Good day, everyone, and welcome to the PBF Energy First Quarter 2022 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants have been placed in a listen-only mode, and the floor will be open for your questions following management's prepared remarks. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero on your telephone keypad. Please note that this conference is being recorded. It's now my pleasure to turn the floor over to Colin Murray of Investor Relations. Thank you. You may begin. Thank you, Melissa. Good morning, and welcome to today's call. With me today are Tom Nimbley, our CEO, Matt Lucey, our President, Erik Young, our CFO, and several other members of our management team. Copies of today's earnings release and our 10-Q filing, including supplemental information, are available on our website. Before getting started, I'd like to direct your attention to the safe harbor statement contained in today's press release. Statements in our press release and those made on this call that express the company's or management's expectations or predictions of the future are forward-looking statements intended to be covered by safe harbor provisions under federal securities laws. There are many factors that could cause actual results to differ from our expectations, including those we describe in our filings with the SEC. Consistent with our prior periods, we'll discuss our results today excluding special items. In today's press release, we describe the non-cash special items included in our quarterly results. The cumulative impact of these special items decreased net income by an after-tax amount of $64.4 million or $0.53 per share. There are a number of other notable items included in our results that Erik will highlight in his remarks. For reconciliations of any non-GAAP measures mentioned on today's call, please refer to the supplemental tables provided in today's press release. I'll now turn the call over to Tom Nimbley. Thanks, Colin. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our call. Before commenting on PBF results and the macro environment in general, I would like to comment on current events. The war in Ukraine has caused shockwaves across the world. However, any impact outside the borders of Ukraine pale in comparison to what is being endured by the Ukrainian people. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those who are suffering, and we hope to see the conflict end soon. Prior to the events in Ukraine, global oil markets were delicately balanced. Crude supplies were tight but meeting demand, while product supplies and refining capacity were struggling to keep up with post-COVID demand strength. We are seeing volatility in global crude markets driven by supply concerns. Trade flows have shifted in response to sanctions, but the crude markets remain adequately supplied despite increasing demand for incrementally more crude. Strength in global product prices is being driven by a combination of increased demand and low product inventories. Global refining capacity is more than 4 million barrels lower today than in 2019. Even with relatively high utilization, current refining capacity can barely keep up with demand and is incapable of concurrently increasing global product inventories. U.S. refining utilization is operating at near capacity as we are about to enter the traditionally peak summer demand period. For the first quarter, PBF reported earnings per share of $0.35, an adjusted net income of $43.3 million. To put this in context, the first quarter is generally a seasonally low point for demand and a high point for industry maintenance. Through this, PBF generated positive earnings. Our valued employees are working tirelessly to keep our assets running safely and reliably. We completed a significant amount of maintenance in the first quarter. As we get the bulk of our planned turnarounds behind us in the first half of 2022, our assets are well-positioned to benefit from the favorable market conditions we are seeing. With that, I will now turn the call over to Matt. Thanks, Tom. As Tom mentioned, PBF is off to a solid start. During the quarter, we completed more than a third of our planned turnaround activity for the year. On the East Coast, we completed work on the Delaware City reformer and other secondary units, which began in March and concluded in April. At Chalmette, we completed a major turnaround of the reformer and aromatics complex. On the West Coast, we completed turnarounds at Martinez on the distillate hydrotreater and hydrocracker, while Torrance finished planned work on one of our hydrotreater trains. Torrance had some unplanned downtime in March related to a utility power disruption, and while that disruption was costly, it is behind us. Looking ahead to the second quarter, our capital expenditure and throughput guidance is presented in today's press release. We completed the work at Delaware this month and have planned work at Torrance in June. In addition to our refining CapEx, we continue to invest and progress our renewable diesel project in Chalmette. We anticipate startup with full pretreatment capabilities in the first half of next year. Importantly, the project is on time and on budget. We believe our 20,000-barrel-a-day facility is a top-tier project with regards to capital costs, operating costs, geographic flexibility, feed and product optionality and time to market. In parallel with the project development, we continue to evaluate a number of different financing alternatives across the capital structure. We are working with financial advisors and are very encouraged by the interest expressed by potential counterparties. Before turning the call over to Erik, I feel like I must comment on the RFS as it is unquestionably driving costs higher at the pump for every consumer in the country. The administration has been hearing from a lot of stakeholders on the pain consumers are feeling at the gas pumps, as well as problems with the inflated 2022 conventional biofuel requirement the EPA proposed. We are hopeful there will be a pathway to a more sensible and workable program with the final rule. Importantly, the program's unintended consequences on the price of food will certainly become more severe if not addressed. We hope to hear something further in early June as the courts have mandated that