Welcome back. It's a pleasure for me to host this discussion with CF Industries. I've got Bert Frost up here, Head of Commercial, Martin Jarosick, Head of Investor Relations. For those of you that were in our- in this room yesterday, we had a really interesting discussion with Melih Keyman and Dan Lambert. And the topic was largely around nitrogen. And I have to say, the two of them had some very strong views about nitrogen. So why don't we kinda kick it off with your near-term outlook for nitrogen supply and demand in the U.S. market? So where we are today, almost March 1st, but looking at the spring demand, and it's going to be robust. Even at $4.50 corn, $4.60 corn for December harvest, we're expecting good demand in wheat country. There's been good soil moisture in those markets as well as pasture, so demand profile, solid. But it's the supply side that I think is driving this equation and discussion. And I just came from the Fertilizer Institute meetings in Orlando, and a lot of prompt discussion of: how do I get tons now? Because spring is coming early. We've had 70-degree temperatures in the Midwest. Field work is open to do, and that implies applying fertilizer as well as just your groundwork. But it's the supply side of the equation that's interesting for this year. As we've talked about in previous discussions, the carry-in of inventory for the North American market from June, our fertilizer year is July through June, from June into July was lower than normal. We can quantify that by obviously talking to our customers and doing field visits and site visits, as well as our own inventory. Then month by month, and this is also quantifiable, is the import ton that has not come in, and that's urea, UAN, and ammonia, all the nitrogen products and ammonium nitrate, month in, month out. Why has that happened? Well, we've been the lowest priced market in the world, and traders and producers have had options in other markets, better demand in Brazil or Argentina or Australia or Europe. Then you feather in higher level of exports from companies like CF. As our customers weren't demanding the product, we have the capability to export from our Donaldsonville, as well as load from our Oklahoma facility, push it down by barge and put that on a vessel, and we've exported a record amount of tons. Then January hit, which was the freeze-off. That was it was difficult, where temperatures dropped at some point below -30, and we had some gas disruption issues, which led to then plant disruption issues, which led to plants being offline. And when you go from a 2,000-degree operation to zero or even minus, you have issues, and that's the thermal expansion, contraction of the assets. And we were in kinda fix-it mode and getting the plants back online, and so we lost some tons. We, as well as others, we can track gas and look at some of our competitive plants. Lower imports or lower level of inventory, lower imports, higher exports, lower level production, and now you've brought forward spring maybe a month early. So that takes a 12-month shipping cycle, makes an 11-month shipping cycle. Product is tight. What you're seeing when product is tight, the reflection is price. You have a supply-demand imbalance, and prices moved from $300 a short ton in NOLA to today, $375-$400 a short ton, and that's that type of imb alance is reflected in the UAN and ammonia. So, and then the positive for a company like CF Industries, I know you're Managing Director in Chemicals Equity Research. Today, it's $1.80, so the margin opportunity for a North American producer is very positive. That $300-$375 move, that's NOLA. Is there been a greater spread in the Mid-Corn Belt? Oh, most definitely. So the normal spread between NOLA and, let's say, Iowa, would be $30 ±$5 or $10. Today, that's over $100. Mm-hmm. That's a reflection of lack of supply. And as far as the timing goes, and the level of inventory in the North American market, do you think there's gonna be enough to meet demand, or does it have to get pulled in and pulled in pretty darn soon? Well, if you're going to pull in an extra ton, we're an import-dependent country or a consumer, and that can only come from North Africa or Middle East, and those origins throw in the difficulties in the Red Sea, which is adding 2-3 weeks of shipping time. If you're to load... Well, most of the FOBs are sold, so if you're going to load in the Middle East, a late March loading, you're not arriving until May on a barge, and then you have to push it up into the Midwest. I would say that's too late, and if not, it's on the margin of being too late. So will we have enough? You know, we generally are very creative. I give the U.S. system, and that's out of respect for our wholesale trader, retail customers, as well as our colleagues that produce. You know, we do a lot of things to serve the farmer. We want to serve the farmer and have it there on time. That does not mean it might be a few weeks late of desire, but when you look at the insurance planting