MOS, §1A diff (2019 → 2020)

Item 1A. Risk Factors. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of the risks and uncertainties described below. Our Esterhazy mine has had an inflow of salt saturated brine for more than 30 years. Since December 1985, we have had inflows of salt saturated brine into our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan mine. Over the past century, several potash mines experiencing water inflow problems have flooded. In order to control brine inflows at Esterhazy, we have incurred, and will continue to incur, expenditures, certain of which, due to their nature, have been capitalized, while others have been charged to expense. At various times, we experience changing amounts and patterns of brine inflows at the Esterhazy mine. Periodically, some of these inflows have exceeded available pumping capacity. If that were to continue for several months without abatement, it could exceed our available storage capacity and ability to effectively manage the brine inflow. This could adversely affect production at the Esterhazy mine. The brine inflow is variable, resulting in both net inflows (the rate of inflow is more than the amount we are pumping out of the mine) and net outflows (when we are pumping more brine out of the mine than the rate of inflow). There can be no assurance that: • our pumping, surface storage, underground storage or injection well capacities for brine will continue to be sufficient, or that the pumping, grouting and other measures that we use to manage the inflows at the Esterhazy mine will continue to be effective; • there will not be a disruption in the supply of calcium chloride, which is a primary material used to reduce or prevent the flow of incoming brine; • our estimates of the volumes of net inflows or net outflows of brine, or storage capacity for brine at the Esterhazy mine, are accurate; • the volumes of the brine inflows will not fluctuate from time to time, the rate of the brine inflows will not be greater than our prior experience or current assumptions, changes in inflow patterns will not adversely affect our ability to locate and manage the inflows, or that any such fluctuations, increases or changes would not be material; and the expenditures to control the inflows will be consistent with our prior experience or future estimates. From time to time, new or improved technology becomes available to facilitate our management of the inflows, such as when horizontal drilling techniques were developed and refined. Taking advantage of these new or improved technologies may require significant capital expenditures and/or may increase our costs of management. Due to the ongoing brine inflow at Esterhazy, subject to exceptions that are limited in scope and amount, we are unable to obtain insurance coverage for underground operations for water incursion problems. Our mines at Colonsay, Saskatchewan, and Carlsbad, New Mexico, are also subject to the risks of inflow of water as a result of our shaft mining operations. It is possible that the costs of remedial efforts at Esterhazy may further increase in the future and that such an increase could be material, or, in the extreme scenario, that the brine inflows, risk to employees or management costs may increase to a level which would cause us to change our mining processes or abandon the mines. See the “Key Factors that can Affect Results of Operations and Financial Condition” and “Potash Net Sales and Gross Margin” sections of our Management’s Analysis, which sections are incorporated herein by reference, for a discussion of costs, risks and other information relating to the brine inflows. Our operating results are highly dependent upon and fluctuate based upon business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry in which we or our customers operate. These factors are outside of our control and may significantly affect our profitability. Our operating results are highly dependent upon business and economic conditions and governmental policies affecting the agricultural industry, which we cannot control. The agricultural products business can be affected by a number of factors, the most important of which are: • weather and field conditions (particularly during periods of traditionally high crop nutrients consumption); • quantities of crop nutrients imported and exported; • current and projected inventories and prices, which are heavily influenced by U.S. exports and world-wide markets; and • Governmental policies, including farm and biofuel policies, which may directly or indirectly influence the number of acres planted, the level of inventories, the mix of crops planted or crop prices or otherwise negatively affect our operating results. International market conditions, which are also outside of our control, may also significantly influence our operating results. The international market for crop nutrients is influenced by such factors as the relative value of the U.S. dollar and its impact upon the cost of importing crop nutrients, foreign agricultural policies, including subsidy policies, the existence of, or changes in, import or foreign currency exchange barriers in certain foreign markets, changes in the hard currency demands of certain countries and other regulatory policies of foreign governments, as well as the laws and policies of the United States affecting foreign trade and investment. Our most important products are global commodities, and we face intense global competition from other crop nutrient producers that can affect our prices and volumes. Our most important products are concentrated phosphate crop nutrients, including diammonium phosphate, or DAP, monoammonium phosphate, or MAP, MicroEssentials® and muriate of potash, or MOP. We sell most of our DAP, MAP and MOP in the form of global commodities. Our sales of these products face intense global competition from other crop nutrient producers. Changes in competitors’ production or shifts in their marketing focus have in the past significantly affected both the prices at which we sell our products and the volumes that we sell, and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Competitors are more likely to increase their production at times when world agricultural and crop nutrient markets are strong, and to focus on sales into regions where their returns are highest. Increases in the global supply of DAP, MAP and MOP or competitors’ increased sales into regions in which we have significant sales could adversely affect our prices and volumes. Competitors and potential new entrants in the markets for both concentrated phosphate crop nutrients and potash have in recent years expanded capacity, or begun, or announced plans, to expand capacity or build new facilities. The extent to which current global or local economic and financial conditions, changes in global or local economic and financial conditions, or other factors may cause delays or cancellation of some of these ongoing or planned projects, or result in the acceleration of existing or new projects, is unclear. In addition, certain of our products sold to China may be subject to tariffs due to ongoing trade tensions between China and the United States. The level of exports by Chinese producers of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients depends to a significant extent on Chinese government actions to curb exports through, among other measures, prohibitive export taxes at times when the government believes it desirable to assure ample domestic supplies of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients to stimulate grain and oilseed production. In addition, the other member of Canpotex is among our competitors who may, in the future, expand its potash production capacity. Each Canpotex member's respective shares of Canpotex sales is based upon that member's respective proven peaking capacity for producing potash. When a Canpotex member expands its production capacity, the new capacity is added to that member’s proven peaking capacity based on a proving run at the maximum production level. Alternatively, Canpotex members may elect to rely on an independent engineering firm and approved protocols to calculate their proven peaking capacity. Antitrust and competition laws prohibit the members of Canpotex from coordinating their production decisions, including the timing of their respective proving runs. Worldwide potash production levels during these proving runs could exceed then-current market demand, resulting in an oversupply of potash and lower potash prices. We cannot accurately predict when or whether members’ or new entrants’ ongoing or planned capacity expansions or new facilities will be completed, the timing of competitors’ tests to prove peaking capacity for Canpotex purposes, the cumulative effect of these and recently completed expansions, the impact of tariffs on exports to China, or future decisions by the Chinese government on the level of Chinese exports of concentrated phosphate crop nutrients, or the effects of these or other actions by our competitors on the prices for our products or the volumes that we will be able to sell. The effects of any of these events occurring could be materially adverse to our results of operations. Our crop nutrients and other products are subject to price and demand volatility resulting from periodic imbalances of supply and demand, which may cause our results of operations to fluctuate. Historically, the market for crop nutrients has been cyclical, and prices and demand for our products have fluctuated to a significant extent, particularly for phosphates and, to a lesser extent, potash. Periods of high demand, increasing profits and high capacity utilization tend to lead to new plant investment and increased production in the industry. This growth increases supply until the market is over-saturated, leading to declining prices and declining capacity utilization until the cycle repeats. As a result, crop nutrient prices and volumes have been, and are expected to continue to be, volatile. This price and volume volatility may cause our results of operations to fluctuate and potentially deteriorate. The price at which we sell our crop nutrient products and our sales volumes could fall in the event of industry oversupply conditions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In contrast, high prices may lead our customers and farmers to delay purchasing decisions in anticipation of future lower prices, thus impacting our sales volumes. Due to reduced market demand, depressed agricultural economic conditions and other factors, we and our predecessors have at various times suspended or curtailed production at some of our facilities. The extent to which we utilize available capacity at our facilities will cause fluctuations in our results of operations, as we will incur costs for any temporary or indefinite shutdowns of our facilities and lower sales tend to lead to higher fixed costs as a percentage of sales. Variations in crop nutrient application rates may exacerbate the cyclicality of the crop nutrient markets. Farmers are able to maximize their economic return by applying optimum amounts of crop nutrients. Farmers’ decisions about the application rate for each crop nutrient, or to forego application of a crop nutrient, particularly phosphate and potash, vary from year to year depending on a number of factors, including, among others, crop prices, crop nutrient and other crop