a decision must be made. Like you, we are waiting to see if the Biden administration will take this opportunity to lower fuel costs as motorists are taking to the road. With that, I'll turn it over to Erik. Thank you, Matt. Our first quarter financial results reflect strong product demand as world economies continue rebounding from the pandemic. Today, we reported our fourth consecutive quarter of profitability with adjusted net income of $0.35 per share and adjusted EBITDA of approximately $271 million. This brings our trailing 12-month adjusted EBITDA to over $930 million. Our first quarter adjusted EBITDA includes a non-cash benefit of approximately $24 million, driven by changing market prices and the management of our California environmental credit obligations. To that end, our $1.1 billion environmental credit accrued expense consists of approximately $500 million related to our California obligations and roughly $600 million related to RINs. As a reminder, California AB 32 cap-and-trade program settlement spans several years. Of the RIN accrual at the end of Q1, approximately 1/3 are fixed price purchase commitments that will settle this year, and the remainder are subject to mark-to-market adjustments. We remain an active participant in the RIN market and look forward to clarity on the program. Consolidated CapEx for the quarter was approximately $225 million, which includes roughly $185 million for refining and corporate CapEx, approximately $40 million related to continued development of the RD facility, and roughly $1 million for PBF Logistics. Our first half refining and corporate CapEx should be approximately $325 million-$350 million, including $225 million-$250 million of turnaround expenditures. For the second half of 2022, we expect total refining and corporate CapEx to be roughly $200 million. This reflects a return to our normalized pre-pandemic turnaround schedule. Primarily as a result of the rising price environment for hydrocarbons during the quarter, our liquidity position strengthened to a robust level of more than $2.6 billion, including approximately $1.4 billion of cash and in excess of $1.2 billion of borrowing availability at quarter end. Since the end of 2020, we have reduced our long-term debt by approximately $990 million, including $55 million in 2022. In addition to $25 million of repayments on the PBF Logistics revolver, we opportunistically repurchased $30 million of unsecured bonds at PBF Energy this year. Pro forma for this debt reduction, our consolidated net leverage on a trailing 12-month basis is inside 3x. The official process to amend and extend our asset-backed credit facility at PBF Holding commenced during the first quarter. We are pleased to report that things are proceeding as planned, and we anticipate a successful closing during this quarter. We expect this positive momentum to carry forward into the PBF Logistics refinancing efforts for both the revolver and the term debt. Refinancing of both facilities should close over the next few months. Once these initiatives are complete, we can then address the 2025 debt maturities at PBF. Given the strong product fundamentals and current outlook for our business, our goals are achievable only if we continue focusing on safe and reliable operations, cost control, and free cash flow. Operator, we've completed our opening remarks, and we'd be pleased to take any questions. Thank you. In a moment, we'll open the call to questions. The company requests that all callers limit each turn to one question and one follow-up. You may rejoin the queue with additional questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you'd like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. Our first question comes from the line of Roger Read with Wells Fargo. Please proceed with your question. Yeah, thank you. Good morning. Well, it's certainly an interesting time to be in refining, but I guess we could say that for the last two years. Curious, given your position on the East Coast and where we seem to see some of the greatest tightness for products. I mean, it seems very important given that's, you know, kind of where we price everything on the wholesale market. As you look at it, and I want to get past any maintenance issues at Delaware City, but how do you see that market getting supplied? Or is what we're seeing a lack of imports coming from across the Atlantic? Is it lack of stuff coming up to Colonial Pipeline? I'm just kind of curious how you see the market ultimately achieving something akin to balance. It's a great question, Roger, and a short answer, but I won't be short, I will assure you, is all of the above and more. All of what you said and more. We obviously have had, you know, reasonable recovery in demand of products. Not at pre-pandemic levels yet, but certainly stronger than they've been. Jet fuel is increased in demand. We have capacity rationalization that has taken place in PADD 1. When you go back and you know, realize that PES is no longer operating, Come By Chance is not operating as a refiner. The other thing is very strong changes in the import-export balances. We've had a couple of weeks here where Line 2, Colonial Pipeline Line 2 has not been allocated. It traditionally is always allocated, and that is, of course, the distillate line that comes up from the Gulf Coast to Linden, New Jersey. The reason for that is because the United States has become the marginal supplier of an export barrel, in the wake of cutbacks in Russian production and the inability of Russia to supply markets in the U.S. In Latin America, on the margin, the United States is now supplying the distillate exports, particularly ULSD. Net exports out of the Gulf Coast and the country have been very high. The reality is, when you put all that together, and we've seen an interesting situation here, where in the last several weeks on the EIAs, we've had okay demand, but not as strong as last year. High capacity utilization in the U.S. running in the low 90s. At the same time, even with that, because of that, we've actually had draws in clean products, particularly distillate. In PADD 1, as you are well aware, we are very, very tight. Very, very low on distillate vs the five-year average. Yeah. It's really quite something to watch. Okay. Well, I guess my second question, since the