Thank you, Operator. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for joining us for our conference call and webcast today. As usual, joining me is Rohit Bhardwaj, our Chief Financial Officer.

Before I commence the review, I would remind you that our presentation contains certain forward-looking statements that are based on current expectations and are subject to a number of uncertainties and risks and actual results may differ materially. Further information identifying risks, uncertainties and assumptions and additional information on certain non-IFRS measures referred to in this call can be found in the disclosure documents filed by Chemtrade with the Securities Regulatory Authorities available at www.sedar.com.

2014 was a very successful year for Chemtrade. We closed the General Chemical acquisition early in the year and it integrated well with our legacy businesses.

The acquisition gave us additional size, scale and diversity of earnings that clearly strengthened Chemtrade. Business conditions were generally stable in 2014 and our results for 2014 reflect the newly consolidated business.

In addition to financial results, the increased scope of the business led to new opportunities. One opportunity was the ability to expand our Water Solutions business and I’ll comment on our initiatives in this area at the end of the call.

In 2014, we generated distributable cash after maintenance capital expenditures of a $126.6 million or $2.10 per unit substantially exceeding our annual distributions of a $1.20. And bearing in mind that we had approximately 20 million more units outstanding in 2014 relative to 2013.

Excluding acquisition costs that were incurred early in the year, distributable cash would've been a $142.9 million or $2.37 per unit. These results reflect annual maintenance CapEx spend of $44 million, which is close to the forecasted annual run rate we expect going forward.

As a reminder, we spent at a much lower rate earlier in the year. So the Q4 CapEx spend of $25.3 million contained a significant portion of catchup.

We finished the year on a strong note with most of our businesses performing well. During Q4, business conditions remained stable and we benefited from higher volumes of sulfuric acid.

As usual, Q4 generated our lowest EBITDA for the year due to seasonality of our regen and alum products. Despite the very high levels of maintenance CapEx during the fourth quarter, we generated distributable cash of $0.38 per unit, comfortably ahead of our distributions per unit of $0.30.

In addition to solid operating results, we completed a number of other initiatives during the year that enhance the long-term strength of Chemtrade. We reduced our long-term debt and strengthened our balance sheet by issuing convertible debentures in June and trust units in December that raised gross proceeds of $241.6 million.

We also sold our Montreal East business to Suncor in May for approximately $120 million. And again used those proceeds to reduce debt and strengthen our balance sheet.

Rohit will have more to say on these transactions. We also completed a significant investment in our sodium chlorate plant in British Columbia to make it a low-cost producer and the benefits are now starting to be realized.

We’ll continue to invest in our capital assets consistent with our commitment to enhance the operational excellence necessary to create sustainable earnings. To summarize, 2014 was a milestone year for Chemtrade.

We continued to execute on our strategic plan. Our most significant acquisition and integration to date combined with the other initiatives I've mentioned continued our path of increasing size, scale and diversity of earnings consistent with our risk-mitigating business model while maintaining our balance sheet strength.

Our strong operational performance and added financial strength provide a solid foundation for sustainable growth -- sustainable results and future growth. Rohit will now provide you with some additional details on the fourth-quarter and full-year financial results.

Thanks Mark, and I wish everyone on this call a good morning on this cold day. As Mark said in general, our businesses performed well in 2014.

Comparisons with 2013 are significantly affected due to the acquisition. 2014 results include results of the acquired business from January 24 -- 2014, whereas 2013 results are of course for only the legacy business.

Also in July 2014, we closed the sale of our Montreal East business to Suncor. And its net earnings are shown as discontinued operations on the income statement.

For the purpose of this call, we’ve included Montreal results in our comments. Looking first at the fourth quarter, revenue for the three months ended December 31 2014 was $313.3 million, an increase of $111.7 million from the 2013 levels.

The primary reason for the increase was the revenue from the General Chemical business. Additionally, the International segment posted increased revenue due to higher volumes of sulfuric acid and higher prices for sulfur.

