All right, I assume we're good. So thanks everyone for joining back here on the Fireside Track. So Josh Spector, UBS, North America Chemicals and Packaging Analyst. Happy to have CF Industries on the stage with us today. Also from UBS, Shneur Gershuni, Head of ESG Research for the Americas. So a lot of things to talk about with CF here. We have Bert Frost, who is probably a familiar face to those in the audience, leads Marketing, Supply Chain and Sales for CF. A newer face for CF, but maybe not for all investors, is Greg Cameron, CF's recently appointed CFO. Greg was the CFO of Bloom Energy since 2020, and spent over 25 years in finance organizations with GE. So definitely brings a lot of financial firepower to CF C-Suite, and perhaps some interesting perspective on hydrogen and energy developments overall. So, before we get started, as a research analyst, I need to provide certain disclosures for the relationship to UBS and myself of any company I express a view on this call. Those are available at www.ubs.com/disclosures. So with that, I think we can get started. I don't think there's any necessarily intro overview to start with, but I wanted to really start with Greg, kind of as a newer face and joiner for CF, just some impressions of CF and really, you know, what excites you about this opportunity that CF has? Thanks, Josh. So I've been with CF now just shy of two and a half months. So what brought me to CF was really that mission-driven company, right? It's a clean energy to fuel and feed the world sustainably. And at this point in my career, at this point in my life, mission matters. What I loved about getting to meet the team before I got here, it's a real strong operating culture. It runs its plants very well, with high degree of safety is important. And not only is it great in its core market, but has an opportunity to expand in clean tech, which is where I came from, from Bloom. So I saw a great overlap between my GE capital operating experience and my Bloom experience, around the clean tech side. Since I've been here, my impressions are, what an outstanding operating team. The senior leadership team and their folks are first rate, and I've been really impressed by the amount of transparency that they have into their operations, and their willingness and vulnerability to talk about, "Here are big decisions we're trying to make," and have those with the board, have them with themselves, and have them with investors. So I couldn't be more happy and ecstatic to be a part of CF. That sounds good. And I, I think to stick on the financial side of things, cash deployment has been a big part of CF for most of its history. I think over the last five years, pretty consistent amount of free cash flow- Yeah kind of deployed, a lot of that going towards the buybacks. I think as you think about investments and maybe what's next for CF, particularly when it comes around clean energy, how do you think about the priorities here between investing for growth in new markets versus cash deployment into buybacks? If anything's different in your approach or how you characterize it. I will tell you, it's wonderful to have cash and have options, especially coming from Bloom, where we were very focused at always just making sure we were raising money. A very different discussion here at CF. You know, whether it is the buyback that we've done, the dividend increase we've had, or the amount of CapEx internal that we've done, or through the Waggaman acquisition, there is a ton of levers and opportunities for the cash. I think as we sit back and think about it, right, it's all around defining opportunities for growth, and probably the biggest investment we have in front of us is around our Blue Point facility down in Louisiana, on a opportunity to build additional capacity. In order to do that, we're seeking a partner, both not only to balance the capital investment, but as well as making sure that we have an opportunity for the offtake. And our view is that it's not a either/or, it's an and, right? How do you continue to return good value back to the shareholder in the form of dividends and stock buybacks? At the end of June, we had $1.9 billion left on our open to buy, that we've committed or intend to complete by the end of 2025, and that's been a core staple within the CF capital investment strategy. The dividend was recently raised to $2 a share, and given the share buybacks, that's about the same amount of capital, when we complete that, that we've done in the past, and then we've got the opportunity for CapEx. I've never seen a team work more closely together to make sure that they are spending the shareholders' money in a way that's gonna maximize opportunity for growth going forward. So we're going through a FEED study now. We'll get to an FID. We'll get through a timing on that, I'm not gonna get ahead of it, but I think we're thinking about all different ways to make sure we're deploying our capital for growth. Is there a limiting factor in terms of you have to have additional available capital for options? So as you think about two, three years down the line, do you wanna maintain that, regardless of what nitrogen's doing, that you have flexibility, or, you know, how do you manage that? Listen, we'll always. I think Chris and the team beforehand did an amazing job of de-risking the balance sheet. Coming in with $3 billion, which you see in net debt or gross debt on the balance sheet, less cash, it's $1 billion-ish. What we've done in de-risking pensions and other things that were within