form10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
Commission file number 1-10351
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
(Exact name of the registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Canada |
|
N/A |
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization) |
|
(I.R.S. employer
identification no.) |
Suite 500, 122
1st
Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 7G3
306-933-8500
(Address and telephone number of the registrants
principal executive offices)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
Title of each class |
|
Name of exchange on which registered |
|
|
|
Common Shares, No Par Value |
|
New York Stock Exchange |
The Common Shares are also listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange
in Canada
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the
Securities Act.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act.
Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K is
not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of
the registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K or any
amendment to this
Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated
filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large
accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act.
Large
accelerated
filer þ Accelerated
filer o Non-accelerated
filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the
Act).
Yes o No þ
At June 30, 2006, the aggregate market value of the
103,642,663 Common Shares held by non-affiliates of the
registrant was approximately $8,910,159,764.93. At
February 20, 2007, the registrant had 104,991,251 Common
Shares outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrants Financial Review Annual Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the 2006
Financial Review), attached as Exhibit 13, are
incorporated by reference into Part II.
Portions of the registrants Proxy Circular for its Annual
and Special Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 3,
2007 (the 2007 Proxy Circular), attached as
Exhibit 99(a), are incorporated by reference into
Part III.
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
Form 10-K
Annual Report
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2006
Table of Contents
- i -
Forward-Looking Statements
This document, including the documents incorporated by
reference, contains forward-looking statements
within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 that relate to future events or our
future financial performance. Statements containing words such
as could, expect, may,
anticipate, believe, intend,
estimate, plan and similar expressions
constitute forward-looking statements. These statements are
based on certain factors and assumptions as set forth in this
document and the documents incorporated by reference herein,
including foreign exchange rates, expected growth, results of
operations, performance and business prospects and
opportunities. We consider these factors and assumptions to be
reasonable based on information currently available.
Forward-looking statements are subject to important risks and
uncertainties that are difficult to predict. The results or
events predicted in forward-looking statements may differ
materially from actual results or events. Some of the factors
that could cause actual results or events to differ from current
expectations include the following:
|
|
|
variances from our assumptions with respect to foreign exchange
rates, expected growth, results of operations, performance and
business prospects and opportunities; |
|
fluctuations in supply and demand for fertilizer, including
fluctuations as a result of economic or political conditions in
our markets, which, among other things, can cause volatility in
the prices of our fertilizer products; |
|
changes in competitive pressures, including pricing pressure; |
|
unexpected or adverse weather conditions, which can impact
demand for fertilizer and timing of fertilizer sales during the
year; |
|
volatility in the price of natural gas, which is the primary raw
material used for our nitrogen products, and risks associated
with our continued ability to manage natural gas costs in the
United States through hedging activities; |
|
fluctuations in the prices and availability of other raw
materials, including sulfur, which is a primary input in our
phosphate operations; |
|
fluctuations in the cost and availability of transportation and
distribution for our raw materials and products, including ocean
freight; |
|
unexpected geological conditions, including water inflows; |
|
imprecision in reserve estimates; |
|
changes in capital markets and in currency and exchange rates; |
|
the outcome of legal proceedings; |
|
changes in government regulations, including environmental
regulations, which could increase our costs of compliance and
otherwise affect our business; and |
|
acquisitions we may undertake in the future. |
We sell to a diverse group of customers both by geography and by
end product. Market conditions will vary on a year-over-year
basis, and sales can be expected to shift from one period to
another.
In addition to the factors mentioned above, see Risk
Factors under Item 1A for a description of other
factors affecting forward-looking statements. As a result of
these and other factors, there is no assurance that any of the
events, circumstances or results anticipated by forward-looking
statements included or incorporated by reference into this
document will occur or, if they do, of what impact they will
have on our business or on our results of operations and
financial condition.
Forward-looking statements are given only as at the date of this
document or the document incorporated by reference herein, and
we disclaim any obligation to update or revise the
forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise.
FORM 10-K │ Forward-Looking Statements
Page 1
Part I
Item 1. Business.
General
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of Canada. As used in this document,
the term PCS refers to Potash Corporation of
Saskatchewan Inc. and the terms we, us,
our, PotashCorp and the
Company refer to PCS and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries, individually or in any combination, as applicable.