input costs or the level of the crop nutrient remaining in the soil following the previous harvest. Farmers are more likely to increase application rates when crop prices are relatively high, crop nutrient and other crop input costs are relatively low and the level of the crop nutrient remaining in the soil is relatively low. Conversely, farmers are likely to reduce or forego application when farm economics are weak or declining or the level of the crop nutrients remaining in the soil is relatively high. This variability in application rates can materially accentuate the cyclicality in prices for our products and our sales volumes. Our crop nutrient business is seasonal, which may result in carrying significant amounts of inventory and seasonal variations in working capital, and our inability to predict future seasonal crop nutrient demand accurately may result in excess inventory or product shortages. The use of crop nutrients is seasonal. Farmers tend to apply crop nutrients during two short application periods, the strongest one in the spring, before planting, and the other in the fall, after harvest. As a result, the strongest demand for our products typically occurs during the Spring planting season, with a second period of strong demand following the fall harvest. In contrast, we and other crop nutrient producers generally produce our products throughout the year. As a result, we and/or our customers generally build inventories during the low demand periods of the year in order to ensure timely product availability during the peak sales seasons. The seasonality of crop nutrient demand results in our sales volumes and net sales typically being the highest during the North American spring season and our working capital requirements typically being the highest just prior to the start of the Spring season. Our quarterly financial results can vary significantly from one year to the next due to weather-related shifts in planting schedules and purchasing patterns. If seasonal demand exceeds our projections, we will not have enough product and our customers may acquire products from our competitors, which would negatively impact our profitability. If seasonal demand is less than we expect, we will be left with excess inventory and higher working capital and liquidity requirements. The degree of seasonality of our business can change significantly from year to year due to conditions in the agricultural industry and other factors. The distribution channels for crop nutrients have capacity to build significant levels of inventories, which can adversely affect our sales volumes and selling prices. In order to balance the production needs of crop nutrient producers with farmers’ seasonal use of crop nutrients, crop nutrient distribution channels need to have the capacity to build significant inventories. The build-up of inventories in the distribution channels can become excessive, particularly during the cyclical periods of low demand that have been typical in the crop nutrient industry. When there are excessive inventories in the distribution channel, our sales volumes and selling prices can be adversely impacted, even during periods in which farmers’ use of crop nutrients may remain strong. Changes in transportation costs can affect our sales volumes and selling prices. The cost of delivery is a significant factor in the total cost to customers and farmers of crop nutrients. As a result, changes in transportation costs, or in customer expectations about them, can affect our sales volumes and prices. Customer expectations about future events can have a significant effect on the demand for our products. These expectations can significantly affect our sales volumes and selling prices. Customer expectations about future events have had and are expected to continue to have an effect on the demand and prices for crop nutrients. Future events that may be affected by customer expectations include, among others: • Customer expectations about future crop nutrient prices and availability. Customer expectations about prices and availability of crop nutrients have had and are expected to continue to have an effect on the demand for crop nutrients. When customers anticipate increasing crop nutrient prices, customers tend to accumulate inventories before the anticipated price increases. This can result in a lag in our realization of rising market prices for our products. Conversely, customers tend to delay their purchases when they anticipate future prices for crop nutrients will stabilize or decrease, adversely affecting our sales volumes and selling prices. Customer expectations about availability of crop nutrients can have similar effects on sales volumes and prices. • Customer expectations about future farmer economics. Similarly, customer expectations about future farmer economics have had and are expected to continue to have an effect on the demand for crop nutrients. When customers anticipate improving farmer economics, customers tend to accumulate crop nutrient inventories in anticipation of increasing sales volumes and selling prices. This can result in a lag in our realization of rising market prices for our products. Conversely, when customers anticipate declining farmer economics, customers tend to reduce the level of their purchases of crop nutrients, adversely affecting our sales volumes and selling prices. • Changes in customer expectations about transportation costs. As discussed above, increasing transportation costs effectively increase customers’ and farmers’ costs for crop nutrients and can reduce the amount we realize for our sales. Expectations of decreasing transportation costs can result in customers and farmers anticipating that they may be able to decrease their costs by delaying purchases. As a result, changes in customer expectations about transportation costs can affect our sales volumes and prices. We conduct our operations primarily through a limited number of key production and distribution facilities. Any disruption at any one of these facilities could have a material adverse impact on our business. The risk of material disruption increases when demand for our products results in high operating rates at our facilities. We conduct our operations through a limited number of key production and distribution facilities. These facilities include our phosphate mines and concentrates plants; our potash mines; and the ports and other distribution facilities through which we, Canpotex and any joint ventures in which we participate, conduct our respective businesses, as well as other commercial arrangements with unrelated third parties. Any disruption of operations at any one of these facilities has the possibility of significantly affecting our production or our ability to distribute our products. Operating these facilities at high rates during periods of high demand for our products increases the risk of mechanical or structural failures, decreases the time available for routine maintenance and increases the impact on our operating results from any disruption. A disruption of operations at any one of our key facilities could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Examples of the types of events that could result in a disruption at one of these facilities include: adverse weather; strikes or other work stoppages; deliberate, malicious acts, including acts of terrorism; political and economic instability; cyber attacks; risks associated with our international operations; changes in permitting, financial assurance or other environmental, health and safety laws or other changes in the regulatory environment in which we operate; legal and regulatory proceedings; our relationships with the other member of Canpotex and any joint ventures in which we participate and their or our exit from participation in Canpotex or any such joint ventures; other changes in our commercial arrangements with unrelated third parties; brine inflows at our Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, mine or our other shaft mines; mechanical failure and accidents or other failures occurring in the course of operating activities, including at our gypstacks, clay settling areas and tailing dams; and other factors. Insurance market conditions, our loss experience and other factors affect the insurance coverage that we carry, and we are not fully insured against all potential hazards and risks incident to our business. As a result, our insurance coverage may not adequately cover our losses. We maintain property, business interruption and casualty insurance policies, but we are not insured against all potential hazards and risks incident to our business. We are subject to various self-retentions and deductibles under these insurance policies. As a result of market conditions, our loss experience and other factors, our premiums, self-retentions and deductibles for insurance policies can increase substantially and, in some instances, certain insurance may become unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. In addition, significantly increased costs could lead us to decide to reduce, or possibly eliminate, coverage. As a result, a disruption of operations at one of our key facilities or a significant casualty could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Important raw materials and energy used in our businesses in the past have been and may in the future be the subject of volatile pricing. Changes in the price of our raw materials could have a material impact on our businesses. Natural gas, ammonia and sulfur are key raw materials used in the manufacture of phosphate crop nutrient products. Natural gas is used as both a chemical feedstock and a fuel to produce anhydrous ammonia, which is a raw material used in the production of concentrated phosphate products. Natural gas is also a significant energy source used in the potash solution mining process. From time to time, our profitability has been and may in the future be impacted by the price and availability of these raw materials and other energy costs. Because most of our products are commodities, there can be no assurance that we will be able to pass through increased costs to our customers. A significant increase in the price of natural gas, ammonia, sulfur or energy costs that is not recovered through an increase in the price of our related crop nutrients products could have a material adverse impact on our business. In addition, under our long-term CF Ammonia Supply Agreement we have agreed to purchase approximately 545,000 to 725,000 tonnes of ammonia per year during a term that may extend until December 31, 2032, and at a price to be determined by a formula based on the prevailing price of U.S. natural gas. If the price of natural gas rises or the market price for ammonia falls outside of the range anticipated at execution of this agreement, we may not realize a cost benefit from the natural gas-based pricing over the term of the agreement, or the cost of our ammonia under the agreement could become a competitive disadvantage. At times, we have paid considerably more for ammonia under the agreement than what we would have paid had we purchased it in the spot market. During periods when the price for concentrated phosphates is falling because of falling raw material prices, we may experience a lag in realizing the benefits of the falling raw materials prices. This lag can adversely affect our gross margins and profitability. During