Good day, and welcome to Yara's fourth quarter results 2024 conference call. During the presentation, your lines will be in listen-only mode. After the speaker's prepared remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you'd like to ask a question during that time, please press star followed by one on your telephone keypad. Thank you. I will now turn the call over to Maria Gabrielsen, Head of Investor Relations in Yara. Please go ahead.
Hello and welcome to everyone. I'm here together with the representatives from Yara management, including our CEO, Svein Tore Holsether, CFO, Thor Giæver, EVP, Corporate Development, Magnus Ankarstrand, and our Head of Market Intelligence, Dag Tore Mo . We hope everyone watched today's presentation, so we plan to go straight into questions, so Operator, you may please open the first line.
Thank you. We are now opening the floor for question-and-answer session. If you'd like to ask a question, again, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Your first question comes from Lisa De Neve from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.
Hi, good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. I have two questions, please. The first question is, I mean, can you please share on why you have decided to postpone the FID on the clean ammonia projects, the ones in the U.S.? And more importantly, what are the variables that are still pending in that process to moving towards FID? And is it uncertainty with CBAM? Is it the uncertainty around the required CapEx or potential subsidies that may have now become a little bit less likely in the U.S.? It just would be helpful to understand the variables that are still at play. And then alongside that question, can you also share why it's so important to have partners in some of these projects when your initial objective is to essentially sell that potential U.S. ammonia production to yourself in Europe?
I'll stop here and jump back into the queue. Thank you.
Yeah, I can answer that. I'm Magnus Ankarstrand here. I think the reason we have now said first half 2026 is mostly technical. I mean, it's natural project development. I think our plans are moving at both the pace and as we want them to progress. So there's nothing dramatic as such in that. Of course, being around a year away from potential FID is, of course, also beneficial in the sense that we will see how things develop also politically, 45Q, etc. But as of now, we don't see any change to the fundamentals for why we believe those will be very profitable projects, and as we've stated before, we will only execute the project if they are profitable, and that still remains. So the variables, I think, remain very much the same, and it's the basic fundamentals that are important for profitable growth within ammonia. It's low-cost gas.
It's scale, not least. And obviously, finding your building on the right side and 45Q, of course, is a very welcome addition to any business case as well. When it comes to the questions on partners, I think building at scale, it makes sense to have partners. We have strong experience with that. All our ammonia exporting ammonia plants have been joint ventures. Freeport from 2018, which was a significant success with BASF. Pilbara started out as a joint venture, and we've had the same in Trinidad and in Qatar as well. So we're very accustomed to that. And I think it's a very good way to bring in different parties with complementary interests and that both attracts capital and de-risks and is mutually beneficial. So that is why that is important.
Okay, thank you very much.
Your next question comes from Christian Faitz from Kepler Cheuvreux. Your line is now open.
Yes, thanks very much. Good afternoon, good morning, everyone. First of all, in terms of your cost reductions, are you still sticking to the $150 million for 2025? And then the second question would be, what measures have you taken to make sure that your Belle Plaine plant can deliver product into the U.S. given the potential tariff threat? Do you see any customers rushing to secure product at this point? Thanks very much. Hello? Hello?
Can you not hear us?
Nope. Can you? Operator, any issues?
As you can see, your line is live and there are no issues.
Christian, can you hear us?
I can hear you now, yes. Yes. Okay. Can you not hear us, Maria? Yeah.
Can you hear me, Christian?
Yes, I can.
Good. Yeah, the $150 million cost reduction target is very much valid. So that's where our target is to be $150 million by the end of 2025, lower fixed costs compared to the last 12 months as of second quarter 2024. And as we comment in the report, the savings we've seen so far are really the first wave where we've reduced external costs and also implemented a hiring freeze. But the bulk of the savings come in 2025, as we will then have the bulk of FTE reductions there. And we expect the main phasing to be during the second half of this year. And of course, it won't be a straight line either. It sort of depends on inflation, currency developments, etc. But the target is very much valid. And it's also important to say that we're continuing to look at further ways to increase returns within Yara.
So expect us to come back with more there, for instance, on our portfolio of plants and markets.
Thank you.
In terms of Belle Plaine, Magnus may add to this, but below 10% of the deliveries in Belle Plaine are to the U.S. And of course, at this time, there are no implemented tariffs. So of course, we are watching the situation closely. I don't know if you want to add.
