Thank you, operator, and welcome to everyone for joining us for this conference call for our fourth quarter results. I'm here together with the representatives in Yara's management: our CFO, Magnus Krogh Ankarstrand; Head of Market Intelligence, Dag Tore Møller; as well as other representatives from Yara.

We're not planning to give a presentation or further opening remarks, as we hope you all just watched our webcast, we will therefore go straight into questions. I will ask operator if you may please open the first line.

Hi. Good afternoon, everyone.

Thanks for taking my question. I'll ask a couple of questions, maybe one by one.

Can you talk a little bit about the difference in Q4 between Europe and the Americas? You had a lot of buying in Q4 in Europe.

Was that ahead of CBAM? Then Americas was flat.

Was that weather? Can you talk about that, please?

Yeah. In Europe, we had a strong Q4, both when it comes to our own sales, but also the market in general, both up because we think a large part of that was due to positioning ahead of CBAM.

Already from November in particular, there was quite strong interest in buying, importing as well as from domestic producers, to avoid the CBAM charge from January 1st, and it's actually led to a price increase all across the products already in Q4 because of that to partly then reflecting the CBAM charge already in Q4. In the US, I think the norm of the recent seasons has been quite a lot of late buying in North America in US, with a lot of the imports focused in, let's say, the February through April period.

This season looks to be similar. It's just slightly ahead, but I will think that's not more than just more or less random variation.

I have not seen anything kind of specific or any structural when it comes to that. There's a lot of buying from the US that remains.

Okay. Then, I'm trying to reconcile your comments around Q1.

You talk about how, because there was some pre-buying in Q4 in Europe, your Q1 is ahead of the season. Then you kind of tackle, "Yeah, but there's lots of products still to buy in Europe."

On one hand, you're kind of saying, "Oh, people have bought ahead, but oh, they haven't bought enough." I'm just trying to understand your comments.

Then, as part of that, with some of the uncertainties around CBAM, whether there might be some offsets or not, can you try to sort of talk about that and how it's affecting the market and your strategy?

I can start with some comments, and then Magnus can add if he so wish. Then given that we estimate that deliveries are 7% ahead as of end December compared to last year, even if not, you would think that the first application for the farmers are generally already purchased.

Now we still have winter. Until there is a kind of a movement in the fields, there is no real need for farmers to replenish their inventories or further buying in order for the subsequent applications.

Also as you hinted, there is now a CBAM in force. There's some political uncertainties that has kind of surfaced through January around this.

It's logical then that as we start a new year, that we have a relative slowdown, a little bit of a slowdown in the market after Christmas. But 7% ahead, almost half of the seasonal demand has yet to be bought.

We think that imports is slowing now in Q1. That's where we are kind of coming from.

That yes, it's a little bit slow start. Now we are kind of depending a little bit on spring arriving, and then it could be quite a busy period, actually.

It depends a little bit on how much will be imported. Just for your reference, urea is the main product on the nitrogen side that is imported, less so for nitrates, and Q1 last year, EU imported 2.2 million tonnes of urea.

That's quite a lot. Even if imports is down, there is quite a lot needed.

I can understand that you are a little bit puzzled by the formulations maybe, but so yes, the market is a little bit ahead by end of December, but it's a lot that remains. We'll see how that plays out in a market where imports is now more expensive.

Yeah. No, and I think that's the key point.

Obviously with the prospect of CBAM in Q4, there was a bit of a rush on the import side, which is also reflected in prices. I think it's also key to remember that CBAM is still in force.

Every tonne that goes into Europe now faces CBAM. Of course, by the time any changes to that would be in place, of course, that product would have been sold and probably applied a long time ago.

We don't really see that from a market perspective this spring that any CBAM changes would impact anything on prices as such. Also, we believe it is highly questionable that there will be any changes to CBAM at all.

Okay. Just to fit one more in.

Would you expect '26 for ammonia production, would you expect '26 to play out largely like 2025 and 2024, where you're producing 1.7, 1.8 million tonnes a quarter, except for Q3 where you produce significantly more? Should it be similar kind of ranges across the quarters this year?