some periods, changes in market prices for raw materials can lead to changes in the global market prices for concentrated phosphate crop nutrients. In particular, the global market prices for concentrated phosphate crop nutrients can be affected by changes in the market prices for sulfur, ammonia, phosphate rock or phosphoric acid raw materials. Increasing market prices for these raw materials tend to put upward pressure on the selling prices for concentrated phosphate crop nutrients, and decreasing market prices for these raw materials tend to put downward pressure on selling prices for concentrated phosphate crop nutrients. When the market prices for these raw materials falls rapidly, the selling prices for our concentrated phosphate crop nutrients can fall more rapidly than we are able to consume our raw material inventory that we purchased or committed to purchase in the past at higher prices. As a result, our costs may not fall as rapidly as the selling prices of our products. Until we are able to consume the higher-priced raw materials, our gross margins and profitability can be adversely affected. During periods when the prices for our products are falling because of falling raw material prices, we could be required to write-down the value of our inventories. Any such write-down could adversely affect our results of operations and the value of our assets. We carry our inventories at the lower of cost or market. In periods when the market prices for our products are falling rapidly, including in response to falling market prices for raw materials, it is possible that we could be required to write-down the value of our inventories if market prices fall below our costs. Any such write-down could adversely affect our results of operations and the value of our assets. Any such effect could be material. Our estimates of future selling prices reflect in part the purchase commitments we have from our customers. As a result, defaults on these existing purchase commitments because of the global or local economic and financial conditions or for other reasons could adversely affect our estimates of future selling prices and require additional inventory write-downs. In the event of a disruption to existing terminaling facilities or transportation for our products or raw materials, alternative terminaling facilities or transportation might not be available on a timely basis or have sufficient capacity to fully serve all of our customers or facilities. Terminaling facilities and transportation include the ports and other distribution facilities through which we, Canpotex and the joint ventures in which we participate, conduct our respective businesses; transportation and related equipment arrangements; and other commercial arrangements with unrelated third parties. Examples of the types of events that could result in a disruption of terminaling facilities or transportation include: adverse weather; strikes or other work stoppages; deliberate, malicious acts, including cyber attacks; political and economic instability and other risks associated with our international operations; changes in permitting, financial assurance or other environmental, health and safety laws or other changes in the regulatory environment in which we operate; legal and regulatory proceedings; our relationships with the other member of Canpotex and any joint ventures in which we participate and their or our exit from participation in Canpotex or any such joint ventures; other changes in our commercial arrangements with unrelated third parties; accidents occurring in the course of operating activities; lack of truck, rail, barge or ship transportation; and other factors. We discuss a number of these examples in more detail throughout this Risk Factors section. Such disruption could adversely impact our business and financial results of operations. We are subject to risks associated with our international sales and operations, which could negatively affect our sales to customers in foreign countries as well as our operations and assets in foreign countries. Some of these factors may also make it less attractive to distribute cash generated by our operations outside the United States to our stockholders, or to utilize cash generated by our operations in one country to fund our operations or repayments of indebtedness in another country or to support other corporate purposes. For 2019, we derived approximately 74% of our net sales from customers located outside of the United States. As a result, we are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties relating to international sales and operations, including: • difficulties and costs associated with complying with a wide variety of complex laws, treaties and regulations; • unexpected changes in regulatory environments; • increased government ownership and regulation of the economy in the countries we serve; • political and economic instability, including the possibility for civil unrest, inflation and adverse economic conditions resulting from governmental attempts to reduce inflation, such as imposition of higher interest rates and wage and price controls; • unpredictable tax audit practices of various governments; • nationalization of properties by foreign governments; • the imposition of tariffs, exchange controls, trade barriers or other restrictions, or government-imposed increases in the cost of resources and materials necessary for the conduct of our operations or the completion of strategic initiatives, including with respect to our joint ventures; and • currency exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies, particularly the Brazilian real and the Canadian dollar. The occurrence of any of the above in the countries in which we operate or elsewhere could jeopardize or affect our ability to transact business there and could adversely affect our revenues and operating results and the value of our assets located outside of the United States. In addition, tax regulations and tax audit practices, currency exchange controls and other restrictions may also make it economically unattractive to: • distribute cash generated by our operations outside the United States to our stockholders; or • utilize cash generated by our operations in one country to fund our operations or repayments of indebtedness in another country or to support other corporate purposes. Changes in tax laws or regulations or their interpretation, or exposure to additional tax liabilities, could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. We are subject to taxes, including income taxes, resource taxes and royalties, and non-income based taxes in the United States, Canada, China, Brazil and other countries where we operate. Changes in tax laws or regulations or their interpretation could result in higher taxes, which could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. In 2018, U.S. federal tax law changes took effect. This was a significant change to the U.S. tax system of taxation resulting in numerous areas open to interpretation given the newness and breadth of changes to the rules. As a result, risk exists related to developing interpretation and application of the new rules that could result in higher taxes which could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. We are subject to periodic audits by various levels of tax authorities in all countries where we have meaningful operations. The due process, audit and appeal practices and procedures of such authorities may vary significantly by jurisdiction, may be unpredictable (and unreliable) in nature and may result in significant risk to us. For various reasons, some governments may issue significant reassessments on audit based positions not fully grounded in law or fact, even though, upon disputing the reassessments, a great many are overturned on administrative appeal and through the court system. Certain systems involve tax litigation as a common practice. In certain countries, there are requirements to pay a reassessment (even though the matter has not been finally decided by the tax administration or a court of law) while the taxpayer has a well-supported objection and appeals administratively or in court. This may result in tying up significant funds and/or creating adverse treasury and credit risks that may interrupt, impede or otherwise materially affect our business operations. Our assets outside of North America are located in countries with volatile conditions, which could subject us and our assets to significant risks. We are a global business with substantial assets located outside of the United States and Canada. Our operations in Brazil, China, India and Paraguay are a fundamental part of our business. We have a majority interest in the joint venture entity operating the Miski Mayo mine in Peru that supplies phosphate rock to us. We also have a joint venture investment in MWSPC, which operates a mine and chemical complexes that produce phosphate fertilizers and other downstream products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Volatile economic, political and market conditions in these and other emerging market countries may have a negative impact on our operations, operating results and financial condition. In addition, unfavorable changes in trade protection laws, policies and measures, or governmental actions and policies and other regulatory requirements affecting trade and the pricing and sourcing of our raw materials, may also have a negative impact on our operations, operating results and financial condition. Natural resource extraction is an important part of the economy in Peru, and, in the past, there have been protests against other natural resource operations in Peru. There remain numerous social conflicts that exist within the natural resource sector in Peru. As a result, there is potential for active protests against natural resource companies. If the Government of Peru’s proactive efforts to address the social and environmental issues surrounding natural resource activities are not successful, protests could extend to or impact the Miski Mayo mine and adversely affect our interest in the Miski Mayo joint venture or the supply of phosphate rock to us from the mine. Adverse weather conditions, including the impact of hurricanes, and excess heat, cold, snow, rainfall and drought, have in the past, and may in the future, adversely affect our operations, and result in increased costs, decreased sales or production and potential liabilities. Adverse weather conditions, including the impact of hurricanes and excess heat, cold, snow, rainfall and drought, have in the past and may in the future adversely affect our operations, particularly our Phosphates business. In the past, hurricanes have resulted in minor physical damage to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Additionally, water treatment costs due to high water balances, tend to increase significantly following excess rainfall from hurricanes or other adverse weather. Some of our Florida and Louisiana facilities have had or could have high water levels that may require treatment. High water balances in the past at phosphate facilities in Florida also led the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) to adopt rules requiring phosphate production facilities to meet more stringent process water management objectives for phosphogypsum management systems. If additional excess rainfall or hurricanes occur in