Okay, hey, everyone. Marc Bianchi here from the TD Cowen Research Team. Excited to be joined by Air Products for this session. From Air Products, we have Sidd Manjeshwar, who's Vice President, Investor Relations. Sidd, thank you very much for joining us. So maybe to kick it off, you know, Air Products has a pretty bullish vision for clean hydrogen. You got a bunch of projects that you're doing, and everybody is always asking about when, when are we gonna hear about offtake? When are we gonna hear about offtake? And the message has been, you know, you're holding out for the highest price. So maybe talk about what gives you confidence in that strategy, and when should we expect to hear more about offtake?
Sure. Sounds good, Marc. First off, let me say thank you very much to you and the TD team for this wonderful opportunity to be here today. It's great to be talking to our investors about our base business and all our clean energy opportunities, like you suggested. Look, you know, I, I'd say, as Victor Hugo famously said, right, "Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come." And as we discuss the energy transition today, we all see that the world wants more energy, and it wants it with a lower carbon footprint. I think everybody sees that as a fundamental direction because today, public policy is driving that. Public policy is changing company and consumer behavior. Public policy is addressing climate change needs.
If I jog everyone's memory back several decades back when we saw the growth in our hydrogen business, that was driven by public policy regulation, where the world wanted to clean up transportation fuel, and the world is again globally doing it differently, but creating regulations and incentives. And we at Air Products think that hydrogen has an absolutely critical role to play in decarbonizing our economy, where hydrogen is employed as a clean feedstock, as a clean fuel, as a clean energy source in existing and new applications. These truly are gonna be game changers. Today at Air Products, we are focused on our two pillars of our growth strategy, our terrific base business and our clean energy projects. And let me remind everyone, our base business today is the most profitable, with industry-leading EBITDA margins of 41%, the highest proportion of on-site revenues.
We've got a balanced, geographic business mix, a visionary CEO, and a talented and dedicated team supporting that vision and strategy, with an outstanding track record of 10 years of delivering 11% EPS CAGR, and a commitment to continue that journey over the next decade, as you heard Seifi on our recent earnings call. Now, over the last 60+ years , AP has had a leading position of producing, distributing, supplying hydrogen from our facilities, over 110 globally. We are the largest producer today at over 10,000 tons per day, and we've got incredible pipeline infrastructures, the largest in the world in the Gulf Coast, in California, a couple in Canada, in Europe, and in Asia. And we distribute it today through pipes, as a truck or trucks, as a liquid or gas.
So I think today we're incredibly excited at Air Products to take that body of work, 60 years of leadership experience, technological know-how, patents, new technologies that we've added to our portfolio, and being able to deploy the right solution for the right situation for our customers. And that's demonstrated by this $15 billion low-carbon energy backlog that we have. 'Cause I think for us, the key is to be positioned to support our customers' demand growth and their decarbonization journeys with the myriad of solutions we have. And today, if you think of the majority of the low-carbon project wins that we've had, it's because we've pressed our first-mover advantage. And in terms of timing, you know, you mentioned holding out for a better price. I think, look, candidly, what's driving this?
It's public policy, and last year was a seismic shift forward globally for all these legislations to be passed. We're waiting on some of that guidance to still come out, but that's what's driving the adoption here. And with each passing day, the bid-ask spread is getting very close. So we're fairly sanguine within the next year, we've got good things to say in terms of bringing offtake visibility to customers, I mean, to our investors on the customers that we engage with today.
That's great to hear. In the past, you talked about some of the examples that give you confidence in this strategy being RFPs or demand that you see out there, and if we look at it, you know, the two that stick out to me were TotalEnergies talking about 500,000 tons, and thyssenkrupp getting a green steel award, which could have used, I think, like 165,000 tons. With, you know, NEOM is 225,000 tons, if I've got that right. So these, just these two examples are multiples of that.
Are there others that you can mention out there, or are there, you know, other examples of demand indicators that you can point to that we might add to this list?