I think, if you're referring to Yara's ammonia production, we did—

Yara. Just Yara, 1.7, 1.8 a quarter, except for Q3 where you produce more.

We run our facilities 24/7 all year round if there's a positive cash margin. Then, of course, there are some turnarounds that impact a schedule.

Of course, from now and then, there's an unplanned stop as well, but in general, our uptime is very, very strong. I think our plan is to produce at sort of the practical production rate that we have.

Right now, there's good cash margin in all our production facilities.

Do you have any special turnarounds or any additions this year in '26 that would be significantly different than '25, excluding unplanned outrages?

No. No.

I think we distribute our turnarounds fairly evenly, there's nothing special compared to other years.

Thank you very much.

Yes. Thanks.

Two questions, please. First, your scheduled maintenance capex for '26 is some $200 million USD higher versus '25.

I'm aware of the phasing that you mentioned in the webcast, but can you elucidate this a bit, for example, which plants are mainly concerned? The second question would be, can I ask whether the sequential property, plant, equipment increase over the past few quarters is largely US-dollar-driven?

Thanks very much.

Yeah. No, I think on the first question, our maintenance schedule is basically driven by the turnarounds.

We do have a few turnarounds this year which have a bigger scope. I think in referring to the previous questions in terms of sort of how much we will produce this year or not produce because of turnarounds, that's pretty stable.

Some turnarounds are more expensive than others because scope change from turnaround to turnaround. That's why the maintenance for 2026 is somewhat higher than the upper part of the range that we've given from sort of $700 to $850 million US dollar per year.

A small portion of that includes a little bit of phasing from 2025 as well, but that's not much. Could you repeat your question on PP&E, please?

When your plant, property, equipment in your balance sheet seems to be going up sequentially over the past three quarters or so, is that largely US-dollar-driven?

Yes. Most of our assets are booked in euros across Europe, so that will actually then reflect the currency, right?

Okay. Yes.

That's the largest explanation for that. Thanks very much.

Hi. Thank you for taking my questions.

I want to follow up on the first question around spring demand. If you can give us an idea of what you think current channel inventories are across the Americas and Europe, some idea on that would be great.

That's my first question. My second question would be around CBAM.

To which extent have you been involved with European policymakers around what your view is on the importance of CBAM and what sort of variables are being discussed to make the potentially move ahead with banning CBAM for fertilizers or maintaining that structure? Thank you.

On your first question, when it comes to North America, players supplying nitrogen to that US or North American market are normally coming down with their feet on the ground, playing this out quite well. I can say already now, US Gulf pricing for urea is up at $500, which is kind of sufficient to attract quite a lot of tonnage.

It seems to us it seems like it is fairly normal. There's a is one of the reasons why the market globally is so tight, and it's $500 basically, is part of that reason is this outstanding US demand.

There is also activity into Europe from North Africa in particular. It was probably seen last week there was quite a substantial volume that was bought.

There is also that going on in anticipation of the spring that will come. I would say it's fairly normal, both in North America and Europe in that sense.

Then now you have India in addition that is trying to fight for March availability by announcing a 1.5 million tonne tender, as you probably saw. It's fairly busy in the very short term.

On CBAM, I think what's important first and foremost is to kind of be accurate on what's actually happening, right? Right now, CBAM as per EU legislation is in force.

Then there is a proposal, paragraph 27a, which, if passed, would open for temporary suspension or give the Commission a temporary suspension opportunity if there are unforeseen impacts on the single market or something like that. For that to even be a possibility, that paragraph has to be passed by European Parliament, which is obviously not a given.

This is not something that either the member states or the Commission can decide on their own. Obviously, and referring to your question, we are, of course, in close contact with at the political levels, both in several member states, with the EU Commission, and also the EU Parliament to voice our view on that.

I think our CEO has been very clear on that that, of course, there's absolutely nothing with CBAM that is unforeseen. I think it should be evident that prices will go up equivalent to the import tax you put on a good.

It's very difficult from our perspective to see any logic in implementing such a paragraph. Of course, politics is politics, and we will see how receptive the MEPs will be for that.