Just maybe to add that on urea, the imports, I mean, cross-border both ways, more or less cancel each other out. So the net import of urea from that part of Canada, from Western Canada to the U.S., is close to zero. And urea is, of course, the main output from our Belle Plaine facility. But as we just said, we sell most of our production in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Maybe one other comment on the sort of near-term as we comment in the report as well. We've seen a tightening in global nitrogen markets. One of the key factors there is that the U.S. is quite far behind in its import season to date. As of December, they've imported less than 250 million tons, and we estimate they need about three million tons. So I think tariffs or not, it's shaping up to a tight application season in the U.S.
Very helpful. Thanks very much.
Your next question comes from Alexander Jones from Bank of America. Your line is now open.
Great. Thanks for taking my questions too as well, please. The first on the dividend, I think in the past you talked about your leverage range as a medium-term target that you're trying to hit one or two years out. And you also talked about an upbeat view on the nitrogen market. So I guess your base case is for leverage to decrease in the coming year. Is there anything I'm missing there that makes reducing your leverage a bit more pressing at the moment? Or how do we otherwise explain the board's decision to lower the dividend payout for 2024? And then the second question, you talked in the presentation about different equity funding structures for the clean ammonia projects. Could you discuss a little bit about what the different structures you're considering are and how you evaluate them against each other? Thank you.
Yeah, hi. Alex, this is Thor. On the dividend, I think one of the key points is that we have been tracking towards the higher end and in some cases even above the policy range for net debt to EBITDA. As you've also seen in the current quarter, the free cash flow is quite low. And I mean, of course, you're right. This is for good reasons and linked to our positive market comments. Prices are increasing, and that does increase operating capital. And it tends to. That's the normal trend for us and indeed in the industry, that when prices and margins rise, you tie up more operating capital. It's fundamentally positive, but you get, at least for the initial phase, a lower free cash flow. But of course, the financial policy is based on cash flow, which directly impacts our debt.
So I think really it's just, on the one hand, exercising a bit of caution near-term to ensure that we stay on the right side of those ranges. But as you've seen, we also add in that context too that we have a positive outlook going forward and that we will evaluate the opportunity for further returns as we go forward. Yeah, and in terms of the equity funding, Magnus?
Yeah, no, I think, I mean, it starts a bit with the project and what we're looking at, right? And of course, Yara being the largest ammonia shipper in the world and also with a significant offtake into our own production system, combined with our ammonia experience, obviously helps making a good project even better. So I think with very strong fundamentals, there's, I mean, we have, there's significant interest, and I think highly recognized by different players and different capital that these are very interesting and profitable investments. And in that way, I mean, we are in discussions with several different opportunities to have the partnerships and raise equity then into the project, but also in structures around it.
Also, as you know, we have our Yara Clean Ammonia business, our midstream business that in itself also is, we regard as a very attractive investment case, and so do many others, so I think that opens up a range of opportunities that we are discussing and exploring and trying to pursue.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Aron Ceccarelli from Berenberg. Your line is now open. We will be moving on to our next question. Angelina Glazova from JP Morgan. Your line is now open.
Hello. Thank you so much for taking my questions, and I hope you can hear me well. I had a follow-up on the clean ammonia question, please. So you have discussed in preparatory remarks at length that one of the key reasons that you are looking at clean ammonia is to ensure that you have lower-cost ammonia coming to European assets for upgrading it in the nitrates production facilities. But could you confirm if you're also looking at clean ammonia projects in the context of maybe providing clean ammonia to companies that may be sources of demand for clean ammonia from new applications such as shipping fuel or hydrogen carrier? And is the timeline of demand emerging in these subsectors affecting your thinking on the FID on this project? Thank you.
Yeah, I can answer that as well. I think today as well, Yara Clean Ammonia, I mean, obviously handles a lot of ammonia from our own production and to our own upgrading facilities, but they also source significant ammonia from third parties and sell to third parties, so that's the value creation logic of that business, and that's what we see in the future as well, so obviously, with the new projects, a lot of that would be to fuel our own production, but also for other buyers of ammonia, including new demand, as you mentioned, and we see both on the shipping segment, but also, I would say, on the regulatory-driven segment, particularly in Europe, such as refineries, we see quite a lot of firm demand, basically driven by regulations like RED III , ETS, CBAM, and so on.
But I think our projects are also profitable and stand on their own feet simply by our own offtake. So we're not dependent on any external demand as such, but we certainly believe it's there.
Thank you.
Yeah, there was a question on whether this has impacted the FID timing, which the answer is no.
No, absolutely not. I think that's, I mean, we simply take the time we need to create the best project.
Understood. Thank you very much.
Your next question comes from Tristan Lamotte from Deutsche Bank. Your line is now open.