dates for corn... There's a lot of time to move product. It just may not be there the week that someone would want it. It might be there the next week. So did I hear you correctly, that a ship ordered two weeks from now is potentially too late? So we have two weeks to have imports ordered. Well- The rest of it- How it normally works is those tons are already sold, and those tons are already allocated to- Oh, okay. Like, Australia's been a big buyer. Brazil is a consistent buyer. A lot of these markets are import-dependent: Argentina, Europe, Turkey. So we're, we're all- and in North America, Mexico. All these markets are import-dependent, and how the system works is that a ton is allocated because you have to nominate a vessel. The vessel has to arrive. You have a lay can where the vessel loads, and then it ships, and so that doesn't happen overnight. And so I would project, this is a projection, that most producers are forward sold a month, and so what they would be selling is a late March, early April loading- Mm-hmm. which would arrive late. Okay. And does that lead to any kind of a change in, you know, what gets put down for, and what's available between anhydrous, urea, UAN? Could any of that change because of the tight market? It could. Generally, anhydrous goes first. We have fall application. We had a very good application, so those farmers who applied in the fall are prepared. And then there are spring markets, more of your sandy soils, your different soil composition, that prefer to be spring applications. We will have tons in place for that on what we expected for demand. But I would say this will probably move to a higher UAN consumption year, and so that's where it falls to the retailer and his equipment and what type of applications, and that's beneficial also to crop protection because you can put some of those products together with UAN and do multiple applications over the growth cycle of the plant. I wanted to bring in, you know, your use of the NuStar pipeline. We toured your ammonia plant up in Indiana a few months back, and, you know, that product is in the middle of Indiana, but the ammonia is produced down in Donaldsonville. You had highlighted on your last call, you know, what you view CF being valued relative to production capacity compared to what some of the recent transactions have gone for in terms of dollars per ton of capacity. You also have these distribution assets, the storage tanks, and it kind of just... I thought of that because of your comment about UAN. You know, there could be a shift there. Talk a little bit about what you do have in terms of distribution assets, you know, in the U.S., and how is that differentiated versus other producers? So CF is a unique company in the nitrogen space. We make a commodity. We use a commodity to make a commodity that makes a commodity that makes a commodity. So no, false pretenses, we're in a commodity market. So we buy gas to make ammonia, urea, UAN, ammonium nitrate, DEF, that goes to make corn, that goes to make ethanol, that goes to make protein, so it's a commodity space. We operate well in that environment. But the difference between CF and other operators is we have leveraging capabilities that exist beyond our plants. So we have plants that are dispersed amongst the United States, whether that be Donaldsonville, Louisiana, where we have six ammonia plants. We have our Oklahoma operations in Woodward and Tulsa. We have our Yazoo City, Mississippi, Port Neal, Iowa, Medicine Hat, Alberta, and Courtright, Ontario, as well as our international assets in Trinidad and the UK. But it's one thing to produce a ton, it's another thing to move it, and the NuStar pipeline is a decades-old pipeline that NuStar does a great job of keeping that safe and investing in it, but it stretches over 2,000 miles and tees off into Indiana and then into Iowa and Nebraska. And we are at various junctions of that pipeline, and we can supply it from our plant in Donaldsonville and pipe thousands of tons, as well as we have our barge-served terminals that are on the rivers: the Illinois, the Ohio, the Mississippi. So we can resupply that way into the pipeline through our Palmyra, Missouri, and we also have Garner, Iowa, which is on the pipeline, which we can rail Medicine Hat, Alberta tons to that junction and input into the pipeline there. So we can supply a lot of tons at a very quick pace to serve the farmer. But the distribution system's an amazing system in that it—we also have UAN, urea, as we talked about, ammonia, all served in various points, all dispersed. And so our capabilities to produce the tons, and we're the safest, highest operating rate production company in the world, able to move that ton. We can export it. We can put it on a pipe. We can put it on a barge. We can put it on a rail car. We can put it on a truck. And then we have these distribution facilities. So we have many different leverage points to make sure that we serve the American farmer or our industrial customers