As a reference, in the same event where this was introduced, the Commission also and the member states agreed on Mercosur, which was later rejected by the MEPs. There's certainly no guarantee that the proposal from the EU Commission is approved by the European Parliament.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Hi, everyone.

Thanks for taking my questions, two if I can. Maybe sticking with CBAM, do you have a sense within Yara of the potential timeline for when the EU could pass or not pass this modification to the suspension tool, et cetera, number one?

Number two, on your Air Products project, sort of what confidence do you have at this stage that it can be delivered within the $8 to $9 billion budget? It's I think it's probably fair to say the project has seen numerous cost increases.

Air Products, I think, are quite clear on their calls that there's a lot of construction market labor bid from data centers. I think Air Products has tried to basically split up the construction to several different tenders, et cetera.

Maybe you could tell us how that's going. I can tell you, at least from the Air Products call, they said 90% of the missing puzzle piece to reach FID relates to the cost.

Is there any reassurance you can offer that $8 to $9 billion figure will be achieved?

Yeah. No, I think on your CBAM question, it's difficult for us to sort of give a sort of firm estimate on how much time the EU need to pass this through Parliament.

That is, of course, something that we are watching closely. However, we do note that there is significant resistance both in the European Parliament, but also from several member states as well as the industry as well as commissioners against this proposal of opening for a possibility of suspension.

At least, I think it's fair to say that it's going to be a fight, a political fight. I think and whether that sort of comes in time or how that sort of matches up with our timelines for the Air Products project is, of course, equally difficult to say.

Of course, next month will hopefully provide some direction at least in terms of what the political mood is and where this is going. On the cost increases, we don't have any sort of further updates to what we and Air Products have stated earlier in terms of the range that we are looking at.

I think, of course, as you say, from the original outset of that project from Air Products' side, capex has gone up, but it's also important to remember that the technical maturity of the work, detailed engineering, et cetera, has developed a lot as well, right? I think sort of cost comparing cost estimates is not like comparing apples to apples necessarily, right?

There's a big difference between a cost estimate after detailed engineering and the cost estimate that you do on your first FID as an example. They are working diligently to get these estimates in place.

We are supporting that as well with our expertise.

As you say, there is competition for this, but there are also not many ammonia plants being actually built in the US. We will see how that works out over the next months, and that's, of course, a very important element in the decision-making as Air Products has pointed out, and of course, that's the case for us as well.

Thank you. That's very helpful.

Next

Hi. Thank you.

Two questions for me, please. Firstly, you mentioned strong demand fundamentals, but you're showing optimal nitrogen application on slide 29 for a wheat farmer as being 4% lower versus this time last year.

I think if you scale that up to the whole nitrogen market, it's equivalent of losing maybe 5 million tonnes of urea demand in 2026 ex-China. Now I know you're not just selling to wheat farmers, but soy and corn economics are very weak as well.

Could you comment on expectations for supply and demand balances in 2026 based on current farmer economics as opposed to the long-term averages that you show on the slide? That's question one.

Then question two, NPK margins have come down, and you mentioned that that's normal in a tightening nitrogen market, but I notice that compound NPK inventories also look like they've built in 3Q and 4Q. Are you seeing farmers downtrading to straight nutrients, or what's behind that larger-than-usual inventory build in compound NPKs?

Thanks.

Yeah. As you mentioned, the example we show there is a kind of a little bit of a, of course, a little bit of a theoretic issue.

We have a yield curve that we have kind of based ourselves on from our research center in Germany, and it, as you say, it's if a farmer already is at optimal application rate, it does show how that optimal application rate is changing with the price ratio between wheat and fertilizer. Fertilizer is clearly expensive.

Affordability issues that is high on the agenda, both on nitrogen, even more on phosphates. It's a limiting factor.

I think that if not for relatively modest or low grain prices, we will have even higher prices for N and P than what we have today. If you look at, as you said, demand, has this led to lower global demand, this pressure on affordability?

It hasn't. That's, of course, maybe you can be more or less surprised by that.