the balance sheet, it's core to CF that we're not gonna take on something that doesn't have a balanced risk, and that we have a balanced approach to make sure we go forward. So there's a lot of moving pieces on what we decide, who we decide to partner with, the pace at which we go, and at that time, we've got a bunch of different levers to make sure that we're balancing our growth and safety for the future of the company. Okay, that sounds good. I wanna come back to the projects in a little bit, but I wanna take this time to maybe go to Bert to talk about some of the near-term dynamics within nitrogen. I mean, on your earnings call, you talked about a favorable setup for the fall. I guess there was a recent India tender. The headlines seem more mixed, so maybe a recent update on kind of what you're seeing overall in terms of the nitrogen markets. Yes, we closed a very good first half of the year. Very good movement of our products. The plants operated well, at least in the second quarter, and we came out of it with low inventories and with a very nice order book for the back half of the year. What happens is you cycle through. Obviously, the Northern Hemisphere is very active in the March through June period. Now we move to the Southern Hemisphere for the back half. The India tender that was just announced today was a surprise to the upside on volume, and they're still open, so we assume additional volume will be procured. The attractiveness of that is that takes some of the longs out of the global market. You have Brazil, Argentina, Australia, the Southern Hemisphere. That's gonna be continuing to consume tons through into next year. As we get ready for our spring in 2025, we're in a very good position, not only from a gas price attractiveness compared to global opportunities, but a market dynamic for demand. We believe that the industry came in with low inventories into the back half of the year, and that allows us then to not only continue to build on our order book, but utilize inventory space. I think the one headwind for the industry is the low commodity prices are lower than we've seen the last several years, where we had, you know, $6 corn in 2022, and today we're trading around $4. I think the dynamic for the Midwest of the United States is that for those who are renting land or have just bought land or maybe heavily indebted farmers that might be a more challenged year. But I think what's coming out of this year is high yields. In a low valued environment, higher yields allow for higher revenue. This year will trend okay, but I think there is some economizing taking place at the farm gate. That's why when you look at CF Industries, we're a broad-based distribution of our tons. When you look at what goes to ag, what goes to industry, what goes to exports, and then the utilization of our inventory space, we're in a very good position to go into 2025. Yeah, maybe building off that, I mean, that's clearly a concern from investors around what happens in terms of lower crop prices and what that does to acreage. How much can CF mitigate some of that? So how much leverage is there to move to another market or export or do something if you lose a certain amount of acres next year, or farmers are maybe more particular about how much fertilizers they apply in the spring? That is the constant question we ask ourselves, and that's the strategy part and the preparation, supporting the strategy of how we place, prepare, and move those tons. And so, as I referenced, the four major areas that we have is obviously the current position in agriculture, where about 70% of our volume goes. And then it's the industrial contracts that are 24/7. That's for ammonium nitrate, nitric acid, ammonia, diesel exhaust fluid, and urea liquor that goes into different segments. And then it's the export capability. Today, we're exporting significant volume to Argentina, Australia, the EU, and the UK for UAN, ammonium nitrate to Brazil, Central America, and Europe, and urea, when it's economically attractive. So when you lay out the opportunities in front of us, it's, we're economically driven. And so if we can export and keep our inventory position solid, we'll do some of that. But it's, for sure, first off, economically driven in terms of where's the net back, where's the opportunity, the timing associated with that. And so when you leverage those four capabilities and the structure around that, yes, I do think it's going to be challenged in North America and some in Brazil as well, or they're now planting soybeans and their second crop corn that will come in January. But again, if anybody's well-positioned in this environment, it's us. How has the role of China changed? And I guess, I mean, obviously, exports out of China have come down. Is there anything that reverses that trend in your view, or is this now a new structural regime? If you go back and we look at China over a 10- to 15-year period, it's remarkable what they have done, what they accomplished, and what they're doing. Because when you go back in that previous period, at one point in 2014 and 2015, China was the world's largest exporter by far, where if the exported ton is about 55 million tons of urea today, China was almost 14 million of that just 10 years ago, to zero today. Now, why did they do one, and why are they doing the other? The first was a reflection of the heavy investment that they made in industry from 2005 through 2014 to build urea plants. They overbuilt. They got up to 90 million tons of capacity and in a market that