This was partially offset by the impact of the sale of the Montreal facility that was included in the 2013 results, but not in the Q4 results for 2014. Distributable cash after maintenance CapEx for the fourth quarter was $24.4 million or $0.38 per unit compared with $3.4 million or $0.08 per unit in 2013.

The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of results from the acquired business and settlement gains of $10.2 million relating to post-employment benefit plan changes that were included in the fourth quarter of 2014. For the full year of 2014, distributable cash after maintenance CapEx was $126.6 million or $2.10 per unit compared with $75.5 million or a $1.81 per unit in 2013.

Consolidated revenue for 2014 was $1.2 billion compared with $836.1 million generated in 2013. The increase of approximately $394 million was due primarily to the General Chemical acquisition.

EBITDA for 2014 was $221.2 million compared with $129.9 million in the previous year. This increase reflects the new business partially offset by higher acquisition costs in 2014.

Turning to segmented results for the fourth quarter, SPPC generated revenue of $154.9 million and EBITDA of $35.1 million compared with $130.2 million and $31.8 million respectively in 2013. The main reason for the increase in revenue was the inclusion of the acquired business.

This was partially offset by the inclusion of results from the Montreal business for all of 2013. In WSSC, our new segment reported fourth quarter revenue of $101.3 million compared with $27.2 million in 2013, and EBITDA of $26.8 million compared with $6.2 million in 2013.

The higher results are due to the inclusion of the acquired business. International reported revenue of $57.1 million for the fourth quarter compared with $44.2 million in 2013.

This increase in revenue reflected high volumes of sulfuric acid and higher prices for sulfur. EBITDA for the quarter was $4.6 million compared with $3.7 million in 2013.

Maintenance CapEx in the fourth quarter was $25.3 million. This brought our maintenance CapEx for the year to $44 million which was a little short of the expectations outlined on the last call.

In 2015, we expect maintenance CapEx to be approximately $50 million. Excluding unrealized foreign exchange gains and losses, corporate cost during the fourth quarter of 2014 were $5 million, which was $15.6 million lower than the fourth quarter of 2013.

The decrease was partially due to lower LTIP costs in 2014 and two acquisition related costs of $2.9 million that were recorded in the fourth quarter of 2013. Additionally, there were $10.2 million of settlement gains on changes made to certain post-employment benefit plans that were recorded in 2014, which more than offset higher costs related to the increased scale of corporate services resulting from the acquisition.

We expect that corporate costs, excluding foreign exchange gains and losses in 2015 will be roughly $45 million. Our balance sheet at December 31 2014 was in sound shape.

As Mark mentioned the net proceeds from the issuance of debentures in June and the sale of our Montreal facility to Suncor in July were used to pay down senior debt. In the fourth quarter, we raised an additional $115 million with an issuance of 5.4 million trust units and used the net proceeds to further reduce the long-term debt.

This strengthens our balance sheet and provides additional financial flexibility. At December 31, 2014 we had drawn about a $432 million on our senior credit facility.

Our term loan is fully drawn, but we remain -- we maintain about US $477.5 million of undrawn capacity on our US $500 million revolving facility, which provides us with ample liquidity. The credit facility matures in January of 2019.

I’ll now hand it back to Mark. Mark?

Thanks, Rohit. The results generated by Chemtrade in 2014 following the acquisition of General Chemical in January demonstrate how our strategy can produce sustainable growth and yield for our unit holders.

As Rohit noted, our strong balance sheet gives us the flexibility to pursue further growth for both organic and through acquisitions when appropriate opportunities arise. I mentioned earlier how our large scope increases our opportunities to find logical expansions to our business.

One example that we identified at the time of the General Chemical acquisition was our broader footprint in the Water Solutions area. The General Chemical acquisition significantly expanded our Water Treatment business, albeit mainly in the aluminum sulfate or alum.