coming years, our facilities may be required to take additional measures to manage process water to comply with existing or future requirements and these measures could potentially have a material effect on our business and financial condition. Adverse weather may also cause a loss of production due to disruptions in our supply chain or adversely affect delivery of our products to our customers. For example, oil refineries that supply sulfur to us may suspend operations as a result of a hurricane, and incoming shipments of ammonia can be delayed, disrupting production at our Florida or Louisiana facilities and delivery of our products. Excess rainfall and drought have in the past, and may in the future adversely affect us. For example, we recently experienced the wettest year in North America in nearly 50 years which reduced fertilizer applications by farmers. Excess rainfall also resulted in higher river levels which adversely affected delivery of our products. Drought can reduce farmers’ crop yields and the uptake of phosphates and potash, reducing the need for application of additional phosphates and potash for the next planting season. Drought can also lower river levels, adversely affecting delivery of our products to our customers. Our operations are dependent on having the required permits and approvals from governmental authorities. Denial or delay by a government agency in issuing any of our permits and approvals or imposition of restrictive conditions on us with respect to these permits and approvals may impair our business and operations. We hold numerous governmental environmental, mining and other permits and approvals authorizing operations at each of our facilities. Our ability to continue operations at a facility could be materially affected by a government agency decision to deny or delay issuing a new or renewed permit or approval, to revoke or substantially modify an existing permit or approval or to substantially change conditions applicable to a permit modification, or by legal actions that successfully challenge our permits. Expanding our operations or extending operations into new areas is also predicated upon securing the necessary environmental or other permits or approvals. We have been engaged in, and over the next several years, we and our subsidiaries will be continuing our, efforts to obtain permits in support of anticipated operations at certain of our properties. A denial of our permits, the issuance of permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, substantial delays in issuing key permits, or legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits, could prevent us from mining at certain of our properties and thereby have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. For example: • In Florida, local community involvement has become an increasingly important factor in the permitting process for mining companies, and various counties and other parties in Florida have in the past filed and continue to file lawsuits challenging the issuance or renewal of some of the permits we require. These actions can significantly delay issuance of the permits we need to operate or expand operations. We have included additional discussion about permitting for our phosphate mines in Florida under “Environmental, Health, Safety and Security Matters-Operating Requirements and Impacts-Permitting” in our Management’s Analysis. We are subject to financial assurance requirements as part of our routine business operations. These financial assurance requirements affect our costs and increase our liquidity requirements. If we were unable to satisfy applicable financial assurance requirements, we might not be able to obtain or maintain permits we need to operate our business as we have in the past. Our need to comply with these requirements could materially affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. In many cases, as a condition to obtaining or maintaining permits and approvals or otherwise, we are required to comply with financial assurance requirements of governmental authorities. The purpose of these requirements is to provide comfort to the government that sufficient funds will be available for the ultimate closure, post-closure care or reclamation of our facilities. In some cases, we are able to comply through the satisfaction of applicable state financial strength tests. But, if we are unable to do so, we must utilize alternative methods of complying with the financial assurance requirements or we would be prevented from continuing our mining operations and also could be subject to enforcement proceedings brought by relevant government agencies. Potential alternative methods of compliance include providing credit support in the form of cash escrows or trusts, surety bonds from surety or insurance companies, letters of credit from banks, or other forms of financial instruments or collateral to satisfy the financial assurance requirements or negotiating a consent agreement that establishes a different form of financial assurance. Use of alternative means of financial assurance imposes additional expense on us. Some of them, such as letters of credit, also use a portion of our available liquidity. Other alternative means of financial assurance, such as surety bonds, may in some cases require collateral and generally require us to obtain a discharge of the bonds or to post additional collateral (typically in the form of cash or letters of credit) at the request of the issuer of the bonds. Collateral that is required may be in many forms including letters of credit or other financial instruments that utilize a portion of our available liquidity, or in the form of assets such as real estate, which reduces our flexibility to manage or sell assets. For example: • With respect to two facilities we acquired as part of our acquisition of the Florida phosphate assets and assumption of certain related liabilities of CF (the “CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition”), (i) we currently use a financial test supported by a corporate guarantee to meet Florida state regulations governing financial assurance related to the post-closure care of the phosphogypsum stack at our closed Bonnie facility in Florida, and (ii) under the terms of a consent decree with federal and state regulators we currently provide credit support in the form of a surety bond from insurance companies, as a means of financial assurance for closure and post-closure care requirements for the phosphogypsum stack at our Plant City, Florida facility. These financial assurance funding obligations require estimates of future expenditures that could be impacted by refinements in scope, technological developments, cost inflation, changes in regulations, discount rates and the timing of activities. Additional financial assurance commitments could be required in the future if increases in cost estimates exceed the assurance amount currently in place. In addition, with respect to the Plant City facility, our use of a surety bond may in some cases require that we obtain a discharge of the bond or post collateral at the request of the issuers of the bond. Required collateral may be in many forms including letters of credit or other financial instruments that utilize a portion of our available liquidity. Any of these circumstances could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. • As more fully discussed in Note 15 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, in 2016 under the terms of two consent decrees with federal and state regulators, we deposited a total of $630 million into two trust funds to provide additional financial assurance for the estimated costs of closure and post-closure care of most of our other phosphogypsum stack systems in Florida (excluding those acquired as part of the CF Phosphate Assets Acquisition) and Louisiana. As required under one of the consent decrees, we have also issued a $50 million letter of credit to further support our financial assurance obligations. We have also agreed to guarantee the difference between the amounts held in each trust fund (including earnings) and the estimated closure and long-term care costs. Compliance with the financial assurance requirements included in these consent decrees satisfies substantially all of our state financial assurance obligations relating to the covered facilities, which were historically satisfied without the need for any expenditure of corporate funds, to the extent our financial statements met certain balance sheet and income statement financial strength tests. In the past, we have also not always been able to satisfy applicable financial strength tests, and, in the future, it is possible that we will not be able to pass the applicable financial strength tests, negotiate or receive approval of consent decrees, establish escrow or trust accounts or obtain letters of credit, surety bonds or other financial instruments on acceptable terms and conditions or at a reasonable cost, or that the form and/or cost of compliance could increase, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. We have included additional discussion about financial assurance requirements under “Off Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations-Other Commercial Commitments” in our Management’s Analysis. The discontinuation or replacement of LIBOR may affect our financial condition and results of operations. On July 27, 2017, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority announced that it intends to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit rates for calculation of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) by the end of 2021. At this time, we cannot predict the impact the discontinuation, reform, or replacement of LIBOR may have on interest rates paid on our credit facility and other financial instruments and interest rate swaps. As a result, it is possible that these interest rate fluctuations could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. The other environmental, health and safety regulations to which we are subject may also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition to permitting and financial assurance requirements, we are subject to numerous other environmental, health and safety laws and regulations in the U.S., Canada, China, Brazil and other countries where we operate. These laws and regulations govern a wide range of matters, including environmental controls, land reclamation, discharges to air and water and remediation of hazardous substance releases. They significantly affect our operating activities as well as the level of our operating costs and capital expenditures. In some international jurisdictions, environmental laws change frequently and it may be difficult for us to determine if we are in compliance with all material environmental laws at any given time. If we are not in compliance, or the changes require new investment in our business, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. We are, and may in the future be, involved in legal and regulatory proceedings that could be material to us. These proceedings include “legacy” matters arising from activities of our predecessor companies and from facilities and businesses that we have never owned or operated. We have in the past been, are currently and in the future, may be subject to legal and regulatory proceedings that could be material to