other super tight market seems to be the West Coast, obviously detailed the issues in Q1. Was just curious, as you look at that market with the planned work at Torrance in June, seems to be balancing out a little bit better on gasoline there, but is it the same situation on the tightness and distillate is what's driving the West Coast, or is it an improvement in demand? Just curious what you see there. We're seeing demand hold up on the West Coast, relatively strong. Distillate jet has recovered. One big thing that we're seeing is the traditional imports from Asia of jet fuel into the West Coast had slowed down significantly. That in combination with there has been a fair amount of downtime. We had some in the first quarter that Matt referenced, and we do have some planned in June. There are other refiners, Chevron Richmond has, I think, scheduled a crude turnaround in June as well. Again, the West Coast has not been without rationalization. The Rodeo Refinery is converted partly already to renewable diesel, and of course, the Marathon Martinez Refinery has been isolated. It's kind of the same story. It's reasonably good demand, less refining capacity, coming in with tight inventories, and in fact, less imports into the West Coast. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from line of Theresa Chen with Barclays. Please proceed with your question. Morning. Tom, I wanted to ask you a follow-up on the East Coast. Given the tightness and the robust outlook there for product balances, how hard would it be for you to bring up your previously idled, clean product capacity? Very good, Teresa. Well, we did start up two of the units that we had idled during the pandemic in our Paulsboro Refinery, and that would be the reformer, which obviously makes gasoline, high octane gasoline. One thing everybody should look at is we've seen a pronounced increase in the spread between premium RBOB and regular RBOB. We brought up the reformer and we brought up the distillate hydrotreater, which produces ULSD. Obviously, that was a good decision given where we are. The remaining units, though, we certainly will continue to look at it, but we'll keep down. The major reason for that is what we've shut down is a cat cracker, which is north of 50,000 barrels a day in FCC, and a crude unit, which is 60,000 barrels a day. If we started the cat cracker up, and even if we started the crude unit up, we would be short feedstocks for the cat cracker. One of the things that I think you're all aware of or we're looking at is, going forward while we this is a terrific environment in many ways, but or except for the Ukrainian people, the fact is, because of the problems with Russia and their exports, we're likely gonna get some tightness in secondary feeds as we go forward, i.e., VGOs, fuel oils that would normally feed the cat cracker. The fact is, we've started up what we can start up, and if we started up the other units, we couldn't run them at capacity. Got it. That's great color. Thank you. Erik, just on capital allocation, how should we think about the path of deleveraging, and is there any appetite to further equitize your balance sheet from here? I think at this point, our focus today is really on getting these refinancings done at PBF and PBF Logistics. Once those are done, we believe that will remove at least some of the overhang that we see on the bond complex. The unsecured bonds should trade up there, probably a weighted average circa 90 today. And then from there, we can address the 25 maturities. I think right now we're looking at a forward curve that is extremely attractive, and that's why we're continuing just to focus on safe and reliable operations. We've spent a significant amount of CapEx in the first quarter, right? That's starting to kind of trickle down through the remainder of the year with only $200 million in the back half of the year. We've got a pretty clean runway across the board. I don't think at this point there's really much to say in terms of equity. We're really focusing on what we can capture near term. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Doug Leggate with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning, guys. This is Kalei standing in for Doug. Thanks for taking the question. My first question concerns your cash flow capacity in this environment. Cracks today obviously are unprecedented, so modeling capture will have its challenges, but I'm hoping that you can help us calibrate. My question is, how much cash flow did you generate in the month of March? What does April look like? If you ran today's cracks, how much could you de-lever this year? Kalei, I think it's gonna be very difficult for us to comment on specific monthly performance. What we can say is that it's relatively easy to look at how much the market improved from the end of last year through March, and so the trajectory was clearly that significant amount of profitability was generated towards the back half of the first quarter. Clearly, that trajectory has continued as we look forward. A couple things in terms of cash flow. We did build inventory during the quarter. Look, we filed our 10-Q this morning. Looking at, you know, the balance sheet and cash flow statement, you can ultimately see we've got about just shy of $400 million worth of essentially a use of capital during the quarter. We expect that a significant portion of that will come back to us throughout the second quarter as we work those inventories down. The bulk of those inventories were built as a result of the heavy maintenance activity that we experienced, along with the unplanned downtime out on the West Coast. For us, I think we're really probably more bottoms up in terms of what costs do we need to cover. As we look forward into the second quarter, we've got between $150 million and $165 million worth of CapEx to cover. We do have interest payments to make, and ultimately we should see. We cannot control the hydrocarbon price, but we ultimately should see some benefit from working capital as we lower our inventory levels through the second quarter. Thanks, Erik. I know that's not easy, so I appreciate you giving it a shot. The follow-up question is just on diesel time spread. Obviously the curve today is deeply backwardated. Can you talk about any challenges in capturing those margins? Tom, you