consumes 55-60 million tons. So what did they do? They just like they're doing with steel today, they exported the remaining ton. The difference between steel and some other industrial products in China is, urea is not a big employer. It's a heavy use of water, and it's a heavy use of coal, and which is a pollutant, to generate an economic good that doesn't generate a lot of economic positive for the country. And so I think where the government has fallen is, they want inexpensive urea for their domestic farmer, which is a big and industrial use, which is a big consumer, and they don't really care about exporting after that. What that does to the world, though, is a very positive dynamic. You've taken... If the world is, again, exportable ton is 55-60 million tons, just a few years ago, there were 3-5 million tons of that. So let's say 8%, you take that off the market, that's a structural support. And so what's trading today at $300 a short ton, NOLA, is probably a floor, and I don't see China coming back into the market aggressively. I think this is something that they determined is a new policy. Okay. No, that makes sense. So I do want to shift back to talk about some of the projects and also think about low carbon ammonia. So maybe to give an overview, whether Greg or Bert, one of you walk through that what CF is doing with this today, and then maybe I'll turn it over to Schnoor to kind of ask some questions around CCUS at a high level before I dig in deeper. Yeah, I'll start with the investments we're making, and then I'll pass it to Bert and how we're marketing it. So we started with in Donaldsonville on our carbon capture. 66% of the CO2 in our processes is naturally captured, and we constructed a deal with ExxonMobil, where they're going to sequester that CO2, call it 2 million tons annually, and we're going to earn a price of fifty million-- or $50 a ton, which gives us about $100 million of annual benefit from that one investment. The payback period on that is, call it 2 years, so incredibly attractive. We're doing a similar type of relationship with ExxonMobil at our Yazoo City facility, about 500,000 tons today, and it will be at slightly different economics, given this is not as much CO2. Since the acquisition of Denbury by ExxonMobil, the economics have changed a little bit, but still very accretive versus our cost of capital. We're working up in Alberta at our Medicine Hat facility. We think that one, we can move forward as well. Those are the first three investments that we're making on our existing facilities in order to capture the CO2. Successfully, when we do that, that'll be about 66%, two-thirds of the CO2 that we create through our process. Longer term, we are looking at an additional investment in using probably an ATR technology, an autothermal reformer versus SMR, in our new facility, and we can capture well over 90-95% of the CO2. Those are our big carbon capture projects, and as well, we've started our electrolyzer. It was not a Bloom electrolyzer, by the way, but we started our electrolyzer in Donaldsonville, and we will be making 20,000 tons of green ammonia out of that facility as well, and we're already in the process of going through, and that's a bit of a pilot to make sure that we understand those technologies, so a lot of investment going in there, very high return, and most of our investment theses are done without expecting a improvement, or an increase, or a lift on price, and we're starting to see some of that, so those are the investments we're making. I'll pass it to Bert on the marketing of it. Yeah, I love where we are from a decarbonized or decarbonization perspective and what's happening in the market relative to the absorption, understanding, and adoption of these products. And so what we've been doing is working with our customers, working with the CPGs, working with, and understanding how CBAMs are going to come into place in different markets. And I can tell you that it's accelerating quickly because as companies look at their scope emissions, as we look at our scope emissions and what we're able to bring to the market, whether that be for agricultural products or industrial products or exporting to what's specific to the EU on the CBAM that's coming, we'll be not only the first to have these products, but we'll have these products in abundance. And what the communication has been to customers is, we want to incentivize the growth and adoption of these products, but we also want to monetize them. So we're being very clear that this will come at a premium, and we'll define the premium as we get closer, but at some point, economics will drive those who want these products, and we don't think there'll be enough. We'll have to pay more for them, and how we're communicating that is there'll be a price for ammonia or other decarbonized products, and then another line item for the decarbonization factor, whether it's 65 or 95, depending on the system that we implement. And so whether that be industrial products like ammonium nitrate or UAN for agriculture, or urea liquor, or DEF, or ammonia for applications, the future is bright. Oh, sure. Stop it. Maybe if I can jump in a little bit. I was originally going to go to CCUS, but I actually wanted to jump on that CBAM comment- Jump on, yeah. ... you just just made. So, you know, with CBAM coming into effect, I mean, in theory, anyone who imports a product into Europe is going to effectively have to buy the carbon ETS. And so you, you're going to be in this position where you've got a decarbonized