'm going to ask a combination of folks to help answer that question, starting off with Chris Bohn on the controllable on the manufacturing side.
Christopher D. Bohn - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Chris. On the controllable cost decrease that we saw, is a makeup of a combination of factors as you mentioned, the increased volume accounted for about 60% of that decrease of the 15% or roughly as Dennis had mentioned, $15 per ton. But in addition to that, we had lower maintenance and also lower labor cost as we put focus back on safety and reliability, where in the past we had some of our focus by our engineering team largely put towards improvement projects, and as we've seen those projects sort of tail off here, we've been able to reduce costs considerably by that. But additionally, the plants operating as well as they have with the utilization over 100% in the quarter, that also really results in lower maintenance and it allows us during that timeframe to have more planned scheduled maintenance where there is lower costs related to that as well. So, this is something that we've increased the focus with all the general managers at the sites, we expect to continue the focus on that and probably lower activity by our engineering group on improvement projects.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Bert, you want to talk about the logistics?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sure. Good morning, Chris. So, there are a lot of things we're doing just to – you say weather the storm. We just view it as optimizing our system and allowing ourselves to have ultimate optionality regarding markets we participate in, geographic areas, exports, storage. And so, we're maintaining our inventories low and we entered the fill season with an adequate inventory and we're exiting that kind of sales campaign in a good position, we've got a good order book on with lower inventory in the system, which we can utilize. And as we mentioned in the prepared remarks, the options for exports on diesel, how we balance logistically. What has become difficult I think for our industry is the rail rates. As rail rates have maintained high, specifically the UP and the BNSF, into some of the Midwest that has limited some options. So, we have become better and we will continue to improve the utilization of trucks throughout our system and serving our customers in that way. So, we're always trying to look at our system, how we can improve it and how we can maximize. And I think a great example is the mega-tow that we used to haul UAN up the rivers and lower that net cost to the company.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
And just a quick follow-up. Can you just comment -
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Wong from RBC Capital. Your line is open.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Hi, good morning. Thanks for having me on the call. I'd like to ask about the sensitivity table, the EBITDA sensitivity table in the presentation, which is really helpful, thank you. The table I think is based on 2016 pricing relationships between urea and other products like UAN and ammonia, have any of these relationships changed over the past year or are expected to change, just looking at prices of urea for example, we're at $180 to $190 and UAN's at $120, it's pretty big gap versus historical levels. So any commentary around that would be really helpful. Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sure, Andrew. This is Bert. On some of those – they are changing, we update this chart, but those products are changing, I wouldn't say daily, but they're changing with regularity as demand periods are being utilized, for example, ammonia is a fall application and as well as spring but UAN is principally a spring application and urea is more throughout the year. And so, as trade flows and as products come in, some products are weaker sometimes than the others but generally the historical spreads do hold and UAN has traded at a premium to urea and ammonia and urea as a premium to ammonia and so it kind of stair steps and we use that in a broad base.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. The other thing, Andrew, that I'd add to that is what we will do typically when we will provide projections to the management team here and also to the Board of Directors, we will sensitize our projection of not what's shown here on this table but our projections that we do internally, to whatever the latest view is on product premiums and what have you in different locations. And as we've done that and as those things change through time what we have found is that this table remains relatively robust. As we think about sort of where our projection is and we looked at the average gas pricing and the average realized urea price, it kind of – it remains relatively robust to the changes that we ourselves make to sort of the differences between the products.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Okay. That's very helpful. And then just maybe just a follow-up on a longer-term kind of SMD (25:30) looking at your capacity additions, there are about 30 million tons of new capacity being added through to 2020, market grows historically at about 3 million to 4 million tons. I read your commentary that capacity additions slow down in 2019. Is that maybe when prices start getting a little bit better and we start seeing more meaningful increase or does it take maybe a little bit longer to absorb that new capacity? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, Andrew, I think one of the things that we would expect – there's a difference also between the kind of gross amount of new capacity coming online and what's net. So the one thing that I want to highlight is, there is an awful lot of capacity that's also shutting down, either because it's uneconomic to run it at current pricing or because feedstock availability is challenging or a combination of factors. And so, what's really important to look at is kind of what the net add is in each period versus the growth rate. But yeah, we would expect things to kind of get back to about level in 2018 and then start improving in 2019, and then accelerate the improvement as you get into 2020. Part of kind of that is predicated on our belief that you can't have sort of an infinite amount of capital that's lost and across the global system. And in a lot of these regions, there isn't enough cash being generated to go through turnarounds on the operating units. And so, that's basically when they start shutting down. So it certainly could happen sort of earlier than that, but at least the way that the data is playing out, we would expect kind of recovery to happen in sort of 2019 and then, accelerate as we go forward. That's a little bit later than we had said a call or two ago, and the principal reason for that is a lot of these projects are just delayed in terms of their start-up. And so, they cascade kind of out forward instead of starting up when they were originally scheduled to.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
That's great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson from BMO Capital. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Good morning. We've seen at NOLA ammonia prices are now trading pretty much in line with urea, maybe at a small premium. Historically, when that premium has been near zero, just above zero for ammonia at NOLA, you've seen a sharp rebound in ammonia prices and pretty quickly. Now, is that possible this year considering all the new capacity coming on? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I believe it is. I think when you look at ammonia and the discounts that it's trading at is not sustainable. I think that's a reflection of one or two vessels that were traded and you look at the production cost for most people around the world and to supply ammonia delivered at $190 metric ton, means an FOB number that's probably close to production cost, again depending on your gas cost. And so, how we're looking at ammonia and because we're principally focused on the ag market and the demand and the ability to get that product up and through, the ability to supply on a two-week to four-week window, the separation between Tampa and the Midwest, I think will become more pronounced if Tampa stays at this level, because that does not reflect an ag value for ammonia applied to the ground.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Okay. That's helpful. So my other question, in talking about some of the commentary around Q3. Of course, NOLA is up to $185 or $190 supposedly last night, it averaged for urea – excuse me, it averaged $180, the benchmark did, Q3 of last year. Your realized premium was only about $22, which isn't what you had in the past. So, when you talk about your commentary that might see lower prices and testing lows, can you elaborate on that a little bit more, because again we're seeing a rebound and to get to test lows, you'd have to see a very sharp decline and quickly?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, Andrew, one of the things about – Joel, I'm sorry. One of the things about the premium last year in market is that we didn't have the Port Neal urea plant up and operating. So, with more urea capacity sort of in market as opposed it being more NOLA-centric, that definitely helps from that perspective. But the challenge, as you know, there's very little product that is going to ground from an application standpoint from this point on until you get into the next application window in the spring, at least in the northern part of the Corn Belt system. And so, urea that is being purchased is basically going in shed for the next nine months. And so, if you end with an extraneous vessel or two that shows up over here when it's not needed, particularly with some of the other capacity coming online. That can have a pretty outsized impact in terms of what local pricing is, and particularly with a bunch of traders and other folks having a short leash in terms of their open book and their risk positions, then that stuff just starts trading and it creates a cascade effect in terms of price. So, that's the cautionary word out there. It's not where price is today, it's the fact that all it takes is one extra vessel to kind of rain on the parade.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
So really the message to importers is to stay away. Is that right?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I mean, I guess the message to importers are – there's probably other better value places in the world from a destination market perspective, because if you come here and you cater the market by $30, you're not doing yourself any favors.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of PJ Juvekar from Citibank. Your line is open.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Hey. Good morning, guys. It's Dan Jester on for PJ. So, looking – I want to go back to one of the earlier questions about the supply/demand balance. In 2015-2016, you've got about 12 million tons or 13 million tons of urea capacity getting shut down, but this year and next year, you only have 2 million tons or 3 million tons. So, can you just walk us through the factors why, even though market conditions maybe got worse, that you're not seeing as many permanent shutdowns as you saw in the past?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Boy, I think a lot of it just has to do with in terms of where the hydrocarbon spread is. You don't see as many people kind of – it's getting to a fairly flat plateau at the top end and you don't see as many people sitting well off the curve that are clearly upside down. So, when you get to a plateau period like that, then ultimately what's happening is, folks have to sort of they go through a period of time where they're not making cash, not hemorrhaging it, but not making it, and then when the next big turnaround cycle comes along, is typically when they're in the decision around shutting down. And so that's the expectation.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think that's also reflected in operating rates. And as the industry is operating around 80-plus percent, you don't have 100% of the static capacity available. And as – Tony is right, and I agree with him that, as prices remain low and cash is not available, that operating rate will continue to decline unless overall product will be available irrespective of the new capacity that's coming on.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Okay. That's great. Thank you. And then, Bert, I think you touched on this briefly in your prepared remarks. But can you just comment on what you're seeing in terms of the U.S. dealer inventory level exiting the spring and going into the fill season? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We think it's very low. We think it was low as reflected in what we were able to accomplish in June and July, maintaining UAN prices at market levels and having consistent demand every day because if the inventory – the first desire for the retail chain is to be out of inventory at the end of the year. And so that generally happens earlier than they anticipate just because they don't want to carry it. And then, we maintained our inventory position in the interior and continue to supply spot sales or new orders up to the day we launched our UAN fill program last week. And so that was for UAN urea. And then, earlier in the quarter, we launched a ammonia fill program, where these smaller bullets and smaller tanks – it's not a big program, but the industry participates in that, where you fill that up at one time and that was completely empty. So, we feel very, very positive going into Q3 and Q4 that we'll continue to grow, and as demand grows, and we can supply that product and fill those sheds for spring.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
All right. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Don Carson from Susquehanna. Your line is open.
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
This is Ben Richardson sitting in for Don this morning. Good morning.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning.
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
So, I wondered if you could talk a little about your export strategy going into the back half, do you plan to export more than 2Q and yeah?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Okay. Go ahead, sorry.
Christopher D. Bohn - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
No, I mean, just sort of at a very high level as Bert commented and I'll let him get into more of the details. But one of the reasons we exported a bunch of ammonia in the first half was because even though our supply agreement with Mosaic was scheduled to begin at the beginning of the year, their vessel wasn't ready and you need a Jones Act registered vessel to be able to move product intra the U.S. And so when that vessel becomes available, a lot of our excess ammonia will get soaked up by the contract and so we won't really be in a position to need to export those tons. The urea situation I think is really an opportunistic one, which is to the extent NOLA is trading at a discount to international marketplaces, it makes sense for us to go ahead and export because we can realize better netbacks. And on the UAN front, it's very situational depending in terms of what our opportunities look like and optimizing the whole. So, it's not that we have a stated strategy to export X or Y or not, it's really very opportunistic about maximizing netbacks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
That's exactly right. And the other component to that is we spent several years working on this to put ourselves in the position to be able to execute against it, and so what you're seeing is a result of work by the various teams with relationships and agreements and destination facilities to be able to move those tons in an attractive way for the company. And so, take urea for example, some of those were just spot deals. We recognized an anomaly in the market in May and early June, executed quickly against it, so 90,000 tons of our Q2 urea position went to Central and South America for urea. The UAN was more programmatic where we have some nice agreements in place and feel very comfortable with our ability to move that. A lot of that is inventory management as well. We produce a lot of UAN in Donaldsonville and we can ship it in various modes. But during this quarter, like Tony said, it's netback-driven and the netbacks were fairly attractive. So, I like the program. I like what we've put together. We're fairly a small team. We can execute quickly, have good relationships and enjoy doing that part of our business.
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
All right. And just as a follow-up, is there anything you've observed in the NOLA inland product premiums, any compression in urea spreads or UAN spreads?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Not yet. I think Tony mentioned that there's the normal Q3, and we're in a normal Q3, where we're asking our customers to store that product for several months and pay cash up front, and so that does come at a discount. But we're fully expecting, and we saw this year the premium for all the products are holding and expect that into next year as well.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I would say, Ben, in that regard, we have seen some other producers in market drop their price well below kind of our price, which if you look at NOLA versus where they launched at, you'd say there was pretty significant compression. But in those instances, we just walked away because we didn't think that represented the accurate value and pricing of nitrogen on a per unit basis. And so I feel very comfortable in terms of where our price realization is going to be against a number of other producers inland.
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. Thank you very much, guys.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Sorry, guys. I think I got cut off there earlier.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We enjoy your questions so much, Chris, we want to space them out. Every 10 minutes, you'll have to ask another one.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Well, you haven't even heard my question yet. Bert hit on this a little, but I just want to dive in just one step further, can you just further comment on the domestic selling behavior over the last quarter, or really the last year and just, I think it's pretty clear that it's fairly unsustainable, especially given some Middle East imports. Can you just comment on your summer fill program – and I think another question alluded to this – and just kind of comment on your pricing and potentially deterring imports from the East Coast, specifically, I think some postings in Cincinnati. And just how do you think that is going to be able to alleviate the blow from certain new facilities, mainly OCI, coming online during the next few quarters? Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Okay. Chris. Yeah, thanks and welcome back.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, summer fill, we did launch it last week for UAN and we see it as a success. We targeted a certain amount of tonnage to be available during the quarter and into Q4, and we've achieved that. We've seen balanced purchasing from small, medium and large customers. We have not built much to our export book yet, so that potential still remains out there. But we feel comfortable with what we launched at NOLA, and then the step-ups to the Midwest. And I think pricing was pretty good, we launched at a level that we thought was attractive for our domestic customers. And you're right. The East Coast is our lowest netback in our system and our Louisiana vessel that we supply over there, we moved, I wouldn't say significant tons, but we moved tonnage over there as a new market for us that we didn't participate in several years ago, and we think with our logistic assets, we are now able to participate and plan to. The Cincinnati option has been really good for us, where we're able to move a significant tonnage up in there, store it, and move it out by truck and rail as well as Stolthaven which we work with ENS. ENS (42:03) has been very supportive of our ability to move by rail into the Eastern market. So, probably our biggest growth market has been that Eastern seaboard and into the mid-corn region of the East.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But, Chris, you're absolutely right, in terms of thinking about like the Russian production, because we're not pricing off of what other people are doing. North America remains an import-driven marketplace. And so pricing really is established based on what the imported ton gets over here from. As I said, when some of the other producers out there, kind of want to blow their brains out, we just let them do it, and because our focus is really on the Russian tons that are coming over, and that's how we calculate where pricing should realistically sit, not based on what other people are doing.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And we think we're attractively priced, Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast and so you're right. These new plants are coming online, we think they have a place in the market. And we're trying to continually grow the options and the advantages to us to be able to take care of our business, run our plants at a high rate and move the product ratably and maintain inventory and maintain a pricing structure that we believe is appropriate, reflects an appropriate value for the product to our end customer, which is the farmer.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Great. Thanks for letting me back in. Appreciate it.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Hi. I just wanted to discuss sort of how you think about the fill program in the future. It seems like NOLA prices are probably less relevant and as OCI kind of reaches closer to full capacity, do you expect to have sort of different pricing for each region or how do you sort of think about how you establish the fill program going forward? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I'll say one thing and then ask Bert to get into the details, Michael, but we on our fill program, we do it on a delivered basis today. So, it's not one size fits all, it's kind of depending upon what the costs are to get to different areas. And, as I mentioned, it's not whether plant X or plant Y is up, because North America continues to be import-dependent and it's based on really what's the cost of the Russian tons getting over here. And so that sets the East Coast price in those East Coast tanks and then it sort of cascades in from there. But, Bert, do you want to...?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think the fill program will have a future, because again, especially with a liquid product like UAN, you're logistically-dependent to move incremental amounts on a continual basis. And so we have to have relationships and an understanding in place with our customers of where value lies to move this product, because we don't want to sit on it for six months. We can't sit on it for several months, and we can do different options with the plants in terms of product portfolio. But this is the business we're in, so we need to align with our customers and that's what we've done is sit down and try to figure that out. Regarding other producers, you have to remember, the one you mentioned is probably 100,000 tons a month. That's not that much in a 14 million ton market. And so as a supplier, we believe we are a global supplier and this is a global market that we are always looking at all different options and trying to maximize the profitability of this company.
Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Okay. Great. And then just another question regarding kind of the future of fall ammonia, I mean how do you see that market with all the regulations evolving over the next few years, and is it better for CF longer-term to have a big fall ammonia market or is it better for it to be a more spring-dependent, UAN maybe having a bigger percentage of the market...?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, I would say on the second question is it better, we're ambivalent on that. We want to do what's right, and we want our customers do what's right for them, and we do believe in the four Rs; right place, right time, right product, right rate. And fall ammonia plays a nice component in that. It's a very good – with adequate soil moisture applying at the right ambient temperature of 50 degrees, fall ammonia sets in and is available to the farmer in the spring. So it's a good utilization, I'm talking full utilization of the equipment, diesel, time, and value of the product. It's going to be interesting this year in the fall because as we roll into November and the application period, today, ammonia represents an exceptional value, multi – I would say a decade low value for the farmer. And so we should see if price and decision making does have a correlation, low prices should incent more people to apply giving good weather conditions this fall, more ammonia. And by the way, we are just the company to take advantage of that, and we are pretty excited about it.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We have the largest as you know, Michael, ammonia distribution network between our terminals and our plants and so a robust ammonia application season plays well against our asset base and we're well situated to take advantage of it.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But no matter what happens, we have a balanced portfolio for ammonia of industrial, our contract with Mosaic, our ag business, our storage ability and then the ability to export if needed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Danielle, next question please.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Matthew Korn from Barclays. Your line is open.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, Matthew.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
So, we talked a lot about imports and the effects thereof, and it sounds as though you're seeing some effect of greater availability ex-CF within North America. My question is does this get heavier before it gets easier? In other words, is there a good amount of domestic supply outside of your sales, that's new, has been commissioned, that's only now or into the second half starting to bite?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, what's come online so far has been our production and other than that, nobody is fully operational that we know of. We know Agrium came up with some new tons for urea in Borger. We think they're up and operating. The Waggaman facility for industrial ammonia from Dyno has been up for the last year. We think OCI is up and down, I don't think they are fully operational yet. And then you have the Koch and the Dakota Gas tons that are ammonia to urea. And so we believe those tons can be absorbed into this market. We're still going to have to import 3 million tons to 4 million tons of urea, 1 million tons to 1.5 million tons of UAN, and some ammonia no matter what. And so, the import effects, I think the imports will continue to play a role, just probably less so, and that should give options for CF domestically as well as internationally and that we'll take advantage of.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think the bigger challenge a little bit, Matthew, is that you know, we have a very robust and well developed distribution network where we can store tons and kind of deal with the evolving buyer behavior. So when buyers are sitting on the sidelines there is other things we can do, whether it's, you know, at first (49:36) developed our export optionality or putting the tons into our storage system or whatnot. Most of those other new plants that are coming up don't have those options available to them. And so, because they don't have a robust distribution network, and they don't have export optionality, they're sort of stuck a little bit. And therefore the thing that they tend to do is just drop price until they find some takers. And that does create a little bit of sloppiness, but again, we're not pricing off of what other people are doing, we're pricing off of the next ton into the market, which is in the case UAN, really a Russian ton.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Got it. Thanks, Tony. Let me ask then about your own plants, with the current market requiring such a priority on liquidity, when you're spending $400 million in CapEx over the course the year, are you delaying spending that you're accruing for 2018, 2019 and 2020 at this point?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Remember the $400 million also includes about $25 million to $30 million on the Donaldsonville DEF projects. So we've got 400,000 tons of DEF now on a urea equivalent basis at D'ville which gives us both great margin and product flexibility, optionality. If we cut things down to just purely kind of maintenance capital, keep the lights on, we can tighten our belt a little bit off of that number, and we're continuing to focus on that, as we look forward, clearly minimizing our fixed charges is top of the list. And Chris and his team, on the manufacturing side are well aware of that, and really focused on doing that exact thing.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Got it. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
A lot of ground has been covered today. One thing that I didn't see in the slide deck that you have put in fairly consistently recently has been kind of the view of the cost curve and wondering if you had any new thoughts or any updated view on where kind of marginal cost, I presume Chinese anthracite would be sitting today and as you look into 2018?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. We don't really have anything that's dramatically different from what we put out there in Q1. As I think most people know, we've added a new board member, John Eaves, who is the CEO of Arch Coal and one of – John has a tremendous background, but one of the things that's really terrific in the near-term is his understanding of coal markets globally and his visibility into what's going on in China, and I think that's kind of reinforced our position and we don't really have any changes from the Q1 material.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
All right. That's helpful. And then, maybe a market structure question. And I think you alluded in your third quarter or in second half outlook remarks that imports should not be coming here given again where the U.S. prices are versus rest of the world, and the increase in domestic production. And I'm wondering as you look at that seaborne market globally, ex the U.S., if you think that there is enough liquidity there from key buyers in India, Brazil, Europe and others to really be able to absorb a reduced U.S. presence in the seaborne market. I'm just trying to think about how do we get U.S. prices back to international parity without cargoes finding the way back to NOLA because of the liquidity that is often found there, any thoughts there?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Adam, that's kind of spot-on, right. So if there was circa 50 million traded tons last year, and a slice of that came to the U.S., and we don't need that anymore, where do those tons go? And that's the nail on the head. And I think what happens is, you end up with higher cost facilities in some of these other regions for which imports are in option, but historically, haven't played a role. Those plants start coming under pressure. So in particular, Yara is shutting down a plant in France. And there is some other challenges with some other higher cost, marginal European production. Ukraine is down. China has taken a big slice of production down. And so, I think it's a combination of both less traded seaborne tons because the Chinese production is coming off. And also new destinations for some of that, instead of NOLA it will go other places. But that's why we see some ongoing kind of sloppiness in the market likely persisting through the back-end of this year and into next before we start getting a more robust pricing environment.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC:
That's really helpful. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne from BoA. Your line is open. Your line is open.
Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Tony, you had mentioned earlier about what you view as important is the net capacity adds and as you define that metric, you have this roster of Chinese capacity, 2 million tons to 3 million tons you expect to be permanently shuddered over the next two years, three years. How do you come to a landing on that roster and do you – how would you assess the potential upside if say none of that restarts versus the downside of all of it coming back on-stream. How do you – you have feet on the ground that are giving you that assessment and maybe you could just highlight that a little bit?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. So, Steve, we do have some people on the ground, we have the Chinese national imports organization that does travel over there with some of our product managers and we do have a page in here on page 32 that gives at least a listing of some of the tons and where they are sitting and what their feedstock is. And so, it's based on kind of an understanding. We did a pretty thorough analysis a year or two years ago, plant by plant build-up of what the feedstock was, what the cost was where the coal – where the feed came from and what the destination was, was it being used internally or was it going basically as an export-oriented plant, and it's a combination of some of that analysis along with where current coal prices are and honestly the restriction and challenges around gas availability and some of the environmental regs that have come up and it's the intersection of all of those that have led us to kind of this view of what capacity is, kind of likely in jeopardy over there. Now, can things change? Sure. It could change either direction. But I think, there is a concerted effort by the regime to transition away from some of the zombie industries to get some improved environmental policies put in place. And I think that plays very well relative to where what we're projecting and may even give us some upside.
Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you. And Bert, you were talking earlier about the shift in buying patterns in North America to more of a just-in-time delivery expectation, shifting to the spring, et cetera. Do you expect that trend to continue? And in general, do you think that could lead to perhaps just lower fill pricing versus historical levels and perhaps tighter market conditions in the spring?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We've seen these patterns ebb and flow over the years as customers perceive value, they enter the market and they want to buy it. We used to have to limit the size of our fill program for UAN, and at one point it was 3 million tons and we had to limit it at that and those were healthy prices. Last year, we almost couldn't find a buyer, and we didn't do almost half of what we've already done this year. And so, each year is different, again, as a perceived value, the carrying opportunity for that retailer to realize a higher price in the market once he sells. And so I think that's why we've just been cautious and we've been pragmatic through this process of trying to understand the market and utilize what we can. But I do believe that they're in the business of selling – buying and selling and applying fertilizer for their farmer customers, and I think that will continue to grow. And I think we're moving towards a much more service-related side to that business than just a buying and storing and so we see those to our – that moves to our advantage and moves to our – those are the type of customers we want to deal with. So, we see the fill program and programs like that continuing to be an integral part of what we do.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The only thing I would add to that is, fill at $125 NOLA for instance is on a unit of nitrogen equivalent of about $180 urea and urea is $10 above that. And so, historically UAN trades at a premium to urea. When it gets upside down, then there tends to be a lot of interest. And we don't think that there is a lot of downward pressure coming on urea, we think it's found a pretty reasonable place to trade at, absent a spurious extra vessel. But that would be a local regional issue, not a global one. And therefore, when UAN price drops to a place that it's very competitive or priced below urea, we would expect there to be a pretty high take rate on fill. So, it's lower than it has been in the past, but we're still making pretty good cash margins at $125, and we feel comfortable with that.
Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Just taking the Chinese urea production to another level, do you guys think it's possible that China would choose to become a net importer of urea or do you think they sort of would want to stop at self-sufficiency?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think it's highly possible. We were actually following that story a little bit this year. I think as you look at the cost structure and what Tony mentioned earlier with the transition that's taking place in their economy, I think you have to take a little longer-term view, but longer-term could be a few years. There is adequate supply of low cost urea coming out of the Arab Gulf, that's logistically attractive. And where China is based in terms of their production base is more to the south and interior, but your consumption base is in the north. And so there are places where it makes sense to import product on an actual cost basis. And so I think as this rolls out and we see some of these shutdowns that we're expecting and not any new plants being built, there is a high possibility or probability that imports – and it doesn't take much, 1 million tons here, 1 million tons there would be accretive to the market.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. And just as a follow-up to that. If we take slide 14 and just sort of get ourselves out to 2019, 2020, 2021, if we hold sort of current production cost constant, where do you think the U.S. cost advantage is on a short ton of urea basis, versus the high cost of production and that's actually operating when we get out sort of once the new capacity is coming on slower than demand?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, part of that, Vincent, is embedded in kind of the evolution of LNG markets and gas markets and so forth, which we've spent certainly some time kind of looking at. I would think in the neighborhood of $3.50 to $4 of gas spread is kind of a fairly reasonable sort of way to think about it. And the cost curve kind of continues and continues to evolve and will hold. But if you think about sort of roughly 25 MMBtu per metric ton of production, it takes more than that in the older plants, but in the current ones, the world-scale ones, you're talking somewhere in the neighborhood of about $100 of delta on cost before you basically load it on a ship and send it and then unload it. So, that could be $120, $125 pretty easily by the time something gets landed over here.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it.
Operator:
Thank you. And the next question comes from the line of John Roberts from UBS. Your line is open.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you. Back on slide 32. I just want to confirm you have none of the temporary idled capacity entering the permanent closure category by 2019?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
That's correct. We don't have it in there. Again, it might be a bit of a conservative assumption, based on sort of what's happening from a cash loss perspective, but that is the approach that we've taken on this one.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Do you have a guess at temporary idles for 2018 and does price have to get above the 2016 levels for anything to restart here, given most of those temporary idles occurred in 2016?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, again, kind of our earlier comments was we expect challenging market conditions through the balance of 2017 and into 2018. So, if you impute what you will from that comment about pricing. But given, if you've got sort of status quo on coal-based cost, then I certainly would expect some of those temporary shutdowns to persist.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Sandy Klugman from Vertical Research. Your line is open.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you. Good morning.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Morning, Sandy.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
A lot has been covered, but maybe you can help us to think about the market potential for diesel exhaust fluid. Discuss how the margins there compare what you can generate in the agricultural market? And then, if there is a sizable premium, how should we think about the potential for it to be competed away?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sandy, we love DEF. I'm going to let Bert talk about the market size, but our price utilization per urea equivalent ton is close to $100, between $80 and $100, depending upon where you are, but one of the benefits that we have is because of the number of locations that we produce it at, we can provide supply security to our major customers. And if you're a one-off plant, you can't do that. There's still a fair number of "suppliers of DEF" that are either bringing in prilled products and melting it down or transporting it in from Europe or other places, which is an expensive way to get it over here. So, we operate, we think, on a pretty advantaged platform from a couple of perspectives, in that regard. And it does take a fair bit of capital, as we talked about at D'ville in order to be able to produce it, so it's not free and it's not something that everyone could just run out and do. And even if they have it at one location, it doesn't mean they can get the same kind of supply agreements that we can, given the surety of supply that a number of our key customers are looking for. So, we feel we have a pretty sizeable advantage in that regard. But, Bert, you want to talk about the evolution of demand and how we expect that to continue?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. It's been a very nice product. Everything you articulated is exactly where we are and we're excited about the growth. I would say we're at close to 1 million tons of urea equivalent tons of demand and we expect that to continue to grow. The Class 8 trucks, the power units that drive this today, are not even 50% converted and that will continue to grow. And then you've got the off-road rail, marine, if they do grow, I think that's a little more, several years out. But for the first time, as I said in my remarks, North America will pass Europe in total demand, but we expect both markets. And then if get China to grow, Brazil, some of these other areas longer term, that's just positive growth and positive environmental benefit. And so, when we talk about the 2% growth rate in this business, a lot of it is industrial growth, people only focus on the ag, but I would say half of the growth is now in the industrial segment and that will continue to be the case. And so, the premium, we're on all the Class 1 railroads, we're able to move the product, we've got a huge fleet now committed to DEF, great relationships and contracts in place with our customers. So, we have positioned ourselves well for this market.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The only thing I'd say, Sandy is, a million tons today growing at a pretty good clip is predicated on a dosing rate that's in the sort of 2% range, 2%, 2.5%. If it gets up to 5% dosage, which it certainly could, we could easily see over 2 million tons of demand. So, we think there is a fair bit of runway and that's one of the reasons why we built such a large capacity D'ville from a DEF perspective.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
That's helpful. Thank you. And just a follow-up question on you gas cost in Western Canada, does the company have a long-term projection for where the AECO spread to NYMEX will sit?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I don't think we have a long-term projection. We like it. I mean it's trading at times at $1 below the Hub. And when you look at as you march your way up through the Midwest and into Canada, each of those steps are positive or I would say lower gas costs for those plants. And with the gas production capable of coming out of Canada as well as the Bakken, we anticipate that AECO is going to stay at a fairly attractive rate to Henry Hub.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I think, Sandy, one of things we look at is as the infrastructure gets built out in the Marcellus Basin, they're able to move more product up into the East Coast from that basin that pushes gas from Canada from the East back West and that just sort of accentuates that issue. And obviously going to have more gas coming out of Permian and some other places as well in the States. So gas that had been coming to the U.S., given everything that's happening here from Canada is going to get backed up and as that happens, we would anticipate that AECO spread will remain robust.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Thanks very much. I think you generated about $20 million in cash, exclusive of the tax benefit that you got this quarter. Now, maybe your payables are lower than they might be and maybe your inventories are a little higher than they might be. As a base case in the second half, do you think you're going to use working capital or are you going to throw off cash from working capital?
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I mean, Jeff, this Dennis. My – you look at what I said with respect to the third quarter, fourth quarter I don't know where we're going to be, but it's not impossible to believe that we may be using cash in the second half. I suspect we will use cash certainly in the third quarter but with respect to the second half as a whole, it's hard to say because it's really so dependent on what happens to price. If you look last year, we had a price rally in the fourth quarter going to the first quarter this year, whether that materializes this year or not and what the magnitude of that might be is going to really be what dictates a lot of that for the half.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. The other point, Jeff, that I'd remind people of is, we generated about $150 million of cash in the first quarter from operations and then another $20 million in the second. So kind of year-to-date we're up not that far away from $200 million of cash gen, and so if we dip into that a little bit of that here in the third quarter and then see what develops in the fourth quarter, we feel pretty comfortable about that.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. But I think the important point, Jeff, is even with these challenging conditions, the cash that we are generating covering our fixed charges, we just have a huge liquidity position as we've talked about.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
So, many of the fertilizer companies have been under all kinds of pressure with the nitrogen down cycle. Do you think that these sorts of pressures increase the probability of further consolidation in nitrogen fertilizer? Or do you think that they just create so many price inefficiencies for the valuations of companies that consolidation opportunities are diminished in an environment like this?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Now look, I mean, I think, consolidation is likely to occur, it was pretty public that one of the public fertilizer companies was evaluating strategic alternatives and looking for a sale, that they canceled that process. But I think that that's not uncommon. If there's basically $1 of synergy to be had in any given situation, $1 of synergy goes a lot farther in a lower premium environment, lower premium, because the base assets are priced lower to begin with, than it does in a high valuation environment. So, I would expect there to be ongoing consolidation.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay. Great. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back over to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Danielle, and that concludes our second quarter call. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to content me.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc. Neil Chandan Sanyal - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Oliver Rowe - Scotia Capital, Inc. Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the first quarter 2017 CF Industries Holdings earnings conference call. My name is William. I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question and answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick, with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this call today for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President of Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its first quarter 2017 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question and answer session related to the company's financial results for the quarter. As you review the news release posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide 2 of the accompanying presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This conference call will include discussion of certain non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, a presentation of the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and coinciding reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is provided in the earnings release and the slides of the webcast presentation on the company's website at www.cfindustries.com. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the first quarter 2017, in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $272 million after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. The first quarter demonstrated the agility of the CF team and of our business model, as we had to contend with navigating the effects of changing buyer behavior and an uneven price environment. Through it all, the team performed exceptionally well, finding the best margin opportunities out there. We produced and sold more tons than ever before. However, the record volumes were about more than just additional production capacity. They reflected how our people responded to a rapidly changing marketplace in order to capture the best opportunities available, whether those opportunities were in the strong early demand for ammonia and UAN that developed in Southern Plains or pivoting to expand our exports when the spring stalled and buyers held back. Our manufacturing system is running extremely well, with our new plants performing better than we could have imagined. Donaldsonville Ammonia number 6, our new plant, is running above 4,000 tons per day, roughly 10% above nameplate, while the Port Neal ammonia plant is producing over 2,850 tons per day or 18% above nameplate, with more upside to go on both ammonia plants. Both new urea plants are about 4,350 tons per day, 13% over nameplate, and the new acid/UAN plant at Donaldsonville is over 6,000 tons per day of UAN, more than 20% above nameplate. All the tons that we produce above nameplate capacity, which at these rates equates to roughly 250,000 tons per year of ammonia, for example, are basically at variable cash costs only. Given the North American gas cost is among the lowest in the world, those incremental tons are highly profitable for us. With our low cost structure and flexible network, we run our plants at maximum rates. Even when North American buyers pulled back, as the weather got cold and wet in late February and through March, our team took advantage of the options we have to export, options most of our domestic competitors don't have. And although netback pricing for exports typically isn't as strong as Corn Belt delivered pricing, if the North American buyers aren't buying, we have very cash positive options abroad. In fact, despite record exports, if you compare our average realized pricing for the quarter with many of our competitors that have in-market production, I am really proud of what our team accomplished. They moved the tons, kept the plants running and realized good cash margins – so good, in fact, that the company returned to generating positive cash flow for the quarter. We added $148 million to our cash balance during the first quarter, which stood at $1.3 billion as of March 31. However, that performance was against a backdrop of overall low global prices. As we look at producers in high-cost regions, we are seeing rational behavior in response to these current industry conditions. For example, we have seen reductions in Ukrainian urea operating rates and recently announced curtailments of ammonia production there as well. Chinese producers have reduced operating rates and exports due to the low global price environment. Reported Chinese operating rates for the first quarter remained below 60%. While there were roughly 9 million metric tons of capacity shut down permanently in China last year, an additional 7 million metric tons has also been idle. A majority of those plants have been idle for many months and are not currently running despite local Chinese spring demand. We believe this increases the probability that a substantial portion of these plants will not restart. This low level of Chinese production is evident in reduced export activity, as shown on pages 13 and 14 of our accompanying slides. According to industry sources, Chinese urea exports were 1.2 million metric tons during the first quarter compared to 3 million metric tons during the first quarter of 2016. We continue to expect 5 million to 6 million metric tons of exports from China for the full year 2017, which is down significantly from recent years. At the same time, the number of new capacity expansion projects being initiated around the globe has slowed dramatically. We continue to project the rate of net new capacity growth after this year and for the foreseeable future to be well below the normal annual demand growth rate of 2%, as is illustrated on pages 15 through 18 of our materials. Therefore, we expect the global supply and demand balance to tighten over the next few years, leading to industry recovery. Now, let me turn the call over to Bert, who will talk about the market environment in more detail. Then Dennis will discuss our financial position before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. Our operational performance during the first quarter showed how well we have prepared for the environment the nitrogen industry faces today. Over the past year, customers have resisted taking position and are increasingly delaying purchases until the last minute. As a supplier, we have to be ready to meet demand when and where it develops. Our operational advantages enabled CF to do that exceptionally well during the first quarter, as early strong demand emerged in parts of North America. Warm and dry weather allowed the Southern and Southwest regions to be very active in applying ammonia during the first quarter. Our Oklahoma plants ran very well. Shipments for January and February were more than double the four year average. We also shipped a significant volume of UAN during the quarter because of early demand. The wet and cold weather that appeared in the Midwest in mid-March slowed applications and purchases by our customers, leaving significant nitrogen demand to be filled through the rest of the application season. Additionally, given the approximately 90 million acres of corn expected to be planted in the U.S. this year, we anticipate strong demand for upgraded products in order to make up for the lack of fall and early spring ammonia applications. Even with the unfavorable weather at the end of the quarter, our ammonia sales volume grew by 25% over the first quarter of 2016. Urea and UAN applications did not begin in earnest during the first quarter, but we sold record amounts into the channel as our customers prepared for spring. Sales volume for urea was 4% higher than last year, while we grew our UAN volume 27%. The average selling price for each product improved over fourth quarter 2016 results, but was lower than the first quarter of 2016. Ammonia prices rose steadily from the middle of the fourth quarter through the end of March due to healthy industrial demand and operational issues at several locations around the globe that kept supply tight. Urea prices, and to a lesser extent UAN, followed a very different path through the quarter. NOLA barge prices for urea were below $200 a ton in the middle of the fourth quarter rose to about $250 a ton at the end of January and then fell back below $200 in March. Global nitrogen prices are responding to the capacity increases of the past few years, anticipated increases this year and changing buyer behavior. We believe the rising prices we saw in the U.S. in January and early February attracted imports to the United States. This was exacerbated by a lack of other export destinations such as India, which do not have a tender for several months prior to April. When import vessels arrived in the U.S. Gulf during the back half of the first quarter and beginning of the second quarter, North American customers resisted taking spot positions ahead of spring application. Prices fell in response and are now at a point that should dissuade exports to the United States. In North America, additional capacity will be coming online over the next year. We believe the North American capacity additions at Wever, Enid and Borger will not ramp up quickly enough to have significant sales this spring season, but will likely impact the remainder of the year. It will take time for the global nitrogen market to adjust to all the changes that we have seen in the past few years and settling to new trade flow patterns. The flexibility CF has built into our manufacturing, distribution, and logistics system gives us confidence in our ability to optimize the business, no matter the external environment. With that, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the first quarter of 2017, the company reported a net loss per diluted share of $0.10 and EBITDA of $218 million. After taking into account the items detailed in our press release, our adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was $272 million and our adjusted earnings per diluted share was $0.05. For the first quarter, our largest adjustment was a $53 million unrealized mark-to-market loss on natural gas derivatives. Interest expense was $80 million, which we expect to be our quarterly run rate until we pay down the notes due in May 2018, after which it should drop to approximately $66 million per quarter. Depreciation and amortization expense was $205 million for the first quarter of 2017, up from $146 million in the first quarter of 2016. We expect full year 2017 D&A to be approximately $875 million. The higher D&A has also impacted gross margin per ton for all of the applicable segments. To help you compare the gross margins in the first quarter to prior periods, we have added information to the segment tables in the press release and a chart on slide 10 in the presentation. In this tables and charts, we adjust depreciation and amortization and unrealized mark-to-market gains or losses on natural gas derivatives from gross margin as reported to show an adjusted gross margin. We believe this will give you a better sense of the underlying cash generation capability of each segment. Turning to cash flow, we generated $148 million of cash during the quarter and our cash and cash equivalents on the balance sheet rose to $1.3 billion as of March 31. Capital expenditures for the first quarter of 2017 were $94 million. For the year, we expect to spend approximately $400 million to $450 million for sustaining and other new activities. Additionally, as of March 31, 2017, approximately $183 million remains accrued but unpaid related to capacity expansion activities in 2016. Most of this unpaid amount is the subject of disputes with certain contractors and vendors and it is too soon to estimate the timing or final resolution of these matters. We will continue our prudent approach to managing the balance sheet in order to be in a position to retire $800 million of debt coming due in 2018. The 2018 debt retirement will be funded by the federal and state tax refunds of approximately $800 million we fully expect to receive in the third quarter of 2017. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we move to your questions, I want to thank everyone at CF for their hard work this quarter. I've highlighted how well our team executed the business, but most importantly, we did it safely. Our rolling 12-month recordable injury rate at the end of the quarter was 1.13, which is well below industry benchmarks. I particularly want to recognize our team at Verdigris, Oklahoma, who recently achieved 1 million safe hours without a recordable injury. CF structural advantages, our access to low cost North American gas, operating in import-dependent North America and the long-term demand growth for nitrogen are enduring. Our operational advantages, scale, production flexibility, extensive in-region distribution network and export optionality set us apart from other producers. Taken together, they position CF to benefit disproportionately from the cyclical recovery we believe will begin to take shape in 2018. With that, operator, we will now open the call for questions.
Operator:
Thank you. As a courtesy to others on the call, we ask that you limit yourself to two questions. Should you have additional questions, we ask that you re-enter the queue. We will answer additional questions as time allows. For our first question, we have Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. You may now ask your question.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Thanks. Good morning, everybody.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
So, maybe to begin, Tony, Bert, maybe I'll talk about the market environment a little bit, as you think about the spring and how the market has evolved quite rapidly and changed in maybe March and April with where we are today, and as you think about market premiums to be realized in the second quarter. Can you talk about maybe the lack of the need of in-season application for urea, UAN? And how that might influence realized market premiums for your product in the second quarter versus the first, which obviously had a lot of export tons that start to move offshore as the market slows late in the quarter?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, Adam. This is Bert. And you're right, this has been a strange evolving market, and every spring is, whether it came early in 2012 when we had record applications of ammonia to the wet and cold February and March that we saw this year, which then delayed applications. And so, we're still working to get product through the system. I think ammonia is going to be challenged for the next probably next couple of week and we'll move a lot to side-dress. And so, you're going to see probably additional tons needed of UAN and urea to backfill for top-dress applications of those products. And so, the premiums in the market, we believe we're still holding. You're seeing premiums over NOLA, which is a freight calculation as you move up and through, and you're seeing the N premiums hold for UAN, urea has fallen quite a bit from the highs of early March. And I think you're going to see that value probably improve a little bit. As we move and applications begin, you're going to see probably some needs to move product around. And so – I didn't get your question on the lack of applications. What was that referring to?
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Well, it's just how the move to position product offshore later in the first quarter might have impacted your realizations versus benchmarks maybe relative to your expectations on the fourth quarter earnings call in mid-February?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. There's no question that the volume of imports that came in, coupled with the increased capacity that's come online in North America, our own, overwhelmed the market. And that product came in just when the cold weather hit, delaying applications, backing up product in the system, and I think a lot of our customers had position limits and were unable or unwilling to purchase pushing pricing lower to a point where we're at, I would say, below many of the higher cost producers in the world that exported product to the United States. And so, we're in a strange environment where UAN and urea are almost trading at price parity and that has not occurred. And so imports we see already are decreasing and have to in order to balance the market and bring back probably rational or normal price structures.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
And maybe just a follow-up on China, and this goes to maybe the demand growth that you've seen. I mean, you look at the Chinese production and export rates year-to-date, applied some pretty significant declines and year-on-year off-take domestically in China, coupled with, I mean, what's been the very slow Indian import level. Is there any worry on maybe that long-term nitrogen demand outlook of 2% or do you think this is a one year pause with inventory issues in the channel that maybe provide opportunities into 2018?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think looking at China, the numbers just did not add up and we've been working on that. We even added a couple of teams over there to try to bring on the ground information back and help us understand better. But, clearly, operating rates with demand don't – the numbers still don't work. So, inventory levels had to have been higher in China going into spring and those have been worked down. We believe the same thing happened in India, where they were able to stay out of the market for seven months using internal production as well as probably higher inventory levels. And it looks like in many places around the globe that those inventories have been worked off and I think you're going to see a return to probably healthier or more ratable shipping patterns over the next couple months. But where we are today with the pricing level of urea was not expected, and that's going to have to force some decisions by higher cost producers to cease production, and you're seeing that in China today.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
All right. That's very helpful. I'll pass it on.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi, good morning. Thank you. Good morning. I wanted to talk about ammonium nitrate a bit. I mean, these contracts, I believe Orica and Nelson Brothers, were signed a few years ago. They (22:08) January 1. Can you talk about how your ammonia nitrate earnings are going to shift versus what we've seen the last few years? How will the volume play out across the year? How the contract's structured, where you can tell us – just to get an idea what they're benchmarked to, what they're indexed to, so we can figure out pricing? And then maybe give a little bit color about how ammonium nitrate prices are tracking in the U.S., but also in the U.K. where you have a lot of capacity? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So you've hit on a good segment for us. The contract did commence January 1. It's a 10-year contract. We've got a great relationship with the Orica Group and Nelson Brothers. They work together, moving our ammonium nitrate, ammonium nitrate solutions out of Yazoo City. We've revamped that plant to be a world-scale, very competitive plant with a lot of optionality around it with nitric acid, ammonia, UAN, and DEF that we also ship out of there. But I think what you're seeing is the positive impact of that contract, which is a gas-based contract with a healthy margin for CF. It's an extension of the previous 10-year contract, which we believe gives viability to Yazoo City for the long term. And so what we did is then restructured the physical plant, moving from high agricultural ammonium nitrate to high industrial, and a much lower level of agricultural product, which allows that plant to run full speed 12 months of the year. You also highlighted what's going on in the U.K., and we've got now almost a couple years of the U.K. operations tucked into our system. The person running that operation, David Hopkins, has done a great job of improving our average price realization. And so you're seeing that reflected both the U.K. operation and the Orica/Nelson Brothers contract in the performance of the ammonium nitrate segment.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And the other thing that I would just highlight here, Joel, is one of the things that Dennis called out is we're including adjusted gross margin calculations on the segment reporting data and as well as the nutrient ton volumes that we're selling. And if you look at kind of the adjusted gross margin per nutrient ton, ammonium nitrate is actually the best product performing out of the major four products. Now, our other segment is above that yet still because it contains DEF and other really high-value premium products, but we are really happy with our AN segment. It's performing very well. As Bert said, we're really pleased with working with Orica and Nelson Brothers and the new contract we have in place and with – it's a business that we like.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Joel, this is Dennis. The other point that I would make is if you look at the gross margin in the ammonium nitrate segment – and the comment that I'm about to make applies to all four of the major products, UAN, ammonia and urea and ammonium nitrate. If you look at cost of goods sold and you take out of the analysis realized gas costs and also depreciation, amortization and mark-to-market, what we see across the board is that we are getting greater efficiencies, as cost efficiencies on a per-ton basis for all of the four major products and we're seeing that kind of roll through to the results. It's not so obvious. We're trying to – obviously, as Tony alluded to, we're showing adjusted gross margin. We're trying to shed a little bit more light on it, but it's actually very good story from a manufacturing efficiency perspective.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne from Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes. Thank you. That 5 million to 6 million ton export estimate out of China for urea this year, is that assuming that some of that roughly 8 million tons of capacity that you have a roster of temporarily shuttered capacity, is there an assumption there that some of that restarts this year and that 60% operating rate that they're running at actually moves up from here? And then just on that point, what would you say the delivered NOLA urea price would be that would be a breakeven for those anthracite producers?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So on the assumptions, Steve, that's embedded in there, look, we came out with a 5 million to 6 million tons last quarter's call as our estimate. The first quarter actual exports out of China was 1.2 million. Annualize that you're just below the low end of our range. So we expect there not to be a dramatic difference in terms of operating rates across China versus what's going on today. And that also, I guess, embedded in there is an assumption that says there's not a whole lot of dramatic upward price movement across the segments for the rest of the year because otherwise that would bid in some additional tons, which would then lead to more exports. So we're taking just pretty much of a almost status quo look at the world. Bert, do you want to talk about – ?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Today, based on our understanding of a lot of the build-up to the cost structure of the anthracite producer being feedstock costs and the changes in taxes, subsidies, et cetera, today, we'd land in NOLA on a short-ton basis in the $220 to $230 per short-ton.
Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. And then, Bert, another one for you. What would you estimate the percentage of nitrogen tons in the U.S. that – out of the total amount that will be applied in 2017 and maybe some of it from the fall application, what percentage has already been applied and what's not been applied yet, how much have you sold?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, Steve, that's a tough question, because you're looking at planting rates today, we're about 10% behind, and looking at corn, we're probably, let's say, 34%, 35% and normal, at this time, is 44%, 45%, so we still have some additional acres that's been very wet. And I think there's going to be some replanting in some of these areas that got inundated with water, with rain, the last week or so. Wheat acres are down and cotton acres are up. And we're just getting that the cotton market season going in West Texas in that area. So that's a hard number to get. So, we are positive on the net number – net volume of N and we've got that somewhere in our deck of staying fairly close to the previous years. It's just going to shift a little bit, again, like I said because of lower wheat acres and we believe higher canola acres up in Canada. And so, we're positive of what's going on. And we do think from, say, I-90 North, you've got a lot of ammonia still to go. We had a very poor Canadian season in the fall and there's still some crops on the ground that need to be harvested up there. And so, we're just now seeing movement out of our Velva Terminal in North Dakota. It's got quite an extended period we believe and then it's going to go north into Canada. Side-dress takes place in the Eastern Corn Belt, that still has to get moving here in the next, I'd say, couple of weeks that'll start, and then you'll get through the irrigation run. So, we've got a lot of applications still to go. We're still positive for Q2, but I can't give you a specific percentage on that.
Steve Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Don Carson from Susquehanna. Your line is now open.
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Good morning. This is Ben Richardson sitting in for Don. On exports from Donaldsonville in 1Q, can you give us some information on that, both in absolute and relative terms?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sure. So, we exported a significant amount of product in Q1 as compared to last year and compared to our historical run rate. On ammonia, we exported to Belgium, Chile, Mexico, Morocco and South Korea for approximately 200,000 tons versus last year 2016, similar period, about 25,000 tons. That's a reflection of our Mosaic contract not coming into service yet. The contract is in place, but Mosaic is not pulling the volume that is contracted, and we've worked out an agreement around that, so we've been forced to be more active in the export market. UAN we exported to Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, France, Ireland, Mexico and Peru, all in small volumes, whether that be from small containers all the way up into full vessels for a total of about 270,000 tons against last year 135,000 tons. We also exported some minor products into Mexico through some rail movement. So, total exports are close to 0.5 million tons for the quarter.
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. Just following up, would you expect that your export activity will increase in the back half as you ramp up?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
That's a question of markets. We look at exports as we look at our whole book as a determination around profitability. And so each plant has its own configuration of logistics, whether that'd be pipe, truck, barge, rail, and Donaldsonville is the only one that can export by vessel. And so, when we look at each one of those, there's cost associated, rail has become fairly expensive for any of our products and has not been as viable as it used to be. And so, when we look at what we do on the export market or even what we move to the coasts for Jones Act vessels, that's all determined on, again, price, inventory, optionality, and what the market is doing. If the U.S. market operates as it did last year and delays – purchases is not moving forward in a positive volume-wise until, then, yes, we will export more or we will produce more urea rather than UAN and move that, whether that be export or domestic.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Ben, one thing I want to highlight though is our plants are fully ramped up. I mean, there might be a little bit of topping that we can do on a few of them, but...
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Sure.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
... the plants are running full-on. So we're not anticipating dramatic deltas in terms of increased volumes. We're going to have to manage through it at D'ville or across the rest of the system.
Ben Richardson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. Thank you much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. Your line is now open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Thank you. Over the last few years, we've seen a compression of both marginal feedstock costs as well as transportation rates in various forms from key exporting ports, like (33:50) and Yantai, et cetera, adversely affecting delivered price in the U.S. When we think about your outlook in 2018 and 2019 and the composition of the global cost curve on a CFR basis, what's the best way to think about delivered prices to inland U.S. markets? I mean naturally, trade flows are going to evolve, but any insight on how you're thinking about your spreads and consequent margin per ton potential, would be helpful? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Chris. I'll give a little bit of this and then, I'll ask Bert and Dennis to chime in as well. One of the factors that actually is hurting us, and Bert was just bemoaning a bit, actually helps us in other ways, which is the fact that it becomes increasingly more expensive to move product by rail from the coast into the inland system that you have to use Jones Act vessels to move it from the coast up into the Midwest, and then in a lot of cases, then transport it to rail to move it elsewhere away from the river. Means that costs from NOLA into the interior only continues to get more expensive, which means the in-market plants get to enjoy kind of that premium. And as the data indicates, North America is going to be import dependent for the foreseeable future. We don't see that turning around. So, relative to the premium, we expect to get above NOLA. We think that continues to grow basically with the cost of transportation, which is roughly inflation-ish, in terms of what we've seen with our own contracts. On a longer-term perspective, there is ongoing development of the LNG trade, whether it's Cheniere others here, other producers and origin points, that does have the effect that you're talking about, which is to flatten the hydrocarbon spread from one area to another, but a lot of those contracts continue to have at least $3 to $4 of delta in them off of Henry Hub. And so, the way we're kind of beginning to evolve our thinking is if you're in an oversupply situation on the supply side, so really supply constrained, then you're probably talking about landed hydrocarbon spread into other places of $3 to $4 and you got to move it back to the Gulf and up into the interior. And that gives you a sense of what the margin potential is for our interior plants. If you're talking about a situation where nitrogen demand continues to grow above what new projects are, so you're more in a demand-driven environment, then you're really going to start bumping up against farm economics. They're going to drive the price in order to bid more and more and more expensive tons back into the system. So it kind of depends upon what part of the cycle you're on, but in either one of those areas we feel pretty comfortable about our business model going forward.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Great. And just you included a few slides on this, but clearly the Chinese are rationalizing some higher cost supply, mainly lump anthracite and few smaller inefficient thermal facilities, but they're also adding a few, let's say, more efficient thermal facilities, which should be arguably lower costs. When we think about the longer-term cost curve out of Yantai, as their own cost curve evolves and lower operating rates persist, I guess, in the near term, how should we think about their net export levels, but also more importantly, that cost of the marginal ton exiting China, let's say, two or three years out? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Chris, on that one, part of the issue also is the location of where those new efficient plants are getting built. So there's a number of them that are not really set up as being export-capable plants, particularly the ones in Inner Mongolia and so forth, cost to get to Yantai, is so extreme that you would never export those tons. So while it does change the overall balance in China, it doesn't necessarily bring the cheapest tons into the play from an export perspective.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And I think you have to have a perspective on the feedstocks, the different feedstocks. So, yes, we tend to talk about anthracite, and you mentioned the new thermal plants, but they are gas-constrained, and the winter gas limitations will continue to constrain operations of those gas-fired urea plants. And so I think when you look at China and our numbers of 5 million to 6 million tons for this year, if I go out two to three years, we are in a process of rationalizing the globe. And that you saw it in the Ukraine, you're going to see in the few other countries. I think Brazil is having difficult times right now, not only for their gas cost but where those plants are operating and having to move the product that you're going to have to see some shutdowns – permanent shutdowns, and China still has more to go. And I think when you get – combined growth – historical growth pattern as well as that factor of taking product offline, then you're back into more of a demand-driven rather than a supply-driven market.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
That's very helpful. And thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of John Roberts from UBS. Your line is now open.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Good morning.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Hey, John.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Your prior answer didn't mention coal prices in China and it seems like urea pricing is disconnected from coal now. So, was that just a short-term phenomenon that we experienced last fall and through the winter?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, I think to the extent that you see a disconnect, it is a short-term issue. There's tons that get produced and are sitting in inventory and at port or in transit. So, to some extent, people are trying to monetize those and recover as much cash as they can because it's some cost they've already been produced. It's a very different story when it comes to replacing those tons from a supply standpoint. And what you've seen is a reduction all the way down to 1.2 million export out of China so far and no indication that it is getting more than that as we move forward, I think, is an indication that production rates and exports are really tied to coal cost and that there is some rational economic decision-making being taken place here.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But anthracite coal prices have not changed that much. Your mine average still remains around $135 per metric ton and so that is the cost, the high cost, that as you work that through, the calculation makes it impossible in today's market for that ton to make it out of China, and probably difficult to sell in China for a profit. So, Tony is right, some of that stuff that's at the port has been there for months and is probably degrading. So I think they're in a difficult situation in China.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The other challenge, honestly, is, given the number of vessels that came this direction, the imports that we saw in Q1 with NOLA trading at a discount to other destination ports, you wouldn't see those tons show up here anyway.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. And then secondly, I guess there's some discussion about rolling back the ban on tax inversions? How do you think longer-term, strategically, about maybe the window opens and you have a chance to not be tax-domiciled here through some transaction versus the hope that longer-term U.S. rates stay low and it's just worth staying here because you have confidence they'll stay low long-term?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The White House also came out with a point of view of corporate taxes in 15% range. I mean, I think that's optimistic relative to what we're hearing being talked about at the House and Senate level. But a competitive corporate tax rate obviates the need for any kind of thinking about re-domiciling somewhere else. We love being a U.S. corporation. We want to stay here. We just hope the government gets it right and levels the playing field.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan. Your line is now open.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Hi, good morning.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Hi, Jeff.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Hi. Your UAN per ton price was $171 and at least by my calculations, I thought the NOLA price averaged about $182 in the first quarter. So why would your UAN prices be about $10 a ton below NOLA, if that's a correct calculation?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I don't think that – I'd have to look at the average NOLA value, but you have to remember, the quarter's sales don't start January 1. We have a book coming into Q1 because we have a shipping program and logistical assets that need to move. So you're rolling into the quarter with a sales book and you're rolling out of the quarter with a sales book. So your average price is a blended price. And you remember, we started from lows of $130 in NOLA for the fill program and rose up to about $180. And then, you have logistical constraints. Like Tony mentioned, some of the rail rates just aren't that attractive and so that has an FOB limitation. And then you throw in some of our exports, which Tony mentioned are at a discount to NOLA, but we believe are the next best option for us.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And the other piece is, Jeff, as Bert has mentioned, when you got to take a Jones Act vessel to the East Coast or the West Coast, you're competing with Russian tons that are coming in. So although there's a referenced NOLA price, it's not that you can sell every ton that we produce at Donaldsonville at that price. The market isn't that deep, especially with our new UAN plant pumping out 6,000 tons a day. So we're doing over 13,000 tons a day...
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Out of D'ville.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
... out of D'ville alone and Bert's got to find a place to take those tons. So the ones that we move to the coast are not going to be at NOLA pricing on a netback basis, but they're still very cash flow positive for us.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
That's helpful. And, secondly, you've indicated that the estimate for the partnership distribution for CHS was $35 million, though it's not yet declared. And your minority interest in the quarter, I think, was $6 million. In thinking about your adjusted EBITDA, shouldn't your adjusted EBITDA reflect the $35 million amount that's not yet been declared, or how should the payment to CHS be reflected in adjusted EBITDA?
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, the way we reflected in adjusted EBITDA basically is the way you would do it from an accounting perspective. What I would point out, though, Jeff, is if you think about the minority interest, $8 million for that (45:30) and $35 million, the $8 million reflects the share of U.S. GAAP income that is allocable from CFN to CHS. The distribution is based on a calculation pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement, which is intended to give both CHS and ourselves producer-like economics on the tons that we off-take. In their case, it's urea and UAN. And so, the way I would think – I mean, you can come up with your own adjusted EBITDA calculation, I suppose. But we come up with it just according to the accounting numbers. But I think over time what you'll see is that those things tend to somewhat converge. If you want to have some more color on that, you can talk to Martin about it afterwards. He'll give you some data on that.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
All right. Great. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Wong from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Hi, thanks. Good morning. I'd like to follow up, actually, on the demand question. So, I mean, it feels like the demand has been wavering a little bit this year, and we've seen corn acreage cuts globally in places like China and the U.S.; nitrogen in general is overapplied in places like India and China, and nitrogen overapplication is an environmental concern as well. And we've seen in the U.S. and other places that yields can improve without big increases in nitrogen applications. So, I mean, first would be just what are your general thoughts on those kind of things I've raised? And maybe second is more of a detailed bottom-up approach on where you expect to see nitrogen demand growth longer term? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. We can get into the philosophical side of N being overapplied. What you're seeing taking place in India, which gets a lot of commentary, you're actually coating – it's mandated, you have to urea treat in India, so you're getting much better efficiencies, but you're still at 30 million tons. They reached a high of 32 million or 33 million tons of consumption. And so that's still to play out, I think, with where they are in this current season in terms of application, excess or not. And whether it's China, yes, I think there's some debate on that issue, but again corn application for urea in China is about, I think, 18% of their nitrogen or their urea demand. And so, it's a broader issue than just corn. Corn acres being cut globally, not necessarily so. You're seeing maybe a 3 million to 4 million cut in the United States this year versus last year, but significant growth in Brazil and Argentina. We're seeing tremendous demand for UAN in Argentina, direct reflection on corn and corn yields. But you've got yields in Brazil that could increase by 25%, with increased applications of N. They generally apply with a little bit of N and possibly a little bit of urea topping that on the second crop, but not much. And I think there's some precision ag improvements that could take place in Brazil that could improve yields. So I don't agree with your point on N being overapplied globally.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean that's the story at the P and the K guys, but not what the farmers actually realize. The other thing, Andrew, that I'd point out is, we look at ag demand growth to be in the sort of 1% to 2% range and industrial growth to be more in the 2% to 3% range. And there's a lot of drivers around the industrial side, whether it's ongoing adoption and implementation of the mission statement activities, as well as a host of intermediate and feedstock chemical applications, anything from resins to melamine to other things, but also sort of tend to track population as opposed to other things, and there's a tie-in there with GDP. So, there is pretty good correlation going back in time, but we're not counting on sort of ag demand growth to be the driver of this long-term.
Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Okay. No, that's helpful. And then, just on the new builds, I mean, obviously, it doesn't make sense to build a new plant in the U.S. because it's pretty expensive and you probably would lose money in today's environment. But there are other regions that seem like they're willing to build plants, or at least looking at it. And maybe could you just share your views on the CapEx cost globally? And then, maybe are there regions that you feel they could build a plant even if maybe a project doesn't meet like, let's say, a 15% hurdle rate, as they would have to in the U.S., but maybe provide social benefits, for example, like in India that you've mentioned that they want to refurbish or rebuild plants? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, I think you always have a situation where if a government decides that they're going to make that investment for social reasons, then they're in a position to be able to do things from a – that are non-economic. I would say, while the labor component would be cheaper in other regions of the world, labor represents somewhere in the neighborhood of between 45% and 55% of the cost of a facility. You've got the engineering and fabrication of very specialized metallurgy vessels and so forth. And those costs are going to be largely euro denominated or maybe euro and yen denominated for a lot of that stuff, particularly the really high cost technical pieces of it. And so while you can build a plant in other certain regions of the world for a bit less, our view is it's pretty tough to build integrated ammonia urea complex for less than about $1.8 billion to $2 billion. It's tough to do that even if you've got really, really cheap labor involved to do it. And so there are going to be places, Nigeria, Iran that are plentiful in gas where labor's cheap and there's some benefits to building those things that may get built. But, again, if you look at the projects that have been announced that are verifiable, where there's actual work being done, it's well below what the industry growth rate is, after you include this year. So, we feel optimistic at least about the next sort of four, five years.
Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Okay, great. Thanks for that.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.