wanna take that? Yeah. I think, you know, in terms of that question, I think it's a broader theme across the entire marketplace. I mean, you know, dating back to when the disruptions were taking place in the market, what initially looked like a crude problem has turned into being the combination of, you know, the adjustment of trade flows and the release of strategic stocks that's put the crude market back into better balance. The product markets are certainly telling you to, you know, shorten your supply line or your distribution, excuse me, in terms of, you know, moving that product out as swiftly as you can and selling it in the local markets. Perfect. If I could sneak just one last one in there. This one's just a housekeeping question. The 10-K or the 10-Q shows that the value of your RIN obligation is increasing in a rather flat RIN price environment. The question is, did you cover your cash obligations in 1Q? We did cover our cash obligations in 1Q. I think we're sitting here managing what is essentially a three-year program at this point. That's why the pending news that we expect to come towards the back end of this quarter should ultimately help us understand exactly what we need to do. I think we tried to provide in our commentary of the roughly $600 million of RIN accrued expense that's carried on the balance sheet today, that ultimately, roughly a third of that should be covered with firm fixed price commitments. Just to give a bit more color on that, we do expect about 50%-60% of that third should be covered throughout the second quarter of this year. Perfect. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Phil Gresh with JP Morgan. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning. Erik, first question for you. Just a bit of a follow-up on the leverage, knowing that the refinancing and debt pay down out there. You know, can you kind of contrast that to where you ultimately want the leverage ratio to get to? I think in the past, you've targeted under 40% net debt to cap, if I'm remembering that correctly. If you could just refresh us where you'd like that to get to kind of feel comfortable that you've achieved your leverage targets. That is a long-term being under net debt to cap of 40%. I think if we were using kind of rating agency-driven metrics from a net debt to EBITDA standpoint, it's probably somewhere under 2.5x. You know, I think one important note on that is, on a trailing 12-month basis, we've got adjusted EBITDA of $930 million. It's probably slightly north of that once we account for all the adjustments related to mark-to-market RIN and AB 32/LCFS noise. The cap can significantly accelerate with the type of forward curve that's presenting itself today. Said a different way, our business, right, we've talked about getting back to a mid-cycle number. If you assume our consolidated EBITDA should be between $1 billion-$1.5 billion in a mid-cycle environment, we are tracking very well towards that path. Right. Understood. My follow-up question would just be around, you know, the operating costs in the first quarter, knowing it was a heavy turnaround period, winter seasonality, unplanned factors and other things. You know, would you say there are any kind of one-time factors that led to a bit more elevated OpEx? Just in general, how should we think about OpEx for the rest of the year? I'll take a shot at it, Phil. One thing that is a factor for the first quarter, and even now it's a tale of two stories here. We did have elevated natural gas pricing in the U.S. and particularly on the West Coast. Obviously, that impacts our operating costs. Frankly, we still are up in the, you know, no longer in the $3-$4 per million BTUs. I say it's a tale of two stories because while we are seeing slightly elevated natural gas costs that are impacting our operating costs. Obviously, we are strategically advantaged, significantly advantaged vs refiners in Europe and Asia, who are seeing, and you know very well, so dramatically higher natural gas prices in the first quarter and the end of last year as inventories were tight. They have compressed, but still, if we have $6 gas and parts of the rest of the world have $25-$30 million BTU gas, that's a longer term strategic advantage for us. Other than the natural gas cost impact, which was not insignificant in the first quarter, the rest of it was really due to downtime and some throughput reductions, particularly the power failure at Torrance, which impacted the per barrel cost. Sorry to think on a go forward $6.50-$7 is a more reasonable per barrel number with the higher throughput you're gonna have or? Yeah, I think so. In that range, certainly. As I said, that is a competitive advantage for a U.S. refiner right now and is part of the reason, back to, I think, Roger's question, we are the exporter of record, if you will, to supply parts of the world right now. Thanks, Tom. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Carly Davenport with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Just wanted to start on the macro side on your views on gasoline vs diesel. Obviously, diesel margins have been extremely robust quarter to date, but I wanted to get your thoughts around any potential arb between gasoline and diesel margins as we move into summer driving season and contemplating any potential demand destruction on the gasoline side as well. Very good question. I think this is a fascinating time, and we've been doing this for a long time. Let me just start by saying any refiner who knows anything about this business, and most of them do, is doing everything in their power to turn every drop of gasoline into a gallon of jet fuel or diesel because of the current marketplace. The reality is that would result in probably some decrease in gasoline as long as this market holds and the structure is out right now. You have some other things going on. We're entering the driving season. Obviously, we'll see how demand holds up, but I think the people in the United States and perhaps the rest of the world are gonna try to see if they can get back to their normal life as they can. At least for a period of time, we'll probably have some pent-up demand. As you're aware, we are now going into the low RVP season, so the butanes and et cetera are coming out of gasoline, which will decrease