We are one of the worlds largest integrated fertilizer and
related industrial and feed products companies. We are the
largest producer of potash worldwide by capacity. In 2006, we
estimate our potash operations represented 15% of global
production, 22% of global potash capacity and 55% of global
potash excess capacity. We are the third largest producer of
phosphates worldwide by capacity. In 2006, we estimate our
phosphate operations produced 6% of world phosphoric acid
production. In 2006, we estimate our nitrogen operations were
the fourth largest producer of nitrogen products worldwide by
capacity and produced 2% of world ammonia production.
Our potash is produced from six mines in Saskatchewan and one
mine in New Brunswick. Of these mines, we own and operate five
in Saskatchewan and the one in New Brunswick.
Our phosphate operations include the manufacture and sale of
solid and liquid phosphate fertilizers, animal feed supplements
and industrial acid, which is used in food products and
industrial processes. We believe that our North Carolina
facility is the worlds largest integrated phosphate mine
and processing plant. We also have a phosphate mine and two
mineral processing plant complexes in northern Florida, six
phosphate feed plants in the United States and one feed plant in
Brazil. In addition, we can produce a variety of phosphate
products at our Geismar, Louisiana facility.
Our nitrogen operations involve the production of nitrogen
fertilizers and nitrogen feed and industrial products, including
ammonia, urea, nitrogen solutions, ammonium nitrate and nitric
acid. We have nitrogen facilities in Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio
and Trinidad.
We indirectly hold all outstanding interests in PCS Joint
Venture, Ltd. (PCS Joint Venture), a limited
partnership doing business in Georgia as Farmers Favorite
Fertilizer. Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (Florida), Inc.
is the general partner of PCS Joint Venture. PCS Joint Venture
formerly manufactured, processed and distributed fertilizer and
other agricultural supplies from plants located in Florida and
Georgia. In 2006, PCS Joint Venture sold all of its Florida
assets and shut down its Georgia manufacturing facility. PCS
Joint Venture is selling its remaining inventory in Georgia.
We are organized under the laws of Canada. Our principal
executive offices are located at 122
1st
Avenue South, Suite 500, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
S7K 7G3, and our telephone number is (306) 933-8500.
History
PCS is a corporation continued under the Canada Business
Corporations Act and is the successor to a corporation
without share capital established by the Province of
Saskatchewan in 1975. Between 1976 and 1990, we acquired
substantial interests in the Saskatchewan potash industry. We
purchased the Cory mine in 1976, the Rocanville and Lanigan
mines in 1977, and, by 1990, 100% of the Allan mine when we
acquired all of the outstanding shares of Saskterra Fertilizers
Ltd.
In 1989, the Province of Saskatchewan privatized PCS. While the
Province initially retained an ownership interest in PCS, this
interest had been reduced to zero by the end of 1993. Since
1993, we have made the following acquisitions of significance to
the development of our Company:
|
|
|
the New Brunswick potash mine and port facilities and our
Patience Lake mine in Saskatchewan in 1993; |
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 2
|
|
|
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (formerly Texasgulf Inc.) and White
Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., phosphate fertilizer and
feed producers, in 1995; |
|
Arcadian Corporation, a producer of nitrogen fertilizer,
industrial and feed products, in 1997; |
|
PCS Cassidy Lake, a potash mill facility located at Clover Hill,
New Brunswick, in 1998; |
|
approximately 9% of the outstanding shares of Israel Chemicals
Ltd. (ICL) pursuant to a public offering by the
State of Israel in 1998. In June 2005, we acquired twenty-one
million additional shares in ICL, increasing our ownership
interest to 10%; |
|
PCS Purified Phosphates (formerly a joint venture we had with
Albright & Wilson Americas Inc.), a phosphoric acid joint
venture, in 2000; |
|
20% of the total outstanding equity of Sociedad Química y
Minera de Chile S.A. (SQM), a Chilean specialty
fertilizer, iodine and lithium company, in transactions in
October 2001 and April and May of 2002. In 2004, we sold a
portion of this investment and subsequently acquired ICLs
entire indirect interest in SQM, resulting in an indirect
holding of 24.99% of the outstanding equity of SQM. In October
and December 2006, we increased our investments in SQM,
increasing our ownership interest to 31.62% of SQMs
outstanding equity; |
|
26% of the shares of Arab Potash Company (APC) from
Jordan Investment Corporation, an arm of the Jordanian
government, in October of 2003. In June 2005, we acquired one
million additional shares in APC and in April 2006, we acquired
220,100 additional shares in APC, increasing our ownership
interest to approximately 28%; and |
|
9.99% of the shares of Sinofert Holdings Limited
(Sinofert), a vertically-integrated fertilizer
company and a subsidiary of Sinochem Corporation, in July 2005.