Neil Chandan Sanyal - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hi, good morning. This is Neil calling in for Vincent. It seems that UAN prices have been holding up better than urea prices recently on a nutrient ton basis. I'm just wondering how do you see that relative price dynamic evolving through the year.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
They are holding up and we see that. And I think it goes to Tony's comment of because we're a broad-based company with assets and storage assets, production assets throughout the Corn Belt, we're able to see we think very positive price realizations at our interior plants. And I do think, because UAN is consumed in just a few places and also produced in just a few places, it's not as easy to move around as urea. So we believe that UAN on a relative basis will hold up well throughout this year. There will be a correction for pricing come the fill period and that'll be probably later in the year. We think that because of the late planting this year and late field work, you're going to see UAN applications going well into July. And similar to last year, where we launched our fill program in late July, you're probably going to see something similar to that timeframe for 2017.
Neil Chandan Sanyal - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Ben Isaacson from Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Oliver Rowe - Scotia Capital, Inc.:
This is Oliver Rowe in for Ben. Thanks for taking the question. The near-term excess capacity story is pretty well understood. I think less certain is how long the shakeout period is going to last. And when I look at your capacity addition slide, there is a small deficiency beginning in sort of 2018, 2019, but a lot of excess capacity in the years preceding that. So in terms of the S&D balance, it seems like it could be stressed for quite some time as the prior additions are absorbed. So how confident are you in your view that 2018 is the year of recovery versus say 2019?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, I don't think that what you're going to see is a gigantic bounce in 2018, right. I think what you're going to see is it starts to come up off the kind of lower levels and then it's going to continue to accelerate as you get into 2019 and 2020, but we fully expect 2018 to be a better year than 2017. So, anytime you're kind of moving the right way up the curve, that's a good story.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, I think the other thing I'd point out is, if you look at our slide 14 and then also what we've got in terms of the closures, we've been pretty conservative, given what we know about or believe we know about the cost structures of some of these plants. We've been pretty conservative in respect to what we think the closures are likely to be. It's possible that there could be a greater level of disinvestment and higher number of closures, particularly in China, than what we have forecast in. So I think it's worth taking a look at sort of that part of the slide deck because I think that what – if you're going to see a steeper inflection point, it's going to be because closures happen more quickly and in a higher volume that what we're showing on our projection.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The other thing is, even though you're absolutely right, Neil, that there's a fair bit of excess capacity that come online in sort of 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, it's not that it's easy to idle or take a plant down and just let it sit there and then be in a position to bring it back up. In the past, we've included some slides that indicate the challenges with having a plant that's off for more than about 18 months, ever bringing it back up again. So the benefit of sort of a fairly long period here between kind of 2016, 2017, and maybe in the beginning of 2018, that's painful as a lot of those plants go down and they're never heard from again. And so while there is some overcapacity above and beyond that's been built, that sloppiness tends to filter itself out through the system.
Oliver Rowe - Scotia Capital, Inc.:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. Your line is now open.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah, hi. I just wanted to get your thoughts on how you're going to approach the summer fill season. It seems like last year, the buyers were a lot more cautious. I mean how do you sort of think about setting the price, given that there is more capacity out there this year and then a new competitor up and running in the Midwest or even price it to get a historical movement of product, or even try to be more price sensitive even if that means slower pace of dealer participation?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, if you were to ask that question last year and see that how it unfolded last year, I think it would have been – it was just different. And so, normally, we used to take a pretty healthy book on in June and ship against that book July through December. And last year, that just did not happen. And we expected it, we planned for it and we utilized the various options that were available to the company, which were alternating between products, urea, ammonia, and UAN, exporting significant amount where we could and did, as well as utilizing our storage capacity and moving product to different markets in the United States through our Jones Act vessel that we brought online last year. Customers were unwilling then to take positions. It was more of unsure what the forward market would like and not wanting to take a risk position that they felt was averse. I think that's the exact same scenario we have coming into this year with new capacity coming online also. And as Tony mentioned in his comments, we have to wait for the new trade flows to materialize and for product to sell out, and customers as well as suppliers to kind of get their sea legs and we believe that's going to take time. We are patient and we're in conversation with our customers now in preparation for that period. And we believe we'll be able to move through it fairly well.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Michael, one other thing I'd add to it is, and Bert alluded to this, but I just want to emphasize it a little bit more, which is the degree of the flexibility we have from a production standpoint at Donaldsonville. We can effectively decide to granulate the entirety of the new urea plant. And if the demand isn't there or the nutrient ton value isn't there, turn off the acid plant for a period of time if we want to. And we are bringing on a DEF unit this summer in Donaldsonville as well. And so, one of the things that Bert and his team constantly are doing is the trade between what's the value per nutrient ton and different options we have from a production standpoint, and instead of blowing our brains out on a low fill price, we may decide to granulate a lot more where there is many more homes for it on a global basis. And so, really, there's a lot of different arrows in our quiver based on product flexibility and export optionality. And Bert and his team are going to look at that and figure out a way to maximize our results, whatever that may look like.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next comes from the line of Sandy Klugman from Vertical Research Partners. Your line is now open.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you. Good morning. So, it sounds like the expectation is that wet weather will shift demand to urea and UAN, but you also invested heavily in your ammonia terminal system in the 2010 through 2014 timeframe. So, you can meet ammonia demand in a very efficient manner. And I am wondering if we'll see less of a switch than we might have historically and how we should think about when the window for direct applications in ammonia closes for the majority of the Corn Belt?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sandy, it's kind of fun. I am going to let Bert answer the back half of that question about timing and when it shifts and so forth. We have a little bit of a love hate relationship with ammonia, I'd say. On the one hand, we've got a very unique asset system that nobody else can replicate. On the other hand, you know that our adjusted gross margin per nutrient ton on ammonia tends to be relatively cheap compared to the other upgraded products. And so, we've got a unique capability of serving a particular need and yet we don't get paid quite as much for it as when the ammonia season is a bit of a wash out and people have to go heavy up on the upgraded products, because we make a lot more when that happens. So, as I said, it's a little bit of a love hate relationship with ammonia, but, Bert, do you want to -
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, when I look at the ammonia season, it's a six month process, so January through June. And as we mentioned in our opening comments, we had a very good first quarter. The Southwest Southern and Southwest part of the United States where the wheat and early corn applications were taking place, we did very, very well and had almost double our normal shipments coming out of our Oklahoma plants. And as we move through, like I said, it's kind of the I-90 North, and in the Canada, it's still to go and we have our terminals ready to go, a lot of that product is sold, and we do have some product to sell and we think that'll go, whether it's through the side-dress and still some pre-plant application. So we're not giving up on ammonia, but I do think possibly on an aggregate basis for the sector, fall and spring coupled together probably will be lower than historical numbers. So, let's say, it's 200,000 tons to 300,000 tons and that's just – I'm just putting that as an example, that means you're going to need that much more by factor of two to three of UAN or urea. So either side of that coin, we're positive and we're prepared for it. And we do expect, like I said earlier to you, yes, that doesn't take place on ammonia, you're going to see a significant amount of demand shifting to UAN and urea that on the margin probably will – then move prices up higher.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. If you have follow-up questions, please feel free to contact me.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program and you may now disconnect. Everyone, have a good day.
Executives:
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC Oliver Rowe - Scotiabank Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada)
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2016 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Carmen, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Martin Jarosick with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Martin Jarosick, Vice President of Investor Relations for CF. With me today are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its fourth quarter 2016 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we will review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session related to the company's financial results for the quarter. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide 2 of the accompanying presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This conference call will include a discussion of certain non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, a presentation of the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and coinciding reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is provided in the earnings release and the slides for this webcast presentation on the company's website at cfindustries.com. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Martin, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2016 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $133 million and $858 million respectively, after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. Bert and Dennis will cover our fourth quarter, full year and near-term outlook in more detail later. What I'd like to do is offer a longer-term perspective on our industry and why we believe our strategic position makes us the company best situated to capitalize on the emerging sector recovery. For the past 12 months, we have experienced some of the most challenging conditions the nitrogen industry has faced in over a decade. Global feedstock and ocean freight costs fell as capacity additions came online, driving prices to unsustainable lows. The dramatic decline in nitrogen prices as demonstrated by U.S. Gulf urea fallen by more than $170 per ton or roughly 50% from 2015 to the middle of 2016 impacted our results more than most because we are a pure-play nitrogen production company. The converse should also prove to be true as prices rebound with price increases going directly to our bottom line, because we are one of the world's largest producers of nitrogen products and enjoy among the very lowest costs, nitrogen price recovery should haven't amplify the impact on our financial results. We believe that 2016 represented the low point of the cycle. The unsustainably low prices of 2016 led to the very predictable outcome of plant curtailments and permanent shutdowns in higher cost regions. In China alone, approximately 9 million metric tons of urea capacity were permanently closed and the industry as a whole ended the year running at only about 50% of remaining effective capacity. Nitrogen prices at the U.S. Gulf today, although continuing to trade below international parity, are up on average year-to-date compared to last year. The new capacity will come online in 2017, it will be well below the rate of the past two years as shown on slide 15 of our materials. Industry observers have pointed to approximately 4 million tons of net urea capacity coming online in 2017. However, approximately one-third of that is only upgrades of existing ammonia and does not represent new nitrogen production. Post 2017 and through the foreseeable future, the rate of new capacity growth is expected to be well below the normal annual demand growth rate of roughly 2%, thereby tightening the global SNB (5:26) balance and driving sustained price recovery. Although we believe the first half of this year is shaping up nicely, uncertainty exists for the second half, particularly given the evolving nature of buyer behavior. Because of our ability to efficiently access the export market, coupled with our large in-market storage capacity, we also believe we are best positioned to maximize results even if North American buyers delay purchases like they did last year. With this backdrop, it is clear why we believe CF Industries is the best positioned company to benefit from the emerging cyclical recovery. CF is a strong company, our structural advantages, access to low cost North American natural gas, operating in an import dependent North America and the long-term demand growth for nitrogen are well-established and enduring. Our operational advantages, scale, production flexibility, significant in-region storage and export optionality set us apart from other producers. Taken together, they position CF to benefit disproportionately from the improving price environment we see before us. Now, let me turn the call over to Bert, who will talk about the market and our outlook in more detail. And Dennis will discuss our financial performance before I offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. At the end of the third quarter, we discussed our fundamental economics would continue to pressure high-cost producers and result in higher nitrogen prices globally. Additionally, we expected North American customers to increase buying headed into 2017 after delaying purchases in 2016. Both dynamics are playing out today as we enter the spring season in the United States. I want to start with the demand side of the story. During 2016, many customers believe prices would continue to fall as additional nitrogen capacity came online because they did not want to take the price risk associated with buying early, many stayed on the sidelines and only purchased minimal volumes. Domestic and international suppliers both chased what demand materialized. This resulted in weak pricing in North America that was not only below international parity, much of the year, but also well below cash costs for many high-cost producers. Not surprisingly, this made it difficult for foreign producers to send product economically to North America. Indeed, imports of urea and UAN were approximately 33% lower in the second half of 2016 compared to the same period in 2015. Demand was also lower than expected during the fall ammonia season, due to weather and farm level economic decisions. Unfavorable weather in the fall limited the application window as soil temperatures in many areas were too high at the start of the season and then cold temperatures and snow developed too quickly. Farm level economic considerations especially declining year-over-year farmer disposable income, due to a low corn and wheat prices negatively impacted decisions to purchase and apply ammonia. Additionally, future prices favored soybeans over corn for the first time since 2008. Historically, relatively favorable returns on beans have coincided with weaker fall ammonia applications as growers deferred fertilizer and planting decisions until spring, this year was no different. However, demand doesn't just go away, it only gets deferred. Nitrogen is not a discretionary nutrient and current corn prices still provide farmers the incentive to apply nitrogen at historical levels. Because of purchasing delays and lower imports, we believe that entering the year, North American customers had secured only a portion of their 2017 needs and we're behind the normal purchasing and shipment pattern. Customers are aware of the need to close this gap. We had record shipments of UAN in the fourth quarter, over 2 million tons for the first time, as customers built positions for spring after delaying purchases earlier in the year. Because we're able to optimize our business even when North American demand is low, we are well-positioned to serve our customers as they increase their purchasing pace. With approximately 3 million tons of ammonia, UAN and urea storage owned and leased in the United States and Canada, we can choose to position product for the future sales in North America and we are doing just that. We can also sell to our growing portfolio of global customers. During the fourth quarter, we had just one of Donaldsonville's two deepwater docks available. The second dock is being upgraded to load UAN more than two times as quickly, and ammonia three times faster than before. Nevertheless, we loaded 16 export vessels totaling approximately 500,000 tons, a new company quarterly record for exports. This flexibility benefits the company throughout the year and proves invaluable at times like now when an early application season develops due to warm weather. Because we did not have to sell in advance at unreasonably low prices, we were ready for the early ammonia movement now occurring in Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Additionally, because there are logistical constraints on the ammonia distribution system, it will be difficult for farmers to fully make up for the weak fall ammonia application season. Most likely, that means farmers will move a greater portion of their needs to urea and UAN, which we're ready to supply through our distribution facilities. As we sell into this early spring season, U.S. Gulf urea barge prices have rebounded ranging between $230 per short ton to $250 per short ton in the first quarter. The most important driver of these prices has been a decline in Chinese urea exports. They dropped from more than 1 million metric tons per month than the first quarter of 2016 to an average of approximately 470,000 metric tons per month in the fourth quarter. Low global prices, rising costs for marginal producers in China, including significantly higher coal costs compared to the middle of 2016, and the removal of subsidies and concerns over pollution and air quality, drove urea operating rates down to approximately 50% during the fourth quarter and into February. At these operating rates, seasonal demand for Chinese urea is expected to exceed supply even with reduced exports. Indeed, we may see some tons from Chinese port inventories returning to the domestic market as well as imports from Iran. Our analysis suggests that, at recent operating rates, China may not be able to satisfy local demand and will instead have to import product. As a result, we expect Chinese manufacturers to focus on their home region and for urea exports to total only 5 million metric tons to 6 million metric tons this year, a decline of approximately 60% from two years ago. The reduced availability of Chinese urea, along with higher hydrocarbon feedstock cost globally, should support prices as we move forward. Supply and demand dynamics will adjust, again, later this year as the market absorbs the increase in global urea capacity expected to come online during 2017. However, we remain confident in our ability to optimize our business, as we've done this year, given the flexibility we've built into our manufacturing, distribution and logistics systems. This will be an enduring advantage for CF. And with that, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the company reported an EBITDA loss of $135 million and a net loss per diluted share of $1.38. After taking into account the items detailed in our press release, our adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter was $133 million and our adjusted net loss per diluted share was $0.39. I will cover the two largest adjustments here. First, we announced during the fourth quarter we completed the refinancing of the private placement notes with maturity dates of 2022, 2025 and 2027 to put in place financing more consistent with the current business structure and operating environment. The make-whole payment associated with the early refinancing of those notes was approximately $170 million. However, as a result of the refinancing, we were able to reduce the average coupon rate of the debt from 4.9% to 4.1%. Second, during the fourth quarter of 2016, the company recognized an impairment charge of $134 million relating to its equity method investment in Point Lisas Nitrogen Limited in Trinidad. This was due to projected longer-term challenges with gas availability, and potential price increases from the government-controlled gas supplier. With the completion of the capacity expansion projects, you will see a number of line items in our P&L return to more normal levels. There will be no startup costs in 2017. Capitalized interest, which was $166 million in 2016, is expected to be less than $5 million in 2017. As a result, interest expense will be approximately $320 million this year. New capital expenditures for 2017 are expected to be in the range of approximately $400 million to $450 million for sustaining and other, which is a level that continues the company's commitment to safe, reliable, and compliant operations. Actual cash expenditures will also reflect amounts accrued but not paid in 2016. At December 31, 2016, approximately $225 million was accrued related to activities that occurred in 2016. Finally, depreciation expense in 2017 will reflect that all new capacity expansion assets will be in service for the full year. We expect total depreciation expense to rise to approximately $875 million. This will impact gross margin per ton for all the applicable segments. With the expansion projects behind us and an improving environment ahead of us, we will continue our prudent approach to managing the balance sheet in order to be in a position to retire $800 million of debt coming due in 2018. The 2018 debt retirement will largely be funded by the federal and state tax refunds we expect to receive in the third quarter of 2017 of approximately $800 million. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we move to your questions, I want to add some commentary to one of the last items Dennis mentioned, the $800 million tax refund we expect later this year. As you know, this is a one-time benefit due primarily to accelerated, or bonus, tax depreciation on our multibillion dollar investment in the United States. In 2018 and thereafter, we expect our cash tax rate to be close to the 35% statutory tax rate. So, we are actively participating in the debate on tax reform. While discussions are still in early stages and many of the details are yet to be worked out, the house tax reform framework looks very promising. A reduction in the corporate tax rate levels the competitive playing field with the rest of the world and generates earnings and cash flow that drops straight to our bottom-line. Further, the border adjustment tax is a concept that mirrors barriers we confront today. We face import taxes and tariffs for our products into Europe, China, and other geographies while foreign producers, who sell into the U.S. market, face no such import tax or tariff. This concept would also help to level the competitive global playing field. Further, it could also provide a benefit to our company, given both our significant manufacturing presence in the United States and our capability to export. We believe the house framework for tax reform would be good for America, good for CF Industries, its employees, and its shareholders. In closing, I want to thank all of our employees, who've stayed focused on executing our business during a challenging year. They've kept their eyes on what's most important, operating safely, and serving our customers well. All of us appreciate their contributions and we're looking forward to the improving environment we see ahead. With that, operator, we'll open the call to questions.
Operator:
Thank you. One moment for our first question, is coming from the line of Chris Parkinson with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Thank you. Given your outlook for 5 million tons to 6 million tons of Chinese urea exports as you can speak to that versus 8.9 million tons last year, how do you view the marginal cost of the new export level versus the past two years given Chinese own internal cost curve and some of the higher cost tons now being shut-in. Do you think that the FOB price will be roughly the same or potentially higher or lower?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, Chris. This is Bert. And so, looking at China, each year we've seen so many changes to their structure and their economic structure as well as the drivers of their business that we have to continue to stay on top of what's happening over there. And we have been taking a look at that. Looking first to the feedstock costs and what's going on with coal, as you know, they've restricted coal operating rates last year and then released that to move back up to 330 days. We've seen reports today from Bloomberg where they're looking to restrict that back to the 276 days. That one impact had our cost driving impact on the price of coal. And so, you look at the buildup to their structural costs being coal, energy, internal freight and just operating costs, we estimate that the marginal anthracite producer was in the range in 2016 of $215 per ton to maybe $220 per ton of cost, even today that's probably $20 higher on a total structural cost basis. What that doesn't take into account is the fact that again through industry reports, there were losses estimated to be as high as RMB9.2 billion last year in China. And so, we had prices fall as low as, let's say, $180, $190 metric ton FOB China. Today, again losing all that money and a structural cost differential, the floor price has to be significantly higher than it was last year. Coupled with ocean freight cost of at least $10 per ton to arrive in the United States, that total cost structure is probably closer to $30. That doesn't even take into account the catastrophe that they are experiencing today with pollution issues. We monitor different cities per day on the particulate matter that is in the air, and as compared to the United States, it's an infinitesimal calculation on percentages of what they are operating and there is a report out of Bloomberg, I think yesterday, maybe the New York Times a few days ago, where they are estimating 1.1 million people are dying as an impact of pollution. So, we are going to see that the story is not just economic, out of China, it's structural and that we think it's permanent and going from 14 million tons of export urea and if we're right, 5 million tons to 6 million tons; if we're wrong 6 million tons to 7 million tons, it's still a big change and we think it's a change that will be ongoing.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
It's a great color. And just turning to ammonia, given the recent volatility in energy prices, can you just broadly comment on your long-term outlook for gas price between Eastern European producers versus domestic and how this factors into the merchant ammonia market? And then also very quickly if you have any – given the change in import balances in the U.S., do you view the dichotomy between Black Sea and Tampa prices evolving differently over the next few years? Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Looking at – I'm uncomfortable giving a long-term outlook because it's – we've moved from $500 to $200 and some dollars back up to $320 today. And so, you've got different cost structures driving some of that. Today, you've got gas costs in the $6 range in Eastern Europe, and what we're seeing at our own operation in the UK, and you can see our gas costs are below $3. So, you do have a structural cost advantage in the United States, but as we articulated about our Trinidadian issues with the lack of gas, there's a significant amount of ammonia coming out of Trinidad that we believe will be constrained going forward. And so, these things are all in flux right now with where supply will be. And then, the issue with Togliatti that took place late last year with the shutdown of the pipe and loading out of the Black Sea, and the operation of the OPZ plant in Ukraine, all of those factors impacted seaborne ammonia trade. I think that some of those factors will be mitigated a little bit, but that doesn't mean that long-term you can supply coming out of the Black or the Baltic that number is this low. And so, I would expect you're going to see a moderating price on ammonia going forward in establishing a new normal. The LNG coming into Europe, there is a significant amount of LNG and that structural cost is in line with where gas is supplied today. And then you've got your Russian ruble revaluing and so the cost structure for that gas is going to be higher also. So, we think these are positives going into the longer term.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC:
Great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
(23:40) and good morning, everyone. We all seen the import data into the U.S. and it's obviously below prior year and below what is expected to be necessary for urea, but we also see that the prices continue to lag import netbacks. Why do you think that is and is your expectation if that's going to change in the coming weeks and I'm just curious because we've seen sort of a downtick in urea prices this week in the Gulf? So, any color there would be helpful?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. When I'm dreaming at night, I think of urea prices, it's always going up because it's not reality in life. And so, we do have moderating factors just like the stock market goes up and down, and people have retrenching times or repositioning times that happens also in urea, we have seen that this week where it sell into the $230s and so, significantly below the international market. We are trending lower year-on-year for imports of both UAN and urea and that's natural. We have additional production capacity at Donaldsonville and Port Neal, that's fully operating today. And so, looking at spring, there are a lot of factors and each spring is different. Last year, we had a raise-up through margin than a fall all the way through to August where the flow was established. Previous years have been different in different structures. What is looking like this year is an early spring. We're seeing activity today on ammonia and that probably bodes well for early planting and earlier applications. But if the end market isn't buying and some of those retailers and farmers have not, then the stuff that's on the water today and barges have to be cleared and a clearing price has to be established. We think that's a temporary small blip and a retrenchment and then we're going to see prices moderate up into March and probably through spring. But we do need less imports than previous years. And that's either going to come through price or people not purchasing and bringing here, because other markets are more attractive, both those scenarios are in place today.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
And it's like, just to ask a follow-ups of a higher-level question something that we're debating a lot here. Which store scenario would you prefer, a high global capacity utilization, but a flatter cost curve or a lower global capacity utilization, but a very steep cost curve?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think it's got to be the second one, Vincent. That is really the situation that largely existed through kind of the big run-up from 2010 through 2013 and into 2014 which was – there was ample production capacity out there, but it was a very steep curve and it was just the incremental plants that would be bid into the marketplace based on where demand settled for those years and that's clearly our preference. We believe that hydrocarbon cost will strengthen, freight cost will continue to come back and the spread between our U.S. delivered cost basis and what is going to take to get imported tons into the Gulf and up into the Midwest will provide us a very healthy return on our asset base. So, we're – especially as we look forward where based on kind of our analysis of the new production coming up or going to be trending closer towards a supply driven market – from a supply driven into more of a demand driven marketplace bidding on some of those higher cost tons as you get out into 2018, 2019 and 2020, because they are just as not enough new steel being put in the ground to satisfy ongoing demand growth for these products. So, we're very optimistic about what the longer term holds.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks very much. I appreciate it.
Operator:
And our next question is from the line of Don Carson with Susquehanna Financial. Please go ahead.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you. For the question on your outlook for the inland price premium for nitrogen products, especially as new capacity comes up there both your own and competitors, how do you see that unfolding? And I assume that this more aggressive export shipment pattern you have now is an attempt to kind of drain the Corn Belt of excess products. So, if you could just describe your outlook for that inland price premium and your export activity going forward?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning. So, the – when you look at the premium as you stair-step outside or up from NOLA into the Southwest, the Midwest and the Northern Plains, the premium is built on transportation costs. And so, you can barge up through St. Louis or up to Minneapolis and then truck out or rail out, and we do each of those activities; and that's a cost. And so, to do that, you're going to want to be paid more for it. If you have better options available, you're going to take those different options. The second part of your question on exports, the exports to us are attractive because it's a timing issue. With North America consumption largely based on April – March, April, May, the preponderance of our exports occur in Q3 and Q4. And so, we have significant level of capacity in Donaldsonville and, as I've mentioned, the ability to load it quickly, we're able to achieve fairly attractive economics. And that, parallel with what customers were unwilling to commit to in Q3 and Q4, made exports attractive for us. If that changes, if buyer behavior changes and reverts to how it was in, let's say, the 2007 to 2015 period, then the North American market will be more attractive. And so, we have to balance each of that with our asset base and what – to keep our asset base running at full capacity, that's why we utilize the exports. We do fully anticipate the inland premium to hold and to make imports attractive. We still will be an import market going forward and we'll need to bid those tons in.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Don, the other thing I would point out, back to Bert's comment about when buyers step into the marketplace is, in hindsight, I think buyers would've been much better off stepping in during the third quarter fill program that we normally offer, because they would have realized average prices well below where they are today. And they were completely unwilling to take that inventory price risk, and so you get what you got, right? And so, I think Bert's approach here is the right one, which is if there's – if they're not buying here, we're going to take it to where they are. And then, people in the U.S. are going to have to bid those tons back in, again, in the future. So, I think it sets up well in terms of our ability to export in the way that Bert's executing our strategy here.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Just to follow up on those exports, so would you anticipate sort of a 500,000 ton quarterly run rate or is that above normal? And how do those netbacks on exports compare to your normal NOLA netbacks?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
It's a developing issue, because when we looked at the capacity coming online several years ago, we started the work on the export program, developing the customer base and travelling and looking for options – new options, and that's what we've developed in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and have grown our base in Argentina. We also have contracts into Belgium and France, and now looking to leverage our position in the UK. So, I don't really want to put a specific number. I was surprised myself that it was 1 million tons – over 1 million tons of UAN in 2016. But I think we're economically driven, and if the economics are there and it makes more sense for the company, I would not put 500,000 tons per quarter. That was just a pretty large quarter for us.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citigroup. Please go ahead.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Hey, good morning, guys. This is Dan Jester on for P.J. So, turning to the U.S. demand outlook, I think that you said that you think the corn acres are going to be down this year, wheat acres are going to be down, but that overall nitrogen demand kind of would be flattish. So, is that just that the delayed ammonia application from last year get pushed into 2017 or is there something else that you think that can make up for some of that differential?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yes, actually. So, we do anticipate there were 200,000 tons to 400,000 tons of ammonia that did not go down in the fall that will need to be pushed into the spring. So, that's a total end number that just shifts to a March, April, May application. But, yes, corn acres were at 89,500 (32:58) and some others were a little bit higher than that, and so it's a decrease in corn acres. We do say a decrease in wheat acres, stock-to-use ratios on wheat are exceptionally high; corn not necessarily so. When you look at the world, the world, rest of the world, when you take out China, is at historical averages for stock-to-use ratio. So, we think it's a correcting issue in China for corn, but for the rest of the world business as usual. But how that impacts nitrogen demand is, you're going to see those acres shift and we're expecting a canola increase in Canada as well as a sorghum increase in the United States, and probably some barley. And so, when you look at the total acres, it's – or I should say total consumption based on acreage, it's a de minimis amount that – if it were to be a decrease. But today, with corn being over $4.00, corn is going to probably everyday be an attractive option for farmers as we roll into spring; so, more to come.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Thank you. And then, can you just talk about what your – the impairment of the Trinidad assets and it looks like ammonia production in Trinidad is lower than it has been in the past, but it has stabilized. So, what do you think in terms of the outlook for the gas situation in Trinidad and the ability of that country to sort of recover some of that lost ammonia production? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, I think Trinidad present some problems out there for the government because it's pretty clear that the producers, gas producers on the island are unwilling to continue to invest in their E&P activities based on the current gas contracts that have been promised to the users of gas within point leases. And you've seen as those contracts have rolled off companies trying to renegotiate new contracts, but those tend to be at higher and higher prices. And as you look forward, the price that again this being paid doesn't warrant additional exploration and production of new gas. So, in order to incent the gas production, gas prices on the island have to rise and with our expectation that North American gas cost is not going up, that really puts Trinidad in a pretty marginal production place on the supply curve from a cost perspective. And so, it was the combination of challenges that we're having getting gas from the natural – or from NGC, Natural Gas Company, which is the government-controlled gas supplier and the likelihood that gas prices will go up that made us reevaluate our – the value of that asset and as such we took the decision that an impairment was in order given what our expectations are for the future of Trinidad and that's reflected in our financials.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.:
Great. That's helpful. Thanks very much.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Which, I'll just add, Dan, by the way I think that's a helpful development for the global SNB (36:28) balance on nitrogen, honestly, and it certainly is better for us because we have only one half of one ammonia plant in Trinidad and the rest of our 19 million tons of production sit elsewhere. So, to the extent you take a block out of the lower cost region and move it up to the high marginal cost region, that's good for everything else that sits down at the low end.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes. Thank you. Bert, if you had to estimate what fraction of the amount of nitrogen that will be consumed in the U.S., let's just say, to the first half that is either sitting in retail channel inventory right now or that you have sold forward versus the amount that you will sell spot, where would you put that split right now and how would that compare to a year ago level for mid-February?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I would put it exactly where I think it is and where we wanted to be which is where we have seen significant tonnage still to sell into Q2 and we're preparing for that. As I said earlier, we're utilizing our inventory and our options and running the plants at full speed. And so, where exactly the total is, I can't give you a specific number. We think the inventory position is lower and that coupled with an early spring, we look to possibly having an issue going into March of supply availability at the farm gate. And so, we're working to move tons into position and working with our customers both at being the retailer to have those into position for spring. Again, going back to the low fall ammonia season, you still need to get those tons down, and that's we're seeing ammonia, as I said earlier, in Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma and Missouri going pretty full and pretty fast. And that could be another 10 days. And so, it allows farmers to get out and plant earlier and that probably will be in March in that region then you'll just stair-step up to the Upper Midwest. So, we're pretty positive for the spring.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
But, Bert, I mean, I think, it's fair to say right that we think we're well below or behind where last year was, a combination of lower tons that went down in the fall, lower imports thus far and the fact that the channel, we believe, is at a lower inventory rate suggests that there is an awful lot more buying and catching up that needs to happen in the first half of the year compared to what it's been historically at this time.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I agree.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
And just about these new plants in construction in Iran, could you have any intelligence on where they are at, whether or not they're going to be able to get gas to run those plants, and what's your expectations for supply, export, material out of that area?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. New plants seem to get announced fairly regularly and new plants fairly regularly do not get built. So, there is an issue today, and that we're receiving information on about Iran and their ability to load some of the commitments they have today. And the gas is there. Clearly, it's there and the ability to build the plant is there today and is that an economic good decision to make in today's market, that's for them to decide. I think what the problem is, is some of the publications that come out or the industry publications aren't as diligent in their analysis of what's possible and what's profitable. We've seen that from CRU on some of the estimates that have come out with plants that they have two plants in Russia coming on both the same plant, the same company, which is with a different name. And so, you have to be really careful siphoning through some of these, again what's the reality based on what is not, and I think as we go forward in time, we're going to see fewer of these projected plants being built.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And, Steve, one thing I would point to is, again, page 15 of our materials, there was a big slug of production that came on in 2016 in Iran. And those were two plants the Shiraz plant and the Pardis #3, those were both kind of in excess of 1 million tons a year. And then we expect another plant coming online in 2018, that's about a 1.2 million, the Oregon plant. And so, we do expect ongoing development, but what you don't see is any kind of significant activity out in 2019 and 2020 or 2021 right now and again if you're not engaging on the EPC contracts and beginning to sort of put in place the plants to start building one, you're not going to have another new plant, whether it's Iran or anywhere else starting up before kind of 2021 at this point. And so, that's why as we look forward and the tail of new plants really falls off very quickly, we're pretty optimistic about the longer-term kind of enduring nature of the recovery here going forward.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question is from the line of Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Thanks very much. In the quarter, there was a nice premium in your ammonia prices to NOLA prices, but there really wasn't a premium in urea or UAN. Can you talk about why that might be the case?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I'll focus on the urea and UAN. When we started the quarter, urea was at $180 FOB NOLA. As we roll through the quarter, I think it reached $240 at the end, but at the absolute end. And in the middle of that, we had the India tender and then the India cancellation of the tender. And so, urea was a pretty rocky story during the quarter, and our average price realization reflected that we had ton sold and committed as we rolled into the quarter. And we picked up some of that optionality as we finished the quarter. So, our average, I think, is appropriate. UAN, the same story. The market hit a low in the – probably $130 short ton NOLA and kind of rose through the quarter, but UAN because we produce 22,000 tons, 23,000 tons a day throughout our system, that's a one week, like to stay ahead of, and that's why you see us utilize the export option because we can load 40,000 tons at a time. But we were at least a month or two sold on that product. And so, our price realization there in reflection of how low NOLA was in the absence of North American purchasing was acceptable.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. Jeff, that's the point that I will highlight again as Bert just mentioned which is – which you didn't see is the end market customers or the channel really taking inventory positions in the quarter and we brought on our new UAN production which is 6,000 tons a day at Donaldsonville. And so, that plant is going to be generating NOLA kind of price realization for that production especially when we exported as much as we did. And so, I would expect as you start seeing the channel move into taking inventory positions here as we're moving into the first half of the year and more of that buying is taking place in market, you'll start seeing some of that in market premium develop. But given where that huge amount of new capacity was added to D'ville and it gives us export optionality, that product really will trade at kind of NOLA pricing going forward.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
That's clear. In your outlook, you talked about the U.S. still meeting 7 million nutrient tons of imported nitrogen. How many nutrient tons of UAN do you think the U.S. now needs?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
It's a good question. We believe UAN is a wonderful product with optionality and versatility for a farmer for many different crops. I say that, because we think it's going to continue to grow and use. And so, when you look at the total picture, imports, our exports, and production flexibility that we often talk about that we can move between urea, ammonia and UAN and ammonia nitrate in Yazoo City. I do think the U.S. will continue to be an importing country of UAN. That volume will move from the – by peak of over 3 million tons to probably under or right at 1 million tons going forward. And where that will come from, a lot of it today is coming from Russia, Trinidad and like that.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, if you think somewhere around a million tons to 1.5 million tons, you're talking something like 300,000 nutrient tons to 500,000 nutrient tons is in the UAN.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you so much.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of John Roberts with UBS.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you and welcome to Martin Jarosick.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Indeed. Welcome, Martin, we're delighted to have you.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, John.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
And since you're growing your international business through exports, let me just ask about the reports that Yara has pulled out of the deal to buy Vale's nitrogen assets. Is it safe to say that doesn't fit with your strategy and even if it did, your balance sheet really doesn't allow you that flexibility?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, I won't – or can't comment on what Yara is deciding to do, but we don't have a lot of interest in buying the production assets in Brazil. I think it's a very fair statement to say that it doesn't fit with our strategy.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay. And then, you highlighted the risk to the second half of 2017. Is it the risk of a narrow weather window, again, as the biggest risk or is it Chinese coal prices declining? Maybe you could just prioritize the risk for us, because I think we all know the capacity that will be there in the second half. So, what are the things that you think frame the scenarios?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I mean, I think the risk really comes in a couple of different flavors, one of which is, although it's not nearly to the same extent as happened in 2015 and 2016, we do believe that 2017 represents the last year where you end up with a little bit of excess new capacity coming online versus the normal demand growth. And as you said, we all kind of understand the capacity situation. The other risk that's in there is what happens with North American buyer behavior and do they exhibit the same sitting-on-their-hands situation in 2017 that they did in the third quarter of 2016, or have they learned something from what happened this year and will they get back in and actually buy at what amounts to be favorable pricing during the fill (48:29) season. And so, I think it's really a question of when do you realize that value? Do you get it in the third quarter or in the fourth quarter, or do we get it in the first quarter and second quarter of 2018? And that's why we're just a little bit uncertain in terms of – or think there is some risk out there around the back half of the year.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank.
Oliver Rowe - Scotiabank:
This is Oliver Rowe on for Ben. Thanks for taking my question. One of your peers recently hedged a portion of their gas play over the next few years and I know you've been reluctant to hedge since the last program. Just wondering if your stance on this has softened at all or what it would take to get you to restart hedging?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. So, I mean, our understanding is that – if you're talking about Agrium, our understanding is they were hedging Ecogas, which is at or below $2 per MMBtu. And look, Medicine Hat is one of the cheapest production assets that we have because it buys Ecogas. And we do look at whether it's hedging basis or doing other things like that around those plants. But we are big believers in the supply response in North America, the ability to deploy rigs and bring new supply on very quickly, and so when you saw gas prices spike during the fourth quarter, we were up in, what, almost $4.00 at one point; $3.93, I think, is where January settled. Today, natural gas is below $3.00, back at $2.91. And so, as you look at that, our need to get out there and really try to take a long-term hedge position when you know you're paying sort of an embedded vig is not – our appetite really isn't that high right now. Rig counts up 40% since the fourth quarter and I just – we feel very good about where North America sits in terms of its ability to bring on a lot of gas at a very attractive price for us.
Operator:
Does that answer your question, Ben (sic) [Oliver]?
Oliver Rowe - Scotiabank:
Yes. Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly with CLSA. Please go ahead.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Thank you. Two questions, Tony. Do you think the value of pipelines is incrementally higher or lower than it was when we needed more imports? I'm just – I mean, obviously, you have the value of flexibility. But if we need to get less product into the Corn Belt, do you think that the value of a pipe is going down? And second, do you think your UK assets can be profitable in 2017?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, our UK assets were profitable in 2016. What we look at is kind of what is the cash generation on that business and, really, it's adjusted EBITDA that we focused on in terms of the UK. And we're really happy with kind of both what's the gas cost is, what the forward looks like, gas, for the UK and where selling prices are for ammonium nitrate. We've also done a really good job over there of renegotiating a bunch of the industrial contracts that we had for both ammonia and nitric acid supply that have added a lot of value to us in terms of that business versus where they were in 2015 and 2016. So, we're really pleased with the performance in the UK. The – you were asking initially, Mark, about the value of pipeline capacity and what I'd say is – so, the inland pipeline is all ammonia. It's not UAN. And so, to the extent that farmers see value in terms of the discount per unit of nitrogen for applying ammonia, which they have historically done, then there will be ongoing value to be able to access and move ammonia into the interior and the pipeline is among the cheapest way to do that and the most secure way to do that. So, I think the pipeline network has ongoing significant value to the Ag sector in this country and we don't see that going away. And I know that with some of the upgrades that are going on at border entity in it, there may be less utilization on Magellan side of the pipe than there is on the NuStar, but the NuStar I think is pretty much full up. So, we don't really see any change – any real changes happening on the eastern pipe.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Mark, I just want to make one more point about the ammonium nitrate business. If you look at ammonium nitrate business on an underlying basis and that's – both got stuck in the U.S. and also in the UK and you look at sort of gross margin, add back depreciation and amortization and also take out the effects of the derivatives. What you see is that the cash margin of that business is roughly around 20% for ammonium nitrate. If you look at the big three products, the same way over the past year in 2016, which obviously as we all know was a very challenging year, that cash margin sits well above 30%. And I think what that points up is that sitting where we sit on the cost curve, with the gas advantage that we have, even in very, very challenging years as 2016 was, that cost advantage comes through and from a cash perspective and economic perspective makes the business cash positive and very profitable.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
That's really helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi, good morning. Can you give us a sense of what utilization the different Port Neal plants ran at in Q4 and in Q1 and then also generally in 2017? So, when you think you will reach full capacity at Port Neal? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. So, the ammonia plant at Port Neal is running at a 110%-ish of nameplate right now. So, I would say we're well past full capacity at the moment. The urea plant has run about at – is running about at nameplate and it's a little bit like happened at Donaldsonville because it's a sister plant to the D'ville plant which is we brought it up to nameplate and then continued to step it up over the next couple of months and ultimately where the D'ville plant is currently operating is between about 10% and 15% above the nameplate. And so, we expect to get the same kind of performance out of the Port Neal urea plant here as we go through kind of the balance of the first quarter into the early second quarter. But that plant is fully operational and – at or above nameplate.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thanks for that. So, is the strategy now I'm seeing your capital allocation the last few slide in your presentation, with the strategy to be here to basically sit on your big pile of cash here through the $800 million of debt maturities in May 2018, is that – and sort of ride it out and see what will happen next year. Is that basically the idea?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I mean we do have the opportunity to do a natural kind of de-levering in 2018. I would say we have got roughly $800 million coming in from the tax refund that we expect due to bonus depreciation. We've got $800 million going out the door, so in a lot of way, in terms of the debt repayment. So, in a lot of ways that debt repayment has been kind of fully funded at this point, we just don't have the cash in the door yet. So, we certainly feel much better about what we see looking ahead than where we were in the third quarter and fourth quarter, but one of the things that we are focused on is maintaining investment grade metrics over the long-term. And so, we want to make sure that everything is sorted in the appropriate place before we start thinking too hard about future deployment.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thanks.
Operator:
And ladies and gentlemen, this is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Martin Jarosick for closing remarks.
Martin A. Jarosick - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
That concludes our fourth quarter earnings call. If you have any follow-up questions, please reach out. Thanks for everyone's time today.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This concludes the program and you may all disconnect.
Executives:
Anthony Fusco - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Third Quarter 2016 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Syed, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We'll facilitate a question-and answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Mr. Anthony Fusco with CF Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Anthony Fusco - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thank you, Syed. Good morning, and thank you for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Anthony Fusco with CF Investor Relations. Along with me today are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its third quarter 2016 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we will review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session related to the company's financial results for the quarter. As you review the news release posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide three of the accompanying presentation and from time-to-time, in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This conference call will include a discussion of certain non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, a presentation of the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and coinciding reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is provided in the earnings release and the slides for this webcast presentation on the company's website, www.cfindustries.com. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Anthony, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the third quarter and the first nine months of 2016 in which we generated adjusted EBITDA of $83 million and $725 million, respectively, after taking into account the items detailed in our earnings release. The third quarter typically has our lowest volumes and lowest realized prices of the year and this year was no different. The nitrogen cost curve has widened and flattened, pressuring product prices as a significant amount of new capacity has come online globally. As capacity was increasing, the cost to produce and move nitrogen into market was decreasing due to lower feedstock and ocean freight cost and currency devaluations in certain production regions. In addition to low product prices and already seasonally low volume, the situation was exacerbated by a change in buyer behavior. The North American value chain delayed purchasing products given the reluctance to take inventory risks as the application season was still several months away and additional new capacity, including our own, will soon be online. As such, the channel largely took a wait and see approach to the quarter. The net result was sluggish demand in North America and nitrogen product prices that fell to multiyear lows and were often trading below international parity. Bert will discuss this in more detail including the moves we made in response to these conditions. The business generated $83 million of adjusted EBITDA in the quarter despite the challenging market conditions. A welcome new development has been the strengthening market conditions of late. Both sales volume and product prices have increased since the end of the quarter as buyers are finally moving off the sidelines and beginning to prepare for the application season. On our last call, we detailed plans to deal with difficult market conditions that are expected to persist through next year. Our continuing focus is safe, reliable operations, reducing our cost and capital expenditures and maintaining strong liquidity. At the end of the third quarter, we had over $1.5 billion in cash and an undrawn revolver. Additionally, we expect to receive roughly $800 million in cash via tax refund in the third quarter next year, which is almost $3.50 per share, so we have the strong liquidity position we desire. We have also made great progress in reducing both SG& A and direct manufacturing cost. In addition to our efforts to reduce cost and conserve cash, we highlighted our focus to complete the major capacity expansion projects at Donaldsonville and Port Neal. At Donaldsonville, we have done just that. As we announced in October, the new ammonia plant is online and producing. With the new ammonia, urea and UAN plants all running at or above nameplate capacity, the expansion project at Donaldsonville has been officially completed. At Port Neal, we are on the process of starting up the plant. We had a successful test run of the urea granulation plant in September and gas and steam have been introduced into the ammonia plant and we're proceeding with the urea plant start-up in parallel. As a result, we expect both ammonia and urea production at Port Neal to begin soon. To help make this happen, we have brought a seasoned team from Donaldsonville up to assist the Port Neal final commissioning and start-up of the plant, allowing us to leverage what we've learned from our experiences. With the completion of Donaldsonville and with Port Neal starting up, now is a good time to take a step back and assess the good and bad of the capacity expansion projects. I want to start by referring to slide 11 of the materials posted to our website. The total capital cost to build the new plants at Donaldsonville and Port Neal was $5.2 billion. Those plants are expected to produce roughly 4 million product tons per year. However, CHS paid $2.8 billion and have the rights to 1.7 million tons of that production. So, that leaves $2.4 billion of capital and roughly 2.3 million product tons for CF's account. Therefore, our resulting net capital cost was roughly $1,050 per product ton of new capacity. As page 13 suggests, while our costs have greatly exceeded our initial estimate, and we're certainly not happy about that, it is an all too common occurrence in the industry as every major North American project we could find reliable data on has similarly experienced significant cost overruns as well. What is ultimately important, though, is the capital cost per ton of new production capacity. As shown on page 13, our new plants at Donaldsonville and Port Neal have an effective capital cost per ton of production that is among the lowest of all the observable plants built recently in North America. And what is really important, as detailed on page 14, is that the effective IRR for the projects remains significantly above our cost of capital despite the increased cost and lower product price environment. The net result of all of this is that we remain pretty happy with our decision to do the capacity expansion projects and the fact that we sold an equity interest to CHS. Now, let me turn the call over to Bert, who will talk more about the market and our outlook in more detail. And then, Dennis will discuss our performance and our work on reshaping part of our debt capital structure. After which, I will offer some closing remarks. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. The supply driven market, the seasonal low demand period for fertilizer and changing buyer behavior pushed ammonia, urea and UAN prices lower throughout the third quarter, hitting multiyear lows for each of the products. In fact, nitrogen prices at the U.S. Gulf remained below international parity for most of the third quarter, as Tony mentioned. Even as of late last week, NOLA urea is trading at approximately $10 per short ton below the rest of the world. The global oversupply of nitrogen and its pressure on prices is not a new story. As we have said before, we believe 2016 represents the high watermark for urea capacity additions globally with capacity additions projected to drop off sharply after mid-2017. As an industry, we have yet to see the full impact of the new North American production capacity, but that which has come online has begun to displace imports. The low global prices have challenged the ability of high cost producers to operate. The marginal producer, which remains Chinese anthracite coal plants, have also seen production and transportation costs rise. Rail and trucking costs in China have increased and electricity subsidies for small urea producers were eliminated in April. Additionally, coal prices have increased due to government imposed mining restrictions. Anthracite lump coal prices in China has been flat for most of the third quarter, but recent published reports suggest that prices have increased 20% to 30%. This is translated to additional plants in China shutting down and fewer Chinese products being offered in the international marketplace via exports. Through the end of the quarter, approximately 8 million metric tons of annual urea capacity has been shut down in China and we anticipate that number to continue to increase. As fundamental economic pressure is affecting pricing, the Chinese port price per metric ton for urea had risen to about $220 as we enter November, up from $194 per metric ton at the end of September. Also, the average U.S. Gulf price for urea barge product was approximately $180 per short ton for the third quarter and today, it is $30 to $40 higher. We anticipate that prices in the coming quarters will also be supported by stronger demand. During the low price environment of the third quarter, customers took a new approach to purchases. While the third quarter typically has the lowest prices and lowest volumes in North America, demand was pressured more than normal. Trend of lower prices over the last 18 months has increased inventory risk in the mind of the purchaser. Over the last 10 years, customers have purchased forward, received a product out of season as inventory and then delivered the product to their customers for either fall or spring applications. Today, this is much less the case. Many domestic customers told us they did not want to purchase products in the third quarter, preferring instead to take a wait and see approach to understand how the market will develop, particularly with new capacity expected to come online in North America. This approach was a deviation from historical purchasing patterns but we responded to this environment in a few specific ways. First, we delayed the launch of our UAN fill program and we capitalized on our flexibility to export from Donaldsonville, particularly for UAN. Our sales team has put in a great deal of work in recent years to open up new markets for our product and that effort is benefiting the company now. In the third quarter, we exported a record amount of UAN for the first nine months of the year. UAN exports have increased 143% over the same period last year and risen from under 100,000 tons in 2012 to more than 700,000 tons year-to-date in 2016. We have also increased shipments of UAN to the East and Gulf Coast by way of a new vessel commission earlier this year, allowing CF to compete with imports. In the past, we have not participated in these regions in a significant way as farmers in the Corn Belt consume the vast majority of our UAN and cost effective freight options were limited. We also have a significant amount of end market storage for our products with over 1.2 million tons of ammonia storage, 1.3 million tons of UAN and over 500,000 tons of urea storage across our network. Even if buyers sat for a while on the sideline, historically, we have been able to fully operate our plant and position product for when demand materializes. As we have said many times, nitrogen is a necessary nutrient that has to be applied every year. Additionally, despite the record or near record corn and soybean crops expected this year, 2017 futures prices suggest continued profitability at the farm level for corn and soybeans. We are forecasting 88 million acres of corn and for wheat acres to remain flat at 50 million acres. Assuming that the weather cooperate, when demand for fall application season begins, we expect it to be strong. At the same time, we believe that North American downstream inventory of ammonia, urea and UAN is low following the spring application season. Urea imports were down 55% year-over-year in the third quarter as well, suggesting that purchasing activity will have to accelerate to be ready for spring. With buyers holding off purchases, we expect there to be robust just-in-time demand during the application season which, as I've outlined, we believe we are uniquely positioned to provide. We have also seen tremendous progress in our UK operations. Since CF purchased the plants at Ince and Billingham, the manufacturing teams have set a number of production records. The team there also delivered a record amount of fertilizer to UK farmers in July as their season began and they continue to move all of their products. We have also benefited from a continued decline in UK natural gas prices, which had an average price in the third quarter of 2016 of $4.08 per MMBtu compared to $6.44 per MMBtu in the same quarter of 2015. For the North American natural gas market, the December NYMEX contracts started the quarter near $3.36 per MMBtu and is currently trading at around $2.79 per MMBtu. During the third quarter of 2016, we did not enter into any additional natural gas hedges and we remain confident in the long-term outlook for low cost North American natural gas. With that, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the third quarter of 2016, the company reported an EBITDA loss of $6 million and a net loss per diluted share of $0.13. Included in these results on a pre-tax basis were approximately $21 million in unrealized net mark-to-market losses on our natural gas derivatives, a $22 million unrealized mark-to-market loss on an embedded derivative associated with the CHS strategic venture, $24 million of expansion cost for our Donaldsonville and Port Neal facilities, $18 million of start-up cost for the Donaldsonville ammonia plant, $3 million of net foreign currency losses related to intercompany loans, and $2 million of fees associated with the amendment of the private placement notes, partially offset by a $1 million gain on foreign currency derivatives. When taking these items into account, our adjusted EBITDA for the third quarter was $83 million and our adjusted net earnings per diluted share was $0.13. Included in these results is a realized loss of $11 million or $0.17 per MMBtu on our natural gas hedges for the third quarter of 2016. Our gross margin per ton of urea and UAN was affected by the commencement of depreciation of our capacity additions at Donaldsonville, which increased depreciation expense in the quarter by $19 million. Including this amount, total depreciation for the quarter amounted to about $83 million for the two segments and about $30 per ton and $43 per ton for urea and UAN, respectively. As we bring up the remaining plants, our depreciation will again increase. In 2017, we expect to receive a refund of approximately $800 million related to the carryback of certain U.S. tax losses from the current year to prior years, primarily related to the bonus depreciation provision in the PATH Act. The amount of this refund is dependent in part on the timing of the completion of the expansion project at Port Neal. The company now projects the 2016 pre-tax loss excluding non-controlling interest. As a result, we recorded an income tax benefit of $131 million on a pre-tax loss of $131 million. The amount recognized represents the reversal of tax provisions that we recorded in prior period this year. Interest expense for the third quarter was $31 million with another $53 million of interest being capitalized in the quarter. As the capacity expansions are completed, interest capitalization will decrease dramatically, increasing reported interest expense on the income statement. As you know, CHS is entitled to semiannual distributions resulting from its minority equity investment in CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC. The estimate of the partnership distribution earned by CHS but not yet declared for the third quarter 2016 is approximately $22 million. For the full year, the company expects to have total capital expenditures of approximately $2.3 billion, of which approximately $1.8 billion will be for the capacity expansion projects and $450 million to $475 million will be for sustaining improvement and other projects. The total completed capital cost of all capacity expansion projects both at Donaldsonville and Port Neal is estimated to be approximately $5.2 billion. For 2017, we continue to expect capital expenditures to be in the range of $400 million to $450 million, returning CapEx to maintenance levels that continue our commitment to safe, compliant and reliable operations. Let's turn now to our liquidity profile and capital structure. As we indicated in the release, due to the uncertain duration of the current low price environment, our company is taking steps to maintain strong liquidity and has made and is making certain changes to part of the debt capital structure to put in place financing more appropriate for the current business and operating environment. As of September 30, 2016, the company had a balance of cash and cash equivalents of nearly $1.6 billion and undrawn revolver and was in compliance with all applicable covenant requirements and all debt instruments. In addition to maintaining strong liquidity, our intention is to put in place a capital structure for the business we are as opposed to the business we thought we would be a year ago. We recently obtained required lender consent for an amendment of our revolving credit facility, subject to the satisfaction of specified conditions that would, among other things, change and add financial covenants, reduce the facility size from $1.5 billion to $750 million and add security interest to provide credit enhancement to the lenders. We believe this security enhancement gave the lenders confidence to give us the appropriate flexibility to continue paying our dividend. We expect to fund the prepayment of the senior notes due 2022, 2025 and 2027 and the related make whole amount with the issuance of new long-term secured debt borrowings under the company's revolving credit facility, cash on hand or a combination of any of the foregoing. As many of you recall, we issued the private placement notes when we were in the middle of the proposed combination with certain businesses of OCI. Because of that, we were unable to issue traditional registered investment grade debt. Instead, we opted to issue private placement notes with longer maturities that were spread out over time to meet our capital needs. However, the private placement covenant package is not appropriate for a standalone CF in the current operating environment. The intent of prepaying the private placement notes is to replace them with financing that has a long-term covenant structure more consistent with traditional debt capital for a cyclical industry. Before I hand the call back to Tony, I would like to end by discussing our capital allocation philosophy, which has not changed. While the current pricing environment has impacted our ratings in the near-term, we remain committed to investment grade over the long-term. We will continue our prudent approach to managing the balance sheet in order to be in a position to retire $800 million of debt coming due in 2018 and, again, in 2020. If you look at our slide 19, what you will see is that we have returned to shareholders more than twice as much as we have net invested in large projects and assets. Looking at slide 20, you can see that since 2010, our approach has resulted in our shareholders having greatly increased exposure to our underlying business as measured by nitrogen nutrient tons per 1,000 shares. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. As we've tried to lay out in our slides on pages 22 through 26, we believe that CF is exceptionally well-positioned to benefit from recovery in the nitrogen sector. Although there is currently oversupply in the industry, global nitrogen demand is expected to continue to grow at roughly 2% per year. There is a lack of new plants scheduled to come online post-2017. And as a result, the global supply-demand balance should tighten leading to an increase in product prices. As this price recovery begins in 2018 and continues thereafter, CF should benefit disproportionately. As page 26 indicates a $25 per ton urea equivalent increase translates roughly to $350 million of additional EBITDA on an annual basis. Bert indicated that average published Q3 urea prices at NOLA was $180 per ton. However, prices are already $30 to $40 higher than that today. With our new plant starting up and improving market conditions, we are very excited about the future. With that, operator, we'll open the call to questions.
