Good day, everyone, and welcome to the PBF Energy Q1 2025 Earnings Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants have been placed in the listen-only mode, and the floor will be open for questions following management-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 is now my pleasure to turn the floor over to Colin Murray of Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin. Thank you, John. Good morning and welcome to today's call. With me today are Matt Lucey, our President and CEO, Mike Bukowski, our Senior Vice President and Head of Refining, Karen Davis, 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 that express the company's or management's expectations or predictions of the future are forward-looking statements intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions under federal securities laws. Consistent with our prior periods, we will discuss our results excluding special items, which are described in today's press release. Also included in the press release is forward-looking guidance information. For any questions on these items or other follow-up questions, please contact Investor Relations. For reconciliations of any non-GAAP measures mentioned on today's call, please refer to the supplemental tables provided in the press release. I'll now turn the call over to Matt Lucey. Thanks, John. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining the call. To say the Q1 was tumultuous would be an understatement. Between the uncertain economic environment and our Martinez event, there's been a lot to digest. I'm happy to report that Phase 1 of our restart plans for Martinez was recently completed. Consistent with our March update, we safely restarted a number of the unaffected units, including the crude unit, hydrocracker, and delayed coker. The refinery will be running in this limited configuration in the 85,000-105,000 barrels per day range. Getting to this point was no small lift for the Martinez team, especially given they were simultaneously continuing their initial work to rebuild the fire-damaged areas, conducting the planned FCC turnaround, and preparing and successfully executing the startup. In the current configuration, we'll be supplying limited quantities of finished gasoline and jet fuel to the California markets. We will also be producing intermediates, which we intend to further process into finished products at Torrance. Our business interruption waiting period ended on April 3, and we expect that from that date forward, we will see the portion of our insurance program respond as well. As mentioned in our press release, our insurers have agreed to pay a first installment of $250 million, which we expect to receive this quarter. We are appreciative of the willingness of our insurance carriers to provide an interim payment. This goes directly to the quality of our program and the relationships that have been established, in many cases more than a decade ago. Despite the broader concerns in the market, the fundamentals are improving as we approach driving season. Demand is resilient and showing signs of strength. Gasoline stocks are below the five-year average, and distillate stocks are at the bottom of the range, and cracks are constructive. That said, differentials for our preferred heavy and sour feed stocks are definitively a headwind. These narrow differentials reduce capture rates for complex refiners such as PBF. We are encouraged, however, with the reintroduction of incremental OPEC barrels, with the prospect of more to come. As these tight differentials begin to loosen, PBF will be a direct beneficiary. Longer term, we continue to see incremental product demand growth exceeding net refining capacity additions. This is a constructive setup for the global refining environment. We are seeing more rationalizations than expected in 2025 and 2026, with new additions declining as we look further out. PBF is focused on controlling the aspects of our business that we can control to best position ourselves going forward. In this current cycle, PBF's balance sheet provides us with the flexibility to weather challenging markets and look ahead to the next market cycle. To be successful and enhance value for our investors, we must operate safely, reliably, and responsibly, and we must do it as efficiently as possible. As part of our ongoing review of our portfolio of assets to maximize value for investors, today we announced the sale of our Knoxville and Philadelphia terminal assets for $175 million. This process began last year, and we expect the transaction will close in the second half of this year. I'll now turn the call over to Mike Bukowski for comments on operations and our cost savings program, which are tracking ahead of plan. Thank you, Matt. Good morning, everyone. Before updating the progress we've made on our Refining Business Improvement program, or RBI for short, I'll provide some additional commentary on Q1 operations. On the West Coast, during a mid-March weather event, a loss of steam occurred at Torrance, which shut down the majority of the refinery. Initial expectations were for five to seven days of downtime. After the initial repairs were completed within seven days, we began a sequence restart of the refining units in late March. Unfortunately, issues occurred during restart attempts, which primarily resulted from the initial rapid shutdown. The restart was completed in mid-April. In addition to the work on the West Coast, we executed turnarounds at the Chalmette and Delaware City refineries. In Chalmette, the turnaround was completed on time and on budget. I