In February 2006, we exercised an option to acquire an
additional 10.01% of the shares of Sinofert, increasing our
ownership interest to 20%. |
Potash Operations
Our potash operations include the mining and production of
potash, which is predominantly used as fertilizer.
Properties
All potash produced by the Company in Saskatchewan is in the
southern half of the Province, where extensive potash deposits
are found. The potash ore is contained in a predominantly rock
salt formation known as the Prairie Evaporite, which lies about
1,000 metres below the surface. The evaporite deposits, which
are bounded by limestone formations, contain the potash beds of
approximately 2.4 to 5.1 metres thickness. Three potash deposits
of economic importance occur in the Province, the Esterhazy,
Belle Plaine and Patience Lake Members. The Patience Lake Member
is mined at the Lanigan, Allan, Patience Lake and Cory mines,
and the Esterhazy Member is mined at the Rocanville and
Esterhazy mines.
Under a mining and processing agreement effective through
December 31, 2026 and subject to available reserves, Mosaic
Potash Esterhazy Limited Partnership (Mosaic) mines
and processes our mineral rights at the Esterhazy mine. We have
the option to terminate this agreement every five years. The
next opportunity to terminate is December 31, 2011, for
which notice must be given no later than June 30, 2011.
Mosaic has the option to abandon the mine at any time after
December 31, 2011, thus terminating the mining and
processing agreement. In each year the maximum finished product
we are permitted to take under the mining and processing
agreement is 952,500 tonnes and the minimum required amount is
453,600 tonnes. For the year ending December 31, 2007, we
have notified Mosaic that we require 952,500 tonnes of finished
product. Water inflow at the Esterhazy mine has continued, to a
greater or lesser degree, since December 1985. In January 2007,
Mosaic announced it had identified a new water inflow at the
Esterhazy mine, and that efforts were underway to address the
inflow. We share, on an annual basis, in such water inflow
remediation costs at the Esterhazy mine. See
Production and Reserves tables for
additional information.
Also, under the mining and processing agreement with Mosaic, the
Company has the right to acquire up to 25% participation in any
expansion of the Esterhazy mine. In April, 2005, Mosaic
announced plans to expand capacity at Esterhazy by 360,000
tonnes at a cost of $28 million. The Company participated
in this expansion, investing 25% of the cost for 25% of the
additional tonnage, on top of our current maximum annual
entitlement of 952,500 tonnes. These new tonnes are expected to
be available commencing in 2007.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 3
We also produce potash at our mine near Sussex, New Brunswick
from the flank of an elongated salt structure. We also hold an
interest in certain oil and gas rights in the vicinity of the
New Brunswick mine. Natural gas has been discovered and we, in
conjunction with Corridor Resources Inc., now supply the New
Brunswick facility with natural gas to meet its fuel needs.
During exploration for natural gas in the vicinity of the Sussex
division, potash was detected to the south and east of the
existing mine operations. Exploration permits were obtained, and
enough detailed 3D seismic and drilling has taken place to
delineate a potash resource large enough to warrant mine design
and capital cost estimate studies. As part of our continued
evaluation efforts, we commenced drilling of an additional
borehole in December 2006.
We control the right to mine 646,835 acres of land in
Saskatchewan. Included in these holdings are mineral rights to
540,079 acres contained in blocks around the six mines in which
we have an interest, of which acres approximately 34% we own,
approximately 52% are under lease from the Province of
Saskatchewan and approximately 14% are leased from other
parties. Our remaining 106,756 acres are located elsewhere in
Saskatchewan. Our leases with the Province of Saskatchewan are
for 21 year terms, renewable at our option. Our significant
leases with other parties are also for 21 year terms. Such
leases are renewable at our option, providing generally that
production is continuing and that there is continuation of the
applicable Crown lease. In New Brunswick, we mine pursuant to a
mining lease with the Province of New Brunswick. We control the
right to mine 58,263 acres of land in New Brunswick. The lease
is for a term of 21 years from 1978 with renewal provisions
for three additional 21 year periods. This lease was
renewed effective June 13, 1999.