In order to build on that solid platform in the Water Treatment business, we recognized it would be beneficial to add other chemistries to our portfolio. In particular, we wanted to expand into Poly Aluminum Chloride or PAC, as this chemical has benefits in certain water conditions.

Adding this chemical allows us to further customize solutions for our customers and therefore continue to grow this business. We believe that we are uniquely positioned to successfully bring these products to market, given the breadth of our plant network as well as our technical and manufacturing capabilities.

In January, we closed the acquisition of an Edmonton-based company called Hydor-Tech which is a leading PAC producer in Western Canada. Although not material in aggregate financial terms, the acquisition is the first step in expanding our product portfolio and expanding aggressively into the PAC market.

In addition to the Hydor-Tech acquisition, we are also well advanced with the construction of a new PAC facility at our East St. Louis site.

And intend to add additional PAC facilities in geographies where this product expansion is of value to existing or new customers. We’ll continue to pursue our strategy of growth and operational excellence, together with adherence to our risk-mitigating business model and financial prudence.

We remain confident that the successful execution of this strategy will enable us to continue providing our unit holders with the growth and yield they have come to expect. In terms of general business conditions, we expect demand for our expanded range of products should remain stable in 2015.

From a quarterly split perspective, given some seasonality in the business we expect that our EBITDA in Q2 and Q3 of 2015 will be roughly 10% higher than that in Q1. We’ll continue to execute on the strategy that have delivered sustainable returns for our unit holders in the past.

We thank you for your attention and operator, Rohit and I, we're pleased to answer any questions that might come for us.

My first question is just kind of a top-down type question and really on your legacy business, and in this lower oil price environment, how do you think about that as far as your legacy sulfuric acid business? Is there a sensitivity to volumes if oil prices drop down to a certain level?

Or how do you think about that?

Yeah it’s an interesting answer I think for our chemical business. But you know I’ll start by saying is that we don't really rely on petrochemical feedstocks, except where we do with natural gas is we actually pass that through up and downs to our customers.

So it actually comes up back, we think is that the whole lower feedstock environment in North America should be good for general North American industry. And that should have a good pull-through effect on demand for most of our products.

I guess the other particular product is if lower oil results in lower gas pricing and lower gas means more people drive. That has a knock-on affect on our regen business.

But if you want a real top-down answer is to the extent that it spurs you know in the economic activity in North America, we derive a benefit from that.

Okay, maybe just moving on to General Chemical, maybe talk a little bit about the synergies, what's left to be done? What do you expect to realize in 2015?

And maybe you can broach the topic of commercial synergies between your historic and general chemical business?

So from the cost synergies we identified at the beginning is we're substantially done. So that's there and you saw some of the one-time stuff we were able to do in the fourth quarter.

From the commercial synergy perspective, I guess I’ll give you two things that are always in our mind, okay. One is whether or not, we want to self-supply our alum business with sulfuric acid or continue to obtain acid from others where it makes more economic sense.

And we've actually decided to self-supply our some additional volume. But we continue to buy substantial volume from other third parties where it makes more economic sense.

Having said that, is those supply and demand economics will change year-to-year and region-by-region. So every year we visit that, and every year we’ll either get more or less benefit from our ability to self-supply.

The second commercial synergy really relates back to the PAC strategy that I've now actually mentioned is the General Chemical business brought with us a Water Solutions business. And if you couple that with our commercial reach and financial ability is -- we're going to be able to expand that business we believe through adding additional products.

So those are really the two items I like to talk about.

And then in the PAC market, what is the -- is it a more profitable market or how should we look at it from a [indiscernible]?

Yeah, we should look at it in really two different ways, is one actually is from a customer perspective, is it’s actually again in certain water conditions, right is -- there's actually more value to the customer by using even a higher-priced PAC than a lower-priced alum because of the effectiveness and the amount of usage. So we think there’s a win on both sides of this equation in certain geographies, in certain water conditions.

And then maybe just lastly, this plant in East St. Louis, so what’s going to be the cost to build that?