If you look at 2025, with an increase in Chinese exports of 5 million tonnes, even if you then take away some production outside China due to India producing less, due to Iran and Egypt producing less due to conflict and also gas diverted to other purposes, I think you'll find a fairly healthy supply growth for nitrogen in 2025 and into '26, and even despite of that we are having $500 urea prices now. I think that that has taken some players by surprise.

If you looked, let's say, a year ago at forecasts for 2025 and 2026 pricing from most players, consultants, et cetera, they would be considerably lower than what we have been realizing. Yes, we have a very strong and tight supply-demand balance despite relatively poor affordability.

On the NPK side, I think what's important to remember is that most of our NPKs goes into what we call premium products, where, of course, the value of those products on yield, quality, and several other aspects is kind of what determines price and the willingness to pay, which is, of course, then the absolute price that the farmers pay. When we talk about premiums, we refer to that price less the sort of commodity value of the three nutrients in the product.

In that scenario, even though sort of NPK prices go up when N, P, and K go up as well, when they go up as much as they do now, it's natural to sort of see some contraction in the premium in the way we measure it. I think if you look across nitrates and NPKs, premiums have actually held up very well, I would say, considering the high commodity price environment that we have.

We have, as we reported, seen some tightening on the premium side, particularly in Asia, whereas sort of Yara margins are not down in the same way. When it comes to inventories, actually our sales in Q4 and in the year in total are slightly up, but our production levels are also significantly up due to improvements in productivity in our production systems.

That has led to I would say a fairly slight inventory build-up, which we're working hard to, of course, sell the additional tonnages that we get out of our plants now in the spring.

Thanks. That's very clear.

Thank you very much for taking my questions. I have two if I may, both related to Q4.

If you take your EBITDA bridge year-over-year, prices had a tailwind of 140. Looking at your nitrate price realization, it was 358 versus your own pre-quarter material list prices at 370.

Could you talk a little bit about price realization and if it's timing or discounting? Thank you.

Yeah. The prices for fourth quarter realized in Europe slightly lower than publication prices, but it actually was last year as well.

That's why we typically recommend using the delta for publication prices or delta realized prices. I think you will end up with roughly the same impact in the EBITDA bridge.

Then the other part is also that if you look at the publication prices for CAN, it's not a fully liquid reference in the sense that publications aren't able to capture the exact price that every trade goes on. I'm sure that Tore could expand on that.

Also they aren't volume-weighted, it means that you will always have these deviations a bit between publication prices and realized prices, which are also linked to how they make their estimates and not only as a commercial performance. The biggest impact in the price margin, that compared to the outside in if you use pure publication prices, is really related to the NPK premiums that were pressured, especially in China and Thailand, and we estimate it to be roughly $20, $30 million impact this quarter compared to same quarter last year.

Yeah. Then I think it's fair also to say that the impact in Europe is mostly due to timing in the quarter.

Yeah. Okay.

Let me ask the question the other way around, then. If you take your official publication prices, your list prices to your clients, it's much higher than your price realization implies.

Then back to the question, why are realized prices so much lower than the prices that you're actually announced to your clients? It seems to be some kind of either increased competition or discounting or timing independent of the EBITDA bridge year-over-year.

I think

the biggest factor in that regard is timing. In a way, that's difficult to predict from year to year for us as well as for you guys, of course, as well.

Depends on a lot of different factors when the market moves, right, when buyers step in to buy, when imports come in, and so on. There are a lot of factors there that impact how our sales team have to determine what's the optimal volume to sell at each point in time.

We can have our ideas of where we think prices are going or will go, but if the market moves, you have to move with it to some extent in order to stay a part of the market. I think of the factors you mentioned, I would say sort of timing is the key one.

You're right. When we announce list prices, which we do from time to time, but it depends a bit on how often we do it publicly through official announcements and how much it's just you announce at a certain point in time and then ongoing negotiations.

That's really typically based on Germany and France, right? Then there can be other deviations from that from the other markets, which can then lead us to deviate from those list prices.

You're correct if you look at that link.

Mm. Yeah.

Sure. Thank you.

On that topic, how should we view current publication prices? Are they a reflection of the actual market, or is the softness that you are communicating maybe delaying some purchases on the price realization for the current quarter?

Yeah. No, I definitely think the list prices we have are a reflection of the current market.