ammonia product. So are you effectively able to sell it at effectively not having to buy the carbon ETS? And does that put you at an advantage versus players in Europe itself, who don't have a carbon capture option? Taking a step back and looking at the future of Europe and that capability to carbon capture, that's going to be in question. As we've looked at Europe and where the operating plants today, specifically to the nitrogen plants and where they are and what their access will be, and does that capability even exist or will it exist, is a giant question mark. And my position is, it doesn't exist, and it will be very expensive. Even if you're going to the North Slope or someplace off of Norway, that's a very long pipeline and a very long system, and they're just starting to think about that today. I give Exxon credit and what they've put together for us and for others with the Pecan Island and the Denbury system that they purchased, how that integrates within a very short distance on existing pipelines that we can access, and what Greg already mentioned about other plants we're already looking at. So when you go around the world, who can supply low-carbon products to Europe? There aren't that many that will... One, will be at the same timeframe as CF.... And I don't think there are many globally that will be within years of ours. But back to Europe, it's going to be a challenge. And yes, the CBAM will come in at a certain price, and the economic position will be just to be below that price to access the market. Now, but whether it's 95% decarbonized or 65%, which is the two streams we have, we need to determine some of that going forward, and then what products we would ship and in what form. Your premium would effectively be whatever the carbon price is. If it goes up to 150 EUR a ton, then your margins will just continue to expand effectively. Then you would think there would also be a supply and demand imbalance. Mm-hmm. So that's all to be determined, but all on the upside. Cool. Maybe just turn back to the carbon capture side for a second. So you've got three plants. If I remember correctly, the first plant was going through the Endling pipes to Exxon. Mm-hmm. But that was a pre-combustion facility, which is easier to collect. First question, I assume you don't need a Class VI well permit for that specific one, because I think Exxon already has one, but will you need them for any of the other projects that you're looking at? Those will be all ExxonMobil's process and where they take it, and there's different contractual relationships on what they do with the CO2. But that is, we make ammonia, and we ship them the CO2, and they sequester it. Right. And then secondly, the other facilities, are they going to be pre-combustion or post-combustion? They will be all in the same loop, where we're using the process CO2 coming off of that. Okay ... process, and that will be it, and that's what gives you... A third of it is in your flue gas, two-thirds of it is in your process, your non-combustion process. So then, your two-year payback ratio, is it basically repeatable across the- In the U.S.? Mm-hmm. In the U.S.- Sorry ... 'cause there's no 45Q outside that. But I think given the I wouldn't say you're gonna see the same economics we see in Donaldsonville. So I would say for our other projects, we will see a return on those well above our cost to capital. Just given the amount of size, right? There's two million... I mean, it's a very unique facility, Donaldsonville. Right. One final question, because Josh is probably getting nervous I'm getting too deep here. But, the structure that you have it set because of how the 45Q works- Yes ... so you're effectively getting paid, and you've got a tolling arrangement with Exxon. Yes. Is that kind of the- Yes ... the structure? Yep. So we'll get all $85 a ton based on when they sequester it, and then there's about $30-$35 a cost that's related to our tipping fee, as well as depreciation, amortization, running of that. So from a P&L standpoint, if you're just trying to model this out, there'll be a cost up in our gross margin. There'll be $85 of benefit in above the in our other income line, and will flow through to EBITDA. The 35 covers your OpEx to operate- Yes ... your return of capital, as well as the tolling fees on the pipe and the sequestration? Yes. So we net $50. Perfect. Cool. Josh, I know I went too deep. No, so Shneur, that's. I was going to hit on some of that anyway, so I think we covered Europe to some extent. I wanted to kind of come back to North America a little bit and just think about one of the pieces which changed a little bit, I feel like over the last three to six months, is maybe some of the conversation around ag, and ag specifically for low carbon. So I don't know if, Bert, maybe if you could talk a little bit more around kind of some of the interests there, so the coordination or cooperation you're doing with POET around into ethanol, maybe some of the food companies. How do you get paid, or how do you... what's the structure that could maybe evolve here for there to be value paid to CF for lower carbon inputs into ag? I think it's broader than that, but yes, we want to get paid. But the broader nature is that the farmer has to get paid. And so there's been a lot of pressure on the farm sector or the farming community on: How are you going to improve soil quality? How are you going to improve runoff? How are you going to improve the emissions from the products you produce? And so taking a step back, what