our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Joint ventures in which we participate could also become subject to these sorts of proceedings. These proceedings may be brought by the government or private parties and may arise out of a variety of matters, including: • Allegations by government or private parties that we have violated the permitting, financial assurance or other environmental, health and safety laws and regulations discussed above. For example, in connection with our settlement of matters relating to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ongoing review of mineral processing industries under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, we entered into the consent decrees discussed above and in Note 15 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, which required us to provide additional financial assurance as described above, pay cash penalties of approximately $8 million in the aggregate, modify certain operating practices and undertake certain capital improvement projects over a period of several years that are expected to result in capital expenditures likely to exceed $200 million in the aggregate. We are also involved in other proceedings alleging that, or to review whether, we have violated environmental laws in the United States and Brazil. • Other environmental, health and safety matters, including alleged personal injury, wrongful death, complaints that our operations are adversely impacting nearby farms and other business operations, other property damage, subsidence from operations, spills or releases to the environment, natural resource damages and other damage to the environment, arising out of operations, including accidents, could result in material impacts to our operations and facilities. In connection with the New Wales, Florida facility water loss incident, we entered into an administrative consent order with the FDEP, as discussed in greater detail in Note 24 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. • Antitrust, commercial, tax (including tax audits) and other disputes. The legal and regulatory proceedings to which we are currently or may in the future be subject can, depending on the circumstances, result in monetary damage awards, fines, penalties, other liabilities, injunctions or other court or administrative rulings that interrupt, impede or otherwise materially affect our business operations, and/or criminal sanctions. Among other environmental laws, the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) imposes liability, including for cleanup costs, without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct, on certain categories of persons, including current and former owners and operators of a site and parties who are considered to have contributed to the release of “hazardous substances” into the environment. Under CERCLA, or various U.S. state analogues, a party may, under certain circumstances, be required to bear more than its proportional share of cleanup costs at a site where it has liability if payments cannot be obtained from other responsible parties. As a crop nutrient company producing and managing chemicals, we periodically may incur liabilities and cleanup costs, under CERCLA and other environmental laws, with regard to our current or former facilities, adjacent or nearby third-party facilities or offsite disposal locations. Pending and potential legal and regulatory proceedings may arise out of our present activities, including operations at current facilities. They may also arise out of past activities by us, our predecessor companies and subsidiaries that our predecessors have sold. These past activities were in some cases at facilities that we and our subsidiaries no longer own or operate and may have never owned or operated. Settlements of legal and regulatory matters frequently require court approval. In the event a court were not to approve of a settlement, it is possible that we and the other party or parties to the matter might not be able to settle it on terms that were acceptable to all parties or that we could be required to accept more stringent terms of settlement than required by the opposing parties. We have included additional information with respect to pending legal and regulatory proceedings in Note 24 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and in this report in Part I, Item 3, “Legal Proceedings”. These legal and regulatory proceedings involve inherent uncertainties and could negatively impact our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. The permitting, financial assurance and other environmental, health and safety laws and regulations to which we are subject may become more stringent over time. This could increase the effects on us of these laws and regulations, and the increased effects could be material. Continued government and public emphasis on environmental, health and safety issues in the United States, Canada, China, Brazil, Paraguay and other countries where we operate can be expected to result in requirements that apply to us and our operations that are more stringent than those that are described above and elsewhere in this report. These more stringent requirements may include, among other matters; • Increased levels of future investments and expenditures for environmental controls at ongoing operations, which will be charged against income from future operations; increased levels of the financial assurance requirements to which we are subject, and increased efforts or costs to obtain permits or denial of permits. • Other new or interpretations of existing statutes or regulations that impose new or more stringent restrictions or liabilities, including liabilities or additional financial assurance requirements under CERCLA or similar statutes, restrictions or liabilities related to elevated levels of naturally-occurring radiation that arise from disturbing the ground in the course of mining activities; and other matters that could increase our expenses, capital requirements or liabilities or adversely affect our business, liquidity or financial condition. In addition, to the extent restrictions imposed in countries where our competitors operate, such as China, India, Former Soviet Union countries or Morocco, are less stringent than in the countries where we operate, our competitors could gain cost or other competitive advantages over us. These effects could be material. Among other matters, in recent years there have been a number of initiatives relating to nutrient discharges. New regulatory restrictions developed through these initiatives could have a material effect on either us or our customers. For example, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, established by executive order of the President and comprised of five Gulf States and eleven federal agencies, delivered a final strategy for long-term ecosystem restoration for the Gulf Coast in 2016. The strategy calls for, among other matters, reduction of the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf through state nutrient reduction frameworks, new nutrient reduction approaches and reduction of agricultural and urban sources of excess nutrients. Implementation of the strategy will require legislative or regulatory action at the state level. We cannot predict what the requirements of any such legislative or regulatory action could be or whether or how it would affect us or our customers. In June 2015, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) jointly issued a final rule that proposed to clarify, but may actually expand, the scope of waters regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. The final rule (the “2015 Clean Water Rule”) became effective in August 2015, but has been challenged through numerous lawsuits. In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order staying the effectiveness of the final rule nationwide pending adjudication of substantive challenges to the rule. In early 2017, the U.S. President issued an Executive Order directing EPA and the Corps to publish a proposed rule rescinding or revising the new rule. In June 2017, EPA and the Corps issued a proposed rule that would rescind the 2015 Clean Water Rule and re-codify regulatory text that existed prior to enactment of the 2015 Clean Water Rule. In November 2017, EPA issued a rule notice proposing to extend the applicability date of the 2015 Clean Water Rule for two years from the date of final action on the proposed rule, to provide continuity and regulatory certainty while agencies proceed to consider potential changes to the 2015 Clean Water Rule. In January 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held all challenges to the 2015 Clean Water Rule must be heard in federal district courts rather than in the federal courts of appeal, overruling a decision by the Sixth Circuit's Court of Appeals. With the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals no longer having jurisdiction, that court lifted its 2015 nationwide stay in February 2018. After the nationwide stay was lifted, a number of U.S. District Courts revived dormant litigation that challenged the 2015 Clean Water Rule. In June 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia entered an injunction against implementation of the 2015 Clean Water Rule covering 11 states, including Florida. As of September 2018, federal district courts have put the 2015 Clean Water Rule on hold in 28 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories. On December 11, 2018, EPA and the Corps issued a proposed rule to replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The agencies’ stated interpretation for the proposed rule is to provide clarity, predictability and consistency so that the regulated community can better understand where the Clean Water Act applies and where it does not. EPA and the Corps received over 600,000 public comments on the proposed rule. On September 12, 2019, EPA and the Corps jointly issued a final regulation that repeals the 2015 Clean Water Rule and restores the previous regulatory regime. This regulation reestablishes national consistency by returning all jurisdictions to the longstanding regulatory framework that existed prior to the 2015 Clean Water Rule. The final rule takes effect sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal Register. A challenge to this legislation is possible. Repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Rule was the first step in a two-step rulemaking process to define the scope of “waters of the United States” that are regulated under the Clean Water Act. The second step is finalizing the regulation proposed in December 2018 that would define where federal jurisdiction begins and ends in accordance with the Clean Water Act and Supreme Court precedent. Regulatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change regulations in the United States, Canada or elsewhere could adversely affect us, and these effects could be material. Various governmental initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under way or under consideration around the world. These initiatives could restrict our operating activities, require us to make changes in our operating activities that would increase our operating costs, reduce our efficiency or limit our output, require us to make capital improvements to our facilities, increase our energy, raw material and transportation costs or limit their availability, or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material