Sure. Great question, Marc. And look, while the two companies that you alluded to are world-class customers with visionary CEOs, with the fortitude to take the first mover steps here to create shareholder value for their shareholders and address climate change needs, I think it's important to take a step back and highlight, I think, some of the several regulatory mandates and incentives that are driving the adoption. And maybe let's use Europe as an example for a moment, given the two leading indicators that you mentioned, and then we can talk about some of the cases. But last year, like I mentioned, was a seminal moment in European legislative landscape, right? With an alphabet soup of delegated acts that were passed, the Renewable Energy Directive II for transport fuels, the Renewable Energy Directive III for bringing
hydrogen as a feedstock into a lot of industrial applications, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. And clearly there's a lot here to digest, but as investors do their homework, they'll realize the frameworks work, the incentives work, et cetera. But all these dictate mandates in terms of percentage of adoption by 2025, by 2030, by 2035, right? In mobility applications for aviation, for road applications, maritime, then you've got a percentage of low carbon feedstock replacing existing gray feedstock today. You've got a percentage of biofuel production that needs to be part of your overall fuel mix by 2030. There's a renewable fuel of a non-biological origin. They've got consumption standards for that in refineries.
In addition, today, there is a carbon tax framework in Europe, which is expected to step up materially over the next several date milestones over the next few years, while the free credits that companies get go away entirely by 2023. I think these collectively will drive changes to company behavior and adoption. And maybe I'll cite a simple example, which has been getting a lot of attention recently. If you think of the FuelEU Maritime law, right? That states that by 2025, you've got to reduce the carbon intensity of your fuel by 2%, 6% by 2030, and 14.5% by 2035. And the penalties on the other side are very stiff if you don't meet this. Starting in 2025 itself, you pay a EUR 700 ton penalty for not achieving these targets.
That itself is a big, big stick that's helping companies think through this and accelerating adoption. In addition, there was another thought piece that was put out by a rival research firm last year, which showed even if the entire shipping industry converted to green or ammonia or blue ammonia, right, there would be no real change in pricing for us in terms of a simple banana or a Whirlpool refrigerator that you may buy, right? And I think we're seeing this across the board in other regions of the world, like the U.S. with the IRA. Canada are doing similar things, Japan supporting blue hydrogen and ammonia. Everyone's taking bold steps. In terms of examples, look, the three simple— If you had to put three buckets, right?
You've got hydrogen as a feedstock today in all our traditional applications, gray nonetheless, but they'll convert to low carbon. And then you've got new applications there in the industrial side with steel, DRI, you've seen. In addition, for instance, you've seen three other steel manufacturers. They're converting several of their facilities in Europe, in Austria, France, and Germany. You've seen similar things in Sweden. You've seen cement providers do the same thing. Glass manufacturing is another new place where hydrogen is being used, and you've had a few pilot and small contracts there. Now, hydrogen, the other big place is hydrogen is a potential energy source in heating needs, given everything that Europe has gone through over the last two years.
It's a fuel source in base load power generation, either as hydrogen, because some of the world-renowned reputable gas turbine manufacturers now have hydrogen versions of the same, or as a derivative where it could be blended in coal assets up to 40%-50% of those levels in coal power plants. And coal today is 50%-60% of power generation fuel sources in all of Asia, right? So that's a big source. And then backup power generation at data centers is another place where you could have hydrogen that seamlessly can come in and provide that energy security while being of a low carbon nature. Because there's a renewable insufficiency in a lot of places in the world today, whereas hydrogen can solve that for people.
And then hydrogen is a fuel in a whole host of mobility applications like we've got. You know, we've announced a few things in Canada on the back of our Edmonton project, in a couple of mobility applications, similarly in Europe as well. And that's a highly fragmented market, but likely, if you think about the ability to pay, with the highest ability to pay in terms of customer adoption. But I think the market for low carbon H2 is gonna be huge overall.
Great. Well, maybe you could just run through your largest clean, clean hydrogen projects and give us a, an update on, on where the, the progress is on those. So the ones I'm thinking of are in order of coming on stream, Alberta, which I think is like middle 2025. We've got NEOM, that's the end of 2026, and then Louisiana at the end of 2027, and I guess actually it was four, and then World Energy SAF in 2027 as well.
Understood. Yeah, so on Alberta, in terms of updates, I'd say, you know, we had IOL, Imperial Oil of Canada, as the anchor customer for between 15%-60% of the overall volumes there. We've got, you know, a 10% number roughly around mobility applications. We've seen us make some recent announcements there, creating corridors, mobility corridors in Canada between two large cities in Alberta. The airport of Alberta has done, you know, converted a large fleet of fuel cell vehicles, where we've got commercial arrangements in place as well. So by the time that facility comes on stream, you know, you've heard Seifi mention that would be fully sold out, and we're fairly sanguine about how that's going. Our other flagship project is NEOM. You know, we're in full-scale execution there.