we did was looking at that. I come from a farm family, come from a farm community, and understand some of those dynamics. And so it's, let's focus on the value chain. So we participate in one segment of the value chain. We're the input supplier, but we actually don't sell to farmers. We sell to retailers. So how do you bring the retailer in and have an education around low-carbon products? We're working on that and having high-level discussions. The cooperative group has been very cooperative, and that being CHS, Growmark, WinField, which is Land O'Lakes, and then some of the smaller ones that are associated either with them or are independent. And then it's. You're right. The big one was Poet, and I've had a relationship with some of the leadership at Poet since my days at Koch Industries, because a lot of those guys left Koch Industries to form Poet. And it was their understanding around they want low-carbon products because they're obviously the biggest producer of ethanol. They export some of that ethanol to Europe, who wants low-carbon feedstocks. But it's the whole idea of then how do we look at the consumption of alcohol or ethanol, the production of of ethanol, and sustainable aviation fuel? Can we get there in a low-carbon sense? So we supply the low-carbon product on the input, working with the retailers, the farmer with good farming practices, cover crops, and some no-tilling improves their carbon score. So you get a low or no carbon corn coming through that. We represent over 10% of the scope emissions. That improves each segment, and then with these, again, practices. And then you look at the ethanol processing facility, decarbonizing that, which again, doing exactly what Greg talked about with our system, putting in their decarbonization, and there's work being done in and amongst many of those operating plants in Iowa, Illinois, and being in that central area. You create a low carbon value chain for corn. You can do the same thing for wheat on flour, and I think that will come. And so those are the things that we're focused on, that we as a group, again, of producers, retailers, farmers, and then processors. If you see that, as we see that improving, that will improve the overall score, the overall consumption, and then the adoption of low carbon fuels. To us, that's the future. I think a challenge that I face when looking at this is it's a lot more complicated to see what the value is in that, versus the CBAM is kind of easy. We can guess what your carbon is, and you can think about how you arb that. It's probably too early to answer this precisely, but I mean, how would you approach or how would a buyer approach what premium they would pay in that scenario? How does it trickle down to CF? I think it goes. You're right. On the CBAM side, for ammonia, for example, we know we have a very good idea of what that's gonna be. On fuels, it's a little bit different, but a decarbonized ethanol as a fuel, today it represents 70% of the value of the energy value of gasoline. There'll have to be a calculation, and there will have to be a quantification of each of those segments that I outlined. But we're working on that, and there is a lot of interest because of the ethanol investments and the need to keep that 40-plus percent, 45% of corn goes into ethanol production. Now, some of that's divided out on DDGs for feed, but there's a significant portion of farm revenue that goes, that's associated with corn and ethanol. There's a high interest, just like what Greg talked about, with, you know, the interest will how the IRA will continue on in a different administration. There's a high interest of all administrations for the farm sector to keep that profitable and vibrant. I think that will come into play. Thanks, Shneur do you want to follow up? If I can ask Josh this question in a slightly different way. Should we be paying attention to the California LCFS market as kind of an indication of where we could potentially see this going? Or do we have to think about CORSIA in Europe in terms of their requirements for SAF and kind of any tea leaves that we can be following to try and figure this out a little better? In terms of the low carbon nature of, again, what we provide on an input to the output is improves the CI score in California significantly. And again, part of this, as we're looking at SAF, is that has to come into the discussion. The tea leaves hopefully go that way. If I see LCFS prices in California go up by 20%-30%, I mean, CARB just put a cool announcement out, that sort of helps us out, or should we be paying more attention to the D3, D4, and D6 RINs? I would say just it helps us out. Okay. Sorry, Josh. Going back to the project side of things and thinking about Greenfield, I mean, one other thing I feel like changed a little bit with the most recent earnings call has been maybe the approach of what the contract structure would look like, or really what CF needs to do an FID on a project. I think I would have said six-to-nine months ago, like, very secure contract for half of it with a partner and maybe a big chunk of that, a long-term contract for CF. I think it seems to be as maybe more of a acceptance or willingness to have CF having more of a market approach on their share of that project. Mm-hmm. If I'm wrong, correct me, but I think at a high level, it's your approach to long-term contracts on clean energy when you invest in a new project, versus taking the CF ability to arb different markets, but with a more spot approach. I think as we think about the