to us. Governmental greenhouse gas emission initiatives include, among others, the December 2015 agreement (the “Paris Agreement”) which was the outcome of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Paris Agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 nations, including the United States and Canada, entered into force in late 2016 and sets out a goal of limiting the average rise in temperatures for this century to below 2 degrees Celsius. Each signatory is expected to develop its own plan (referred to as a Nationally Determined Contribution, or “NDC”) for reaching that goal. In May 2017, the United States President announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Under Article 28 of that agreement, the earliest such a withdrawal could be effective is November 2020. In 2015, prior to this announcement, the United States had submitted an NDC aiming to achieve, by 2025, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2005 level. The NDC also aims to use best efforts to reduce emissions by 28%. The U.S. target covers all greenhouse gases that were a part of the 2014 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. While it is unclear whether the U.S. executive administration will proceed to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, various legislative or regulatory initiatives relating to greenhouse gases have been adopted or considered by the U.S. Congress, the EPA or various states and those initiatives already adopted may be used to implement the U.S.’s NDC. Additionally, more stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in the NDC. Canada’s intended NDC aims to achieve, by 2030, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels. In late 2016, the federal government announced plans for a comprehensive tax on carbon emissions, under which provinces opting out of the tax would have the option of adopting a cap-and-trade system. In the plans, the federal government also committed to implementing a federal carbon pricing backstop system that will apply in any province or territory that does not have a carbon pricing system in place by 2018. As of January 1, 2019, a carbon tax of $20/tonne now applies in Canada for any emitter not covered under the federal backstop program or approved provincial program. The carbon tax will increase to $30/tonne on January 1, 2020. In addition, the Province of Saskatchewan, in which our Canadian potash mines are located, has publicly stated that a carbon pricing system will not be implemented in the province and is currently pursuing legal action will be sought against the federal government. In December 2017, Saskatchewan announced a comprehensive plan to address climate change that does not include an economy-wide price on carbon but does include a system of tariffs and credits for large emitters. The plan was reviewed and approved, in part, by the federal government in October 2018. Our Saskatchewan Potash facilities will be subject to the Saskatchewan climate change plan regarding emissions at our facilities; however, indirect costs from the carbon tax associated with electricity, natural gas consumption, and transportation are now being passed through to us. As implementation of the Paris Agreement proceeds, more stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in Canada's NDC, such as the Clean Fuel Standard, which is now under development in Ottawa. Additionally, during the 2019 election campaign, the recently re-elected Liberal Party of Canada announced plans for "net zero emissions" by 2050. Details of the Canadian government's plan to achieve the net-zero target will be released in coming months. We will also continue to monitor developments relating to the legislation, as well as the potential future effect on our operating activities, energy, raw material and transportation costs, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources. It is possible that future legislation or regulation addressing climate change, including in response to the Paris Agreement or any new international agreements, could adversely affect our operating activities, energy, raw material and transportation costs, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material or adversely impact our competitive advantage. In addition, to the extent climate change restrictions imposed in countries where our competitors operate, such as China, India, Former Soviet Union countries or Morocco, are less stringent than in the United States or Canada, our competitors could gain cost or other competitive advantages over us. Future climate change could adversely affect us. The prospective impact of climate change on our operations and those of our customers and farmers remains uncertain. Scientists have hypothesized that the impacts of climate change could include changes in rainfall patterns, water shortages, changing sea levels, changing storm patterns and intensities, and changing temperature levels and that these changes could be severe. These impacts could vary by geographic location. Severe climate change could impact our costs and operating activities, the location and cost of global grain and oilseed production, and the supply and demand for grains and oilseeds. At the present time, we cannot predict the prospective impact of climate change on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, or whether any such effects could be material to us. Some of our competitors and potential competitors have greater resources than we do, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage and adversely affect our sales and profitability. These competitors include state-owned and government-subsidized entities in other countries. We compete with a number of producers throughout the world, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities. Some of these entities may have greater total resources than we do, and may be less dependent on earnings from crop nutrients sales than we are. In addition, some of these entities may have access to lower cost or government-subsidized natural gas supplies, placing us at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, certain governments as owners of some of our competitors may be willing to accept lower prices and profitability on their products in order to support domestic employment or other political or social goals. To the extent other producers of crop nutrients enjoy competitive advantages or are willing to accept lower profit levels, the price of our products, our sales volumes and our profits may be adversely affected. We do not own a controlling equity interest in our non-consolidated companies, some of which are foreign companies, and therefore our operating results and cash flow may be materially affected by how the governing boards and majority owners operate such businesses. There may also be limitations on monetary distributions from these companies that are outside of our control. Together, these factors may lower our equity earnings or cash flow from such businesses and negatively impact our results of operations. In 2013, we entered into an agreement to form MWSPC, a joint venture to develop a mine and chemical complexes for an estimated $8.0 billion that produces phosphate fertilizers and other downstream products in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We have a 25% interest in the joint venture and expect our cash investment could be up to $840 million, approximately $770 million of which had been funded as of December 31, 2018. The success of MWSPC will depend on, among other matters, the completion of development and full commencement of operations of production facilities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the future success of current plans for completion of the development and for the operation of MWSPC, including the availability and affordability of necessary resources and materials and access to appropriate infrastructure, and any future changes in those plans, as well as the general economic and political stability of the region. We also hold minority ownership interests in companies that are not controlled by us. We expect that the operations and results of MWSPC will be, and the operations or results of some of the other companies are, significant to us, and their operations can affect our earnings. Because we do not control these companies either at the board or stockholder levels and because local laws in foreign jurisdictions and contractual obligations may place restrictions on monetary distributions by these companies, we cannot ensure that these companies will operate efficiently (or, in the case of MWSPC, in compliance with the terms of any funding facility for which we may provide financial guarantees), pay dividends, or generally follow the desires of our management by virtue of our board or stockholder representation. As a result, these companies may contribute less than anticipated to our earnings and cash flow, negatively impacting our results of operations and liquidity. Additionally, in the case of MWSPC, we may be called upon to provide funds to satisfy MWSPC’s debt obligations to the extent we provide financial guarantees in connection with its funding facilities. Strikes or other forms of work stoppage or slowdown could disrupt our business and lead to increased costs. Our financial performance is dependent on a reliable and productive work force. A significant portion of our workforce, and that of the joint ventures in which we participate, is covered by collective bargaining agreements with unions. Unsuccessful contract negotiations or adverse labor relations could result in strikes or slowdowns. Any disruption may decrease our production and sales or impose additional costs to resolve disputes. The risk of adverse labor relations may increase as our profitability increases because labor unions’ expectations and demands generally rise at those times. Accidents occurring in the course of our operating activities could result in significant liabilities, interruptions or shutdowns of facilities or the need for significant safety or other expenditures. We engage in mining and industrial activities that can result in serious accidents. If our safety procedures are not effective, or if an accident occurs, we could be subject to liabilities arising out of property damage, personal injuries or death, our operations could be interrupted and we might have to shut down or abandon affected facilities. Accidents could cause us to expend significant amounts to remediate safety issues or to repair damaged facilities. For example: • Some of our facilities are subject to potential damage from earthquakes. The excavation of mines can result in potential seismic events or can increase the likelihood or potential severity of a seismic event. The rise and fall of water levels, such as those arising from the brine inflows and our remediation activities at our Esterhazy mine, can also result in or increase the likelihood or potential severity of a seismic event. Our Esterhazy mine and southern Louisiana facilities have experienced minor seismic events from time to time. A significant seismic event at one of our facilities or mines could result in serious injuries or death, or damage to or flooding operations, or damage to adjoining properties or facilities of unrelated third parties. In an extreme scenario, seismic activity could cause us to disrupt our operations, or change