would also like to congratulate and thank the Chalmette refinery for successfully and safely managing operations through a record-breaking snowstorm and freezing temperatures in January. At Delaware City, a turnaround of the hydrocracker was performed according to plan. The work was completed in the first week of April. Shifting topics to RBI, earlier in 2024, we announced the initiative as part of our ongoing strategic process to extract incremental value across our business. Since then, we have generated over 500 cost-saving ideas through more than 40 idea generation sessions. Our teams are building out these ideas with actionable, quantifiable, and measurable plans. Initially, we were focused on five main areas, including projects and turnarounds, strategic procurement opportunities, the East Coast refining system, the Torrance refinery, and the refining organizational structure. Our stated goal is to generate and deliver more than $200 million of annualized run-rate sustainable cost savings by year-end 2025. This effort will ultimately touch all our locations, including some centralized functions. That said, in the four months since our initial announcement, we've had teams at Torrance and on the East Coast, and we are looking at various centralized groups such as capital turnarounds and procurement. We are currently on track to exceed our stated goal of $200 million of run-rate savings by year-end 2025. As a reminder, we will realize the full value of these savings in 2026 and a prorated portion in 2025 as we move through implementation. In terms of next steps, we will continue implementing initiatives and tracking success while progressing the program through our remaining locations and functions to generate additional actionable ideas that will translate to real cost savings. Lastly, we've reviewed our 2025 capital program and have elected to eliminate a number of discretionary and small strategic projects from the 2025 plan without affecting our maintenance, environmental, or safety-related programs. Our revised total capital budget for 2025 is now in the $750 to $775 million range. Capital expenditures to rebuild Martinez and bring it back to full operations are separate as these costs will be covered by insurance. We will continue to look at our capital going forward and make adjustments as needed depending on operations and market conditions. We have a number of positive initiatives going on across our organizations, but our main priority will always be the focus on safe, reliable, and responsible operations across the system. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Karen Davis for our financial overview. Thanks, Mike. For the Q1, we reported an adjusted net loss of $3.09 per share and adjusted EBITDA loss of $258.8 million. Our discussion of Q1 results excludes a $78.1 million special item related to expenses resulting from the Martinez refinery incident and an $8.7 million gain relating to PBF's 50% share of SBR's low of cost or market adjustment for the quarter. As Matt said earlier, we received notice that our insurers have agreed to pay an unallocated first installment of insurance proceeds of $250 million, which we should receive in the Q2. We expect that we will negotiate additional interim payments, most likely on a quarterly basis. However, the timing and amount of any agreed-upon future payments will be dependent on the amount of covered expenditures that we actually incur, plus calculated business interruption losses. We are very early in the recovery and claim process, and we expect that cash recoveries could lag to a certain extent our expenses incurred and covered losses. Our Q1 P&L reflects incremental OpEx at Martinez of $78.1 million related to fire response, recovery, and cleanup efforts, which are reflected as a Q1 special item. We anticipate recovering a portion of this amount through insurance, but the specific amount of the recovery will be determined as we progress further into the claims process. We also wrote down the net book value of the fire-damaged assets by $56 million and recorded a corresponding insurance receivable for the same amount, plus an additional response cost. Generally speaking, any insurance proceeds that we receive in future periods, including the $250 million upfront payment expected this quarter that is in excess of the $61 million insurance receivable, will be reflected as other operating income on our income statement. It is our intent to present insurance proceeds that we report in other operating income as a special item going forward. Shifting back to our normal quarterly results discussion, also included in our results is a $17 million loss related to PBF's equity investment in St. Bernard Renewables. SBR produced an average of 10,000 barrels per day of renewable diesel in the Q1. Q2 RD production is expected to be 12,000 to 14,000 barrels per day as a result of planned catalyst change that began in March and ended in April. Cash flow used in operations for the quarter was $661.4 million, which includes a working capital headwind of approximately $330 million, primarily related to the January 2025 tax receivable agreement payment of $131 million, and a temporary increase in hydrocarbon inventory levels related to the Martinez and Torrance downtime. We expect inventory levels to be reduced by approximately 2 million barrels by the end of the Q2 as compared to March 31. Cash invested in consolidated CapEx for the Q1 was $218.3 million, which includes refining, corporate, and logistics. This amount also includes approximately $28 million of CapEx related to the Martinez