Yeah.

CAN around €350, we think is pretty close to where it actually is. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you for taking my questions.

Hello. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

I will also have two. My first question is on free cash flow dynamics.

We have noticed that in the past couple of quarters, there was a sizeable working capital build-up. I'm wondering how you expect working capital to develop into 2026.

We, of course, know that the working capital trend is impacted by seasonality and that it can be patchy on a quarterly basis. I'm just wondering in general if you could give us some color on next year, and also because you now have a free cash flow target, just wondering how you think of working capital as a variable in achieving that target.

My second question would just be a follow-up on CBAM. Apologies again on this topic, but I just wanted to make sure I understand correctly what you have said earlier in the call.

I believe you have mentioned that you doubt that there will be any meaningful changes to CBAM in principle, I just wanted to understand, is it something that you think based on the discussions that maybe you have had with regulators so far, or what is this view based on? Thank you.

Yeah. No, thank you for your questions.

I think on the first one on working capital, first half is, as the season in the Western Northern Hemisphere, right? That's, if I get Dag Tore, that's the biggest part of the global application as well, right?

Anyway, we have higher deliveries, and in that, you typically see a build-up of inventories somewhat, and working capital before season, and then we typically get release in the season. That's kind of the I would say the price-neutral view.

Then, of course, when prices go up or down, that impacts working capital as well. When prices go up like they have done through Q4, which is, of course, very good for Yara, but that, of course, also means that the value of receivables and so on is higher as well.

Then working capital goes up. There's nothing uncommon on credit days or inventory days or anything like that that sort of constitute a change.

This is kind of purely seasonality as such, and as of course there are from time to time some sort of changes on when prepayments happen and so on. I think, as well as season starts and also, let's see if sort of prices stabilize at this level, it's fair to think that everything else equal, we see a release of working capital.

If prices go up, there will be a build-up, but also, of course, be a release from sales done in Q4, but nothing uncommon compared to previous years. That's, of course, also plays a little bit into when you talk about improvements or how to sort of think about working capital from a value perspective, then we, of course, think about sort of the average for the year or average for the season, which is kind of what matters.

That being said, of course, working capital improvement in itself is an important topic, but that's not something we sort of improve by moving things around between the quarters. That's more a question of working on the different aspects of working capital, such as reducing credit days, optimizing product flows based on inventory days.

Obviously, products we sell closer to our plants generally typically tend to have lower working capital and so on. That's definitely something that we work on as well, and which, of course, we have to measure against the premiums we achieve for some of these products in markets far away from the plant.

On CBAM, just to be precise, because I think I've seen a lot of different comments on this, and I think you sometimes read it as if either CBAM has been suspended, which is absolutely not the case, or as if it's something that the EU Commission or a member state could just decide on their own tomorrow. What I said was that the Commission has proposed a new paragraph, which it does not exist today or is not in part of legislation today, that allows them to suspend CBAM, not only for fertilizer, for any product, temporarily if there are unforeseen and negative impacts on the single market.

Now, for them to even have that possibility, that paragraph needs to be included in the legislation, and that will require sort of the full legislative process, including an approval by the European Parliament, and then when it comes to sort of what's the likelihood of that happening, that's, of course, anybody's guess. If you read the media, there've been several members of the European Parliament who spoken out against these changes.

There've been people from the Commission stating that CBAM is the cornerstone of the European decarbonization policy, and so on. There's clearly in all camps strong resistance of even contemplating this, even though the proposal is there.

Of course, as with any politics, it's very difficult to sort of predict what that outcome could be. I think what's important also to emphasize is that even if that was implemented, then unforeseen consequences is very hard to see how a price increase equivalent to a tariff could be unforeseen.

At least judging by the letter of the law, even if it was implemented, that shouldn't really open the opportunity for any suspension of CBAM on a product like fertilizer due to the grounds of being unforeseen. Of course, that's my personal interpretation and not necessarily the interpretation of the European Commission.

Understood. Thank you very much for clarifications.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions.

Kind of CBAM-adjacent, but I'm just wondering on proposed changes to ETS and the phase-out of free emissions. Could you just remind us of your position there?