Yeah it is, what we’ve -- we’ve indicated before that, you know when we talk about growth CapEx is, if we figure out ways to spend $10 million a year and we're happy; the PAC plant in East St. Louis would only be a part of that 10.

So these are not big capital-intensive projects.

Maybe just a top-down, you know you’ve given guidance at the GCC acquisition time that you could maybe do about $255 million EBITDA in a combined company with synergies. You sold the Montreal East business.

Is sort of the number you know, you would seem to suggest you are maybe gravitating towards a $245 million-$250 million EBITDA number. Is that sort of where we're headed for this year?

I think on your math if you took…

Yeah, I guess you took -- you started with the 255 kind of number and you back off Montreal. And the other thing to keep in mind is, if you noticed in Q3, we booked some of revenue -- some earnings that would have actually come through in 2015.

So you got to back those out as well. So and then you know your assumption on Montreal, which we didn’t really quantify but I think we basically said that it was -- we sold it for a $120 million and it was kind of a similar multiple as in the Marsulex.

So you know you can back off a number from there, so you actually end up lower than your -- if you start with 255 and make those adjustments you do end up a bit lower.

I want to talk a little bit about sulfuric acid. You know, I think we’ve seen prices in the US rise in Q4 and some restocking going on.

I think we’ve seen prices come off and some destocking in Q1. So why don’t you talk about that and also maybe talk about whether there’s really any material impacts at all from some of the refinery strikes that we're seeing?

I think we agree with the strengthening price. We haven't seen the backing off of price and we don't expect to see it.

So we think that -- our view is the sulfuric acid market is stronger in 2015 than it was in 2014. So we're quite content with where that is.

The refinery strikes so far have actually had very little if any effect on us. And again if you want to think about it again from a top-down perspective, a materiality perspective is you know is we’ve a number of regen plans, which is what serves the refineries.

So even if any particular refinery went down for a period of time and stayed down, is in an aggregate sense that won't be material to us. I mean certainly on that individual plant’s profitability, it will have an effect.

But the whole refining industry would have to be down for a long period of time before an aggregate would have a material effect on our results.

The next question is, you had a lot of amortization of intangibles in the quarter in WSSC. Can you maybe talk about that and if there’s anything we should expect - what that was and should we expect anything in 15?

Okay, so when we did the -- you know when we did the acquisition and you are required to come up, you know put up, put intangibles on the balance sheet. And you’ve different kinds of intangibles you’ve got, you know customer relationships etcetera.

You also have this concept of putting in you know a backlog kind of concept because of the very short intangible life to it left in the year or about the year. So that was all taken in and done, so what I can probably help you with is, looking forward we should be back to kind of a more intangible assets that tend to have longer life.

And so we shouldn't get this high amortization. So if we look at it really, probably best by segment, if you look at where at the year ended up for SPPC, our depreciation amortization was about 80 -- just about $80 million.

And that's probably not a bad run rate for 2015. WSSC, we ended up also close to $80 million which is way too high, because it has those short life ones that are now gone.

So I’d probably back that down to maybe $60 million in that range. And that gives you kind of a ballpark of what 2015 and beyond would look like.

The last question is on some of your commentary on your sensitivity to the stronger US dollar in your release, I think about 50% of your sales are from in the US and I would have thought maybe you would have got a little more positive leverage from a stronger US dollar. Could you maybe talk about that?

Sure, so you know we obviously have a lot of costs in US. We’ve got CapEx in US, we’ve got you know all of our bank debt is in US, the US interest, we pay US interest.

And then we’ve this kind of an indirect natural hedge in the business, where some of our contracts particularly in the asset business are Canadian dollar contracts. And we true-up the costs there based on average selling prices or net PAC prices in the US.

So you know it’s [creating] contracts, so when you are basically you know coming up with your changes in your selling price, we do that in Canadian dollars even though it’s a US dollar sale. So really speaking that kind of you know offsets you know some of the benefits you would get.

So it’s a little bit convoluted, but you know we do get that kind of natural hedge in the business.