incident. Additionally, our board of directors approved a regular quarterly dividend of $0.2750 per share. We ended the quarter with approximately $469 million in cash and approximately $1.77 billion of net debt. Maintaining our firm financial footing and a resilient balance sheet remain priorities. In the Q1, we accessed the capital markets through our $800 million upsized senior notes offering. This issuance bolsters our balance sheet and ensures that we have sufficient liquidity as we navigate the turbulent commodities markets and rebuild from the Martinez incident. At quarter end, our net debt to cap was 29%, and our current liquidity is approximately $2.4 billion based on a cash balance of $469 million and $2 billion of available borrowing capacity under our ABL. Our liquidity position is ample, and our plans to reduce inventory, receipt of the first Martinez insurance payment, and receipt of the proceeds from the pending sale of the terminals should bolster this further. As we look ahead, we expect to use periods of strength to focus on delevering and preserving the balance sheet. Operator, we've completed our opening remarks, and we'd be pleased to take questions. Thank you. In a moment, we'll open the call for 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 Q&A queue. You may press star two if you would 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. One moment, please, while we poll for questions. Thank you. We now have our first question. It comes from the line of Roger Read from Wells Fargo. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Morning, Roger. Morning, Matt. I guess let's hit Martinez, right? You've been in there enough now to get a feel for what the damage was, what the repair process ought to be. I think the expectation at the time, or at least the initial expectation on the last time we talked about this, was beginning of Q4 or in Q4, you could get back up and running. I'm just curious, as you look at the unit, the repair process, permitting California, all that stuff, how's it looking on that front? No change at this point. Long lead items have been ordered. Once you get into the execution of some of the rebuild, when that equipment arrives, the schedule will tighten or stress will be put on the schedule. At this point, there's no change. Okay. In terms of moving the product, like you said, the intermediates down from Martinez to Torrance, has that actually occurred yet? You're comfortable with the way the system will be integrated for the interim period? It's happening today. Torrance is fully up and running and fully operational. Great. Thanks. Karen, since you gave this guidance, I'm just sort of curious, volume guidance on renewable diesel, but how should we think about this whole confusing status with RINs and other sort of BTC to PTC change and other parts of how that's operating? I know you said Karen, and you hit a hot button with me, Roger, that I can't—I don't care who you called on. If you said the word RINs, it's like said something awful. I mean, the current market has been stable or unstable, to say the least. I mean, the D4 RIN price has surged 75% since the beginning of the year. Why is that? I guess there's three primary reasons. And this is the D4 RIN, right? So you've got the PTC questions. There's no clarity. Fine. There's now tariffs imposed on some of the feedstocks, so that increases costs and reduces supply. And then you have the elimination for credits for imported fuels. So you have much less RD supply. So the D4 RIN has to go up. The problem is the D6 is tied to the D4. They're linked. All indications suggest that we're going to be on the potential of another RIN seen event. It is sort of interesting, certainly with the current administration, because you have this massive contradiction with the current administration where maybe the two strongest pillars of their whole platform are commitment to low energy prices and an intent to incentivize domestic manufacturing. If this situation does not get rectified on the D6 RINs, then the American consumer could face unintended consequences with higher gasoline prices, higher energy prices. We can get back to the D6 RIN threatening refining capacity, which we've been through before. What is crazy about it is it can just so easily be rectified. All you have to do, and you can do it in any number of ways and infinite number of ways, is right-size the ethanol mandate. That reflects reality as opposed to setting it above the blend wall, which simply decouples the D6 from the D4, which is the original intent. The D4 should be incenting new manufacturing of renewable diesel because you need those government support to get the product in the marketplace. The amount of ethanol in the fuel pool is unchanging as not driven by RIN prices. The D6 being connected to the D4 accomplishes two things. It raises the price of gasoline, and it potentially threatens refineries. I will be doing everything in my power to get that message out, indeed going down to Washington and making sure that they understand the contradictions that exist. I'm not sure that that's exactly that diatribe was what you're looking for, but I wanted to get it off my chest anyway. Maybe if we could hone in just a little bit on SBR there, though, understand catalyst changeouts and stuff like that. If we were to look at SBR in isolation, I mean, how do you think it's performing in this? We're still waiting for, as you mentioned, clarity on some of the new rules. How are you with that? Just I think that in isolation, the net net is actually the landscape has improved for SBR because on the blenders tax credit, which was a dollar, the PTC is the sort of nebulous guidance is now will receive a little less than half of that. But the D4 RIN has risen more than that falloff in the blenders tax credit. The outlook for SBR specifically, especially coming out of the catalyst change, which, by the way, we are expecting improvements from the catalyst itself as UOP has been making investments in improving the catalyst. The outlook for SBR to itself is certainly improved going forward with the higher RIN price, but then that just creates D6 problems that need to be addressed. Great. Thank you. I'll turn it back. Thank you. The next question comes from Manav Gupta from UBS. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys. I wanted to get your view on the crude quality discounts. Looks like OPEC is raising volumes. We've also seen some rebound in refining cracks, but the reason refining estimates are not moving up or probably even slightly moving down is because these crude quality discounts are very low. In your opinion, as OPEC brings back these barrels, what do you expect to happen for the heavy light spreads on the Gulf Coast or all coasts right now? Tom O'Connor? Yeah. Thanks, Manav. I mean, I think it certainly is taking us as sort of a positive note from the words we've seen from OPEC over the last couple of weeks for sort of the official reactions for the increases for May. We should be receiving more news next week as the JMCC moves through. Clearly, there's a lot of commentary and information that's in the market that is talking about an increased taper. Next week also, we should receive OSPs and all those other nice things that come along there. Broadly speaking, as you mentioned, yes, we've been in a very narrow range, but it's certainly our expectation with the changes that are coming to the market with OPEC policy that we should see differentials start to widen out. From a 100,000 foot view, I mean, Tom covers it sort of down to the barrel, but on a real high-level view, I think what's in the marketplace now, and admittedly some speculation, the moves of OPEC over the next couple of months could overwhelm a lot of the headwinds that we've had, whether it's on Venezuela or other tariffs and sanctions that have disrupted our business and Mexican production coming off of it. The taper move from OPEC+ is a big, big factor in your question, and I don't know if there's a more levered beneficiary to the move than PBF. Perfect, sir. I'm going to repeat this question, which I had asked you, I think, three or four quarter calls ago, which was basically that it looks like the state of California is trying to push out refineries. I think, Matt, your response was whether they are trying to do this or not, we are needed. If you keep pushing us out, it will create a lot more volatility for product prices and consumers will suffer. I'm just trying to understand the way things have gone in the last three or four quarters. It's becoming increasingly clear from your peers that this is a relentless push to get rid of refineries in the state of California. I just wanted your comments on it. Are you also feeling the same way that, or do you think something might change here and they might realize they're doing the wrong thing here? I appreciate the question. I'd say, Manav, to call the situation in California dynamic would be a huge understatement. Maybe, just maybe, it's a case of nothing focuses the mind like a pending hanging or a looming energy crisis. I actually think there's been recognition in the state, certainly in the last couple of months, how critical our products are for the well-being of the people in the state. Indeed, not only how important they are, but indeed the recognition that they're going to be in demand for many decades to come. If you go and look at the state's numbers pro forma for the announced closures, by next year, we see the market short 250,000 barrels a day of gasoline or over 250,000 barrels a day of gasoline, which will force the market to attract higher-cost imports. We believed in, as I said three or four quarters ago, whenever it was, that our system of two refineries between Torrance and Martinez has been and is today, going forward, one of the best systems out there in California. Whatever I said three or four quarters ago, our system is even more critical to the state today. Certainly, for the situation not to deteriorate any further, there must be recognition by the stakeholders. There has to be a level playing field for the participants in the market. I will tell you, I have been more than pleased and encouraged by the recent conversations we have had. Words like we need to work collaboratively, which is somewhat unthinkable not too long ago. The refineries, look, at the end of the day, they need to execute a business plan that makes sense. Otherwise, this trend of closures will continue. We believe, and I think I said this probably some time ago, the value and best use for our assets are in refining, but that absolutely requires a business environment that allows us to succeed. I have gotten some indications that that is well understood within the state. The other reality is the alternative values in California are compelling. It is not like many other situations. The underlying value of these assets is fairly extraordinary. That creates a high bar of what must be made in refining. I have been encouraged by the state. We have a team embedded there and people focused on it for 100% of what they do. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with them. At the moment, I believe our refineries are well positioned to not only deliver the low-cost products that the state is desperately going to need going forward, but just to provide strong returns and results for our shareholders. Thank you so much. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Doug Leggate from Wolfe Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Doug, your line is now open. You may go ahead and ask your question. Hey, good morning. This is John Abidon for Doug Leggate. Our first question is on your net debt. Our first question is on your net debt trajectory. Could you walk us through on how that plays out and whether or not you may think you may need additional financing? Sure. Thanks, John. Thanks for the question. As we've said in the past, our capital allocation policy is to prioritize the balance sheet and supporting operations, CapEx, and maintaining our dividend. Our approach to the balance sheet has been to use up cycles like we saw in 2022 and 2023 to reduce debt and to build a balance sheet, preserve our balance sheet so that we can be resilient through down cycles like we've experienced in the past three quarters, a few quarters. Going forward, as the market continues to improve, as we believe the macro suggests it will, and as cash generation correspondingly improves, and when we receive proceeds from the terminal sale, we expect that our focus will again pivot to delivering and prioritizing the balance sheet. As you know, we did access the capital market and raised $800 million in an unsecured offering that bolstered our liquidity to a level where we are comfortable. At this point in time, we don't anticipate accessing capital markets. Appreciate it. For our follow-up question, it's on the capital reduction. How much of that could be permanent, or is it all transitory? Let me say it's permanent in regards to lowering our capital program going forward. Our capital program and our turnaround spend is part of our RBI program. We are expecting to see, again, within the confines of the scale that we provided in regards to RBI, we expect to receive real benefits on reducing capital and bending the cost curve permanently. In regards to the specific cuts that were made here, they were discretionary projects, if you want to comment. Yeah. I mean, we went through a portfolio optimization process, and we did defer some spending. Some of them were cuts. As Matt mentioned, as part of the RBI program, we have developed longer-term initiatives to lower the capital spend going forward. I think it's probably premature at this point to say to what extent that's going to be relative to these cuts, but there are an expectation that going forward, we will have sustainable reductions in how we spend capital and spending them to spend it more efficiently. Appreciate it. Thank you for taking our questions. Thank you. The next question comes from Paul Cheng from Scotiabank. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Matt and Karen, with the uncertainty in the economy because of the tariff war and everything, in the event if the economy took a more sour note and correspondingly, demand and margin will not improve the kind of way that we all think it may, at what point that the dividend will become a question on the table for the company? I mean, what is the criteria? Or Or that you think that this is a secret, then you will do everything else that and not touching the dividend. That's the first question. The second question is that in the Q2, how should we look at the refining operating costs, particularly in California? Also, once we finish the business improvement plan by the end of the year, you get to that $200 million one-way, what's the refining OpEx that one-way we should reasonably can expect? Thank you. On the first one, tough to answer in a hypothetical situation. Obviously, we're watching the economy very, very closely, and we always hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Over the last 15 years, we've seen downturns in the economy that have come in different forms and fashion that were sort of unfathomable. To sort of hypothetically talk about a recessionary period is hard to do in a vacuum. That being said, we set our dividend sort of as a through-cycle dividend. If there is a major turndown in the marketplace, we're going to manage our business as conservatively and as appropriately as we possibly can in regards to how we run our refineries, how we invest the capital, and how we manage the balance sheet. We're comfortable with where we are. Like I said, the original design of the dividend was certainly through cycles. Mike, do you want to? Yeah. Relative to the RBI program, our baseline is 2023 OpEx, which is what we use to set up how we're using the differentiations on our OpEx savings. I would look at the $200 million and consider about one-fourth of it is going to come from capital and turnarounds as well. That is to give you some information on how you want to look at OpEx going forward. That being said, the program does not stop in 2025. We will continue driving additional reductions in OpEx going forward. I mean, our expectations are as high as $350 million of run rate savings by the end of 2026. Yeah. Because importantly, Mike's comments and everyone should understand them. The team has essentially circled over $200 million of run rate savings to date. They have not been achieved yet. They are going to be achieved over the course of this year, but they have categorized them and they have been circled in terms of we are going to execute on those. We have not been to all our plans yet. The number of savings will go up as we complete the program. Mike, do you have a number you can share in terms of California OpEx in the Q2? We're not ready to share that number yet. It'd be very, very difficult to dissect, Paul, because, again, it's one region. We don't report on the individual assets. With the turnaround and the insurance, it becomes somewhat difficult to forensically dissect for you. Okay. Will do. Thank you. Thank you. The next question comes from Matthew Blair from TPH. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. On the RBI program, you mentioned that you're on track to exceed the $200 million goal here, which seems quite encouraging. Do you have any examples you could share of areas where you're seeing more opportunity than you originally expected? Quite frankly, when we did the due diligence initially, from the category basis, we're actually right where we wanted to be from each category. Nothing's really standing out as jumping out as a big surprise. We thought energy would be a big opportunity, and it is. We thought that our turnaround performance would be an opportunity, and we're seeing significant opportunity there as well. Lastly, we have not in the past really leveraged our spend across the organization. The strategic procurement opportunities are a big focus for us as well. It's roughly kind of evenly divided among those areas so far. Sounds good. Could I just clarify two points from your Q1 reporting? I guess first, do you have an EBITDA estimate associated with the logistics asset sale? Could you also provide your share of the RD EBITDA in the Q1? Thank you. I'll take the first part and you can turn to the second part. In regards to the asset sales, these were two terminals that PBF Logistics, when we had an MLP, acquired going back eight or nine years ago when we first bought the Plains assets. The Philadelphia terminal that we agreed to sell yesterday was one of three terminals in that package of assets. Then subsequently, PBF Logistics, the MLP, acquired the Knoxville terminal. From a strategic standpoint, they made real sense for a publicly traded MLP. There were some ancillary benefits to our connection to our refining business, but we were able to accomplish the benefits through contracts and maintaining access to the terminals. From a strategic standpoint, the terminals were definitively nine for, and they're going to a third party that has a different cost of capital and can value them in a more attractive way. Indeed, we're selling these two terminals for more than 10 times our EBITDA. With respect to SBR, SBR's standalone EBITDA was a $17 million loss. Our half of that would be half of that. Also, circling back to a question that Roger Reed asked, we did, like so many of our peers, record 45Z revenue based on the provisional guidance that is out there. As Matt mentioned, whereas we were receiving about a dollar on VTC, it is less than half of that under the PTC program. Great. Thanks for all the information. Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Neil Mehta from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thanks, Matt, Karen, and team. I guess the first question is just on working capital. It looked like it was a headwind this quarter. Typically, in a lower commodity price environment, you could see that headwind continue. Just your perspective on the Q2 setup for working capital, and then is that a reversal? The $300 from this quarter, oil price constant, will that reverse over the course of the year? I mentioned that the headwind from inventory was around $200 million. As we reduce those two, and our plans are to reduce 2 million barrels. As you rightly point out, it's in a lower price environment, so we might not get the full benefit of that reduction. It could, in fact, even be a headwind. At this point, based on our projections, it looks like there will be a modest benefit. Karen, maybe the follow-up is just on the credit side. We have gotten a significant amount of incoming about liquidity. I think through the asset sales and some of the adjustments that you guys have talked about, we've seen these are steps to help allay some of the concerns that the credit market might have. Maybe you could address that directly because the bonds have sold off here and why you have so much confidence in the liquidity picture. As we mentioned, working capital should be fairly stable going forward. We don't really see any unusual items impacting that area. It's really going to just be hydrocarbon prices. Karen, I meant, just broadly speaking about the credit picture. As I said in my prepared remarks, we believe that our current liquidity levels are sufficient, and that includes having the ability to pay our dividends. We're really focused on everything that we can control. We're normalizing our inventory levels. We've reduced our CapEx program by $100 million. We expect to begin seeing the benefits of the RBI initiatives. Those should start feathering in over, actually, even starting in the Q2. We've talked about the $250 million upfront insurance payment. Importantly, we have a dedicated team working on the Martinez insurance claim. It includes engineers, forensic accountants, insurance experts so that we can very timely present the information to our carriers so that they can make timely decisions on future payments. Okay. That's great. Thanks so much. Thank you. The next question comes from Ryan Todd from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Great. Thanks. Maybe following up on your last comments there, Karen, on insurance proceeds, congrats on the $250 million first