I think you mentioned in the past that you have credits that you could sell at some point. Could you also talk about your exposure to the need to buy credits over time?

Then second question is just given where the net debt is now sitting, which I think is below your range, what's your view on kind of capital allocation and buybacks? Thanks.

Yeah. No, when it comes to ETS, we have, as we stated before, around 6 million credits in our bank, to speak.

Then the way it works, of course, is that we get a certain free allowance quota per year that has so far matched or exceeded our need to buy ETS quotas. Then now free allowances will be gradually phased out, at least according to the current plan.

I think you can think about the credits that we hold in different ways, but just sort of measuring it physically, that kind of takes us to 2029 or something like that through 2029, kind of where we could cover our need for actually buying credits with what we have in the bank. Of course, given that your question was adjacent to CBAM, obviously, we would almost assume that, in the event that the EU Commission would take away or suspend CBAM temporarily, I would also almost take for granted that they would suspend or extend free allowances for the same period, of course, if not it would be treating the domestic industry very, very unfavorably compared to imports.

Could you repeat your second question, please?

Can I just add a comment? If we have then a slower phase-out, Tristan, right?

Basically it means that the deficit we're expecting in 2029 or 2030, that won't increase as much as it would have otherwise done until 2034, right? Whether we use those quotas in the bank or whether we sell them, that's a purely financial decision, ultimately depending on where prices are and where we think they're going, because they have a cost regardless of when we materialize the cash effect related to them.

Mm. Thanks.

The second question was just around your net debt to EBITDA level, which I think is below the range, and your thoughts around kind of buybacks or what you would do with extra headroom.

Yeah. No, I think we outlined our capital allocation policy in our CMD a month ago.

Our main priority on the investment side or on the growth capex side is clearly US projects and reducing our energy costs, investments into ammonia. I think sort of beyond that, capital discipline will be very strict.

Of course, if we have smaller, very value-accretive opportunities, that's of course something that we'll always consider. Then we stick to our dividend policy of 50% cash dividend of net income.

Of course, as we also said earlier today, if there is headroom or availability for it, we'll always also consider additional buybacks as depending on what we believe is the most accretive for the shareholder.

Thanks very much.

Thank you for taking my questions. I have two if I may.

Firstly, when you announced the Air Products project, you said that you could do that within a $1.2 billion capex frame. I assume that implies you have to be quite a bit below that level towards 2030.

Still guide for 1.2 billion in 2026, I was just wondering sort of what's your thinking here and how should we think about that beyond 2026? The other question I had was whether you could talk a bit about the factors impacting your earnings which are not captured in your sensitivities, such as NPK premiums, phosphate margins, et cetera.

Where are we now relative to '25, and how does '25 compare to sort of historical averages? Thank you.

Yeah. I'm not sure I captured the full full first question, but I think what what we've said is that the Air Products project is within our capital allocation policy.

We've also indicated that, we we see sort of capex spend in real terms around $1.2 billion next year. Oh sorry, in in the coming years.

Then, of course, if you sort of deduct the maintenance level that we've indicated as well, that, there there should be within that also sufficient space for for the the project portfolio that we've that we are looking at to, towards 2030. Then yeah, and then, of course, as in the previous question, that that also opens up for the dividend policy that we have and and and, of course, evaluating buybacks versus very accretive opportunities that might arise in addition.

I think again, US projects would be the priority and and, of course, also capex discipline is critical. In in terms of variables beyond the one that we given in the sensitivities, I'll I'll give the word to Maria.

Yeah. Just to mention, I think the largest one, we have the phosphate upgrading margins, which we used to have a sensitivity on, but don't have currently, but it has had an impact in 2025 compared to 2024 in general on the positive side, even though prices have been falling for the later half.

NPK premiums, for example, it tends to be fairly stable, but we do see some variations like we did in this quarter, so that will also impact earnings, even though not covered in the bridge as such. Then you could also, because we have gas exposure mainly to TTF and Henry Hub, but we have some plants exposed to other gas costs, which tends to be more stable, but to the degree they vary, they wouldn't typically reflected in our sensitivities.