Operator:
Thank you. Your first question comes from Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Thank you. As you mentioned, you've seen a nice little move in urea prices due to what's going on in China. But global UAN and ammonia hasn't really moved that much despite higher feedstock costs and some curtailments in Eastern Europe and even some extended maintenance in the Middle East. Do you just simply believe it's a matter of time before prices rebound or is demand still really that sluggish? So, any color on UAN and ammonia would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, we are seeing – good morning, Chris. This is Bert. We are seeing UAN prices already move. Egypt just closed a tender this week and that was closed at $140 per metric ton, and that's up from the $125 level from the previous tender. We're seeing that prices increase in Europe, in France, as well as other locations, and in the United States. So, we're seeing activity step up in North America over the last several weeks and pricing, correspondingly, is increasing. Ammonia, we have not seen the big move yet for fall applications in North America, but we have pretty positive weather pattern in front of us, and we expect that to go fairly soon. Around the world, I think, with – around ammonia specifically, with the additions in Asia, the SABIC plant and some of the new capacity that has come online, that did pressure pricing in Q3. But we expect moderating prices on the upside as we roll into 2017.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. And just a little more comment – another question on ammonia, I suppose. Just can you comment on just what degree or what effect the competitor ammonia supply coming online during 3Q in the U.S. you believe affected your netbacks? And how do you think this is going to evolve over the next year or two, especially, in the context of what we're still seeing from Trinidad? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, I think the ammonia situation for us – it is just a lower quarter on demand. You really don't have ag demand during Q3, so it's an industrial-focused quarter. And with Tampa pricing at a low level with contracts either based on Tampa or on gas that drives the lower price for the product. And so, for our specific price realization and demand we do expect that, obviously, we're going to see an improvement in Q4 with ag and then, rolling into next year. Over the next year or two, you're right, there is additional capacity coming online. We expect most of that North American capacity to be converted into upgraded products and we have a two new plants coming online that are probably net losses for ammonia. And the current capacities coming on in the Gulf outside of CF is pretty much committed to Dyno and Cornerstone and some other movers. So, we feel fairly good about the ammonia market as well as our ability to move and continue to participate through our terminal and distribution system in the ag as well as industrial market.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
That's helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Michael Piken from Cleveland Research. Your line is open, please go ahead.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Good morning. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about some of the impact that the higher rail rates have had on your operations. And specifically, when some of the new capacity comes on, what type of savings might be available and if the rail companies are willing to renegotiate some of those rates? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, we're constantly looking at all of our costs, as Tony has mentioned, whether that be SG&A, production, CapEx. I think that in this type of an environment, we're driven to do that and, obviously, logistics is one of those areas. And our logistics team has done a great job in terms of leveraging the various platforms that we have. And what we have done – I'll tell you – the rail rates have gone up and it has been an impact on UAN. And we have met with the railroads and we continue to do, whether it's spot situations or looking at the complex as a whole. One of the things we did last year was we opened up Stolthaven, which allowed us to get on the NS and bypass some of the blocked activity we believe we're experiencing in Donaldsonville. We've also leveraged and moved up our barge participation on UAN, increasing the level and then, like I mentioned earlier, the exports. And so, we're able to achieve a fairly attractive netback moving our product to all over the globe, but principally to Argentina, Uruguay, Europe and some new markets we're developing. And we've moved to France for less than $15 a ton, $14 a ton. We can't move to St. Louis for that on UAN. And so, as you see us develop and grow and mature, we're going to continue to leverage those options to benefit us. Other opportunities for what we're doing – we've met with the railroads on shipping out of Port Neal. We have UP and BN servicing that plant and we've built that facility to fully load that product out by truck. And so, you have to take defensive measures during these times to be able to position yourselves to pull in the attractive pricing for rail and other logistical options and that's what we're doing.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Great. And could you give any sort of quantification in terms of like how much money it might save you once the urea is fully up and running in Port Neal, in terms of trucking it out of Port Neal to other locations in Midwest versus what you're currently paying out of D-ville? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, it depends on where you go. I mean, obviously, D-ville is going to be a – it's a huge plant and we have a lot of urea coming out of there but most of it moves by barge and now we have the ability to move that up by vessel. Some of it will move by rail, but the product that we have been moving by rail into Iowa, Nebraska, the Dakotas, all of that will come out of Port Neal and that will all be very competitively positioned. And we can load the trucks with a pup so you can average more tons and lower your freight cost and we think that will reach 500 miles to 700 miles by truck outside of the plant. And so then it's going to have to be
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Wondering if you could just put a little more context or frame around how soon "soon" might be at Port Neal – and maybe, what I'm trying to get at is just sort of the market dynamics seem to be a bit influx over how much incremental imports are going to be needed this year going into spring as a function of when new facilities start up. So, just curious what "soon" means and how it fits into your marketing strategy with the balance of your product?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Good morning, Vincent. Yeah. So, as I said earlier, in September, we tested the granulation part of the urea plant. We have been stockpiling ammonia into the tanks and anyone who is in the Port Neal area has seen the flare stack lit up, so we've got gas and steam going into the reformer front-end. As we work kind of from the reformer through the CO2 removal system, we're going to start sending CO2 over to the urea plant and then be able to pull ammonia out of the tanks. And so, that's what we're planning in terms of the parallel commissioning. So, it's very likely that urea will actually be online before the ammonia plant is fully up. It's a simpler plant to commission and granulation is already operational. But our expectation is it's a matter of a couple of weeks, maybe three weeks or four weeks, depends upon the number of little issues that you find as go through it. But that was fairly consistent with our experience at Donaldsonville. And hopefully we'll be able to improve on that because of the great team we've got from D-ville that's up helping the Port Neal guys. So, I would say our expectation is urea, hopefully here by the end of this month and ammonia, plus or minus a week after.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Just as a follow-up, Bert, you talked a little bit about sort of changing customer buying patterns. Sounds a little bit similar to me as what has happened in some of the other nutrients. So, just curious your view on total amount of storage capacity you have, whether you want to be or need to be more opportunistic with storage capacity. And also, you mentioned the 1 million tons of UAN, the vessels. How we should think about sort of the incremental ability going forward to use vessels both for urea and UAN to be more flexible around changes in customer buying patterns?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yes. So, when you look at our system, as I mentioned, we do have the flexibility first on production. So, we can produce ammonia, urea, UAN and some of the other products. We will continue to do that and leverage those options up and down as the market necessitates. Then, you go into loading options where you have pipe, barge, truck, rail, vessel. Then, you go next to terminal opportunities and where those terminals are. We have taken on some additional terminalling space, which we believe is in our long-term interest in markets that we have not necessarily participated as much in the past and we can effectively serve now with our logistical options. But you're right, exports are a great opportunity because you can immediately put 40,000 tons out and load it in a day. And so, that's a great leverage point when you're looking at inventory at the plant and how you're moving it out incrementally into the interior. Buying patterns have changed and we anticipate that they'll probably be this way for another year or so. But at the end of the day, you do have to have your product in place to serve the farmer customer. You can only move so many railcars per day and railcars can only make so many trips and they have to return empty and load out and get in line. And so, we believe as that window closes and every day is another lost shipment day, that that will challenge the delivery system. And this is more of a UAN story than it is for urea because I think you can move that up by barging up through the various terminals. So, we're fairly positive looking forward into 2017. If you really look at it – if our Texas and Oklahoma, that will start applications in February; Midwest, March and then April, so you're not much more than four, five months away from application. We're just starting winter and we're already looking to spring. So, we think it's going to turn out pretty well for us.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks very much for all the detail. Appreciate it.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Steve Byrne from Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes, thank you. Bert, you mentioned you're looking at the opportunity to ship out of D-ville, UAN to both East Coast and West Coast, just curious about that. Does that reflect your view that post the start-up of OCI's Wever and your Port Neal plants, that UAN in the Corn Belt will become net balanced on UAN and you need to find new homes for the UAN out of D-ville?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I wouldn't infer too much into that because what we're doing is just creating optionality for the company. And I would rather have 10 options to take 1 ton than have one option to take 10 tons. And so, we would rather create these options whether they be exports or the Coast. And we have looked at the Coast throughout the years and participated in various manners. But today, when you look at the East Coast, that's a million-ton market that we probably had 50,000 to 100,000 tons five or six years ago and I think that presents a tremendous opportunity for us. That's why we're getting on the NS, looking to get on the CSX, utilizing Courtright on the CN. The West Coast, we've got some good agreements and partnerships out there with some of the distributors. We're able to rail directly from Woodward on the BN from Donaldsonville and Port Neal on the UP, and we've been moving product by vessel through the Panama Canal to the West Coast, and that's an attractive opportunity for us. But I wouldn't – yes, new products and new production is coming online in various parts of the country and we're going to continue to participate in those areas. We ourselves are adding capacity right in the heart of the Corn Belt and we're just preparing.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Steve, the other thing to kind of remember is, as we indicated, I think in some of our materials, the nitric acid and UAN plant at Donaldsonville is kind of the largest single train that's out there at 4,500 metric ton a day, which is about, at nameplate, about 5,000 short tons a day. And that plant is running over 20% above nameplate. We've done several days here just even this week at over 6,000 tons a day. So, Bert has got a big job in terms of finding a home for all of that product given how well those plants are running. And as he pointed out, what we're trying to do is just try to get the best aggregate netback across the entire system.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
And just a follow-up on that, Tony, given D-ville's effective capacity is going to be greater than nameplate, what would you say longer-term is the fraction of production of that plant that will likely be exported?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
That's going to really vary based on market conditions, and the trade patterns are evolving and starting to adjust for where the new capacity comes out. We certainly have an ability to export as much as 3 million tons, 4 million tons a year but that wouldn't probably be our first choice, all other things considered. The point though that I would like to highlight just to remind everybody of and we've got a slide to this effect in the appendix, that even after all of the new capacity that's in flight in North America comes online, North America is still going to be a very import-dependent region where there's about 30% of our total nitrogen demand has got to be met by imports. So, when we're exporting here and there, it really is just around the edges and, primarily, during periods of time when there isn't a lot going to ground in North America and there's demand in other regions. So, it's a way to maximize overall system netbacks, not a have-to-do kind of thing.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Good morning. Just want to talk about the $1 billion of maturities that you're taking out in 2020. Maybe if you could elaborate a little more. I guess you had some pressure from the lenders on that with the covenant and I think some of that was related to the OCI deal. Can you just talk about some of the decisions around that and how soon you will be prepaying? Thanks.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Sure, Joel. This is Dennis. I think you're right, and we said that in our prepared remarks that, basically, those things were taken out in September as part of financing the OCI deal. At the time we did that, we weren't in a position to issue registered debt or even 144A debt because we wouldn't have had the requisite financial information we needed to issue that. So, what we did is we looked at a couple of options. We looked at potentially taking out a three-year or five-year term loan to provide the financing. And the reason we rejected that option was because, effectively, if you look at the post closing of the OCI deal, there would have been, had we done that, around $4 billion worth of maturities occurring between sort of 2016 and 2020, 2021. And that was a concentration of maturities that really wasn't – that was a bit high risk for us. So, what we did, instead, is we went to the private placement market where we could basically throw a lot of those maturities further out to 2025 and also 2027, so that we would have a more laddered effect. Now, with the business that we intended to have coming out of that deal, which would have included three new operating plants and through time, significantly less debt and also, the operating environment that we foresaw at that time, the covenant structure in the private placement notes was not perceived to be problematic. But a couple of things happened since that point in time. A, we didn't do the CHS – we didn't do the OCI deal and so then we never got the three additional operating plants. In addition to that and certainly with respect to third quarter, things turned out a bit more adverse than we had anticipated. And so, with that highlighted to us with the need to make sure that with respect to our long dated capital, that the long dated capital that we had in place to finance the business should be long dated capital that is consistent with a business that is cyclical and goes through ups and downs and is robust to that from a covenant perspective. And the reason that that's important to us is because having a more appropriate set of covenants gives us the flexibility, as I said, with respect to the revolving credit facility to continue to pay the dividend and do other things on the equity side that would be more difficult otherwise. And so, the actions we're taking here are really around reducing the risk and uncertainty around that sort of stuff and putting our capital structure in a framework that's far more appropriate for the type of business that we are today and the environment we are in.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Okay. That was helpful. And the second question will ask is on the ammonia contracts with Mosaic starting in January 1. So, Mosaic obviously disclosed, I guess, last week or it was this week, sorry, that the barge is late and so, they'll be taking products from you on a different way, maybe rail. Can you talk about – will you be getting the same, during this interim period for the barge, will you be getting the same netbacks and the minimum volume, any payment changes, maybe talk about anything going on in the interim? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, Joel, we have been in, as you would imagine, very close communication with the guys at Mosaic. So, they have been keeping us abreast of what's going on from a delivery schedule perspective on the vessel. And Bert and his counterpart have been working well at coming up with different ways to manage that situation, whether it's giving them ammonia via the pipe or send some stuff up through their terminals, doing some timed product swaps and other things like that. So, we're on top of it and kind of managing it jointly with the Mosaic guys and don't foresee that is as any kind of real issue.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe first, I want to go back to, I think, it was Vincent's question about Port Neal, a question around the impact on the tax refund next year. Can you just talk about what actually has to occur by year-end to ensure the receipt of that cash tax refund next year? And if the plant presumably is not fully operational by December 31, how that will impact the timing and scope of the tax refund?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yes. Good morning, Adam. The plant has got to be basically put in service and operational in order for us to be able to depreciate it. So, we need the plant to be running. Now, that said, as I have talked about, it's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We've already tested the granulation plant at urea. We are ready to put CO2 into the urea melt plant, the synthesis plant, and kind of get that up and running. The offsite have all been sort of tested and are operational. And once we've got CO2 going over to the urea plant, then the front-end of the ammonia plant is operational. So, again, this isn't an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We're putting sections of the plant in operation as we go. But again, our expectation here is, based on our experience at Donaldsonville, the urea plants are sister plants from one another and the one at D-ville started up within a week. So, we think we have plenty of time to get it up and operational. The Port Neal ammonia plant is a lot less complex than the Port Neal is – or Port Neal is less complex than D-ville because Port Neal is a 2,200-ton a day plant where D-ville is a 3,300-ton a day plant and configuration of the Syn-Loop in Donaldsonville is much more complex. There's a whole 'nother section to it. So, as we look at this, we feel very comfortable in terms of being able to get the plant online here by the end of the year and that's why we continue to say, it's $800 million in terms of the tax refund next year because we expect to get everything online.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Adam, this is Dennis. I just wanted to clarify something that I heard in your question. The timing of the refund doesn't have anything to do with what happens at Port Neal. The timing of the refund has to do with when you get your tax return in and when that gets processed through. And given what we anticipate today or what we see today, we anticipate that that will be a third quarter event next year, that is the refund. As Tony described to you, the Port Neal piece has to do with the amount because it's what drives ultimately, for a portion of our depreciation, whether you have depreciation in your tax clause for 2016 that you carryback or whether you don't and how much. And like Tony said, it's not an all-or-nothing type thing, there's a sort of a continuum of outcomes, but our strong expectation remains that we'll be fully depreciating those assets this year.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
That's helpful. And then, just a follow-up on – on slide 26 of your deck that has the EBITDA sensitivity to gas, urea prices. I just want to be clear, that's – the urea prices as you've laid them out, those are CF realized urea prices, not kind of a NOLA benchmark? And as I think about the current environment, maybe the environment for the next 6 months to 12 months where you're finding the value of ammonia and UAN on an end ton basis, the spreads are a little bit different than they've been historically and I presume how you would envision them prospectively, your results over the next, call it 2017, wouldn't necessarily mirror this table, given differences in spreads and product prices.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, as you point out, this is based on kind of a pro forma simulation of the various spreads that existed for our last full year, which was 2015 and if there are differences going forward, that's going to change. The vertical axis is our realized price, but I think in the third quarter, the published average NOLA price was $180 and our realized price was a little over $200. And so, we would expect that spread to go up once Port Neal comes online because we are adding about 1.4 million tons in market that's going to have a $30 a ton, $40 a ton premium associated with it because of transportation cost from the Gulf. And so, that kind of gives you a general sense of kind of the premium to the Gulf that we would expect. In addition, although ammonia is a little bit different animal because of the volume that's available out there in the deepwater market, we would expect UAN premium to come back in line with urea. And we can switch back and forth between granulating more or producing more solution, depending upon where that premium sits. And to the extent that you don't get the corresponding bumps that you would expect in UAN, we'll just shift the product mix. So, I think over the medium-term to long-term, those things have to come back into rough equilibrium. Otherwise the producers are going to shift the mix and the end values have to trade at a minimum on parity with very likely UAN continuing to command a premium the way it has.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
That's really helpful. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Sandy Klugman from Vertical Research. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Yeah. Hi. I was hoping you could comment on the weakness in industrial demand that you cited in your release and I assume some of that is phosphates. But is there anything worth highlighting in the DEF market? And on DEF, do you have any updated thoughts on how that market demand evolves over time?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yes. So, when we mentioned the weakness, it's more the weakness in the ammonia price structure and why that was driven more in relation to the contractual structure of our industrial book of business, which is gas-based as well as Tampa-based and Tampa is very low. Demand has been a little bit lower in the industrial segment due to some of the issues around caprolactam and phosphate. I think it's just with more of additional phosphate exports out of China has put a little more pressure on some of the other phosphate producers in terms of overall volumes and possible changes in mix as moving some to micro nutrients, as Mosaic has mentioned, away from possibly that. So, weakness – I don't think it's anything we're concerned about. Our volumes are, we think, going to hold steady. Regarding DEF, we're very – we're positive what's going on in the DEF market, continued demand. We're going to have a record year on DEF volume. Pricing is holding up. We're continuing to see the growth of 30% to 40% that we have seen year-on-year. I do think just due to this slight slowdown in shipments, you have probably seen the Class 8 truck volume – the new truck volume slowing down a little bit on that end, but you do have additional demand coming from off-road as well as different segments. So, we're positive on the DEF front and continue to invest and grow and build the team and participate in that business.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. Great. Thank you. And just a follow-up question on ammonia, a significant nitrogen equivalent discount to urea and UAN that you were discussing. Do you see this having any meaningful impact on how growers choose to apply nitrogen? Are there any early reads on direct application demand for ammonia versus demand for urea and UAN resulting from the lower prices?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
There's something important to remember here, which is the ammonia price, when it's weak, it primarily affects the industrial demand that Bert was talking about. In order to be able to get ammonia into the farmer's fields, you have to have a place to move it to. And it's not like urea where you can just leave it on a railcar, put it in a shed kind of thing. And UAN, there's a lot of availability of tank space. With ammonia, you have to have big cryogenic storage tanks. There's principally only three companies and they are the producers that own those. CF has got the largest network of the ammonia tank terminal system. Koch has got some and Agrium has got some and then there's kind of onesie-twosie tanks here and there that are owned by other people like Trammo and so forth. But if you don't have the storage terminals, then you can't take Gulf ammonia up into the marketplace and get it in the hands of the farmers because you've got no place to move it through. And so, even though there is some impact in terms of agricultural demand or agricultural prices for ammonia, it's not directly tied to Tampa ammonia the way urea price in the Midwest is tied to NOLA urea price. So, that's one of the reasons why the distribution terminal system that we've got in ammonia is so valuable because it allows us to capture a pretty sizable spread between the value of agricultural ammonia versus cheap or relatively cheap deepwater ammonia.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Relative to your question on demand and changes in demand patterns, we've experienced two falls, 2014 and 2015, that were below expectations and below normal but that was weather-driven. And then, we experienced two record springs in 2015 and 2016. And so, as I mentioned earlier, when you look out on a10-day to 30-day forecast, we see some positive developments in all of our terminal region even up in Canada, which receives snow in October. In limited applications, we see that drying out and temperatures staying in the 50s in the afternoon, allowing probably the applications to accelerate. And when you look at, as a farmer, for corn, you have a number of options for and applications thereof. For ammonia, traditionally, in the past, it was 180 pounds per acre, you put it on the fall and you plant it in the spring and off you go. That has changed with a different agronomic prescription. And so, we have seen a little bit less applied in the fall and then pick-up an additional applications in the spring two, three and four stage applications, a combination of ammonia maybe side dress ammonia or UAN top dress or even flying over with urea. Each of those are positive for us. And so, we do see ammonia in the fall as a component to good agronomic corn practices and we see that continuing.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from John Roberts from UBS. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you. You talked about getting back to investment grade. I'm sure your creditors pressured you on the dividend here through these discussions. Can you get back to investment grade without adjusting the dividend? And then, once you get back to free cash flow positive again, is that a priority over buybacks or how do you think about the priority?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. So, John, on the dividend, if you look at our balance sheet, we have almost $1.6 billion of cash on the balance sheet. We've got an undrawn revolver. We've got $800 million of cash coming to us next year in the form of a tax refund. And so, that's before dollar one of operating profit. And so, the problem is not from an investment grade standpoint, the dividend or our liquidity situation – we have plenty of cash. The issue is all around in the near-term, the pricing environment and the EBITDA generation relative to the aggregate amount of debt that we've got outstanding on the business. And so, change the dividend, don't change the dividends, it doesn't have a meaningful impact in terms of that particular metric and that's why we worked really hard on the secured credit facility to make sure that we've got the flexibility that allows us to continue paying the dividend going forward because that's an important element for the equity holders. So, our focus is to get back to investment grade and we are planning, as Dennis articulated earlier, to retire the debt that comes due in 2018, that's $800 million. And so, we'll be de-levering at that point, that will certainly help. And then, as we move into price recovery in the sector about that time, we expect that will help as well. So, we're going through a short duration situation here but it's not really dividend-dependent. Dennis, do you have other...
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
No, I think that's right.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
And then, secondly the industry, obviously, has a very high level of M&A activity underway. You've been a participant in the past. What are your current thoughts around the industry consolidation?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I mean, I think consolidation, generally speaking, is a constructive force. It allows for kind of rational behavior and, in general, there's synergies to be had. So, I think it's the kind of natural consequence of things when you go through these cyclical troughs, periods like we're going right now. Sorry, let me go back to one question, the second half of the question you asked earlier which is, is our preference dividend or share repurchase. As a general theme, we like to maintain the dividend. We don't want to be in a situation where we're reducing that. But I think on a day-in, day-out basis for consistent and timely return of capital back to the shareholders, our biases towards share repurchase, we think that tends to be a more efficient vehicle to do that with.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Good pivot away from the M&A question.
Operator:
Thank you. At this time, I would like to hand the conference back over to Mr. Anthony Fusco for closing remarks.
Anthony Fusco - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thank you, everyone, for joining us this morning. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to reach out and we will respond accordingly. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's event. This concludes our program. You may all disconnect, and have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Dan A. Aldridge - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc. Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Analysts:
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Edlain Rodriguez - UBS Securities LLC Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc. Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2016 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Danielle, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Dan A. Aldridge - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Danielle. Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings Inc. I'm Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations. And with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Market Development and Supply Chain; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing and Distribution. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its second quarter 2016 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we will review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session related to the company's financial results for the quarter. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide two of the accompanying presentation and from time-to-time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This conference call will include a discussion of certain non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, a presentation of the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and coinciding reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is provided in the earnings release and the slides for this webcast presentation on the company's website, www.cfindustries.com. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted our financial results for the second quarter of 2016, in which we generated EBITDA of $329 million. Adjusted EBITDA was $342 million, after taking into account unrealized mark-to-market hedging gains, costs related to the termination of the OCI transaction, net foreign currency losses on intercompany loans, and expenses related to the capacity expansion projects. Included in these results and not adjusted for is a realized loss on natural gas hedges of $61 million. For the first half 2016, EBITDA was $536 million, while adjusted EBITDA was $642 million, after taking into account the same factors as for the second quarter. The first half results include a realized loss on natural gas hedges of $117 million, which was not adjusted for. So, even with the challenging conditions in the global fertilizer market, our underlying business performance remains strong. Before turning the call over to Bert and Dennis to give details on the quarter, I want to provide some observations and thoughts about the nitrogen market, and our response to current industry conditions. There are some industry elements that are more structural and permanent in nature, while others tend to be more temporal. Fortunately, the elements that are structural tend to be strengths and benefit CF. These include
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Tony. Given the challenging market for nitrogen, we are pleased with our sales results from the quarter, as they demonstrate the active role we take in responding to shifts in global supply and demand, market opportunities and customer needs. The lower pricing environment of the second quarter was driven by global oversupply, with an excess of tons targeted to the U.S., despite NOLA and Tampa trading below international parity. In North America, the quarter began with solid demand at the beginning of April that helped to support selling prices. The strong run we witnessed in March for ammonia applications resulted in a portion of seasonal demand being pulled forward into the first quarter, which had a negative impact on the volume of second quarter ammonia shipments. The positive pricing position during the first quarter lasted for approximately three weeks into the second quarter, after which pricing moved steadily lower for all products. In early April, it was a tale of two Corn Belts in the U.S., with western farms planting on time, while the eastern states were hampered by several weeks of wet and cold weather that delayed fertilizer applications in the middle of the season. This delay allowed wholesalers and traders a window to import additional product and supply eventually exceeded demand. As a result, pricing fell throughout the quarter and hit levels that did not appear to make economic sense. By the middle of the quarter, wholesale liquidation took place, pushing prices even lower, with importers struggling to generate cash positive returns. The combination of additional imported product and subsequent liquidation pressured the urea barge market down below $200 per short ton FOB NOLA by early May. By the end of the quarter, the NOLA value for urea had fallen to just below $175 a short ton. Against this backdrop, the company's realized price for urea during the second quarter was $247 per short ton, a significant premium to prices reported at the U.S. Gulf. CF also responded to changing conditions by actively leveraging our scale, efficiency and expertise in distribution, targeting new alternative destinations and logistical options. Our fleet of over 5,500 railcars and 32 barges is complemented by over 2.5 million tons of North American storage and access to both the NuStar and Magellan ammonia pipelines. The recent completion of our re-injection terminal at Garner, Iowa affords us new flexibility in how we move ammonia throughout the pipeline. By gaining the ability to reinject ammonia at this site, it allows our teams to instantaneously transport product from the western Corn Belt to the eastern Corn Belt, which is a tremendous benefit to have, as Port Neal comes on later this year. In rail, we are identifying new approaches in how we can better transport additional volume. In the prior year, our teams did not have a single unit train depart the Donaldsonville site. In 2016, however, we have loaded 19 unit trains to-date. For those who may not be familiar with shipping, unit trains become increasingly economical as the volume transported increases. And with the capacity expansion projects coming online, we have leveraged that additional volume to our benefit. Additionally, the recent drafts of the Surface Transportation Board's language on competitive switching are encouraging and present additional opportunities to streamline rail distribution routes and reduce costs. Our team also responded to changes in the domestic fertilizer business through our ability to switch production quickly and safely from one product to another. As I described earlier, imports continue to pressure NOLA urea prices late in the quarter. However, during this time, UAN was trading at a premium to urea on a nitrogen equivalent basis. We responded to this opportunity by pivoting our capacity to maximize our UAN production at the expense of urea. As a result, we were able to better capture the nutrient basis differential that was priced into the market at that time. This helped to improve our average price per ton for UAN, which was $202 per short ton for the second quarter of 2016. Many of our investors have heard us describe this capability that's built into our system before. And the second quarter was a prime example of our production and distribution flexibility in action. In aggregate, the combined result of an increased focus on system-wide maximization was healthy price realizations across the three major products
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Bert. In the second quarter of 2016, we generated $329 million of EBITDA and earnings per diluted share of $0.20. Included in these results were, on a pre-tax basis, approximately $211 million in unrealized net mark-to-market gains on our natural gas derivatives, $165 million in transaction costs, mainly comprised of the termination fee of $150 million paid to OCI, $38 million of net foreign currency losses related to intercompany loans, and $19 million in expansion costs for our Donaldsonville and Port Neal facilities. When taking these items into account, our adjusted EBITDA for the second quarter was $342 million, and our adjusted net earnings per diluted share was $0.33. Included in these results is a realized loss of $61 million or $0.75 per MMBtu on our natural gas hedges for the second quarter of 2016. During the second quarter of 2016, the company did not enter into any additional natural gas hedges. In 2017, we expect to receive a refund of approximately $690 million related to the carryback of certain U.S. tax losses from the current year to prior tax years associated with the bonus depreciation provision of the PATH Act. The amount of this refund is dependent upon the timing and completion for certain capital projects. As of June 30, 2016, our prepaid income taxes were $855 million, including approximately the $690 million related to the carryback of these U.S. tax losses. The effective tax rate for the second quarter was 53.2% and was impacted by the following items. First, we've recaptured the manufacturing profits deduction we took in 2014, when we decided to carry back current tax losses to that year. Second, we established a valuation allowance against certain differed tax assets related to our foreign operations. These were partially offset by the deduction of previously capitalized OCI transaction costs. The net effect of these three items is about a 20% increase in our tax rate. Excluding these items, our tax rate for the second quarter would have been closer to the statutory rate of 35%. Interest expense for the second quarter was $61 million and included the following
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. CF's business model, assets, and team are resilient. Although falling energy prices, capacity growth and currency devaluations have created an extended period of low prices, CF's structural advantages continue. Ultimately, we believe higher cost capacity will shut down, leading to a recovery in nitrogen prices and margins. We remain among the lowest cost nitrogen producers in the world, have significant eminent growth in the next few months, and have advantaged access to the world's largest consumption regions. Our business remains strong, and we have a bright future ahead. With that, we will now open the line to your questions. Danielle?
Operator:
Thank you. As a courtesy to others on the call, we ask that you limit yourself to two questions. Should you have additional questions, we ask that you reenter the queue. We will answer additional questions, as time allows. And our first question comes from Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much. There's been a little more noise surrounding some of the various summer field programs this year, particularly on UAN. Just what's your assessment thus far on volume commitments? And do you feel that some of your competitors have been more aggressive than in past years? Just any general remarks would be very helpful. Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Hey. Good morning. The summer field program was different than in previous years. We launched it much later than normal, and that was on purpose. We have been following and talking with our retailer and customer friends, and realized that the desire to take on additional products late in Q2 was just not there. And we have the capability to manage our system, like I said earlier in my prepared remarks, with different production levels at the plants as well as inventory and exports, and that's what we did. And so we ended up launching the program late in July, where normally it's been a June launch, and that afforded us the opportunity to participate more in the end market, tail-end of the application season in a higher net back position was the result. But it also allowed our customers not take maybe a month to a month-and-a-half of additional product into their inventory, when they weren't prepared to do so. So looking at this year and where we are on volume for the field program, our program at first was received a little coolly. Our prices probably were higher than what the market had anticipated, but as we've rolled it out and had conversations with our customers, it has been received better, and we have been taking on orders, and we're already shipping against some of those. And so, what we look towards is, the program was not designed to be as big as it had been in the past. We expect that there will be an improved market and we want to participate in that market as we roll forward. And so we have taken on an acceptable amount of volume and we will continue to do so, as we go. And regarding the competitors and other people, I think there were some competitors who just weren't able to wait as long as we did or they maybe saw a different market than we did, and probably received a lower netback than we are. And some of that was also driven by imports. There are imports that come into this market, where we continue to be an import market, and I think will be into the foreseeable future for all of the end products. And I think some of the other producers outside of the United States decided to target some of their shipments probably at lower prices. And so, we'll see that as the end values mature. You will see those coming back closer to their historical range and the market will move forward.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
That's helpful color. Thank you. And just a quick follow-up for Dennis, as we head into 2017, is there anything to think about regarding the cadence of the $690 million in tax refunds? Is that just all contingent on past profitability or forward profitability and what's already been paid in cash taxes? Just any color would be appreciated.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think our sense of the timing is, it's probably the receipt of it is around third quarter of next year. And obviously, that depends on getting your returns in and all the rest, that sort of thing, but no, there is not really – and then, as I said in my remarks, the actual amount of it is dependent on getting certain equipment online over a certain time period. And so, what the $690 million represents is our best estimate of what that's going to be given all of the factors that you've talked about.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
That's great color. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Joel Jackson from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Good morning. I want to suss out a little more about your commentary that you don't feel that nitrogen price is really going to improve until – I think you said, the end of 2017, as some of the supply additions come on. Can you maybe just elaborate more, are you talking about you don't feel like floor and ceiling prices are going to rise or that you don't think that prices are going to rise much off spot prices? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I'll give you a high level, Joel, and then I'll let Bert chime in here as well, but as we think about kind of aggregate price over the year with all the new capacity coming on, and until you see some significant shutdowns and allow that new capacity be absorbed based on underlying demand growth, we think that continues to put sort of a ceiling on where pricing trades for the products over the next 18 months. Now, the things that can change that are, if we see more rationalization sooner relative to the production base that's out there, you'll start seeing recovery more quickly or if you start seeing some more historical deltas in terms of energy prices around the globe that are reintroduced that can also accelerate the rate of price recovery. But I think, our view is, at the end of the day, I think given the status quo assumption about ocean freight and where energy prices are trading, with the net amount of new production that's still coming online over the next 18 months, it's going to be tough sledding here for a number of competitors. We don't see really a catalyst driving prices substantively higher.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, I agree. Joel, good morning. I think when you look at where we've been in the last six months, with a low of, let's say $165 NOLA to $265 for urea, UAN in the high-$130s to $215, and Midwest ammonia from $300 to $530, we have an actual, a pretty wide spread that has occurred just in the last six months. And I anticipate that that type of spread will continue as we see retailer activity on resisting taking inventory, that opportunity to expand even further the price spread happens. And so, what you see us doing is managing our production, managing our exports, managing our distribution assets, working with our customers. We have contractual commitments as well as spot commitments, to make sure that we're producing at a high level, moving our product, and anticipating some of these swings and capturing some of those. So I don't think you can strip out the lows, and then factor those in for another year and a half, because I do think it's going to be a dynamic market. But as we steadily move into it, and as Tony mentioned, some of these catalysts that are driving some of these changes, currency, freight, gas, petroleum, and then overall demand, which we see increasing, I think they'll improve over time. So I'm positive, but I want to be realistic in how we view the market.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
That was very helpful. And then, my second question would be, one of your large competitors in nitrogen last night indicated that a lot of buyers in North America have – didn't buy product in the summer because of supply additions and they see a lot of pent-up demand in the upcoming application periods. Can you comment on what you're seeing under that light as well?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I can't imagine who that competitor would be that would – no, we saw that comment. And we agree with that perspective, and we're seeing that. Imports coming in are lower, and it's a realistic perspective from a retail outlook saying, I'm not sure as a retailer, I want to take that position. Fine, we say, as a producer, that we will manage our system and we will work with you, our retail friends, to make sure that we supply the product at a comfortable position and risk profile for them, but don't expect those prices to be there when you want to buy. And that's exactly what we saw in the spring, was as demand was pulled forward, prices escalated very quickly, and so that's the dynamic nature of this business that I was speaking of earlier, and that we expect to continue.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Edlain Rodriguez from UBS. Your line is open.
Edlain Rodriguez - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you. Good morning, guys. Just one quick one, so as you look into next year in the U.S., when farmers most likely are likely to plant less corn and you're going to have more capacity additions coming to the market in nitrogen, how much more you think prices can go down? I mean like, are we getting closer to a floor, where guys will have to shut down very quickly because if volume's coming down, capacity going up, that definitely will put significant pressure on prices?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Edlain, good morning. So a couple of things here, one of which is, over the last few years, even though the amount of planted corn acreage has moved around a little bit, the aggregate amount of nitrogen nutrient tonnage has remained relatively flat. I mean, it's moved by a couple hundred thousand tons here or there, but it has not been a dramatic swing one direction or another. And even with all the new capacity coming online in North America, we will still be a substantial net importer of nitrogen. We'll need about 30% of our total nitrogen requirements to be met from imports. And North American producers are among the lowest cost producers globally. So anyone that's got assets that are producing here in North America are going to run those plants flat out, and if there is trimming to be done on the global scene from a production standpoint, it's going to be in the high cost regions. So it will be the Chinese anthracite people who'll continue to shut down; some of the high cost Eastern European gas countries like, as we mentioned, Ukraine, Lithuania, Hungary, and so forth; and then there are other regions where there is either, sort of, gas availability problems and you see curtailments like in Trinidad, for example, or in other regions where there is political instability, like Libya for example, where you also see some production coming off-line. So, as we look forward, one of the reasons we believe that pricing continues to be under pressure next year is the fact that there is this new capacity that you talked about coming online, but we don't really believe it's fundamentally going to move pricing dramatically lower than, where it sits today, because we already think there is a number of – substantial volume of capacity is already operating below cash cost, so it really can go substantially lower than where we are, and it's certainly not going to affect the operating rates of North American producers.
Edlain Rodriguez - UBS Securities LLC:
Yeah, thank you. And one quick one, like, in terms of production, so as we look into next year, when all your plants are up and running, and if you still running at full operating rates, like, how much sales volume, like, in nitrogen will you have available at that stage , let's say, we look at the end of 2017 or so?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
If you're asking what will we have available at CF?
Edlain Rodriguez - UBS Securities LLC:
Yes.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
We run our plants at capacity every day. So we're obviously looking to optimize our production capacity based on ammonia and what's available, and then how we can upgrade which is the higher-margin product for urea, UAN, and ammonia. And so, if you look at the aggregate number, it's going to be just based on our capacity and we will move that product into the global market as well as the U.S., but I'd say 18 million tons.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
That's product tons not nutrient tons.
Edlain Rodriguez - UBS Securities LLC:
Okay, guys. That's what I was looking for. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Matthew Korn from Barclays. Your line is open.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Hi. Good morning, gentlemen. Happy summer to you.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
You too.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
So, you've all been pretty consistent in your call, of course, for U.S. natural gas prices to remain low. In your deck, you're laying out this view of what's available at $3.50. I'm interested in your view on the medium to long-term relative natural gas cost in exporting regions like Ukraine, where your cost curve notes in your presentation acknowledges there's been substantial year-over-year compression in the spread versus the U.S. price. How do you regard the threat that a globally more evened out energy price environment could place a cap on your profitably going forward, even once we see some of this excess supply today absorbed?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah, I mean, as we look at the factors, Matthew, that could affect that, one of the big ones is just where Russia Gazprom prices their exports to places like the Ukraine and so forth. There is another one that is kind of how LNG continues to evolve and how much of the new production ends up moving off of, kind of, oil-linked based contracts more onto a spot basis. I think, over time, it's about $3 or $4 to get any sort of reasonable capital recovery on LNG contracts. And so, if you say Henry Hub trades at, kind of, $3, that means LNG importing regions to trade somewhere in the neighborhood of $7 or maybe a little bit above, by the time re-gas and distribute from their end to the production plant. So, as we look forward, our view is, we're likely to be able to enjoy, call it, $4 plus or minus advantage over most of the rest of the kind of importing, or gas deficient regions.
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
I think, Matthew, the other thing, I think, you necessarily have to look at, when you talk about energy costs, you've really got to kind of look at oil. And what we do know is, with the low oil prices that we've seen, you've seen oil exploration drop off by major oil companies. They're not putting the, kind of, money into the deepwater and the Arctic and these more frontier regions that they used to be, in terms of exploration development. In addition to that, we've also seen development activity in North America with respect to onshore oil production come off as well. So eventually, the problem solves itself. The stuff that's on continues to decline, the declines don't get replaced with new projects and, eventually, the oil market straightens out. The question is how far off are we from that happening. Today, it doesn't look like it's near, but certainly at some point, the piper has to be paid, because if investment hasn't gone into the exploration and development, eventually the supply dries up, and the demand has – while the demand is growing.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Thanks, Dennis. I appreciate that. Let me ask this then as a follow-up, you actually cover a number of companies that are benefiting pretty substantially from political efforts that have resulted in trade restrictions. And I saw last month that Commerce is moving ahead with its investigation on claimed ammonium sulfate dumping and/or unfair subsidies out of China. What's the potential for you in like the domestic nitrogen industry? This may sound way out there, but to pursue more of these kinds of measures, particularly now that the threshold for, quote-unquote, damage, at the hands of overseas product has been somewhat reduced and the nitrogen for requirement itself is reduced?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. It's something that we continue to investigate and look at. As you could appreciate, these cases are fairly complex and take a long time to get there. One of the issues of bringing a new damage claim is, the demonstration of financial harm and there is a baseline threshold in terms of profitability and the challenge a little bit is, even though pricing is down, margins are down, profitability is down, our gross margins for the first half of the year were still 35% for the second quarter, over 45%. And the problem is that that level of profitability, the Commerce Department doesn't have a lot of time and interest in talking about the economic harm that we may have suffered. So, something we continue to look at, we probe, but there is not a lot of, I would say, imminent movement likely to happen in that regard.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Got it. Thanks very much, guys.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Sandy Klugman from Vertical Research. Your line is open.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Good morning. Thank you. Slide 17 in the presentation does not exclusively call out India, I was hoping you could comment on how their push for greater self-sufficiency is factored into your estimates. And then post 2016, I might have missed it, but do you have a forecast for Chinese urea exports?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Slide 17...
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Sorry, slide 13, where you showed the capacity additions and closures. And maybe India is factored into the other component, but I was wondering if it does factor into the outlook.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. So, India does show up in other, in both 2015, 2016, and I think in the 2017. But I think there is only one or two plants that we're talking about that are net new capacity that's coming online. So it's not a huge volume of production.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. Great.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
When you look at India though, just for a quick comment, they're a huge market at over 30 million tons of consumption with 21 million tons, 22 million tons of that produced and 8 million tons more or less imported. And when you look at the gas constraints, the energy constraints, the power constraints, you have a hard time looking at that as an opportunity to build urea plans, when you can import that at below their production cost and that energy is not being directed to the public's better use. There have been a lot of announcements on new capacity, but most years there are announcements and most years those don't happen.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The other things is, in India, in particular, because there are such heavy subsidies and price controls in place, the return profile that you are able to potentially get there is really subject to government control and there's no guarantees everywhere in a commodity market that's tough enough, even in the places like the U.S. But when you are operating in an environment where the end product maybe subject to pricing controls, where it limits the price that you're able to charge in the domestic market, it's really a difficult thing to get your mind around wanting to put new capital in the ground over there.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
A new plant that was built two years ago, that still does not have gas supplied to it and it has not operated. And that's 1.2 million tons urea plant sitting idle. So I have a hard time, with Tony, how can you invest when you don't even have gas for your current plants.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. And just as follow-up, nitrogen advisory services are obviously a key component of precision ag platforms. How do you expect this to impact the application rates? And do you expect it to lead to any change in grower preferences between different grades of nitrogen?
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So, one of the things that we see, Sandy, is, across a couple of different initiatives, one of which is, the 4R Nutrient Stewardship programs that have been rolled out, which is to minimize the environmental impact or loss to the environment of nutrients, keep the applied nutrients where they should be in the field and available for the crop, changes around a little bit, sort of, the application, intensity, away from the fall and more of it into the spring and over the course of the spring, instead of just one big dump. But one of the benefits of the targeted precision ag is higher crop densities. And so, if you're going to get the same kind of yield with higher density, you actually need to get an increase of nitrogen application per acre in order to accomplish anything at the grower level. So we do see those trends kind of moving in a direction that is, I would say, net-net positive for us over the long run. It might change the form a little bit or the timing of when that happens from the fall more into the spring, but that's one of the benefits that Bert talked about with our extensive flexible distribution network that we're willing to inventory product and, kind of, take that risk off of the hands of the retailer, and then capitalize on the opportunity, when the application season does come. So, for us, we look at all of those trends as being net positive for a business.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks very much. Good morning, everyone. Just a question on the Chinese export tariff. The Chinese producers appear to be lobbying the government to reduce it or get rid of it entirely. It seems to me that if they get rid of it, it's just going to lower the price, anyway, but how important do you think that decision is by the Chinese government at this point to sort of indicate their desire or willingness to support the industry or to kind of push it more towards the rationalization and environmental cleanup phase?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
What we see, again, from China, every year is a different year, and every year is a different pronouncement or program coming out of China. If you look at the base model of China, we have unsustainable coal prices, unsustainable logistics, unsustainable issues in terms of pollution and just areas surrounding what's being produced and exported. And so they are going to have to rationalize, and we see that taking place with 8 million tons coming off, and we expect additional rationalization and, if pricing remains at its current level, possibly permanent shutdowns. The export tariff is about $12 per ton. So, if today, – and this number has been moving, but Chinese urea is quoted in the $195 to $200 range FOB for granular. And so you cut that price down to, let's say, $185, you're still, one, quality is poor, or less – it's not received as well as our products or some of the products coming out of the Arab Gulf. And so is that enough for them to compete? I don't think $12 is going to get them over the hump to allow them to compete on a consistent basis at the current market. So we expect to see – they need to have rationalizations, their domestic industry cannot support the total capacity they have. So, like Tony said, they're operating at a 60% to 65% operating rate and their exports are trending down. All those are trends that in the lowest cost, probably, position that they will have with, again, coal being low, currency around 6.65 yuan, and so, the only thing probably going forward, I would say, moderating is moderating up on all those issues. So you can get $12 on your export tariff, you're probably going to lose that to raw material costs and freight costs over time.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
And in particular, in that regard, the subsidy on electrical used in energy intensive industries is going away as is freight. And so, to Bert's point, we see a number of things that are offsetting to the higher cost side, internal to China, that will either be a net increase in the cost structure in aggregate or at least offset any kind of reduction in the export tariff.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
And then, just as a follow-up, I saw last night, a note that indicated that SABIC is trying to raise urea prices by about $20. Is that something that you're hearing? Do you think that has the ability to stick? I mean, clearly, that region has been the big importer into the U.S. this year?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. SABIC does a good job. I mean, they move their products all around the world. They have contracts into the U.S. They have contracts into Thailand and Australia, and so they try to ratably move their product around the world. We're seeing – I can't really comment on them raising prices other than that, I think what you're seeing in NOLA, which is our market, the low of $160, $165, we're now at $185 and probably even moving up from that. So prices are slowly moving up. I think that's in recognition of when you look at the UAN and urea comparison, both of those products are trading at a very good value. And actually moving forward with maybe another question, looking at how farmers should be looking at nutrients for fall applications and even spring applications. Yes, corn is down at, let's say, $3.40 for a forward harvest position of corn, but ammonia has moderated equally down, and all the nutrients are down. So on a nutrient basis, it's still profitable to plant, and we see consumption to be fairly strong.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
The other issue on that one is, we think that there is such a substantial portion of the global capacity that's operating at or below cash cost that I think somewhere in the range that you're talking about is necessary just to keep supply available over the medium-term anyway. So, I think that's kind of what has to happen over time.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks very much, guys.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Jeff Zekauskas from JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Thanks very much. Your interest expense, your book interest expense is running at about $140 million or so a year, ex-non-recurring items. Does that number go up to roughly $300 million next year, when you can no longer capitalize your interest? I understand it doesn't change the cash interest that you pay, but does your book interest go up to about $300 million? And when you receive the $690 million tax refund, are your plans to repay debt with that?
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean, let's start with the first piece, the answer to that is yes. Once we stop capitalizing interest, Jeff, we'll be back around $300 million a year towards expense. As you know, our interest payments quarterly run around $75 million, $76 million a quarter, so that won't change. It just won't be capitalizing anymore and they will start to go to expense. With respect to the cash from the refund, I don't really sort of think of it that way, because cash is all fungible, the cash will come in the door, and it along with the operating cash flow that we generate and other sources obviously, will be used for a whole number of – obviously running the operation and a whole number of other things. But what I would do is just sort of repeat Tony's comment. We're going to build cash on our balance sheet, so we've got the flexibility to take out that $800 million in 2018, if we have to do that to defend our ratings.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay. Great, And for my follow-up, I think, (52:27) will bring on about 1 million tons of ammonia in the fourth quarter, with the phosphate operations not really starting up maybe until mid-year next year, do you think that that capacity will make a difference to the global ammonia market or do you think it doesn't make much of a difference?
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Well, when you look at the additions to ammonia that are coming on, not just SABIC's, but Dyno's plant in Waggaman, our own, yes, there is additional capacity coming on. Traditionally the Arab Gulf ammonia tons stay in the East. And so supplying South Korea, Japan and some of the caprolactam production there. And so they've done good job of managing their production supply, so any additional supply, you have to watch and see how it goes, I can't give you a number on what that could be.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
One of the benefits we have a little bit, Jeff, in that regard which is, the seaborne ammonia trade doesn't directly impact kind of our ag markets, because unless you've got the end market cryogenic storage, which really only the producers have, you otherwise can't move anhydrous ammonia from the Gulf or from Tampa, up into the Corn Belt. And so, while it affects some of our industrial-based contract business, it doesn't really affect our ag business that much.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay. Good. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Don Carson from Susquehanna. Your line is open.
Unknown Speaker:
This is Ben Richardson (54:06), sitting in for Don. Wanted to ask a question about the timing of your startups and how that might affect mix, both the Donaldsonville facility and the Port Neal facility.
W. Anthony Will - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So the upgrades are running at Donaldsonville currently. And so when the ammonia plant starts off, that doesn't really affect mix at all. It does add additional new ammonia production to the network. And as you know, we have a pretty sizable supply agreement in place with Mosaic that's going to start up at the beginning of next year. So a big piece of those tons are already spoken for beginning next year in terms of where they're going. Relative to Port Neal, we have the urea plant attached to the ammonia plant, we would expect to run the urea plant absolutely full out, with the excess being some incremental anhydrous that shows up in Port Neal, but generally speaking, we're going to want to run that urea plant flat out. And there isn't a lot of ability to move the mix in Port Neal. There is a couple of the hundred thousand tons, so we can flex back and forth between urea and UAN, but generally speaking, the new plants are just going to come on in and, kind of, run at capacity.
Unknown Speaker:
All right. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Great. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe first a question for Dennis, I know you talked about preserving cash on the balance sheet to prepare for the 2018 maturity. Is there anything you could do to accelerate that or you got the cash basically sitting there at this point? I know there is a call premium on the bonds, but other options on tenders, or anything like that that you could explore?
Dennis P. Kelleher - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Yeah. I mean when we've looked at the 2018 bonds, last time we looked at it, Adam, effectively the make-all provision on it or the premium that it's trading at in the market were roughly about the same. And I think our philosophy is, A, we don't need to do that, and, B, if I'm going to be paying somebody to use his money, then I'm going to use his money. So there really is – there's not really a lot of economics in that and there really isn't a need to do it. I think it's just a matter of having the liquidity available at the time to repay that, if we have to do that to defend our rating.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Got it. Okay. And then on market, just hoping you could talk a little bit about export out of the Gulf and your ability – how you're doing on driving some increased export opportunities? I would guess UAN is the bigger priority into South America, maybe size what that potential could be over the next 12 months to 18 months, 24 months.
Bert A. Frost - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
So we have been exploring the export opportunities for the company over the last several years in preparation for the additional capacity that's coming online, and the upgrading capacity already has come online. So this year, you've seen us export all three of the major products, ammonia, urea, and UAN. Smaller for ammonia and urea. And for UAN, we'll hit a record this year and we're exploring all different kinds of markets. We've been shipping product to Europe, to Argentina, as well as opening new markets in Colombia, Chile, and Brazil. And we're excited about the opportunities in South America, because we do believe in the benefits of UAN and that's being received well, and so the growth is there. So, I think you will see us continue to grow those opportunities, but it is weighted against, obviously, netback options and what's best for the company. So, I think urea will grow as we bring the capacity online. If we have a differential again like we've had in the first six months of this year, where the U.S. traded at discount to the international market, then we have a pretty good incentive to export the products out of the United States. So, today, I would say all going well will be less than 1 million tons of total exports for the year out of Donaldsonville.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
That's very helpful. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Dan Aldridge for closing remarks.
Dan A. Aldridge - CF Industries Holdings, Inc.:
Thanks, Danielle. That concludes our second quarter conference earnings call. If you have any additional questions, please feel welcomed to contact me afterwards. Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
Analysts:
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co. (Broker) Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc. Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries Holdings First Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Liz, and I'll be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations:
Thanks, Liz. Good morning and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations, and with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its first quarter 2016 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we will review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed in the accompanying presentation and from time-to-time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This conference call will include discussion of certain non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, a presentation of the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and coinciding reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP is provided in the earnings release and the slides for this webcast presentation on the company's website, cfindustries.com. Before turning the call over to Tony, I want to highlight the scope for today's call. On his call we will be focusing on CF Industries and our first quarter financial results. We do not intend to take comment on or take questions related to our pending transaction with OCI. We will provide updates on the OCI transaction when appropriate through filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, company press release, and/or other appropriate communications. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. Last night we posted CF Industries 2016 first quarter results, in which we generated EBITDA of $207 million. Adjusted EBITDA was $300 million after taking into account net foreign currency losses, mark-to-market hedges losses, transaction cost related to CHS and OCI, and expenses related to the capacity expansion projects. The difficult market conditions in North America from late last year persisted into the early part of this year. However, as demand developed with the onset of spring, prices quickly moved up into the range we believe represents sustainable prices for the industry. Although industry publications reported January and February Urea pricing and NOLA well below $200, our realized price for the quarter was $256 a ton. Our reported gross margin was $217 million or 22% of approximately $1 billion of net sales. What I want to focus on is the strength in the underlying fundamentals of our business. To really understand those fundamentals, it is necessary to strip away the noise and short-term timing issues and look at just the core business. Excluding the impact of our natural gas hedges, consolidated gross margin would have been $294 million or around 30%. The unrealized mark-to-market derivative loss was $21 million, and the realized natural gas derivative loss was $56 million for a total impact of $77 million associated with natural gas hedges. Over time, as the hedge position roles off, that noise will disappear and the core business will shine through. As we talked about on our last call, and as shown on slide 12 of our materials, even at our urea price of $200 per ton, a typical U.S. Gulf producer generates roughly 50% cash margins on each incremental ton. And it is into this attractive environment, that we are bringing on our new capacity additions. Our new urea plant at Donaldsonville was placed into service last November and is reliably operating 10% to 15% above nameplate capacity. Our new Donaldsonville nitric acid and UAN plants were placed into service in March and are reliably operating 15% to 20% above nameplate capacity and we haven't even pushed them to the limit yet. We are mechanically complete on the Donaldsonville ammonia plant and are in the process of pre-commissioning and commissioning activities, so the burn rate spend there has round back considerably. And we expect to be fully mechanically completed Port Neal by the end of the second quarter, meaning our spending on the new projects will largely be wrapped up in the next two months. Finally, during the first quarter, our strategic venture with CHS commenced. We received $2.8 billion in cash and began selling urea and UAN to them at market prices. On a Global basis, capacity additions along with lower feedstock cost and cheaper ocean freight have led to a widening and flattening of the Global cost curve over the last year. However, due to sustained annual growth in nitrogen demand, even with all of the additional capacity, during periods with more robust demand, higher cost tons must be bid into the market. We believe the Chinese anthracite coal-based facilities will continue to be the marginal cost producers for the foreseeable future setting the global cost for. In fact, Bert and I recently spent a week in China and met with about 10 different industry participants at their plants, the ports and their offices to gain additional insights into the evolving dynamics in China. Over the course of several days and over 1,000 miles traveled, we came away with a few key themes. One, there are broad-based expectations that the nitrogen fertilizer industry will continue to rationalize closing high cost inefficient plants. It is estimated that between 50% and 60% of the installed industry capacity in China is still anthracite based coal-production and these facilities, along with certain gas fed plants are the ones most at risk. Subsidies are being dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether including rail, electricity, and feedstock. One producer we spoke with suggested that roughly $25 per ton to $30 per ton cost increase for them. And there's a heightened awareness and significant pressure being applied both at the central and local government levels regarding the significant environmental impact caused by these facilities. All of these points suggest that in fact, almost every group we met with expects that significant capacity will be removed from China over the next several years. With that, I'll hand the call over to Bert and Dennis to go through the details of the quarter, and I'll wrap up with a few final thoughts. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Thanks, Tony. The first quarter was definitely a tale of two very different time periods. Entering the quarter, pricing and demand were low and the industry outlook wasn't very positive. As Tony mentioned, in North America urea traded at less than $200 per ton in the U.S. Gulf at the beginning of the quarter, which we considered unsustainable. As such, we decided to position the company for an improved forward market. As spring weather broke early in many parts of the country, we began selling into the market as prices quickly rebounded. Prices began to rise in mid-February and continue rising through March with urea at the Gulf topping out at $270 a ton and prices in the corn belt trading above $300 per ton. In addition to the earlier arrival of spring weather, low prices at the beginning of the quarter did not attract a high level of imports of urea and UAN to North America, which also aided the rebound and led to nitrogen Q1 supply being short in the corn belt. Shipment and application activities were strong in March for ammonia, urea and UAN, but especially for ammonia. Warm dry weather came early and farmers in the Southern Plains and Midwest were prepared and ammonia sales in those regions marked one of our best starts to a spring season. To put this into perspective, the previous record shipment from March out of our Blair Nebraska terminal was 38,000 tons. In March, we surpassed 62,000 tons. That means that the terminal had to on average, load four trucks an hour 24 hours a day, every day of the month. Our consolidated sales volume for the quarter was very strong, up approximately 39% year-over-year, aided by the addition of CF Fertilizers, UK, and our capacity expansions. We also logged a record quarter for the production of urea at approximately 819,000 tons. Looking to the global markets, production and feedstock costs continue to have a big impact in the first quarter of 2016, along with currency devaluations. However, global costs appeared to have hit floor levels in the first quarter of 2016. Though coal supply is long, coal prices found a bottom in December and have remained stable since. Similarly, the global oil situation is still long supply, but prices have begun to recover from the lows in January. Ocean freight rates have declined substantially due to oversupply of both vessels and lower fuel prices, but it appears that after two years of declines, these costs have hit a floor as well. Export activity from China was down almost 38% year-over-year for the first quarter of 2016. As global prices continued to fall, high-cost Chinese anthracite coal-based producers began to curtail production and limited tons shipped to the ports for export. In addition, Chinese fertilizer industry publications recently stated that several urea producers in China were permanently shut down in 2015, which was the first time ever that reductions have exceeded new production coming online. Additionally, the Chinese Nitrogen Fertilizer Association's 2016 through 2020 Development Plan calls for more of the smaller, old plants to be phased out by the end of the decade, reducing the country's ammonia capacity by an estimated 10 million metric tons per year and urea capacity by 13 million metric tons per year. All of these data points lead us to believe that our view of the global cost curve is reasonably accurate. Moving on to North American natural gas. The market began the first quarter with unexpectedly cold January that changed the gas market's focus from how low prices could potentially fall to how quickly prices could climb. Henry Hub Gas Daily was trading at $1.54 on December 28, 2015 and reached prices as high as $2.53 only 15 days later on January 12. This price rally was short-lived, as prices declined through the latter half of January and into the beginning of March. The declining price was due to a collapse of gas-weighted heating degree days that far exceeded even the mildest projections, underperforming industrial demand and slower-than-anticipated LNG exports. The combination of these factors led to an end of March storage balance just under 2.5 Tcf, 54% higher than the five-year average and more than 1 Tcf higher than last year. We believe this abundant resource will continue to provide CF with a competitive advantage over other global producers for the foreseeable future. The nitrogen outlook for the remainder of 2016 and into 2017 remains positive. But with new capacity coming online globally over the next 12 months, we expect nitrogen pricing to remain under pressure. We expect urea demand at the U.S. Gulf to continue to be relatively firm through the spring application season. On the agricultural front, economics continue to support planting corn over soybeans and our planted corn forecast is 92 million acres, with further upside possible given a favorable USDA survey for spring planting intentions. Corn use growth is forecasted at 2% for the fertilizer year 2016 and 2017, as demand is expected to rebound near 2014 levels. And December corn is currently trading near $3.90 per bushel, all positive signs for the farmer and for our business. Now let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Thanks, Bert. In the first quarter of 2016, we generated $217 million (sic) [$207 million] in EBITDA and earnings per diluted share of $0.11. Included in these results were on a pre-tax basis approximately $42 million of net foreign currency losses, $21 million of unrealized mark-to-market losses on our natural gas derivatives, $16 million in expansion cost for our Donaldsonville and Port Neal facilities and $14 million in transaction costs related to the OCI transaction and the CHS strategic venture. When taking these items into account, our adjusted EBITDA for the first quarter was $300 million and our adjusted net earnings per diluted share was $0.40. Included in these results is a realized loss of $56 million or $0.79 per MMBtu on our natural gas hedges for the first quarter of 2016. This compares to a realized loss of $32 million or $0.52 per MMBtu on natural gas hedges for the first quarter of 2015. During the first quarter of 2016, the company did not enter into any additional natural gas hedges. Additionally, in the first quarter of 2016, the company placed into service the new UAN plant at Donaldsonville. We expect to place into service the new ammonia plant at Donaldsonville and the new ammonia and urea plants at Port Neal later this year. As we mentioned on our last call, most of these assets will qualify for the 50% bonus depreciation for fiscal year 2016 as a result of the passage of the PATH Act by Congress last year. As a result of these additional assets being placed into service, the company expects to have significantly reduced cash tax payments for the year. I want to take a brief moment to describe the mechanics of the CHS strategic venture. On February 1, 2016, we received $2.8 billion in our cash account related to this investment. Each quarter we recognize a non-controlling interest amount related to this investment, which, for the first quarter, was $17 million. However, the cash distribution payable semiannually to CHS may be different from the amount recorded as non-controlling interest in any given period based on the terms of the agreement, which, in effect, provides producer economics to CHS. The estimate of this distribution pertaining to the first quarter is approximately $30 million. Moving on, for 2016, the company expects to have total capital expenditures in the range of $1.8 billion to $2 billion, of which $1.3 million to $1.4 billion will be used for the capacity expansion projects and the other $500 million to $600 million for sustaining improvement and other projects. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Thanks, Dennis. I want to summarize why we continue to be so excited and optimistic about our business. The fundamentals of our business remain strong. There is a growing demand for our product and we benefit from low cost North American gas. Our consolidated gross margin was 30% ex the impact of gas hedges and our cash margins for incremental production are 50% or better. Our plants are running well. We had record production for urea in the first quarter and one of the top three quarters for ammonia production as well. We fully expect to hit an all-time record for UAN production here in Q2 with the new diesel plant online. The expansion projects are almost done. We are mechanically complete on the Donaldsonville ammonia plant and within two months of being mechanically complete at Port Neal, so the spending is quickly coming to an end. When those plants are online, they will increase our productive capacity by more than 25% and along with it our corresponding cash flow generation as well. Our balance sheet, credit metrics and liquidity are all strong. We have a solid investment-grade rating. We have a $2 billion undrawn revolver and we have $2.7 billion of cash on the balance sheet at the quarter-end. Finally, bonus depreciation will provide a significant cash flow benefit to this year and next. So although the pricing environment is weaker than we'd like, nonetheless, we are extremely excited about the bright future ahead and what the next few months hold for us. With that, we will now open the line to answer your questions. Operator?
Operator:
Our first question comes from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Good morning. First question, I appreciate your remarks to not want to talk about the OCI transaction. Can you just talk about why you can't comment on the OCI transaction today? I guess there's a new S4 (18:03) coming out after OCI reported, maybe you renegotiating some of the terms just maybe high level. Why you can't talk about that?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Hi, Joel. Look, we have tried to make it a hallmark to be as transparent and communicative as possible, and we're just not in a position where we're going to be talking about OCI today.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Okay. Second question is, don't you have the lowest customer advances for Q1 you had since a public company, can you maybe talk about if you had a lot volumes stronger in Q1 than Q2, would you expect a little bit of softness in Q2 because you have strong Q1, maybe more in the urea side?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So, Joel. This is Bert. Good morning. Looking at Q1 and the start of Q1, the low level of customer advances was a direct reflection of our view of the market that at that time, going out of Q4 and into Q1 that prices that were, at that point, available to us in the North American market just were not attractive. And we were bid at probably levels even below that. And we decided at that point it was more appropriate for us to utilize our storage capabilities and our terminal system and that as well as our plant space and prepare for a market that we believe would come later in Q1, which was then materialized or started to materialize in February as prices started to improve going into spring. So you've seen us over the years take different tactics into the market, sometimes we have sold forward in previous years, we don't do as much of that anymore and we're playing in a Global market where we look at opportunities both inside North America and outside different markets. We have relationships around the world and we intend to utilize those capabilities as well as flexible production options because that's how we built these plants, the new plants that are coming online to be tremendously flexible for us in terms of going full UAN, full urea, or even full ammonia as we have during this Q1 period to satisfy the high ammonia demand we had.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson of Credit Suisse. Your line is now open.
Unknown Speaker:
Hi. Thank you. This is Graham Wells (20:22) on for Chris. First question, I was just wondering if you could help us to think about what the effect of your mark-to-market hedges will be once nat-gas starts kind of rebounding off of its lows. Just any help on how the realized and unrealized gains or losses will flow through the P&L from that? And then second question, is just on your realized ammonia prices in 1Q. They are a bit lower than we were expecting and we were just wondering if you could help us parse out kind of where those tons were going and why that kind of came in at slightly lower level than we were expecting? Thanks
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yeah. This is Dennis. Why don't I start with the natural gas hedge and how to sort of think about that. Without getting into specific numbers, I think it's really easy to – if you think about the disclosures what we made in the past. We've disclosed how many MMBTu's we have hedged going forward. And there was a graph, I think, that we've put out in – as part of the 4Q earnings release, that basically mapped out exactly what those hedges are going through time and where their prized. So as you think about the forward curve through that period as that forward curve rises – if in fact it rises, it may fall as well, we don't know. So as we think about where that forward curve is when we valued it at quarter's end here at March 31, versus where it may move to through time in the quarter, that will have a change on sort of the mark-to-market, because the mark-to-market stuff that you're seeing is in relation to hedges that have not been realized and did not closed out. So as we go through time, two things are happening, more of those things are being realized although they're technically falling off the forward map, and at the same time, the curve is rising and falling versus the price on those curves; you sort of add up the MMBtu's and then the difference between where, any given point is on the curve, and where we are in the hedge curve, which we've disclosed, you can kind of come at it that way mathematically.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
On the second question – this is Bert regarding the ammonia pricing and what was expected or what was possibly put out there by different groups. You have to understand that Q1 is not necessarily an ammonia application period, although as we stated in our prepared remarks, we had record pull out of our Blair terminal and that was a phenomenon in Q1 that was predominately in that Nebraska region. However, just as prices were very low in January for urea they were also very low for ammonia. We had not only on the import market, which is Tampa driven, which is at $310 a metric ton or about $280 a short ton. That number got pulled into the United States in several regions and prices were low. And we took the same tactic that we did with urea, we decided not to sell into that market. The industrial percentage of our business in Q1 is higher and that most industrial contracts are gas-based. During that period you had $2 gas. And again Tampa based, so I already gave you the Tampa number. We also had an export vessel, 25,000 tons that we exported at Tampa equivalents were a little bit below that. All that to say that the weight of the Q1 number was pushed more towards the industrial side of our business. You'll see that revert back to more of a traditional strip for Q2 as that's more of an Ag-based quarter.
Unknown Speaker:
Perfect. Thank you, guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Brett Wong with Piper Jaffray. Your line is now open.
Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co. (Broker):
Hey. Thanks guys, thanks for taking my question. Bert, you spoke about expected production phase-out in China over the coming years, I was just wondering if you could talk about how much of that relates to kind of economics and how much to environmental? And from your trip, are there environmental pressures in China that could result in faster phase-out of capacity there?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah. So Tony and I did, as Tony said in his remarks, spent a week, a little over 10 days in Asia, we went to some other places. And the consistent message coming out of China for us was one of their going through a change. And as we've said in the past, each year seems to be a different economic year coming out of China. Incentives are different, subsidies are different, taxes are different production levels are different. And today they're really struggling trying to find their way and trying different steps in order to maintain profitability. Last year that step was record exports. We just don't see that going forward. It's unsustainable. And what they were doing last year was just sending product to the ports. Yantai where we revisited last year, there was probably 2 million tons, 2.5 million tons sitting in bags at the port ready for export unsold. What we're seeing as a transition to more market-based decisions is we've heard from several traders and participants, that until they sell those tons, they're not going to move them to the port. A great economic decision, which we think will prevent some of the low prices that were coming in last year. So economics are driving a lot of decisions on how they look at efficiencies, how they look at investments, how they're looking at shipments and this year, first quarter and into the second quarter the domestic market was much more profitable than the export market. And you saw a lot of producers pull away from the export market. So I think it's maturing and their understanding what their options are. In 2011, 2012 and 2013 when urea was over $400, everybody made money. It was an easy decision to participate and produce. That's no longer going to be the case for several of the high cost producers, those anthracite coal producers. And we think rationalization will continue. On the environmental front, all I can tell you is, it's dirty. And we drove through several places and several cities and both, Tony and I were amazed. You see the pictures in the newspapers; it's different in real life. And you almost could cut through it and you could see maybe a half a mile away. You drive by rivers; you drive by piles of garbage, that can't continue. Just as we had rivers burn in the 1960s and 1970s in Wisconsin and Lake Erie, we had to make the same kind of changes that they're going to have to make. They're going to have to change their effluent streams, they're going to have to capture some of these gas streams, and that will all come in with investment and environmental awareness will take place.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
What we heard specifically on the environmental side is the central government has put in place certain parameters and thresholds and then local governments are able to put tighter ones in place that can't put more lax ones. And so it really depends upon the region that you're in, but there are certainly some areas for which significant capital is going to be required in order to keep running those plants and based on the current economic outlook, we just don't see that capital being spent and we heard that loud and clear.
Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co. (Broker):
That's helpful. Thanks. And just one more from me. As you look to export more out of D'ville and that will be on time, (27:30) but do you have plans to access the Brazilian nitrogen market? And how do you expect to do that? Is there a large capital need there or partnership to gain access to that market?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah, so I'm going to let Bert answer the question. But let me just talk philosophically about it for a second, which is, we have always tried to stick with our knitting in terms of things that we do really well and then find partners to participate in the areas of the channel where they do things well. We are not interested in taking on receivable risk from farmers. We're not interested in taking on currency risk. So when we participate in these markets, it tends not to be with owned assets on the ground in those locations where we're exposing ourselves to those kinds of risks. It tends to be with partnering with other people and selling it either on a deliberate basis into their tanks or on an FOB basis. But Bert why don't you talk specifically about it?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So we're active in Brazil today. We were when Keytrade was with us and we'll continue to be probably more involved as we do have the volume of exports that are available to us but it will have to be netback driven. Brazil has tended to be a very low-price market in relation to the rest of the world's options. But we know those people down there, I spent eight years in Brazil. I'll be down there next month with a group and intend to connect with some of the industry participants. As Tony said, we do not desire to be asset owners in that market and do not believe we need to be. We think that the channel is well served. There are good partners down there. We desire to monetize our position immediately and not take the risks that Tony mentioned. I do think there are changes to Petrobras' asset base that are coming. I think they're on the high end of the cost curve and I don't think where their assets are located and what they're doing today make a lot of sense. So you have a 5-million ton urea market that's available. A lot of the international producers are participating. We're developing UAN. We've shipped several cargoes down there and we think that will grow. I think it has a very good growth pattern, so you'll see us down there more and more.
Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co. (Broker):
Great. Thanks a lot, guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Vincent Andrews of Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks. Just a question on Chinese imports to the U.S. And I recognize the 2015 data is a little bit skewed by the size of the exports from China in general. But I'm just curious, of the 12 months of the year, in the United States, how many of those months do you think we still need to actually physically have Chinese product come in? And how has that changed over the last couple of years? And do you think the risk is that in those months we really just don't need to cover that cost at all in the U.S. and, therefore, any Middle Eastern company can come in and sell at that price?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Traditionally, Chinese product has been perceived as lower quality. They're granular products because how they move it to the port, how it's loaded onto vessels and the time sometimes it sits in the port, it degrades. And then it arrives because of a long voyage into the United States and a lot of the comments we get back from our customers is they'd prefer not to buy it. So what you see today is there are two price levels in NOLA, for Chinese and non-Chinese. But we are an import market. And an import market will draw tons from everywhere
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
And so does that mean – I guess what I'm trying to ask is there are now going to be a more localized cost curve based on where product is distributed to rather than the global cost curve?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Vincent, I think even at the high watermark, there wasn't more than about 1.5 million tons from China that ever found its way to the U.S. Generally speaking, it's Arab Gulf tons and Canadian tons that come into the U.S. marketplace. But from a North American perspective, it's mostly Arab Gulf. And the Chinese stuff is more around the fringe. So we see most of those tons being backed out. But North America's going to – even after our projects come online and the other ones that are in construction today, North America will still import roughly 30% of its total nitrogen requirements. And so we've heard this noise about, oh, it's going to become a balanced market. But the people that say that include Trinidad tons as part of the North American balance. And the last time I looked on a map, Trinidad wasn't part of North America, at least the way my geography teachers taught it. So this notion somehow that the end market premium is going away, I'd say show me where the production is that's going to make that happen. Someone still has to bid those tons into the marketplace in order for there to be enough nitrogen to hit the ground in the Corn Belt and that's not happening organically from new steel in the ground in that region. So we don't see that happening. Yeah, there is going to be a shifting trade balance as the new capacity comes online. We don't think Chinese tons make sense here anymore, but we're still pretty substantially an import marketplace.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. That's very helpful. Thanks very much, guys.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Sandy Klugman with Vertical Research. Your line is now open.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you. Good morning. You mentioned the favorable start to the ammonia application season. Do you see this in any way detracting from later season demand for urea or UAN?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
No, actually. The total nitrogen need is still there. We had a very strong quarter-end pull of ammonia and then we went into a wet and cool period. You have to also remember we had a poor fall. So the net end need for spring is fairly large and application tendencies have changed a little bit. I think there's a push to get your spring ammonia down. There's also going to be a spring side-dress ammonia season that's going to come. But a lot of farmers or moving towards split applications with either UAN and urea or going over the top with urea by plane. So what we see today and what we anticipate is a full utilization of the products that have made it into the market and low inventories coming out of Q2. But we have a lot of applications ahead of us in the Northern market, North Dakota, Canada are just kicking off now and going strong. We still have the side-dress season in Indiana and Ohio, this is all for ammonia, and then applications on top. So we anticipate this season running a little bit longer, a little bit bigger, with 92 million acres to 93 million acres of corn and don't anticipate that the fill season will begin until later in the year.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Sandy, on that question, Bert, jump in here, but for 92 million acres, 93 million acres, we would normally anticipate about 4 million tons of ammonia hitting the ground.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
More. 4.5 million tons.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
4.5 million tons. So, given the poor fall, you have to have all of these tons go down otherwise there's a nitrogen deficit and it's tough to get enough urea/UAN to make up for the quantum of molecules, the impact you have in ammonia tons. But what's going on with weather today in Brazil, with the negative impact for Brazil, on their second crop corn. You've seen the rally in corn now up to $3.90. I think December it was at $3.85. But you're going to see farmers fertilize for yield. And that extra bump, four, five, six, seven, eight bushels is money in their pocket. We anticipate that will come from nitrogen.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay, great. Thank you. And then when you think about the medium term supply/demand balance for the nitrogen industry, what's your approximation where benchmark global urea operating rates could be in 2020? And how does this compare to your expectations for the level at which CF will be able to operate its facilities?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So, look, we're one of the lowest cost producers globally and given North Americas and the import marketplace, we're going to run 24/7/365. And I think the question isn't quite as easy as what's the aggregate operating rate because I think what happens is those people that are comfortably cash flow positive are going to run near 100%. They're going to keep their plants running. Those that are on the fringe are going to try as hard as they can to continue to run and it's those that are really at the high cost ones that are going to open the lead shutdown permanently. And we see most of those shutdowns happening in China, maybe some in Eastern Europe but...
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Then the announcements out of Kuwait, Egypt's been having gas...
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Trinidad's got some curtailment problems and others. So there are some disruptions in other parts of the world, but in terms of permanent shutdowns, most of that I think is going to be China and Middle East, I'm sorry, and the Eastern Europe. And otherwise you're going to see a very high operating rate for those assets that are cash flow positive.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you very much
Operator:
Our next question comes from John Roberts with UBS. Your line is now open.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you. On Chinese coal prices on slide nine, you indicate no perceptible response to oil price changes. Do you think that's a lag issue and it still coming or do you think the linkage is now much weaker than it's been in the past because of the global oversupply in coal?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
No, I mean, I think that the dynamics around where the coal price change in China are not related to the oil price at all. It's absolutely related to – when we were over there, one of the things Bert and I consistently heard was the domestic coal price, the domestic coal price and where that's sat and it's not directly linked to external energy sources that you can track back to. A lot of it has to do fundamentally with just what's the cost of production and distribution within the country and that's been relatively firm and as Bert says, if anything, we see that likely ticking up instead of staying flat or going lower. So we don't see that being directly connected necessarily with the external energy environment, which is why when oil price was $90 or $100 you didn't see it, coal price in China running way up and as oil prices come down, it has had really a muted affect on internal pricing.
John Roberts - UBS Securities LLC:
Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Just continuing on with the discussion here about Chinese coal, do you have an estimate of what fraction of China's anthracite-based nitrogen industry receives financial support from local governments and/or is back-integrated into the anthracite coal production.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
So I'll answer the second half of that and let Bert talk about the first half. We did explore the sort of the question of how much is integrated and the estimates that we got from people there and also looking back at our previous analysis and work in China suggest it's maybe in the – somewhere in the 10%-ish plus or minus range that's actually integrated with coal production. Other than that, they tend to be more standalone facilities, not integrated with coal mining or ownership activity.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
And so Steve on the question of – I'm a little uncomfortable getting an exact percentage. I just don't have that today.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. And in the U.S. markets, I wanted to drill in a little bit about a precision Ag trend and that is, there's a couple of software programs out there in the corn belt to predict residual nitrogen midseason, wanted your view on those as to whether they might have an impact on nitrogen use trends and/or maybe a shift towards UAN?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So we're a big proponent of precision Ag and work with a lot of our larger, more sophisticated customers to how we could help serve that whole trend, because coupled with precision Ag and the 4R's and the proper utilization of our products only lead to good outcomes, which is higher yield, more efficient use, more environmentally friendly practices and we're a big supporter. And, yes, that is the trend you're seeing is that UAN over time we believe in split applications coupled with possibly other products or adding different products along with UAN, ammonium thiosulfate's continued to grow because of the need for S. So a lot of these coupled together, you'll see the better, and this is why you're seeing consolidation in this space that the better, more financially solid retail groups are moving towards the service providing and value-creating aspects of precision Ag for the farmer.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
And, Steve, to tag along with Bert's answer there, ultimately where we see that headed is higher crop density. The more precision, the improvements in the seed, you get higher densities of crop which then actually the way we project it, increases the amount of nitrogen per unit of land as opposed to the other way around. And so, in aggregate, we think this is a very favorable trend not only because of the environmental and social aspects of what Bert talked about, but also just because we view consumption and demand increasing in North America as a result of that.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question is from Matthew Korn with Barclays. Your line is now open.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Good morning, everybody. Thanks for taking my questions. Is there anything – I was very curious about your commentary around the distribution assets and how hard running, I'm curious whether there's been anything meaningful that's changed with your costs on the distribution and transportation side. And also similarly, have ramp-up operations at Donaldsonville caused any other near-term inefficiencies or are there any other costs that might be rolling on or rolling off? Because really what I'm trying to figure out is ex the natural gas noise, which you all are delineating, are there any shifts in your cost structure, kind of product-by-product that I should notice going into the second quarter or the third quarter?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah, Matthew a couple of things. One of which is, as we announced relative to the TNH business we had in unscheduled downtime in Verdigris for one of our ammonia plants and that also carried on to one of the UAN plants there as well. And so, as a result of unscheduled downtime we ended up with a fair bit of fixed overhead absorption into that business without the corresponding production times that go along with it. On the distribution side, Bert has really led some investments that we've made at the distribution terminals to allow them to both receive inbound and also export outbound ammonia more quickly, which allows us to have the kind of results we did at Blair and in the first quarter leading into the second quarter. And so as some of the initiative like the 4R's that Bert talked about, means that we see likely less ammonia going down in the fall, being able to really pump it out hard in the spring is a critical thing. And that's part of the reason why we made the investments that we've had is to really ship and be able to move those tons quickly. The other thing that you got to look at I'd say Matthew is, we do have now both the urea and UAN plants at Donaldsonville operating. And so we do have quite a bit more depreciation expense that's going to be rolling through the P&L than what we've had in the past. And as we bring on the diesel ammonia plant and then Port Neal, you're going to see those depreciation numbers continue to climb. So while that's an important thing to look at again, we really focused on cash flow generation and so our focus, the thing that we would point you to is, really take a hard look at how much operating cash flow we're generating going forward. That's a much better metric than the distortion of what the new depreciation is, is going to be in terms of the underlying health and economics of the business.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Thanks Tony. That's actually very helpful. Let me then follow-up with another question regarding your China trip. I'm curious whether you got a sense that there was indeed much better than the – the Chinese domestic demand for nitrogen over this past season and whether you sense any risk that, that demand rises up over the next several weeks that there's expectations that the exports could see an uptick later on into the summer?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So we did see, the domestic demand but a lot of changes were taking place in Chinese agriculture and you've been reading about these and seeing pictures. We still have a lot of smaller operations in the South. As you go North, you're seeing a lot of bigger, some of the state-owned operations are fairly large, and so we do see some positive trends. There is a huge domestic market, estimates are when you include industrial demand as well as agricultural demand for urea and ammonium sulfate, it is large. And I do think it's going to grow. The change in crop subsidies or corn and how that's going to impact probably will have some change but I don't think as much as people are anticipating. So relative to as they roll off their domestic demand period and enter Q2 into Q3, we think exports we said are going to be around 10 million tons for the year. We are still with that number, so off about 4 million tons from last year. I think there's going to be some prolonged downtimes in several plans, I don't think you're going to see the push to stuff the ports for exports. We have to see this develop and see if our hypothesis holds true.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Great. Thanks, guys. Good luck for the rest of the season
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Thanks, Matthew. I want to highlight that last point that Bert mentioned and he mentioned it earlier, I think it's a really good one, which is everyone we spoke with and, in fact, the General Manager of the Port operations at Yantai called this out as well, which is the producers are not just blindly shipping product into the port and then have it available for the traders to cover short positions into India on tenders the way they used to. They're being much more rational about only taking product to port and they've made some investments on rail load-out in load-in infrastructure and so forth in order to be able to move quickly. And so they're waiting until they actually see business that they want to take before they start moving product to port and that's one of the reasons that they claim anyway that they've had some better discipline in terms of pricing into some of these tenders this year than they have in the past, which is, it's fundamentally different behavior on the part of the producers and they're getting away from letting the traders just short these tenders like crazy and then go into the overflowing ports to cover. And so we think not only is the rationalization of capacity improving the overall market dynamics, but the behavioral aspect of it is really important as well.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Mark Connelly with CLSA. Your line is now open.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Thank you. Tony, I want to be respectful of not commenting on OCI. But if I remember correctly, you said that OCI would be very helpful in your Latin access for Donaldsonville. And I think you're saying today that you're doing pretty well without it. So can you just remind us what the differences? And then second easy question, can you remind us where you are with Wever?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah, so, Mark, one of the benefits in terms of the OCI transaction is the trading entity that they have in Dubai. And it allows for very efficient trading of products out of Donaldsonville into other parts of the world. That's not to say that we don't have access to those markets. And, I n fact, Bert and his team have developed those relationships all across the globe. And it's not an issue of access to those demand centers or ability to get product there; it's more the efficiency.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
The efficiency of how you do it. Okay, super. That's very helpful. And can you just give us an update on Wever?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
So I'd say, Mark, OCI is a publicly traded company. Wever is their project. It's much more appropriate to allow them to answer any questions related to Wever. I wouldn't want someone else answering the question about how Donaldsonville (50:12). I don't feel appropriate answering questions on Wever.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
That's fair. Thank you.
Operator:
Our next question comes from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.
Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yes, thanks. Good morning, everyone. A lot of ground has been covered, but I wanted to return, Bert, to the comment you made about the subsidies in China on the demand outlook medium-term. And you said, you don't think the impact is as big as some people think. And I maybe want you to expand on that a little bit. We heard some talk about some pretty sizable reductions in corn acres in China. They have application rates that for nitrogen at least that are pretty close to Western levels. And wanted to just get your thoughts on why you don't think the domestic demand impact from subsidy change will be as big as people think.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So I think you're focused on the corn subsidies, not the production of fertilizer subsidies. Is that correct?
Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yeah, on the demand side
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Okay. So, look, China, as we said about fertilizer, I'd say the same thing about corn. And China has been changing. They have subsidized corn production to the tune of $9 a bushel we expect. And those numbers are coming off. They have had, as with other commodity products, high levels of storage and stored material for food security. And what we expect with that is that these subsidies will (51:45) corn of good quality, we don't think it is. And that some of that corn will be sold in different ways or possibly even dumped. But I think we're in the middle of a changing market. And how that totally impacts the total N number, because corn we replaced with another product, probably wheat or cotton or something else, and so I can't give you what that – is it 1 million tons, 6 million tons of urea equivalent? I don't have that number
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Adam, the other thing that we heard also from a number of the participants over there is there are some subsidy things that can come in and go, but it's hard to reverse thousands of years of behavior and practice. And the Chinese farmers look at urea as being the really critical, important element of fertilization for yield. And even though there's some view of balanced fertilization needs to increase, the sense that we got from the people over there is they don't expect much of a change.
Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
That's very helpful. And then maybe you talked about Donaldsonville production rates that are already running rate above nameplate and that's something that you think is sustainable. Maybe help size the magnitude there and what kind of output levels from the new plants you think are actually achievable medium-term maybe above nameplate. Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah, so Donaldsonville urea is running north of 10% above nameplate. So nameplate is 3,850 tons and we've seen rates north of 4,500 tons, 4,800 tons a day. So that plant is really humming along. And on the UAN plant, the nameplate on that is – and everything I'm giving you is short tons, is 5,050 tons a day. And we've seen rates north of 5,800 tons. And again, as I've said, we haven't really even pushed it to max rates yet. And so we think 20% is likely achievable at D'ville UAN. So it was already the largest single-train UAN plant in the world, even at nameplate. We're getting much, much better results than that already. And the way that we went about designing these plants was understanding from a process flow perspective where the bottlenecks were, what the things we needed to outsize were, and that's the same approach we've taken on the ammonia plant as well as at Port Neal and so while it's a little early to claim victory on the ammonia production yet, our expectation is that we're going to be in a same kind of region relative to production on the ammonia and also at Port Neal. And the important thing to also highlight Adam is that when we did the original investment thesis and justification, it was strictly based on nameplate production. So every incremental ton that we're getting off of these plants show up at that 50% to 60% cash margin number and all of those are just free cash into the equation on the economics of the plant, so we feel very good about where we are.
Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
That's very helpful. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Don Carson with Susquehanna Financial. Your line is now open.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Yes. Thank you. Two questions on pricing, one near-term, Bert you talked about high mix of non-core and build ammonia in Q1, how does that mix change as you get into Q2 and between having higher proportion of corn belt sales and not much of a forward order book I assume that you'll be able to capture most of this recent run-up in corn belt ammonia pricing? And then longer term, as we look into second half of this year with more capacity coming online, are you seeing pressure from distributors to have price protection on nitrogen products like they've been getting on potash for virtually all potash now is price protected from the manufacture?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So, for the near-term you're correct that ammonia in Q1 for Ag application, we did get April pulled into March, but we're still going to see a very healthy Q2 application period. We work through April, we're into May, and again as we march forward that northerly tier start to kicking in. So don't have exact number for you, but we're planning on historical spring six-month period. We look at this as a six-month cycle and for spring. And pricing you're right, you're correct it did rally quite a bit from $100 to $150 a ton and we did have tons available to sell and we anticipate that we have captured pretty good part of that. You're correct there is capacity coming online in UAN for us urea with CF and some others as well as ammonia. The price protection is not in the mix where we have seen happen with potash and phosphate on price protection is it's really a short-term gain long-term loss. Then as you put product in the inventory for periods like the spring when you could have had price appreciation, you do not get that. And it creates a negative dynamic in the market that the risk stays with the producer and you continue to push that product out from logistical basis and it just doesn't help the market at all. We believe that we need to price our products appropriately for our retail and wholesale customers and that the risk then stays with them and they get a reward when they sell and they provide services, they provide different product. It's part of their product portfolio. We're just one participant in that chain. And so we just don't see that price protection has a future in North America at least in nitrogen it doesn't.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay, thank you.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Said different way, being the largest producer globally and larger than the next six combined in North America, we have no interest in completely unwilling to engage in that kind of practice and will find a way where liquidity is achieved in the marketplace so that that doesn't happen here at least in nitrogen.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Dan Aldridge for closing remarks.
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations:
Thanks, Liz. That concludes our call for today. I am available for any follow-on questions. Thank you, everyone, for your time and interest.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the program. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Executives:
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President, Manufacturing
Analysts:
Carl Chen - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker) Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc. Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries Holdings Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2015 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Shannon and I'll be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Mr. Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations. Sir, please proceed.
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations:
Thanks, Shannon. Good morning and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations, and with me today are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Manufacturing. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its fourth quarter 2015 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we will review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide three of the accompanying presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. This conference call will include discussion of certain non-GAAP financial measures. In each case, a presentation of the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP and coinciding reconciliation of a non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP are provided in the earnings release and the slides for this webcast presentation on the company's website, www.cfindustries.com. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted fourth quarter and full year results for 2015. For the fourth quarter, CF Industries generated EBITDA of $254 million and full year EBITDA of $1.7 billion. After taking into account hedging losses and impairment loss on our Trinidad joint venture equity investment, costs related to both the CHS Strategic Venture and the OCI Transaction, and expenses related to the expansion projects, adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter was $451 million and adjusted EBITDA for the full year was $2 billion. Despite difficult market conditions, we generated gross margin of over 25% in the fourth quarter and over 35% for the year. If not for the unrealized mark-to-market losses of roughly $100 million on natural gas hedges, our gross margin for the fourth quarter would have been approximately 34%. And if not for the unrealized mark-to-market loss of approximately $175 million, our gross margin for the full year was roughly 40%. Our quarterly and full year results continue to demonstrate the cash generating capability of this company. We consistently deliver solid results because of our cost advantage position within the industry, despite the fact that the global fertilizer market is oversupplied. In several production regions of the world, currency devaluations and other factors have reduced costs for high-cost producers, some of which have continued to run despite negative margins, leading to excess supply. As a result, there has been downward pressure on prices. Urea transactions have been reported at price levels not seen in the decade. However, even against this backdrop, we still delivered full year adjusted EBITDA of $2 billion. Our business is not like other commodities. It shares little to nothing with iron, steel, copper or coal. A country or region with a slowing economy may stop building skyscrapers, ships and highways, but its people still need to eat. Global nitrogen demand remains strong and growing. To be sure, there is excess supply, but we occupy the lowest cost position in the industry and continue to generate significant cash. All commodities are not created equal and it is critically important to keep a perspective on the underlying fundamentals of our business as distinct from others. First, several weeks ago there were reports of urea trading in the U.S. Gulf at or below $200 per short ton. While some business was done at this level, the volume was extremely thin because these prices were well below the replacement cost for the marginal producers. As we suspected all along, available volume was scarce and just two weeks later, urea is now reported trading in the range of $250 per ton, up more than 25% from the beginning of February. Second, we have seen a decrease in both Chinese exports and urea plant operating rates. The most recent industry publications for the Chinese fertilizer market indicate that operating rates for coal-based urea producers have declined to 66% in January from 73% in December. While that may not sound like a large amount, this seven point drop in Chinese operating rates equates to a reduction of approximately 6 million tons of urea on an annual basis. These facts suggest to us that previously published prices are not sustainable. Third, even at the $200 per ton price trough published in January, a typical U.S. Gulf producer of urea generates roughly 50% cash margins. This is driven by low cost North American natural gas providing us the sustainable advantage versus producers in other regions further bolstered by the import-dependent nature of North America. So, it should be obvious that the sky is not falling, that nitrogen is not like other commodities, and that our business remains highly attractive and continues to generate significant cash. Turning to our strategic initiatives, we have made significant progress and are now in full delivery mode. Since our last earnings call, we amended our announced business combination with OCI's European, North American and global trading and distribution businesses to incorporate in and become a tax resident of the Netherlands. We expect to close this transaction in the middle of 2016. We commenced our strategic venture with CHS, receiving a $2.8 billion payment and have begun shipping product under the supply agreement. We have also entered the final stages of our capacity expansion projects. The Donaldsonville urea plant has been in production since November of last year. The UAN plant is mechanically complete and in the process of being commissioned. And we expect the welding and piping work on the ammonia plant, which represents the majority of the remaining work and cost, to be completed within the next eight weeks. We also expect Port Neal to be mechanically complete in the second quarter of 2016, meaning all of our spending on these projects will very soon be behind us. The total costs for both projects remains in line with our previous estimates and similarly our projected returns for the projects have not changed. I'll now turn the call over to Bert and Dennis to go through the details of the quarter. And then, I'll wrap up with some perspectives on strategy and the longer term outlook. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Thanks, Tony. The global nitrogen market continues to be supply-driven, with increased availability of internationally sourced product pressuring prices. During the fourth quarter, prices for all fertilizer products declined, including nitrogen. Excess supply around the world and new capacity coming online, all helped to push the market lower. Urea prices declined throughout the quarter, decreasing from a high of $260 per short ton fob NOLA at the beginning of the quarter to $220 per short ton fob NOLA at the end of the quarter. As Tony said, very little business was done at these low levels, as the market was highly illiquid. During the fourth quarter, the Chinese government allowed the yuan to devalue further, continuing a trend that began in the third quarter of 2015. When accounting for the devaluation, along with a decrease in coal prices and continued weakness in ocean freight, cash costs of urea production for the marginal Chinese anthracite coal-based producer are now estimated to be near the seasonal low of roughly $225 per short ton delivered to the U.S. Gulf. As Tony mentioned, production rates in China are declining and some high-cost producers have already curtailed production or shut down altogether. Exports out of China were 1.5 million tons lower in the fourth quarter of 2015 compared to the same period in 2014. For the full year 2015, exports totaled approximately 13.8 million tons, which is slightly higher than the full year 2014. In the U.S., industrial ammonia demand was impacted by lower phosphate production and the fourth quarter agricultural ammonia application season was negatively impacted by weather. Warm weather into early November, coupled with the combination of rain and snow later that month, limited most of the Midwest from getting applications completed. In addition, customers were reluctant to buy urea and UAN during much of the fourth quarter due to the prospect of lower prices in the future. So weather-related disruption of the fourth quarter ammonia application season, along with delayed purchases of UAN and urea during the fourth quarter, should lead to a larger than average spring demand and a corresponding rebound in prices, as nitrogen fertilizer must be applied on an annual basis. Ahead of spring, the company is well positioned with inventory prepared to serve key markets. Nitrogen fertilizer demand in North America is expected to remain steady in 2016 compared to 2015. Current projected returns for the 2016 crop, based on new crop futures, continue to favor corn plantings over soybeans. As a result, 2016 corn planting is expected to reach approximately 90.5 million acres, which is a 2.5 million acre increase from 2015. North American natural gas continues to provide the company a substantial cost advantage compared to other global producers. The North American natural gas market began the fourth quarter of 2015 with minimal price movement and lower volatility. However, that quickly turned into a sharp downward shift in prices in the latter half of October. Stronger than expected El Niño conditions brought warmer weather that continued through much of the quarter and was a large contributor to the significant decrease in gas demand. Natural gas consumption in North America for residential and commercial uses during the fourth quarter of 2015 was 16% lower than the end of the fourth quarter of 2014. Despite the continued decrease in rig count, gas production continued at record levels during the fourth quarter and the storage balance in North America reached a record level of 4 trillion cubic feet at the end of the injection season. Now, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Thanks, Bert. In the fourth quarter, we generated $254 million of EBITDA and earnings per diluted share of $0.11. Included in these results were approximately a $98 million unrealized mark-to-market loss on our natural gas hedges, a $62 million loss for an impairment of our PLNL joint venture equity investment, $20 million in transaction costs related to the OCI Transaction and the CHS Strategic Venture, $15 million in expansion costs for our Donaldsonville and Port Neal facilities, and a $3 million loss on our foreign currency hedges. When taking these items into account, our adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter was $451 million and our adjusted earnings per diluted share was $0.76. For the year, we generated $1.7 billion of EBITDA and earnings per diluted share of $2.96. Our adjusted EBITDA was $2 billion and our adjusted net earnings per diluted share was $3.88. Our realized natural gas cost for the quarter was $3.07 per MMBtu and consisted of purchased natural gas of $2.66 per MMBtu and a realized loss of $0.41 per MMBtu on our natural gas hedges for the fourth quarter of 2015. Our natural gas cost has declined by 25% when compared with fourth quarter of 2014. For the full year 2015, our realized natural gas cost was also $3.07 per MMBtu, a 28% reduction compared to 2014. During the fourth quarter, the company did not enter into any additional natural gas hedges. The company completed a review of its equity method investment in Point Lisas Nitrogen Limited, PLNL, our 50% investment in an ammonia production joint venture located in The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. This review assessed the recoverability of the company's carrying value of the investment. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the company recognized an impairment charge of $62 million relating to its investment in PLNL due to continuing gas curtailments from the government controlled gas supplier, and the expectation is that these curtailments will continue. On December 18, 2015, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes, PATH Act was signed into law and applies to tax years 2015 through 2019. One of the provisions of the Act permits companies to deduct 50% of their capital expenditures for federal income tax purposes in the year qualifying assets were placed into service. As a result of this provision, for the year ended December 31, 2015, the company recorded a federal tax receivable of approximately $120 million that is expected to result in a tax refund. This receivable is primarily associated with the new urea plant and related offsites that were placed into service at the company's Donaldsonville, Louisiana complex during November of 2015. In 2016, the company expects to place into service the new UAN and ammonia plants at Donaldsonville and the new urea and ammonia plants at Port Neal. Most of these assets will also qualify for the 50% bonus depreciation for fiscal year 2016. As a result of these additional assets being placed into service in 2016, the company expects to have significantly reduced cash tax payments for the year. For the full year 2015, our total capital expenditures were approximately $2.5 billion. This consists of approximately $1.7 billion for the capacity expansion projects, plus approximately $600 million of sustaining improvement and other capital expenditures, and $155 million of capitalized interest. For 2016, the company expects to have capital expenditures of approximately $1.8 billion, of which $1.2 billion will be for the capacity expansion projects and $600 million will be for sustaining improvement and other projects. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Thanks, Dennis. Before we move on to Q&A, I wanted to review our near and longer term outlook and the significant benefits of our strategic initiatives. As we have already discussed, our business continues its strong operating performance, delivering $2 billion of adjusted EBITDA in 2015. Looking at the fundamentals, the cash margins for North American producers are in the 50% to 60% range even with today's market conditions. Against this healthy backdrop, over the next roughly six months, we are about to grow significantly, adding 60% new production capacity to our portfolio with very similar margin structures to our current business. We are investment grade and have a very strong balance sheet, having just received $2.8 billion in cash. Our spending on the capacity expansion projects is quickly coming to an end, as we expect to be fully mechanically complete within the second quarter. Our business combination with OCI is expected to deliver roughly $500 million annually in after-tax full run rate benefits. And we expect our longer term effective tax rate to drop from 35% into the low 20%s, making us that much more efficient at converting EBITDA into cash. Finally, bonus depreciation will provide us significant cash flow benefit this year. The bright future we've been talking about is arriving now. This is a lot of very positive change all being delivered in a short period of time. However, one thing is constant through it all and that is our focused strategy for driving total shareholder returns. Our goal is to grow cash generation per share and our capital allocation philosophy flows from that. We first look to grow our cash generation, the numerator in the equation. We do that with investments that have risk adjusted rates of return well above our cost of capital and only if they drive cash flow per share accretion. Otherwise, we look to reduce our outstanding share count, thereby reducing the denominator in the equation. Consistent with our past actions, all excess cash will be returned to shareholders, but we are fully committed to maintaining our solid investment grade credit rating. As we look forward, we believe there will be significant cash available for deployment. We will do that consistent with our singular goal of growing cash generation per share just like we have in the past. I want to end today's call by thanking all of our employees who have worked so hard, not only on all of our strategic initiatives, but also keeping the core CF business running so strongly on a daily basis, while delivering our best ever safety performance, a truly remarkable accomplishment. Many of the steps we have taken are already showing results and I am excited that the next six months should see all of our initiatives, move from planning and development into actually delivering cash flow to the bottom line. With that, we'll now open the line to answer your questions. Operator?
Operator:
Thank you. Our first question is from Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank. You may begin.
Carl Chen - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker):
Hi. This is Carl Chen stepping in for Ben. Thank you for taking my question. So we have seen an incredible rally in the urea prices over the past weeks owing to the prospect of an early spring. Can you please also comment on your expectation for the strength of the ammonia and the UAN pricing recovery, given that Mosaic decided to curtail that production in Q1, and this early spring could reduce the need for UAN side-dressing?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Carl, I'm going to ask Bert to take that question. But just one observation, when you talk about an incredible rally in urea, I mean the observation I think that a lot of us around the table would make is that the trough pricing that was reported in January was a little bit artificial. It doesn't really reflect where the market has any kind of liquidity or volume. And that's one of the reasons why it looks like it'd come back because the minute there was any sort of demand it rebounded to what the real value of the product is. But, Bert, do you want to handle the -
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
No, I agree with you about the urea market. It has recovered probably to more of a normal price range. And I think we have an anomaly like you said, very few barges were traded at those lower levels. And we know that because we entered the market to buy a few and they were not there. I do anticipate we are seeing now probably the opportunity for an early spring. Applications have already begun in the Southwest, Texas, Oklahoma, and the temperatures this weekend are very conducive to continue that activity. And I think as you see that warming trend move through drying trend, throughout the Midwest, I would think that within a month in the upper Midwest, that being Nebraska, Iowa, we may even see applications beginning then. You're correct that a lot of the ammonia stays within the producers hands and is available to the customers, those being the retailers, which then sell to the farmers for application. And I think the order trend has been a little bit different than in previous years, but the feedback we're getting from our customers is that there will be significant demand. We lost a lot of ammonia applications in the fall just due to the weather issues we articulated and so that – and it will still be needed to be applied. And so as you move that to spring, we're going to need almost a record ammonia season in order to fill some of that nitrogen demand, which I think will be difficult. And so for your comment on UAN, we believe that's going to fall either to urea or both the urea and UAN. And we're positioning our products and our terminals with our customers for that eventuality that we're seeing a pretty healthy market going forward for nitrogen on the demand side and a parallel positive position for pricing going into and through spring and even on the back half.
Carl Chen - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker):
Perfect. And then, maybe just a follow-up question. We have seen some reports indicate that Chinese urea producers are producing below costs and stockpiling in the anticipation of a strong spring application similar to last year. If this spring application disappoints in China, do you have a sense of how this residual inventory could weight on urea prices abroad?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Today, the indications we're getting out of China are that the terminal and the port inventories are lower than normal. And that makes economic sense. As what we said in the comments was we believe that the Chinese producers, a majority of them, have been operating at or below costs. There is very little incentive for them to push products to the ports. So we're seeing the Chinese industry operate rationally. And according to economic principles, eventually gravity does work even in China. And so, when you look at today what's going on in China, wheat top-dress has begun in China and you're seeing product move into those markets. Today, the domestic price is better and there the incentive then is for the Chinese producer, the urea producer, to keep that product moving to the interior. And then, they'll probably look to the export market as we move through spring. Today, if you loaded a Chinese vessel, let's say March 1, and we're sending that to the United States to New Orleans, it would probably be a 45 day voyage and then discharge arriving in mid to late April, and you're starting to get a little bit late. There have been some Chinese vessels sold for this spring and we think they'll arrive in late March through early April. But once you get past April, it's difficult to have that product be applied for the spring and post planting season.
Carl Chen - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker):
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. You may begin.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes. Thank you. Bert, do you have an estimate of how much nitrogen inventory is in the retail channel now? And how does that compare to historical levels for mid-February?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah, Steve, good morning. It is a little bit anecdotal, but we do spend a lot of time trying to determine what the physical inventory position is, whether that'd be dry on urea or UAN in the tanks. Most of the ammonia is sitting with us or the other producers in the terminal system throughout the Midwest. And so, what we know just based on imports and production levels of UAN, we expect that those levels are lower than historical due to the fact that we trended into fertilizer year 2016 at a low level of inventory entering that season and then the production and imports together with that build our number. On urea, I think there's a sufficient inventory to begin the season. You can look at the import numbers and then, again, at the production numbers and our production numbers. So there is enough probably in position, but is in the right position, and then the second round of product that needs to be available. And I think that's why you've seen this rally is the scramble to get product in position.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
And how would you characterize those customers of yours? Are they fully engaged now in rebuilding inventory for what you described as that second round or some of them still on the sidelines?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
It's like a family. Everybody has a different opinion when you sit around and talk politics, same thing about inventory on fertilizer. We've just participated in a TFI and met with a majority of our customers and we had the whole range of opinions of, I'm not going to buy until the farmer comes in to purchase and they'll pay the appropriate price at that time to those who have prepared and we're anticipating. And so we're working with each of our customers at their risk level or their risk appetite, and some of that inventory has stayed with us and we're quite fine with that because we believe in the size of this spring application season and the need for this product will be probably very robust.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. You may begin.
Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe a question on the UAN market, if I will, I mean, you've had a pretty big spike in urea in the last 10 days or so. And I know, Tony, you said, hey, that was depressed in January and there's very little volume there, but at the same time the UAN market trended down in conjunction with urea. And if I look at spot pricing, I would say that urea is trading at a premium on an end value basis to UAN, which seems unusual. And so I'm trying to think about, A, how your order book on UAN looks prospectively, given there's less dependence on imports there? And B, how you think about the balance between the two products on an end value basis as we go into the spring?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah, good morning, Adam. You did see a movement in UAN in January. We readjusted or adjusted our prices at that point, but the urea market stayed very steady July through into January. And there was a reflection on an end basis at that time to move UAN more in line with urea. But as you've seen urea move up, we've seen a demand build for UAN and we believe that will continue through spring. UAN's a great product. It's so versatile and how it can be used, not only in wheat and corn. And so, I do believe that you're going to see a price increase or a value increase going into spring for UAN as well.
Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
And as you look at your own order book today versus prior years on UAN, would you say you're ahead of last year, behind last year, or any comments there?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah, every year is different. And so it's more of you can be ahead or behind them, I'm not sure if that's as meaningful as what the value associated with the product and the gas price. So we're pretty excited about the level that we're able to buy our feedstock. And I would think that at these lower levels, it's not as attractive to us to sell. And so we would prefer to wait for some appreciation.
Adam L. Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. You may begin.
Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Hi, good morning. This is Neel Kumar calling in for Vincent. I was just wondering if you could speak about some of the inputs you're assuming to build up to the marginal cost figure of $225 per short ton, specifically in terms of anthracite coal prices, freight? And also, can you just talk about how these inputs have changed from your 3Q estimate of marginal cost of $250 to $285 per short ton?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yeah, sure, Neel, this is Dennis Kelleher. I'm just trying to get to this slide that you're talking about here in the deck. What we've done here is basically what we look at is, basically all of the costs that exist at the plant site, and that includes cost to ship the coal to it, the costs at the plant sites that are incurred and the cost to ship that product to the port, and then, obviously, to load it so that it can be loaded on the boat and shipped to the U.S. Gulf. So all of those inputs, sort of from the coal mine all the way through to the product arriving at the U.S. Gulf, are included here. And what we do is, on a regular basis, we're going to update that for everything from Chinese exchange rates to Chinese coal costs in addition to that to freight rates, and we do this across the curve. And so what's happened, if you look at sort of where we've come to is you've seen a decline in coal prices, but you've also seen a decline in the RMB exchange rate, and we've also seen a decline in shipping rates. And so that's what accounts for sort of the shift to downward in what we call the seasonal floor price range. And I want to be clear that this is a seasonal floor price range because we're saying it's $225 to $270. And what we do perhaps differently from the way other producers look at it is, we look at the fluctuations in monthly off-take for urea. And so during low periods, you'll see lower prices like we've seen here in January and February. And then, during high periods, like when you get into the spring, it takes more dollars to bid the more expensive marginal producers into the market. But that's basically how we do this. We look at each of the bars here in the cost curve and we will update that. With respect to China, we've got a lot of insight because of studies that we've done on a plant-by-plant basis. And so, we will update the cost on a plant-by-plant basis for the various subsets of their producers.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
But to be specific, we're assuming $115 per metric ton (31:41) coal and using RMB exchange rate of $6.55. (31:49)
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
So that's $6.51this morning.
Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. That's pretty helpful. And there's a quick second question. I was just wondering if your thinking has changed at all in terms of target leverage. I know previously you had mentioned 2 to 2.5 times.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
On the leverage front, we're still 2 to 2.5 times. I think as we get through the OCI transaction and reduce our effective tax rate, you could argue that the same amount of EBITDA actually goes farther because we're much more efficient at converting EBITDA into cash. So you can see maybe another half turn of additional leverage that we could take on, so somewhere in the 2 to 3 times range, I think, is probably reasonable, but we haven't socialized that necessarily with all of the rating agencies and so forth. And our view is always, we want to maintain solid investment grade rating, but have an efficient balance sheet. So we're going to thread the needle on those two constraints.
Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. You may begin.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Good morning. I wonder if you could give a couple of updates on methanol and the Natgasoline project. Where are you in your thoughts on that commodity and if that is something you want to keep in the deal? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Good morning, Joel. So, as we've talked about in the past, there is a closing condition for Natgasoline that it has project financing. It is a very difficult project financing marketplace out there right now. And so in the last, that was able to satisfy the closing condition or we otherwise wave it, then Natgasoline would be excluded from the deal. So we're not in a position right now where it's a decision time on any of that, but the closing conditions are pretty clearly spelled out. That's one of the reasons, the lack of project financing was one of the reasons along with comments that we received from the SEC that in the last S-4 filing that we made, which you saw, was an assumption that Natgasoline was not part of the deal, with a footnote that said it could be included. And that reflects just the status of financing on that project.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Okay. Thank you for that. And a couple of updates, can you talk about Verdigris, some of the outages there? And also, there are a lot of trade general reports that perhaps as the new capacity at D'ville's come up, there's been some issues with that production. Are there any issues that you could speak of? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
We're very happy with the new plant at Donaldsonville. It's running well. And, look, I don't know how people drew that conclusion that the plant isn't running well. I think as Bert mentioned, we saw where pricing was trading on urea and thought, hey, at that level we're buyers not sellers. So, our decision to go in and grab a few barges had nothing to do with production problems. It was all about intrinsic value of the product versus where it was trading. So, Chris, I'll let you talk about it.
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President, Manufacturing:
Yeah. And on the Verdigris, we have an ammonia plant. When we were doing the turnaround last year on the ammonia plant, we saw that we needed to replace some of the internals and catalysts. And that's the work that we're doing right now on that plant.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
It's just some routine maintenance that we're taking care of.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question comes from Don Carson with Susquehanna. You may begin.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Yes. Thank you. Just question your forward order book, I noticed your customer advances were down almost 50% in dollar terms year-over-year. I assume your forward order book volumes were down even more. And Tony, you made references to some barges you were buying because of intrinsic value. It seems you've been more aggressive in buying out barges this year where you think the price is attractive. Is that an accurate assessment?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Well, I'd say, Don, that we have not really done that historically. And so, even if were we to buy one or two barges, that would be by definition more aggressive than we've been in the past, but we just looked at the numbers and said this price makes no sense. And we were – we have more than enough demand to accommodate us bringing on some barges. So we were in the mode of wanting to vacuum some of that up. I'll ask Bert to comment on the forward order book.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Couple of things on the forward order book. When – just on the overall price differentials for this spring compared to last spring, you've seen probably $100 per product change. So that's just on the aggregate dollar terms you mentioned. But having a forward order book or not having a forward book to me is a reflection of your view of the market. We are interested in selling forward. We have a plant and logistical assets that we need to maintain and move. So, there is an incentive, and matter of fact there is a requirement to make sure that that happens. However, that's also compared or contrasted against what the market is offering and the view that we think the market's going to improve. So, the incentive to have a forward order book in January and December just wasn't there. And, we have the capability to hold that product in inventory or change the production mix or export product. And so, we were able to maintain and move through those periods a lot better than I think we used to. And that's what you're seeing, to me, is reflected in that number rather than a desire to be out there to build the order book at lower prices.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
So, most of this recent price fly up should be realized as you go forward in contrast to last year where you had locked in more forward business?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah. I'll let you make that decision, but we think the spring is going to be positive.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Matthew Korn with Barclays. You may begin.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Hey, good morning, everybody. Let me ask this, what right now are the most opportune export markets for you today, both in geography and product? Wondering if the disarray in Brazil has allowed there for any development for foundations of a UAN market down there. And then, just in terms of housekeeping, how much product that you actually send offshore this past quarter and this past year?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah. So, when you look at the export markets, it's the marginal ton or the incremental ton for us at this point. We're in North America. It's an import market where we have our assets well placed. And when I say asset, that's the whole base production, logistics, terminals, pipelines, to serve the American or the North American farmer. So, we want to be active participants in this market and monetize our position here. And then the next step is looking at the export market. As we're adding this new capacity to be a 12 month, 365 day producer of these products, you need to be able to move things out and at times move them out in large quantities. So that's when we look to the export markets. We are active today in France, in Belgium, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil on UAN. We've opened up Columbia recently. And so when we're focused on products, today, it's predominantly a UAN play. And then, next step, we've had some ammonia exports. We've worked with various people in that market as well as destination consumers, but urea is coming. As we've brought up the new plant and as we move to the spring, we believe that we'll be active more in the world urea market. And so, I think you'll just see our export participation continue to grow and to be an integral part of our business.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
The other thing I'd add to Bert's comment is that, particularly once we're through the OCI transaction and have that trading and distribution business as part of the fold, our desire to export will likely increase. And that's one of the reasons that Bert and his team have been really developing some of these other market opportunities for us, like UAN into Brazil and Argentina, giving us ready demand and outlets for that product as we go through the OCI deal.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Great. Thanks. That's helpful. Let me ask this then, everyone, of course, is focused on currency implications for price floor risk. But on a different angle, is there any immediate risk you see as a function of China's removal of their crop price support? Does that that put their domestic planting, their nitrogen demand at significant risk or threatening its ability to absorb as much of its own supply?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
So, Matthew, just on the currency devaluation issue. You know that central bank stepped in recently and provided some exchange rate pegging that's actually more favorable than where we thought things were likely going to go. We thought the exchange could close to $7 and it's kind of pegged and the holding steady at $6.51 or $6.50. So, from that perspective, I think there is, at least as we see it today, a little bit less risk on the exchange rate side. But, Bert, why don't you go ahead and handle that?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah, I think when you at what is going on with corn price supports and corn production, you've seen an interesting change over last 10 to 15 years as China has outsourced their soybean production to Brazil, Argentina, the United States and has continued to grow and with that grow their end demand for corn and wheat, and the stockpiles of corn aren't high. That has created some perverse incentives. And so you see sorghum and DDGs and things – and those substitute products coming in at a greater level into China. So I think with this release on pricing for corn, you're probably going to see – you could see maybe a lower level of planting, but, again, it's at a pretty high price today with that subsidy, and – but they also have a fairly low yield. So, several things are changing in China. The move to acquire Syngenta, which we believe with the seed technology and then germplasm associated with that, and the change possibly to GMO products in China, I think we have an evolving situation, coupled with the change in the economy, this currency devaluation, all of these things together. I think it's a little early to predict what that result will be to nitrogen, but we see each of these steps as positive opening steps and greater participation in the global market, which sustains the price of corn, soybeans and wheat going forward.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
That's great. Thanks, gentlemen.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Mark Connelly with CLSA. You may begin.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Thanks. Two easy questions. You mentioned the prospect of a stronger than normal back half of the year. I'm curious if you expect to carry out more inventory from spring, or whether the ramp in new capacity is enough to take care of that? And then the second question, I'm assuming you're still unhedged on the European business. And I wonder if you could talk about how your hedging strategy is going to evolve as you pick up OCI?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
So, let me, I think, make one clarification and I'll ask Bert to pick up that one. But I think when we're talking about a stronger second half of the fertilizer year, as opposed to a stronger half of – the second half of the calendar year, because what happened was...
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Okay.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
... with the low level of application of ammonia in the fall or relatively lighter application, we still see total nitrogen aggregate demand in North America being roughly equivalent to where it was last year. So, corn acres are up a bit. Wheat acres we think are down a bit. Overall kind of the same amount of nitrogen, but with less going down in the fall, that means more has got to go down in the spring in order to get the same kind of yield. So, that's why we're pretty bullish here on the spring application season. I think everyone says the second half of the year, once you get past July 1, that's a complete reset and you start all over again.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Okay. Fair enough.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
I don't know that we're taking a strong position on that one. Relative to Europe, yeah, we are completely unhedged both on the UK production as well as anything on the Continent. And our view historically has been that we hedge in order to take out price volatility typically associated with weather-related events. And recently here as we got into last year, we took some longer positions in North America. Obviously, those positions are upside down. And as we have kind of stepped back and evaluated our thinking on this, I think you'll see us head more towards our traditional approach, which is the hedging is really not try to lock-in any particular cost base over a long period of time, but it's really to take out seasonal volatility and possibly get rid of some basis risk.
Mark Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Okay, very helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Chris Parkinson with Credit Suisse. You may begin.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you. Can you comment on your longer-term expectations regarding the respective cost curves for ammonia and nitrates versus urea due to the regional differences of feedstock costs, FX, et cetera? And then based on this, how do you perceive the average price spread in terms of nutrient tons? Do you believe parities will hold or even potentially expand, specifically in the potential event of further yuan depreciation? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah, Chris. Let me start off on kind of the long-term or how we view sort of mid-cycle pricing, which is the way that we kind of evaluate that is based on low cost gas regions bringing on new capacity, new capacity will continue to be added until the next marginal plants only reaches its kind of cost of capital return. And that's the price at which we say is kind of long-term mid-cycle prices. Even though feedstock costs have declined, as you've said, one of the things that's helpful in that equation is the fact that capital cost continues to increase. And the lowest cost gas region, right now, in terms of added new facilities is North America. And if you look at what the cost to bring new production on in North America, it is very high, as we know all too well. And the result of that is we have not seen a dramatic shift in our long-term view of where pricing has to be in order to support a healthy marketplace. It's moved a little bit, but not dramatically. And it's really the vast majority of the cost is in the ammonia-making step from a variable cost perspective. And so we believe that you'll continue to have to have sort of traditional increases in relative values the more upgrade you do because you've got to pay for new capital. Even though there's not very much variable cost there, you have to pay for the new capital to put in each new step in the upgrade process. And the functionality of UAN, as Bert was talking about earlier, is greater than urea or AN, or whatnot. So each step in the process has to return appropriate capital and also farmer gets more utility out of UAN, so they pay a premium for it. So we don't see that there being a radical change in terms of the underlying margin or pricing structure between products. And in fact, over the long term, we don't see a radical change in terms of where we expect product pricing to trend.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yes. Specific though, Chris, for the cost curve, we've looked at the urea cost curve, as you know that's the most widely traded globally nitrogen fertilizer there is. When we look at the cost curve and dial ahead 2018, 2019, Chinese anthracite coal production remains the marginal producer. So from a cost curve perspective, although there will be additions in between and subtractions, puts and takes, at the far right hand side of the cost curve remains Chinese producers and at the far left hand side of the cost curve we believe maintains North American production, which is where we sit. So we don't see any major shift in terms of what the actual supply curve looks like going forward.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect, thank you. And just a quick follow-up, now that's been roughly six months since the announcement of the OCI deal, can you just give a little comment on regarding your confidence in the ex tax synergy number across both the U.S. and also European potential? Do you still feel just as comfortable as you did then or have there even been new discoveries for potential opportunities? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah, Chris, as we continue to do meetings and integration planning with our OCI counterparts, we continue to find opportunities and other synergies that were not necessarily previously known. I wouldn't say that all of those are in the tax front. In fact, most of them are not, they're mostly on the operational side, but there hasn't been any change in law at this point. And so our confidence level and projections are based on current law. So that remains as it was and that's why we say from an effective tax rate we're sort of in the low 20%s where we'll settle out we believe.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from P.J. Juvekar with Citi. You may begin.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Hey. Good morning, guys. It's Dan Jester on for P.J. So, if I hear Bert correctly, we missed some application in the fall, the winter buying season was pretty slow, and there's a risk of maybe an early spring. In the past that has been a scenario in which the supply chain has gotten pretty stressed. So can you talk if you're doing anything differently from a logistics standpoint this spring compared to the last couple of springs?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Dan. I'll let Bert answer that, but I wouldn't say it's a risk of an early spring. I'd say that's nothing but positive news, if, In fact, we start moving product here earlier than normal. But, Bert, go ahead.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So we look at a number of scenarios, and like any company would be doing scenario planning and looking at our asset capability and meet the customer demand, staying in contact with our customers, what they think they're going to see. And so I do believe you will have a stressed system. That being said, we have set up with our barge service provider ample service and what will be coming out of the plant, mostly Donaldsonville on barge, and utilizing our terminals that are served from the pipeline, as well as by barges, that being ammonia, and we are well positioned for that, and then it's UAN. And so when you look at probably in our early release on barges for ice lock, getting up into the upper Midwest to our furthest northern most point in Minneapolis, we think we'll be well supplied, well positioned. And as you see the weakening in the oil and the coal markets on rail, we're getting a lot better service from our rail providers. And we have 5,000 to 6,000 railcars in our service, as well as extras if needed. And we're fully utilizing those assets to get product in position.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
The other thing I would add to Bert's comments, Dan, is that, given our broad base of in-market production and all the different major rail lines that we're on, plus all of our storage in different locations, we are sort of really able to deal with supply chain stress and disruptions on any of the rivers or rail systems, I think, better than most people because of the diversity of our asset base and our mix. And so, in a lot of cases, when those discontinuities or stress points happen, it benefits us disproportionately compared to other people. So, we're not afraid of it necessarily. It oftentimes brings some benefit to us.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay. That's really helpful. Thanks. And then just quickly on Trinidad gas curtailments have been going on there for several years now. So, is there something that changed your view about the outlook for Trinidad that forced the impairments this quarter? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah, I think a couple of things, Dan. As you know, most of the Trinidadian base gas contracts are indexed off of the underlying product. So in our case for our one plant joint venture indexed off of ammonia pricing. Some of them are off of methanol price; some of them are off of ammonia price and so forth. And so what's happened is as product pricing has come down, that means the gas price into the Point Lisas has stayed has also correspondingly come down. And it means there's less money going to NGC, National Gas Company. It's in the situation where at the price that's currently being paid for the gas that's below what we believe replacement cost of gas in Trinidad is. And so one of things that is different today than maybe a year or two ago was we believe that curtailments may have been more temporary in the past and that new production was coming online. As we sit here today, gas price doesn't justify the new investment needed to bring on additional production. And at the lower product pricing in the marketplace, you can't make up for the loss production that we're losing. So it's that combination of factors that's really led us to take the impairment.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Andrew Wong with RBC. You may begin.
Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Hey, thank you. Good morning. So regarding the share repurchases, I mean, I know they're on hold because of the OCI Transaction, how quickly can you resume repurchases after the transaction is complete? I know there's blackout periods and stuff like that. So if you can just walk us through some of that thinking? And then, what sort of magnitude can we expect for this year?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
Yeah. So I would say, Andrew, we are focused right now on getting through close. And as part of that process, of course, we're evaluating and updating our capital position. We believe, as I said earlier, that there's a lot of things that are really wind in our sales. So a combination of the CHS venture commencing and getting that cash in the door, and the benefits that we're going to be receiving as a result of bonus depreciation, means that we've got a lot of liquidity. And given where the share price is trading, of course, we're very anxious to start deploying that. But we need to get through the close first and then we'll make an appropriate announcement. It's going to require authorization by the new Board of Directors of the newly constituted company before we're able to do anything, but I'm as anxious as anyone to get after it as soon as possible.
Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Okay. And then maybe just switching to something else, the Chinese nitrogen production. I know that there's recently been some reports that they have lower operating rates. Do you have a sense of whether these are more temporary type curtailments or are we talking about more permanent type shutdowns?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer and Director:
I mean I think our view is, there has been a lot of new capacity coming on in China and the excess overhang is capacity that the world doesn't really need, but these reduction in operating rates tend to be more offset – permanent offset against some of the new capacity that's come on. We don't think that it makes sense for that – all of that production to be running where it was. And so, when you see operating rates come back, I think it's not because they're producing – going to be producing more, it's because some of those plants are going to be permanently shut down and taken kind of off of the capacity curve.
Andrew Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for your questions for today. I'd like to turn the call back to Dan Aldridge for closing remarks.
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations:
That concludes our call today. I'm available for any follow-on questions. Thank you for your time and interest everybody.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation. Have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
Analysts:
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for standing by, and welcome to the CF Industries Holdings, Incorporated's Third Quarter Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we'll conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will follow at that time. As a remainder, today's conference maybe recorded. It's now my pleasure to turn the conference over to Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations. Sir, the floor is yours.
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations:
Good morning and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Aldridge, Director of Investor Relations, and with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Supply Chain. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its third quarter 2015 results yesterday afternoon as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail and discuss our outlook referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide two of this webcast presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Now, let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. I'd like to start by acknowledging the outstanding effort of our people to keep themselves and each other safe. Our safety performance reflected in our reportable incident rate has continued to improve and, at the end of the third quarter, was a new all-time best rate of 0.80 incidents per 200,000 work-hours. Safety is a hallmark of operational excellence and something we focus on every day. It is a critical component of our implied license to operate and it is gratifying to see our team continue to improve our performance. This is notable in itself, but all the more remarkable, because in addition to our regular operations, we have thousands of extra people on our sites working to complete our capacity expansion projects, along with several scheduled plant turnarounds. I would like to thank all our employees and contractors for the focus and safety leadership they've demonstrated to contribute to this great result. CF Industries reported EBITDA of $256 million for the third quarter and over $1.4 billion for the first nine months of 2015. The third quarter is seasonally our slowest quarter of the year and this year in particular had a lot of noise running through the numbers. Looking a bit more deeply into our results, you will see that the EBITDA for the third quarter was remarkably similar to third quarter of 2014 after giving effect for certain distinct items. Most notably, unrealized mark-to-market losses on natural gas hedges, transaction costs related to the deals announced during the quarter, and gains from the remeasurement of GrowHow, along with a few other items. As you can also see from the slide – from the data on slide 21, EBITDA for the first nine months of 2015 is largely unchanged from our nine-month results for 2014, after normalizing for the non-operating item noise in both periods. I'll now turn the call over to Bert and Dennis to go through the details of the quarter, and then I will wrap-up with an update on our strategic initiatives. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Thanks, Tony. The global fertilizer market has continued to be very competitive and the supply of fertilizer has been heavily impacted by new exportable global production and lower ocean freight rates. During 2015 and through the third quarter, the devaluation of multiple currencies only exacerbated this situation. Chinese government devalued their currency during the third quarter. This devaluation, along with less expensive coal and ocean freight, help to push the international price of urea lower. However, over the last few months, China has been reducing its exports. This decline has also been evidenced in the last three India urea tenders, which saw lower Chinese producer participation. Additionally, over the last few weeks, several large curtailments of urea facilities have been reported in China. The weak ruble continues to give incentive to Russia nitrogen producers to export rather than to supply domestic Russian demand. Prices are higher outside of Russia, and payment in dollars is more advantageous than in rubles. The Brazilian real also continued its decline during the quarter and has had a negative impact on the urea market, where Brazilian imports are down nearly 38% year-over-year. In North America, the third quarter is traditionally a lower demand quarter as farmers focus on the fall harvest and manufacturers build their inventories in anticipation of the fall ammonia application and spring fertilizer seasons, this year was no exception. While all these factors have led to a depressed pricing environment, we believe pricing is beginning to stabilize and that we have reached the seasonal floor of anthracite coal-based production in China at around $250 a ton delivered to the U.S. Gulf. Sales volume for the third quarter was 3.2 million tons. Production volume was heavily impacted by the turnaround and refurbishment at our facility in Woodward, Oklahoma. The facility was offline for 75 days during the quarter, impacting year-over-year production by approximately 200,000 tons combined of UAN, ammonia and DEF. We entered the third quarter with adequate levels of ammonia inventory after a very robust first six month shipment pace. The new Donaldsonville urea plant was expected to start production in the third quarter, and, therefore, consume most of the excess ammonia inventory position. However, the urea plant will come on later than expected. Coupled with the previously scheduled downtime of upgrading capacity to Donaldsonville, these drove higher levels of net ammonia than usual and we made the decision to sell spot ammonia into lower-priced export markets. During the third quarter, we completed the successful UAN fill program that was launched late in the second quarter. We were able to book over 3 million tons for the campaign at healthy netbacks. Ammonium nitrate continued the trend of lower demand that began in 2014. The third quarter is normally a slow demand period for AN in North America, and 2015 is proven to be especially challenged. However, we were able to maintain an adequate ammonium nitrate production rate in the Yazoo City by utilizing the export channel. In the United Kingdom, AN is also experiencing slow demand, but is more of a seasonal issue and we expect there to be good agricultural demand going forward. We're optimistic about the future of North American AN given our supply agreement with Orica that will be starting in 2017, as well as continued growth in the United Kingdom. The fundamental demand characteristics for nitrogen are strong. In North America, nitrogen fertilizer demand is expected to be slightly higher in 2016 with about 15.7 million tons of consumption. The harvest is progressing, ammonia applications have begun, and the current returns for the 2016 crop based on new crop futures favor corn plantings. As a result, CF now expects 2016 plantings to be 90.5 million acres, which is 2.1 million acres higher than the current year. We have an appropriate level of inventory of product that we believe is well positioned to support our customers' needs for the fall ammonia application and spring season. Along with stabilizing prices and lower imports, this could lead to better than expected pricing for the fourth quarter. We expect to be well positioned to sell all that we can produce. Now, let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Thanks, Bert. Beginning this quarter, we have changed our segment reporting, moving from four segments; ammonia, urea, UAN, and Other to five. Ammonium nitrate will now be reported as its own segment. Prior to this change, ammonium nitrate was part of the Other segment. This is as a result of its greater role in our portfolio with the addition of the former GrowHow assets in the United Kingdom. In the third quarter, we generated $256 million of EBITDA on sales of $927 million. This compares to $338 million of EBITDA on sales of $921 million in the third quarter of 2014. As Tony discussed, EBITDA results were lower than the prior year period due to a few distinct items. First, our cost of goods sold was affected by an unrealized mark-to-market loss on our natural gas hedges of $126 million. Second, we incurred $37 million in costs associated with our acquisitions. Third, we had approximately $15 million in costs related to the expansions of our Donaldsonville and Port Neal facilities. And finally, these were partially offset by a gain of $94 million related to the remeasurement of our investment in GrowHow. During the quarter, we also recorded approximately $30 million in other expenses for certain items. These items included $17 million in fixed cost absorption related to the turnaround and refurbishment at our Woodward, Oklahoma facility. There were also approximately $6 million in costs related to the financing of the OCI deal. The expansion projects are progressing well at both Donaldsonville and Port Neal. We announced an increase in the projected capital costs of roughly 10% versus our previous estimate of $4.2 billion. The main factors driving the estimate up are the finalization of engineering drawings later than we anticipated and the productivity of our contractors. As engineering has been completed, we have found that the actual construction quantities required to complete the projects exceeded earlier estimates provided by the engineering contractor. Increases in quantities result in more labor hours required to complete the job. And because we have placed a priority on schedule, that also means more craftsmen, more extended shifts, and lower productivity than originally expected. However, we now have virtually all of the engineering work completed, so the uncertainty going forward at least with respect to quantities of materials has been significantly reduced. Weather and labor productivity will continue to be variables in the equation, but we are beginning to see the finish lines, particularly at Donaldsonville. Including the estimated cost increase, the projects are still expected to generate after-tax returns in the mid-teens, which is well above our cost of capital. This is because our initial financial forecast assumed a forward gas strip much higher than the gas strip available today. Additionally, when we did the original project economics, we used a conservative nitrogen price forecast for the first several years of project operation. For the full year 2015, we expect our total capital expenditures to be approximately $2.6 billion. This consists of approximately $2 billion for the capacity expansion projects and approximately $600 million of sustaining and other capital expenditures. In the third quarter, the company repurchased 358,000 shares for approximately $22.5 million, bringing shares outstanding down to 233 million as of September 30, 2015. Including shares repurchased during the first two quarters, this brings the company's year-to-date share repurchases to 8.9 million shares, for approximately $527 million. During the quarter, we completed a $1 billion private placement of senior notes. We intend to use the proceeds to fund our capital expenditure programs and for general corporate purposes. In the third quarter of 2015, the average realized cost of natural gas purchased by the company for North American operations was $2.77 per MMBtu, a 37% decline year-over-year. The average realized cost of gas purchased by the company in the United Kingdom in the third quarter was $6.43 per MMBtu and gas in the United Kingdom continues to trend downward as the effects of lower oil prices filter into liquefied natural gas prices and long-term gas contracts indexed to oil. The overall average realized cost of natural gas purchased by the company in the third quarter was $3.07 per MMBtu. During the third quarter of 2015 we did not enter into any additional hedges for the balance of 2015, but added to existing hedges for 2016 and 2017 in addition to initiating hedges for 2018. These hedges and the fixed basis differentials we have in place for our Port Neal and Courtright complexes have taken significant amount of cost risk off the table. For additional detail on the company's natural gas hedges, please refer to the natural gas table in the appendix of the earnings release. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Dennis. Our performance financially has been very solid in 2015, particularly so given the significant headwinds we have faced; a challenging global market where abundant supply has pressured product prices, currency exchange rate moves that have either helped some foreign producers become more cost competitive or made it more challenging for some importing countries to buy product, and concerns over the commodity sector in general. Even in the face of these difficulties, our results for the quarter and the first nine months of 2015 were essentially unchanged from our 2014 results after normalizing for a few non-operational items. This continues to demonstrate the strength of our business model and the enduring advantage we have from plentiful low-cost North American natural gas. If you refer to slide 11, you will see a table that shows various EBITDA outputs for the standalone CF business after our capacity expansion projects come online, as a function of our realized cost of natural gas and our average realized selling price of nitrogen products on urea equivalent basis. You can clearly see that we remain highly profitable over a very wide range of market conditions. On a trailing 12 month basis, our average realized gas cost was $3.07 per MMBtu and average realized urea equivalent price was $343 a ton. What this shows is even with the challenging market conditions over the past 12 months, this business is very profitable and generates a significant amount of the EBITDA. Regardless of all the noise going on around us and the fears in the market, those who take more than just a cursory look at our performance will recognize the following in controvertible fact. Our business continues to run well and we continue to deliver the EBITDA. I would now like to pivot from the quarter and speak about the bright future ahead of CF Industries. Over the last few months, we have announced several strategic moves, which will deliver significant growth in our cash generating ability. The completion of the capacity expansion projects along with the three major transactions we've announced is expected to increase the production capacity of CF 65% by the end of 2017. All of these initiatives have very attractive individual return profiles with unlevered after-tax returns well above our cost of capital. And when taken as a group, these initiatives are unmatched in our industry and represent an opportunity for significant near-term shareholder value creation. On Tuesday, we announced that the OCI deal has cleared U.S. antitrust review process. This is a major step forward in closing this deal. And upon completion, this transaction will give us the premier global footprint in the nitrogen fertilizer industry and allow us to fully leverage our global assets. We continue to expect that we will close the OCI transaction in Q2 2016. Our transactions with CHS are groundbreaking and should be highly accretive to our shareholders. The product supply agreement provides us ratable off-take from a premier agricultural cooperative with which we have had a longstanding and productive relationship. The deal provides CHS with up to 1.1 million tons of urea and 580,000 tons of UAN at market prices. CHS has $2.8 billion equity investment in CF Industries Nitrogen, LLC, provides them an opportunity for achieving manufacturing economics via dividends, and has validated the strength of our business model and the value it can create. In essence, a highly knowledgeable market participant values the standalone CF Industries business at an effective enterprise value of over $30 billion, even before giving effect to the OCI transaction. On the capacity expansion front, we are pleased to announce that the granular urea plant at Donaldsonville is now mechanically complete and in the process of being commissioned. We will make an announcement when the plant has achieved stable production performance. The Donaldsonville UAN plant is on track to start up in the fourth quarter of this year, and the ammonia plant to follow in early 2016. Port Neal is also progressing well, and we continue to target a startup in mid 2016. Finally, we completed the acquisition of the remaining 50% equity interest in GrowHow which has made CF the largest nitrogen fertilizer producer in the United Kingdom. These operations are well positioned in an import-dependent region, and we are delighted that they are now fully part of the CF organization. Taken together, these initiatives represent significant opportunities for our company and our shareholders. Before I close, I want to reiterate that our philosophy and approach to capital allocation remains unchanged from what we have said and done in the past. As you can see on slide 12, we expect that over the period from 2016 to 2019, we will generate significant excess cash that is unallocated. Our first call on that capital remains investment back into the business, when we can find projects within our strategic fairway that have a risk adjusted rate of return well above our cost of capital. Beyond that, excess capital belongs to and will be returned to our shareholders just like we have done consistently in the past. I would like to thank our entire team for getting us to this point. Many people have worked tirelessly over the preceding weeks and months to move our initiatives forward. We have a very bright future ahead of us, and we are just at the beginning of the journey. With that, we will now open the line to answer your questions. Operator?