We've got close to 10,000 workers on site, you know, that could likely grow by another couple thousand. The project's being built concurrently in terms of our solar assets, the wind assets, you know, several turbines go up every week. You've seen pictures on our production joint venture, the company website, where they've got pictures of turbines, wind, wind turbines, electrolyzers, other pieces of equipment being installed, and pictures in terms of progress of construction. You know, the solar panels are being installed.
Can I just jump in?
Yeah, sure.
Can I jump in quickly on NEOM, just because it comes up from time to time? There's news stories about maybe slowing progress or less of an investment in the NEOM city. Does that affect anything with your project, or is that completely separate?
That's completely separate. I think that's an incredible-- The vision is incredible, and we're really excited and looking forward to seeing how that shapes up. But our project is entirely separate from that venture. We do share a similar name, given the region we're based in, but, you know, none of that narrative affects our progress or how we're looking to bring the asset online in December 2026.
Yep. So, and sorry I interrupted you. You were on a roll there with going through the projects.
No, no. As you can tell, we're fairly passionate about our projects and the journey we're on. But, you know, again, our site is right by the ocean. We've got a natural deep sea location there. We'll develop the jetty where ammonia carriers can come in for fueling needs or for carrying needs to bring those to the shores of Europe. But overall, the project's progressing great there, and we're excited about everything we're doing in NEOM. And then I think the others you mentioned was Louisiana. In Louisiana, I guess two things, in NEOM and in Louisiana, you know, we had capital updates primarily driven by scope, which I suspect we'll get into later on in the call.
But again, Louisiana, we're excited about filing a Class VI permit imminently, and we're waiting on a couple other permits that would help us progress our construction there. And that's, again, likely to come on late 2027, or 2028 would likely be the first year of full production, so to speak. And then on World Energy, you heard Seifi mention on the earnings call that we have had air permit delays on that project, so it's likely delayed by a year at this point in time. But when we have more fulsome updates, we'll bring that to investors right away.
Great. Yeah, I did have another one on kind of the scope increase. So, for Louisiana, maybe two things on that, going back to the update. I think at the time when the cost went up, the message was, you know, we've budgeted in some inflation and further inflation from here that, you know, may prove kind of conservative. So maybe you could talk about what's embedded in the expectation there. And then also, my understanding as part of the scope increase was to be able to do some more sequestration at the site with some of your SMRs. How is that going in terms of deciding to put capture equipment on your SMRs?
Understood. No, great question, Marc. Look, I think when we made the update in November last year, what you saw was we've increased the scope because of the optionality that provides us, right? There was roughly 1,000 acres of additional land that we acquired. The water utility, as well as some of the, the water and the utility infrastructure supporting the asset, were oversized as a result. The jetty that we were gonna develop now can handle a lot larger ammonia carrier ships that can then take the product to the Far East, as we discussed for, you know, other applications like power generation, et cetera. And then we also had a, the sequestration was another piece which was enhanced and gave us a lot more optionality.
As you recollect, we're the only company that's been given port space by the Mineral Board of Louisiana, and that allowed us, based on the seismic study work that we did, that the port space was incredible. And that gives us the additional optionality where we've got several SMRs closely located in proximity to our Louisiana project that we're talking about. And as customer conversations progress and those get retrofitted to capture the CO2, we've now got that infrastructure sized appropriately as well.
Okay. Okay, great. Well, maybe let's shift off of the kind of clean hydrogen part of the story and talk about a bit more about the base business. You know, one of the things that's, I feel like I've had this discussion on every single one of these calls with different companies, is about kind of the whole data center, electronics, AI thing, and Air Products has a pretty big footprint in electronics. So maybe you could talk about what your exposure is there, how important it is, and kind of what the growth opportunity looks like.
Sure. You know, our electronics business is tremendous. We've got a critical mass in all the strategic locations across the globe, where you've got some of these large electronics providers with their fabs, et cetera, right? And, you know, over the last two years, you've seen us make some big announcements in terms of projects that we've won. You know, we win our fair share of projects in that space. Overall, I think we've got a tremendous business. Percentage of our revenue mix, it's roughly 14%-15% of our overall mix, as our investor pack shows. But I think thematically, with everything going on with AI and other things in terms of supportive legislation as well, the CHIPS Act, et cetera, you will see a lot more growth in that segment.