Hi, thanks. I've got two questions, please. They're both kind of on market fundamentals. And the first one is on fertilizer market fundamentals. So at the moment, as you said, the prices have risen, but I'm just wondering to what extent you think that is driven by kind of temporary factors like Iran outages, high India demand, elevated gas costs, and to what extent you see that being retained in H1. And therefore, do you see 2025 margins higher than 2024 in that respect? And the second question is on ag fundamentals. I guess a number in the market have been getting more excited about fundamentals there. And I was just wondering on your view on ag fundamentals by region and whether they are improving and what that could do to crop prices. Thanks.
Yeah. Whether they are temporary, I mean, it's a difficult question whether the supply issues from 2024, as you mentioned, some of them are temporary. I mean, you've seen, as you say, that Egyptians did curtail production in the third quarter in particular because of gas supply issues. Will those gas supply issues go away? That's an open question, right? Because the production of gas in Egypt, it's in a declining trend. And it was quite surprising to see even this week that there were talks about new curtailments in Egypt now because of cold weather this time of year, which is also the case in Iran because of the cold weather. Then you have the Chinese curtailments. That's, of course, an open export curtailments, not so much production curtailments, but export curtailments. That's also kind of an uncertain picture.
So I don't think that we have the answer to it. I think it's interesting to observe that the industry has been struggling in 2024 to run at very high rates for various reasons. Some of the reasons behind do not necessarily look very temporary, but who knows? On the India situation, India actually built a lot of inventories ahead of their general election second quarter last year, which has been a drag on the market in 2024. So I think what we see now in 2025 is a more normal situation when it comes to Indian buying. And sales there have been also very strong recently to the farmers. So yeah, so that's the reasons why we say that in the absence of substantial capacity additions in the years to come, market fundamentals look quite supportive.
Of course, then particularly the Chinese export policy remains, of course, a wild card in this balance that nobody knows really what will happen to that balance. On the ag fundamentals, yes, particularly corn prices have improved quite a bit, wheat and other commodities as well. Some of the softer commodities, cocoa, coffee, are extremely strong actually. Rice and wheat so far not that strong. We observe also that the inventories are going down. According to USDA's latest estimate, grain stocks are reducing by 20-30 million tons this year, down to a level not seen in at least the last 10 years. I agree with you that that picture seems to be changing a little bit.
It's also interesting that you guys, financial investors, are now taking a much more positive outlook on corn, for instance, by having a substantial long position on corn in the U.S. market rather than the opposite that was the case earlier.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Bengt Jonassen from ABG Sundal Collier. Your line is now open.
Thank you. Thank you for taking my questions. I have three questions, if I may. Last quarter, you commented a little bit about the distribution margins in Brazil. Maybe you can give a little color on that for this quarter as well. The second question would be on your working capital. You are currently at 108 days according to your quarterly report, whereas the target is 90 days. So what kind of actions are you taking to get down to 90 days? And the final question would be on your current press releases on the blue ammonia CapEx. You're talking more in the region around 2.8 billion for a full-scale blue ammonia plant. What would that number be now, if there is any indication you can give on that? Thank you.
Hi, Bengt. This is Thor. Distribution margins in Brazil are somewhat lower, around $30 per ton this quarter compared to $40 a year earlier. So somewhat weaker conditions there this quarter. Working capital, absolutely right. We are some way off the target that we've set for the end of the year. This is part of when we talk about looking for further opportunities beyond the current cost program. Working capital is very much part of that. I think probably the only thing I would add, but working capital is also a commercial tool in this business. We are certainly aiming to get a positive cash contribution from it, but have to be selective on where we do that.
But I think you can. I think, yeah, a key example of where that will be included as we evaluate our quarter, particularly on the market side, because profitability for a market, it's important to include operating capital and currency hedging costs and so on. So we'll revert with more on that, I anticipate, further out in time. I'll start on the final question. We are mid-process in our evaluation of the clean ammonia opportunities. So we don't have an updated cost at this time. I guess that would be my main comment. I don't know if you want to answer that.
Yeah, no, no. I agree. And I think, I mean, obviously, we are, for an ammonia project, very comfortable with the, I mean, with the gas ammonia exposure and evaluating that. And then, of course, CapEx is always a very important element of making such a project profitable. And so we are optimizing that, and both, as we mentioned, in terms of partnerships and in terms of scale, to get to a CapEx per ton is competitive. I think that's what we can say at this point, but then we will revert on that later.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Magnus Rasmussen from SEB. Your line is now open.