gasoline yield. I think we're in a situation where we're gonna have to watch everything. What we're gonna see is, well, if gasoline does get tight, then what's gonna happen is gasoline is going to obviously respond. In fact, we might reverse it off, especially if this one comes off. We would start. Because right now, as I said, everybody's gonna do everything they can to make distillate, jet fuel. If the arb closes in, if you will, or the product price is narrower, then that shift will happen and you'll stop making distillate and making gasoline. Over the course of time, it's all gonna come back to the fact that in total, we have very tight, clean product inventories and that should bode well, at least in the short term, for a continuation of the favorable market environment we have. Great. That's helpful. Thank you. The follow-up was just kind of around the Midcontinent and Syncrude, where you've continued to see Syncrude trading at a premium to WTI. Seems like there are a number of factors likely contributing to that dynamic, but just curious how you see those spreads kind of evolving as we move through the year, and if that has any impact on the type of crude that you're sourcing at Toledo? The second part of the question, you wanna take that? Go ahead. I mean, in terms of the prompt end of the market, I mean, there's certainly been some maintenance up there, you know, that just contributed to the strength in the marketplace. I mean, I think in a longer term perspective, I mean, you know, our slate that we run at Toledo in terms of coming from the north is, you know, it's got some optionality between what we're doing in the synthetic side vs sweet, but we wouldn't expect any material changes in that aspect. You know, going forward in terms of increased production, et cetera, there certainly are plenty of incentives in terms of what the forward curve is telling you for increased production. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Sankey with Sankey Research. Please proceed with your question. Morning, all. Guys, the bond market seems to like your utilization outlook. Can you frame any risks around that? You mentioned that you might be pushing more stuff through if you had more VGO. Is there some alternatives? I assume everything's running well now. Thanks. Well, we've gotten past the maintenance that we had, and we've gotten past the unscheduled downtime that we had at Torrance. We're certainly seeing our system run better right now than it ran in the first quarter. Hopefully, that's the job that we have to do. The whole key to this thing, as we've talked for years, Paul, is safe, reliable, environmentally responsible operations. It's never been. It's always important, but in the margin environment we have, the benefits associated with that. In terms of some challenges, I think the real one that we're looking at is right now, particularly for PBF, because of the downtimes and turnarounds that we had in the first quarter. As Erik said, we built the inventory, and we built inventory in secondary feedstocks. For the short term, and it is the short term, we will not have the slack units because we'll be drawing that inventory down. Because particularly Russia, and this is a, you know, a significant item, the constraints on Russia, while they may be selling a fair amount of their crude and they haven't seen the cuts as deep as perhaps people envision on the crude, the fact is they are having to cut their refining production because they're running out of room to store products because the product side is working. That means that when they cut crude, they no longer are exporting not only clean products, and they can't export VGOs, and they can't export fuel oil stocks that the world and the United States and PBF we're buying in order to keep our the cat crackers and hydro crackers full. If that continues, we're certainly sourcing different. We've gone to Latin America, where we've been able to get, you know, fuel oil from Latin America, and we've been able to find some other feedstocks. It gets back to the prior question. There's gonna be a time where if you don't have enough secondary feedstocks to fill all your cracking units, hydro crackers, cat crackers, then you're gonna wind up looking at, well, what's the diesel crack? What's the gasoline crack? Maybe at some point, if the gasoline is higher, much higher than gasoil, diesel, well, we're gonna crack heating oil and turn it into gasoline. We've got a number of knobs to turn, but it is clearly going to be a limiting factor as we go forward, especially as I don't see an end to this situation for some period of time in Russia. Gotcha. Then the kind of continuation of that would be, obviously, someone used the word biblical to describe current margin environment. Is there anything in the capture that you know you would highlight in terms of whether or not it's the headline margins are representative? One of the obvious things is the co-products, you know, stuff that's not in the headline margins, I think is also pricing very strong, right? I assume that you're essentially capturing this environment. There's clearly some discount. I would say that right now you still have the light ends, they're strong. You know, there's still a pretty significant discount to the price of crude. To your point, it is not the same market that we would traditionally see because commodities are tight. Coke. The price of coke is much higher relative to the price of crude than it historically has been. The demand for coke remains pretty high. We're not seeing the discount. Certainly, we're not seeing the percentage discount on the co-products that we had historically seen because there's additional strength in those markets as well. Got it, Tim. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Cheng with Scotiabank. Please proceed with your question. Hey, guys. Good morning. Good morning, Paul. Maybe that's the first one for Erik. Just want to confirm, you say the second half, the CapEx is set at $200, but that's no major turnaround. So can you I mean, how much is the $200 related to RD projects, and how much is related to your normal operation in the refining and logistics? On a normalized basis, if we look forward, what is the annual CapEx should look like, excluding the renewable diesel? That's the first question. The numbers that we laid out in our prepared comments exclude renewable diesel. When we talk, you know, for the full year 2022, $525-$550, that range, that is for, you know, again, our annual maintenance CapEx has averaged between $150 and $200 million a year, regardless of whether it's pre, during, or post-pandemic. We anticipate that will continue on. When we think through the turnaround cycle and we're back to regular way turnaround, the safe assumption for this year is we're gonna be spending $325-$350 on turnarounds. About a third of it was flushed during the first quarter. Another third, more or less, will go through during the second quarter, and the back half of the year has roughly $100 million related to or pertaining to turnaround-related activity at various different plants. On a go-forward basis, we anticipate we will be investing between $500 and $600 million a year in CapEx. The biggest swing factor will be timing of turnarounds. There may be some years where our turnaround expense is on the low end at $300 million, and there could be other years where it's closer to $400 or $450. It's gonna be a little bit lumpy just depending on, you know, this three- to five -year cycle, depending on what we're doing with the major money-making units. Erik, how much you're going to spend in the renewable diesel project in the second half? The back half of this year, the second half of this year, we anticipate having a partner that will cover a significant portion of that CapEx. As a reminder, it's a $600 million CapEx requirement. We have invested through the end of last year, plus during the first quarter, about 15% of it. We've incubated about 15% or $90 million worth of cash invested in that project. We believe there will probably be anywhere from another 15%-20% during the course of the second quarter. Some of that may spill into the third quarter. I think our goal is to try to have a more fulsome update on renewable diesel the middle part of this summer, which will basically be one year prior to what we anticipate as a startup of that project. I see. The second question, I want to go back into the idea of equity issuance. I understand what you guys was trying to focusing your effort in the refinancing and all that. But when we look at last time, you used your equity, secondary equity issuance probably around this time. And that as an issuance, does it make sense to take opportunity of the really strong appetite and strong share performance that to get some equity so that, I mean, you, as I say, as an insurance policy? Again, I think our message, Paul, is that we're extremely focused on getting these successful refinancings closed. That is a very big first step for us. Then we can address the 2025 maturities. There really is not much to say in terms of equity other than we feel like we've been extremely responsible with the timing around previous equity raises to make sure that ultimately we've prepared this business for the long run. We've just come out of the most significant demand destruction event this industry has ever experienced, and we made it through by making all of the right decisions. We anticipate continuing to do that on a go-forward basis. Okay, great. Can I sneak in one final question? Sure. Yes, on the global light heavy oil differential has been quite narrow over the recent time, at least in the last say four or five weeks. Just curious that how you guys see that's going to evolve. Tom, you wanna handle that? Yeah. I mean, obviously a very tricky market to try to get into a whole lot of nuances around, you know, basis trading when we're in, you know, effectively one of the most volatile and unprecedented trading environments we've seen. I think the simple answer in the short term is that, you know, basically a crude barrel is a wet barrel that is going to be consumed and, you know, run in its particular refinery. On a go-forward basis, I think it's really kind of getting through what the disruption looks like, you know, from a longer-term perspective in terms of, you know, Russian crude production. It's probably a little bit premature at this point to have a longer-term discussion on crude diff just with the uncertainty of the environment that we're in today. All right. Will do. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Manav Gupta with Credit Suisse. Please proceed with your question. Hey, Erik, we know behind the scenes you have been working very hard on the potential of a deal and a partner from the renewable diesel side. I just wanted to understand what would be your personal or company preference here, because there are two kinds of deals out there, Calumet/Oaktree, where the financial partner comes in, but you retain the entire control and whether you should prefer equity or whatever. The other part is an MPC/Neste deal where a financial but an operating partner comes in, brings in a lot of expertise, feedstock and everything. In the end, you do lose 50% of your capacity. Both deals have different kinds of advantages, pros and cons. Given that you have been working on this for some time, what would be your preference between those two kind of deals? Manav, it's Matt. It's too early to tell. What we're trying to do, and we're doing it methodically and we're doing it thoroughly, is evaluating all of our alternatives. We feel like we have access to all different types of financing alternatives and partner structures and potential partners. We're gonna make that evaluation and determine what's best. I can tell you the interest has been robust with interested parties, and so we're excited about that. We've had a lot of corroboration from the marketplace in regards to what our view has been in terms of the advantages of our facility. We're gonna continue to evaluate it and we'll make the best decision we possibly can. At the moment, we are committed to bringing in a partner on it and, you know, I expect that will happen over the next couple quarters. Perfect, Matt. I think in the beginning you mentioned that there was some unplanned downtime at Torrance. If you could help us quantify the opportunity cost of that so we can understand what would the West Coast results been had that downtime not happened? If you could help us a little over there. If you look at the West Coast, there was a little bit of an LPO at Martinez. They're a little bit slow coming up from their turnaround. We would characterize it as between $50 million and $60 million on the West Coast of missed opportunity. Okay, thank you so much, Matt. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Matthew Blair with Tudor, Pickering, Holt. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions here. Your distillate yield of 34% in Q1 was the highest number in several years. Is that where things max out or are there any other levers you can pull here? Of that 34%, can you help us understand your jet exposure within that? 34% distillate yield is, as I said, anybody who's not trying to figure out how to turn gasoline into jet fuel and distillate is not doing their job. I'm very pleased with the steps that our organization has taken. I'll give you an example of one at our Martinez refinery. We said we had scheduled downtime and one of the units that was shut down, in the past, Martinez would not be able to produce any diesel. The organization figured out a way to wire up some other things and do what refineries do. We were, for the first time in Martinez history, during the first quarter, able to make some distillate when in the past we haven't been able to do so. We're pretty much pushing every button we've got. Obviously, 34% is a good number in this market. If we can do more, we'll do more, but I'm very pleased with the way the organization has responded. The jet component of that is, again, we are making more jet fuel than we've ever made. I don't have the percentage off the top of my head, as we divert everything or convert everything that you can in a crude unit or a cat cracker or a hydrocracker to the premium product. Very pleased with how the organization responded there. Great. Erik, I think you referenced the strength in the futures curve here on the product side. Have you put on any product crack spread hedges? If so, could you share any details around that? I don't think we have anything to share in terms of forward derivative contracts. We've ultimately been running, you know, the same derivative program for multiple years here, where we're basically hedging against our baseline, so we haven't taken any type of incremental risk there. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Daniel Kutz with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question. Hey, thanks. Good morning. So wanted to start off with just kind of a broad question here. I guess given that kind of a global refining complex, the conditions are so tight, margins are extremely strong. I just wanted to get you guys' take broadly on kind of what's the risk to the downside for refining margins. What's kind of the path to, you know, to cracks settling back down? Is it, does the government step in, you know, to support the consumer? Does demand destruction kick in, but maybe it takes longer? You know, maybe it's not a near-term thing. Does supply come back? Just wondering your broad thoughts on that topic. I'm just gonna interject one thing at the front and because you said, is the government going to kick in to lower the price for the consumer? Please do not lose sight of the easiest way for the government to step in and lower the price for the consumer is to do the right thing with the RVO. We say it and we say it again. I think Pelosi and Schumer were meeting yesterday on ways that they can increase microscope with the FTC to see if there's price gouging. There's virtually no price that we are a price setter on. But absolutely the easiest thing the government can do. Is to adjust the RVO, which is now, you know, adding somewhere between $0.20-$0.30 a gallon to the price of gasoline. I say that upfront, and then I turn the rest over to Tom. Yeah. Two sides on your question. It's a very good question. First of all, I would say that of the things that are in the market today that are creating the tightness and the favorable market conditions going forward, I think there's two of those pillars, if you will, that are likely gonna continue, and that is the natural gas pricing advantage that we have in the United States. Then the second, maybe it's the first, is the longer term impacts of what Russia has done, and that capacity, probably refining capacity and export capability, may be lost for a significant period of time as there's consequences to their actions. Now, on the other side of your question, you know, what is the big threat? Well, the biggest threat to me is that there's an escalation of the Ukraine-Russia situation, that I don't wanna say gets out of control, but certainly the longer it goes and the more it escalates, the more problematic it is gonna be for the people of Ukraine and also potentially for other parts of the world. After that, inflation. There's clearly, you know, the White House and the administration is pounding the table on the price of gasoline at the pump. Inflation, food inflation, other things, oil commodities, you know, metals, et cetera. Obviously, you all are well aware of that. In fact, we're seeing that. If it's gonna be to a certain extent, if the Fed can navigate this in a reasonable way, then we won't have a significant impact from that. If it can't, then you gotta get back to where we were in the late seventies, that would probably lead to demand destruction because people don't have as much free cash to be spending, and they'll be cutting back all over the place. I would say, i.e., it's the Russian conflict, it's inflation in general, and both of those things could lead to a recession, and that would be the thing that I do worry about. I don't think it's gonna happen myself, but that's beyond our control, and that could result in a pretty significant impact to the economies of the world. That's great color. Thanks a lot, guys. Just a quick unrelated follow-up. Erik, I think in the past that you kind of shared what the credit facility availability was as of the earnings call as kind of as of today. I was wondering if you could share that number, and if not, no worries. I know you kind of gave a bunch of color on an earlier question that could kind of help us triangulate, but just wanted to ask if you had that number that you can share. Yeah. At the end of the quarter, we had about $2.6 billion, north of $2.6 billion of liquidity. Then, just a quick math is more than $1.2 available under the credit facility and roughly $1.4 cash. Got it. I was asking if you had that number as of today. The borrowing base has continued to increase in terms of where prices have gone. It's flat to where we were at the end of the quarter. Got it. Understood. All right. Thanks a lot, guys. I'll turn it back. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Karl Blunden with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question. Hi, good morning. You know, you've been carrying a lot of liquidity, and I think at times you've described it as excess liquidity or an insurance policy. We're starting to get a bit more visibility into the market, but still volatile. You know, at what point do you think that it would be appropriate to start reducing that excess liquidity? What's the right level for the business to get to? Pre-pandemic, we saw liquidity bounce anywhere from $750 million- $1.5 billion, so that's probably a reasonable number for us long term. The excess cash that we are carrying around, our belief is once we get through our refinancing efforts, that ultimately we'll have cash that's available to continue to delever. It's already delevered on a net basis. We believe that the market will need to see action around what that cash is used for. I think we've been vocal that we have some very expensive secured bonds that are on our balance sheet. That's one potential avenue that we have in terms of delevering going forward. We also do have a balance on our ABL that we're carrying. You know, I think across the board it is using a portion of that cash to then delever the business going forward. That makes sense. Thanks, Erik. Just with regard, we spoke a bit earlier on the call about the Chalmette renewable fuels project and different options you have available to yourselves. Are you at a point here where you'd be comfortable taking on most of the financing yourself, or are all the options that you're considering going to provide material financial support from the partners you're looking at? At this point, we're committed to finding a partner that we think is most attractive. You know, we're going down that path. Obviously, everything is fluid in today's market, but at the moment we're going down the path. Like I said earlier, there's been robust interest from the marketplace. You know, we'll continue to evaluate it, but we're committed to the path we're on. Thanks very much. Thank you. Our final question this morning comes from the line of Jason Gabelman with Cowen. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I had two. The first I wanted to follow up on your answer on, risks to the refining margin staying strong. I mean, you kind of mentioned a recession being the biggest risk, which is more of a tail risk. I guess my question is in, within kind of a more normalized global environment, do you see a path forward to refining cracks eventually normalizing or, do you just expect them to remain at very excessive levels, further beyond just the immediate future? If not, what's kind of the path forward to getting to normal absent a recession? Then I have a follow-up. Thanks. Okay. First of all, I do not have Kreskin-like abilities to be able to project what the prices are gonna be in the future, but I will make a couple of comments on your question. I do think there are structural changes right now that are underway that are more. I don't wanna say permanent in nature, but they're gonna have a longer playing field, and I referenced those. The advantage for U.S. refiners or any refiner who's got access to relatively cheaper natural gas is going to be a structural advantage, and it will be a disadvantage for refiners in Europe and Asia who don't have that, in fact, have to spend a lot more to buy natural gas, whether it be to power up their plants or to supply hydrogen and hydrogen plants. In fact, that may result in reduced capacity utilization in those areas. The other one is the longer term impacts, and I don't know what longer term is, but is it two, three, four years of what the outcome and ultimate outcome of the Russian-Ukrainian Invasion is in terms of particularly Russia's ability to continue to be the power that they have been in the energy markets. There's a case that says that this could be tailwinds that will exist for some period of time that are structural in nature that will make a difference. That being said, obviously we have a very favorable market environment right now, and trees don't grow to the sky, you know. There's some chance. I would expect there'll be some normalization, but at what level remains to be seen. Great. Thanks. I appreciate that additional color. Second, just on the renewable diesel project. Since we're a year out, I was wondering if you have a sense of what the feedstock slate for that project will be, especially given the feedstock market getting seemingly tighter by the day. Do you have good visibility in terms of the feedstock that you'll be able to access for the renewable diesel project? Thanks. Our visibility is really focused on maintaining full optionality, and that's why the plant will come on with full pretreatment capability. Predicting what feedstocks will be in a year's time is probably a fool's errand, but we're gonna make sure we have maximum flexibility to process whatever is most economic at any given time. You know, I'd also comment that at Tom's commentary around natural gas in Europe, that will also be a big boost for renewable diesel production in the U.S. I think we'll be structurally advantaged for some time. In regards to specific feedstocks, I can't tell you, but what I'll tell you is we'll be able to process anything that is available. We'll be committed to running the cheapest feedstocks we can possibly run or the most economical ones. Got it. Thanks for the answers. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our question and answer session. I'll turn the floor back to Mr. Nimbley for any closing comments. Well, thank you very much for your participation in the call. We are certainly in interesting times. We will do our best to make the right decisions during this period of time and beyond, and we look forward to our next call at the end of the second quarter, after the second quarter. Thank you very much. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.