The following map shows the location of our Canadian mining
operations and Esterhazy.
Production
We produce potash using both conventional and solution mining
methods. In conventional operations, shafts are sunk to the ore
body and mining machines cut out the ore, which is lifted to the
surface for processing. In solution mining, the potash is
dissolved in warm brine and pumped to the surface for
processing. Approximately 12 grades of potash are produced to
suit different preferences of the various markets.
In 2006, our conventional potash operations (excluding
Esterhazy) mined 18.893 million tonnes of ore at an average
grade of 23.11% potassium oxide
(K2O).
In 2006, our potash production from all our operations
(including Esterhazy) consisted of 7.018 million tonnes of
potash (KCl) with an average grade of 61.17%
K2O,
representing 47% of North American production.
Our present annual potash production capacity is approximately
12.89 million tonnes KCl, which includes maximum annual
production under the mining and processing agreement with Mosaic
of 952,500 tonnes at Esterhazy. In 2006, our production capacity
represented an estimated 55% of the North American total
capacity while our excess capacity was an estimated 70% of North
American excess production capacity. We allocate production
among our mines on the basis of various factors, including cost
efficiency and the grades of product that can be produced. The
Patience Lake mine, which was originally a conventional
underground mine, now employs a
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 4
solution mining method. The other Saskatchewan mines we own or
in which we have an interest employ conventional underground
mining methods.
The New Brunswick mine is a conventional cut and fill
underground mining operation. In addition to potash production,
this mine also produced 0.60 million tonnes of sodium
chloride (salt) in 2006. We continue to incur costs at the
New Brunswick division in relation to management of a brine
inflow.
The following table sets forth, for each of the past three
years, the production of ore, grade and finished product for
each of our mines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
2006 Production | |
|
2005 Production | |
|
2004 Production | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Finished | |
|
|
|
Finished | |
|
|
|
Finished | |
|
|
|
Finished | |
|
|
|
|
Product | |
|
Ore | |
|
|
|
Product | |
|
Ore | |
|
|
|
Product | |
|
Ore | |
|
|
|
Product | |
|
|
|
|
(Millions | |
|
(Millions | |
|
Grade | |
|
(Millions | |
|
(Millions | |
|
Grade | |
|
(Millions | |
|
(Millions | |
|
Grade | |
|
(Millions | |
|
|
|
|
of tonnes) | |
|
of tonnes) | |
|
% K2O | |
|
of tonnes) | |
|
of tonnes) | |
|
% K2O | |
|
of tonnes) | |
|
of tonnes) | |
|
% K2O | |
|
of tonnes) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Lanigan |
|
|
3.828 |
|
|
|
5.416 |
|
|
|
20.16 |
|
|
|
1.471 |
|
|
|
7.439 |
|
|
|
20.33 |
|
|
|
2.023 |
|
|
|
7.372 |
|
|
|
20.11 |
|
|
|
2.025 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rocanville |
|
|
3.044 |
|
|
|
5.675 |
|
|
|
23.99 |
|
|
|
1.897 |
|
|
|
7.519 |
|
|
|
24.70 |
|
|
|
2.573 |
|
|
|
5.334 |
|
|
|
24.25 |
|
|
|
1.833 |
|
|
|
|
|
Allan |
|
|
1.885 |
|
|
|
2.984 |
|
|
|
25.14 |
|
|
|
0.992 |
|
|
|
4.323 |
|
|
|
24.19 |
|
|
|
1.431 |
|
|
|
3.862 |
|
|
|
25.22 |
|
|
|
1.344 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cory |
|
|
1.361 |
|
|
|
2.545 |
|
|
|
25.12 |
|
|
|
0.772 |
|
|
|
2.753 |
|
|
|
24.90 |
|
|
|
0.826 |
|
|
|
2.531 |
|
|
|
24.95 |
|
|
|
0.738 |
|
|
|
|
|
Patience
Lake(1) |
|
|
1.033 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.239 |
|
|
|
|
|
Esterhazy(2) |
|
|
0.953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.953 |
|
|
|
|
|
New Brunswick |
|
|
0.785 |
|
|
|
2.273 |
|
|
|
23.03 |
|
|
|
0.743 |
|
|
|
2.284 |
|
|
|
23.37 |
|
|
|
0.759 |
|
|
|
2.371 |
|
|
|
23.24 |
|
|
|
0.782 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
|
12.889 |
|
|
|
18.893 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.018 |
|
|
|
24.318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.816 |
|
|
|
21.470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.914 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Solution mine. |
|
|
(2) |
Product tonnes received at Esterhazy are based on a mining and
processing agreement with Mosaic. |
|
The mining of potash is a capital-intensive business subject to
the normal risks and capital expenditure requirements associated
with mining operations. The processing of ore may be subject to
delays and costs resulting from mechanical failures and such
hazards as unusual or unexpected geological formations,
subsidence, floods and other water inflows, and other conditions
involved in mining ore.