projects, and at least for the time period I've been around CF, it's been very consistent how we think about making sure we have a partner that can invest and that is interested in the offtake for their piece. I think as you think about our piece within that market, when we sit back and look at how we see the market evolving, we do see an opportunity for a supply/demand encouraged environment for us to place our product in the market, even before you get to some of these alternative energy and other applications. Mm-hmm. So I know in the past, we've made investments, we've made sure that we've had the offtake for that, pre-going through it, but that's where we've been the sole investor. I think as we think about the value of the tons going forward and what Bert sees as the market opportunity for them, we're quite encouraged that we want to make sure we're taking a balanced risk, but we see the ability to move those tons, especially if they're, we decide to use a technology that covers off 95% of the CO2 and has a relatively low CI score. We see a lot of different opportunities for it and maybe do not want to be in a spot where we've got 60%, 70%, 80% of that spoken for before we break ground. Is that fair? No, No, I... We look at it holistically. Yeah. We are exhausting all the options, and we believe we have the capability today to easily move 50% of it, and you know, we're looking at various contractual and percentages, and the long term of, you know, as Greg has said, we have plenty of space for additional investments of new plants and want to make sure, but that we're walking in synchronicity with the market, our customers, and our partners. Because how do you, as a management team, think about, you know, selling into something like the coal-fired ammonia coal-fired with coal, which maybe has a twenty-year contract life or something like that, and an inherently probably lower return because of that stability versus dealing with more of a market focus? I guess, is there a drive to want to have that more stable mix of earnings for CF, or is that not really a driver of decision making? How we've looked at it in the past, I would compare it to the Mosaic contract, which was 600,000-800,000 tons of ammonia until which goes through this year, when we built the new plants. And so, look, that was a fantastic opportunity for both parties, but it, for us, it was a securing of that offtake, and it was a component of the mix of our contracts. So we have a varying degree of contracts of size, of gas-based, of market-based, of exports, and so I would see this feathering in. We would want some form of contract for what would be gas-based. That would, yes, would come in a lower return, but would be consistent. I think that adds in very well to what we have, and we get our acceptable return, and then we're able to market additional products. We believe we can run these plants at a higher capacity than nameplate, and we get that extra benefit as well. I think as you look at this investment cycle, if we choose to do it, and look at the balance sheet and the amount of cash that we have going into it, and the less debt, it gives us a higher degrees of flexibility than we may have had in the past, and gives us the opportunity to invest, and make sure that the tons are going to the place that are gonna get the highest returns for the shareholders. So I agree with everything Bert said, but it's a very different company as I get to learn it today versus where it was six, seven years ago. Okay. I guess one thing I wanna be clear on from my perspective is I would have said before that there's probably a linkage of whenever Japan or whatever country says, "Here's what credits are," that drives maybe your decision to then say, "We're comfortable with that." It seems like how it's framed now, you're more comfortable with, "There's enough demand where we're gonna place that somewhere," and therefore, is there a scenario where in six months you don't FID? I think the way we're thinking about it is those Japan tons would go as part of that Japan partner. Mm-hmm. So those are spoken for as part of their investment. They're gonna move forward. We're thinking about the other side of it and how do we maximize. I don't think there's been a change, and we think it's there. Now, if we get down the road in three, six, eight months from now, it's a different opportunity. We've got flexibility, and we'll make different decisions. But that's how we're thinking about it today. Maybe thinking about all this put together, so with what you're doing at Donaldsonville, depending on how you characterize that ammonia, it's 1 million to 2 million tons of reduced carbon, something like that. Mm-hmm. Two million tons, if you're not saying it's fully decarbonized, right? So, but anyway, it's gonna give you more flexibility. I guess, does that shift your mix over time? So I talked about ag earlier, talked about some interest in the industrial markets. Is that something where, again, in the context of either long-term contracts or industrial versus ag, do you see anything looking different in terms of the CF mix if you were to look three, four years from now versus what you're selling today? We're economically driven, so I can tell you, we just had this conversation last week. Run the numbers on this, this, and this for the three products, and where, what's the indifference point, and what's the point where we... 