It may or may not be suffice to say Joe, that actually we kicked up that pretty hard to make sure we understood the sensitivity disclosed in the MD&A, right. Because it’s not necessarily an intuitive answer, the sensitivity that we disclosed, but we believe it’s the correct answer.

Just wanted to touch on the taxes. They were I guess a little low for the quarter based on some of the guidance you provided.

Just wondering what we should look forward to in 2015?

Okay so let's just so that everyone is on the same page, when we did the acquisition, we had said that you know we expected actually not a lot of tax. And we had actually said the average for the next five years would be about $20 million with a very low amount in 2014.

So the low amount in 2014, we kind of had signaled that and which came kind of the way it was. And since then, we’ve actually said that, that $20 million is probably still a good number, but it’s actually gone out another couple of years.

So we actually think that 2015 is going to be something less than $10 million in cash taxes. So you know so when we did our modeling, you know we obviously tend to be a little bit more -- I shouldn’t say obviously.

We some times tend to be a bit more conservative in that modeling. And as we get closer to it, we’ve been able to you know reduce the cash taxes.

So we said in Q3 that next year, we expect it somewhere just under $10 million for cash taxes, so that's a good assumption. And then from there, you can scale it up to that $20 million to $25 million number going forward and it will take a couple of years to get to that run rate.

Yeah, so not in 60 and 70 [indiscernible].

Yeah, we start [indiscernible] up there. And that's obviously based on current earnings, etcetera is you know if we make money, we’ll pay a bit more tax, which I don’t think anyone will complain about.

So if I am -- just to be clear then, you know 2015 it’s less than 10 and then say from 2016 to 2020, it averages $20 million to $25 million at that point, is that --?

And they start to work its way up to a run rate of about $20 million to $25 million. So 2016 will be somewhere in between that end and up, you know not up to 20 yet.

And then it will work its way up to that run rate of about $20 million to $25 million.

Just a quick question. Mark, you previously mentioned that growth CapEx, your target is roughly in the $10 million range.

Will that be the case in 2015 or will you be looking to build more of those PAC facilities?

10 is a probably a good number for 2015. I also said that, that I would love to find an opportunity to spend more internal growth CapEx than the 10, because obviously the projects would justify it.

But I think 10 is a good number for 2015.

And then just on that subject in terms of the PAC business, in terms of the Hydor-Tech acquisition, what’s the -- like do you’ve a rough EBITDA contribution from that acquisition? Or is it fair to assume like a six to seven times EBITDA multiple in terms of the purchase price?

I think I’ll answer it this way, is that generally, we would actually hope to get a 20% return on capital when we do things like this. The acquisition in Western Canada into the PAC market, we thought was strategic for a bunch of reasons.

So, we're probably closer to a 15% ROC number. And that's why when you do the math, it’s not in aggregate material, but we think it's an important strategic step for us to have taken.

And then going forward, it sounds like you want to expand your PAC business. So like, what’s your preference in terms of building versus buying?

In this case, we think there is a need for actually new facilities. So we’ll more likely build these and buy these, but for the one we bought in Western Canada.

That's not a certainty, but from our analysis of the market, there is a need for new capacity in this, which is as many of you know unlike many of our products, but it’s one of the reasons we're particularly excited about it.

So you are effectively looking for more opportunities to find sites to build the facilities rather than to acquire?

Well, we’ve plenty of sites -- is what we're doing is analyzing the different customer base and water characteristics by region and determining at which one of our existing sites we want to add the ability to also manufacture PAC, which is one of the reasons -- one of the reasons they are not significant capital is we're able to use the infrastructure that we already own.

And then just one last question. Just following on Jacob’s question about low oil prices, and I think your response was mainly low oil prices drives higher volumes and that's overall -- overall that's good.

I guess what, if oil -- if low oil prices drive lower oil production, then would that negatively impact your business?

We don’t sell a lot into the oil service -- into the oil -- into the drilling market. And then, if you look at our customer split when we talk about the oil and refining industry, we're really talking about serving refineries.