with product. And so what's the value of that? I think it's incalculable because, it's one thing to have tons to produce, but if you can't move it, it makes it very difficult. We always move our tons. All right, let's look a little bit longer term in terms of the outlook for supply and demand for nitrogen over the next few years. What's your view? ... we're gonna popcorn back and forth. But my view is, it's very interesting, and one, you have to go on the energy spreads for where we are today in the natural gas world, and that's what it takes to make nitrogen. And the countries that don't have the energy, they're now importing LNG, and they have old assets that are 40, 50, and 60 years old and are high maintenance. Do those assets remain in operation? So the energy spreads today, if you take TTF and NBP in Europe at $8/MMBtu, and we're at $1.80, it's a tremendous earnings opportunity for CF Industries and a North American producer. But the corollary to that is what's happening in energy. And so 40, let's say 20, 30 years ago, if you had natural gas, the first thing you did was build a nitrogen plant. It was the most economic decision to make. Today, it's putting in an LNG train, and that LNG molecule is competing with your nitrogen molecule, and we're seeing this in the state-owned enterprises and how they're valuing their resource of natural gas, whether that's the SABIC of the world, the Qataris or others. So long term, when I look at the horizon, you're seeing less investment in new plants, and who's building them are the Russians, the Iranians, and the Indians. The Russians and the Iranians are limited on technology and vessels, so those are gonna be delayed. You're seeing a lot more investment in natural gas in the form of LNG. As we grow at 1%-2% per year of demand, and that's consistent, you need several plants to be built per year. So the question comes in one, two, five, 10 years, do those plants get built? Where do they get built, and how do they supply the world? That's a question. Okay. All right, let's add onto that the potential for this new market in blue. Right. So maybe kinda high level on that, where do you see the potential for demand for blue ammonia? Well, I think you can break it into a couple different markets. You've got the existing uses and applications of ammonia that are also asking for low-carbon versions of the products that they already consume. But you do have new applications that are currently in development and are pretty large opportunities, as they build out. But the first and foremost in the timeline is going to be using ammonia to displace coal in electric power plants and electric generation, primarily by starting in Japan and then moving to South Korea, and that's why you see the MOUs that we have with Mitsui to evaluate building a blue ammonia plant, supply MOU with JERA for 500,000 tons, and the MOUs with POSCO and Lotte Chemical. Longer dated, you know, there's an effort in shipping to decarbonize and reduce the carbon footprint of global shipping, and ammonia is being evaluated as a long-term solution for powering ships. There are engines that have been developed, and I think you're starting to see ships ordered that have the flexibility to burn ammonia, and so that's an interesting and exciting longer-term opportunity. I just like where we're at in terms of decarbonization. We're gonna have the first decarbonized product available in 2025. We've invested for it. We've got the wells and the partnership with Exxon. And so how this market develops, we're doing the right thing, we're decarbonizing, and we'll be able to supply that to Europe as a feedstock and to the markets that he just discussed in the prompt and in the future. So it's pretty exciting. How about the Class VI injection Wells? What's your outlook for having access to one or more? Is this taking longer than you thought? Well, I think it's a regulatory process, so it's always hard to put a concrete timeline on it. We did have Louisiana receive primacy, and, you know, our partner, Exxon, is looking at developing Class VI wells in Louisiana, so that's a positive development. And, you know, I think they have extensive experience in the field and in handling CO2, and I think that, you know, they're an excellent partner to get to that finish line with Class VI. Would you anticipate them being the collector of the tax credit for 45Q, and they pay you if you deliver CO2 to them? Or are you paying them for a service, and you would be the one to interact with the agency and get the 45Q? Which way are you likely to go? Oh, it's already set. We are the, we are the entity that will collect the, the 45Q tax credit, because we're the one that... We're the, the taxpayer that meets all the qualifications to receive the credit. We're the ones that are collecting the, the CO2. Our partner will be paid, an, a service fee per ton for transportation and permanent geological sequestration. Okay, and any impact do you think that that could have in the market in 2025 