Thank you for taking my question. I have one question on the tax rate in the fourth quarter. So also, when looking at your adjusted EPS versus adjusted EBITDA, it seems like you've had a very high tax rate also on adjusted figures. You mentioned that you're unable to book tax loss carried forward in certain regions or countries. Can you explain a bit about what's going on here and whether we will see that continuing into 2025?
Yes. The situation in the fourth quarter with significant special items and also a negative currency effect. We have a negative net income in the quarter, and [audio distortion] $292 million and a close to zero effective tax rate. That means our adjusted EPS compared to last year when we had a net income with a 20% effective tax rate; you get a large decline. It's important to say a couple of things on the special items that are driving this. One is that they are mostly non-cash. And then also on the currency loss, that is an effect of a deliberate and natural hedge position that we take, that we say we have a U.S. dollar margin business. And so it's natural to keep most of our debt in U.S. dollars.
A strong U.S. dollar is fundamentally positive for Yara going forward, but the immediate impact we get when the dollar strengthens is a negative mark to market on the debt.
I understand how that drives sort of, let's say, a special one-off effect, but how does that also in adjusted figures? Shouldn't that be adjusted in your, let's say, adjusted tax rate?
Yeah. So yes, I'm sorry. There's one more element that I should have mentioned, and that is that we have not recognized deferred tax assets in all subsidiaries in this situation. So that's what's driving the, shall we say, yeah, low tax rate on a loss, which also creates a big year-over-year variance. Now, it's important to say these tax losses are still on our balance, but we are not taking a tax effect in the quarter due to uncertainty of recoverability.
These, let's call them, negative results in certain regions resulting in this effect, is that driven by restructuring costs or an impairment, or is that sort of underlying business not doing great in certain regions?
Yeah, a significant part of this is driven by those very write-downs and currency losses.
Okay. Thank you.
Your next question comes from Aron Ceccarelli from Berenberg. Your line is now open.
Thank you. Okay. Let's try again. Sorry, I had some problems with the line before. I have three questions. My first one is on your FID, which has been moved today to 2026. I was wondering, does Yara need to go ahead with its FID in order to play a major role in blue ammonia or a more asset-light approach by JV or using your import terminal capacity can guarantee success on using this kind of approach? My second question is on YCA. You talked about the different equity structure, but with the corn prices higher now, the sentiment in the market improving in nitrogen, would you say an IPO for YCA is completely off the table today? And finally, on Chinese exports, clearly, this was a major positive last year because China didn't come back to the market. It looks like now that domestic demand will be satisfied.
What would you say is the risk of seeing China coming back in the export market in the second quarter? Thank you.
Yeah. I can start on the project-related question. I mean, to answer, but I mean, no, we don't have to make any FID, and we will not make an FID unless projects are profitable. But I think, and also, I mean, given our global position, our ammonia import capacity, and our fleet capacity, we are, of course, that gives us several different options and opportunities as well. However, I think Yara has demonstrated many times before that when it comes to creating shareholder value through upstream ammonia investments, we've done that very successfully, Freeport from 2018 being the last one. So obviously, we are evaluating these different options based on what we think will provide the best value creation for the shareholder, and we will make our decisions accordingly.
But I think, as mentioned, looking at those, not only Freeport, but others before that, I think that's one reason why we think that can be a good option. And also, of course, that that plays very well into our competitive edges and our global scale as well. In terms of the IPO, I would say it's not never off the table. I think, I mean, we communicated, I guess, one and a half years ago that we consider the timing not to be right. And I think, as I alluded to in my previous questions, we see both in projects, but also in YCA, that there is capital out there that sees the clear business case and also sees the clear value, perhaps more clearly than what the general market and analysts do as well. And that's also a great opportunity.
On the China question, I think we don't have kind of an opinion about exactly what China is going to export. I think that's very unclear, and nobody really knows. But I think we can say that the consensus in the, let's say, among the publishers of market information in this space, there is the kind of expectation that there will be resumed Chinese exports following the peak season, as you mentioned. So some are talking about April, May, some are not expecting anything before July, August. So who knows? But I think there's a general expectation that there will be some exports from China again.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from Lizzy Lancaster from Argus Media. Your line is now open.
Hi. Thanks for taking my question. Hope you can hear me okay. I was just wondering if you could maybe share a little bit more color on the decision to mothball your Hull plant in the U.K.. I mean, is it principally related to gas costs, or are there any other factors? And I was wondering, is that a permanent closure? Because the presentation seemed to imply that it had already been mothballed. So I was also wondering when exactly it was shut down and if that now means you'll be looking to import those 250-300,000 tons a year into the U.K.. Thanks.