Operator:
Thank you, sir. And it looks like our first question in queue will come from the line of Chris Parkinson with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much, and good morning.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Your realized ammonia price during the quarter was still slightly lower than many expected, including us. Could you just quickly comment on any differences in selling patterns here that affected your netbacks? And also, if you expected benefit at all from the recent increases in the Midwest ammonia prices?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Bert?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Hey, good morning. This is Bert. And thanks for the question. You're exactly right, ammonia price was lower. When you look at ammonia in the third quarter, it is a non-agricultural application ammonia quarter. We had a little bit that might bleed in from Q2 just for some side-dress, but it's predominantly an industrial quarter. And that was reflected in our result. When you look at the – what drives many of our industrial contracts that would be Tampa-based pricing, which was $460 in July and August and then $445 in September. So, for an average, let's say, of in the $450s. Taken to a short ton, that gets you pretty close to $400, and that reflects a lot of what was driving our numbers as well as gas-based contracts when you have gas in the $220 to $270 range during the quarter, that drove the pricing realization lower. Now, we've exported – as we mentioned in our comments, exported or sold into the spot market around 18% to 20% of our volume and that came at those numbers. And so, when you roll that up, we're in line with what the international markets were, actually higher, but lower, I think, what you all expected.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you. And just a quick – a very quick follow up on – in addition to some of the increased costs you incurred during the quarter, it still looks like some costs – on some line items were still fairly bloated in addition to the downtime at our Woodward. Is there any comment on how we should be thinking about your margin per ton production going forward and any additional color – was there anything else that was non-recurring in the third quarter that we should be parsing out?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Well, Chris, remember that unrealized mark-to-market losses on the gas hedge positions rolled through those numbers. So, there is almost $130 million of kind of non-operational, non-recurring cost that show up in those numbers. That's one thing you have to back out.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yeah. And there is – yeah, we also had $17 million of fixed cost absorption that's rolled through as well, Chris, during the quarter. So – but just step back from it, Chris, our plants run with the same efficiency they've always run, gas costs, what it costs, and our gas price profile is very good, and the overheads and stuff associated with the plants are not really any different today than they were before. So, no, there hasn't been margin deterioration. If you look at SG&A, it's up a little bit in the quarter, but it's about exactly the same for the year, and that just reflects the addition of – largely just the addition of the GrowHow assets on a consolidated basis during the quarter. And then the other operating net line you see that that moves up and down, but that's mostly just forex moments for the most part, and then costs associated or expense items associated with the expansion projects. So, no, there is really nothing in there a much of a story.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Our next phone question in queue will come from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Your questions please.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks, and good morning, everyone. Could you just – I just want to sort of clarify the return calculation on the new projects. You mentioned that, obviously, gas prices are lower than probably the last time, you stated what the return profile was. But I also kind of remember back from the July 2013 Analyst Day that in that return calculation, you're assuming some improvement in urea prices down the road as you thought that Chinese cost curve is going to go up. So could you just help us reconcile what gas price you're assuming now versus before, and maybe what sort of break-even into the Gulf you're assuming now versus before?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, Vincent, let me kind of step back and talk about where we sat in 2012 when we made the decision to move forward with these projects. At the time, the forward curve was above $5.50 per MMBtu and that dramatically changes what the profitability of the output of these plants are. We did anticipate at that time based on the number of projects that had been announced and were in flight in Middle East, North Africa, as well as in China that kind of 2016 was going to be sort of a low point in the pricing curve. And so, we had put forward, as Dennis mentioned in his comments, a pretty conservative view of where nitrogen was going to trade over the coming years before it started kind of recovering at the back-end of 2017 and into 2018. And so, nothing really that's happened in the marketplaces is all that dramatic other than the fact that, overall, the global cost inputs for all hydrocarbons have shifted down, but if you look at kind of the effective impact on the margin that we're realizing, it is not that dramatically different. And, as such, there has been a little bit of deterioration particularly in Port Neal, because that's where the brunt of the cost increases have occurred, but the Donaldsonville project is still pretty darn close to where we had made the original calculations for a return on that. And, so as a result, both projects end up kind of solidly in the mid-teens return.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. That's really helpful. Can I just ask you separately, post this whole thing with Volkswagen, does anything change about the diesel exhaust fluid opportunity set over time?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Actually, it's going to be positive. We're still following that and we just participated in the energy conference here in Chicago and what the implications mechanically will be for these engines that are out, already in the market that will be recalled, and then for changes to the existing structure of the power unit going forward. So, we do see that as a positive step for DEF. DEF continues to grow in the 30% to 40% range per year. We're actively participating, actively growing – actively growing our production, as we already announced for Courtright and Donaldsonville. And, that's a very positive light for us going forward.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Our next phone question comes from Steve Byrne with Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Hi. Thank you. Can you quantify how much ammonia and UAN you sold forward and how are those pricing outlook compared to current spot prices?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Good morning. So, for – we don't really give exact numbers, although I did say 3 million tons was done in the second quarter and into the third quarter for the UAN fill program. The fill program is at the end of the season and then that pushes us through generally November, December. We've continued to take sales after the fill program. So, we have a very healthy order book for the UAN, for our UAN position going forward, and are continuing to participate in the domestic as well as the international market. As you can see from our price realization at $241 relative to today's NOLA prices that are published in the publications, we think that's an incredibly positive position, and we're going to continue to build on that. For ammonia, the fall season is just starting; we had a pretty good day yesterday with shipments out, but we're adherents and advocates for the 4R program that the TFI and other industry participants are advocating to farmers. And the crux of that is applying ammonia when the ground temperature is 50 degrees; and today, as we sit in sunny Deerfield, it's close to be 70 degrees. So, we look at the ammonia season as being delayed, but we've got a lot of product sold forward and ready to be applied in November. If you look at the 30-day forecast, which we tend to follow probably every hour these days, you've got positive temperatures in the 50s during the day time into the first week of December. So, we think we've got a lot of runway still to go, and product is positioned. And I think this really gives the advantage to CF. Because of our terminal system, we're able to supply, and we fully supply when that condensed time does take place. And I think this year it could be a week to 10 days that the majority of our ammonia goes out. So we're prepared and price realization, we think, will be positive.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
The other benefit, Steve, is it looks like the crop is coming off the fields in about the normal timeframe, are in fact largely off. And so, there looks like a pretty good runway here in front of us for a really strong application season in the fall, given the mild temperature. So we're really pleased with where we're positioned.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
And if we can roll forward a year in anticipation of the OCI deal closing, what fraction of Donaldsonville production do you think you might be in a position to export with higher netbacks? And how might that vary seasonally and by what product?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, Steve, I think as we sit here today, based on the dock configuration, we're able to export approximately 50% of the D'ville production. We have enough dock space down there where if that looks like something that we want to increase for a, not that dramatic cost, we can dredge the channel a little bit, do some infrastructure improvements and increase our export capacity. So we've got a fair bit of flexibility in terms of export capability there. I would say, initially we're going to kind of continue to ramp-up versus where we are, but a lot of it just has to do with what is the net kind of – we're not really thinking about it from a netback margin perspective anymore, we're thinking about it from a netback after-tax cash flow perspective. And what we're going to be maximizing is a little bit of a different calculus than what we've done in the past, which was focused on EBITDA and margin. We're going to look at what's the best possible after-tax cash position. And that might, on the margin, lead us to tapping into international opportunities, if they look attractive. But it's really going to be an at-the-moment decision based on the different global market conditions and where we can maximize our cash returns.
Stephen Byrne - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Very good. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Next in line is Don Carson with Susquehanna. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Bert, I wanted to ask you about your urea outlook. You commented that you think prices have bottomed here and perhaps stabilizing. A year ago, we're at $312, now we're at about $245, $250 NOLA urea. You hit the trough earlier. Do you see a bounce quicker? I mean, last year we didn't get much of a bounce till early April. So just wondering what kind of – I mean, are you seeing enough attractive forward sale opportunities in urea to put together a decent forward book there?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
So, right now, you're right, NOLA has been hovering in the $240s, $250s; we've been realizing a different range of price structure based on where we're selling and how we're selling. But I do see some positive things coming, as I mentioned in my comments, with the situation today in China. We expect profitability or lack thereof is for the marginal producer, the anthracite coal producer. But when you look around the globe, we do believe there is sufficient supply available and the cost curve has moved a little bit lower, so we may be stabilizing in that $250 to $285. But I do expect to see some spikes because there is – as we can see from the inventory chain, not a lot of inventory is being built in North America as well as in Europe. And we expect demand to be continued to be strong in India. So there are some good demand points. I don't see Brazil coming back this year. I think, as we said, 38% down year-over-year. I think that we're entering their higher demand season, October, November, December, January for the second crop corn. So, I would say, we'll stay in a range – a little bit range bound this year due to capacity. And then, as Tony mentioned, we're fairly positive going forward in the out-years on what can take place.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. Thank you. And then shifting to a different subject. On your gas hedging strategy, basically 100% of your needs are locked in for 2016. Is that the philosophy now to lock in all your needs or do you ever want to have some exposure to take advantage of the potential dip in pricing?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. Don, we haven't really changed our philosophy at all in terms of the forward hedge. As we sat earlier in 2015, we look forward and we could lock most of 2016 at basically $3 flat, and we've been historically criticized for being too slow to lock in gas because people have said it takes risk off the table. When we saw a forward price at $3 for the year, we thought this actually makes a fair bit of sense and we didn't do it all at once, we kind of stepped our way into it over a couple of different tranches. But over the long run, we think $3 is a pretty darn good cost, and generally speaking if you're drilling in dry gas fields we think that's still below the replacement cost of new production and maybe lower than that or substantially lower than that in some of the wet plays, but in a dry gas area. So that was part of the rationale as we thought about locking that position is. As we look forward, we think the 2017 and 2018 curve is under pressure a little bit by where the current storage position is in the U.S. and we would expect demand to continue to increase. So while the positions we're sitting in 2017 and 2018 are underwater relative to where the market is trading today. I don't think they were bad decisions to enter into in hindsight. The other thing I want to point out is, we have not hedged the gas associated with the OCI production. So, between the Beaumont facility and the Wever facility, there is a fair bit of increased gas consumption that we have in North America and that remains completely unhedged and in 2016, 2017, and 2018 as well.
Don Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Next in queue comes from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Good morning. Thanks. Just following on that, I don't know if you're hedged for any gas in GrowHow UK. Can you maybe talk about that and what your strategy for that would be going forward? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning, Joel. Yeah, we currently have not hedged gas in the UK, it is something we are spending a fair bit of time looking at and evaluating and, similarly, we haven't done any kind of forward hedges for the gas that we're going to be needing at Geleen in the Netherlands as well. Gas currently in the UK is trading sort of in and around $6 and it's kind of up to $6.50 on the forward, it's relatively flat. So, as we look at that, it's attractive relative to historical, there is good margin to be had at that sort of gas price. And it's something we're looking at, but we haven't jumped into that so far.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Okay. And just following up on something I think Bert was talking about, so, I mean, the big thing this year has been that NOLA urea is really not trading at any premium to China. Can you really talk about why that is this year? And as the expansions come on in the U.S., when you talk about the $250 to $285, I mean is your view that's the trading range for urea over the next year as opposed to sort of a floor level? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah, it's an interesting conundrum as we look and watch these markets develop. I think you're just seeing, we're in a time of change and a lot of product has come on and more product will be coming on, and we have to find a balance in the markets. There are times when NOLA has traded below international parity, and obviously we watched that with interest. And when it's above, we want to participate at a greater share. And so, there are some tactical moves we'd like to make internally with where we position product, where we sell and how we sell. But I think, today with – and you look at the paper market and you look at what the forward markets are offering, we seem to be range bound at least through 2015 and I think some of the other changes will come as a result of inventory decisions, buying decisions. But I do see, like I said earlier, some positive points moving forward with demand coming out of – I think increased demand coming out of India. I hope in 2016, we see return to Brazil that plant that's in (38:32) not be operating for years. So the 5 million tons of demand out of Brazil will probably be there and a return to some other markets. And I don't think that Chinese anthracite coal producer can continue at their current rate of production and we're seeing that reflected in operating rates in China. And so, when you look at the 13.6 million tons exported last year, estimating 12 million tons this year, I expect that to slowly wind-down to probably an acceptable rate in the 5 million to 10 million tons longer term, which sets up available options for CF.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
The other point, Joel, that I'd like to bring up is, as you sort of rewind the clock, you can look forward and see there was this ongoing tail of new plants that were coming online in China and Middle East, North Africa. That sort of tail, by the time we get to the middle of next year, is largely empty from there going forward. The U.S. plants will be online. Most of the Chinese plants will be completed and operating. So there has been this pretty significant build that's left this overhang of capacity and the marginal stuff swings on and off depending upon where price is. And, as you say, it sort of puts a relative cap on where prices get to before the marginal producer swings back into production again. The global nitrogen demand is growing about 2% per year and that requires four to five world-scale ammonia complexes being brought on every year just to meet what the demand is. And so, as we look forward and the existing capacity gets absorbed into the marketplace, any kind of rebound in the Chinese economy with attendant increase in coal prices there, all of a sudden makes this marketplace shift into a different dynamic from a really over-heavily supplied position to one where there is some price appreciation. So, we think this is kind of the tough area to get through, but even at these ranges we're highly, highly profitable. And as we get into a recovery mode, we'll participate in that very, very nicely.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. Next in queue is Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your questions please.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Great. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Maybe a question on the ammonia market, want to get your thoughts on what would happen as you get into early 2016 if Iranian sanctions are lifted, and you start to see some more Iranian ammonia onto world markets? And maybe on a related topic, how are you thinking about availability from the Black Sea and Trinidad over the next 6 months to 12 months? Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah. When you look at, that is an issue we're following when the sanctions are lifted. We have already seen exports out of Iran increased by, I think, 1 million tons and that could possibly be a further 1 million tons of urea and not necessarily ammonia. There are discussions we know with some Indian producers to look at possibly putting up a new plant at probably three years to four years down the road, but Iran sits on a lot of gas and then it makes sense for them to monetize that gas and they will be a competitive producer and participant. But I think the ammonia would stay more in the Asia marketplace, and – because that push back Black Sea product or Ukrainian production, not much of that is going there today. And so, looking at your – the second part of your question, what happens to Black Sea and Ukrainian production, a lot of that's going to depends on what goes forward with some of the geopolitical issues there. But I do think that gets backed out, and I think Trinidadian supply continues to move into Florida, into Europe, and maybe even into South America with some of the movements that are taking place today. Ammonia as well, it's – we've hit a low point in the market where Tampa is positioned today. And so, we're continuing to watch that and participate and use the benefit of our terminalling system enable to store product, move product, and participate at a greater degree of the agricultural markets in Q4 and Q2 of next year.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Adam, as we look at Trinidad going forward, we continue to think that gas is going to be in the neighborhood of 10% to 15% curtailments into point leases like it's been over the last year or so. And we don't really see any kind of catalyst for additional production coming online in Trinidad. Given how low ammonia price is and most of those gas contracts are and product linked that the net realized price to NGC and back to the gas producers is lower than the incremental cost of bringing on new production there. So, there is not a catalyst to bring on new production, we think those plants are going to continue to run well below what their rate is capable of running, and that certainly helps from the standpoint of an overall S&D balance.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay. That's helpful. And maybe on a related point. Do you think that as the new capacity in the U.S gets built out as Mosaic starts to source a meaningful increment of their ammonia needs from you guys as opposed to Tampa or the Black Sea that the U.S Gulf has to reflect freight from the Ukraine longer term?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
I think there are a lot of things driving. That was also a point to change for the industry. Tampa has always been a price setting mechanism for this hemisphere, and you're right, there will be changes, we have almost 1 million ton supply with – combined with our Trinidadian contract for Mosaic. But you have to remember that OCP is also increasing production with their diammonium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate production. So a lot of that ammonia can be sourced from either Ukraine or shooting over from Trinidad, and there have been some of our colleagues in the industry have already signed some contracts for that ammonia supply. So I think it longer term, yes, when our contract starts in 2017 and actually some of our other contracts that position CF well being Orica, and CHS, we think that all those are part of our strategy to position ourselves in what we think is going to be a good market for CF in all the four products.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay. That's helpful. I'll pass it along. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Next up is Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Thanks very much. When you allocate your mark-to-market losses for gas hedges across your segments, does one segment or another segment get disproportionately affected or how does one think about distributing the mark-to-market losses across the segments?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yeah. The way we look at that, Jeff, just I think a good way to think about it is it's basically – if you think about it around $40 a ton. So for this quarter if you think about the mark-to-market that is embedded in the cost of goods sold for each of the segments, it varies by segment. But if you look at it across the whole business, it's about $40 per ton and it's going to be based effectively on – if you look at the gas content in each of the products.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Obviously, most of that goes into ammonia and then as ammonia rolls into the upgrade, it carries that additional cost with it. So, as Dennis said, it really goes as a function of the nutrient content or the end content in each of the products. So ammonia is going to carry the biggest proportion of that on a per ton basis, and then it's going to work its way down.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay. And then, I think Bert was commenting at the beginning of the call that maintenance capital expenditures were around $600 million. And I thought that previously you had spoken of maintenance CapEx as $500 million. Is there a reason why there has been an alteration or these are just round numbers?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. So, generally speaking, the system that we have today runs on a sustaining CapEx; this is kind of just keep-the-lights-on basis of about $350 million a year. And what we spend about above that, generally speaking, are things that are improvements. So, we're putting about $60 million into the Yazoo City facility in order to be able to convert Ag AN production into industrial grade in order to serve the Orica contract and make sure that we've got that plant fully loaded going forward. We're doing some DEF expansion projects in Courtright and in Donaldsonville, so that we can add capacity for DEF. We're doing some DCS implementations to improve our control environment and safety in a number of our facilities. Those things are on top of it. So as you look – and by the way, a lot of those projects have pretty significant positive return profiles associated with it. So, the $600 million that we're spending next year is kind of all of that stuff bundled together outside of the capacity expansion stuff, of which, kind of $350 million is keep-the-lights-on; the rest of it has a pretty good return profile to it.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay. Great. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. Next up is Michael Piken with Cleveland Research. Please go ahead. Your line is now open.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Good morning. Just wanted to discuss a little bit about sort of your thoughts on the demand by region, particularly for this fall. I understand the Midwest volumes are probably going to be good with the weather windows. But maybe if you could talk about the Delta, the Southwest and some of the other areas where they've had a little bit more weather issues?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
When you look at the by-region, generally the Q4 application season is ammonia-focused and we start in Canada and then move south as the weather cooperates. And we've had an adequate season in Canada out of our three terminals as well as our plants, moving that product to the ground. I'd expect – like I said earlier, we've had a pretty good day yesterday, but we're still not at full shipping rates out of the terminals. And so, you'll start seeing the Dakotas and Iowa and Nebraska, places like that, kicking off here shortly. And then, the Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas region already had part of their ammonia season go in Q3, which was focused on wheat pre-plant, and so that's more of a July, August, September application. And as we mentioned our Woodward plant was down, so we were unable to participate in a lot of that shipment season. In Texas and for some of the corn acres, they've had a lot of good moisture and we're pretty pleased to see with some of the rains that have come through. That's also good for the Midwest, which allows ammonia to set, and so with a good moisture profile in the soil, that allows your applications to move forward. In the Delta, I can't really comment too much in that region, we're getting ready for ammonium nitrate in the Southeast, in the Delta region. Other than that, that's pretty much all I can comment.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Okay. Terrific.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
And then we'll look to Q1 and Q2.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
All right. Terrific. And then, if we do end up having a bigger ammonia run as you guys sort of anticipate nationwide, how does that impact your thinking on what UAN volumes might look like in the first half of next year. Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development:
Yeah. When you look at ammonia over time, it's fairly consistent. We're projecting 4.7 million tons. It has been a little over 5 million tons in years past when we were – and we had some higher acres numbers. But we see acres recovering into the 90 million range – 90 million, 91 million. And so, I think with the pricing structure that's available to a farmer and through the retail system, it's pretty attractive to apply ammonia. But we have to think of all the three major products in conjunction, or in – together on an end value. And so you can't get too distanced from what ammonia is for urea and UAN. And we're mindful of that and we're keeping our pricing in line with historical averages. So, we're fairly positive on UAN demand and what will take place for Q1 and Q2.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Next question in queue comes from P.J. Juvekar with Citi. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Hey. Good morning, guys. It's Dan Jester on for P.J. Given the comments today about a bit more inflation in your project costs as you get closer to the finish line, has OCI informed you of any cost increase or delays to their project in Iowa or the methanol plant in Texas, and if so, who would be responsible for addressing those higher costs?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, Dan, so the contract that we have with OCI, puts an absolute dollar limit cap on the amount of cost that kind of gets transfer to us from the completion, actually both of those facilities. So, we know what the ceiling is in both cases and at least with respect to Wever, my understanding is OCI has a fixed dollar cap limit for the construction piece with the construction company that they're using. So it really, at this point, is kind of on the contractors' nickel once they – there is a little of cushion in there that once they're through that cushion, it's all on the contractors' nickel. So, we're kind of $1 certain in terms of at least the top end of the cost, if it comes in lower than that, it will be a favorable surprise to us. But we're anticipating and modeling and assuming that we're going to bear the ceiling on those costs on those projects.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay. Great. And then, I think we've touched on it a couple of times in the call already, but I just want to clarify is the 12 million tons of Chinese exports that you were thinking about this year for urea, is that a good run rate to think about going into 2016 or is there a possibility that that could come down again? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, when you look at China, every year is an anomaly. When you see the numbers ramp-up from zero tons, 2 million tons, 4 million tons, 8 million tons, 13 million tons, and so, we're modeling this year coming down to 12 million tons. I think based on – again, cost structure market optionality and how we see the market developing, I think, that's a declining run rate. But I'm not comfortable giving you a specific number.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And it looks like our next question will come from the line of Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
So, in the prepared remarks, I think, you mentioned OCI's close expectation is a mid-2016. Is that any different from prior expectations? And can you just talk about what needs to be done after that – for that transaction to be close? And when the transaction closes, does that mean you can start doing the repurchases right away?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, Andrew, so the – we've got antitrust clearance now in the U.S. We filed our final filing for European antitrust clearance, and so, really the kind of the long pole in the tent on this whole process revolves around kind of the SEC process from getting the S-4 offering document through the SEC review period – process and having an effective document that we can send to shareholders. As soon as that goes to shareholders as effective, we can post our annual meeting date, or our special meeting date, we'll have the meeting for the vote on both the OCI and the CF side, and then according to Dutch Law, there is a 60-day wait period following the approval of the shareholders for a reduction in capital in the OCI business that gives their creditors a chance to be notified appropriately. So, it's really kind of the wait period between noticing the annual – of the shareholder meeting, having a shareholder meeting and then the 60-day creditor notice that pushes us how we think likely into kind of the Q2 time horizon. Part of that depends upon how quickly we can get through the SEC review period on the S-4. But we're certainly working very diligently on trying to expedite that process as much as possible. And then once we're closed as long as we're not in the dark window or the blackout window around a quarter between sort of the quarter closing and announcing results that type of thing. The window is open and we'll be able to go ahead and initiate share repurchases at that point.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Okay. That's great. And then just switching gears a little bit over to Woodward. I think in the past you've done a really good job minimizing the disruptions from just normal plant turnarounds, but impact from Woodward seemed to be a little bit more material than expected. Was the turnaround longer than anticipated? And going forward, can we expect any sort of guidance around some sort of – the extended maintenance more than the usual type stuff? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So on Woodward this year, it was a pretty major turnaround. This was really the first opportunity that we've had to go in and kind of convert the plant over to the CF's standards for doing things. So we implemented a full DCS system in the Woodward plant. We did a complete re-harp of the reformer, and then there was just a fair bit of found work from things that – in the preceding period before we owned the plant had not really kind of been kept up to our standards. And so, as a result of the found work, it did extend a little longer than what was originally planned and the costs were a bit higher that led to then the fixed cost absorption that we had to go through. But our focus is to make sure the plants are safe, make sure we can get high on-stream and reliability out of them, and we feel very good about the state of that plant now on a go-forward basis, so that we'll be able to run it hard.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
And any potential for guidance going forward on a sort of like extended turnarounds?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
We, generally speaking, don't provide a lot of turnaround information, part of that is because we've managed very carefully kind of what our inventory position is and how we satisfy our customers' requirements and we don't think it necessarily helps to give all of our competitors that sort of detail around how to plan for what our production looks like.
Andrew Wong - RBC Capital Markets:
Okay. No, that's fair. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you, sir. And at this time, that does conclude our time for questions. I'd like to turn the program back over to Dan Aldridge for any additional or closing remarks.
Dan A. Aldridge - Director-Investor Relations:
Thanks, Huey (59:21). That concludes our call for today. I'm available for any follow up questions. Thanks everybody for your time and interest.
Operator:
Thank you, presenters, and thank you to all of our participants for joining us today. This will conclude our call. Thank you. And have a wonderful day.
Executives:
Daniel Swenson - Treasurer W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development
Analysts:
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Ben Isaacson - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker) Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Steve Byrne - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc. Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the CF Industries Holdings Second Quarter 2015 Earnings and OCI Combination Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today's conference, Mr. Dan Swenson, Treasurer. Sir, please proceed.
Daniel Swenson - Treasurer:
Thank you. Good morning and thanks for joining us on this call. I'm Dan Swenson, and I'm joined today by Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development; and Chris Bohn, Senior Vice President of Supply Chain. On this call we will review CF's agreement with OCI as well as highlights from our second quarter 2015 earnings results. Along the way we will be referring to several slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call we will host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at www.cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide two of our webcast presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. With that let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. We are really excited to provide details on what is a transformational transaction with exceptional benefits to our shareholders, our employees and especially our customers. Before we discuss the OCI combination, let me take a minute to review our results for the second quarter. Last night we reported strong results for the period with a record best safety incident rate and EBITDA of $670 million. For the first half of 2015 our EBITDA was $1.2 billion, which is particularly strong performance given the high level of global supply, driven by exports from China. We've taken on some very advantageous hedge positions for a meaningful percentage of our gas needs for the remainder of this year and calendar years 2016 and 2017. We have a terrific order book for the second half of this year and we made good progress on our capacity expansion projects. Given the extremely wet weather in Donaldsonville, the urea start-up has been delayed by a few weeks, but we expect to bring it on line by the end of September or beginning October. We executed a number of strategic initiatives since our last call, including the divestiture of our interest in KeyTrade and the Houston ammonia terminal and the acquisition of the remaining 50% of GrowHow. I want to extend an enthusiastic welcome to the 550 GrowHow employees who officially joined the CF team last Friday. We're excited about the contributions they will make, and we're well-positioned for continued strong results across the company in the coming quarters. Now let's talk about the transaction we just announced this morning. As you saw in our press release, we have reached an agreement with OCI which will transform CF, creating the largest publicly traded nitrogen company. We are combining CF with OCI's European, North American and Global distribution businesses. The main operating assets include the facility in Geleen, Netherlands; a greenfield nitrogen facility in Wever, Iowa; OCI's 80% interest in an ammonia and methanol complex in Beaumont, Texas; a global distribution business in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and a 45% stake in Natgasoline, a greenfield methanol project located in Beaumont, Texas. These businesses will complement and expand our best-in-class asset base and distribution network. Our customers and the farmers they serve will benefit from improved logistics, reduced shipping distances, and a more flexible supply of fertilizer products to better serve their needs. We expect to generate approximately $500 million of annual after-tax run rate synergies from the optimization of operations, capital and corporate structure, which will benefit the combined company's shareholders. The transaction is expected to generate free cash flow accretion to CF shareholders in the mid- to high-teens versus an already very attractive standalone base case. The OCI businesses will be combined with CF in a new U.K. company. OCI's shareholders will receive approximately 27.7% of the equity in the new U.K. parent plus approximately $700 million of consideration in either cash or stock at CF's discretion at the time of close. Additionally, the new U.K. company will purchase a 45% stake in OCI's Natgasoline greenfield methanol project for approximately $500 million, and we will have a call option on the remaining equity. The new U.K. company will be led by the existing CF management team and maintain its operational headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. As part of the transaction, the new company will assume approximately $2 billion of debt associated with the OCI businesses. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have provided a fully committed bridge facility to fund the cash needs upon close, and we are committed to maintain investment-grade credit ratings after the completion of the combination. On a combined basis we are creating a company with the premier global operating footprint in the industry, increasing our scale, scope and ability to serve our customers. In North America we will leverage our existing distribution network, reducing transportation costs and time delays getting product into the hands of our customers, the benefits of which will serve U.S. farmers. We will be adding one of Europe's largest nitrogen facilities in Geleen, Netherlands to complement the two GrowHow facilities we recently acquired. We expect significant operational synergies through the combination of these businesses. We're also excited to be adding CAN and melamine into our portfolio, as these products are in high demand. Through the existing Beaumont facility and the greenfield Natgasoline project once it becomes operational, we will become the largest methanol producer in North America. I want to point you for a moment to slide seven. One of the most exciting aspects of this announcement is that both companies bring significant capacity expansion projects to the combination. The new company will have an unparalleled growth pipeline that will increase total production capacity by approximately 65% over the next 24 months. As you see on slide eight, our expansion into methanol is a natural one, given our previous experience in that business. CF's core capabilities in chemical production, storage and shipping all apply equally well to methanol as they do to nitrogen. In fact, we produce methanol at Woodward and previously owned the Beaumont facility. Methanol and ammonia both rely on natural gas as the key raw material feedstock for their production in much of the world. Anthracite-based coal production in China is the high cost producer that sets price floor for both products, giving North American gas-based producers a sustainable cost advantage. With the additional methanol production, CF will join a group of over 15 producers of ammonia across the globe that also produce significant volumes of methanol. I want to call your attention to slide 10 for a moment. CF has a track record of dramatically outperforming our peers and the broader market in creating value for shareholders. Since our IPO 10 years ago, we have a total shareholder return approaching 1,900%, one of the top 10 performing companies in the entire S&P 500 over that period of time. The combination we are announcing this morning sets the stage for the next 10 years. Turning to slide 11, this is a view of our business that we have shared in the past. The biggest difference is in the sheer scale and cash generating capability of the company we are creating. We expect that on a cumulative basis from closing the transaction through the end of 2019 we will generate approximately between $8 billion and $9 billion of unallocated cash available to continue driving shareholder returns. Our commitment to the capital allocation principles which have guided us well over the past years remains unchanged. The stock structure of this deal allows both sets of shareholders to benefit from the significant value creation in this transaction. As I mentioned earlier, we estimate approximately $500 million of annual after-tax run rate synergies from the optimization of operations, capital and corporate structure. We view this as a straightforward integration of well-matched assets in both North America and Europe. The CF management team has approved – has proven its capabilities in executing integration in the past with the Terra deal. The new CF will have an enterprise value of over $30 billion once all the new capacity comes on line and the synergies have been fully capitalized. With this announcement we are creating the world's premier fertilizer company. To wrap up, I'm excited by the tremendous benefits that this transaction will deliver to our shareholders, employees and most importantly our customers and the American farmer. Before we jump into Q&A I want to recognize a few of the very weary-looking people around the table with me today, many of which have been going without sleep for days but without whom this transaction would not have occurred. First, I want to thank Nassef Sawiris and his entire team at OCI. They are terrific to work with and I look forward to welcoming Nassef as our largest shareholder in the future. I want to thank Brian Duwe and Rich Witzel and the entire team at Skadden; Rich Robinson and his group at Morgan Stanley; John Vaske and the entire team at Goldman Sachs; and especially my team
Unknown Speaker:
Our first question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson of Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you. So just very quickly, OCI clearly has a vast array of distribution assets globally. Can you comment a little more on how these assets will augment your existing production and growth initiatives, specifically from D-ville? And then any comments there particularly on the FITCO JV would be greatly appreciated.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, Chris, thanks for the question. So as we talked about before, D-ville is ideally situated to be able to export at those periods of time when there's attractive margin opportunities by exporting product. The fact that OCI has a really well-established distribution system and capability, particularly in regions as you mentioned like FITCO in Brazil that are in nitrogen-deficit areas that need to import products, matches up extremely well with our ability to export at those times. So we view this as a hand-in-glove kind of synergistic opportunity.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. And just, it's kind of a corollary of that question, but you've been fairly successful managing the UAN balance in the U.S., but can you see – can you just comment a little bit more on how you see this evolving once Wever's online? And then also can you parallel the theme about how you view the CAN market in Europe as well, please?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, so, Chris, I'll start off and then I'll ask Bert to comment as well. But look, even after all of the capacity that being contemplated in North America comes online, the U.S. is still going to be importing about 25% of our total nitrogen requirements and still importing well over a million tons of UAN. So the market needs all of the product, and in fact UAN is the highest growth product within North America in terms of usage. It's got a lot of benefits to farmers and there's not any kind of problem associated with managing UAN. It's a product that's desperately needed and we're there to serve farmers. Did you want to?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
No, I agree, I think what this allows us to do is to have additional source points to fit into our existing system to logistically serve our customers in a more efficient way than we do today. So we're excited about the additional capacity that will come on, and also to help our retail customers and wholesale customers. As Tony mentioned we will still get import market, but by putting this together with our system you're allowing that end of the value chain to not have to import, taking on possibly a $10 million position that has to come in a ship and have a 60-day voyage from purchase to delivery. With this additional capacity coming online integrated into our system, those customers can then buy smaller lots, be more efficient with their capital, and then they can serve the farmer. We do not sell to the farmer; we sell to the retail and the wholesale unit systems. So we believe this will be advantageous. Regarding CAN in Europe, it's a great product. CAN and AN are used in a different way than we do in the United States for agriculture, different type of agricultural system. But CAN has been a growth product in a number of different areas as well as some other treatment areas. So I think it will be a good addition to our platform.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Chris.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews, Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thank you and congratulations, everyone. Quick question on the synergies, can you sort of, I know it says that they're going to – you'll get the full run rate by 2018, but any sense of how they should phase in? And can you kind of bucket them a little bit for us?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. There are significant operational synergies in here, just like we saw with Terra. We're going to have, as Bert mentioned, an ability to plug Wever directly into our distribution network and reduce total product miles that are shipped, reducing logistics costs, getting our products into the hands of our customers in a more efficient way and a more timely way. Additionally, we see substantial synergy opportunities by managing and integrating Geleen with the U.K. business at GrowHow. On top of that, our SG&A load on a per-ton basis will get more scale, and therefore lower cost per ton. And we believe that there's going to be substantial capital cost savings as well. If you look at the facilities being built in Wever, it's a Kellogg ammonia plant, sort of a big brother to the existing Kellogg systems that we have in place, but operating with a lot of similar-sized equipment. There's a Stamicarbon urea plant that's being built that is very similar to the new plants that we're building at Port Neal as well as at D-ville and Udaask (17:43) UAN complex, very similar to the one that's going in at Donaldsonville. So we have an opportunity to pool our spare parts as well as our engineering capability and get more for less. Again, I think that's good for the marketplace and the farmers. And then finally there are some structural benefits to this deal as well. We expect to get a big chunk of those right away, and then the rest will phase in sort of over a year or two timeframe before we get everything running on all cylinders. But we expect to ramp in those savings pretty quickly.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. And then just on methanol. Could you, I know you mentioned sort of is the same cost curve dynamics as nitrogen does with the anthracite coal in China. But could you give a view on the dynamics in the U.S. market? How different are they from nitrogen in terms of being in a net importer or exporter? And sort of what's the outlook for S&D there?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, so it's looking, methanol in North America right now, North America is similar to nitrogen in a deficit situation. We are a net importer. Methanol application demand is growing by about 7.5% per year globally. Now a lot of that growth is in China, but North America will continue to be in a deficit situation for the next, at minimum, several years and maybe beyond that. And so the dynamics at play are ones that we love in nitrogen, and it's basically a very natural add-on to what we already do.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks and congratulations again.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Don Carson of Susquehanna. Your line is open.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
I'd like to clarify on the synergies, Tony. How much of that $500 million is operational versus how much would be from the – taking the tax rate down to 20%?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Morning, Don. There is quite a bit on the operational side. Obviously if you look at what our profitability is and the fact that we're a 34% taxpayer currently and what it will be at 20%, there's an awful lot of value there as well.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. And then just on the near-term business, Bert, you seemed a little more cautious on the near-term outlook than I've heard you in previous presentations, or at least that was the implication from the slide. Can you just talk about how you see second half and first part of 2016 unfolding in U.S. nitrogen markets?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah. If I expressed caution I would say probably just a relist. We're in a market that is a global market, and we're competing across the globe as a producer and as well as a distributor of these products. And so we pay attention to a lot of the macro issues as well as regional issues. Macro issues being currencies, commodities, and we've seen some fluctuations in the commodity – the soft commodity markets the last few months; a rising, corn market then a falling corn market which drives demand in North America and South America. But also some of the economic turbulences, whether it be Greece or China and how that can affect our markets. So I think where we've been is we've been prudent. We've built a very solid order book going through or into Q4 for UAN. And we're preparing for fall applications of ammonia and taking orders for that period also. So I – if I sounded – and I hope I didn't sound negative because I think we are very positive. We are looking at almost 90 million acres of corn to be planted for next year; those applications will start in the fall. We are seeing some difficulties in Brazil today and I think that's a currency issue, and that's based on last year with some debt, dollar debt coming due, but it's the real or their local currency has put the farmers as well as those who purchased fertilizer earlier in dollars at a disadvantage. So we have to see how that develops and how demand develops going forward. But our order book is solid. And I think CF is well positioned for this year and probably into next year.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson of Scotia Bank. Your line is open.
Ben Isaacson - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker):
Thank you very much and congrats again. Can you just talk about how the market share for nitrogen consumption in North America will look say in 2017, 2018 once Wever's on and your expansions are finished? And does that potentially play into some regulatory approval risk? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Morning, Ben. Thanks. You know look, we don't even look at market share. For us it's not a relevant measure because we run all of our plants 365, 24/7 as hard as we possibly can, and the U.S. and North America is still in a major nitrogen deficit situation. Based on everything that's under construction today, North America is going to continue to be an import marketplace, bringing in about 25% of our total nitrogen requirements. So market share is sort of a meaningless number. We make every ton that we possibly can anyway. And because it is a global market, and because North America has to bid into the system 25% of our total needs from offshore, pricing is set in the market based on what the requirement is to bid those tons in and get them up into the Corn Belt. And everything trades on a global basis. So look, we don't view there being a significant issue here from an anti-trust perspective.
Ben Isaacson - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker):
Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Sandy Klugman of Vertical Research Partners. Your line is open.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you. Good morning. So quick question, the production assets in North Africa, they're not part of the deal; I was wondering if you could discuss kind of what drove this decision? Was it just political considerations? And then if we're trying to assess the economics of the transaction, what type of EBITDA contribution from those assets should be backed out?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So good morning, Sandy. Thanks for the question. You know this transaction is really about doing what we do best and the assets that fit well with our system and our network. And so that's really what drove the configuration. This package of assets really helps us drive a bunch of the synergies that we were looking to try to capture. And one of the benefits of this deal, because it is a stock-based consideration, is that shareholders from both companies participate in the synergies ratably on a go-forward basis.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. Great. Thank you. And then just a quick follow-up question. DEF, I know this has been a focus that could generate let's say better domestic demand for nitrogen. How does this transaction help you potentially gain an even better footprint in that market going forward in North America and maybe in Europe as well?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So as you mentioned, DEF is a growing product line primarily driven by emissions abatement. It is a product that we have continued to invest behind additional production capacity. And it's one of the product lines that's going to be available at the Wever facility. And that just, again, fits into our distribution network very well. It allows us to serve national accounts like Love's and Travel America and Pilot and others in terms of being able to meet needs across their entire network from another source point. So that's another strong element of this transaction.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Great. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas of JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Thanks very much. What will be the employee count of the new company? And what's the trailing EBITDA of OCI that you're buying?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, Jeff, you've absolutely got me and everyone else around the table stumped with the employee count question. It's not something we've focused on, but we can certainly figure that out and get it back to you. Again, we're not really looking at a trailing EBITDA. It's sort of irrelevant given the amount of capacity that we have coming online. We're going to be growing total capacity versus our base today by 65% in the next 24 months. So the right way to think about this is we have two world-scale plants under construction that are going to be online in the next 12 months. Wever is a world-scale plant that's going to be online in the next 12 months and Natgasoline in 2017. So as we look at sort of what both sides are contributing to this, we've got four world-scale plants that are in construction, and it's not a trailing basis that this deal is predicated on, it's what the future holds for us going forward.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
What are the costs of the $500 million in synergies?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Cost to achieve it?
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Yeah.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So look, there is obviously transaction cost associated with the deal. There's going to be some IT and integration costs going forward. A lot of those are kind of year one impact, and then the run rate synergies are going to kick in for that. But transaction costs would be typical for a deal of this size.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay. Thanks so much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar of Citi. Your line is open.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Yeah, hi, good morning, Tony.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Morning, P.J.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
So any comment on China. With recent changes in coal prices there it seems like your new band for marginal cost of production is $260 per metric ton to $300 per metric ton, and that bottom seems a bit lower than before. So can you talk about how you see the cost curve, and what kind of urea price did you use in valuing OCI?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah, good morning, P.J., this is Bert. And when you look at what's going on in China, and we've talked about this in past quarters how different regulation, different governmental edicts, different sector controls that are trying to be put in place on the nitrogen group, coal prices have been changing. We believe they're at a low and over time will probably be moderating up. We have through various industry publications that number of $260 to $300 per metric ton has been put out there as probably the basis for the marginal producer. However, what we're seeing today is not a lot of activity below $280 per metric ton. And at the recent Indian tender you saw a lot of resistance from the Chinese industry and not a lot of support. Now, that being said, probably 800,000 tons will be heading to India on this recent tender with the rest from Iran and maybe a few other locations like the Baltics or the Black Sea. But that being said, I think the Chinese producer is struggling today; and with the projection of the new VAT tax that's set to come online in September, and then what we've talked about in the past on other costs increasing, just operational costs such as freight and production, that you're going to see that marginal cost increasing slowly. But that does provide a very nice core for probably the industry around the world and for CF when we're buying gas at $2.70. And so for a urea price for the deal, I'll hand that back to Tony.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. P.J., on that front we take a look at kind of overall supply and demand and what's coming online in terms of new capacity. But given there's a number of producers in China that are hemorrhaging money, and in fact, the Nitrogen Association tried back in May, June to put a floor underneath the pricing. That worked for a while and then it kind of has traded back down again. Our view is for the foreseeable future the industry is going to continue to trade in a supply-driven mode where there's excess capacity. And it's really the Chinese marginal production that's going to dictate the floor. And so our view is sort of $300 per metric ton plus or minus is not out of whack in terms of how to think about the floor price from a traded ton perspective.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thank you. Thank you for that. And with this transaction you add methanol to your portfolio, and yes, they both are based on natural gas. (31:37) different because with methanol you get into gasoline. You get into olefins via the MTO process. So what are your thoughts on that? And do you want to be in methanol long term? Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, P.J. We're excited about methanol because it allows us to leverage our core capabilities in terms of our process and plant expertise, operation, safety. Being able to produce, handle, store and ship chemicals. We do that day in and day out. And the operation of a methanol plant is very similar to an ammonia plant. And so again, our process engineering guys will be a great help to us in that regard. It does provide a different end-use market which tends to be a bit more ratable, and it diversifies a bit our sector exposure. So there's some benefits there. And I think that is noticed and picked up by some of the rating agencies as well. So look, we're excited about it and we think it's a great opportunity. And we'll evaluate it as we go and make the decisions based on what kind of return of capital and expectations we have out of that business versus redeploying capital into other things or growth in that business. So it's really going to depend upon as we get into it how the business performs, and is at the right place for us to have investment of our shareholders' money.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning, Adam.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
So I guess for me the question, in the press release and on the slides you allude to a mid-teens free cash flow accretion relative to the CF standalone base case, and I want to just be clear on that base case, if that assumed further share repurchases beyond the current authorization in 2016 and 2017 that had previously been part of the discussion, given a significant unallocated capital or cash flow in the next couple of years.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes. Thanks, Adam. So, look, the way we look at this is we've got the industry forecast on price strips and so forth, we run them through the model and look at how much cash flow is available to us as a standalone entity, and then we look at what it looks like under the new configuration using that same price strip with the different platform. And of course we assume an ongoing return-of-capital program that's consistent with our capital allocation priorities, as we've done in the past. And so our view is that's an important element of continuing to drive shareholder value and we've modeled the same assumption into both cases.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay. That's helpful. And then just quickly the call option to purchase the remaining 55% of the OCI Natgasoline project, any incremental color on the terms of the call?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah, so, it's done at the same valuation as the original 45% purchases with equity appreciation for the developer/owner OCI of about 10% per year going forward. So it gives them a fair return to continue to develop and bring that project online. It allows us to participate in it once it's online without an additional capital load hitting our free cash flow between now and then. And it also allows us to really get to know the methanol market and evaluate what the return profile looks like to be able to make that decision appropriately in 2017.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
All right, great. Thanks very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Steve Byrne from Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Your line is open.
Steve Byrne - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.:
Yes, thank you. With respect to the incremental tons that you expect to come out of Donaldsonville, how would you split those between the domestic versus the export market? And has that changed post the GrowHow and OCI deals?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So – Thanks, Steve. You know, look, we have been for the last couple of years exporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 tons a year to 700,000 tons a year. Our expectation was that would likely grow to about 1.5 million tons a year, sort of even without this combination. I think what it does is it gives us access to some additional distribution points around the globe. It allows us to leverage some of the locations where OCI has some great relationships. We can think differently about product into the U.K. and/or into Europe leveraging the distribution systems, either through GrowHow and/or Geleen. So on the margin I'd say we might be – have opportunities to create incremental value for shareholders by exporting more. But time's going to tell, and Bert's going to do the analysis on what the net backs are for us by keeping that product here and sending it up the river versus moving it offshore. Bert, do you have...
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah. I think the main concept is we're ambivalent whether it stays in the domestic market or it's exported. It's a net back analysis or a platform analysis on what is best for the system. And there are times when we go through a dearth of orders in North America it makes sense for us to move product offshore in a seamless way, which you've seen us do into France, the Netherlands, and the U.K. for UAN, as well as for ammonium nitrate we've done it in Central and South America; same with urea, and ammonia, we've moved that all over the world. And so we're constantly looking at our platform, our products, our production mix to put that into the right profitability position for the company. But I do see us exporting more as we build – as we have more capacity and more opportunities and more distribution opportunities, we think that will only grow.
Steve Byrne - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly of CLSA. Your line is open.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
After your talks with Yara ended, you talked about how valuable Brazilian distribution would be. So can you give us a sense of how OCI distribution in Brazil compares with what you might have gotten with Yara? And should we still assume that you're interested in expanding Brazilian distribution beyond what you're getting with OCI? And this is a second question. How much does your capital spend change? I don't have a great sense of where these OCI projects are in their spend cycles?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. Thanks, Mark. So very quickly in terms of Brazil, OCI has a terrific joint venture partnership with FITCO in Brazil. It's a very valuable relationship. They take no currency risk. They get cash delivery before product hits. They don't have to demurrage costs or anything.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Okay.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
It really is a terrific relationship, and we very much look forward to continuing to work with and trying to expand that relationship over time. We think that working with partners that know how to manage the local market where we're not taking currency risk or inventory risk is the best way to go. We'd prefer to partner with people as opposed to having to own the value chain end to end, and let those people manage risk in the way that they're better able to do it than we can.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
That's spot on. What you're seeing with the FITCO or with many other opportunities like that is our desire to do what we do well, which is produce and distribute our products to a point, but not being exposed to currency, demurrage, and other risks that are associated with some of these offshore markets. We know the FITCO people well and the Fertipar people well. But Brazil is a tough market. And I think you're seeing that in some of the players today, some of the bankruptcies and risks that are coming out now today with the currency problems. So I think our direction is a little bit different than PCS's and Mosaic where they desire the distribution to the end customer. That might work well for their business, but I think where we are, we're very satisfied just staying what we do best.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
And then, Mark, your question about additional capital requirements. So this is the way I think about it. By the time we close this transaction, Wever will be up and operating and D-ville will basically be up and operating. The only CapEx left in terms of the capacity expansion projects for us is going to be the remaining tail on getting Port Neal operational. As I mentioned, OCI, who does a terrific job of developing and constructing world-class assets, is doing the Natgas project, and so they're doing the CapEx spend on that to get it up and operational. So there's no capital load on us relative to getting that project up and running. And think about it this way which is on an ongoing CapEx maintenance perspective, we're increasing our total production capacity when we're fully up and operational and OCI is fully up and operational by about 25%. And so our sustaining capital is going to go up by about 25%, which means if we were spending on average about call it $400 million, it's going to be in the range of $500 million-ish in the future. So that's probably the right way to think about it.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Super helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Michael Piken of Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Hey, good morning. Thanks for providing color on your forward natural gas hedges. Could you give us any sense for whether OCI has done any sort of forward hedging on natural gas and how you sort of think about potentially managing some of the risk in Europe, and what are your thoughts on locking in some of your cost basis in that side of the business? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. Thanks, Michael. So right now there is not a significant hedge position in place, at least from an economic benefit or exposure perspective on the businesses that we're buying. We are absolutely looking at how we want to manage gas purchase across our European system now with the combination of both GrowHow and the Geleen asset going forward. We think there are going to be some opportunities there to bring some of the same approach and discipline that we have in the U.S. with our existing asset base to bear. But the great thing about the assets in Europe is the gas cost is declining, particularly when a lot of it is the oil-linked gas is some of the highest-priced stuff in Europe right now and it continues to drop with Brent price dropping. So these assets are getting more and more attractive as opposed to the other way around. It's really an exciting time to be adding them to our portfolio.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Great. And then as a follow-up, with respect to how you plan to run the European business kind of going forward, would you expect that the decisions will be made out of Deerfield or are you going to have kind of a separate European sales force and, I don't know, team leaders, and will there be kind of an equivalent of Bert in Europe or will things be sort of run out of Deerfield going forward? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. Thanks, Michael. So we're absolutely going to have someone moving in to the U.K. to be running the U.K. operations. Actually that's part of Bert's team. And because it is a global market and prices are set globally we're going to be very coordinated in terms of what happens over there with what we do on this side. So think about it as being a coordination effort but local decision-making based on the dynamics in play in the local market.
Michael Leith Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Charles Neivert of Cowen and Co. your line is open.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Morning, guys. One quick question, with all of the capacity now that you're going to be owning in Iowa when it's all said and done, do you think that the Midwest premium that now exists on products like urea and ammonia is going to continue at the current levels, or do you think it shrinks down because you're no longer going to be transporting as much? And I mean that's always been an advantage for you guys, your transport costs were far lower and therefore you sort of could take advantage of that premium more than most. Do you think that premium comes down a bit?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank, Charlie. You know again, as I mentioned before, North America's going to continue to be about 25% running a deficit, so – and that product is – tends to be used extensively in the growing regions in the Mid-Continent sort of Corn Belt region. So there will still be over a million tons of UAN that's got to find its way up the Mississippi and into the application region. There is still all that ammonia and urea that's coming into the country. And the way that pricing is set, as you well know, it's the price in the Gulf plus the transport cost to get in to market. And that – it doesn't change as a result of this transaction; it's more of the same.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Okay. Also, you didn't mention this quarter – this is just sort of going back to the quarter, how much of the ammonia that you did this particular quarter was – went to Mosaic through the Caribbean operations?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
I'm going to ask Bert to handle that.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yes. The Mosaic agreement today is principally out of Trinidad, and so we're bringing that product from PLNL, our joint venture based in Trinidad, on vessels up to the Tampa terminal, and it's about 50,000 tons, 60,000 tons per quarter. And so not – when you look at the totality of what we did in the quarter coupled with what we did in the six months, we were – had almost a record, actually our second best year or six month period in ammonia. Why? Well, a lot of that was driven with the favorable weather in the Corn Belt and the ability to continue to move ammonia into different parts of the Corn Belt as demand materialized in those positions. So it was a very, very good ammonia season for us to date.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
The other thing I'd say in that regard, Charlie, is Bert's being a little modest here but he's really led a significant amount of capital investment in our distribution facility so that we can bring more product in more quickly, we can refresh and reload the tanks and then we can also do outbound much more quickly. And as a result of a bunch of those investments in our asset and distribution network, we're able to serve the needs of the customers that much more efficiently, which is why we continue to deliver terrific ammonia volumes year-in and year-out.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Andrew Wong from RBC Capital. Your line is open.
Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. So actually want to focus on the tax part of synergies, I mean with the regulatory focus on companies trying to lower their tax rate by moving headquarters, can you just talk about any potential regulatory challenges that you might expect and how you plan to address those potential issues?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. Andrew, thanks for the question. Look, I would view this as a combination with great industrial logic. This is sort of normal course, cross-border M&A. And the issue at the end of the day is OCI is a Dutch company. And in order to be willing to do this combination, we needed to have a European headquarters. They weren't interested and it didn't make sense from a value destruction standpoint to keep the headquarters here. So that was not a deal that was on the table. They weren't interested in it. And the only way to really do it was to move the headquarters. So this is not a tax-driven deal. Sure it's a nice little bit of juice, but this is a deal with great industrial logic, great strategic benefits. And it's sort of ordinary course, cross-border M&A.
Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Okay. That's very helpful. And then just following on the export questions earlier, could you just maybe compare the net-backs that you get and the margins for exported product versus some of the U.S. product that you sell?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Well, it depends product by product. And we have exported in the past year all four of our major nitrogen products, being ammonium nitrate, UAN, urea and ammonia. And you have to remember for each of those products there are different demand periods. So, for example, ammonia is a narrow window in November and then in April and May. For UAN it's mostly an April/May consumption period, urea is more consistent throughout the year. And so as we look at different markets or different points in the United States, that can be a freight view from our different production locations that are on different railroads. And so when you're looking at an export opportunity, that is at Donaldsonville, that's the only facility in North America that can export. And so it's compared against that next best option for freight and delivery cost, net cost, to the retail or wholesale customer. And so compared against that and the timing and the shipments and the needs of the system, exports on paper can be a lower net-back but an optionality can be a better decision for the company. So that's how we look at it. We look at it holistically at the time and trying to plan our production runs and product runs to best benefit the system and our customers throughout the year.
Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question comes from the line of Matthew Korn from Barclays. Your line is open.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Hey, good morning. Congratulations again, everybody.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Matthew.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
So looking at this transaction versus others that you looked at in the past that ended up not going through, it looks like the Wever plant, the facility is a major difference, and its presence here in the given the competitive landscape of nitrogen, North America. When you're looking out over other projects that have been proposed, that are in near term or could be constructed, any other opportunities, anything else that looks interesting to you if you think that consolidation in the North American market is something that's attractive?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Well, we're at the moment worried about just kind of getting this one both integrated and firing on all cylinders, so we've had a lot of people kind of burning the midnight oil in order to get this one to this stage, and we've got to get it closed and get it operating before we think about anything else.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
All right. Fair enough. We're all paid to look ahead.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
We're excited about 55% new capacity coming online in the next 24 months. That's some pretty sizable growth right there.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
No, it's true. I told my wife all about it this morning. Let me ask this then on methanol, because I like I'm sure many others here are going to be less familiar with this market. In North America methanol as a fuel additive and a potential blend into the fuel stream, is that a real opportunity for growth here? Is that something that's, given the change maybe in the political climate around the ethanol mandate, is that something that seems realistic?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Well, there is a possibility actually to move or to do a methanol-to-gasoline process. And that is one of the options that, in fact, OCI is looking at for the Natgasoline project itself. And that has some really interesting implications, in particular there's some demand in California for this – it's really an ultrapure form of gasoline. So we're going to evaluate that hand-in-hand with OCI as we look forward and figure it out. In the U.S., though, principally most of methanol production is currently used in formaldehyde and acetic acid processes, it's not used that much for energy currently in the U.S., but there is that optionality. Although I got to say we're big fans of the ethanol market, we're supporting the corn growers in ethanol.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
All right, very fair. Thanks a lot, folks.
Operator:
Thank you. And, ladies and gentlemen, that's all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back over to Dan Swenson for closing remarks.
Daniel Swenson - Treasurer:
Thank you. In response to Jeff Zekauskas' question about our employee count, with the close of the GrowHow acquisition we have about 2,900 employees today; and with OCI being incorporated into the combined entity we anticipate that we'll have about 3,500 to 4,000 employees at transaction close. Thank you for your participation in today's call. Feel welcome to contact me with any follow-on questions.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.
Executives:
Daniel Swenson - Treasurer W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain
Analysts:
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Carl Chen - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker) Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc. Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co (Broker) Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Quarter 2015 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Carmen, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Dan Swenson, Treasurer. Sir, please proceed.
Daniel Swenson - Treasurer:
Good morning and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Swenson, Treasurer. And with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President of Supply Chain. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its first quarter 2015 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide two of this webcast presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. Yesterday, we posted our financial results for the first quarter, in which we generated $486 million of EBITDA and $4.79 in earnings per diluted share. Our first quarter was about three things
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Thanks, Tony. We are pleased with our sales results for the first quarter of 2015, as it showed the benefit of how we manage our business depending on varying market conditions. Our ammonia segment had lower sales volume when compared to the first quarter in 2014. Since we had lower inventory available coming into the quarter, we decided to maintain some of it across the seasonally weak months of January and February. That decision benefited us in April, as we saw strong demand emerge. And we were actively shipping ammonia to customers during that time period. Although our sales volumes decreased, we had much stronger average sales prices this year, due to the industry having a tighter North American inventory balance than in the first quarter of 2014. We sold a significant amount of ammonia into this market and as a result, we're able to realize an average price of $542 per short ton this year compared to $472 last year. Our urea volume increased in 2015 compared to 2014. We believed prices were attractive early in the quarter, so we took advantage of available inventory and sold it during a time of favorable pricing conditions. Throughout the quarter, urea prices declined at the U.S. Gulf in association with high global supply and a notable increase in Chinese exports. In response, we used our logistical assets to move products to regions we felt offered the most attractive pricing opportunities. The strong order book we had coming into the quarter and the decisions we made about when and where to sell our products allowed us to realize an average urea price of $344 per short ton. Our UAN segment had sales volume that was slightly lower than the prior-year period, as we had fewer attractive sales opportunities where product was readily available. Our average realized price was in line with last year, as the UAN market was relatively stable and traded at strong unit level premiums to urea. As we look to the second quarter, we are enthused about our prospects. Shipments have been brisk during the past several weeks, as farmers progressed with field work. Ammonia demand has been strong, as farmers seek to make up for a shortfall in fall 2014 ammonia application. Pricing conditions have been attractive in association with this strong demand. The urea markets saw a reduction in global prices from January through April, due to continued high production and exports from China. With U.S. Gulf prices trading down to an average of $280 per ton at the end of March, we believe a significant number of marginal producers, especially in China, are not able to cover their cash costs. This view held true, as show in the April Indian urea tender, where Chinese producers did not offer supply at prices they deemed too low. Urea pricing recovered somewhat after the tender, moving up to $300 – maybe even to $325 per short ton in NOLA by early May. We believe that the cost curve continues to hold and observe that occasionally, prices will dip below the theoretical floor, similar to what we saw in October of 2013. And then, when those marginal producers slow down shipments, it creates the condition for a price recovery. UAN shipments should be robust this spring, due to good overall nitrogen demand. With deferred fall ammonia applications and the relatively tight ammonia market, we expect that UAN will be the product of choice for farmers' nitrogen needs. However, the decline in prices in the urea market is expected to weigh on UAN prices as well. We entered the second quarter with a favorable order book, and we'll continue to take new orders as we progress through the quarter and into the fill season. We normally don't speak to the second half of the year on our first quarter call, but I will make the observation that with the start-up of our new urea and UAN plants in Donaldsonville, we will have less net ammonia available for sale in Q3 and Q4. This will allow us to make decisions with our customer and sales mix to make sure we are realizing the highest value available for our ammonia inventory. As always, we will balance our production mix based on product prices in order to maximize our earnings. Now let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Thanks, Bert. We had a good operating quarter, as evidenced by our 43.6% nitrogen product segment combined gross margin, $486 million of EBITDA and $4.79 of diluted earnings per share. A few discrete items impacted the year-over-year comparability of our EBITDA. These include the losses we had on foreign currency derivatives this year compared to the gains we had on those items last year. Largely offsetting these was the swing from a mark-to-market unrealized loss on gas derivatives last year to an unrealized gain this year. Our ammonia segment cost of sales is reflective of the price of natural gas that we purchased and used in the fourth quarter to produce ammonia inventory that was sold in the first quarter, as represented on slide six. Our reported ammonia segment gross margin percentage was also negatively affected by ammonia that we purchased at market prices from our Trinidad joint venture, and then resold to Mosaic at similar market-based prices. We had a full quarter of these sales in 2015 compared to only a partial quarter in the prior-year period. The profit from the production of this ammonia continues to reside in the equity and earnings of operating affiliates line of our income statement. In the first quarter, we had realized losses on gas hedges of $33 million. These hedges were entered into during the third quarter of 2014 when gas prices were near $4 per MMBtu. However, as gas production increased and spot and NYMEX prices decreased, we benefited, as the first-of-month settlement prices dropped to around $2.50 per MMBtu at the beginning of April and May. We believe North American gas producers have exceptional efficiencies and are driving innovations to continue increasing their production capacity while decreasing their costs. However, as Tony mentioned, we also believe that the current gas price environment presents a good opportunity to take some cost risk off the table for the rest of 2015. In accordance with this view, we decided to hedge 50% of our total gas needs for April through December, with 4.2 million MMBtus per month or about 20% of our needs hedged with collars between $2.30 and $3.20 per MMBtu and 6.5 million MMBtus per month or about 30% of our needs swapped at $2.86 per MMBtu. Additionally, we believe the forward curve out into 2016 also looks compelling at this time. We have chosen to hedge about 4 million MMBtus per month for January through October of 2016 with an average strike price of $3.04 per MMBtu. We continue to monitor and evaluate the gas market and will look at appropriate additional opportunities to hedge our gas exposure. The decline in our gas costs has been coincident with the decline in oil-based energy costs worldwide. Oil prices have since stabilized around $65 per barrel Brent. While the decline in oil prices is providing some cost relief to producers buying gas on oil in contracts, these producers are not the marginal production for urea. That continues to be Chinese producers using anthracite coal, which at recent mine mouth average prices of about $130 per metric ton, has been relatively stable. Our capital expenditures during the quarter totaled $445 million, with $318 million spent on the expansion projects. And as Tony highlighted, as of May 1, we have repurchased about 1.3 million shares since the beginning of the year. We returned $377 million to shareholders through these repurchases and further increased our nitrogen capacity to about 143 tons per 1,000 shares. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Dennis. We delivered strong results in the first quarter, despite difficult weather and market conditions. And we are well positioned for another strong quarter in Q2. The global cost curve continues to provide an accurate model of how the industry operates, and North America is clearly the advantaged location for nitrogen production. We are executing well, and our business is producing reliable, sustainable cash flows. We are delivering on our strategy to increase cash flow per share by increasing nitrogen capacity per share, which will see a dramatic increase as we bring on our new capacity additions beginning in Q3 of this year. Although our shares have dramatically outperformed all of our peers, as shown on slide 13, given the substantial growth in nitrogen capacity per share we are about to experience, there is still an awful lot of runway left for us. Finally, I would like to congratulate and thank our operating team and the plants and distribution facilities for keeping their eyes on the tasks at hand and keeping themselves and each other safe. It is a great accomplishment to work safely while running our facilities as hard as we are. Keep up the great work. With that, we will now open the line to answer your questions. Operator?