Given our share as well as our footprint, I think it gives us a very competitive position to compete for some of these projects that will come down the pipe.
Is there any way you can quantify the pipeline or the opportunity set to help us think about what it could mean to growth?
I don't think we've quantified that to that level of specificity, Marc. But look, you know, we announced several projects in the last two years. I think that was roughly $1.4 billion or so of projects that we had. And then, you know, our base business, we spend roughly $1 billion-$1.1 billion every year on that, right, including maintenance CapEx. So a lot of that is headed to that space. And there's also a sizing aspect to this. You know, the 20-odd assets that we did bring on over the last quarter, the large majority of them are actually in the electronic space. So that's why I mentioned we win our fair share, or if not more, of the projects that customers are looking to bring on stream.
Okay, great. Well, maybe getting into some of the, the guidance numbers and, and discussion about the outlook. So you've guided to your fiscal third quarter. We could do the math on what it means for fiscal fourth, and it kind of implies a $0.60 per share uplift. And I think there's, there's sort of four things that you've talked about driving that.
Okay.
There's obviously seasonality, there's some startups that are helping, some cost savings that's in there, and there's some LNG equipment. I was hoping we could maybe get a sense of how much each of those are contributing to that uplift and, you know, if any of it is, like, the LNG equipment, for example, would be maybe one-time-ish in the fourth quarter, or is that just a new level of run rate?
Yeah, look, I gotta be careful because I think the next question is likely gonna be, once you hit that $365 million number, is that gonna be a run rate moving forward and try to quantify guidance for the future? But what I'd say is, look, overall, there's a seasonality aspect to our business, right? In the first half of the year, traditionally, you see us hit roughly 47% of the overall mix, and then 53% in the back half of the year. Based on our guidance, when we made the revision the first quarter of this year, that mix looked more like a 44%, I mean, a 45%, 46%, versus the 47%. But given our beat in the second quarter this year, that's normalized to, you know, closer to the original levels that we discussed.
Now, our third quarter guidance was slightly conservative compared to consensus, and that was primarily driven by some of the maintenance that we had spoken about, which is a global phenomenon, right? And which is why you feel there's a bit more of a step up in the fourth quarter. But the fourth quarter does have a seasonality aspect to it. If you look at how our numbers were last year, I think it was roughly in the $3.14 level, $3.15, and $2.95, $2.94 the prior quarter. So you can see directionally the movement there. But beyond that, I don't think I can quantify how much each of these four buckets is. But, you know, some of the restructuring actions that we took yields a 75% annual savings.
And then we had certain actions which we had taken in the third quarter last year, which was another $20 million or so of savings. So collectively, that adds to this, but there's the seasonality aspect, the LNG cadence in terms of more projects, and then, you know, bringing, like I mentioned, we've got 20 assets on stream this past quarter. We've got some of those coming on in the fourth quarter as well.
Okay. Got it. Just, you said, I didn't quite catch it. You said, I think 75% savings from cost. How do-
$75 million in savings from the-
$75 million, okay
... restructuring that we just - Correct. Annual run rate once it's all said and done.
Got it.
A portion of that is in the fourth quarter.
Yep, a portion of it, so not the full, full run rate benefit-
That's correct
... in the fourth quarter. Is-
That's right.
So, yeah, you, you correctly anticipated my question from where, where this fourth quarter run rate gets you. But maybe, you know, if you don't wanna get into quantifying, which I get, is it, is it fair to say that some of the, the LNG is, is not recurring? 'Cause that, that's just the nature of that business. It can be lumpy. And then is there some amount of the maintenance that is occurring in the third quarter, are you, are you unusually catching up for it in the fourth quarter, whereas, you know, fourth quarter wouldn't, you wouldn't have as much bounce back in the fourth quarter, and it's, you're, you're making up for, for lost time? Is that-- Is there, is there some aspect to that when I try to think about, you know, what the normalized level of business activity is in the fourth quarter?
You know, great question, Marc. So the way I'd probably address that is to say, look, you heard Seifi on our, on our quarterly earnings call. I think someone did ask him this specific question, is, you know, versus taking a run rate and then quantifying and building off that, you know, given the seasonality aspect, et cetera. What he mentioned is, look, we've delivered 11% EPS CAGR and assumed the 10% modeling number as a, as a growth rate year over year, right, in terms of also making a commitment for the next decade. The LNG does, does tend to be lumpy. Without getting into a lot of the minutiae here, I can't quantify the cadence of it, but it is- does tend to be lumpy, but those projects tend to be couple of year projects as well.