So we care about gasoline production, not really how much oil is tapped.

If anything, the US actually exported gasoline for the first time in 10 years. So some of that cheaper you know feedstock into the refineries is causing additional gasoline production.

And I know some of the other companies sell into the oilfields, we don't.

Just on the idea of leveraging the water platform, you know it sounds like the PAC opportunity is really attractive and [indiscernible] some growth ambitions beyond the initial Hydor-Tech. I am just curious that you described that you were looking for additional chemical opportunities or additional sort of product opportunities in that -- presuming that's beyond PAC.

I am just trying to get a sense for, is PAC going to be really the key focus here in the near term? Or should we expect some additional products to come on top of PAC, those really leveraging the platform?

Can I say both? Is PAC -- well PAC is our main focus because we think it has the biggest and best potential fit for us.

But we're not exclusively looking at PAC. There are other products that we think fit well within the portfolio that we would like to expand to too.

But on a balance of effort is PAC first and other products shortly thereafter [indiscernible].

And then just a bit of a housekeeping question for my knowledge. Is the seasonality in the Water Treatment business, we saw a bit of a step down in Q4.

Can you just remind us exactly how that seasonality rolls through and what to sort of expect from that sort of -- that rolling seasonal pattern?

Generally Q4 should be the weakest and then Q1 should be a little better, and Q2 and Q3 should be better than Q1 and Q4.

Most of my questions have been answered, but just one point of clarification. We talk about 2015 growth CapEx being about $10 million, yet we spent $28 million on the Hydor-Tech acquisition.

So I am just a little confused as to why that's not included in your growth number. Should I assume that, that $28 million is then included in your $50 million sustaining CapEx?

I guess that's a fair question. It’s included in neither.

In our terminology, actually when we think about growth CapEx, we're talking about spending money on organic growth, things that we build or add additional internal capacity as opposed to the $28 million which we would consider to be acquisition CapEx. So if you're looking at 2015, you are right.

It should be our sustenance plus 10 for internal growth plus the 28 actually for Hydor-Tech.

Yeah a lot has been covered, but maybe just to close the loop on the PAC, can you just help us understand maybe the size of the market and even in terms of revenue and in rough terms in North America?

No, I can't help you with that. What I can help you with is that we think there's potentially room for three or four additional PAC facilities to the number that's currently there.

And I would venture to tell you how many currently exist, but you know I'm going back in my memory banks, Damir and I don’t remember. So let me just say I think there's room for three or four of these.

It is -- we do not think that this is a doubling of our water business. We think that this is a growth opportunity for our water business, that once the three or four of these things are constructed, in aggregate they will actually be a number that's big enough to see individually in the [AL].

Again, it’s only a portion of the $10 million CapEx to build it. So individually they don't contribute materially, but it's a great extension and a strengthening of the water business we have.

And actually, also you know, so it provides support to our alum business. Because it positions us better with customers, because it can really you know provide them with a full fleet of products.

And it positions us well in the competitive landscape as well, because we can offer a broader offering than some of the competitors we have.

Would those three or four new facilities be sort of equivalent in size to Hydor-Tech or just trying to compare the two?

I’ll say sure, but I’ll also couple that by saying what I said earlier on, which is actually we're still analyzing the customer base in regions in which with we want to buy them, right, build them rather.

Plus the Hydor-Tech, I mean it was a running business that had an established customer base. So when you build something, you know it takes a while to get that kind of a run rate going to that.

Yeah, just a quick follow-up. So I just wanted to -- you described certain water conditions or geographies where the PAC really makes senses.

Without getting too technical, can you help us maybe to understand that?

I am going to tell you that, you know cold water and turbidity levels.

Cold water and turbidity, okay.

You can go Google that, alright.

As usual, we would like to thank you all for participating, those of us in the cold east and those people that were on the early shift in the west. Thank you all and we’ll talk to you next quarter.