Reserves
The Companys estimates for its conventional mining
operations in Saskatchewan are based on exploration drill hole
data, seismic data and actual mining results during the past 36
to 41 years. In Saskatchewan reserves are estimated by
identifying material in place that is delineated on at least two
sides and material in place within one mile from an existing
sampled mine entry or borehole. The Companys estimates for
its conventional mining operations in New Brunswick are based on
exploration drill hole data, seismic data and actual mining
results during the past 23 years. In New Brunswick reserves
are estimated by identifying material in place delineated by
drilling or mining with results projected conservatively from
these intersections.
A historical extraction ratio from the 23 to 41 years of
mining results is applied to estimate the mineable reserves. The
Companys estimated recoverable ore (reserve tonnage only)
as of December 31, 2006 for each of our potash mines is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral Reserves | |
|
Average | |
|
|
|
|
(Millions of tonnes | |
|
Grade | |
|
Years of Remaining | |
|
|
|
|
recoverable ore)(1)(2)(3) | |
|
K2O | |
|
Mine Life(4) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Allan |
|
|
288 |
|
|
|
25.9% |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cory |
|
|
209 |
|
|
|
25.1% |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lanigan |
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
22.0% |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rocanville |
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
22.5% |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
Patience
Lake(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Esterhazy(6) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
24.5% |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
New Brunswick |
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
25.6% |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 5
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Mineral reserves include proven and probable reserves. There has
been no third party review of reserve estimates within the last
three years. Current estimates reflect refinements and
adjustments to the analysis conducted during 2006 using
methodology described in the body of this report. |
|
|
(2) |
The extraction ratio of recoverable ore to in-place material for
each mine is as follows: Allan 0.32, Cory 0.26, Lanigan 0.30,
Rocanville 0.33 and New Brunswick 0.46. |
|
|
(3) |
The concentration of recoverable ore tonnes to finished product
(KCl) for each of the divisions is as follows (three-year
running average): Allan 2.96, Cory 3.35, Lanigan 3.67,
Rocanville 2.94 and New Brunswick 3.03. |
|
|
(4) |
Estimates are based upon proven and probable reserves and annual
mining rates (million tonnes of ore hoisted per year) equal to
the three-year running average for each of the divisions as
follows: Allan 3.72, Cory 2.61, Lanigan 6.74, Rocanville 6.18
and New Brunswick 2.31. Mining rates are constrained by the
equipment and manpower we utilize at each mine so that our
production capacity at each mine depends, in part, on the ore
concentration ratio encountered at each mine. |
|
|
(5) |
Given the characteristics of the solution mining method employed
at the Patience Lake mine, it is not possible to estimate
reliably the productive capacity of or the recoverable ore
reserve from this operation. In solution mining, the potash is
dissolved in warm brine and pumped to the surface for
processing. Chemical compositions and volumes of brine pumped
into and out of the underground mineralized zone are known, but
the precise nature of the solution mining process is not.
Estimates are made utilizing the surfaces available for
dissolution in the abandoned mine workings, the concentration of
the circulated brine recovered from the mine, annual
crystallization rates in the ponds and the annual volume of KCl
recovered from the ponds. However, this inability to properly
describe details of the mining process precludes reporting of an
ore reserve for Patience Lake. The extent of the Patience Lake
potash resource is given in the next table. The Patience Lake
operation accounted for only 2.7% of the Companys potash
production in 2006. |
|
|
(6) |
At Esterhazy, mine operator Mosaic mines potash for which the
Company holds mineral rights. Production is carried out under a
mining and processing agreement with Mosaic. The Esterhazy
mineral reserve tonnage presented here is the current estimate
of mineable tonnes remaining in the Companys lands after
reconciliation of historic tonnes mined and product received
from Mosaic. Lands agreed to be not mineable by both Mosaic and
the Company have been removed. Since the tonnage of product to
be received by the Company is based on an agreement with Mosaic,
the entire tonnage available is placed in the Mineral
Reserves (Millions of tonnes recoverable ore) category.