as you can start selling some shiploads of blue ammonia, and would this start out as tiny quantities, or could these be shiploads? Shiploads, and it's exciting, and when you talk to customers, whether that be synthetic fibers, explosives, farmers. Farmers more, I think that's more of the value chain question, but then exports to, to Europe on whether that be ammonia or UAN. And the, the exciting thing is the, the decarbonization of the economy is taking place, whether that's with CPGs or people, different groups looking at their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Our product will play a role in, in that effort and movement, and we're having those conversations in real time. What's the outlook for Waggaman, with respect to maybe going down the path of blue? Where's that product gonna end up? The product I'll address. It's we bought that facility with contracts associated with it, and we're working with our customers, as we do with all our customers, in a very positive and in good way, supplying their products. But we want to move that plant to a decarbonized facility as well, and that is in process of evaluation. And just to add on to your earlier comment about the NuStar pipeline, Steve, the Waggaman is on the NuStar pipeline as well. So those tons can be moved in any direction, physically moved in. You know, they can show up as exports in Donaldsonville, they can show up in the system, and, as Bert mentioned, it's on the list of... We've got four plants, including Donaldsonville, that we're evaluating carbon capture and sequestration. It's definitely on the list. It's in Louisiana, and it doesn't—because it doesn't make urea on that site, it doesn't consume a lot of CO₂, so it's a good candidate. Has that plant ever shipped ammonia in the NuStar? I can tell you, back in the nineties, when I was involved in that plant, it did not. Product has gone to them on the NuStar from us. Oh, okay. When they've been down, what the market doesn't see many times is how we backfill some of our producer colleagues, and Waggaman has had issues in the past, and we have supplied them. We have not taken product, the reverse flow. But it's functional? Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's how we ship today, and that's where the original owner built it to supply their ammonium nitrate facility in Missouri by pipeline. When you were there, Steve, that was the old ammonia plant that was torn down. Right. This is the brand-new one. Yeah. There are two plants. Let's talk a little bit about your decarbonization plans. You're evaluating, and I think you're the only one looking at this, where an SMR with carbon capture versus an autothermal reformer, you know, that's, it's an interesting analysis. Do you have a hunch as to which way likely is a lower capital cost? I'll address one aspect of this, and I think this is—this goes to the CF Industries operating methodology and culture, because we get a lot of questions about that. "Why are you looking at this, and why are you adding on?" No, it's being holistic. It's taking a step back, looking at all the technology that's available to the company and to the industry, and doing a detailed engineering. It's not a quick glance. It's a very detailed analysis of what we can get in a new economy. The decarbonized world is a new economy. And so to meet that long term, these plants are long-lived at 20, 30, 40, 50 years. So you wanna make the right step on step one of what is the best technology. There's technology out there, ATR, for example, that has not been applied to an ammonia plant yet. You wanna make sure you get that right. And flue gas capture is very exciting, but how does it work? What does it look like? What is the cost? And then we can come back to investors and people like you and have a very confident story that you can buy into. When you look at the way the low-carbon market is developing, it is still in the development phase. You've got exciting opportunities and a variety of new applications. You've also got Europe in the process of putting in a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. So understanding all the different ways of maximizing the reduction in carbon to come up with what is the most economic choice for possible new construction is the right move. That's why we're taking the extra time and doing the two additional FEED studies. I got one more for you, and then I'll open it up and see if anybody wants to jump in with a question. And that is, yesterday, we had a couple of panel discussions with the DOE, and they are very actively funding and supporting a lot of new carbon capture projects, you know. And some of them are pretty challenging, you know, like a combustion device, flue gas, which I think would probably be the type of approach for if you bolted something on to an SMR, you got to capture the CO₂ coming out of that boiler. But there seems to be a lot of innovation going down that path. It's all new. So it's a reasonable approach to take, it seems like, as