our mining process or abandon the mine. • Our underground potash shaft mines are subject to risk from fire. In the event of a fire, if our emergency procedures are not successful, we could have significant injuries or deaths. In addition, fire at one of our underground shaft mines could halt our operations at the affected mine while we investigate the origin of the fire or for longer periods for remedial work or otherwise. Our underground potash shaft mines at Esterhazy and Colonsay, Saskatchewan, Carlsbad, New Mexico and Taquari-Vassouras, Brazil are subject to risk from fire. Any failure of our safety procedures in the future could result in serious injuries or death, or shutdowns, which could result in significant liabilities and/or impact on the financial performance of our Potash and Mosaic Fertilizantes business, including a possible material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. • We handle significant quantities of ammonia at several of our facilities. If our safety procedures are not effective, an accident involving our ammonia operations could result in serious injuries or death, or result in the shutdown of our facilities. We produce ammonia at our Faustina, Louisiana phosphate concentrates plant, use ammonia in significant quantities at all of our Florida and Louisiana phosphates concentrates plants and store ammonia at some of our distribution facilities. For our Florida phosphates concentrates plants, ammonia is received at terminals in Tampa and transported by pipelines to our facilities. We also use ammonia in our Brazil phosphate operations. Our ammonia is generally stored and transported at high pressures or cryogenically. An accident could occur that could result in serious injuries or death, or the evacuation of areas near an accident. An accident could also result in property damage or the shutdown of our phosphates concentrates plants, the ammonia terminals, or pipelines serving those plants or our other ammonia storage and handling facilities. As a result, an accident involving ammonia could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. • We also use or produce other hazardous or volatile chemicals at some of our facilities. If our safety procedures are not effective, an accident involving these other hazardous or volatile chemicals could result in serious injuries or death, or result in the shutdown of our facilities. We use sulfuric acid in the production of concentrated phosphates in our Florida and Louisiana U.S. operations and our Brazil operations. Some of our Florida facilities produce fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous chemical, for resale to third parties. We also use or produce other hazardous or volatile chemicals at some of our facilities. An accident involving any of these chemicals could result in serious injuries or death, or evacuation of areas near an accident. An accident could also result in property damage or shutdown of our facilities, or cause us to expend significant amounts to remediate safety issues or to repair damaged facilities. As a result, an accident involving any of these chemicals could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. We use tailings, sediments and water dams to manage residual materials generated by our Brazilian mining operations. If our safety procedures are not effective, an accident involving these impoundments could result in serious injuries or death, damage to property or the environment, or result in the shutdown of our facilities, any of which could materially adversely affect our results of operations in Brazil. Mining and processing of potash and phosphate generate residual materials that must be managed both during the operation of the facility and upon facility closure. Potash tailings, consisting primarily of salt and clay, are stored in surface disposal sites. Phosphate clay residuals from mining in Brazil are deposited in large tailing dams. They are regularly monitored to evaluate structural stability and for leaks. The failure of tailings dams and other impoundments at any of our Brazilian mining operations could cause severe property and environmental damage and loss of life. As a result, we apply significant operational and financial resources and both internal and external technical resources towards operating those facilities safely. We own and maintain 11 tailings dams in Brazil. In response to the new mining regulations, we conducted inspections at all of our tailings dams in Brazil under the new regulatory standards. We had temporarily idled operations at four tailings dams and the three related mines at Araxá, Tapira and Catalão. We resumed full mining operations at Catalão in June 2019, and at Tapira and Araxá in September 2019. In addition, we continue to augment our existing practices in an effort to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure and expect to bring all our tailings dams to be in compliance with Brazilian safety requirements. As part of our remediation efforts, and in the ordinary course of business, we plan to build and license new dams in Brazil. Legislation at both Brazilian federal and state levels has introduced new rules regarding tailings dam safety, construction, licensing and operations. We cannot predict the full impact of these legislative or potentially related judicial actions, or future actions, or whether or how it would affect our Brazilian operations or customers. Any accident involving our Brazilian tailings or other dams, or any shut down or idling of our related mines, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Deliberate, malicious acts, including cyber attacks and terrorism, could damage our facilities, disrupt our operations or injure employees, contractors, customers or the public and result in liability to us. Intentional acts of destruction could hinder our sales or production and disrupt our supply chain. Our facilities could be damaged or destroyed, reducing our operational production capacity and requiring us to repair or replace our facilities at substantial cost. Employees, contractors and the public could suffer substantial physical injury for which we could be liable. Governmental authorities may impose security or other requirements that could make our operations more difficult or costly. The consequences of any such actions could adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. We may be adversely affected by changing antitrust laws to which we are subject. Increases in crop nutrient prices can increase the scrutiny to which we are subject under these laws. We are subject to antitrust and competition laws in various countries throughout the world. We cannot predict how these laws or their interpretation, administration and enforcement will change over time. Changes in antitrust laws globally, or in their interpretation, administration or enforcement, may limit our existing or future operations and growth, or the operations of Canpotex, which serves as an export association for our Potash business in Canada. Increases in crop nutrient prices have in the past resulted in increased scrutiny of the crop nutrient industry under antitrust and competition laws. Such price increases can increase the risk that these laws could be interpreted, administered or enforced in a manner that could affect our operating practices or impose liability on us in a manner that could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. We may be adversely affected by other changes in laws resulting from increases in food and crop nutrient prices. Increases in prices for, among other things, food, fuel and crop inputs (including crop nutrients) have in the past been the subject of significant discussion by various governmental bodies and officials throughout the world. In response to increases, it is possible that governments in one or more of the locations in which we operate or where we or our competitors sell our products could take actions that could adversely affect us. Such actions could include, among other matters, changes in governmental policies relating to agriculture and biofuels (including changes in subsidy levels), price controls, tariffs, windfall profits taxes or export or import taxes. Any such actions could materially adversely affect our operating results and financial condition. Our competitive position could be adversely affected if we are unable to participate in continuing industry consolidation. Most of our products are readily available from a number of competitors, and price and other competition in the crop nutrient industry is intense. In addition, crop nutrient production facilities and distribution activities frequently benefit from economies of scale. As a result, particularly during pronounced cyclical troughs, the crop nutrient industry has a long history of consolidation. Mosaic itself is the result of a number of industry consolidations. We expect consolidation among crop nutrient producers could continue. Our competitive position could suffer to the extent we are not able to expand our own resources either through consolidations, acquisitions, joint ventures or partnerships. In the future, we may not be able to find suitable companies to combine with, assets to purchase or joint venture or partnership opportunities to pursue. Even if we are able to locate desirable opportunities, we may not be able to enter into transactions on economically acceptable terms. If we do not successfully participate in continuing industry consolidation, our ability to compete successfully could be adversely affected and result in the loss of customers or an uncompetitive cost structure, which could adversely affect our sales and profitability. Our strategy for managing market and interest rate risk may not be effective. Our businesses are affected by fluctuations in market prices for our products, the purchase price of natural gas, ammonia and sulfur consumed in operations, freight and shipping costs, foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates. We periodically enter into derivatives and forward purchase contracts to mitigate some of these risks. However, our strategy may not be successful in minimizing our exposure to these fluctuations. See “Market Risk” in our Management’s Analysis and Note 16 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements that is incorporated by reference in this report in Part II, Item 8. A shortage or unavailability of railcars, tugs, barges and ships for carrying our products and the raw materials we use in our business could result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of production or sales and higher transportation or equipment costs. We rely heavily upon truck, rail, tug, barge and ocean freight transportation to obtain the raw materials we need and to deliver our products to our customers. In addition, the cost of transportation is an important part of the final sale price of our products. Finding affordable and dependable transportation is important in obtaining our raw materials and to supply our customers. Higher costs for these transportation services or an interruption or slowdown due to factors including high demand, high fuel prices, labor disputes, layoffs or other factors affecting the availability of qualified transportation workers, adverse weather or other environmental events, or changes to rail, barge or ocean freight systems, could negatively affect our ability to produce our products or deliver