And then maintenance in the third quarter, just because of the elevated number, brings our third quarter number down, which then gives you that ramp in the fourth quarter. Hopefully, that puts things in perspective.
Yeah, that, that is helpful. One more on kind of the, the business before I get to my last question. So this sort of $1 billion-$1.1 billion of small investment that occurs year after year, should we think of that as contributing to your onsite business? Is it contributing to, you know, everything outside of onsite? You mentioned electronics as part of that. Like, what is that? What does that look like when we think about modeling it out?
I think a lot of those tend to be the on-site business, right? And I think as you've seen, compared to our peers, we do have the largest proportion of on-sites, and that continues to trend up.
Okay, great. And then the last one, just, and this is maybe a bit philosophical, but also about kind of the around valuation. So Air Products' valuation has become depressed relative to peers, and you know, I think some of it has to do with this, you know, concern around your large projects, but you know, over time you'll execute on that, and if your strategy works, then that's great. But what do you think you can do to improve the valuation?
And I guess, you know, one thing that could be on that list is, well, we think the stock's really cheap and we're gonna do share buybacks, but that's always been something that Seifi has said, "You know, we'd rather invest in the business." Is there a level where the stock gets cheap enough that even though you've got all these attractive projects out there, it still would make more sense to buy the stock back?
Look, I think one thing you always hear from Seifi is, you know, he always says this, right? "My primary job, some level, is being a capital allocator," right? And over the last 10 years, he's had a tremendous track record of delivering 11% EPS CAGR as a, as a capital allocator globally, right? And as a company, as an organization, we always look for the best risk-adjusted returns that we have. And today, while we do appreciate investor concerns, and we always are listening, I don't think that figures into being the, the most appropriate place to allocate capital. Because we have... You know, we've got a giant pipeline. We've got $20 billion that we're allocating today to tremendous projects that are gonna deliver a lot of shareholder value. But I think ultimately it all comes down to when these offtakes get signed.
Because I think, you know, before the call, we were just talking casually as well. We've been taking Seifi on the road, and we've had a lot of investor discussions. I think there's a high level of recognition now that we're getting closer and closer, the bid-ask spread is minimizing, and several other public company executives' remarks demonstrate the market is coming to the realization in terms of the timing of these, the costs and the pricing involved with producing and selling these low-carbon molecules, right? But, you know, our base business being the most profitable doesn't need mandates, so to speak, right?
But public policy is what's driving this, and with, you know, some of the narrative you hear with incumbency or a new leader coming in, people are and guidance being issued or not being issued or the timing of that, the public policy overhang is also reflected, I think, in the share price. But look, ultimately, we are focused on engaging with customers and looking to bring offtake visibility. I think that will entirely raise, you know, remove all the concerns that, or the overhang that we have today on our stock.
Okay, got it. Well, maybe just 'cause we've got a couple more minutes, and you mentioned the public policy. 45V in the U.S. has been something that's been sort of, in, I guess, limbo, might be the way to describe it, but just sort of waiting for some clarity on the guidance, and I think there was a comment period that is either ongoing or is recently wrapped up. But can you just sort of update us on where that stands and how that would affect decisions that Air Products could make?
Sure. So, you know, our Louisiana project that we just spoke about, right? That is where we're gonna capture the carbon and then sequester the CO2 there. That is gonna look to monetize the 45Q credit, which has been in law even before the IRA. We've actually done that at two of our steam methane reformers in Port Arthur, Texas. So, you know, we're fairly sanguine that that continues, and you've seen a lot of other oil and gas major players also enter that fray on the back of that 45Q credit. So I think that's one credit that we monetize there. For any of the green hydrogen production that we're talking about in the US, it is the 45V that you alluded to.
Again, I think what you've heard Seifi publicly mention is that, "Look, we won't bring any more projects to FID until we've given you, offtake visibility on NEOM and Louisiana," right? Because then that gives you the conviction and, into the next, phase of projects that we can develop. But as it pertains to the 45V and the timing of all that, you know, I think we're as well-informed as, as you and the other investors are, right? There's something that's expected in, the summer this year, and, and, you know, further updates, later in the year as well.
Okay. Well, great, Sid. Thank you so much for the time. This has been great. Really appreciate you, you joining us.
No, absolutely, Marc, and thanks again for the engaging discussion.