'Cause in a shift, we can just go from full ammonia to full urea to full UAN, the three major products we make. And once we run that, and if somebody can get a contract for a vessel size or a contract through one of our terminals, we'll take that decision because I can pretty much line out what the global price of urea is, and the price of UAN is much more of a European and American. That's where the product is consumed. And then ammonia is, again, global, so could we send it to Morocco? Could we send it to Europe? Could we send it to Brazil? And so we'll run those numbers, and if we can contract that ton out, we would shift production. So the point being is, that's how we're economically driven. I do believe three to four years forward with clean energy and with the CBAMs in place and the different demand points for low carbon, and it will be low carbon ammonia, those who can buy it, like we're doing in our Billingham plant. In the U.K., we shut down both of our ammonia plants. We're importing ammonia into the U.K. When low-carbon product is available, we'll be sending low-carbon ammonia to our U.K. operation, making ammonium nitrate. That's what the U.K. market, not only the consumers, but the farmers want. That will be replicated in Europe, and so I can see that point coming where we have a bigger demand base. The Europeans can't necessarily compete because of gas and CBAM costs, and they'll be doing some of the same, of shutting down some facilities and importing, and we'll be there to support them at a higher price. So as the CBAM mechanisms go in and the cost of carbon becomes higher in Europe, I mean, is there a risk that you lose enough demand where you actually don't get some benefits? I guess, how do you think about that balance of what's gonna still exist in Europe when they're paying $100 a ton full out for carbon pricing versus now, where it's still mostly subsidized? Yeah, now you're getting into the challenge of what is the future of Europe relative to gas, relative to industrial output and, and agricultural production. So there is a significant amount of Europe is a subsidized market for the output. There, India is a subsidized market for the input. What that means is the European government subsidizes urea to the farmer. It's about $100 a ton to the farmer, but the global price is $350 a ton. Europe subsidizes the output of corn, soybeans, wheat, or whatever product they produce, with payments to the farmer. Why? To keep the farmer in business and on the land and producing a good that is then processed by European companies. I still believe that's going to happen, and so then it's a discussion of what the subsidy levels are for either European production of industrial products or agricultural products, but that will probably continue in some form and fashion. To try a slightly different way, I guess, do you think more tons come out of the Europe market? So how much imports do you think there are available? So you guys are talking about CBAM more, in the former OCI project, and Woodside is probably targeting that. Is there going to be enough demand for that in your scenario? It seems like yes, but is that a risk? The world is about risk, and so in this market of commodities, you're constantly looking at capacities, demand, outputs, and the costs to produce with relative to natural gas. Our expectation is that Europe has many old, inefficient, isolated plants. Over time, some of those plants probably shouldn't or won't be operating in a future state. Okay. If I can just follow up on that a second here, I mean, 'cause my understanding is CBAM is really just supposed to levelize the playing field at the end of the day. So, like, the only real substitution effect should be somebody who can deliver it into Europe, fully decarbonized, like whether India is paying more or less to the farmers and so forth. So is really the size of the opportunity is really more for a U.S. producer that can actually decarbonize because of the 45Qs and the fact that we have a system, geology is better in the U.S. for this, that it's really just U.S.-produced product that can actually displace something in Europe? And, I mean, and is that really how the global balance just really sort of shakes itself out? Because is anybody else doing something similar to what you're doing outside of the US? Some, and that's part of the equation. The other side of the equation is, let's say I'm operating a European plant. You have a turnaround every four to five years. A turnaround is $40 million-$60 million. You're at break even for several years, slightly positive, and then you have this gigantic expense that's just come in, and you have to do that to continue operating. We had to make that decision in the U.K., and that decision was: we can't pay for that. That's it hasn't been in the past, this economic attractiveness or not, when the bill came due, we shut it down, and it was more economically attractive to import products going forward, still make the finished good. I think that's that is the question that many producers will face. If gas stays. Today, the current spread is $10 against North America. Now, some of that's eaten up in freight to get there, but it's still very wide. In an LNG market, where LNG consumption is maybe not that extreme, but the consumption and the growth and the demand for that product is growing, that cost spread will likely continue to be pronounced. Right. So you're advantaged? Yes. Yes. All right. I think with that, we could probably keep going on for a lot longer, but we'll stop it there. I want to thank CF for joining us today, and hope everyone has a good rest of their day. Thank you.