opposed to, you know, what seems like a less efficient hydrogen producer with an ATR. So interesting. Anybody want to jump in here with a question? Morning. Just curious, when you talk about the gas spread, when you think about your, you reference kind of the $1.80, but in the 12-month or, you know, December, it's $3.50, between $3.50 and $4. Can you help us think about what type of- ... you know, and then the TTF, if there's an ability for European production to come back online and how we can think about S&Ds kind of moving forward. Obviously, a ton came off. Just curious your expectation for production to come back online, if any? So the industry perspectives and ours, as well as our own, that during 2023, you had a significant amount of capacity come offline, both announced and not announced in Europe. Up to 40% was probably our number as you trend it through Q4, and those gas spreads were pronounced. When we were at $3, they were at $15 or even higher. So a significant spread, that would be, you know, $10 per MMBtu would be $300 in cost in ammonia. As we've trended now into Q1 and as we get closer to Q2 in Europe, those spreads have narrowed. We're now at $8, let's say, of TTF values, maybe a little higher, and you're right, we're at $1.80. So, that has been... I would say that is the bet is that those gas spreads at times will compress and expand, and as we get into the winter months, obviously they expand. They did not have much of a winter, and nor have we in North America, and those were both reflected down. But our view is that Europe is the marginal producer and probably will continue to be, and those spreads will at times expand out. I think the issue will be if you're in the fourth quartile, so if you're a European producer and your cost of gas goes down, you also have to look at what the clearing price for ammonia and the products is not static either. So if that comes down with you, then you really haven't gotten any margin opportunity. So it's a really difficult decision for anyone in the fourth quartile to decide to turn back on, because if they turn back on and now they're putting a little bit too much product into their local market, the price collapses, their margin goes negative, and they have to shut back off again. So it's—that's the life of every plant that exists in the fourth quartile, is they try to navigate the way to maximize their cash generation without starting and stopping the plant so much that they drive their maintenance costs through the roof. Yeah, the question is to answer, do you burn gas for several days to fire up the plant, costing millions of dollars? The thermal expansion and contraction of starting and stopping those plants is not healthy. Then you have additional maintenance work. And then is where, where are you on the turnaround cycle? And if you have a $40 million-$50 million dollar turnaround coming and you, you're not making any money, that just goes to the negative. So it's not just the gas, it's many components are put into that calculation. Just staying with Europe and supply, you know, obviously, you know, you guys have your assets in the U.S. It's a fantastic place to be. A lot of uncertainty around Europe. And I guess what I'm wondering is, you know, in the past cycles, you know, very interesting carbonization and, you know, different uses for ammonia. There were periods where the industry added a lot of capacity. And so I'm just curious, like, what is, like, the mindset? Like, how do you evaluate capacity additions? Obviously, there's been a big change in the market with the differentials. Like, what, what's, what's preventing people effectively from adding capacity in, in North America? Because it would seem like a fantastic place to be, frankly. I think when you looked at capacity in the past, you had an expectation of how much that would cost. I think what you've seen is people like ourselves have done FEED studies and not gotten to FID yet. You're realizing it's quite a different calculation than what it was 10 years ago. Of the 26 plants that were announced in 2012 and 2013 to be built in North America, four got built. We built two of them, we bought the third one, and one is just being bought by Koch Industries from OCI. There is capacity coming on in different places of the world that might be cheaper to produce, but again, it goes to what is your use for that molecule? Is it the best use of for urea and ammonia, what it used to be, or is it LNG or maybe even energy for your growing population and demands for that for air conditioning and heating? It's a different calculus than even 10 or 20 years ago, especially 20 years ago. The announcements that have been made for ammonia plants are focused on clean energy, and that's for, as Martin explained, the Japanese, Korean, and other markets that are looking at co-combustion. That's a whole new demand position, and that's still to be evaluated. With that, we're out of time. Please join me in thanking the CF folks here for the presentation.