installation payment that you're set to receive. I guess it's safe to say, is it safe to assume that this is largely associated with the capital cost for repair? And maybe any, I know it's really hard because it's very uncertain, but any color on how you think about potential size or cadence of additional proceeds as we look out over the remainder of the year? I think it's important to note that the $250 million payment is actually seen by the insurance companies as an upfront payment of $280 million, less the $30 million deductible. That is now behind us. It's also important to note that it's unallocated. At this point, we can't tell you how much is for the property piece of it, how much of it is for BI. Future payments are going to be based on us demonstrating actual expenditures on the rebuild and whatnot in excess of that amount, plus whatever the BI calculation is. BI, we should note, covers fixed expenses and loss profit opportunity. In terms of the cadence, as I mentioned, we have a dedicated team, and we have weekly meetings with the insurance companies, and we are very expectant that we'll be able to, or we will be seeking quarterly payments. It's important to note that they're not two different policies. As Karen said, we're going to be working closely with them. Here we are at the very end of April, and this is really the first month where the BI coverage is present. In a short period of time, we'll be sitting down with them and reviewing April and setting up a program for the successive months, April, May, June, July going forward. At the same time, you're doing the rebuild and expending dollars, and that's being tracked. Dollars are going to blend together at some point. There's not going to be sort of explicit, "This dollar is for that one." There's going to be one claim to our group of underwriters. We're working very, very closely with them. I will tell you that from a working capital standpoint, it goes to Neil's point earlier. It's just very good news that we've got this collaborative arrangement with them where they're putting the dollars in. In In some case, some of the dollars are in front of the spend that is in front of us. Pleased with the relationships we have, not only with our underwriters, but our broker as well. The whole team has been working well together. Great. Thank you. Maybe one follow-up on the West Coast. I know, obviously, you've got your hands full right now with the Martinez refinery. As we think about balances in general, right, I mean, I think expectations are that the market is very tight this year. You have two more refinery closures coming late this year and early next year, scheduled to close there in California. Again, the outlook looks increasingly tight. Can you maybe talk about how you view the outlook for product balances and whether you've seen anything in the behavior of imports over the last 12 months that would change how you think about what that might mean for margins and pricing going forward? This is Adam Smith 101. The balance is, when you say it's tight, I mean, the market is definitively short and is going to be definitively short in a major way, in a way that the state has never been before. On the gasoline side, you're going to be increasing the short by upwards of 185,000 barrels a day on a pro forma basis. Every day, the state of California is going to have to attract over 250,000 barrels a day of gasoline. That is a big number. The resupply is coming from far away. You're going to have a lot of boats on the water. Not insignificantly, jet as well. You're talking about, on a pro forma basis, upwards of needing to attract 70,000 barrels a day of jet on a daily basis, short every day. It's going to create a volatile market because imports don't run like a Swiss clock, and there's delays. The market needs to be able to attract the barrels, which is going to require a premium from where it's gone historically. There will be ebbs and flows in how it imports into the market. From our perspective, Torrance and Martinez are very, very well positioned in regards to being able to be a low-cost producer for the state and deliver these products every day. I must just also comment, it's a product story for sure, but just as big, maybe rivaling a bigger, is the story on the crude side because you're taking two refineries off that were consuming California-grade crude, which historically have been the most attractive barrels for the state. We've gotten some indications from the state that they're actually encouraging production, which we've been encouraging as well for them to do. Just with the refinery in the north and the refinery in the south, you have a fair amount of crude that's going to be opened up to the rest of the market, to the refineries that are there because California has no alternative on its crude production. It needs to be consumed in the state. We think the dynamic between on the crude side and the product realities are going to create a pretty interesting market. Perfect. Thanks, Matt. Thank you. The next question comes from Connor Fitzpatrick from Bank of America. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. This is a heavy repair and maintenance year for your West Coast footprint, but I was wondering if those activities could also improve those assets' reliability going forward once they're completed. Should we expect Martinez and Torrance uptime to change over the next few years relative to the prior several years? For Martinez, yeah, we're going through a major turnaround there on the FCC block. A big piece of that is work that's being done on the regenerator of the FCC. We certainly look at every turnaround as an opportunity to improve the reliability of the facility. On the Torrance side, we have a hydrocracker turnaround in the second half of the year. It's not as big as the FCC in Martinez, but it certainly does provide an opportunity to improve the reliability. On top of that, we have several reliability initiatives that are occurring across the entire system. As we stated last year in a call sometime over the summertime, that was one of our major goals, to drive continuous improvement mindset and operational excellence across the system. Great. That's clear. You mentioned earlier, and news reports agree, the State of California is, at least after these recent closures, becoming more open to working with refiners to maintain fuel supply. Which California regulations are, in your opinion, the most onerous financially that would be most impactful to be modified, assuming that these conversations involve those regulations? I think they go across the spectrum. You look at it, some of the costs with AB32, they have to be looked at in regards to, is it creating an unlevel playing field for the refiners in the state as compared to the amount of the fuel that's imported into the state? You can sort of quickly wrap your mind around. They've gotten themselves into a situation where regulatorily, they're squeezing their in-state participants and, to some degree, ignoring the importers. That will have to change. There has to be a level playing field. In regards to continually raising the bar of the amount of capital that is on specific projects, I think they have to take a closer look again and make sure that they're not making the in-state refiners uncompetitive. As I said, there's been collaborative conversations, but proof will be in the pudding. I've been pleased with the dialogue. I think we've got a team that has done extraordinary work in sort of building bridges and building relationships and, like I said, working collaboratively. At the end of the day, we need a business plan that makes sense, and we need to be successful. Our success will create success for the people there in lowering energy prices. To some degree, it's across the spectrum. We'll see as we go. Thanks. That's all I have. Thank you. The final question comes from Jason Gabelman from TD Cowen. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hey, morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I had a few cleanup questions on the Martinez outage I was hoping you could help with. Do you have an estimate of the total cost of repairs? Can you also just—it's unclear if the business insurance proceeds are being negotiated and paid out monthly or if that happens once the outage is over, if you could just confirm that. It seems like the startup timing was pushed out slightly from by Q4 to during Q4. Could you just discuss what the critical path is to fully restarting Martinez? Thanks. All right. On the last point, my intention was not to do a sleight of hand, and I'm not trying to parse words. We're circling the end of September as a time to bring the plan up, and that hasn't changed. To the degree it does or it needs to, we'll certainly communicate that in a prompt fashion, but there's no indication at this point that that's changed. In regards to the total rebuild cost, we're not going to get into that at the moment, primarily because the numbers are somewhat fluid, but to a great degree, it's moot for our shareholders because, as Karen alluded to before, the $30 million of deductible and retention has been paid. The cost going forward will be covered by our property program with the coverage that we have. Obviously, those numbers are being worked and being worked hard, but we're not in a position to share them at the moment. In regards to a specific monthly payment, there is no hard, fast schedule. It is a collaborative effort with our underwriters. We've got the appropriate programs in place, and we'll be working closely with them sort of as we expend money or as the BI claims pile up to lay them out for them, and then they'll be working with us appropriately. Okay. Great. My follow-up is just on non-core divestments, and you announced the sale of those terminals. I am wondering, within the logistics EBITDA bucket, how much you would consider kind of non-core to the refining business? I don't have that number for you. These were sort of obvious. We thought they, like I said before, they would just carry more value for others than they would for us. As an example, when we bought the Plains terminal, there were three terminals when we bought it. One is connected to our Paul'sboro refinery. We maintain that terminal because, again, it's more intertwined. Not to say it could be sold, but the non-core nature was different than the assets that were included in the package. It is something that we're continually looking at and to the degree that we feel like we can create value and we have an opportunity where you can sell something for 10 times, and obviously, you see where we're trading or we historically trade, that should create value for our shareholders. Great. Thanks for the answers. Thank you. We have reached the end of the question and answer session. I will now turn the call over to Matt Lucey for closing remarks. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you. Thank you for everyone participating, and we look forward to speaking to you again in July for the Q2 review. Have a great day. Thank you. This concludes our conference call for today. Thank you all for participating. You may now disconnect.