Operator:
Thank you. As a courtesy to others on the call, we ask you to limit yourself to two questions. Should you have additional questions, we ask that you reenter the queue, and we will answer additional questions as time allows. And the first question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews from Morgan Stanley.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thank you and good morning, everyone. Can I just ask you, as you think about what's happened with Chinese exports this year and the change in the tariff policy or the lack of a seasonality to it, right, so it's flat all year long. Do you envision, one, that exports will decelerate as we move through the year? And two, just as we saw probably weaker pricing in the first quarter as a result of an increased amount of exports, if we see fewer exports year-over-year in later periods – and I'm thinking maybe during fill season – do you think we'll have less of a sort of a price decline during seasonally weak periods of time? I hope that makes sense.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Good morning, Vincent. This is Bert. And so it's been an interesting development over the last several years as the Chinese exports have consistently ramped up, peaking last year, we believe. And then the changes that are taking place within China relative to the tariff change, electricity costs, freight costs and then currency issues. And so when I look at what could happen in the coming months with exports being stable, with 4.4 million tons coming out in the first quarter, I would expect it to be a little more stable and probably less. Well, with their lack of participation in the tender and then now trying to set a price floor, it looks like there's some probably more ratable nature taking place within the Chinese production community. And so in terms of fewer exports or in the later periods and supporting a fill price, I think you're spot on. I think from what the expectation was probably in March, which was the floor of the market to what fill will be to probably what reality will be in Q3, will be at a higher level.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. And if I could just ask you, I picked up from one of the trade publications that maybe some of the rainy weather near Donaldsonville had maybe pushed back the start time of the urea facility. Is that correct or incorrect?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Well, good morning, Vincent. Obviously, when it's real soupy in D'ville, it's hard to get as much progress as we'd like. But we are still absolutely committed to a Q3 start-up, and there's nothing out there that would suggest anything different than that to us today. It might have moved it a week or two later in the quarter than what we had originally desired. It doesn't change the overall sort of rough timing of a Q3 start.
Vincent S. Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Great to hear and great job on the execution. It's really great. Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Don Carson from Susquehanna Financial.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Yes. Thank you. Bert, a question on your forward order book. You mention that your book is well priced and certainly above some of the lows that we saw in New Orleans. I think you mentioned $280 short ton NOLA on urea. We've obviously seen a nice rebound in pricing. I think there's a barge yesterday at $335. So how does your book compare to current spot prices? Is it reflective of those current spot prices? And it sounds like you position yourselves that you got a lot of inventory to take advantage of the spot uptick.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah. So probably not going to give exact numbers, but we're pleased with that order book because as I mentioned in my prepared remarks that we did stay out of the market and kind of set on the sidelines during the market lows. And we've seen, I think, an unexpected, relative to the industry and where inventory was positioned, a nice price increase. And so the price that you quoted, $335 is reasonable for a spot barge in May. And we're even seeing positive pricing out into June and into late June. And so how does our book compare and with the current market? I think favorably. And we do have inventory, and we're selling into this market and anticipate it to continue probably through June and a little bit later, especially into Indiana and some of the pivot areas through UAN.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. Just a follow-up for Tony on share repurchases. Last quarter you, were a little hesitant to repurchase shares until you felt better about the expansions, which – or at least that's what you said on the call. But as you felt better of the completion, does that mean we can look forward to an acceleration of share repurchase? Or are there any other constraints such as debt levels and ratings that would cause you to hold off on the rate of share repurchase in the current quarter and the balance of the year?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning, Don. So as you know, the latest repurchase authorization that we're operating under was put in place last July, and it was for $1 billion that run through 2016. We've got about $250 million left on that authorization today. And we're going to go ahead and continue to make as rapid a progress on that as we can, given threading the needle on the issues that you talked about, which is maintaining appropriate liquidity and kind of getting through the discussions with the agencies. As Dennis mentioned last call and we continue to be focused on, we'd love to go ahead take out some additional debt associated with the new cash flow that's coming on stream with the expansion projects and put that to work at share prices that are woefully low right now and vacuum up as many of those as we can. So we haven't changed our strategy with respect to that.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar from Citi.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Yes. Hi. Good morning.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning, P.J.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Last quarter and even this quarter, you talked about stability in Chinese anthracite coal prices. But the data I've looked at year-to-date, I think anthracite coal is down 10%. Thermal coal is down even more. So maybe there's a difference in data. But what do you think is the cash cost of anthracite coal – urea cash cost of anthracite coal-based producers? Thank you.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yeah. P.J., this is Dennis. We're looking at about $130 at a mine mouth cost right now. And if you look at the slide, I believe it is on page – just grab it here for you – look at the slide on page 10, okay? What it shows there is it's about – it says $132 per ton. It takes approximately 30 MMBtus to 35 MMBtus per ton – or MMBtus per ton of urea of anthracite coal to make it. And our view is that at the transport cost from mine mouth to the plant is probably, on average around $15 per ton. So if you look at the mathematics there and you add all that up plus the transport to the coast, it's probably going to come in around $310 per short ton NOLA would be the cost of Chinese producers at the current coal prices that we see.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful – go ahead. Sorry.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
No. Go ahead.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Yeah. So my second question was, you guys make a lot of money by making these in-market decisions about when to sell ammonia, urea, UAN and what to sell, the basis difference and all that stuff. That expertise allows you to make more money than you would otherwise make. How do you make those decisions? Is that institutionalized, the process, or is that just Bert making all the calls?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
That's why Bert gets the big money. No. So Bert and his team – and I'll turn it over to him just momentarily here – but we take a very analytical approach to kind of understanding where the market sits. So we try to understand all the factors that go into it. What cash costs are in other parts of the world, what import levels look like coming in to the U.S., what demand centers there are outside the U.S. to soak up some of those tons that are moving around the globe. What producer and downstream inventory positions are, and how many acres are going to be planted and what demand looks like and how we see it developing. And so Bert and his team take all of that information and put together kind of their view of demand and where they think prices will settle, and then they build the book around and take our positions based on that information. And it just turned out to be prophetic in that approach. It's easier for me to compliment you to have to do it yourself.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Very nice. I think we have a very good team. And the team is united around many of the same issues, and we have a process that's been developed over the years where it's a quantitative view of the market. And the market is an international market. It's not a market share issue. It's not a North America market, but we're playing in a world market and the team is broad. We have people all around the world through KEYTRADE and as well as with our domestic team with different levels of experiences. But it starts with supply and demand. And then you work your way through from distribution to the international markets to storage assets and distribution capabilities, with different modes and freight options and arbitrages that are available. And then you have to bring in the whole customer dynamic of psychology and thinking around and risk and reward as well as timing with what they're thinking, acres. And then the last one is probably our production options on. We have many different products or legs of the stool that our company stands on with urea, ammonia, UAN, ammonium nitrate, DEF. And so when you look at the production mixes, that gives us a lot of optionality and we're building even more advantages into the company with these new production plants. And so when you put that all out before you and you have those types of choices, it allows us to be successful. And we enjoy the position that we have.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thank you for the detailed color. Thanks.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson from Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe first question for Dennis on the gas hedging going a bit further out on the gas hedges, both in 2015 and 2016, than has been the recent experience. And maybe at a higher-level walkthrough kind of the institutional approach to gas hedging. And is it just a market view on the natural gas market or the risk approach on your cost base? Walk us through the considerations you make when you step further out on the hedging.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Adam, I'm going to go ahead and ask Chris Bohn, who's with us on the call today, who handles all of our gas procurement and supply logistics to address that one.
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain:
Yeah. Good morning, Adam. As far as our philosophy on natural gas hedging, it really hasn't changed. We believe that there's still very strong North American natural gas fundamentals, and that's due to the immense resource space we have and then the declining production costs that we're seeing specifically over the last six months. And if you recall, our strategy is really underpinned by two points. One is to mitigate risk. And a lot of the hedging we did last year was to mitigate the weather risk when we see saw some of those drastic spikes. And then additionally, was to lock in attractive prices. And I would say that's really where, given the strong fundamentals and the flattening of the curve, where we're participating today. The positions we have in place for 2015, we feel very comfortable with where we're participating all the way down to $2.30 for 70% of our production requirements. So that's great. Looking out into 2016, we just saw some very attractive rates at the $3.04 and decided to move in to those.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay. That's very helpful. And then maybe a second question on UAN. And I think earlier this spring, you saw a pretty wide kind of price disparity on an N equivalent basis between UAN and urea. That since narrowed somewhat. Maybe talk about what you're seeing with customers, if that price spread has really driven some switching between the products and how you think about that premium moving forward.
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain:
Yeah. So the spread that we saw was driven by a couple of different issues, and ammonia stayed fairly steady from Q4 into Q1 and now through Q2. But it was urea that we saw a worldwide drop and again, as we mentioned earlier, driven by the excess of Chinese exports and the imports that arrived into North America. UAN, with the fill programs that we've put in place and then the subsequent sales, I'd say, blocks that we did in Q4 and into Q1, we're able to sustain the price level of UAN. We believe in UAN. It's got a, we believe, a pretty positive future not only for this year but in the future years, just because it's such a great product and its versatility agronomically. And so we believe that the retail as well as the farmers segment, will continue to be attracted to that because of the advantages it offers to the farmer. And they're willing to pay more for it. And so, yes, it has narrowed for two reasons. UAN has come off a little bit as we've gone through Q2; and urea has come up. And so – but the premiums in market on the retail level to the farmer has stayed pretty consistent. It's really on the NOLA and the inferior (30:26) production or the producer to the retail and wholesale segment that was pretty wide. Regarding switching – and we talk about this each year – we haven't seen a lot. As I mentioned, we have – probably, we will not hit the record ammonia level that we did last year, just due to the fact or the impact of less inventory available to sell. That being said, ammonia, even at a price spread to urea and UAN has been – it's been a positive six months or at least, now we're in the fifth month – but a positive two quarters. And I think we're going to see that for both urea and UAN also as we go forward.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
All right. Great. I appreciate the color. Thanks.
Operator:
And our next questions come from the line of Chris Parkinson from Credit Suisse.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Thank you very much for taking my call. You started the year with lower ammonia inventories, and you mentioned the first half should be lower in terms of deliveries versus the first half of 2014. But given the recent price action in Midwest ammonia and also strong April plantings and some key anhydrous states, can you just give any color on how you're positioned to further benefit from your production versatility, specifically, versus urea?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Well, Chris, I'll give you just some high level and then I'll ask Bert to further opine on topics that I missed. But if you go into the segment results, even though there's great performance that we've had on our ammonia business this year, our profitability per nutrient ton is better on the upgraded products than it is on ammonia. So to the extent that we can upgrade ammonia into urea and then further upgrade it into UAN, every time we upgrade ammonia, we get more margin for those same molecules of nitrogen. So that's a better decision for us. So in some ways, us continuing to run our upgraded plants as hard as we can has a double benefit. The first one is we get more margin on the products that we're upgrading to. And the second one is it means that you don't get sloppy in terms of the total amount of ammonia that's out there, which means that's it's a tighter ammonia market. And the prices then are that much higher on ammonia as well. So it's kind of the gift that keeps on giving. Bert, you have any other...
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
I think relative to the issue or specific to ammonia, this year, we had just a great run in terms of how it began in the South, and then we had some weather issues. But the Western Corn Belt kicked off with Nebraska running very, very hard. And then as it moved east into Iowa and Illinois, that's when the North started kicking off in North Dakota and Canada, which is still going very well. And so it allowed us, for the distribution assets for that incremental ton, to get it in market and focus. This is where our supply team did a great job, and the distribution team running 24/7, putting the product in some specific terminals with the pipes and our barges and having product available. And that was probably one of the key success factors for this period.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. And just my second question would be just when you look at the volatility of Eastern European supply over the last, let's say, 12 months or so, can you just address your own in-house views on some of the oil and (33:54) contracts there, the timing of it, potential new agreement as it pertains to ammonia? I understand, obviously, only a handful of these producers use those type of contracts, but just any color there would be appreciated. Thank you.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So a lot of those contracts, Chris, are somewhere in the six to nine months long, a few of them a little bit longer than that. The other issue around kind of deepwater ammonia or NOLA ammonia, that's relevant for us, I guess, and largely only in two ways. And while occasionally, we will do an export ammonia cargo that then has to compete on the deepwater ammonia market, generally, the places where it really comes into play is the price at which we buy ammonia out of Trinidad and then the turnaround and the price at which we sell it to Mosaic in Tampa. The deepwater ammonia price doesn't really affect the in-market ammonia price too much because there's no availability, really, for traders to be able to move ammonia up and into Corn Belt because they don't have the storage assets. So it doesn't affect really our ammonia business that much, other than on the industrial side. But...
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yeah, Chris. The other thing is just looking at nitrogen more broadly and thinking about urea. And if you look at slide nine in our deck, it's got our updated version of the cost curve for urea. And what you'll notice about that versus prior cost curves that we were showing when oil prices were at $100 a barrel is that some of the smaller columns related to Eastern Europe and Western European production have moved left from where they had been before to reflect the fact or to reflect the effect, to the degree there is an effect, of reduced oil prices on the ability to produce. But when you step away from those movements, you'll see that, A), those columns are not very thick on the graph; and, B), at the end of the day, the marginal producer still is the anthracite coal producer in China. And that sort of remains unchanged. So as we think about oil prices and the effect that they really had in our business, the answer to that is not very much.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson from Scotiabank.
Carl Chen - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker):
Hi. This is Carl Chen stepping in for Ben. Thank you for taking my question. So just wanted to circle back with regards to your expectation for the spring. How much of the Q4 pent-up demand do you expect to be shifted into the spring of this year? And looking forward, how should we think about the summer fill program given the limited producer inventory?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Okay. The expectation for the first half is very positive. We're projecting 89 million to 90 million acres of corn, and we're seeing healthy applications. So above 180 pounds per acre for corn, and you're seeing possibly some switching in the southeast. It's been very wet in that area, but that corn acreage area is pretty small. Positive rice acres coming in. And so the expectation for us in terms of how the rest of the quarter, Q2, will progress, we believe that inventories will come out of the quarter low for all products. And we think the industry will be in the same position as well as the wholesale and retail sector. And that will set up then a positive start to the fill season. We don't really anticipate a fill season for urea. We've never really done that. It's more as the market progresses, and again, as we've mentioned earlier, it's more of an internationally driven area. Ammonia, as I mentioned in my remarks, we are bringing on the production in Q3 and Q4 for the expansions in Donaldsonville. And so the excess ammonia or the extra ammonia that we would have put out into a fill program probably will not be put out or the degree that we have in the past. And then we will prepare for Q4. For fill, then, focused on the last product, would be UAN. And traditionally, we've had very successful fill programs that are driven by the need to logistically move the product into place with our retail customer base. And we're working with them. We'll start probably working on that in June with an expected later period start. And we think it'll go well.
Carl Chen - Scotia Capital, Inc. (Broker):
Great. Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Matthew Korn from Barclays.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Good morning, everybody. Dan, congratulations again on the new title.
Daniel Swenson - Treasurer:
Thank you.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Sure thing. Couple questions for you. First, if we're going to hover around this 89 million-acre level of corn planting here in the U.S. and that effectively caps the total demand for nitrogen here. What steps do you need to take, do you think, to maintain your edge in distribution that we've talked about, if this really becomes a matter of market share, ex your expansions? Are there any partnerships or tie-ups or others asset investments that you're going to need to do, particularly, if we get competitors' projects in the Midwest starting up in 2017, 2018?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning, Matthew. Couple of things, so even after all of the capacity projects that are in flight come on stream, so the most notable of those are our two projects. North America will continue to import about 20% of our total nitrogen requirements. So really, what we're doing is, for the most part, kicking out the majority of imported products. Now we will periodically do an export cargo here or there, but North America will continue to be an import-driven marketplace for the foreseeable future. We have entered into, as you said, a couple of longer-term, more partnership kinds of relationships with companies like Mosaic for ammonia and Orica on ammonium nitrate supply. And so those are things that we continue to evaluate and look at. But day in and day out, we don't see in the near term there being a dramatic change in the way that we go to market and the way that we do business. We also have the largest, most expensive distribution asset base in North America. We intend to continue to leverage that to full effect. Bert, do you have any other sort of thoughts?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah. I think going back to – even if acres have been capped and, actually, over the last five years, we've seen a fairly narrow band of corn acres from 90 million to 98 million. And even in the 98 million year, not all of that was planted. So I'd say we're probably in a 90 million to 95 million acre band. And so we've effectively been capped. And so where that goes then is our product mix and where we take our products, how we move our products, what product we're producing, the growth of DEF and the whole industrial side has been positive to CF. How we've moved our contracts with the Mosaic contract and the Orica contract moving to some long-term contracts that secure the liability of some of our ammonia as well as ammonium nitrate movement. And as Tony mentioned, just how we seamlessly move products through the market, how we can store and bridge different markets, it maximizes our efficiency. And the last two things are our people. We think we have a great team that are working with our customers to be able to move our products. You mentioned distribution. Some of our industry colleagues have focused on gaining distribution in different markets in Brazil or India or different places. I'd say at this point, we're not looking at that, but we have great relationships out in the world and we'll continue to move our products.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Matthew, one other thing, which is global demand for nitrogen is growing at about 2% per year. A lot of that, at least with respect to the U.S., is going to be on the industrial side, in particular, DEF. But there are few other places where that will continue to grow as well. And so even though nitrogen from an ag-application perspective may be relatively constant, there are other places that we're looking to, to be able to move that product into. So it's nice to be participating in a market with pretty sustained overall growth characteristics on a global basis. That's a good dynamic to be in.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Thanks, John (sic) [Tony] (42:36). Then let me follow up with this, then. How many tons of product are you currently selling into the non-ag market? Because I noticed your mention of good sales into the emissions abatement market, I was wondering if that's a short-term bump from the new MATS standards or something else and whether that should be ongoing.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
I mean think about it as kind of two-thirds, one-third, in rough order of magnitude. It's about two-thirds into the ag market and about one-third into the industrial and other kinds of application. Now embedded in industrial, we would put the ammonia contract with Mosaic. We'd put the ammonium nitrate contract with Orica. Those are clearly non-ag-related sorts of contracts. So you bundle all that together, it's about a third of our business.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Thanks very much.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly from CLSA.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Thank you. Tony, as you think about the new UAN capacity and the rest of the capacity at Donaldsonville, do you anticipate having a ready market for all that capacity at the beginning? I guess I'm trying to think about the competitive dynamic with the imports at the new OCI plant and how much the market has to adjust. And related to that, how do you think about the importance of that plan in the context of the overall expansion at Donaldsonville?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. Thanks, Mark. So one of the things we did at D'ville is to build a pretty big acid plant, 1,500 tons a day. That gives us an opportunity to really grow into that acid plant as the market continues, on a global basis, to develop and use more UAN. And we are seeing signs of global growth in demand and acceptance of that product in Latin America and other places as well. So we expect UAN to be kind of a product that continues to get traction on the global stage. But we also put in the capacity to be able to granulate 100% of the new urea plant and basically turn the acid plant off if we wanted to. So we've got terrific product flexibility in terms of configuration of mix coming out of D'ville going forward. And our belief at the beginning was we won't be running the acid plant full out from a UAN perspective, and we'll be able to dial it up and down as the market requires. But I think right now, between the various UAN capacity additions coming online in the U.S. with Weaver and then D'ville, that takes up most of what the U.S. imports in the way of UAN. There's still a little bit of headroom there. But we can dial that up and dial it down as needed. We are also evaluating other uses for that acid plant, whether it be industrial sales of nitric acid to other people and so forth so we can get full asset utilization out of that investment. But I think it's a critical piece overall in terms of our network because it gives us a lot of flexibility to be able to go urea, go UAN and move the product into the interior and/or export it as market conditions warrant.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
That's really helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Michael Piken from Cleveland Research.
Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Yeah. Good morning. I just wanted to touch base a little bit on Trinidad and how you see the gas availability issues playing out over the next couple of years. And then second, sort of the follow-up question is, as your supply agreement with Mosaic kicks in, how big of a deal is the Trinidad negotiations with the phosphate manufacturers going to be in terms of determining the cap on (46:39) global ammonia prices? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, good morning, Michael. I'll answer the second question first, and I'll kick it over to Chris to talk about Trinidad gas. But on the Mosaic side, the Trinidad product that we moved to Mosaic, I believe that contract runs through 2018. And there's a potential to extend that as appropriate from both sides. Now that contract, we're basically buying product out of the partnership in Trinidad at a market-based price and then we're selling it to Mosaic at a market-based price. As Dennis said, we are getting 100% of the profit; it just doesn't show up in the ammonia segment. It shows up below the line in the equity interest in subs. And so that one is very much at play with respect to what's going on in the global ammonia marketplace and the pricing. The agreement that we have with Mosaic for production coming out of the Donaldsonville plant is on a gas-plus basis to guarantee us a mid-teens kind of return on our investment at Donaldsonville. So what pricing happens at Tampa or the Gulf or anywhere else is irrelevant with respect to the Donaldsonville ammonia agreement, and that's the one that starts on January 1 of 2017. So that's the Mosaic piece. And then, Chris, do you want to handle the Trinidad gas?
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain:
Yeah. Michael, on the Trinidad gas, in the near term here throughout 2015, our expectation is to see somewhere averaging around 15% to maybe 20% of gas curtailment. There'll be peaks and valleys based on that. A lot of that is based on when turnarounds are going. If we know there's going to be a large gas curtailment, the producing players down there are managing their turnarounds to be during that period, so others aren't affected as much. But we would expect for the remaining part of the year to see that type of gas curtailment.
Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Okay. Terrific. Thanks. And then just one last question. If urea prices do roll over in the summer and return to levels that we saw a month ago, I mean what type of ability do some of the international producers have to flex capacity between ammonia and urea? Or do you think the guys who produced urea are still going to remain producing urea? And I'm thinking the non-Chinese producers in this instance. Thanks. Bye.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. Michael, I'll give you quick thoughts and then ask Bert to chime in as well. I mean producers, generally speaking, always have the option of not upgrading into urea and trying to sell ammonia. The issue is there's a relatively fixed amount of demand on the sort of deep-sea ammonia-traded market. And you start bringing on too much additional supply into that marketplace, and you'll see a pretty quick price drop. And so – and also, again, if you kind of go back and look at how we do segment reporting by products, we get more margin per nutrient ton for urea, even at prices in sort of low $300s than we do for in-market ammonia at $570. So there is a pretty healthy upgrade margin for people moving ammonia into urea, and then you've got a much more liquidity in terms of the urea-traded market than you do in ammonia. So our view is the people that are making urea will likely continue to make urea even at $280 a short ton NOLA. It's just, there's still more margin available there than selling it at $450 or $425 deep-sea traded ammonia.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah. The only additional comment is you do have two different markets on ammonia with east versus west and what has been happening out of the AG with ammonia shipments in the east (51:05) and different values. But you also have to factor in – because ammonia is a little bit of a different bird with where the vessels are and how many vessels are committed to a certain area and the milk runs that they run. But we do see some positive developments in the caprolactam production, phosphate production, so the demand basis for ammonia should be there for both east and west. But I agree with Tony on the upgrades. And their storage facilities that they have to load deep-sea vessels, it's much easier and the value's there for them to continue to upgrade.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Brett Wong from Piper Jaffray.
Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co (Broker):
Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Just wondering if you can talk a little bit about kind of the ag backdrop and kind of what you're seeing or expecting in terms supply and demand for corn and kind of ending stocks as we move through the year?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Bert, you want handle that?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah. So some good developments in terms of how we're seeing planting progress and the moisture profiles that are available as well as the weather patterns that are developing look very positive for corn development as well as soybeans if – we prefer corn, though, because of nitrogen demand. And so ending stocks, we've been in the 13.5% to 14% stocks-to-use ratio range. We expect with the trend-line yield of 165 to probably continue in that same vein, staying around the 13% to 14% basis level. You see some good demand for ethanol. We think that, that will continue to move forward as well as exports, maybe 1 billion gallons of ethanol for the year, maintaining that trend, 800 million to 1 billion. And so that works for good production levels. And so when you look at the price for protein and the values for DDGs and the values for ethanol and the ability to export that incremental gallon, it sets up a very positive demand trend for corn and, we think, higher planting levels. So I wouldn't be surprised, we've been in the 89 million to 90 million, to see actual corn acres be on the positive side.
Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co (Broker):
Thanks. That's really good color. Just then kind of switching to the buybacks, just wondering as you kind of get through the existing authorization, any discussions around a new repurchase authorization?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yeah. We want to finish up what we have authorization for before we get into the next chapter. But again, I think if you look at the sustainable nature of the cash flow generation that we're producing – and in fact, even if you look at the margin structure of nitrogen or, said differently, the margin structure of North American producer of nitrogen, it's way above where the margin structure in the long-term outlook is for phosphate. And it's basically on par with potash. So until we start trading at a potash kind of multiple, given that the sustainable nature of our cash flow and our margin structure is equal to that of potash, you can assume that we will be in the marketplace buying our shares down because we just have a different view of, again, the sustainable nature of the cash flows than other people do. So even though we haven't gotten there yet, that's probably where we're headed next.
Brett W. S. Wong - Piper Jaffray & Co (Broker):
That's great. Thanks a lot, Tony. Thanks.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Sandy Klugman from Vertical Research Partners.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Good morning. Thank you. A quick question. How do you think about the impact of precision agriculture on nitrogen demand? There were some reports from the past growing season that farmers were able to be more economical in terms of their application rates by using some of these advisory services.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, Sandy, I'll give you kind of my two cents and then I'll turn it over to Bert, who's got more expertise in this area. But the way we view precision ag is, it's going to be more efficient use of the nutrients that are put down, which doesn't necessarily equate to less overall nutrients. It just means that you'll end up getting likely less losses to the environment and you'll get more yield for the nutrients that are put down. And so what that may end up leading to is that you get crop production in those areas that are best able to produce those particular types of crops. So for instance, corn in the U.S. will make a lot more sense when you're able to do consistently 180 to 200 bushels per acre than it does to try to raise corn in Brazil or sections of Brazil where you've got all kinds of logistical challenges and you don't get nearly the yield. So in terms of our home demand center here in our production area, we don't necessarily see that translating into a reduction in overall nutrient use. It's more a pickup in efficiency. But Bert, you want to...?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
I think you're exactly right. It's a whole component for precision ag; seed protection, nutrients, timing. And we're working closely with the GROWMARKs, the Country Ops (56:44), the CPSs of the world, the Helenas. They're intimately involved with that, and it's the attempt to improve the financial performance of each farmer.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. Great. And just a follow-up on an earlier question on industrial nitrogen demand. Apologize if you already answered this, but how do you see that one-third, two-thirds split evolving over the next five years? And in particular, how do you think about the longer-term market potential for DEF demand?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yeah. In terms of the rough, as Tony mentioned, one-third, two-thirds, I think that's a good place to be. If we see a different return profile to the industrial market, we'll be more aggressive in the industrial market. What we've done in the past from the last five years is we've moved from the Terra acquisition, we moved more into the agricultural market because that was to our advantage with our distribution assets and where our production assets were located. It was just a natural for us to leverage our platform. As we've grown and as we're adding capacity and as we've developed some relationships, again, with Mosaic and Orica, more of the industrial side was attractive. We improved that contract that we inherited from the Terra acquisition. DEF's got a very positive growth profile, both from integer and the industry forecasts as well as our internals. You're seeing dosing grades go from 2.5 now – after 2016 to 5.5 and project to possibly to 7.5. And so with that, with the efficiency gains that are achieved, as well as the positive emission impact, DEF probably has a very long runway.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Dan Swenson for closing remarks.
Daniel Swenson - Treasurer:
Thank you. That concludes our first quarter earnings call. If you should have any additional questions, please feel welcome to contact me. Thank you for your time this morning.
Executives:
Daniel Swenson - Senior Director, Investor Relations & Corporate Communications W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain
Analysts:
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker) Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co. Kevin W. McCarthy - Bank of America Merrill Lynch Matthew James Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc. Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker) Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC Joel D. Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada) Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co. LLC Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2014 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Bridgette. I'll be your coordinator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Dan Swenson, Senior Director of Investor Relations & Corporate Communications. Sir, please proceed.
Daniel Swenson - Senior Director, Investor Relations & Corporate Communications:
Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Swenson, and with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President, Sales, Distribution, and Market Development; and Chris Bohn, our Senior Vice President, Supply Chain. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its fourth quarter 2014 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website, at cfindustries.com, and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on slide 2 of our webcast presentation and, from time to time, in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. Last night, we posted fourth quarter and full year results for 2014. For the fourth quarter, CF Industries generated EBITDA of $501 million and net earnings per share of $4.82. This brought our full year results to an EBITDA of $2.7 billion and net earnings per share to $27.08. After adjusting for the sale of the phosphate business, full year EBITDA was an impressive $2 billion and operating cash flow was $1.4 billion even in the year marked by volatile and high cost natural gas and basis differentials, record high crop production and associated pressure on grain prices and all-time record high urea exports from China pressuring global nitrogen prices. If anything, our performance in the face of those challenging conditions conclusively demonstrated the resilience and strength of our business. 2014 was a year of significant accomplishment and progress for the company. We established a new best-ever mark for safety performance, set an all-time record high for ammonia sales, closed the sale of the phosphate business for $1.4 billion, issued $1.5 billion in long-dated investment grade debt, increased the dividend 50% to $1.50 per share per quarter, bought back almost 14% of the outstanding shares of the company, and delivered a total shareholder return of 20%. Finally, we made good progress on our capacity expansion projects and are within six months of having the first production unit online. Speaking of our capacity expansion projects, I want to provide a bit more detail on them before handing the call over to Bert to discuss the market. As we have said before, our capital authorizations are intended to be accurate to within plus 10% or minus 10%. Therefore, we regard the projection of the projects as being on budget as long as they remain in that range, plus 10% or minus 10% of the original authorization of $3.8 billion. As a result of now having finalized plant designs and receiving final engineering documents, we have been able to generate a much more accurate and detailed estimate of the cost to complete the projects. Based on this projection, the estimated total cost is just inside the plus 10% level at roughly $4.2 billion. Even though our best estimate is still technically within budget, in the spirit of transparency and full disclosure, we felt it important to provide this update. While we have much greater clarity today on the expected total costs for the projects, based on our construction experience to date and the finalized engineering documents, there does remain some areas of uncertainty. However, even though there are certain unknowns and things outside of our control, most notably, weather, we fully expect the final total cost to land within plus or minus just a few percentage points from this latest estimate. The increase in cost is primarily attributable to the expansion at our Port Neal, Iowa Complex due to increases in materials and the corresponding labor needed to fully winterize the plants in Iowa and also an increase in the wage rates and per diems associated with attracting and retaining skilled labor in the Northern Midwest. The Port Neal project remains on schedule with the ammonia plant expected to start up in mid-2016 and the urea plant following in the third quarter of 2016. The Donaldsonville project, which does not share any of the Port Neal specific issues, remains right on track for both cost and schedule. The urea unit is expected to be operating in the third quarter of this year, roughly six months from now. We plan to have the UAN plant online in the fourth quarter and the ammonia plant in the first quarter of 2016. The projects are still expected to generate internal rates of return well into the teens and significantly above our cost of capital. Now, let me hand the call over to Bert to discuss the recent quarter and our outlook for the first half of 2015. Bert?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Thanks, Tony. Global nitrogen markets had attractive pricing conditions as we came out of the third quarter and into the fourth quarter of 2014 driven by restocking activities to replenish depleted inventories and tight supply dynamics in ammonia and urea driven by third quarter outages. Our record crop last year meant that the soil was significantly depleted of nutrients. That, combined with our projected 90 million acres of corn planting in 2015, created the backdrop for a stronger fall ammonia application season. However, harvest progress was well behind the five-year average and even behind the fall of 2013. In those areas where the crop was taken off, Ag ammonia demand was strong. We saw a good ammonia movement in October and early November, particularly in the northern regions. The slower than usual harvest in Iowa, Nebraska and Illinois created an issue when very cold weather and wet weather descended upon the Upper Midwest in mid-November. The result was, although there was significant farmer interest in ammonia, actual shipments did not materialize because farmers were not able to get into the fields for application. Our ammonia segment had an increase in revenues due to the inclusion of our sales to Mosaic and the favorable pricing conditions versus last year's fourth quarter. We had good price realizations as we sold against our order book and took advantage of what's – sales opportunities existed. While we did have lower domestic sales volume in the shortened application season, we expect that demand was simply pushed into the first half of 2015. The tight urea supply conditions of the third quarter continued into the fourth quarter, with turnarounds and outages continuing at a high level until midway through the quarter. Regions with gas supplies constraints, including Egypt, Pakistan, Trinidad and Bangladesh, continued to see curtailed operating rates as well. Urea prices, particularly in North America, compared favorably to last year even though we saw a record volume of urea exports from China. These record exports of nearly 15 million short tons were required due to both the urea outages and a high level of Indian demand. We estimate that India is on track to purchase over 9 million short tons of urea for their fertilizer year versus the five-year historical average of about 8 million tons. The healthy international urea market and the purchasing activity in North America as retailers and distributors restocked inventories led to our quarterly average urea price of $358 per short ton, which was 7% higher than a year ago. Our sales volume was 6% higher in the fourth quarter of 2014 compared to 2013 as we chose to sell into this market throughout the quarter rather than build inventory. The UAN market was active during the fourth quarter, with preparations for the first half of 2015. As the fourth quarter developed and the industry saw the ammonia application season curtailed, interest in UAN orders increased as retailers and distributors anticipate it will be needed in the spring to cover overall nitrogen demand. Our UAN segment had a decrease in sales volume in the fourth quarter of 2014 compared to 2013. In 2013, we chose to export some volume of UAN in order to balance our overall inventory system. In 2014, we had a lower level of inventory in our system with the expectations of more attractive conditions for the first half of 2015. We chose to build inventory and keep UAN here for domestic sales which we booked during Q4 for delivery in the first quarter and second quarter. Our other segment had solid top line performance as we experienced an increase in AN shipments and a continued significant growth in DEF, along with a notable decrease in DEF prices versus last year – increase in prices, excuse me. As we move through this winter and towards the spring of 2015, we are very pleased with the order book we have in place and the demand we expect to see this year. We continue to project that U.S. farmers will plant about 90 million acres of corn. With less fall ammonia applied in 2014, we anticipate healthy demand this spring for all three major forms of nitrogen. We have a good order book in place for ammonia and confidence in our business prospects going into the first quarter and second quarter. We estimate that only 60% to 70% of the normal ammonia volume went to the ground in the fall. Given the demand expected this spring, we have been working to produce and position ammonia across our distribution system. Additionally, we do think some ammonia demand will migrate over to UAN and urea and we are preparing for that as well. In the fourth quarter, we anticipated that urea prices would trend down as they recently have. So, we made the decision earlier this winter to build our 2015 urea order book for delivery out into April. We are also pleased with our UAN order book. UAN prices have been at a premium to urea and ammonia on a nutrient ton basis. We anticipate that UAN demand will be strong as farmers in some areas will need UAN to complement or replace ammonia so that they can get the full nitrogen application needed for maximizing their crop yields. I would note that we have not seen any significant decline in nitrogen prices as a result of the significant drop in global oil prices. Urea, in particular, continues to trade at the prices that are determined by the cost structure of Chinese manufacturers utilizing coal as their primary feedstock. There is very little relationship between international coal prices and coal prices in – or oil prices and coal prices in China, as oil is primarily a transportation fuel and Chinese coal is produced and consumed locally, primarily for power generation and other uses. We have seen stability in Chinese coal prices and, therefore, in Chinese urea cost structure in the latter half of 2014. Additionally, we know that the Chinese government is rolling back subsidies for urea producers in a number of areas, most recently in the freight rates offered to inland producers. These factors further support our confidence in the stability of the floor pricing structure within the nitrogen industry and, therefore, our prospects for strong cash generation even in a supply-driven nitrogen market. Now, let me turn the call over to Dennis to discuss our financial results.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Thanks, Bert. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we generated EBITDA of $501 million and earnings per diluted share of $4.82. Included in these results for the quarter were $67 million of pre-tax expenses for selected items listed on slide 19, which had an $0.84 impact on net earnings per diluted share. For the full year 2014, our EBITDA was $2.7 billion including a $750 million pre-tax gain on the sale of our phosphate business. We had operating cash flow of $1.4 billion. Our natural gas cost for the quarter included a realized loss on derivatives of about $5 million. This loss primarily reflects the expense of option premiums paid for the derivative instruments as NYMEX natural gas prices settled within the band of our hedged collars for most of the quarter. We are very encouraged by trends in the natural gas market. While the collars we have in place for the first quarter are above the price where gas settled for in January and February and well above the current price for March, we have no hedges in place beyond the first quarter. Natural gas production in the lower-48 states was, on average, almost 5 BCF per day higher in the fourth quarter of 2014 than in 2013. Higher production combined with lower-than-expected natural gas consumption, so far, this winter has led to industry projections that the natural gas storage balance will be above the five-year average at the end of winter and significantly above by November of 2015. As a result, NYMEX futures prices have decreased and are currently below $3 per MMBtu through the latter half of this year, as compared to our full year 2014 average cost of $4.25. We are closely monitoring this market and assessing if or when we would hedge our gas exposure beyond the first quarter. At this time, we are comfortable participating in the spot gas market. It is notable how the entire forward NYMEX strip has moved down since November of last year with annual futures prices not breaking the $4 per MMBtu level until 2022. We believe that future gas prices in 2016 and beyond have fallen for several reasons. Near-term, the marginal cost of new natural gas production will continue to fall, as the cost of rigs, materials and other field services deflate with the reduction in oil-directed drilling and development activity, making it less costly to bring out additional gas wells. We believe longer-term demand side impacts are also coming into play. As global oil linked to LNG prices have decreased, investment in future U.S. LNG export projects becomes less attractive. Similarly, new investment in olefins production from U.S. ethane has to account for the lower margin umbrella provided by more competitive naphtha-based ethylene production. We finished the year with total cash capital expenditures of $1.8 billion, consisting of about $500 million for maintenance and sustaining items, and $1.3 billion expended on the expansion projects. This brings the project to date total cash expenditures for the expansion projects to $1.8 billion. Our capital expenditures are projected to be in a range of $2 billion to $2.5 billion in 2015, including $1.5 billion to $2 billion for the expansion projects and approximately $500 million for all other items. During 2014, we increased our quarterly dividend by 50% from $1 per share to $1.50 per share. This is part of the commitment we have to increasing the dividend through time and using it as a means to return cash to shareholders. However, our share repurchase program has been and continues to be our preferred means of returning cash to shareholders. As of January 31, 2015, we had 47.9 million shares outstanding. This is the lowest number of shares outstanding ever for CF Industries as a public company. It is the result of our returning $5 billion of cash to shareholders by repurchasing more than 25 million shares since the Terra acquisition in 2010. In the process, we have increased the potential future cash flow available per share as represented in our nitrogen tons per thousand shares metric as shown on slide 8. This figure has increased from 53 nitrogen nutrient tons per thousand shares prior to the Terra acquisition to 140 nitrogen nutrient tons per thousand shares today, an increase of 165%. And with the capacity expansion projects, the 140 nitrogen nutrient tons per thousand shares is well on its way to being 175 nitrogen nutrient tons per thousand shares with additional upside from potential future repurchases. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Dennis. We are proud of our performance in 2014 particularly given the challenging market conditions we face. And I want to thank all of our employees for their contributions to the success. As we look forward to the first half of 2015, we are encouraged by the market demand for our products and our healthy order book. We see gas costs that are substantially below last year which will have a direct impact on our profitability. We are also excited about the new production we will be bringing online at Donaldsonville in the second half of the year. As we look farther out, we again see a forward gas cost that is substantially lower than previously expected, as Dennis mentioned, not reaching $4 per MMBtu for a full calendar year until all the way out to 2022. We also see our production increasing more than 25% over current levels as first the Donaldsonville expansion project followed by Port Neal come on-stream. We are excited about our future and the very significant cash flow generation we will be able to deliver to our shareholders. With that, we will now open up the line to answer your questions. Operator?
Operator:
Thank you. Our first question is from Chris Parkinson with Credit Suisse. Your line is open.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much. Given just the increase in cost versus the original $3.8 billion number, can you just give us a little more of an idea on the degree of confidence you have on both timelines, as well as any key remaining construction benchmarks you have over the next 6 months to 18 months depending on the project?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes, Chris. Let's start off and kind of go operating unit by operating unit. When we talk about D'ville urea being online in about six months, realistically that means we need to be mechanically complete there in about three months or four months. So, when we do our next conference call, we should be either mechanically complete or within a week or so of being there. So, I think everyone will get a very good indication of exactly how we're tracking against production schedule at D'ville, and we feel very good about that. We've got a team executing that project that built and commissioned Urea 4 and UAN 2 at Donaldsonville back in the 1980s. They've done it before and they know what they're doing, and we feel very good about that. Following that is UAN, and again, I think people should be able to hopefully take some confidence where we are three months from now on our next call on urea that that should translate into UAN. The one that's a little bit further out, obviously, is Port Neal. And we've got another winter to get through. Weather and uncertainty and so forth can affect that a little bit. But we're not trying to be anything more specific on Port Neal than somewhere in the middle of 2016 before that ammonia starts up, and then urea in Q3, and we feel very good about that. So, barring something really unexpected, if we get torrential rains and soupy conditions in one of the areas where it's tough to get some work done, we end up with a river flooding, we end up with something, again, that's well outside the norms of what we would expect, we feel very good about the projection on schedule, and we've done a tremendous amount of cost work. And again, we now have very detailed finalized plans and issued for construction engineering documents, line item, what they call takeoffs, which gives you the labor content for all of the operating units, and the number racks up to $4.2 billion or in that range. So, we feel very good about it within the scope of what's within our controllable universe.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. And just a quick follow-up on your order book going forward. As you mentioned, UAN prices have been pretty solid, while on the urea front you're seeing some divergence actually between oil (22:43) prices and then, like, Mid-Con and Canadian prices. Can you just give us some additional color, and I know Bert hit on some of this, on your forward order book and how you're targeting to maximize profitability, including any opportunities particularly for the second quarter? Thank you.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Okay. Good morning. And we do have a number of opportunities when we come into the quarter, how we look at the forward opportunities available to the company, what products we choose to produce, whether we're favoring urea or UAN and sometimes even maximizing ammonia. But you have seen a correction in urea that's taken place over the last several weeks. Part of that is reflected in the international market. You're seeing a lack of demand in a number of the Southern Hemisphere areas that would pull, principally Brazil, and a lot of markets stepping out of the purchasing activity, some of that in Europe also, waiting for Europe to take off. And so, North America becomes a destination for extra tonnage, and that has taken place. We had that as a possibility in our market outlook. And so, because of that, we built our order book and selling all the way into April in the fourth quarter in anticipation of what we believe due to the commodity disruptions and market disruptions that were taking place in Q4 and early in Q1. So, for that reason, we feel very good about where we are and our possibilities and the profit opportunities available to the company when you roll in the lower gas costs that are available starting in Q2.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker):
Perfect. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Don Carson with Susquehanna Financial. Your line is open.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you. Bert, I want to go back to this issue of demand shift from Q4 to spring of 2015. In a normal year, how much nitrogen do farmers put down in the fall, and how far below that were we? I know you gave us the number for ammonia. And then, would you think that in calendar 2015 that nitrogen shipments could actually be up in the U.S., given this shift from spring – or from fall to spring and your forecast for 90 million acres of planting?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
So, good morning. And so, looking at the demand shift, we did have the weather issue. So, I think the farmers were – what we were seeing in terms of pre-purchases and planning for applications in Q4, we were planning and I think the market was planning for full applications throughout the Midwest. Generally, a farmer's applying less than he used to. They used to be 180 pounds, all applied in the fall, of ammonia. Today, that's probably closer, depending on if you're doing variable rates with fall and spring applications, which correlates very well to the 4R program that the TFI is advocating, you're seeing a lower level of ammonia in the fall, so 100 pounds per acre to 120 pounds per acre. I do think some demand has shifted. Actually, we know it has because when we go around and survey our retail customers in the high-application states like Iowa, Illinois and Indiana, and also Nebraska, that a lot of demand that was not fulfilled due to weather will be applied in the spring. That being said, it's a shortened season and when you take in weather risks, getting all of that ammonia down in the spring is probably a little bit harder. And so, that's why we shifted more of our attention and customers did also to UAN for sales into Q2. We're pretty positive on the 90 million acres of corn. There have been projections, a little bit lower. But in discussions, again, with the retail segment that we do business with as well as other participants in the value chain, seeds and chemical people, we believe that it's going to be a very healthy corn-planting season with good nitrogen demand to follow.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
And just a follow-up on the increased capital expenditures, roughly $400 million or so. Does that mean that there'll be less free cash flow this year that you'll devote to share repurchase? How do you see that impacting the rate of return of cash to shareholders in 2015 and 2016?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yes, I wouldn't link it necessarily directly to the projects but obviously, our priority is getting the projects done, Don, as you know – this is Dennis. My guess is that looking at it right now, between now and sort of the end of second quarter, it's unlikely that we'll be in the market buying many of our shares back. As we get to midyear, I suspect we'll take a look at where things are. We'll have greater clarity on a number of items and then we could be back in the market later this year, repurchasing shares. Our view is that our shares today represent a good value, even up near $300. And our appetite for buying in those shares to increase the nitrogen nutrient tons per share metric and cash flow generation capacity per share is a good thing for us to be doing.
Don D. Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group LLLP:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Thanks, and good morning, everyone. Could you talk a little bit about the way you're thinking about natural gas going forward? And I guess I don't just mean in a vacuum, in terms of your view on gas, but I am also kind of asking in terms of, you got Donaldsonville just about to start up. You talked about leveraging the new assets up. So how do you triangulate the opportunity to maybe lock in the cost side of the ledger with the ability to maybe borrow potentially upon startup of the facilities rather than waiting later on in order to – you just said you think the stock's attractive at these levels and presumably the stock will go up as your earnings go up. So how do you think about sort of the risk/reward associated with maybe hedging and maybe borrowing some money to buy stock back?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning, Vincent. I'm going to take a first crack and then I'm going to turn it over to Chris Bohn who heads up all of our supply chain logistics and gas buying to give you his thoughts as well. But I think people have continually asked us this question over the past few years which is you got all this new capacity coming online, don't you think you should lock in your cost structure. And had we done it any time up to this point we would be way out of the money. We are big time believers in the resource base of gas in the United States, the ingenuity of people here to find lower and lower cost ways to extract that gas out of the ground. And as a result, the long-term very low cost environment that we're operating in as reflected in the NYMEX strip which is below $4 all the way out to 2022. And so we're delighted to be spot buyers right now and really think about hedging as a way to get rid of seasonal volatility as opposed to some long-term concern with the cost structure of gas in the U.S. Now, it doesn't mean that we wouldn't entertain something, but I think we feel very comfortable with the supply response in the U.S. When gas got up to $5 in the first quarter of last year on average, you see a production increase of 5 BCF a day on a demand base of, what, 67? So, it's a huge percentage increase in production, and costs of bringing new wells online are only decreasing as time goes on. But, Chris, you want to...
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain:
Yes, just to build on that, Vincent. As Tony mentioned, at this time, we're fine being spot buyers. When you look at 2015, last week's storage report shows that we're over 0.5 TCF greater in storage than we were last year at this time. Production continues to be strong where we're 5 BCF to 6 BCF greater per day in production than we were last year. And really based on this, we view 2015 as a significantly oversupplied market. And as a result, as Dennis mentioned in his comments, you're going to start seeing the conversation shift to the fall for storage containment issues. And as Tony mentioned, it's really illustrated in the strip right now where we're having one of the coldest Februaries we've ever had, and you have March trading at sub-$2.80 and the rest of the strip not above $3 than November. So, it's not to say that we wouldn't move in to some sort of position to mitigate weather or any other demand response, but right now we're pretty happy being spot purchasers.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
And I'm going to ask Dennis just to comment on the debt piece.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yes, Vincent, I think we've talked about this maybe on the last call. But, obviously, we're mindful of the fact that as the projects come on, we will have significant additional debt capacity. We're also mindful of the fact that we have a commitment to our bondholders and then to our board of directors which they support to remaining ourselves – to keeping ourselves as an investment grade credit. That having been said, though, obviously as we get to the latter half of this year and we start seeing units start up in Donaldsonville with a view – a very close view to the ammonia units starting up there in the very beginning of next year, we're going to be in conversations with the rating agencies over what is the exact timing and amount to bring on additional debt. What I would say is we are very mindful of the fact that our shares don't have the value fully baked into them associated with the capacity expansion projects. And we're very mindful of the fact that we will be having significant additional debt capacity. It's just managing all those things within the parameters to keep ourselves on the straight and narrow with our BBB rating.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
And just as a quick follow-up, do you have a sense of if you wanted to go out further on the gas strip, how far out there, there's meaningful liquidity for you?
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain:
Yes, we could, I mean, there's liquidity probably three years out to five years out that we could go for certain tranches of that. I think you've seen some of our competitors, late last year mention that they've gone out through 2018 with a three-year portion of tranche. It'd really just be us looking at what we believe, to Tony's point, that we think the overall natural gas cost structure is going to be lower. So, it's just a decision on that point.
Vincent Stephen Andrews - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thanks very much for all the answers.
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain:
Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Yes. Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe just following on about the capital discussions on the return side, and I know in the prepared remarks, I'm not sure whether Dennis or Tony, alluded to dividends being an important component of the future returns, but share repurchases being more important. As the capacity expansions come online, how do you think that dividend component of the cash return mix changes or how is that your thinking evolve there as you move out to 2016, 2017 and you're fully loaded on capacity?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes, good morning. I'd say, as long as we think there's a meaningful discount in our shares versus what we believe to be something approximating intrinsic value, we're going to have a strong bias towards aggressive share repurchases, because we think that will generate superior returns for our longer-term shareholders. And as you see that discount disappear, I think you would see us go heavier and heavier up on the dividend. Now, that said, we do have a desire to grow our dividend over time and we think that's an important signal to the marketplace. And it does provide a bit of a floor for our shares to constantly trade above, given what the yield desires are in the marketplace. So, I think there's a place for both of them. I don't think it's exclusively one or the other. But as long as we see opportunities to continue to drive really significant value for our shareholders by buying in cheap shares, we're going to want to do that.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay. That's helpful. And then maybe switching gears to the market; can you talk a little bit about the situation in India and that ties into the pace and magnitude of urea exports out of China last year and what is expected this year? But I mean, India is going to have a new budget shortly and there's discussion about changes in the urea subsidy. They're obviously an important consumer of Chinese urea. And how do you risk-adjust kind of the potential changes in the Indian demand this year and the impact to global supply-demand balances?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Good morning. This is Bert. They have a huge impact on the global supply and demand balance, importing almost 9 million tons, as we mentioned in the prepared remarks, above the historical average of 8 million tons. That being said, they consume over 30 million tons, and a lot of that is produced what we believe at high cost levels. And so, when you have a country that is consistently experiencing brownouts and the lack of energy, but directing that energy resource base to fertilizer rather than to building out the energy infrastructure, I think that is where India should or possibly could go as we move forward. And we saw that last year with the naphtha-based urea plants going offline. So, I would say, for longer-term looking forward, at 30 million tons maintaining that consistent demand base, I would expect to see more imports from China and Iran coming to India and less domestically produced product as those older plants go offline due to whether that be, again, being 34-year-old steel, as well as the high cost of energy. And so, that's why we're fairly positive if a lot of the pearled urea in China goes to India. It doesn't have too many markets internationally, anyway. So, that product needs to stay in China, go to India or a few other low-quality markets in the world. Not much granular that comes out of China goes to India, that goes to more of the Western Hemisphere, as well as into – little hits going into Europe.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
But, Adam, I think, relative to China, we also would expect that over the next year or two years there to be a significant amount of urea production, particularly the gas-based urea production in China that will likely be coming offline because gas just won't be allocated for that use. And so, we really think that kind of the high watermarks for Chinese urea export sort of last year maybe into this year and then we see it trailing off as we go forward.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs & Co.:
Okay. That's very helpful. I'll pass it along.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Kevin McCarthy with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Your line is open.
Kevin W. McCarthy - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Yes, good morning. A question on urea; if we look at the U.S. benchmark prices, it was a fairly significant sequential decline moving from the third quarter into the fourth quarter and yet your realized prices held exactly flat. So, I wonder if you could talk through how you're able to accomplish that, did your mix changed and what your outlook would be given your order book for the first quarter.
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
In this type of market, we're always analyzing the options available to the country whether that again be production options, market options, export options. And so, during Q3, we saw some of the positive opportunities, in Q4 that were available to the company, we executed against those. These markets, they do oscillate up and down. We have different pricing structures whether that be a forward sale, an index sale, a spot sale. Again, we utilized all three as well as interior sales to achieve our – which we're very pleased with our UAN price realization. Coming into Q4 or coming out of Q4 into Q1, the correction that we're currently experiencing right now didn't start until January. And we have seen an international movement with a little bit of a decline in urea. But we expect a lot of that demand is being pushed into – later either into Q1 or into Q2. Times like this happen, a lot of demand is pushed forward when people try to buy at the bottom and the correction is actually fairly steep because a lot of that demand comes in at the same time. So I would expect that urea prices would trend up going into Q2 and we'll capture some of that price appreciation when it's available.
Kevin W. McCarthy - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. And then as a follow-up, if I may, would you comment on the financial impact of the outage at Woodward, Oklahoma in the quarter?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
We had fixed plant write-offs during the quarter and they were approximately $10 million, fixed plant write-offs and I don't have quantified what the EBITDA loss was, but I don't think that it would have been substantial in the quarter.
Kevin W. McCarthy - Bank of America Merrill Lynch:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator:
Our next question is from Matthew Korn with Barclays. Your line is open.
Matthew James Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Hey, good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my question.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning.
Matthew James Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
Tony, I wanted to follow up a little bit on the statements you made about the Chinese urea production. As you cited in your presentation, the Chinese have been adapting a number of policies in attempt to shore up their struggling domestic coal industry. It would seem that with the volume of exports so high, that would be breaching fairly deep into the Chinese supply curve to kind of source all the exports. Are there any indications today that feedstock availability is affecting any of these urea producers, be it straightforward coal import limits or coal quality limits or new environmental controls, anything which you're seeing there?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
No. Matthew, what we do track pretty carefully is the price for anthracite lump both in terms of RMB and then on an exchange rate basis, what that looks like in USD and a dollar per MMBtu equivalency. And it did sort of come down and hit a low point as we got into kind of August, September of last year. And then it kind of started rising again, and where we were in, in January and now is more similar to where we were at kind of June, July timeframe, which is a stronger cost and, therefore, higher price or higher cost urea. But it doesn't move dramatically. It's been fairly small movements, kind of $0.20 per MMBtu, $0.30 per MMBtu equivalency. Given just the sheer volume of coal mining activities, we haven't been made aware of any kind of difficulty securing feedstock there. So, that has not shown up. Now, there have been a few smaller, kind of more privatized plants that have been – I think about 2 million tons worth that have been permanently taken out of production just because of the economics didn't work. But we haven't seen supply of coal really being a challenge.
Matthew James Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
All right. Thanks. Let me follow up, I guess, on some of the CapEx questions. You mentioned that the cost inflation you're seeing for the projects now don't really change your view on the cost side, like locking in either cost or natural gas. Does it increase any incentive to lock in new margins with more indexed or cost-plus contracts for Donaldsonville and Port Neal, kind of what you've done with Mosaic or I think some of the AN product you've had, you've done before?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, Matthew, as we think about indexed or kind of cost-plus contracts, most of that tends to be for more industrial-based customers. So, Mosaic, we view absolutely as an industrial user of ammonia because it's an input into their process. The situation we have with ORECA on the supply of AN similarly as an industrial application. It starts getting tough for us to allocate big chunks of our volume on a cost-plus basis to agricultural customers because the minute you start going that way with one, everyone wants a piece of that action. And so, I think what you might see us doing would tend to be more on a market index kind of basis and allocating volumes to certain customer requirements that can be priced off of an indexed basis, but cost-plus is not really the direction, generally speaking, that we want to take the business. And part of the reason for that is we sit in a very, very advantaged location on the global cost curve and it is a global commodity that's priced off the highest price producers which, in this case is Chinese-based anthracite coal, and we want to capture the spread between our cost position versus the high-cost producers. We don't want to give that away to other people in the industry.
Matthew James Korn - Barclays Capital, Inc.:
All right. Thanks, Tony. Good luck with spring.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Hi. Good morning.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Good morning, Jeff.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Hi. If you had to allocate the $40 million in mark-to-market losses across your segments, how would you do that?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yes. Typically what we do, when we think about that, if you had to allocate, you'd basically be allocating on a gas usage basis. So if you think about ammonia sort of 33 MMBtu's per ton of ammonia, that would be a logical way to do it.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes. Almost all the gas use sits in ammonia and then it's only another kind of 3.5 to 4 to get it to urea, and very little on the AN and other product side; so, almost all of the gas consumption goes into initial ammonia production, yes.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay. And then for my follow-up, so, this year, you'll bring on Donaldsonville, and maybe Orascom will bring on its facility. Do you think that in 2016, nitrogen pricing will be affected by the capacity expansions in the U.S., or do you think it would be unaffected?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Well, I mean, I think anytime you end up with lumpy chunks of supply coming on, there's going to be a short-term settling-out period as the market absorbs that. But because it is a globally traded commodity and things move pretty quickly to find the best possible netbacks, I don't think it's going to be a prolonged issue. I think it's one of those situations that traders will start moving tons back and forth if they can make $5 or $10, and cargoes that have found their way over to the U.S. could quickly find themselves being moved someplace else if there's margin to be had by doing that. The international global trade is pretty efficient at finding ways to make a little bit of an arbitrage here or there. So, these things have a way of balancing themselves out. And I'd say, longer-term, Jeff, the U.S. today or North America today imports roughly 40% of its total nitrogen requirements. And even with all of the projects that are currently in flight, coming on-stream by the end of sort of 2016 and into 2017 for some of those other projects, North America will still import about 20% of our total nitrogen. So, we will still be an import marketplace where the price is determined by bidding product away from the international market. And so, we don't see the projects that we have in place as having a negative kind of permanent overhang on the pricing environment in North America.
Jeffrey J. Zekauskas - JPMorgan Securities LLC:
Okay, great. Thank you so much.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from P.J. Juvekar with Citigroup Global Markets. Your line is open.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Yes. Hi. Good morning.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Morning, P.J.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Couple of questions on China. You talked about urea being unaffected by oil prices. But recently Chinese coal prices have been declining in last few months. How confident are you that the floor on the urea cost curve will hold in China? And then secondly on China, I think you said that Chinese exports of urea will be at a minimum of 11 million tons. Are you saying that Chinese exports will decline this year?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, P.J., let me handle the first part of that question and then I'll turn it over to Bert to talk about the export volume. So, the data that we have on anthracite lump coal, and I'm going to go back to beginning in sort of August of 2014, it was about RMB800 per ton. And it dropped a couple of RMB in September, RMB798. Then it went up to RMB802. Then in October, it was back to RMB798, December topped all the way up to RMB819 and where we were in January with RMB829. And if you look at the exchange rate, it hasn't moved that much. So on a dollar per MMBtu equivalency, we're actually fairly high again right now relative to where we were up through the second half of all of last year. And this is based on an average of 15 different locations across China in terms of price points for anthracite lump coal. So, I'm not exactly sure where the data that you're looking at is coming from in terms of the cost coming down for coal. But that's not what we see, and it's not what's reflected in terms of pricing for urea coming out of China. You don't see a precipitous drop in what the trader cost structure looks like. So, I think it would support sort of our view of what the internal cost position is on Chinese production. Bert, you want to handle the volume issue?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
So, in our projections and what we stated was we're expecting a minimum of 11 million tons, it could be bigger than that, to come out this year, but you have a different marketing construct coming into 2015 than we had in 2014. With a different tax structure and the need not to build inventory in anticipation of the export season happening as did in 2014, I think you're going to see a more ratable volume coming out per month from China. Currently, they're having to build their internal inventory for their spring demands, and we're not seeing the movement coming to the ports, except for Indian tenders that have been fulfilled. And so when you look at the market and where the Chinese product can go, there are some quality discounts that the market takes when they purchase Chinese product. And then the need not to build inventory in that May, June, July period for their previous export period, we're fairly confident that urea exports will be lower than 2014, and that's where we said a minimum of 11 million tons. But it could be in that range of 11 million short tons to 15 million short tons.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Okay. Thank you. And then second question, you talked about dealers replenishing inventories. So, where do we stand in terms of dealer inventory, and do you have any sort of ballpark rough estimate on where do we stand in terms of farm-level inventory?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yes. It differs from product to product. I'll only focus on nitrogen. You can talk to the other guys about P and K. Ammonia sits with the producers, that's why our ammonia distribution system is so important to what we do and how we do it. We're able to safely move our product up through and into the Midwest through the NuStar and the Magellan pipeline, as well as with our barge system and then backfill only a little bit through rail. So we're currently preparing for that. Our inventories were fairly low coming out of Q4, but they were low coming into Q4. And so, we are in a build-out stage for probably starting – it looks like we could have a little earlier application window based on what's happening in Texas and Oklahoma. And then UAN and urea, we believe that a lot of the UAN inventory was so low coming really into Q3 and through Q3 because a lot of it got put down on the ground late last year and you can see that corresponding to the high yields that were achieved in corn in 2014. And so, we believe UAN inventories had to be built up to meet spring demand and then coupled with a drop in ammonia that may not be made up in the spring, you're going to need additional UAN or urea most likely. And so, you're seeing a higher level of imports. We think that those are balancing the market quite nicely. And so, we're pretty positive for UAN. For urea, we have had also a higher level of imports, but almost the same situation of UAN where inventories were low and a lot of product went over top of the corn late in the growing season last year. So we think inventories are adequate for all three products and we should do well this spring.