Fixed costs, for example, which obviously has been a factor for the year, I think I would say that to be the main drivers, where most of them have contributed positively for '25 as such.

I don't always know if it's helpful, but the phosphate upgrading depends on sulfur as a raw material for most production processes. Sulfur has been so volatile.

For, let's say, a phosphoric acid base, which is a normal route phosphate upgrader, there's been a very strong cost increase on the sulfur part, which we don't have with our nitrophosphate process, that is the NPK plants in Norway. That also makes it a little bit more complicated for you to make that assessment because phosphate upgrading margins are a little bit different depending on which processing route you are using.

We could also, since we're talking a lot about CBAM today, for 2026, that will also have an impact. CBAM costs doesn't impact our EBITDA as long as we're utilizing credits that we have, but the price effects will be there, of course, and depending on whether it's Europe or outside Europe, that will have different effects.

As we mentioned in TNT or in pre-quarter package, we will update sensitivities to reflect that in due course before 1Q '26.

Thanks for coming back. Just had a one or two follow-ups if I could.

Could you maybe give us a sense on your view in terms of the potential resumption of Chinese urea exports in '26, how many million tonnes basically you're expecting, number one? Number two, coming back I guess to Air Products, presumably you've done some sort of levelized cost analysis in terms of delivering that ammonia, assuming the project can be built for $8 to $9 billion or whatever it is.

I thought, maybe one way of thinking about it is how that compares to something like the grey cash cost of delivered US ammonia, and maybe what carbon price would be required or sustained to actually kind of make the blue ammonia project look cost-competitive with just importing grey ammonia and just paying for the CBAM? Have you kind of got a view on that?

I think I came out to $160. Dollars, of course, that's just a ballpark figure, but do you have a sense maybe on the longer-term carbon price?

On your first question, I think we don't have a very specific opinion exactly how much that will be exported. We have just said that it's certainly a very important factor in the global balance, how much that volume will be.

We are also referring to some external opinions around this in the press, where last year, let's say, it was in second half April that this was addressed initially by the Chinese government and NDRC. I think it would be logical for something similar, that when it gets to second half April maybe, that will be on the agenda of the Chinese government.

We observe that some of the consultants are working on a kind of baseline around 6 million tonnes maybe, a little bit higher than 2025. Of course, nobody knows how that is going to play out.

Yeah. I think, obviously, it's as Tore says, very difficult to predict exactly what they're going to do, right?

I think more important than the actual number of tonnes as such is what would it potentially do to the global market and global pricing, right? There I think it's just important to keep in mind that at least so far, it seems that the main policy from the Chinese government has been to keep urea prices low.

Obviously, the more you export, the more you're impacted by global pricing. If you export to the extent that you impact global pricing, then, of course, it's very likely to assume that it will impact domestic prices as well.

As we talked about in our Capital Markets Day and as we can see, there's nothing that would point to sort of a softening supply-demand balance outside China, meaning that sort of any opening to exports would sort of face quite a high price environment globally. I think it's sort of safe to assume that they would sort of control exports to the extent that it doesn't impact domestic prices very much.

Of course, I think it's also logical to assume then that, at least from a planning perspective, that shouldn't impact global prices too much either. Of course, things are difficult to predict.

Okay. That's clear.

On the Air Products question of course or the US project questions, yes, we have, of course, our internal views on sort of what different levels of CBAM would do to ammonia pricing into Europe and so on and how that impacts the project. That's not something that we can share publicly.

I think, as we have said before, it is a regular ammonia plant with very high scale and certain advantages that we talked about in our Capital Markets Day. Sort of there's a grey sort of price comparison to that, and then there's an added premium obviously from CBAM as well.

I think, as we've said also, that just when you see it from a total project perspective, the sort of the CO2 capture part in itself is more than covered by the 45Q tax credit. From that perspective, this is something that, even without a CBAM premium, should be profitable, but obviously, the CBAM adds a lot to the profitability of building a decarbonized plant.

Great. That's helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you. I have two questions.

First, in your capital allocation framework, you highlighted maintenance and growth capex, but there was no explicit mention of sustainability or transition capex. Could you explain how decarbonization investments are reflected and prioritized within that framework?