them to our customers, which could affect our performance and results of operations. Strong demand for grain and other products and a strong world economy increase the demand for and reduce the availability of transportation, both domestically and internationally. Shortages of railcars, barges and ocean transport for carrying product and increased transit time may result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of sales and higher equipment and transportation costs. In addition, during periods when the shipping industry has a shortage of ships, the substantial time needed to build new ships prevents rapid market response. Delays and missed shipments due to transportation shortages, including vessels, barges, railcars and trucks, could result in customer dissatisfaction or loss of sales potential, which could negatively affect our performance and results of operations. Additionally, we have agreed under our long-term CF Ammonia Supply Agreement to purchase approximately 545,000 to 725,000 tonnes of ammonia per year during a term that may extend until December 31, 2032, at a price to be determined by a formula based on the prevailing price of U.S. natural gas. We are obligated to provide for transportation of the ammonia under the agreement, and if we fail to take the required minimum annual amount, CF may elect to require us to make payment of liquidated damages or terminate the agreement. Payment of significant liquidated damages or an election by CF to terminate the agreement could adversely affect our business. If the price of natural gas rises or the market price for ammonia falls outside of the range anticipated at execution of this agreement, we may not realize a cost benefit from the natural gas-based pricing over the term of the agreement, or the cost of our ammonia under the agreement could become a competitive disadvantage. A lack of customers’ access to credit can adversely affect their ability to purchase our products. Some of our customers require access to credit to purchase our products. A lack of available credit to customers in one or more countries, due to global or local economic conditions or for other reasons, could adversely affect demand for crop nutrients. We extend trade credit to our customers and guarantee the financing that some of our customers use to purchase our products. Our results of operations may be adversely affected if these customers are unable to repay the trade credit from us or financing from their banks. Increases in prices for crop nutrient, other agricultural inputs and grain may increase this risk. We extend trade credit to our customers in the United States and throughout the world, in some cases for extended periods of time. In Brazil, where there are fewer third-party financing sources available to farmers, we also have several programs under which we guarantee customers’ financing from financial institutions that they use to purchase our products. As our exposure to longer trade credit extended throughout the world and use of guarantees in Brazil increases, we are increasingly exposed to the risk that some of our customers will not pay us or the amounts we have guaranteed. Additionally, we become increasingly exposed to risk due to weather and crop growing conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices or foreign currencies, and other factors that influence the price, supply and demand for agricultural commodities. Significant defaults by our customers could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Increases in prices for crop nutrients increase the dollar amount of our sales to customers. The larger dollar value of our customers’ purchases may also lead them to request longer trade credit from us and/or increase their need for us to guarantee their financing of our products. Either factor could increase the amount of our exposure to the risk that our customers may be unable to repay the trade credit from us or financing from their banks that we guarantee. In addition, increases in prices for other agricultural inputs and grain may increase the working capital requirements, indebtedness and other liabilities of our customers, increase the risk that they will default on the trade credit from us or their financing that we guarantee, and decrease the likelihood that we will be able to collect from our customers in the event of their default. Provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws and of Delaware law may prevent or delay an acquisition of our company, which could decrease the trading price of our common stock. Our restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could have the effect of rendering more difficult or discouraging an acquisition deemed undesirable by our board of directors. These provisions include the ability of our board of directors to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval, a prohibition on stockholder action by written consent and the inability of our stockholders to request that our board of directors or chairman of our board call a special meeting of stockholders. We are also subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In general, Section 203 prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from engaging in a “business combination” with an “interested stockholder” for a period of three years from the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the interested stockholder attained this status with the approval of the board of directors or unless the business combination was approved in a prescribed manner. A “business combination” includes mergers, asset sales and other transactions resulting in a financial benefit to the interested stockholder. Subject to exceptions, an “interested stockholder” is a person who, together with affiliates and associates, owns, or within three years owned, 15% or more of the corporation’s voting stock. This statute could prohibit or delay the accomplishment of mergers or other takeover or change in control attempts with respect to us and, accordingly, may discourage attempts to acquire us. These provisions apply not only when they may protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics but even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders and could delay or prevent an acquisition that our board of directors determines is in our best interests and those of our stockholders. Our success will continue to depend on our ability to attract and retain highly qualified and motivated employees. We believe our continued success depends on the collective abilities and efforts of our employees. Like many businesses, a significant number of our employees, including some of our most highly skilled employees with specialized expertise in general corporate matters, potash and phosphates operations, will be approaching retirement age throughout the next decade and beyond. In addition, we compete for a talented workforce with other businesses, particularly within the mining and chemicals industries in general and the crop nutrients industry in particular. Our expansion plans are highly dependent on our ability to attract, retain and train highly qualified and motivated employees who are essential to the success of our ongoing operations as well as to our expansion plans. If we were to be unsuccessful in attracting, retaining and training the employees we require, our ongoing operations and expansion plans could be materially and adversely affected. Future product or technological innovation could affect our business. Future product or technological innovations by third parties such as the development of seeds that require less crop nutrients, the development of substitutes for our products or developments in the application of crop nutrients, if they occur, could have the potential to adversely affect the demand for our products and our results of operations, liquidity and capital resources The success of our other strategic initiatives depends on our ability to effectively manage these initiatives, and to successfully integrate and grow acquired businesses. In addition to the Acquisition, we have other significant ongoing strategic initiatives, including, principally our plans to expand the annual production capacity of our Potash business and MWSPC. These strategic initiatives involve capital and other expenditures of several billions of dollars over a number of years and require effective project management and, in the case of strategic acquisitions, successful integration. To the extent the processes we (or, for the MWSPC, we together with our joint venture partners) put in place to manage these initiatives or integrate and grow acquired businesses are not effective, our capital expenditure and other costs may exceed our expectations or the benefits we expect from these initiatives might not be fully realized, or both, thereby resulting in adverse effects on our operating results and financial condition. We may fail to fully realize the anticipated benefits and cost savings of our long-term CF Ammonia Supply Agreement. We use ammonia as a raw material in the production of our concentrated phosphate products. Under our long-term CF Ammonia Supply Agreements we have agreed to purchase approximately 545,000 to 725,000 tonnes of ammonia per year during a term that may extend until December 31, 2032 at a price to be determined by a formula based on the prevailing price of U.S. natural gas. The success of this agreement depends, in part, on our ability to realize cost savings from the agreement’s natural gas based pricing. If the price of natural gas rises materially or the market price for ammonia falls outside of the range we currently anticipate over the term of the agreement, we may not realize a cost benefit from the agreement, or the cost of our ammonia under the agreement could be a competitive disadvantage. Over the past few years, we paid considerably more for ammonia under the agreement than we would pay had we purchased it in the spot market. In addition, our ability to realize benefits and cost savings is subject to certain additional risks, including whether CF successfully performs its obligations under the agreement over the life of its commitment and our ability to take delivery of the required minimum annual amount of ammonia over the life of our commitment. Cyber attacks could disrupt our operations and have a material adverse impact on our business. As a global company, we utilize and rely upon information technology systems in many aspects of our business, including internal and external communications and the management of our accounting, financial, production and supply chain functions. As we become more dependent on information technologies to conduct our operations, and as the number and sophistication of cyber attacks increase, the risks associated with cyber security increase. These risks apply to us, our employees, and to third parties on whose systems we rely for the conduct of our business. We have experienced cyber attacks but to our knowledge, we have not experienced any material breaches of our technology systems. Failure to effectively anticipate, prevent, detect and recover from the increasing number and sophistication of cyber attacks could result in theft, loss or misuse of, or damage or modification of our information, and cause disruptions or delays in our business, reputational damage and third-party claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. Item 1B.