P.J. Juvekar - Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (Broker):
Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Mark Connelly with CLSA. Your line is open.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
Thank you. Two things; first to just follow on to that comment, CF has obviously done a good job managing logistics, but the logistics issue is still out there, and I'm just curious if you think it's still affecting the way producers are thinking about the spring and positioning product into the spring. And then the second question, when you look at the new cost estimates for your nitrogen expansions, you listed changes in scope and changes in labor. I'm trying to get a sense of how much that might be impacting some of the other projects that are out there, if you have any view on how much of it was just CF-related changes in scope, and how much of it is labor and other things that other people are going to feel too.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
You bet. Mark, good morning. I'm going to handle the cost escalation, and then I'll ask Chris Bohn to handle the logistics piece. On the cost stuff, the increases that we have seen are largely a function of building a plant in the Upper Midwest, and the changes in scope are differentials versus the projected model that we got initially from Uhde ThyssenKrupp because they haven't built that many of these plants in the northern climes recently. Most of them have been built in Middle East, North Africa and other places. So, they have a model of what this plant is, and then they try to put a weather package on it to put it in the northern tier. And what we found is that the actual amount of steel went up pretty substantially, and the amount and depth of the number of pilings, the depths of the foundations and platforms, everything was quite a bit higher than what the original estimate was coming out of the engineering firm. And part of that is because you got to get well below the frost line. You've got huge wind loading on these big buildings and exterior structures that are covered, that beefs up the amount of structural steel that you need which again adds more concrete to the platforms. And as a result, there's this sort of escalation factor that was not originally accounted for when we got our original estimates from Uhde. And so, those are factors that are going to hit anyone building in whether it's Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, up into Québec and into The Dakotas. They're going to be faced with those same challenges of winterization package driving increases in material scope. In addition to that, the cost of getting skilled labor to come out of the Gulf region and move into the northern area particularly during the brutal winter, you got to pay the per diems. You got to pay shift rate differentials, 60-hour work weeks and so forth. And again those are the same costs that anyone building in the northern tier is going to face. And so, that's why you see almost all of the cost increase or in fact all of the cost increase happening in Port Neal as opposed to D'ville which is exactly where we thought it was going to be and those factors are directly applicable to anyone building a northern tier plant. Chris, you want to handle the...
Christopher D. Bohn - Senior Vice President-Supply Chain:
Yes. From a logistics standpoint, Mark, I can only speak for CF. But we've had a very manageable winter, the logistics team has done a great job of positioning our product, the railroads for the most part. We've been happy with the performance, so far, due to the positioning of our cars and our plants. So I think for the most part with the exception of a little disruption with the potential or the CP strike for the day and a half, and some of the rivers with this colder weather, you're getting a little more ice on it than what we've had for the previous part of the winter, we've been in great shape, so there's not much that we're seeing as a bottleneck on the logistics side.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Americas LLC:
That's super. Thank you both.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Thanks, Mark.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Joel D. Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Hi. Thank you. Good morning. Had a couple of questions. The first question is, looking at your non-gas cash cost for all of your segments, they were higher on your new segmentation. So, they were higher in Q3, Q4 and in 2014 versus the prior year period. Can you talk about what's going on there? Were they higher than normal this last couple of quarters, or were they – or is this then the right run rate?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yes. We look at the whole year-to-date, Joel. We've got a few things going on. Let me just sort of talk about they're sort of – almost sort of one-timeish in effect. We had a pension settlement which rolled through cost of goods sold of around $9 million this year. We also had some higher storage and logistics costs during the year. And as I talked about earlier, we had some fixed plant write-offs during the year of about $15 million. And then there's just a laundry list of a bunch of other items that add up to it. So, there's nothing really systematic in any of it. It's just that we, this year, rolling through our cost of goods sold, we had some significant other items.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
To add to that, the pension settlement, we sold the phosphate business. All of those employees all of a sudden became former employees, and we had the opportunity to offer a bunch of them lump sum settlements which turned out to be a great thing for us. It de-risked our pension plan. But there was an impact that rolled through the P&L. And then when we had the protracted outage at Woodward, there was just an awful lot of costs that got absorbed into P&L that wouldn't normally be there, and you'd also see more production and more sales that would help absorb some of that and spread it around. So, as Dennis said, I think there's nothing systemic in terms of our cost structure. It was just some one-time events.
Joel D. Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
But would the 2013 numbers that you disclosed, so far, would that be more of the right numbers used in 2015 or something in between the two years?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Oh, I don't know, Joel. I haven't thought about it. I wouldn't want to give guidance on 2015. I think we're planning on running our plants well this year, and you'll take your own view on natural gas.
Joel D. Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
I meant, sorry, on just the non-gas cash cost. Sorry.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yes. I mean, I don't see anything sort of unusual happening this year. I mean, we'll have a turnaround schedule. We'll take turnarounds, and that'll attract certain costs, some of which will be expense. And then, we'll also continue to have expenses associated with the capacity expansion projects. But really, there's sort of nothing in 2015 that's sort of out of the ordinary.
Joel D. Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
Okay. And finally, at our Investor Presentation, you had some disclosure, you expected sustaining capital to be $450 million this year and $350 million thereafter. You've now updated that to say $500 million this year and you haven't said thereafter. Can you talk about what's going on with sustaining capital and what you'd expect after 2015 as you ramp on the expansion? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes. So, Joel, one of the things that we've been doing with sustaining capital is we have been kind of going through and systematically bringing the legacy Terra plants up to the standard that Donaldsonville and Medicine Hat have been kept to. So, that means we don't let single-point failures in an ammonia tank take the entire site down because we have a redundant ammonia tank storage. We have DCS control systems on all of our production units. We don't have pneumatic or single-loop control systems. There's a whole series of things that we have been doing to, again, systematically upgrade and make the plants more reliable. And we're getting near the end of that process. We are doing a couple of major DCS upgrades including one right now at Verdigris and one later in the year, I think at Woodward. But as we look forward, that kind of big spike will have worked its way through the system and will be returning to what we view as a more normalized maintenance CapEx which is back in kind of $300 million to $400 million range. It's going to vary one year to the next year based on the intensity of turnarounds, but that's a pretty good average number. As we demonstrated back in 2010 and 2011, if need be, the plants have an ability to sort of tighten their belts and run on a lower rate than that, but that does have long-term consequences. And we'd rather keep them running at the appropriate sustaining rate to maintain high on-stream reliability and safe operations. And that's really kind of still in that $300 million a year to $400 million a year range.
Joel D. Jackson - BMO Capital Markets (Canada):
That was very helpful. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Charles Neivert with Cowen and Company. Your line is open.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Morning, guys. Got two quick questions, one, in terms of Donaldsonville and the new ammonia plant when it starts up, does that trigger the startup of The Mosaic deal? And of that production that's going to come online, assuming it's running full board day one, but how much of that new production is committed to Mosaic once that starts up? And then on the follow-up, with the decline in oil pricing, and I don't know what you have for an assumed oil price going forward, does that mean or do you think that India will in turn, then, keep on those naphtha-based urea units because now it's a lot cheaper to produce than it was six months ago, eight months ago, 10 months ago?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, on The Mosaic side, Charlie, we already are moving our Trinidadian tons to Mosaic in Tampa. So, that contract or that piece of the contract has already begun. The rest of the contract officially starts January 1 of 2017, but there's an opportunity for us to supply them tons ahead of that if both parties agree. And one of the challenges, of course, you have when you're shipping anything intra U.S. is you need Jones Act vessels, and they're in the process of constructing their Jones Act vessels. So, the tight shoe on this one is going to be more their ability to arrange transport as opposed to our ability or willingness to sell the tons. But that contract officially kicks off January 1 of 2017, unless both parties agree to an earlier date.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
If it's an earlier date, would it be at the same contractual deal as the 2017 start, or would there be some adjustment there?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
No, we would keep the same pricing mechanism in place that generates a nicer-term for us on our plant.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Okay.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
On the oil price, your point is a good one, which is the naphtha-based production is more competitive than it was six months ago, eight months ago, and those plants might have a little bit more of a runway from a limp-along standpoint. I think most of the people that we talk to in the energy space suggest by the time you get to the end of this year, you're in sort of $60 a barrel range. You get into next year, you're more $65 to $75, and then it could go up from there. And I should see some meaningful new production coming online. And as oil continues to kind of creep up in terms of cost, those naphtha-based production units become less and less economic, and we're back to the world that Bert described. So, could they hold on for a period time longer? Certainly possible. Do we think those are long-term producers and part of the overall supply curve? We don't view those as being a meaningful part of global production.
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
Yes. I think it's important, this is Dennis, Charles, that you keep in mind that at $60 oil, you're still talking about $10 per MMBtu, and although that maybe "more competitive" than it was at $100 per MMBtu, it is still not competitive in an absolute sense when you think about people like ourselves, who are paying today somewhere between $2 per MMBtu and $3 per MMBtu for energy to produce product.
Charles Neivert - Cowen & Co. LLC:
Okay. Thank you.
Operator:
Thank you. Our next question is from Michael Piken with Cleveland Research. Your line is open.
Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Hi. Good morning. Just wanting to circle back with respect to your expectations for the spring and kind of how the dealers are positioned, if we get in very early spring like we did in 2012, I mean, is there potential for the Midwest market to rally by maybe a higher amount than people are thinking right now, or do you think there's been so much product already bought that that type of run is not possible?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Whether we have an early spring or a late spring, still to be determined. We have seen some early – some very positive early activity in Texas and Oklahoma, as I mentioned earlier, regarding UAN movement out of our Oklahoma plants in preparation for their season there. If we were to see an earlier spring as we saw in 2012 where we saw demand consistent every month and then much earlier where March was taxed at least through the distribution system, I do believe you would see a price rally. Similar to 2012, where it went from $430 to $740, I doubt that. I think we'd be pleased to see something in the upper $300s. But who would probably capture that would be those who have inventory in position or able to put product in position such as CF because it's difficult when those price disruptions take place, it's generally a freight issue or a product availability issue.
Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Okay, great. And then my second question just relates to kind of the summer fill program and I know it's a little early. But I mean, with kind of more capacity coming on and specifically the Orascom facility potentially up and running by next spring, how do you sort of think about your approach to summer fill and I guess in terms of – both from a pricing standpoint and an ability from a timing perspective to get the dealers to buy in? Thanks.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes. Regarding summer fill, we work in conjunction with our customers to make sure that we are supplying their needs and expectations. Summer fill is very important because UAN, focused on UAN, you're shipping so much product. Demand is around 13 million ton, 14 million tons in North America and you have to ship that every month and utilize your logistic assets because you can't just receive it all in two months or three months or four months in the spring. And so, there will be a fill program, the other producers that are bringing on additional capacity, they're actually going to come out with ammonia first and we don't see that UAN coming on-stream until, at best, late in the first quarter of 2016 and probably Q2 2016, and so that's too late to impact fill and probably too late to impact the spring season. Our UAN and Donaldsonville will be brought up late Q3, Q4 and that will be a part of our program.
Michael L. Piken - Cleveland Research Co. LLC:
Okay, terrific. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Tim Tiberio with Miller Tabak. Your line is open.
Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co. LLC:
Good morning, and thanks for taking my question. I guess, with regards to your comments on the Q2 hedging position around natural gas and those colors really rolling off starting in the second quarter, can you kind of give us a historical reference point of how much of your Q2 sales are typically produced in Q1?
Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President:
You're basically asking, what do we have in inventory typically at the end of Q1 for sale in Q2, and I think the answer to that is that varies by year. So, as we look at our inventory – as I look at inventories and I look at them every quarter because it's part of what we do to prepare for these calls, every quarter it's going to be very different and it will vary by product, depending on what's happened at the quarter before. So, there's not really a lot of insight to be gained from that.
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
But, generally speaking, Tim, I would say out desire is to come out of the under the second quarter with sort of the warehouses and the tanks empty, if possible, and so, very little of what is produced in Q2 stays in Q2 – or goes into inventory, it's maybe half a month or at most a month, and so, all of the sales in Q2 and Q1 are really the product that has been produced. So, if you're thinking about how to view the lag of how gas is going to work its way through the P&L, part of it, back to Dennis' question, is do we get an early spring, which it doesn't look like looking out the window this morning and it being 0 degrees here in Chicago, but do you get a big ammonia season in Q1 and get those sales right now, or do they trip over into Q2 and so forth? But certainly in the first half of the year, all of that gas is going to work its way through the P&L.
Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co. LLC:
Okay, great. And then my second question, back to your point about the cost inflation from winterization. I guess, probably some of that has to do with your urgency of trying to get these projects done, but with some of the major CapEx reductions that we've seen in the oil patch being announced over the last couple of months, do you see that structurally changing, through, if at some point some of that labor may structurally have to move back into the North? And does that change your view on some of these projects that have kind of been seen as more marginal from a returns basis?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes. Tim, I think it's a good question. Obviously, a strong dollar versus the euro means that your engineering and some of your procurement costs are a little bit less, and if you see a bunch of the LNG and other kind of projects canceled, do you end up not having to bid up labor quite as much? I think those things are good questions. But I think generally speaking, the skilled trades are still Gulf area-centric people. And because of new construction and turnaround activity, there's, generally speaking, plenty of work to keep them gainfully employed in the Gulf region. And so, our view is to attract the scale of people that are required to build a nitrogen facility, you're not going to see a substantial discount in labor rates versus what we're experiencing today. Again, strong dollar means you might get a little bit of benefit on some of the engineering and procurement side. But the other thing that's important to recognize is the economics available to anyone coming after this, are diminished relative to us for a couple of reasons. One of which is we've got sort of the first mover advantage and we're going to have at least three years of production of these projects versus anyone else. And anyone else that comes after this, the S&D balance is something that just doesn't favor those projects from a price realization standpoint to the same extent as our projects. The other thing is we have an entire network and logistical asset base that we're feeding our production into, and as a result, we believe we can generate better netbacks than anyone else out there can. And so, if you're operating a single facility with operation without benefit of all of the terminals and rail assets and barge fleets and everything else, you're really operating at a pretty significant disadvantage, and again the economics on that are pretty challenged. So, our view is it doesn't keep someone from doing something stupid, but we just don't think that there's a compelling economic story there for people to be building a lot of new plants.
Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co. LLC:
Great. Thanks for your time.
Operator:
Thank you. And our next question is from Sandy Klugman with Vertical Research. Your line is open.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Yes, thank you for fitting me in. So, you discussed our import requirements falling to about 20% over the next several years. But looking further out, I was wondering, what do you expect our import requirements to be by 2020 and where do you see capacity coming offline as the global cost curve shifts to the left?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, Sandy, we believe that North America will continue to be an import marketplace out through 2020. We just don't think that there's going to be enough new projects built, that are going to change the macro S&D balance. And the other thing that we have the ability to do is to influence that to some extent because Donaldsonville, in a lot of ways, could be considered an export plant or – it's not an interior plant. Our costs are about the same to move that product into Latin America as they are to move it into the Corn Belt. And so, we have an ability to, just ourselves, influence kind of this notion of whether the interiors and import and export are in balance. In terms of the overall marketplace, nitrogen demand continues to grow at about 2% per year to 2.5% per year. Some of that is industrial like DEF growth and other things. It's also intermediate chemicals and so forth. So, as you look at global demand growing at 2% a year, you have to bring on kind of 4 world-scale plants to 5 world-scale plants every year just to satisfy demand. So, while we do think there will be some production coming offline in the very high-cost regions, I don't know that it's going to be as dramatic as some people are suggesting. Also, as you look at global production, there continues to be gas curtailments in a lot of production regions. Egypt has seen pretty significant gas curtailments. Even Trinidad has seen 10% to 15% gas curtailments with no immediate end in sight there. So, I think the notion that the industry's got to rationalize a whole bunch of additional capacity in the next year or two years might be overstating it a little bit.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Okay. And then – that's helpful. Thank you. But as a follow-up, shifting back to natural gas, I know you said that you're primarily exposed to the spot market, but question is, does this imply that you're not even locking in gas to match orders in your forward order book, which has historically been the company's practice?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
So, we have historically done that. And generally speaking, it's something that made sense when you go back to when the company became a public company back in 2005 and 2006. So, at that point in time, North America had some of the highest gas costs. We were the marginal producers. When we sold forward, we wanted to ensure that we were locking margin that was actually positive margin. We live in a very different world today where we are some of the lowest cost production on the planet, and we're not concerned about margin going upside down on us. And so, our view now is much more informed by what's our view of gas as opposed to needing to "lock margin". Now, today, our forward order book is covered by our current hedges and our inventory, which is the way that we have always operated in the past. But we are actually evaluating that policy and dogma as to whether that's something important for us to maintain or whether we want to have a little more flexibility in our approach to that going forward.
Sandy H. Klugman - Vertical Research Partners LLC:
Thank you. That's helpful.
Operator:
Thank you. And our last question is from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Hey. Thanks for taking my questions. So we started to see some UAN exports from China last year. Can you just talk about how you expect that might evolve over time and how it might impact UAN or urea pricing?
Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President-Sales, Distribution and Market Development:
Yes, we did see some exports out of China to the United States, to Mexico and to Australia. But when you look at the total exports that came out of China, it's still relatively small. We have been there. We have looked at the structure that is in place to support that export capability and it's de minimis. There are a few tanks at the port. They have to truck product into the port and small storage – now that can all be built out, but it's really not prepared for the export capability like we have at Donaldsonville where the tank is right next to the dock. We can load ocean-going vessels of various sizes. And so, I think what the Chinese were doing last year was getting accustomed to moving product. I think over time, as you see capacity come on in the United States, that would be, at best, a rare occasion. And so its impact, we don't see it as being that impactful. And their cost structure is high enough that it doesn't really impact us there either.
Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Okay. And then maybe just switching over to capital allocation and share repurchases, just could you reconcile your comment earlier regarding slower repurchases through the first half of this year with your view that shares are currently well below intrinsic value?
W. Anthony Will - President, Chief Executive Officer & Director:
Yes. Andrew, our issue is at the moment, our focus is 100% on bringing our projects online and if we need to sort of husband capital a little bit here in the first half of the year to ensure that we do that, then that's pretty easily done. It doesn't change our view on the attractiveness of our share price. It's simply just a short-term issue. And as Dennis said, as we get by the end of the first half, D'ville urea should be done and starting off with some cash flow coming back in off of that, we'll have that much better visibility into what's going on with schedule and timing on the rest of the projects and be in a really good position to be able to make that decision at that time. But again, this is in a spirit, much more open transparent communication about our intentions maybe than we've ever been in the past. Just saying, hey look, our priority right now is getting the cash flow coming in the door on these projects. So, if you're looking for a big repurchase, don't look for it probably in the first half of this year.
Andrew D. Wong - RBC Dominion Securities, Inc.:
Great, I appreciate the comments. Thanks.
Operator:
Thank you. And I'm not showing any further questions at this time. Please proceed with any closing remarks, Mr. Swenson.
Daniel Swenson - Senior Director, Investor Relations & Corporate Communications:
Thank you. That concludes our call for today. As always, I'm available for any follow-on questions. Thank you, everyone, for your time and interest.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program and you may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
Dan Swenson - Senior Director of Investor Relations & Corporate Communications W. Anthony Will - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution & Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President Christopher D. Bohn - Vice President of Supply Chain
Analysts:
Vincent Andrews - Morgan Stanley, Research Division Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division P. J. Juvekar - Citigroup Inc, Research Division Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division Christopher S. Parkinson - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Limited, Research Division Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets Canada
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Third Quarter 2014 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Grace, I will be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Dan Swenson, Senior Director of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. Sir, please proceed.
Dan Swenson:
Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Swenson, Senior Director Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. And with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development; and Chris Bohn, our Vice President, Supply Chain, Gas and Logistics. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its third quarter 2014 results yesterday afternoon as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed in Slide 2 of this webcast presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. CF Industries reported EBITDA of $338 million for the third quarter and adjusted EBITDA of over $1.4 billion for the first 9 months of 2014. Revenues were $921 million for the quarter, with nitrogen sales volumes 3% higher year-over-year on a comparable basis. Our top line performance was solid, and we were pleased with both our volume and pricing for the quarter. EBITDA results were lower than the prior year period due to a few distinct items. While Dennis will get into more specifics about these items, a primary factor was the higher cost of fiscal gas during the early summer of 2014. Those higher gas costs made their way through our income statement in the third quarter, along with losses we incurred on derivative positions that settled during the quarter. This combination resulted in gas costs that were $36 million higher than the year-ago period. Although there is period-to-period variability in our results, it is really the longer-term nature of this business, as measured over the full year, that is important. Quarterly comparisons vary for many reasons, including weather impacts. Is the spring early or late? Is the ammonia application window Q1 or Q2? When does planting occur? And how does the crop mature? And among others, gas cost. A lot of analytic horsepower is spent on dissecting quarterly results and trying to define what those results suggest about the trends and health of the business and what that portends for the future. However, in this business, quarterly comparisons hold little insight. Our top line was solid, while period EBITDA was impacted by gas and other costs. Higher gas cost from early summer hold no bearing on where the market is today. In fact, November NYMEX gas settled at $3.73 per MMBtu. Although I'll ask Bert and Dennis to dive into the details of the quarter shortly, I want to spend a few moments to reflect on the big drivers of our business, those that affect full year results and also the longer-term outlook
Bert A. Frost:
Thanks, Tony. Global nitrogen markets trended well during the quarter. As we had expected earlier in the year, the U.S. and international markets moved toward parity, as both gas curtailments and further [ph] production constraints in a number of regions tightened supply. At the same time, robust ammonia shipments and inventory depletion in the U.S. and strong urea shipments to India and South America supported the market. Ammonia prices strengthened during the quarter, showing tightness in the market. Corn Belt prices moved from $610 per short ton at the beginning to $650 at the end of the quarter. While we picked up some of the benefit of this move, we also had a significant amount of sales from our order book priced at the lower level seen in June and July, prior to when the outages tightened the market and caused the prices to increase. A heavy volume of industrial sales also impacted our average pricing due to the Mosaic contract sales and the lower mix of ag sales that normally occur in the quarter. Participating in the spot urea market continued to be a positive decision for us, as there was good demand in the Southern Plains for winter wheat and we sold urea for prompt delivery. Along with this domestic demand, prices at the U.S. Gulf were also supported by the international markets. These international prices were higher than a year ago due to purchasing activity in South America and India tender activity, in addition to the high level of global production outages. Chinese producers suffered heavy losses during the second and third quarters, which drove them back -- to back out of contractual commitments in some urea sales from the second quarter. This demonstrates to us the move toward economically-driven decisions in the utilization of their production and their attempt to develop a solid price floor for urea. For UAN, we had a healthy amount of sales from our large order book, and we chose to export some UAN in order to balance our system and continue to grow our international footprint. Our DES and other products saw good growth characteristics during the quarter as well. We are looking forward to the fourth quarter and 2015. The economics for U.S. farmers for growing corn continue to be attractive and offer a premium over soybeans. With drought conditions in Brazil and the potential for late planting of their second-crop corn, concern is developing that corn production from that area of the world will be reduced, which will have the effect of increasing demand for U.S. corn in the international market. We see this showing up in corn prices, which are now on the rise from their harvest lows. With an expected 90 million of acres of corn to be planted, we should see healthy nitrogen demand through the first half of 2015. That demand is clearly evident in ammonia movement and price in the northern tier in Western Canada. Weather has been conducive to applications, and ammonia has been moving out of our tanks at a rapid pace, such as at our Vanscoy Saskatchewan terminal, which set a new record for shipments in a single year. Ammonia prices of around $650 to $680 per short ton, as quoted in industry publications, is indicative of strong demand in those Northern areas. One near-term item that we are mindful of is our tight inventory level and level of planned outages during the fourth quarter, along with our unplanned outage at Woodward. These will limit our production and tons available for sale such that excluding our deliveries from our Trinidad production to Mosaic, we are likely to have fourth quarter ammonia sales volume similar to last year. Additionally, our unplanned outage at Woodward will result in lost production, which could have an impact of approximately $20 million of loss cash operating earnings during the fourth quarter. This is on top of the loss cash operating earnings around $27 million from the outage earlier in the year. However, we are confident that healthy ammonia prices will support pricing on upgraded products, and with limited availability of ammonia, upgraded products such as urea and UAN are likely to experience higher demand once we move into 2015. Now let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Thanks, Bert. Beginning this quarter, we have changed our segment reporting, moving from 2 segments, Nitrogen and Phosphate, to 4 Nitrogen Product segments
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Dennis. Many of you may have observed the news flow related to our recently terminated merger discussions with Yara. I think it's important to provide a little perspective on those discussions. The discussions were, for CF, borne out of a position of strength. We have a well-defined, very specific business plan centered on our capacity expansions, the first operating unit of which will begin production within 10 months. Our plan is tangible, observable and requires no heroic assumptions, nor leaps of faith. The plan informs our view of the intrinsic value of CF Industries, which we believe is substantially above the price at which our share is currently trading. As a management team, it is incumbent on us to execute our business plan but also to look for opportunities that will increase shareholder value above our plan. We engaged in the discussions with a strongly held and well-formed view of the value that should be attributable to CF Industries' shareholders in appreciation of the strong cash flow generation of a company, especially given the significant uplift in cash flow, which will occur as the expansion projects come online. Although we were jointly able to identify operational and structural synergies significantly higher than any of the published estimates we saw, ultimately, we were not able to agree on terms that would have met the requirements of all the respective shareholders. Specifically, in the one and only metric that matters, we did not believe that CF Industries' shareholders would have been rewarded above and beyond our current business plan on a risk-adjusted basis. As a result, we ended the discussions. I would again like to thank the management team of Yara for their professionalism and their time. I hold their team in high regard. In terms of what is next for CF Industries, we will continue to execute our business plan to realize the significant value we believe is embedded in it. The future is directly in front of us and largely within our control. We are confident in our belief that executing our plan will deliver significant value creation to our shareholders. We are focused on increasing cash flow per share by investing in high-return projects and otherwise, returning excess cash to shareholders through an attractive dividend and robust share repurchase programs. With that, we will now open the line to answer your questions. Grace?
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Vincent Andrews - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Could you just give us a little bit more perspective on the remaining CapEx in terms of, you're on time, you're on budget, what are the risks that remain between here and getting Donaldsonville started up in less than 10 months and then ultimately, Port Neal? What are you concerned about? Is it labor? Is it labor costs? Is it weather over the winter? What should we be paying attention to?
W. Anthony Will:
We actually feel pretty good about delivery schedule of all the major equipment. Let's start off with diesel first, because that's the one that's closest. Then the urea plant should be starting up end of the second quarter, beginning of the third quarter next year. The issues out there, really, we have seen a little bit of a tightening in the labor market. With more and more projects coming online, there is some competition. But we believe we can put in place provisions to adequately address that and make sure we've got the right number of resources on site. We do have contingency funds built into both of our projects to anticipate escalation of labor cost that, frankly, we thought may have happened before this. So labor is one issue, but I think we can address it. The other one, as you mentioned, is weather. When it rains a lot, diesel, things get real soupy, it's tough to make a lot of forward progress. But we don't anticipate that really getting in the way between us and our anticipated start time. Relative to Port Neal, again, we feel good about vessel deliveries and critical equipment. We need to make sure we've got all the foundation support and ready to get into steel erection during the winter months, so we can make good forward progress there. But if anything, we feel that there's a little more cushion in the Port Neal time frame based on the commitments we've made to the market versus the progress that we're making. So we're not anticipating any real challenges without meeting that schedule.
Vincent Andrews - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Okay. And just as a follow-up to that, if I'm thinking about this correctly, sort of hitting the time line and staying on budget as sort of the gating event for how you're thinking about using your cash flow and your balance sheet, whether it's for buybacks or increasing the dividend or what have you. So it sounds like you're progressing, sort of hitting your margin and hitting your targets and perhaps there was no buyback in the quarter because you were in discussions with Yara, but is that the right way to think about things? And as we progress through the next 6 months, would you anticipate that you'll continue to follow sort of the pattern of the last year or so where when you -- or as things are progressing according to plan and schedule, it seems to free up some of your desire to use the balance sheet or to use your cash flow. Is that the right way to think about it?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes. I think that's a good characterization of where we are. We, as I said in my prepared remarks, believe that our shares don't reflect the intrinsic value of the company. And so we're absolutely buyers, and we'll execute that as appropriate as we go forward.
Operator:
And our next question is from Don Carson from Susquehanna Financial.
Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division:
A question for Bert, just wondering about what your thoughts are in building the forward order book. You've told us what you expect to happen in ammonia for Q4. Maybe you could make some comments on how you're positioned in urea and UAN? And as you look forward to next spring, are you anticipating that we missed some applications this fall because of weather and that leads to very tight spring nitrogen market and just wondering if so, what -- how you're positioned to benefit from that?
Bert A. Frost:
Good morning, and thanks. So for our order book, what we communicated, we're well-positioned through this year and into Q1 on UAN. We took a summer fill program through July and since have built on that program, and we'll continue to do so. We have in place our own inventory system that we can also place product in, in preparation for the spring. So for UAN, we're fairly confident of where we are and where the market will be and our ability to supply. On urea, as I mentioned, we have been generally spot sellers as the -- during Q2 and Q3, as the North American market traded above the international market. We were able to capture a positive price spread for the company. That has since come to parity, and as we roll out of Q4 and into the Q1, we expect that probably could continue, but we've continued to be spot sellers. And if that were to change, then we might take a different tact and do some forward selling. So right now, the U.S. is a little bit below the international market, so I would say we'll see a rising market going through Q1 and into Q2 for urea. On ammonia, I think the whole system has been a little bit short of product. Looking at data from TSI and just some industry feedback from the market, from our sales team, that seems to be the case and that's reflected in higher pricing where the Midwest market is at $650 to $680 a short ton in the I [ph] states. And so, I think as you go through Q4, you'll probably have, as we've presented, that we expect to hit last year's numbers, which were little underwhelming compared to historic ability, part of that is reflected in our large Q1 and Q2. We had a record ammonia application, record ammonia pull, almost 1.7 million tons through the first half of 2014 and I think our -- the whole industry had that same type of situation. So the ammonia -- that extra ammonia is just not available. So we expect pricing to be fairly positive going through Q2 next year, and we'll fully utilize our distribution system to capture that. On the spring, I think I just mentioned about your question on missed applications of ammonia being tight, I think I already mentioned that. So we're fairly positive going into 2015.
Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division:
And again, with missed applications and logistical difficulties, both rail barge and terminals, would you expect quite a potential fly up in prices because -- next spring, it sounds like that's what you're positioning your business for?
Bert A. Frost:
On the fly up in prices, I think with -- we'll just have a massive amount of corn coming in right now. I'll let you turn the logistical question over to Chris.
Christopher D. Bohn:
Yes, from a logistic standpoint, we've done several things. This was something that we anticipated happening coming out of last winter, so there's really 4 things we did, and that is we began to position our product earlier. We repositioned a lot of our assets. One thing we talk a lot about here at CF is just the flexibility of our distribution assets and our logistics assets, so we are able to lean on that a little bit more than some of our competitors or other industry participants. And we continue to have an intense amount of conversations with our carriers, both from a barge and a rail to let them know where we're going. And then, again, given the flexibility, we look at alternative modes, whether it be barge or rail. So I think for the most part, while we see some blips in some of the movements, there's nothing that's really concerned us or affected customer deliveries at all.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of P.J. Juvekar from Citi.
P. J. Juvekar - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
You seem to have changed your strategy on hedging. In the first 2 quarters, you were hedging at a one price level. In the third and fourth quarter, you're hedging with these collars. So what is the logic behind the change in strategy, if I understand it correctly? And then also, what is the cost of these collars?
W. Anthony Will:
So P.J., one of the issues in the -- coming out of the third and fourth quarters of last year, we were pretty happy with the absolute price level that we saw, which was a Henry Hub deck of I think $3.66 in the first quarter and $3.55 in the second. As we got into the back end, the third quarter of this year, and we saw the dramatic increase in production and the fact that storage was rapidly building, still down relative to the 5-year average, but it was close to 3.5 TCF, and the fact that the increased rate of gas production continues at a high level, our view was, if the winter was moderate, there could be a lot of opportunity for our prices to continue to soften through the winter months in the first quarter. So we wanted to be able to participate in the softening or the potential for a softening gas market. At the same time as put an absolute ceiling on the top end of our cost structure. So that was why we entered into collars as opposed to fixed swap -- fixed price swaps, and on the pricing of the collars, I'll ask Chris to...
Christopher D. Bohn:
Yes. The pricing of the collars, from a premium standpoint, were about $0.10 to $0.15, depending on -- we layered in several different layers of the collars for an average of $3.41 to $4.25.
P. J. Juvekar - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
Great. And then secondly, Tony, you've talked about this cost curve and that it's held quite well in the past cycles. I was wondering if you can give us a quick update on where did the high cost China producers stand today on that cost curve? And also an update on Ukraine and the gas situation there?
W. Anthony Will:
Okay. Well, I'm going to ask Dennis to talk about Ukraine and what's going on there, but I think a fair bit of that is political unrest and uncertainty. But Dennis, do you want to...
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Yes. I mean, obviously, we don't know what's going to happen there, but to the degree that we see producers getting their gas curtailed because gas pump cuts them back for political reasons or the case -- or whatever the case may be. We're going to obviously see curtailments and therefore, less supply into the marketplace. The other thing that works against us, to some degree, is that if people have -- are getting gas and those gases are oil linked, you'll see people getting somewhat cheaper gas because of the lower oil price. So the way I would kind of look at it is, we don't know exactly what's going to happen in Ukraine and how the political events there are going to affect availability in pricing. But we do know that as we look back here over the past 6 months, that with respect to curtailments in Eastern Europe and other places generally, that has resulted in constricted supply and higher prices as Bert described in his prepared remarks.
W. Anthony Will:
And P.J., based on where we see from a cost curve perspective, we estimate that China is kind of in that $3.30 to $3.50 per metric on a delivered basis and -- I'm sorry, on a fab [ph] basis, and Ukraine is sort of similarly in about a $3.40 to $3.50 per metric basis as well. And today, the price is about kind of $3.20-ish, $3.30-ish. And so, there's a number of those producers that are having a hard time making money or even operating at those rates.
Bert A. Frost:
And I would suggest for granular, $3.20. The market for prilled today is in the $2.90 to $2.95, if you've seen from the Indian tenders. This is Bert. And what you're seeing is what Tony referenced as the negative returns for these companies and then the ratchet down on your average operating rate, which is below 70%. What that means is that people aren't operating, and we're seeing that reflected in the volume of product going into the bonded warehouses or not going into the bonded warehouses. Now we're projecting that China will be exporting between 10 million and 11 million tons for this year, which is a higher rate but they had additional capacity that came online and so longer-term, we see that rationalizing and decreasing if the pricing stays at this level.
W. Anthony Will:
And Bert, of those 10 or 11 tons, how much is that granular versus prilled?
Bert A. Frost:
I don't have that exact number, but it's mostly prilled, untreated prilled.
W. Anthony Will:
And P.J., although the untreated prill does come out and it certainly does take nutrient, kind of, content away from other people, it's not a product that is generally received in many parts of the world. It's only a few specific markets that actually are willing to deal with the Chinese prills. So it has some overhang, but it's not directly comparable or affects the U.S. market on a one-for-one basis.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Kevin McCarthy with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
Tony, if we look out over the next couple of years, it would seem that there's a fair amount of nitrogen capacity expected to come online globally. On the other hand, the capacity that's already here isn't running very well as you illustrate on Slide #9. So can you give us a sense of what is driving these elevated levels of outage? How much might be geopolitics versus maybe assets in the West that have just been running too hard for too long? And how do you expect operating rates to trend in all of this?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes, Kevin, that's a great question. In nitrogen, we have been in a supply-driven market condition for about a year now or maybe a little more than that. And so we are actually operating as opposed to a demand-driven situation where people are bidding up tons above marginal cost. It really is being driven off of marginal cost of production. And I think some of the outages, due to political unrest, you'd expect those things to moderate over time, but some outages are really due to gas availability. So for instance, Egypt, Oman, Trinidad, there are a number of places in the world where there are just physically gas shortages to be able to run the assets at full rates. In the West, it really has probably been more a maintenance or unplanned operational outages that have caused curtailments; it's certainly not an economic driver. But even in China, I think they brought on something in the neighborhood of about 20 million tons of urea production in the last 3 or 4 years, and I think they've taken about 5 million to 6 million tons permanently offline in the last year. And so, although there will continue to be new capacity brought online, what you're going to end up seeing is shedding assets at the very highest end of the cost curve. And the point that I want to reinforce is, even though the market in nitrogen is operating in a supply-driven arena and North American gas costs were a little high, we still generated 40% gross margins in those conditions. Underlying that, on positives going forward, there will continue to be ongoing market demand growth for nitrogen, both in the industrial applications and some on the agricultural side. And we're seeing North America continue to be an important marketplace through the end of this decade.
Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
Second question would be regarding your MOE discussions with Yara. Maybe 2 parts. First, was it the inability to settle on a specific number that caused you to discontinue the negotiations, or were there structural barriers that were problematic, such as tax or perhaps both? And then second, I think you made a comment that your synergy numbers were projected to be much higher than the published estimates that you saw from The Street. What do you think The Street was missing?
W. Anthony Will:
So Kevin, there has been an awful lot of talk and discussion about things like tax inversions and so forth. And we, very early on, had conversations with the IRS and got an indication from them that they viewed this not as an inversion transaction, but actually as traditional cross-border M&A. So there was nothing here that was out of the ordinary and therefore, there was no kind of regulatory or structural impediments from that perspective going forward. But what I think the market may not have recognized as much is all of the areas where there really were an awful lot of overlap or opportunities to rationalize. So people that are spending the time looking at these things realize that Yara moves an awful lot of products out of Europe into North America. And in fact, we export a fair bit of product out of North America and send it the other direction. We literally have ships passing in the middle of the night. If you look at their Belle Plaine facility and how it would have fit into our North American asset base and distribution structure, it would have been a really nice add. And they are quite a bit product short in Latin America and for us, Donaldsonville, it's $30 to $35 to move product into the Corn Belt. It's $30 to $35 to move it down into Brazil and Argentina. And when we move it offshore, we could have structured it through some offshore trading companies in a way that would have been very, very tax efficient. And I don't know that people really kind of stepped back and understood what the current tax laws are and the opportunity. We're paying tax on a marginal rate, almost 35%, and we certainly could have put that in a different sphere, being located in a different tax regime. So I think people missed all of those things. And I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of kind of why things didn't happen, but I would just characterize it as, at the end of the day, we feel we've got a terrific value proposition from our standalone business plan. And given all of the puts and takes that were on the table, we didn't think on a risk-adjusted basis, it was going to end up being a good deal for CF shareholders relative to what we can offer them today.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson with Crédit Suisse.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
You hit on a little of this, but on Slide 9, you go over the last 5 years of reported outages in both ammonia and urea. Can you just go over your current view for the 2015, particularly in Trinidad and also the Middle East and North Africa region?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes, Chris, I'll ask Bert to opine as well and Dennis, but I -- look, I don't think Trinidad has done anything to structurally solve the gas availability issue going into Point Lisas. And I don't know that there's a quick fix on the horizon. So I would anticipate there being ongoing gas curtailments going forward. In Trinidad, that could be in the 10% to 15% of production range. Relative to Middle East and North Africa, you still don't really have recognized sort of basis of power and influence in some regions like Libya and other places to make operations reasonable. And you also have gas shortages in Egypt and Oman, again, for which there's not a quick solution. So my perspective is I don't think that you're going to see a dramatic uptick in production from those areas. But Dennis and Bert, you got...
Dennis P. Kelleher:
I think if you look at North Africa, you got to look at it in 3 buckets. And if you look at Egypt, for instance, where they produce nitrogen today, the issue there really is gas availability and potentially, politics in terms of getting plants started up and keeping them running. When you look over at Libya, again, there's plenty of gas that's available that could be put into a facility. The problem is that the situation there is so unsafe and so unstable, that it's difficult to keep a plant up and running with people and staffing it for a prolonged period of time. And as you move further west to Algeria, there certainly is plenty of gas to the degree they have outages, they're largely going to be driven by operational issues or issues between the people who own the foreign participating share in these joint ventures and [indiscernible]. And those things can be sometimes a bit intractable, as we saw earlier last year. So -- but I would say about the supply of North Africa is, we don't have any crystal ball but with those sources of potential uncertainty and instability, it's very difficult to really kind of draw a supply curve for North Africa with any degree of reliability or accuracy.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
Perfect. And then just a quick follow-up, you mentioned some themes in China which many of us have been monitoring, which could potentially help the floor price. Could you just further elaborate on which aspects you view as the most material including various tax regimes and also, the overall industry attempting to help stabilize export prices?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes. I'll give you a few and then I'm going to pass this over to Bert for his -- him to weigh in as well. There's a couple of issues, one of which is the changing regulations on what's acceptable for our imported coal in the way of fly ash and sulfur, means that there's less sea borne coal that's actually eligible to enter the marketplace. It puts on higher demand on domestic coal and that will drive up coal prices to some extent. Similarly, you see some reduction in the availability or an increase in that corresponding price of gas going into the gas-driven plants in China. Those things help from a cost structure standpoint. You've seen movement away from subsidized rail rates and port costs and other things. All of those things mean that the producers or the traders that want to take possession of those goods are incurring real economic cost for all of those movements, all of those things, mean the price has to rise for that product to show up at a profit on the international scene. And finally, as you mentioned, there's the 5% tax that's flat across the year. My perspective on that one is that's very helpful for our business. You don't see these big movements where inventories balloon up and then disgorge that drive some funkiness in terms of buying behaviors, particularly in places with large tenders like India and Pakistan. And I think if you see more ratable product coming out of some of those regions, it leads to more stability in the pricing on a global basis. But Bert, do you have other thoughts?
Bert A. Frost:
No, I think you've touched on the key ones, and they all reflect a positive perspective or a positive opportunity for the industry going forward. Costs are going up. Coal, freight, labor, those are positives for our business. The 5% tax, I agree with Tony and that the rational nature of that will bring to the overall supply and the supply availability coming out of China. The demand structure is in place domestically for Chinese consumption. We've been tracking that as well as industrial demand, which is also fairly consistent. So it's that available tonnage that will be exported and then, at what economical cost that will be exported for. Fantastic demand going forward out of India and Pakistan that is open to receive the untreated prilled product coming out of China. So you set up a system that, that probably will be the supply base for those regions and the granular that is coming out of China today is at a quality disadvantage and is trading at a $20 to $25 discount to domestically-produced product in North America. So I look at these things as coming together. It's a maturing of our industry, a maturing of the industry in China, and we see those as positives going forward.
Operator:
And our next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Question on the Woodward facility. This was the downtime that you announced a few weeks ago. This is the second major shutdown in the plants in this year. And I think both times you cited boilers in the press release. And I think there was schedule turnaround activity that took place earlier in the year on the back of the first shutdown. Can you maybe just elaborate on what actually happened at the facility, the confidence that you have in the sustainability of the capital equipment and the investments that you are making there on an ongoing basis?
W. Anthony Will:
You bet, Adam. The big issue at -- one of the big issues at Woodward is it is 1 of 2 non-Kellogg plants that we have in our North American system. In fact, the intellectual property or process designers of that plant was Fluor. And there's only 2 Fluor ammonia plants in the world. So this one is a little bit of an oddity or a strange beast. And the parts that go into it are dissimilar from all of our Kellogg plants. So if this has happened at one of our Kellogg ammonia plants, it would've been really easy to fix because we've got spare kit for all of the major operating components so we could have just moved the product or moved our OAC [ph] boiler out of one facility into the next, plugged it in and are ready to go. So we have a huge operational footprint advantage with 11 of our 13 ammonia plants being Kellogg plants and able to swap and receive similar vessels. But because this is an oddball, we've got to fix what's there. And this particular, it's the same OAC [ph] boiler in both cases. There's the primary OAC [ph] boiler, and in the first instance, we had a failure of the insulation refractory. In the second case, we had a failure with internal tube bundle. We're working hard to get it replaced. We don't believe that there is any long-term issue in terms of the operability or the on-stream factor of that plant. We're just working through one particular problem that's been going on this year. And it's unfortunate because, as Bert pointed out, we're going to lose close to $50 million of gross margin out of that facility this year because of the outages. But the good news is we didn't have any one hurt. We didn't have any offsite impacts to the community or environmental releases, and those are things that have much more long-term and problematic impact for our company than missing a few weeks of production. So we're...
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Okay. Appreciate that color. And then maybe just switching gears, your major western Canadian peer yesterday was talking about repatriating tonnage in Western Canada into the retail segments and my understanding was a lot of that tonnage was emanating from Medicine Hat when Viterra owned the 33% stake. How are you looking at your marketing strategy in Western Canada and your ability to find a home for the tonnage that maybe -- may need a new home outside of the Agrium system in Western Canada?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes, I'll give you just a high-level comment and then I will ask Bert to go into details. We -- as part of the 1/3 interest that we bought, we also purchased a couple of ammonia terminals, one of which is, as Bert indicated in his comments, was Vanscoy Saskatchewan. We set an all-time shipping record for ammonia out of that facility this year. And it is, at the end of the day, a commodity product where it's a competitive marketplace and pricing is set by outside dynamics. And we feel very comfortable in terms of our ability to focus our tons on the best netbacks possible and we think we're in a good position to do it. But I'll let Bert talk specifics of...
Bert A. Frost:
I would say from just looking at our system, we're not wedded to a market and we're not market share-focused and we're not going to say that a certain percentage of our tonnage needs to be directed to one market. We're more netback-driven. And so if that netback that we can receive at any of the markets is greater than where that ton is currently allocated, it will be allocated on a netback basis. And we have built our team in Western Canada. We used to market that through distribution. And a couple of years ago, we've put in place our own team that has integrated very well into our system. And were seamlessly moving the Viterra tons as well as our historical tons out of Medicine Hat into Western Canada and other markets as well. And so hopefully, you're seeing us being good marketers and executors of our system and our strategies. But Western Canada is a good market, and we'll continue to focus on that and to build our relationships with our customers there. But whether it goes there or Montana or North Dakota, we're ambivalent as long as it's netback-driven.
Operator:
And our next question comes from Mark Connelly with CLSA.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Limited, Research Division:
Tony, you said that again that you like CF's footprint as you said last quarter. So do the substantial synergies that you say you found with Yara changed your view of CF's global opportunity and make you more interested in looking further, exploring further overseas or maybe looking for more deals there?
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks for the question, Mark. Look, I'd say we evaluate and are open to opportunities kind of globally anywhere as long as they fit the following criteria
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Limited, Research Division:
Okay. I'm going to take that as a no. And just one quick question. As you look out at 2017 and beyond, what is your best estimate of North America's net import position in ammonia and urea?
W. Anthony Will:
So today, North America imports, I think, about 40% of its total nitrogen requirements. After all of the projects that are actually in-flight come online, so those things would include a bunch of bottlenecks that have happened from Agrium and Koch and CF, it would include the OCI project, it would include the Waggaman, Louisiana project and the CF projects. After the things that are actually real steel in the ground have come online, we think that number drops to about 20%. So through -- as you're sitting, looking at beyond '17 and into 18, we think that North America will continue to import about 20% of its total nitrogen requirements. Now that's going to skew by product type. There's going to be less UAN that needs to be brought in because the market will almost be in balance in UAN, but there's still be a fair bit of ammonia and urea that need to be brought in. But -- and if there are some of these other projects that have been talked about, whether it's the CHS Girdwood project or other ones that will start eating into that 20%. But if all of the things that are being added only account for about 20% of the requirements, that means for North America to be in balance, you need another set of projects like D'ville, Port Neal, Waggaman, Weaver and then all of the debottlenecks that have taken place, that's going to take a fair bit of capital over a fairly extended period of time. So that's why we are very confident in the notion that North America will continue to be an import marketplace out through the end of the decade.
Operator:
Our final question would be from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets Canada:
In looking at some of the synergies you mentioned that you could have achieved as part of a larger network with Yara, are there ways on your own that you can try to achieve some of those offshore export opportunities being able to maybe put together something overseas and be able to take care of some export opportunities into South America and other places?
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Joel. I think one of the things that surfaced as part of our discussions was a recognition by both Yara and CF that there may be very viable commercial ways where we can work together to realize some of those synergies and we're certainly interested in exploring what those might be. And so I'd say absolutely. There's some of them that are predicated on a more structural basis that are tough to get to, but of the ones that are purely kind of commercially available, yes, we absolutely would be interested in going after those.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets Canada:
Okay. And finally, have you looked at -- I'm sure you have looked at the west side partner's structure for the MLP as you get closer to finishing up Donaldsonville and Port Neal. Have you walked through that structure, gather some pros and cons that you would talk about in that structure that could work or not work for CF going forward?
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Yes, Joel, this is Dennis. Thanks for the question. Yes, Joel, we've spent a lot of time over the past year or so looking at MLP structures generally, as you know. I think we're the only major nitrogen producer that actually has an MLP, so it's something that's we studied in detail and also know something a bit about because of what we have. And the way we think about it is, that structure in particular that you mentioned, sort of fixed pay structure and fixed pay structures suck up debt capacity. And because we talk to rating agencies on a regular basis. And as we look at our opportunity going -- particularly as the projects come online, we see ourselves having a materially larger amount of debt capacity as those projects start to come online. And the after-tax cost of that debt is much lower than the after-tax cost of doing any kind of fixed rate structure like the one that you are suggesting. In addition to that, the size of deals that you can do with that type of structure, really, are around $300 million per year or less. So there's a lot of execution risk as you think about trying to do something of a much larger scale over a prolonged period of time than there is with debt. You'll know that what we did with our debt portfolios in the last 2 years, we've issued $3 billion of debt in 2 $1.5 billion tranches, and we can get those deals done in a month with little or no execution risk. And in addition to that, a lot of people have really raised this issue, the particular transaction that you referenced, but we note that nobody else out there has tried to replicate that structure. And some people have suggested that there's some great read-through in terms of valuation to the C Corp, but as we've tracked that particular company's stock since before it announced its MLP structure through today and compared that to another very closely, a very similar company, what we've seen is that the value of that stock has gone down significantly. Its multiple has gone down. And really, it doesn't trade at a premium to either that competitor company and it trades, at least at the data I saw, at a lower multiple to ourselves. So as far as the whole read-through argument is concerned, what we see is that there's really no there, there [ph]. So we don't have a religious sort of conviction against doing interesting transactions, but what is important to us is, that as we look at them on a risk-adjusted basis, they provide real and tangible value to our C Corp shareholders.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions for today. I would like to turn the call back to Dan Swenson for any closing remarks.
Dan Swenson:
Thank you, Grace. That concludes our call for today. As always, I'm available for your follow-on questions. Thank you, everyone, for your time and interest.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the program. You may now, all, disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.
Executives:
Dan Swenson - Senior Director of Investor Relations & Corporate Communications W. Anthony Will - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution & Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
Analysts:
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Inc, Research Division Vincent Andrews - Morgan Stanley, Research Division Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division Michael Piken - Cleveland Research Company Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Limited, Research Division Mark R. Gulley - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co., LLC, Research Division Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Research Division Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2014 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Nicholas. I will be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Dan Swenson, Senior Director of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. Sir, please proceed.
Dan Swenson:
Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Swenson, and with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its second quarter 2014 results yesterday afternoon, as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries' results in detail and discuss our outlook, referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com, and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on Slide 2 of this webcast presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today, and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Dan, and good morning, everyone. CF Industries reported EBITDA of $613 million for the second quarter and adjusted EBITDA of over $1.1 billion for the first half of 2014 despite the challenges of relatively low nitrogen prices globally and North American gas prices that were higher and more volatile than any we've faced in the past 4 years. I'm pleased to report that our capacity expansion projects, both Donaldson, Louisiana and Port Neal, Iowa, remain on time and on budget. I'd ask you to please refer to Slides 5 through 8 in our deck for a snapshot of recent progress at those sites. We also announced the next phase of our ongoing commitment to return excess cash to shareholders, with both a new $1 billion share repurchase program and a 50% increase in our regular quarterly dividend. Now I'd like to provide some perspectives on the market. The past several quarters have tested and affirmed our views of the global nitrogen cost curve, the long-term structural cost advantage of North American natural gas, and the strength and cash-generating power of our business model. Given that there remains excess production capacity globally, nitrogen continued to trade based on supply-side economics, where product pricing is set near the cash cost of the marginal producer. In the first half of 2014, there were production shutdowns in several high-cost regions, including Eastern Europe and even some Chinese production, confirming once again the validity of the global cost curve and the rational economic behavior of industry participants. In North America, coming into 2014, ammonia inventories were high and related prices depressed as a result of the poor 2013 spring and fall application seasons. Low ammonia prices, combined with almost ideal application conditions, led to brisk demand. This spring, our teams did an excellent job of execution to deliver all-time record ammonia shipments of 1.1 million tons for the quarter and 1.7 million tons for the first half of the year. On the natural gas side, North America experienced its coldest winter in 30 years. This dramatically increased gas usage for heating and led to record withdrawals from storage, driving gas prices above $5 per MMBtu at times. However, as expected, the natural gas supply response was swift. Gas production increased significantly and led to record levels of injections into storage, contributing to prices today below $4 per MMBtu. During the first half of this year, we were able to mitigate the worst effects of the high prices with our hedging program, resulting in our realized gas cost of $4.27 per MMBtu compared to the Henry Hub average of $4.81. We remain confident in our long-term view that gas will trade between $3 and $5. I'll turn the call over to Bert and Dennis to expand on these points in just a moment, but first I want to highlight how we continue to deliver on our capital stewardship commitment to shareholders. Our focus continues to be
Bert A. Frost:
Thanks, Tony. We had an exceptionally strong spring application season in 2014. We were worried throughout the early part of the quarter that intermittent, wet and cold weather would impact farmers' ability to apply nitrogen. But in the end, farmers had an extended period of good weather for nutrient application in the latter part of the quarter. We demonstrated that come what may in terms of weather conditions, the strength of our unrivaled asset base and dedicated employees allow us to perform and serve our customers well. We were able to capitalize on a fantastic North American ammonia season by managing our system of storage and logistical assets to maximize product deliveries to customers. We shipped 1.1 million tons of ammonia in Q2 and reached a 6-month record of 1.7 million tons. Shipments were very strong throughout the systems with the Northern and Canadian terminals catching up later in the quarter as cold and wet weather in those areas subsided and application continued through June. Pre-plant and side-dress applications were robust throughout the Corn Belt but especially healthy in the I states of Iowa, Illinois and Indiana. The record ammonia sales were due to investments we've made to increase our peak receiving and loading capacity our in-market distribution facilities. These investments support a continuing trend toward shorter ammonia application seasons. We have invested in new loading racks, pumping equipment and control systems in several of our distribution facilities and plant locations. Among the shipping record set this spring was a new truck loading record at our Medicine Hat facility, where we loaded over 2,300 tons of ammonia in a 24-hour period, surpassing the prior record by 13%. As Tony mentioned earlier, we've seen a rational -- we see rational producer behavior in reactions to global urea prices. Chinese producers exported 4.2 million metric tons of urea for the calendar year through June, a 219% increase over the same period in 2013. This brought the July to June fertilizer year rate to 11 million metric tons and put pressure on global prices. But our view of the cost curve was proven as producers in high-cost regions such as Romania, Lithuania and Estonia, along with some Chinese production, shut down as prices went below their cash costs. Last year, urea prices moved down beginning in February until settling out in October. During that time period, some importers to North America incurred losses, as product prices moved down during the time for when they bought offshore product to when they transported and sold that product in-market. We believe some retailers saw a margin compression after taking inventory positions earlier in the year only to have lower sales prices when farmers stepped forward to purchase and apply urea. As a result, this led to buyer reluctance in 2014 to hold inventory and be exposed to price risk. During the first half of 2014, forward prices for urea were lower than spot prices, which discouraged imports into the United States as traders feared potential losses. As a result, North American urea inventories were tight during the second quarter and when demand emerged in the spring, prices at the U.S. Gulf remained above international price parity. We chose to accept the inventory-carrying risk and were rewarded when we decided to price only spot sales and avoid forward sales to any great degree. We were able to achieve a very attractive average price of $396 per short ton when the average U.S. Gulf price during the quarter was $356 per short ton, and the middle Eastern granular FOB price was $288 per short ton. We planned for robust UAN demand from late April through June. We stored products in the terminals in the absence of first quarter demand, and we planned to pick up spot sales in the cross market. However, the strong and lengthy ammonia season took some demand away from UAN. We managed this change in market conditions by selling into the strong ammonia demand and utilizing our distribution facilities to pick up available UAN sales opportunities. As a result of capturing these opportunities and due to some production issues during the quarter at our Woodward complex, plus our exports in Q2, our UAN inventories were at normal levels by the end of the quarter. We launched our ammonia and UAN fill programs earlier this year than last. The programs had good demand, and we have built an attractive order book. We expect the second half of 2014 to be positive, but a little different from 2013. In 2013, urea prices entered July around $300 per short ton of the U.S. Gulf and then moved down to $280 per short ton by mid-October. The outlook last year did not appear very positive due to the abundant amount of Chinese urea stored at the Chinese ports and ready for export. Urea pricing pulled the overall nitrogen price structure lower, and the general outlook was negative. In 2014, as we enter Q3, urea prices in North America continued to be above international levels. We expect that a large amount of urea imports in August and September will bring the North American price structure toward parity with the world market and thus, prices of the U.S. Gulf could be around $310 to $330 per short ton in the fourth quarter. UAN and ammonia fill programs have already been accepted in the market, and a significant amount of volume has been ordered and will be shipped over the coming months. We believe that the UAN and ammonia fill price structure will provide a solid base for business through Q4. With the size of our order book and the potential for rail and barge system congestion, with the expected demand for transporting grain and other products this fall, we will be focused on moving our product into position to satisfy existing orders and expect to have a relatively limited volume available for new orders for UAN and ammonia. Going out into 2015, even though we have seen a decline in corn prices, we believe that over 90 million acres of corn will be planted in the United States, which should result in solid nitrogen demand. Corn continues to offer farmers more attractive economics than soybeans, and fertilizer costs are projected to be attractive and in line with the 10-year average as a percent of crop revenue. Even at lower corn prices, North America would still be a significant import region for nitrogen, and with our unmatched portfolio of in-market production, logistical assets and distribution facilities, we have the flexibility to produce whatever form of nitrogen the market demands and have it into position at the appropriate time in order to sell every ton we produce. Now let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Thanks, Bert. With the strength of our ammonia shipments and the effective work of our sales and distribution teams, we generated strong earnings as represented by $613 million of EBITDA, which was 42% of net sales during the quarter. Our EBITDA was negatively affected by several items in the second quarter of 2014. Our cost of goods sold was higher as inventory produced during the first quarter, when our fixed gas costs were higher was sold and those higher gas costs made their way through our income statement. During the second quarter of 2014, we also had higher fixed cost absorption rates in our cost of goods sold due to unscheduled downtime, particularly at our Woodward complex, where we incurred approximately $20 million in expenses. Other operating expenses of approximately $22 million included $7 million specifically related to the expansion projects. We are separating out these project expenses due to the fact that they will go away when the expansions are complete. As Tony mentioned earlier, the structural cost advantage of North American natural gas was made evident by what has happened with gas prices over the past 2 quarters. During this winter, we saw record storage withdrawals and short-term weather-related volatility in gas prices, which, at times, traded over $5 per MMBtu on the NYMEX. However, the underpinnings of the enduring advantage of North American gas, a large proven resource base, increasing producer efficiencies and an expanding infrastructure of pipelines and equipment to bring gas to market resulted in a quick supply response. Additional supply came into the market, resulting in gas injection levels that have averaged over 100 billion cubic feet during each of the last 12 weeks. In the near term, gas prices, which have dipped back below $4 per MMBtu since mid-July. With the benefits provided through our hedging program, our realized gas purchase price for the second quarter was $4.19 per MMBtu compared to the average Henry Hub price of $4.58. In May, we assessed the natural gas market and determined it would be appropriate to add hedges for the third quarter to mitigate our cost risk from potential short-term summer price spikes. When the second quarter ended, we had in place hedges for 90% of our gas needs for the third quarter via collars in a range of $4.25 to $4.60 per MMBtu. Since the end of the quarter, as gas prices have declined, we've hedged 90% of our October gas needs with collars between $3.50 and $4 per MMBtu. We continued our growth investments in the second quarter with $209 million of cash expenditures on our capacity expansion programs and $83 million for all other capital projects. The capacity expansion projects are progressing on schedule and on budget. Activity has included the completion of foundation piling, the arrival of certain major equipment and the erection of structural steel, which is now proceeding at both locations, some of which is highlighted on the photos on Slides 5 through 8. Construction of nonproduction facilities, including urea warehouses and ammonia storage tanks, is also well underway. In conjunction with this release, we are reducing our full year capital expenditure forecast from $2.5 billion to approximately $2.2 billion. As the capacity expansion projects have progressed, we've gotten a better view of timing of our expenditures and expect that some of those amounts will be incurred in 2015 rather than 2014. We also have performance incentives in place with a number of our contractors that we are holding back until the end of the project, so these expenditures won't be made until we reach completion. We do expect to see a much higher rate of spending in the third and fourth quarters as we take deliveries of additional equipment and hit peak mechanical construction activities. We are confident that we have the liquidity and operating cash flow to fund all of our strategic initiatives. As of the end of the second quarter, we had total liquidity of $3.8 billion, including our cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash for the expansion projects and availability under our revolving credit facility. We are committed to our investment-grade credit rating as it enables us access to long-term, low-cost financing and provides us the flexibility to pursue our strategic objectives. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Dennis. As you've heard, our business is running very well. CF is generating strong margins and deploying the resulting cash flow to further increase shareholder value. I would like especially to thank our team and distribution facilities for their exceptional work during the quarter. Their focus on safe and efficient operations enabled us to set all-time ammonia shipping records and serve all of our customers' needs. With that, we will now open the line to answer your questions. Operator?
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] And our first question will come from the line of P.J. Juvekar with Citigroup.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
It's Dan Jester on for P.J. today. So I just wanted to follow up on Bert's comments about the urea imports into the U.S. expected to pick up over the next coming months. I guess, are dealers hesitant to restock at today's prices? And can you maybe talk about your order book, specifically for urea today as it compares to maybe this time last year?
Bert A. Frost:
With the need to import a significant amount of urea and really all of nitrogen products into the United States, I'd even add P&K, because of the significant drawdown that we experienced through Q2 and into Q3, we're going to have to be very active. I think there are some challenges to make that happen due to the rail constraints and, as I mentioned in my remarks, the barges used where you're seeing barge pricing go up significantly. And that will probably last through into Q4. And so there is a need. You can't wait until spring for any of these products to put in an order and have it magically appear in the short term. So there is going to be a buildup. We are seeing positive demand for our products, but we are continuing in the same vein of selling more into the spot market because of the price realization that's available in that market as compared to the forward market. We have commitments in place, but they are unpriced for future demand. So we see healthy demand and shipping of our products, but we do see imports maintaining at a similar pace. For -- regarding imports for urea, compared to previous year's at this time year-to-date, the numbers we have are through June, the United States is roughly 600,000 tons behind the previous year's import rate. And what you will see, I think, again with the drawdown, you had urea going on top for extra. As farmers were preparing for yield or applying for yield over cost, you had a lot of urea and UAN going down into July -- through July. So we still believe that the inventory levels are low, and coupled with the 600,000 deficit, you will need to be importing a significant amount.
Daniel Jester - Citigroup Inc, Research Division:
That's very helpful. And then it sounds like you think that the transportation and logistics challenges are going to continue. Does it make sense to invest even more in sort of storage capacity in-market or more truck-loading facilities so that you can be even more flexible going forward?
Bert A. Frost:
Yes, it depends on the product, and we are investing for -- in terms of the facility that we have, we are investing on efficiency issues, safety issues, and we'll continue to do so as appropriate. But we have tons of flexibility today in terms of when you factor in looking at ammonia, pipeline ability, barge ability and then we will probably go rail to truck. And with -- for urea, we rely a lot on our customers' facilities. There have been a significant amount of unit train facilities built. We sold 4 of our assets, our dry assets, to GROWMARK several years ago because of that viewpoint that our customers were better utilizers of those assets than we were. We still utilize our Pine Bend facility, which is at the end of the Mississippi, for receiving urea and other products. And so I think that the investments, as appropriate and as we can leverage and use them, we will do that, but it depends on the site and the market.
Operator:
Next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.
Vincent Andrews - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Just wanted to sort of square the buyback announcement with a few things. You used to have a chart in the deck that sort of went through the amount of excess cash you thought you might generate over the next couple of years, and I think you kind of could eyeball that, it would look like close to $2 billion. Notwithstanding the fact you bought back an extremely impressive amount of stock so far year-to-date, just kind of curious how -- where the $1 billion number comes from and why it isn't a bigger number over a longer period of time or a smaller number or a shorter period of time. I mean, it looks like you have enough cash flow between what's on hand and what's coming in to certainly do it by the end of the year, but you're talking out to '16. So what are the puts and takes as well that will cause you to do it slower or faster? And then just as a follow-up, there's been some interesting developments in the MLP market in the last months. I'm just wondering if you have any update on your thought process there.