So this is a plant that's owned by Yara, but it's been operated by INEOS, meaning we have employees etc. there. And we've known for a while that they were planning to use that hydrogen sourcing that we use in-house for their own production. This is nothing new as such. So we're mothballing it now basically to keep optionality if we get competitive hydrogen feed stock in the future.
Your next question comes from Elliott Jones from Danske Bank. Your line is now open.
Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. It's basically focused around the restructuring costs that you mentioned in the presentation around $130 million, I think. So just wondering if and how that number has kind of developed or changed versus when you initiated the program in Q2. And then also if you could provide any colors to the makeup of that number and also when you could see these costs throughout 2025, that would be helpful.
Yeah. First question, though, I would say this is roughly in line with expectations. I think I'm right in saying as you look broadly across industries, I mean, it varies by country, but to sort of have a start point that FTE reductions, there can be a factor of anywhere upwards from one to one upwards in terms of your one-off costs versus in relation to annual savings. So of course, it's still an estimate at this stage. We need to go through the process in a number of countries. As we comment on the savings, will come more in the second half than the first half. But I think it's natural to think of the one-off costs to come at the start of the savings. I mean, that's the typical format that you will have.
You make the redundancies, you get that cost immediately, and then the savings come thereafter.
Thanks.
Your next question comes from Matt Hoisch from S&P Global. Your line is now open.
Thanks for taking my questions. I have two. They're both about European production. On the 1 million metric ton reduction figure you cited, I know the actions at Hull and Tertre should reduce things by around 700,000 metric tons. I'm curious if you can discuss the added 300,000 ton reduction you're seeing from other plants. What are the planned reductions you're aiming to do there? And is the aim to reach that 1 million ton reduction figure by the end of 2025? And then my final question is just around whether there are plans to revive clean ammonia developments in Europe in light of the change in U.S. administration. Thanks.
Yeah. Hi, Matt. I can take the first one. You're correct in terms of the Tertre and Hull effects here. The remainder of the 1 million ton we mentioned is reducing excess ammonia in our industrial plants. And this is partly related to optimizing our, shall we say, profitability also in the context of emissions under ETS, that given how the quota system works, if you have, depending on what your margins are like, it's worth paying attention to your total production level. But to summarize, I mean, these are not actually, as opposed to the other two, these are not identified plant restructuring or closure actions, but it's optimization of plants that we are keeping in operation. I think on your second question was maybe along the lines of whether yeah, sorry, I'll hand over to Svein.
Yeah, it's Svein here. Just a question with regards to the administration, looking at the U.S. and Europe in combination, and the messages, at least the interpretation of the messages already given when it comes to the U.S. first and the products we're looking into on ammonia. It's a project built on energy. It's about investments in the U.S. It's about jobs in the U.S. and exports as well. So from that point of view, it takes a lot of the boxes on the already established communication. And when it comes to the European side, Europe is a net importer of energy, whether it's gas or ammonia. And such a product would help to support that and to deliver on the energy import need. And just looking at the dialogue now with regards to tariffs and the trade deficit, it would also help to reduce the deficit.
So the project itself, yes, there's a lot of discussions and so on, but if you take the high-level view, I think a project and what we're looking into would be supportive of the agenda in both regions. When it comes to clean ammonia in Europe, we are already producing some when it comes to green hydrogen. We have our pilot plant in Norway, and then we're progressing well with the carbon capture and storage sequestration, carbon capture and storage project in Sluiskil as well. So we are progressing that, but that was already planned and in motion ahead of us.
There's no new plans in Europe?
When it comes to carbon capture and storage, no. Well, we're doing a lot of carbon capture already, but we're selling it into the, amongst others, the food industry. So I mean, you can do minor tweaks and so on, but nothing large scale. So the large scale that we're working on is the one in Sluiskil.
Okay. And just the one million ton reduction, the aim is to achieve that by the end of 2025, to clarify?
Yeah. You're back to the European ammonia balance. I wouldn't say this is a target. It's rather a consequence of, as we described, partly restructuring actions and partly optimization of profitability in existing plants.
Okay, so by the end of the year?
Yeah, but don't think about it as a target, but more a consequence of the actions we're taking and needed consequences of that.
It's also subject to processes. For example, for the Tertre plant, this is an intention to transform [during the] process, but that doesn't mean it is decided or implemented or necessarily will be in 2025.
Okay. Thank you.
That concludes our question and answer session. I'd now like to hand back over to Yara's management for final remarks.
Just, thank you to everyone for joining. I'm wishing you a restful, good day. Bye.
Thank you so much for attending today's call. You may now disconnect. Have a wonderful day, everyone.