I think, as we said, the US projects would be the lion's share of that growth capex, right? Sort of, even though they represent lower gas costs, more scale, lower fixed costs per tonne, they also are key to decarbonization.

I think from that perspective, you can sort of say the benefit that we have, right, is that a project like that and our position in the ammonia market means that we can do decarbonization profitably, because we have the other benefits as well, right? I think that part is clearly sort of I would say covering that.

I think when it comes to the maintenance capex, parts of that go into improvements in our plants that are also ESG-related, such as energy efficiency, which also has a good monetary impact by using less energy and lowering costs. I think in general, Yara does not do ESG investments unless they are profitable.

There's no separate budget for that.

That's clear. It would be helpful, though, if you would include a figure that would show that visually, because now it's just a maintenance and growth.

On to my second question: It stated that Yara's capital allocation policy is based on maximizing shareholder value while maintaining a mid-investment grade profile. I'm wondering, how do you operationally ensure that capital allocation decisions are still consistent with either a 1.5° aligned pathway or a well below 2° aligned pathway?

Yeah. No, I think we have set targets for 2025, which we achieved, and 2030, that we're working hard to achieve.

These are based on exactly that. Then we, in our capex allocation, or to put it differently, to achieve those targets, like we have done for 2025, we have a portfolio of different projects, and, of course, the US ammonia investments being by far the biggest one, but also other projects like electrification project.

We have our CCS project in Sluiskil that we complete this year and so on. We look at our portfolio in totality, and then we look at whether our capex or sort of the capital investments that we do provide a sufficient return or strong return to our shareholders as well as how it sort of meets targets such as the ones we've set, right, on the ESG side.

I think what's important to remember is that in order for that to be possible, there needs to be firm sort of economic value drivers, right? Of course, our investment in Sluiskil CCS, which contributes significantly to our targets, wouldn't have been possible unless there was a carbon pricing in Europe, right?

I have to say if these type of uncertainties, even though we believe firmly that CBAM will remain in place, I think it's safe to say that if this kind of uncertainty would have come exactly when we were to do our investment decision on that project, there's no guarantee that we would have actually approved that. I think that's important to keep in mind as well.

However, we do believe that that project will make us very competitive in the European context. That's kind of the basis for all the projects.

Basically what I'm saying is that the regulatory side needs to be in place so that these projects are profitable. Some of them are profitable no matter what because saving electricity is typically profitable, but some others will not be profitable unless, yeah, the regulatory side is in place.

Clear. Thank you.

Thank you. My question is on CBAM.

We saw the benchmark values published by the EU on CO2 intensity of nitrogen production in various countries. When you compare those benchmarks to the CO2 intensity of your own production, do you see an advantage?

If so, how big is it? Thank you.

Yes. We will have a variation between our plants naturally.

Some will be very efficient, and some will be less efficient. In general, Yara's plants will be more efficient than both the average European, but more so the global averages, and then benchmark for imports.

Yeah.

It's a short answer.

Absolutely. I would say, particularly in our nitrate production with the investments that we've done there over a long period of time, we are significantly more advantaged on the carbon footprint side.

That's, of course, a huge advantage on nitrates in Europe, particularly when you compare to imports of urea. I think since this was the last question on CBAM, of many of questions of CBAM, which, of course, is a very hot topic these days, I think it's also sort of in its place to add that we are very concerned about sort of the impact on the farmer, obviously, not only from increased cost of fertilizer, but also on a lot of the other regulation that's put on the particularly European farmers.

I think it is a very easy way to solve that problem for the EU, particularly when it comes to CBAM, and that would simply be to give the CBAM revenue as a subsidy back to the farmer who buy the fertilizer. I can see no better use of that money than that.

Sort of the train of thought that you would sort of suspend CBAM so that dirty imports from outside Europe can outcompete European industry is clearly not the best route of achieving that. I think there is a very easy way for the EU to help farmers and not negatively impact European industry as well.

Thank you.

Thank you for everyone for joining. No further comments from our side, but Investor Relations is available for further questions if you have follow-ups.

Thank you, and goodbye.