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Yes, Vincent, if you look at -- if you go back to what we -- I think if you were referring to the slide that was presented in New York last year, you'll all have your own view as to what operating cash flow will be over time, but I think it's important to understand that, that slide sort of talked about a number of priorities. And one of our key priorities, obviously, is to continue to do what we're doing with our capacity expansion projects, which are mid-teens returns project, which is invest in those things and finish those things on time and on budget, which we're on track to do. We finished the share repurchase program that was authorized back in 2012, as you point out, on an accelerated basis, I think, in most people's minds. And then we've also authorized the additional $1 billion. We will be assessing our operating cash flow and excess liquidity and stuff as we go through time. And we'll make adjustments to the things that we do as we've done in the past. But I think that as far as the $1 billion is concerned, I think that represents, like Tony said, an upsizing really of the current program. And it just continues to underline our bias towards share repurchases and our commitment to return excess cash to shareholders. If things develop in a good way, in the way we think they're going to develop, there could potentially at some point in time in the future be upside. But at this point in time, there's no way we can commit to that or know that. But we were assessing this thing on a real-time basis, and we'll continue to do that.
W. Anthony Will:
And Vincent, what I would add to that is, we have historically been and continue to be a reasonably conservative company in terms of our commitments. And so we only commit to things that we know that we can accomplish and, as Dennis said, front and center is our execution and completion of our capacity expansion projects. And they are on time and on budget, but you're never done until they're actually operating. And the place where a lot of the expenditure happens is at the tail end of those things, and we want to make sure that we maintain absolute financial flexibility and liquidity through start-up and operation. And so for us, it's not an issue of, "Is there more?" It's more just a timing question of, "Do we do it now?" or is it after we've got clear visibility to start up and things are running and then there's more liquidity to return down the road. And so I think what you've seen from us is a measured appropriate paced cadence to this such that we're not doing anything at all to endanger our investment grade credit rating and our liquidity position. I think that's consistent with the way that philosophically we want to run this business.
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Yes, Vincent, you also asked about the MLP, and I just wanted to let you know, we have completed, with the 2 banks, our study of MLPs and not surprisingly because I think we've talked about this in the past. As we look at the existing assets, it does not make sense for us to sell those things into an MLP. Obviously, there's a large tax hit associated with that because they're low-tax basis assets. So the economics of that just in and of themselves doesn't make sense. I think as far as the capacity expansion projects are concerned, it's worth noting that these capacity expansion projects are at the very core of our business. They are not peripheral activities. They are core to our strategy. And in addition to that, the retention value of those things when we look at the amount of DCF basis is very likely to be well in excess of anything that could be achieved by selling them into an MLP. So while I can't say with absolute certainty that we would not look at MLP as an option for those in the future, I would say that it's very unlikely because, again, those are assets that are at the core of our business. Those assets will have a very high retention value, and those assets also provide us with additional debt capacity when they come on in 2016, 2017. And as you know, we're able to access the investment grade debt market in big chunks for yields on an after-tax basis that are very low. So that's where we've gotten to with the MLP.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Don Carson with Susquehanna.
Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division:
Bert, question for you. I was somewhat surprised at the high amount of ammonia sales that you had, especially given that the spring was very wet and very late. Just wondering if you can talk a bit more about that. Was that catch-up from last fall? Was that just sort of a pricing issue? And just wondering what impact on this mix did additional sales to Mosaic have in the Tampa area.
Bert A. Frost:
Okay. Yes, there was an impact because of the 2013 fall application season. We estimate there's approximately 400,000 tons that didn't go down in the United States, and there was some pickup. But what you had in Q2 was a pretty favorable price structure. I think ammonia was a good value starting off. We came in -- we, at CF, and I think the industry came in with high inventory levels. And then the weather was very conducive. We had an open window early in the quarter, and then it was wet and cold for several weeks, which allowed resupply. Again, another burst in May. And again, and then another wet cold period, some resupply, and then the Northern system kicked off, which is Belle in the Grand Forks and the Canadian terminals that we purchased last year, and we had an exceptional run up there. So when you combine and put everything together it just worked really, really well. And then the side-dress season kicked in, where there was abundant on our side, at least enough inventory remaining. And we had good pull really into early July. The Mosaic impact was not that great. We probably moved about, I think it was 53,000 tons to Mosaic during Q2. Our ag percentage normally were a 70/30 range. We were more 80/20, and the Mosaic, you can run the numbers, it was probably about 5% of that. So while it's nice volume, we appreciate Mosaic as a customer. It did not have a big impact on our ammonia movement.
W. Anthony Will:
Got it. Just to tag along with Bert, I think there's a couple of things that underlie -- drove that. One of which is, we now own 100% of the Medicine Hat facility, where a year ago, we were kind of just phasing into that in terms of having closed in the spring and as Bert said didn't really have full operational control of the Canadian terminals. Two is we are seeing annualized full year effects of some of the debottlenecks we've done at our other operating ammonia plants at Verdigris and at Donaldsonville and so we've got some incremental production that's online there. And then third is the inventory starting position coming in. So we -- all 3 of those things, in addition to the Mosaic contract, led to a pretty favorable ammonia run for us.
Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division:
And then just a follow-up on your gas hedging strategy. You seem to be much more active in hedging your gas position over the last 12 months. Some quarters, it benefits you. Some, it doesn't. I'm just wondering why you become more active and why not just take more of an approach to manage the peaks in the summer and winter months?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes, Don, I think it's a great question. Let me just talk a little bit about philosophically how we view this, which is we really take hedging positions for 1 or 2 reasons either we are trying to get rid of negative volatility events or we really like the pricing in terms of where the strip is trading in the forward. And as we sat in the third and fourth quarters of last year, we took a number of hedged positions for the first and second quarters of this year really for both of those reasons. We liked where the strip was trading, and we were concerned about potential weather events. And both of -- it turned out to be a great decision at that time because gas traded substantially above where we had hedged. As we said in May of this year, storage in North America was almost a full TCF lighter than it has been over the last 5-year average. And we were really concerned that a hot summer with a lot of air-conditioning requirements could have sent gas market in a very volatile, spikey, northerly direction. And we wanted to take that risk off the table. And so at the time we could have locked in swaps at $4.50 or $4.52, we decided to put collars in instead in order to participate in some of the downside if our fears -- worst fears weren't realized, and in fact, participate down to $4.25. And we're delighted, in fact, that the things have moved the direction they did. I think it was the right decision that we made. And again, if we were sitting in May, what we were really trying to do is eliminate the negative volatility consequences that are potentially out there. And for the year, we're still more than $60 million to the good based on our total hedging positions, whether they be realized positions or mark-to-market in terms of where the current strip is. So I think -- do you get every one of them right? No. But we're not trying to actively be in there trading in order to get every one right. What we're really trying to do is manage the negative volatility so we can deliver results to the shareholders.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Michael Piken with Cleveland Research.
Michael Piken - Cleveland Research Company:
I think you'd sort of alluded to this in some of your prepared remarks, but as you think about kind of the UAN market over the next 3 to 6 months, it sounds like you have a comfortable position in terms of your forward book based on some of your fill participation. How is that going to impact your export business in the back half of the year? And do you think that you have enough orders sufficiently here that you might not have to ship as much off as you did maybe in some other time periods in the past?
Bert A. Frost:
The UAN market, what we believe it's -- we're very well positioned based on our fill program, the acceptance of the fill program and our customer activity and desiring to purchase more. We've limited it to a certain quantity, and we're still active in the market. We are still selling at various points, both for prompt and for forward. But we anticipate that this market should continue to improve based on the fundamentals for the other end products. And so exports, we participate in the export market really as a third option as we have opportunities that are available to us that are attractive. This year, we've exported to Europe and to Argentina and a little bit into Mexico. And we will continue to look at that. We believe all 3 of those markets have continued demand, but there are probably other sources of supply that make more sense for us to ship at this point.
Michael Piken - Cleveland Research Company:
Okay, terrific. And then just shifting gears, if I could just hear you talk a little bit about the timing of when you think some the new capacity is coming online. You indicated that Donaldsonville urea might be starting up a year from now. I mean, do you think that most of the rest of that facility will be on in time for the spring of '16 or should we be thinking that this is more of a back half '16-type event?
W. Anthony Will:
No. So Michael, in that regard, we think that within a year, urea will be up and operating and approximately kind of 3 or 4 months after, urea comes up and acid and UAN will be up. We're targeting right now to be mechanically complete or close thereto on the ammonia plants by the end of next year, with commissioning and startup happening in the first quarter, maybe bleeding into the second quarter of '16, for the ammonia plant at D'Ville. In terms of Port Neal, what we've committed to is 2016. We're certainly trying to manage a much more aggressive timeframe than that. And ideally, we'd like to really ramp that up and accelerate it. But we're still a little bit earlier phase there, and we got to make sure we can get through this winter and make good progress, get delivery of all the critical items before we can sharpen the pen in terms of the actual start-up there. But we're certainly, internally managing to a much tighter deadline than the ones that we have committed to on the outside. And that's why we're very comfortable saying we're on schedule because we're well ahead of what we've made external commitments about.
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of Kevin McCarthy with Bank of America.
Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
You alluded to supply closures in Eastern Europe in various countries, as well as China, kind of proving out your view of the cost curve globally. Can you speak to how much capacity might have been shuddered in the aggregate? And has any come back online recently? What's your outlook there?
Bert A. Frost:
So in the aggregate, I'm uncomfortable giving a specific number, but we do follow these facilities individually, as well as in terms of regions, what is being exported, being produced and what is online and offline. And what you're seeing today, for different reasons, different plants are running or not. Today, right now in Egypt, we've gone through a gas shortage where they're having to bring in LNG. That is impacting the urea, UAN and ammonia supply. With the unrest in Russia and the Ukraine, focused on the Ukraine, you're seeing a significant amount of capacity offline. And today, that represents 7% to 8% of the ammonia traded supply, so a pretty big impact that wasn't expected probably 6 months ago. And the Eastern European locations is more gas-related, gas cost-related, so those plants flex on and off when it's attractive for them to produce and above their cash costs. After an exhaustive study of -- an internal study we did of China, segmenting the different levels of cost of production for anthracite thermal or gas producer, and then laying on the logistical costs, port costs, labor costs, it was interesting to us and how that actually functioned in real time with several of the outlying plants with a higher cost, low -- smaller capacity facilities shutting down this year in May and June when we hit the levels of around $260, $255 for prilled product coming out of China. That market has since improved. We've seen some pricing improvement out of China for both granular and prilled. But you can go around the world, whether it's Pakistan, Argentina, Trinidad, you got gas issues. And so the capacity is out there, yes, but our opinion on the market and how people choose to produce or not have been proven correct that these high-cost facilities do shut down, and we seem to find the floor and then march back up until we hit the marginal producer and they come up. And as we mentioned, Q4 urea could be in the range of $3.10 to $3.30 at the U.S. Gulf, which is an attractive range for us.
W. Anthony Will:
Just on that front, Kevin, our urea cost at $4 gas, and we're below $4 currently, but our urea cost for Gulf production is, call it, at $1.50. If Gulf on a cash basis, if Gulf urea is trading in kind of a $3.20 plus or minus range, that's still pretty healthy margins for us. So we're not -- we look at that as being a pretty favorable soft landing, if that's kind of as bad as the fourth quarter is potentially shaping up to be.
Bert A. Frost:
I think the question for that -- it's a good price for what Tony just put out there, the question for some of these new builds that are coming are being discussed in the market. That's a pretty skinny margin for a $2 billion to $2.3 billion investment for a greenfield operation. As we bring on our new capacity and other capacity we think the other producers that are currently in the business are bringing on, we think that's a logical place for the U.S. market or the North American market to settle, and there won't be probably a lot of new announcements based on that operating range.
Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
That's helpful. I guess, the second question, if I may. Corn acreage, obviously, was down this year and you had the Woodward outage. So your production was flat, it looks like, on a year-over-year basis in the quarter, and yet your volumes, if I add up all the product lines, look like they were up about 5%. Can you speak to your inventory levels at this point? Look like the number on your balance sheet was down quite a bit, 36% year-over-year. How lean are you relative to what you would expect for this time of the year?
Bert A. Frost:
On the corn acre number, on a percentage basis, we're not down that much, and what we're projecting for 2015 at 90 million acres is still healthy. The corn on corn might be a little bit negative compared to soybeans. But the corn against soybeans, you are going to have a lot of soybean acres transitioning into corn more economically, but agronomically, that make sense. When you look at the Woodward outage, our exports in our whole book are very positive Q2 performance. Our inventories are low, our inventories for all products. And when you look that in conjunction with the lower import numbers that we've received on all products, ammonia, urea, UAN and ammonium nitrate, and from what our interaction with our customers on their low inventory levels, it really sets up a pretty positive operating environment through, I believe, 2015.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Mark Connelly with CLSA.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Limited, Research Division:
I wonder if you could just give us an update on your thoughts about the new nitrogen plants coming up, whether you think that there's been any shift and what's likely to get built? You've talked in the past about some of the logistical challenges, and I'm wondering if any of the near-term logistics have reinforced that view or whether the pressure on the rails to expand capacity might make those projects more viable?
W. Anthony Will:
But I mean -- thanks, Mark. I think the issue is not just accessibility of power on the rails or power on the river for barge, which is also under pressure right now. As Bert said, barge rates have gone through the roof. But it's building the tanks and the terminal systems and buying the railcars and developing the rolling stock. So as we look at the Port Neal project on a fully loaded basis, as we fold it into our system, based on having announced it in 2012, we're very comfortable we can deliver that project all-in for $1.7 billion. If you are announcing that project today, because of exchange rate fluctuations, lead time and other cost escalations, labor and so forth, it would probably be close to about $2 billion. And if that project were a greenfield, we think it's been more likely be about $2.3 billion, $2.4 billion. And as Bert mentioned earlier with urea pricing in the Gulf, call it, in the $3.20 range through the fourth quarter, the return profile that's available for a $2.4 billion project is pretty skinny. So we think that there are some people that are likely to go out there and continue to evaluate these projects. But the number of them that are likely to come online is less than what North America imports. So we don't see North America going into a structurally long or export position by 2018 or even 2020. Greenfield costs are so much more because you don't have the logistics systems to feed into. You don't have the direct ties to the rail systems, the gas pipelines, the utility lines and so forth. So it really is a tough thing to do on a greenfield basis. And so we feel very comfortable having the brownfield position that we do and having started the projects when we are -- I think it's possible that you could get a Yara, BASF kind of plants being built and a few others like that, but the number of brand-new greenfield in-market plants, we think, is pretty challenged and, in particular, the one that was announced in Indiana for what was claimed to be $1.6 billion, I take the over on that one.
Mark W. Connelly - CLSA Limited, Research Division:
Okay. If I could just look out a little bit further, you've obviously got your hands full with expansions and people like your current expansion and buyback thing, but we're hearing more and more CEOs, as we look around the world, talk about opportunities outside the U.S. It's been a long time since CF has talked about looking outside the U.S. Is that something that's on your longer-term list of interest?
W. Anthony Will:
I think this is the way we view it, which is the global nitrogen market is incredibly fragmented. The largest players in the industry only represent 4% to 5% of the total capacity in the marketplace. So it's really, really fragmented. And traditionally, capital-intensive process businesses tend to consolidate over time. And we believe we're in a great position to do it. But we have no interest in going into places that don't have great return profiles for our shareholders. We think our stock represents an incredible value and deploying that capital against high-growth, high-return growth projects in North America where there's low political risks and a long-term stable gas availability, we -- and/ or buying our shares back, we think, is a pretty compelling proposition. So I wouldn't say never, but it's not something that we're out there doing at all costs. Anything that we do in that regard would have to have a great return profile. Otherwise, we're just not interested in doing it.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Mark Gulley with BGC Partners.
Mark R. Gulley - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
[indiscernible]project at least in the farm belt is proceeding, and that's because of substantial grants from the state. So for those people that still want to build a greenfield plant, Tony, and given the fact that you still have available land, let's say, for example, Port Neal, would it make sense even at this juncture to be looking at partnering with somebody, putting the capital on your site and then having a vigorous offtake agreement?
Dan Swenson:
Mark, it's Dan Swenson. The first part of your question didn't come through on the line. Can you repeat the beginning of it?
Mark R. Gulley - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
Yes, I was just asking that there are some people out there that still want to build greenfield plants, yet the economics don't look good. So connecting the dots, would it make sense to put another ammonia urea train, perhaps, at Port Neal, and partner up with someone who wanted to build a greenfield but just couldn't make the numbers work.
W. Anthony Will:
Yes, we have no interest in helping facilitate other's entry into this marketplace. If the capacity is needed in the market and there's good economics, we think we're fully able to justify building the project on our own and for the benefit of our own shareholders. And as Dennis said, each one of these things just further enhances our ability to fund it with or take on some additional debt service and capital. So we think we can do it if the marketplace desires it. It's really a question about, does the market need it and is the return profile attractive for us to do it. And we are fully committed right now. We don't have the bandwidth to be chasing those things. So we're going to finish what we've started and then reevaluate where we're at, then be very thoughtful about it. But I'm going to turn it over to Bert and let him talk a little bit about the market.
Bert A. Frost:
Yes, I think where the market perspective, we have a very solid customer base, so we work closely with our customers based on their requirements for the products that we produce, and we have contracts in place and take patterns to make sure that our product move seamlessly through to the end of the market. On top of that, what we've talked about our distribution system for UAN and ammonia that works very, very well that our customers are able to utilize. But if we had to make a move into the market and acquire or build storage in some of the key markets to move our product, we're willing to do that. That's a very inexpensive way to move our product if we had to do, let's say, urea into certain markets. Port Neal is targeted toward some very attractive urea consumption market in the Dakotas and that we think Donaldsonville will come up into the lower part of the United States, then you have Medicine Hat. So we're well positioned to supply all areas of the major consumption regions and through debottlenecks or whatever else, we can add additional capacity fairly inexpensively.
Mark R. Gulley - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
And kind of a housekeeping question. To what extent that the Woodward outage affect production, or more importantly, shipments? Could you have shipped more had Woodward outage not occur?
Bert A. Frost:
Yes, we could have. It did -- we lost several months of production. We were down in mid-April, didn't come back until late June, really, for only July shipments. And so it did negatively impact our ability, and that product would've gone into the market. And so we tend to run our plants full speed all the time and get that product end of the market on a ratable basis.
W. Anthony Will:
Yes, I mean, we lost that plant for almost the entire quarter, and that directly affected results, both on the expense line side and the fact that we didn't have the revenue coming out of it. Even that said though, we did run our entire system at 96% of rated capacity on the ammonia side. We target closer to 98% or 99%. We think that, that's what readily achievable quarter in and quarter out because there's always going to be some amount of turnaround activity and/or some amount of just unexpected outage. So a couple of points below, but the good news, I guess, if there is any, there was that
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of Tim Tiberio with Miller Tabak.
Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co., LLC, Research Division:
I mean, in light of your forecast for lower year-over-year corn acreage, is there any appetite or interest in trying to layer in more industrial exposure as we head into 2015 to maybe smooth out what could potentially be increased volatility in ag chemical prices?
W. Anthony Will:
Tim, we look at industrial business as an important part of our platform, and I'm going to turn it over to Bert here a little bit to jump into more detail. But I'll tell you, we like the ag market. It generally trades at a premium to industrial. Now you have to have the logistics and distribution infrastructure. You have to have that expertise in your sales force and your other people to be able to participate in that. And some competitors say they prefer industrial because they don't like the volatility. Well, the volatility is all on the positive side relative to industrial. It doesn't go the other direction. So all you have to do is look at what some of the other people who like industrial's price realization is versus ours and you see the benefit of being in the ag marketplace. So I would much prefer to be there, but we do, do some base-loading of industrial business because it's part -- helpful to building an overall book of business.
Bert A. Frost:
I think -- this is Bert. As you've seen us transition since the Terra acquisition from a very low level of industrial business to I would say an appropriate amount today, it's really as we look at the business and you're always rationalizing your opportunities and looking at them and choosing what is the best medium and long-term for the company. And so that's a mix of ag industrial and exports. And we've exported all 4 of our nitrogen products. We have industrial customers for all those products also, except UAN. We enjoy our Mosaic contract and look forward to building and growing into that. Our Orica contract that will grow beginning in 2017 is a very good contract. And then our various agreements for ammonia shipments throughout the United States and North America. And so it's a good mix for us. We are able to leverage our assets and we think achieve a healthy return on our investment because of that mix.
Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co., LLC, Research Division:
Great. And just one last question, if I may. More detailed question on mid-Corn Belt ammonia pricing. If you go back to 2009 and kind of a similar corn price environment, obviously, acreage was well below 90 million acres that year. But we still saw several quarters where that premium in mid-Corn Belt ammonia really collapsed almost near urea prices. As we look out, is there any reason why that would not reoccur from your perspective? And if so, why not?
Bert A. Frost:
I don't see that happening. You just got a different market today than 2009. If you want to go back to 2009, ammonia traded in the U.S. Gulf at $125 a ton because people were desperate to get rid of their ammonia. That was more of an economic and a wholesale collapse in the commodities segment. I don't see that happening today. And the Corn Belt has actually held firm, and it will continue to do so. And why that is, is the freight structure has changed in North America. You can no longer move ammonia for $30 a ton in a railcar halfway across United States. That's more like $200 a ton. And so the ability to move your product and have the terminals, and again, going back to our system, the percentage that goes up by pipe, that is very safe and through our system that had shipped out by truck directly to a local market, and then it's moved by barge, which we have barge ability directly into our terminals are on the river systems, as well as out of Palmyra to shuttle product back and forth during peak demand, and what we're doing is moving product off the rails of ammonia. And so I think that there is a demand for ammonia. It's an agronomically very good product when you're utilizing the 4Rs, which the TFI and the CFI have been propagating and communicating to our industry. And so I see ammonia continuing as a very strong product in our product portfolio.
W. Anthony Will:
Tim, the other thing I would say is, there's been some shifts in terms of how the market is operating. So you've seen a number of industry participants, some of our competitors, that have done upgrade projects and other things like that, that have in fact shrunken the amount of available ammonia there is in the Corn Belt. And so -- because that product now shows up in terms of urea or UAN. So the number of tons that are available in the marketplace are actually less. And it's not really possible for importers to come in and bring in ammonia because they don't have in-market storage. It's only really 3 producers that have a significant in-market storage. And therefore, when in-market production goes down the way it has because more of it's being upgraded, it really means that there's not the opportunity for that price collapse.
Operator:
Next question comes from the line of Matthew Korn with Barclays.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Research Division:
I'll just ask the one. Tony, I remember comments you made last year about you saw CF as really a global company, that it was fortunate to have its assets located in North America. And so thinking globally, among Ukraine instability, Russian sanctions, Middle East conflict, Argentine turmoil, I mean, maybe your typical summer, but what do you see as having the biggest potential geopolitically to maybe disrupt your business over the next few years? Is it some kind of Chinese-Russian natural gas agreement? Would it be trade barriers that pop up somewhere? Or all this do you really see as maybe having the potential for continued prolonged constraints on effective supply?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes. I actually think it's more the second part of that, which is, at the end of the day, people need to eat, plants require nitrogen, it is not a discretionary nutrient and farmers understand that and apply it every year. We see nitrogen demand continuing to go up about 2% per year. And in fact, all of the things that you're talking about, which create various supply disruptions at different points in the world, really just help us. And our -- one of the benefits of being a global participant but with a North American production base is we are not prone to the same kind of instability and disruption that those other areas are. And if the Brazilians need to import more nitrogen and are willing to pay a premium for it, we're in a prime position to be able to ship it to them. So we really like-- have our asset base and where our new production is going to start coming online here pretty soon. And it gives us the flexibility of either serving North American farmers' needs or Latin American or other places. So a lot of the stuff that's going on out there is actually, I think, pretty helpful for our business over the long run.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Adam Samuelson with Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Maybe just one question on the dividend, Tony. Maybe if you talk about kind of targeting a dividend yield in line with the S&P, where you just took it to $6 a share, actually gets it a little bit above the S&P today. But just philosophically on a long-term basis, I mean, once the capacity expansions are done, what is the planned dividend payout or how are you thinking about expanding the payout ratio over time?
W. Anthony Will:
Yes. I think it's more, at that point, more of a payout ratio that we'll be kind of focusing at right now. As Dennis mentioned earlier, we think our shares continue to be a screaming value. And so we think we need to be kind of in the right range. And again, I'm targeting sort of 1.5% to 2% because, look, we've got 25% of additional capacity that's going to be coming online here in the next -- beginning within a year from now. And so we think there's an awful lot of runway for our shares to move and put us back into that range. And again, given that we think our shares are a big value, we want to make sure that we have a bias in the short term towards share repurchase. As the capacity comes online and as we start generating these really significant increases in cash flow generation, I think it's -- and with the drop-off on CapEx, it warrants a reevaluation of how we position us with respect to both industry peers and the marketplace and what our shareholders are looking for. But I think the important point here is we're not doing anything stupid. We're returning all of the shares and the people that are long-term holders are very thankful that we're heavy-ing up on the share repurchases because it's benefiting them pretty substantially. So we're going to go ahead and continue to keep the dialogue open with shareholders, but our focus is return excess capital.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, that is all the time we have for questions today. I would like to turn the call back to Tony Will for closing remarks.
W. Anthony Will:
Thank you. Just want to give a little perspective on the last few years. So we have and we continue to increase the capacity of our business through high return investments. We completed the sale of our Phosphate segment. We've lowered the cost of capital through our investment grade bond offerings. We've grown our dividends by a compound annual growth rate of 62% since our IPO. And we've reduced our share count by 32% since funding the Terra acquisition just 4 years ago. It's a terrific set of accomplishments, one we are committed to continuing on behalf of our shareholders. Thank you for your time today.
Executives:
Dan Swenson - Senior Director of Investor Relations & Corporate Communications W. Anthony Will - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director Bert A. Frost - Senior Vice President of Sales & Market Development Dennis P. Kelleher - Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
Analysts:
Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division Christopher S. Parkinson - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division Vincent Andrews - Morgan Stanley, Research Division Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co., LLC, Research Division Mark R. Gulley - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Research Division Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets Canada
Operator:
Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the First Quarter 2014 CF Industries Holdings Earnings Conference Call. My name is Nova, and I'll be your coordinator for today. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the presentation over to the host for today, Mr. Dan Swenson, Senior Director of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications. Sir, please go ahead.
Dan Swenson:
Good morning, and thanks for joining us on this conference call for CF Industries Holdings, Inc. I'm Dan Swenson, and with me are Tony Will, our President and Chief Executive Officer; Dennis Kelleher, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Bert Frost, our Senior Vice President of Sales, Distribution and Market Development. CF Industries Holdings, Inc. reported its first quarter 2014 results yesterday afternoon as did Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. On this call, we'll review the CF Industries results in detail and discuss our outlook referring to several of the slides that are posted on our website. At the end of the call, we'll host a question-and-answer session. As you review the news releases posted on the Investor Relations section of our website at cfindustries.com and as you listen to this conference call, please recognize that they contain forward-looking statements as defined by federal securities laws. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including those detailed on Slide 2 of the webcast presentation and from time to time in the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings. These forward-looking statements are made as of today and the company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements. Now let me introduce Tony Will, our President and CEO.
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Dan and good morning, everyone. Yesterday we posted our financial results for the first quarter, in which we generated $1.3 billion of EBITDA or $513 million of EBITDA excluding the gain on the sale of our Phosphate business. This is a strong level of performance given the business conditions and unusually volatile natural gas cost environment we faced during the quarter. These strong results were delivered primarily because of 3 factors. First, our experienced and high-performing team who are widely regarded as the best nitrogen operators in the world. Second, our expansive network of production, logistical and distribution assets, which create opportunities that no other nitrogen company can access. And third, our structural cost advantage based on North American natural gas. Coming into the year, we were concerned with the relatively high level of ammonia inventory across the system. However, our team executed extremely well and we shipped 577,000 tons of ammonia, a 73% increase over the same period last year. That accomplishment was also enabled by our expansive network of distribution and storage assets which allowed us to carry over ammonia inventory from last fall and continue to operate our ammonia plant at high rates without undue concern about system inventory levels. As a result, we were able to operate our ammonia plants at a system wide average of 98% of stated capacity and had inventory available in the appropriate market regions to provide customers product when the demand came. This winter was the coldest in North America in 30 years, resulting in record natural gas withdrawals and increased short-term volatility in natural gas prices. Henry Hub prices averaged over $5 per MMBtu during the quarter, with significant basis differentials in several areas that were, at times, well into double-digit dollars per MMBtu, including pricing locations that feed Courtright and Port Neal. However, the hedges put in place by our gas team enabled us to realize an average gas price of just $4.34 per MMBtu during the quarter. These factors, our employees, our extensive asset base and our natural gas cost advantage are an enduring set of competitive advantages that provide us with significant, sustainable cash flows and enabled us to deliver 44% gross margins in our Nitrogen business. During the quarter, we also made progress on a number of initiatives that helped execute our strategy to increase nitrogen capacity per share, which translates directly into increased cash flow-generation capacity per share, while at the same time we lowered the cost of financing the enterprise. We repurchased 3.9 million shares in the first 4 months of 2014. Our repurchases, along with high return investments to expand our current nitrogen capacity, have increased nitrogen tons per share by 144% since the beginning of 2010, which is shown on Slide 6 of the deck. We are further growing our nitrogen production capacity through our expansion projects at Donaldsonville, Louisiana and Port Neal, Iowa. We made good progress on these projects during the quarter, both of which remain on schedule and on budget. I'd refer you to Slide 5 in the deck for a few pictures of progress at the 2 sites. We've begun construction of urea warehouses and ammonia storage tanks at both locations. We are also nearing completion of civil foundation work for all the operating units at both sites. These projects will increase our nitrogen capacity by 25% when they come online in 2015 and '16 and will leverage our existing asset base to grow our cash generation capacity with very favorable return characteristics, even in difficult market conditions. We also made significant progress in the quarter to lower the cost of financing the enterprise. We completed a $1.5 billion investment grade long tenor debt issuance. And we completed the sale of the Phosphate business to Mosaic for an estimated $1.1 billion of after-tax proceeds that we have reallocated back into our high-margin core Nitrogen business. By focusing on operational excellence, investing in high return growth projects and maintaining a low-cost capital structure, we believe we will continue to deliver attractive returns to our shareholders. I'm now going to turn the call over to Bert to provide a deeper discussion of the nitrogen market conditions and our operations during the quarter. Bert?
Bert A. Frost:
Thanks, Tony. During the first quarter of 2014, we saw total nitrogen sales volume growth over the first quarter of 2013, thanks to very solid ammonia, ammonium nitrate and other nitrogen sales volume. The increases in sales volumes of these products offset decreases in urea and UAN. As Tony mentioned, our demand planning and logistics teams did a great job anticipating the robust ammonia demand we saw in the Southern Plains and lower Corn Belt regions. The poor application [ph] conditions in the fall of 2013 created some pent-up demand but, more importantly, we had product in position and ready to ship so that we were able to meet demand and realized a very strong 73% year-over-year increase in ammonia volumes. In addition, we also had good industrial volume, including the delivery of our first ammonia shipment to Mosaic following the close of the phosphate sale. Ammonium nitrate shipments, including AN export sales, contributed to a 5% increase in AN sales volume. Other nitrogen products, particularly Diesel Exhaust Fluid, experienced strong volume growth from industrial demand. Our first quarter urea production volumes were lower plus a lower inventory position the first quarter of 2014 compared to 2013 contributed to a decline in the first quarter urea sales volume. We realized good prices relative to market conditions and saw our inventory further declined during the quarter. In the UAN market, customers were hesitant to make purchases in order to avoid inventory risk. Customers communicated that they are mainly purchasing to cover current commitments and will wait to buy until dealers and farmers committed to spring positions. Rather than selling into a weak environment where prices did not reflect the value we saw in our product, we built inventory with the expectation that more attractive sales opportunities would be available in Q2. Except for ammonium nitrate, product pricing declined in the first quarter of 2014 compared to 2013. The cold and wet fall of Q4 2013 contributed to a weak ammonia application season and resulted in a higher-than-average industry inventory carried over into 2014. Prices in Q1 were pressured by high ammonia inventory coming into the year but improved throughout the quarter. Granular urea prices declined year-over-year due to higher global supply, while UAN prices were weighed on by buyer reluctance to take on inventory risk. As we look at the first half of 2014, we expect to see very strong shipments across our nitrogen product portfolio. We forecast at least 92 million acres of corn to be planted and with favorable farm-level economics, nitrogen demand continues to be robust. We've now seen warm weather make its way to the upper Midwest and we are delivering significant volumes of product to our customers. We have been setting ammonia delivery records at several of our terminal locations such as in Blair, Nebraska, where we safely loaded 235 trucks in a 24-hour period compared to the prior record of 177 trucks. This new record was enabled by a modest-sized but high-return investments we made to increase our load-out capabilities at the terminal. Robust ammonia demand is also being seen across our Corn Belt distribution points and is resulting in ammonia inventory quickly being pulled down. We believe this inventory drawdown is industry-wide and our estimates show producer ammonia inventory to be very low. Urea demand has been healthy. And with the lower North American imports received compared to last year, we're seeing a resulting tight inventory position that is supporting spot market pricing. Given the tight inventory position in ammonia and urea, we expect farmers will increasingly seek UAN to fill their nitrogen needs. Additionally, recent wet weather patterns have curtailed pre-plant ammonia application in some areas of the Corn Belt. Farmers are now getting back into their fields and should be focused on getting corn seed into the ground and following up with UAN side-dress applications. Given buyer reluctance to take inventory positions, UAN imports are also down from recent years. This is turning out to be a very spot-focused UAN market, which we expect to drive positive sales volume. Our inventory has been positioned in anticipation of that demand. As we look beyond the spring application season, we expect North American nitrogen prices, as represented at the U.S. Gulf, to decline to global parity. These prices are being impacted by current Chinese urea exports, which are expected to increase during their low export tariff season. This market view is consistent with Chinese new tariff policy and the recent declines in Chinese coal prices. When the Chinese low tariff export season opens in July, we could see urea full prices similar to what we saw last year in the U.S. Gulf. However, we expect the market to balance due production outages at marginal cost producers when prices decline below their cash costs. Producers in areas with higher gas cost such as Eastern Europe, some producers in Ukraine, have already announced production shutdown as prices have dipped below their cash breakeven points or due to civil unrest. In context, it is important to note that with gas prices in the mid-$4 per MMBtu range, U.S.-based nitrogen producers can realize very positive cash margins at these perceived floor levels. This positions CF Industries to generate strong cash flows even during periods of weaker market conditions. Now let me turn the call over to Dennis.
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Thanks, Bert. Our financial results for the quarter demonstrate the robust cash generation capacity of our business. During a quarter characterized by very difficult market and natural gas price conditions, we generated $1.3 billion of EBITDA or $513 million excluding the gain from the sale of the Phosphate business. Our Nitrogen business had strong results, generating $434 million of gross margin, which was 44% of the $988 million of segment sales. In addition to addressing and overcoming logistical and nitrogen market challenges, we were also able to mitigate a substantial amount of the volatility seen in the natural gas market as a result of the record cold weather experienced during the first quarter. Late in 2013, we put in place NYMEX hedges for 75% of our natural gas needs for the first quarter at very attractive prices. Even though we experienced some temporary spikes in the basis differentials at a couple of our plants, the hedges reduced our exposure to short-term volatility in the natural gas market. As a result, we had an average realized oil and gas purchase price of $4.34 per MMBtu compared to the Henry Hub average of $5.05 for the quarter. We're also quite pleased with the progress we've made during the quarter on a number of long-term strategic financial objectives. Progress on our capacity expansion programs continued with $278 million in cash capital expenditures during the quarter. We expect spending on the program to ramp up during the remainder of the year as we begin to take delivery of more of the major equipment and as we continue mechanical system construction work throughout the year. Including the amounts paid this quarter, we still project that we will have roughly $2 billion of capital expenditures related to the expansion program during 2014. Together with maintenance and other capital expenditures, we expect total CapEx for the year in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion. During the quarter, we bought back 3.2 million shares, returning $794 million of cash to shareholders through our repurchase program. Through April 30, we purchased an additional 677,000 shares. Cumulatively, the repurchases we have completed since 2011 have had the effect of reducing our share count by over 25% since we completed the Terra acquisition. During the first quarter, we issued an additional $1.5 billion of long-term investment-grade debt. This consists of bonds with 20- and 30-year maturities and coupon rates of 5.15% and 5.375%, respectively. The addition of this tax-efficient, long-duration financing creates a debt funding profile that is nicely laddered over many years and has provided us with very attractive low-cost financing. We also are pleased to complete the sale of the Phosphate business to Mosaic and expect to realize approximately $1.1 billion of after-tax proceeds from the transaction. We have set aside $460 million of these proceeds to reinvest in the expansion projects, some of which will be reinvested in a tax-efficient manner that will increase the net present value of the projects. We are also pleased to have Mosaic as an ammonia customer now and have begun shipments to them from our operations in Trinidad. With that, Tony will provide some closing remarks before we open the call to Q&A.
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Dennis. The first quarter saw outstanding ammonia shipments. As we move into the second quarter, we are well-positioned to provide the products our customers need. Our team continues to focus on operational excellence and executing our business plan every day. And this is why we are able to generate significant cash flows even during difficult market conditions. I would personally like to recognize our natural gas procurement team for their work to minimize our exposure to short-term volatility in natural gas prices, which helped us to generate great results for our shareholders this quarter. I would also like to highlight our tax team, who were able to structure the Phosphate sale, and subsequent reinvestment, back into the capacity expansion projects in such an efficient way as to increase the NPV of these projects significantly. With that, we will now open the line to your questions. Nova?
Operator:
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Don Carson of Susquehanna Financial.
Donald Carson - Susquehanna Financial Group, LLLP, Research Division:
Yes, Tony, 2 questions, 1 operational, 1 financial. On the operational side, I noted that you said your ammonia units ran at about 98% operating rate in the first quarter. Just wondering if you can compare your operating rates versus the industry and how much additional volume you think that gets you. And then in the financial side, I didn't hear any comments on the status of your MLP review.
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Don. I'll tell you what the operation side and then I'll turn it over to Dennis on the MLP side. On the operation side, understand that if you just lose 1 day per month of operating because of maintenance outage or something like that unexpected, it drops your operating rate down to about 97% of capacity. So the fact that we were able to run the system at 98% is pretty darn good, particularly given the high level of ammonia inventory we had coming into the system. I don't really have good data on what other people were doing in terms of the operations during the quarter. But I think the 1 thing that I would highlight is, because of the network that we have and our ability to move ammonia into storage when we need to, it doesn't put a constraint on our ability to run our plants full out all the time. Dennis, you want to handle the MLPs?
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Sure. Don, as we said before, we've engaged 2 bulge bracket banks to look at this, the MLP question, for us in a comprehensive way. The last time we talked about this, what we said was, as we look across our system and we look at the older assets, the stuff that's not under construction but low tax bases, we believe it doesn't make a lot of sense to be selling those into MLPs because the tax hit associated with that would make that quite unattractive. And then obviously, we're continuing to look at the newer assets as well. The newer assets will not complete until sometime in 2015 and 2016. So at that point in time, you have to look at the tax code and what that provides for, whether that makes sense or not. But we will have something more definitive to say about the conclusions around the study at some point later this year. I don't have anything to add to that specifically today.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Chris Parkinson of Crédit Suisse.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
Given the magnitude of the buyback in the first quarter and current balance sheet metrics, can you give a little more color on your thoughts on the program, particularly as it appears there are some ample industry headwinds on the horizon?
W. Anthony Will:
Sure. Thanks for the question. I'd say a lot of this question has to do with your view of appropriate time frame. And as we look at the business, it's not the next 3 or 6 or even 12 months that we're that obsessively focused about. It's the long term. And as we get out 12 to 18 months, we're going to have the capacity expansion upgrade parts of Donaldsonville online. As we get out 18 to 24 months, we'll have all of the capacity online. So that's going to increase our nitrogen production by 25% and have an appropriate corresponding impact on our cash flow generation. And as we sort of sit back and look at the value that we're trading at today, given the context of that capacity coming online in, we are very comfortable with the pace and the rate at which we're buying shares back and we think viewed in the longer-term time horizon, our shareholders that are with us will stand up and roundly applaud the decisions that we're taking today. So while we would like to buy at bottom tick, we're not going to sit on our hands and try to project when that is. We feel very comfortable with the prices that we're sweeping those shares in at.
Christopher S. Parkinson - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division:
And just a very quick follow-up. In your release, you mentioned UAN volumes decreased due to some buyer deferrals and pricing may have been a little bit pressured by increases in domestic supply. Can you talk about what you've seen over, let's say, the last 4, 6 weeks as planting has really ramped up and any preliminary expectations going forward over the summer?
Bert A. Frost:
This is Bert. So for UAN, as we mentioned, we saw a difference between how we valued our products and what we thought would happen as spring unfolded to what the market was -- how the market was pricing UAN overall. Yes, there has been increased domestic production but of course bonding decrease in imports, as well as an increase in exports. So the system, we believe, coming into this period, second quarter, was fairly balanced to tight. And we believe that because of the late, moist and cool weather that we received in April, which really slowed down ammonia applications, that's going to push farmers to probably purchase more UAN than we had anticipated. And so, we positioned our product for that, utilizing our distribution assets, as well as customers have been stepping in and buying every day. And we believe that, that will continue through Q2. After that point, there's always a rebalance in this market where there's an inventory build that lasts several months, and we will enter that market at the appropriate time.
Operator:
The next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews of Morgan Stanley.
Vincent Andrews - Morgan Stanley, Research Division:
Two questions, one a near-term question and then a longer-term one. On the near-term, could you talk a little bit about why you think Chinese coal prices went down? And then who are the other people you expect or other regions that you think will wind up shutting in some capacity over the summer? And then on a longer-term basis, Tony, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if I think about the next couple of years, in my mind, it looks like this. You finish off the $580 million of the repurchase that's left. In the second half of this year, you'll have some insight into where your CapEx budget is and probably feel -- hopefully feel that you're not going to have material overruns that might allow you to feel comfortable allocating that $1 billion of phosphate proceeds towards either a repurchase or to something else. And then as we move into '15 and '16, we look forward to the decision of whether to leverage those new facilities up, which I think are about $700 million of EBITDA, or to put them into an MLP. And then you'll also be considering if we think back to before when -- before the announcement of the new facilities, there was, I think, almost $2 billion of brownfield projects that could have been. So I guess what I'm saying is, is your line of sight on sort of continued buybacks and volume growth beyond just the sort of '15, '16 period that we're all contemplating today?
W. Anthony Will:
Vincent, thanks. I'm going to ask Bert to start off with the Chinese coal and the other regions of the world that we may see shutdowns in, which we just have some news on today in fact. Let's, go ahead, Bert.
Bert A. Frost:
Regarding Chinese coal prices, they are already very low. You see a lot of integration plays taking place by the coal producers moving into urea production as of just an integration for that raw material stream. But when you factor in -- if the marginal ton, the import ton, whether from Indonesia or other coal-supplying regions of the world into China, the prices where they're at today are, if they're cash positive it would be questionable. Then you have to look at the cost curve for gas, anthracite, different types of coal, locations, freight. And I believe where they are today and where they're projected to go in June or in July at the opening of the low tariff season will be very similar to last year, could go a little bit lower. But at that point, I don't know if they can sustain that production rate and investment needed to stay active in the business. Relative to the next question on who we expect not to operate. As Tony mentioned today, we received information from KEYTRADE late -- I guess late in their day, early in our day, on the shutdowns from the DF Group in Ukraine due to civil unrest, as well as OPZ is not operating. So I expect that to take 150,000 to 200,000 tons of urea off the market, but there are other places that are not. The Egyptians are on per month, right? Per month, yes. There are other areas that are not operating due to gas shortages being -- the typical ones which we mentioned, Pakistan, Bangladesh and then gas reductions to plants, which would be Egypt. You've got some plants coming up from turnaround. But overall, I think that, even some low gas cost regions are moderate and will not have gas to produce, and then we'll see some of the European, Eastern European, Romanians, Bulgarians, probably have difficulty going forward into Q3.
W. Anthony Will:
And Vincent, on your second question about sort of the longer wavelength stuff, I'm going to kind of tag team this one a little bit with Dennis. I'll just start off. You're absolutely right. The brunt of $2 billion of spend on the capacity expansion projects this year is going to happen during Q2, Q3 and into Q4. That's one we're going to be mobilizing the legions of contractors on sites to start the mechanical erection above ground and take delivery from a lot of the larger vessels. And so, as we get into the back end of this year, we'll be through the brunt of the spend on those projects and have much better line of sight in terms of how things are trending and when we expect the projects to come online and what the total cost is. So at that point, we'll be in a much better position to sort of gauge our ongoing position in terms of sources and uses. And then I'll ask Dennis to go ahead and just take it from here.
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Yes. Vince, I think the way to look at is if you go back to what we said in New York, back in December, and what we've been saying since we sort of outlined what our -- this really goes to what your question is, and that's really longer-term capital allocation. We sort of outlined our capacity allocation priorities at that point in time. As Tony said, we want to finish the projects, we want to complete the share repurchase program. We've got some ongoing CapEx and dividends as well. And during that period of time, we expect that the business will continue to generate some significant operating cash flow. We've had the sources of liquidity that we talked about, the $1.5 billion bond issued, $1.4 billion net of tax, $1.1 billion sale of phosphate. All of the things we talked about, those things are playing out as we expected. And so, beyond that sits what we believe could be some substantially free cash flow. And we'll have to make a determination at that time. But the framework for thinking about what we do, whether it's capital returns or investments in projects really, if we have projects in our core business that we can invest in that are well above the cost of capital and those are attractive, we'll invest money in those things. If not, then the money obviously is there for the return to shareholders. So none of that has changed. With respect to your question around financing, the additional capacity when it comes online, we said that we want to be at a debt to EBITDA level around 2, 2.5x. We believe today that we're at the -- comfortably at the lower end of that range. We're mindful of the fact that, as you point out, we'll be bringing on significant amounts more EBITDA with the new projects and we'll make a determination at that time. But our view is to stay solid investment-grade. We believe that means 2 to 2.5x EBITDA. And if there is significant borrowing capacity that could be accessed at that time, at attractive rates and such, then we would certainly look to do that.
Operator:
The next question comes from Adam Samuelson of Goldman Sachs.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
Maybe a question for Bert and reflect on the outlook and the market view today relative to the beginning of the year, clearly some really strong performance in ammonia in the quarter and getting the inventory situation cleared out, and that was a big concern going into the year, maybe balance that by prospects of some more Chinese urea exports. Maybe can you talk about how your view of the year, at least the first half, if not the year, looks today versus it did a few months ago?
Bert A. Frost:
Thanks. Good morning. It is different. Coming into the year, we did have a high inventory level of ammonia as well as the rest of the industry and we were concerned because Q4 did not operate as well as we had hoped and I suspect the industry probably less several hundred if not 400,000 tons of ammonia unapplied. So that was in tanks or at plants and we worked since December, you saw us export a few cargoes and then worked to mitigate that risk by moving product to our distribution facilities, selling product in NOLA to some of the importers, moving product spot up through some of the tanks on the River, as well as our industrial business. So a multipronged attack, I guess, on ammonia, which served us well through the quarter and allowed us, I think, to enter into Q2 favorably positioned but still positioned to get the positive momentum from the I states. So in Q1, that was mostly in Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma movement to the ground for wheat as well as corn pre-plant. And then now you're seeing that movement, you're seeing in Q2, a greater drawdown, I think, through the pipeline into the river terminals for corn. Still to go is the Northern tier, which is Canada, North Dakota and Minnesota. So we're watching that. Hopefully, that's going to dry out soon. So that's how we progressed through January. January saw an increase as we went through the months on urea, probably started around 330, peaked around 430 and we're settling back now. I think we're a little surprised at how positive urea movement was through Q1 and into Q2, and that is a reflection, I think, of probably fewer imports and then early pull on urea. And then UAN has been fairly stable through the quarter, it probably started in the lows of $250 and approached almost $300 NOLA. And so, we do think, as I said in our prepared remarks, that UAN will be the positive player in Q2. We should see an overall drawdown of all products. So I think coming from where we were in January to where we think we could end up for the first half, it's a pretty good position for CF as well as the industry. Chinese exports were probably the surprise. I don't think anybody anticipated that you see 2 million tons of exports out of there in January and February. You had an India tender, but that product seemed to go everywhere. And I think you would probably err on the high side of expectation of exports out of China through 2014 and we're preparing for that eventuality. Other than that, I would say we're very positive. I think even with the -- if you were to list the difficulties that we can look back on, logistical constraints, excess product available in the world market, cool, wet temperatures in the United States, and the view where we are today is a pretty remarkable position. And I do credit the team, the guys had planned well and executed well, and I think we're well-positioned to enter the back half of the year. I think prices will go down a little bit, probably -- last year we reached a low of $275, we could dip below that, but I don't think we can sustain that for very long. And you're going to see people falling off. So I don't want to be too optimistic, but I am optimistic the back half.
Adam Samuelson - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division:
That's very helpful. And just a quick follow-up, in urea in the quarter, your utilization was around 80%, it's a little bit lower than you've seen the last couple of years. Anything notable on the plant side that your utilization was down?
Bert A. Frost:
I'd say we did have some downtime in Donaldsonville, during the quarter. We did favor UAN over urea during the quarter. And so, you don't see us make those moves, but we do throttle up and throttle down as we see -- deem necessary or market-driven. And as I said in my comments, we drew our inventory lower through the quarter and so that's where we are.
W. Anthony Will:
Adam, I'd also say, that's one of the benefits that our network has, which is, if we do have a urea plant take some unexpected downtime, we're able to reallocate and move that product, barge and pipe into the -- through our terminal system, and that helps us drive our ammonia business. We had conducive weather for it. So we've got a lot of levers to be able to pull kind of regardless of what happens out there and I think this is just another example of just how we can utilize our broad asset base to take advantage of what otherwise might have been challenging for other participants.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Kevin McCarthy of Bank of America.
Kevin W. McCarthy - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division:
A question for you on natural gas. In your press release, you observed that the long-term curve is below $5 through 2020 and you may have also seen 1 of your peer companies in nitrogen elected to layer in some hedges or disclose that they did so yesterday for 2016 through 2018. I guess my question would be, if you can provide us with an update on your philosophy, I think you would need to board approval to go out that far. I don't know if there's any inclination or desire to do so. So perhaps you could kind of update us on your approach there given the shape of the curve?
Bert A. Frost:
Yes, Kevin. Thanks for that. As we looked out the curve this morning again what we saw, was despite all of the volatility that we had, the low storage level we have going into the spring, coming out of the winter, what we see is a curve that doesn't reach $5 until you're sometime out in 2020. And so, to us, that underpins our belief that the long-term trading range for natural gas in the United States is going to be sort of supply economics-driven and it's going to be between $3 and $5. So that is unchanged. With respect to our philosophy on hedging, we've done different types of things in the past. But generally, what we're trying to do with our hedging program is to dampen the risk that is associated with near-term volatility in the markets. You can see that we did that to quite good effect in Q1 and we've also got significant amount of hedges as we that we set on for Q2. I can't comment on specifically which competitor you're talking about. But as we sort of -- as we think about things longer-term, would we consider doing something long-term? Sure, it's possible. But typically, what we run into when we talk about long-term deals is, suppliers want to supply above the curve and buyers want to buy below the curve, and so it doesn't make a lot of sense. Our sense is that this is the deepest, most liquid natural gas market in the world. There is not a security of supply issue to be managed here. And we really do focus on really dampening out the near-term volatility. But as I said -- that having been said, we have the ability, with the approval of our board, to do all sorts of other things too if those things made sense. 1 thing I would point out that we have done, or 2 things, is we've got 2 contracts, one with Orica, which we signed this year for ammonium nitrogen, and also the Mosaic deal on ammonia, where we've got margins locked in above gas prices. So we've done some things on the output side to kind of deal with some of that as well. But we remain open but we also remain very committed to our long-term outlook on gas resources development and then the $3 to $5 price range.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Tim Tiberio of Miller Tabak.
Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co., LLC, Research Division:
I just wanted to get a sense of how we should think about the potential sales impact from the Woodward outage? Is this a situation where you can catch up based on your current inventory in Q2? Or is this a situation where we may be facing some lost sales because of the 6- to 8-week turnaround in May versus June?
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Tim. Appreciate the question. Obviously, if you're ever down longer than you're planning to be down for a turnaround, you're going to lose some production. But there's a lot of levers that we have to be able to pull in order to make sure that we don't disappoint customers on commitments that we've made. And Bert and his team have done a great job of moving some things around in order to do that. And one of the other levers that we have that we don't spend a lot of time talking about is our ability to shift some turnarounds if we need to. And so, we have decided to push one of the scheduled turnarounds that was previously scheduled for Q4 of this year out into next year and take it in Q1 next year, and that basically leaves us an ability to deliver from a total production standpoint volumes that we were anticipating in our plan at the beginning of the year. And so, the benefit of the network that we have and the scale that we have is we can deal with some of these unplanned outages in a way that other people frankly just can't manage. And as you said, a big chunk of the outage time is being consumed with turnaround activities anyway, which was just going to happen later in the year. So we're trying to minimize the overall impact and we think by the back end of the year, no one will notice that it happened at all.
Tim J. Tiberio - Miller Tabak + Co., LLC, Research Division:
Great. And 1 last question around, I guess, the labor procurement at your expansion sites. I think there was a media report where the site manager indicated that you've secured 20% of the 2,000 contract workers that you'll need eventually at Port Neal. Can you give us a sense whether that, within your range of estimates at this point and the development of the site? And maybe just give us an update overall across the sites how you're feeling about labor availability? I know you cited that as one of the major challenges as you head out over the next 2 to 3 years in managing that budget.
W. Anthony Will:
You bet, Tim. On the labor side for the projects, we're -- we feel very comfortable about where we're at overall. We're in the process of marshaling up to almost kind of 2,500 contract workers at D'Ville. And we're moving up there and we'll soon be at that sort of run rate here within the next month or 2. And we do have good availability of skilled workers for Port Neal as well. And what we're seeing right now in terms of the wage rates that are required to bring those people in, it's very consistent and in line with our original estimates in terms of overall project costs. And there's always puts and calls on these big projects in terms of how they're running. But everything we've locked down in terms of fixed costs were completed much of the way of civil construction and so forth continue to give us full confidence that we're both on schedule and on-budget within plus or minus 10% of the authorized $3.8 billion. So we feel very good about where we're at. A couple of the really large projects that were expected to launch in the Gulf region on the petrochemical side have been delayed. And so that has not sucked up a lot of the skilled contractor base. So again, we feel very comfortable about where we're at right now.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Mark Gulley of BGC Financial.
Mark R. Gulley - BGC Partners, Inc., Research Division:
Two questions. You've talked about capital allocation several times during the call. First question is, can you update us at all on your thoughts on downstream expansions at Medicine Hat, particularly given the low natural gas cost up there and also given the fact that one of your competitors secured a very cheap natural gas cost lease from a Canadian natural gas producer? And then secondly, you also talked about basis differentials on natural gas. You also have that at product prices. Is there anything you can do to get your pipeline partner to expand capacity so you can move ammonia cheaper, more of the cheaper upper -- to the upper Midwest?
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks, Mark. I'll handle the capital allocation and I'll ask Dennis to talk a little bit about the basis differential and what we're doing to kind of manage and mitigate that going forward. On the capital allocation relative to Medicine Hat, as you noted, there's a very positive spread in the upper Northwest and into western Canada on realized urea prices versus historically ammonia prices. And that's what's making us interested in looking at that kind of project. The challenge in Alberta is -- and a lot of the energy companies in the tar sands and others that have gone after those kind of projects have looked at, which is wage rate and escalation. And so we are being very cautious and very thoughtful about going into this, and it's only if we can lock in some pretty good contracts and some security around what the total cost of construction is that we would be willing to go down that road. So we're in the throes of the discussion. We've got some good help with our technology partners and construction companies and others looking at it. We're going at it full-bore. But we're only going to do it if we can guarantee returns of well above our cost of cap. On the basis differential side, I'll ask Dennis to go ahead and talk about that.
Dennis P. Kelleher:
Okay. Thanks. I'll talk about gas basis differentials, Mark, and I'll hand over to Bert to talk about what -- your question with respect to the ammonia pipeline and capacity there. During the quarter, as we pointed out in the press release and in our prepared remarks, we talked about being exposed to some very significant basis swings, particularly at 2 places
Bert A. Frost:
So on the pipeline, we use both pipeline systems, primarily the NuStar system, which is the Gulf -- old Gulf States, which goes up into the corn states and the Magellan, which we load out of Verdigris. And so it's more a part of the components that we build for the whole, which are for ammonia. We use the pipelines and the next step up of cost component would be barge movement and then vessel, and then rail and truck. And so we use each of those modes to move the product. I think we're the largest consumer or capacity utilizer on the NuStar up to our terminal locations throughout the Midwest. I'm not sure if they need more capacity. We use all the capacity that we can. When you have 2 application seasons, fall and spring, it's really just a build and then where you could use capacity, or extra capacity, is in November and April for the recharge. So what we've done is invested in Palmyra, which is a receiving point. We're able to load barges out of there and quickly move products on a shuttle service to various terminals in a cost-effective way, as well as just utilizing our terminals that we've invested a significant amount of money over the last several years in order to unload or discharge the terminals and load them and bring product in as fast as possible. So we may shut several terminals off to a certain point to reload a few key terminals at that same moment. So I think it's more how we're maximizing the value of the pipeline is the efficient use of the complete system in the lowest cost manner.
W. Anthony Will:
Mark, 1 other thing I'd like to add is that, we're running all of our ammonia plants sort of full out every single day, so we can't really mitigate basis differential changes with ammonia movements because we want to be able to run our end-market plants just as hard we do the ones on the Gulf. So I think it kind of goes back to what Dennis was saying, which is even though we've never really seen this happen before, what we'll likely do to take that volatility out of the equation is to hedge the basis differentials going forward, as well as the underlying gas requirement at Henry Hub and manage it that way instead.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Matthew Korn of Barclays.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Research Division:
You briefly mentioned DEF early in your remarks. Could you sketch out that current market for me, what you're shipping today, what's your current ceiling for volumes would be and how gross margins for that product measure up to the mid-product average for the whole complex today in the mid-40s?
W. Anthony Will:
Sure. Matthew, good morning. I'll ask Bert to handle that one.
Bert A. Frost:
So DEF is a quickly growing market. I think year-on-year, you're seeing growth of 20% to 35%. Just as the new class 8 trucks come in and are integrated into the trucking fleets, there's this sort of direct and dramatic growth, I think, as you see those incorporated. And the next move will be off-road, and then Marine. And then as you get to different-size engines, we project a very positive growth trajectory for DEF. And I think if you look at Integer or any of the other folks in the market, they would project that at a 1.5 million-ton urea equivalent market by 2020. But it could be higher as dosing rates go up due to efficiency standards and things like that. So we're looking -- when you look at the -- that's the market. When you look at volumes, we're consistently participating in a market share of -- actually I hesitate to give that. So we're a healthy participant in that market. And the premiums for the product over granular urea for urea liquor or DEF range in the $50 to $100 per ton.
Matthew J. Korn - Barclays Capital, Research Division:
Alright. Any other promising opportunities you're currently exploring for industrial sales, indexed or gas linked sales? I guess, how active are you in wanting to layer in that kind of lower volatility, perhaps maybe lower margin type of shipment.
Bert A. Frost:
The second part of your question is the key component. It depends on the margin. We're not going to pursue it just to get volume. We're not going to pursue just to sign a contract. There has to be something that's attractive for the plant that's supplying the product, for the market that it's in. And if you look at the 2 contracts that we signed, Mosaic was a win-win for both companies. Mosaic was able to acquire the assets that integrate into their system. We're able to supply a great customer a new ammonia contract that fit their needs. For Orica, same principle, a very nice asset base located that's logistically advantaged for them and for us to sign that contract with a healthy margin for the plant and allow that to have a long-term viability was very attractive. If other opportunities came up where we were able to link up with companies that probably have a similar view culture and integration point which, let's say, work well with us and that type of offer is attractive, we would look at that. But again, it's something as we look at the whole component on the margin capability for the business.
W. Anthony Will:
And I think the key there -- I would echo what Bert said. The key there is we really only want to partner with a few select, really, leaders in the particular spaces to do this. It's not a broad-based "we'll take all comers." Mosaic is the clear leader in phosphate. We think they're a great customer to have and we're excited about being able to supply them. And we are able to lock in honestly and kind of derisk the return profile of those new -- the new capacity expansion projects and get a mid-teens sort of return on the capital going into that plant. So that made a ton of sense for us, and our contract coming out of Yazoo City was going to expire at the end of '16 with Orica and they're the leader in ammonium nitrate here in North America and again it made sense for us to work with them to secure a home for that production. So we feel very good about those but, to echo what Bert said, it's really aligning around the right customer and finding economics that work for both parties.
Operator:
Our next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson of BMO Capital Markets.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets Canada:
I was wondering if you could talk about some of the net backs you might expect for Medicine Hat. Just because with the Viterra stores now owning one of your nitrogen competitors, that may change the dynamic of where you're selling your product in the North?
Bert A. Frost:
Regarding net backs or customers or competitors, we look at it holistically. And so, where [indiscernible] are we on, what markets are available to us. We work with all the majors, the major retailers, wholesalers and traders and determine then what product goes to what locations. Obviously, the first I guess step is logistically integrated or logistically advantaged, and that's what we would look at first. So the Canadian market, the Northern tier, is where that product probably will go and is going today. And so, it's -- I don't know if that answered your question, but that's what we're looking at. And I would say North Dakota is probably, for the expansion project, the key market, Montana, that northern region where we have a good market share today.
Joel Jackson - BMO Capital Markets Canada:
And just finally, it's been touched on a couple of times this morning, but do you see more volatility in AECO gas than American gas going forward?
Bert A. Frost:
No, I wouldn't think so. Effectively, it's all going to be -- it's all North American gas. Yes, there's a differential in AECO to Henry Hub and that may persist as production comes on in east of the United States and pushes MMBtus back into Canada. But I don't have a view that it's going to necessarily going to be any more volatile or less volatile than the underlying Henry Hub market.
W. Anthony Will:
But long term, we do see AECO gas as continuing to be, even though North American gas in aggregate is very attractive compared to the rest of the world, AECO within North America tends to be a real relatively low-cost gas environment. Typically, it's got a basis differential of about $0.50 to $0.70 below Henry Hub. And so that's another reason why that asset at Medicine Hat is so attractive, because the cost structure of that one really, compared to even the rest of our asset base, is very, very attractive.
Operator:
And I'm not showing any further questions in the queue at this time. I'd like to turn the call back to Tony Will for closing remarks.
W. Anthony Will:
Thanks. We're excited about the prospects for CF Industries. We have an experienced and high-performing team executing our plans, the most expansive network of nitrogen production and logistical assets in North America and a structural cost advantage from North American natural gas. With these competitive advantages, we believe in the sustainable cash generation of this business. We also believe in a balanced view of capital deployment, investing in high return projects that leverage our core capabilities, otherwise returning excess cash to stockholders while maintaining an efficient balance sheet. To that end, we made terrific progress on all our strategic initiatives, on our capacity expansion projects, the sale of Phosphate, share repurchases and our investment-grade debt issuance. We are executing a set of strategic initiatives that will significantly grow our nitrogen and cash-generation capacity per share of stock and we believe this focus will enable us to continue delivering terrific results to our shareholders. Thank you, all, for your time today.
Operator:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program, and you may all disconnect. Everyone, have a wonderful day.