The Years of Remaining Mine Life reported for
Esterhazy assumes that the maximum amount of product possible
under the agreement, exclusive of participation in the proposed
expansion of the Esterhazy mine discussed above, will be
received by the Company. |
|
Resources
Mineral resources, which are exclusive of the mineral reserves
reported above, are contained within the lands for which a
mining lease is held at each mine. Note that the resources are
reported as mineralization in-place while the reserves are
reported as recoverable ore.
In Saskatchewan, where geological correlations are
straightforward, the mineral resource categories are interpreted
by the Company as follows:
|
|
|
areas with detailed exploration coverage (drilling, seismic,
close to underground workings) are reported in the measured
mineral resource category; |
|
areas with sparse exploration coverage (usually seismic coverage
only) and far from underground workings are reported in the
indicated mineral resource category; |
|
areas with limited exploration coverage, but still within the
mining lease, are reported in the inferred mineral resource
category. |
Exploration information used to infer and compute resource
tonnage estimates for Saskatchewan consists of physical sampling
(boreholes) and surface seismic data (3D and 2D).
In New Brunswick, where geology is complex, mineral resource
categories are interpreted by the Company as follows:
|
|
|
areas with many drillhole intersections within a seismically
defined area and with consistent stratigraphy, mineralogy and
potash quality are reported in the measured mineral resource
category; |
|
areas with fewer drill intersections within a seismically
defined area, or with structurally modified (folded) and
less consistent mineralogy, but still exhibiting good quality
potash intersections, are reported in the indicated mineral
resource category; |
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 6
|
|
|
areas with sparse drilling, complex geology, partial seismic
coverage and/or inconsistent potash quality in drill
intersections are reported in the inferred mineral resource
category. |
Exploration information used to infer and compute resource
tonnage estimates in New Brunswick consists of physical sampling
(boreholes and regional surface mapping), surface seismic data
(3D and 2D), airborne electromagnetic and regional gravity data.
The Companys estimated mineral resource tonnage as of
December 31, 2006 for each of our mines is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral Resource | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Measured Resource | |
|
Indicated Resource | |
|
Inferred Resource | |
|
|
|
|
(Millions of tonnes | |
|
Millions of tonnes | |
|
(Millions of tonnes | |
|
|
|
|
in-place) | |
|
in-place) | |
|
in-place) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Allan |
|
|
1,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,776 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cory |
|
|
889 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
2,887 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lanigan |
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
2,338 |
|
|
|
1,643 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rocanville |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,096 |
|
|
|
|
|
Patience
Lake(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Esterhazy(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New
Brunswick(3) |
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Given the characteristics of the solution mining method employed
at the Patience Lake mine as described in footnote 5 in the
Mineral Reserve table, it is not possible to
estimate reliably the resource tonnage from this operation. The
Patience Lake mining lease covers 299.7
km2. |
|
|
(2) |
Since mining at Esterhazy is carried out under an agreement with
mine operator Mosaic, all potash tonnes anticipated from this
operation are reported in the Mineral Reserve table.
The Company holds no mineral resource tonnage over and above the
reported reserve at Esterhazy. |
|
|
(3) |
In New Brunswick, the layer of mineralized material varies in
thickness and geology is complex. The Company has identified an
area of 25.1
km2
where this layer of mineralized material is likely to occur.
Further exploration drilling is required to define a mineral
resource tonnage in this area. |
|
The scientific and technical information included in the Potash
Operations section has been prepared under the supervision of
persons who are qualified persons under Canadian
National Instrument 43-101. For Saskatchewan and New Brunswick
operations, Garth Moore, P. Eng. (President, PCS Potash) is the
qualified person who supervised the preparation of the
information and who verified the data disclosed herein.
Data for the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates for
our mining operations reported herein were verified by:
|
|
|
reviewing underground potash sample information (boreholes and
in-mine ore samples); |
|
reviewing surface geophysical exploration results (3D and 2D
seismic data); |
|
cross-checking mined-tonnages reported by minesite technical
staff with tonnages estimated from mine survey information; and |
|
cross-checking reserve and resource computations carried out by
senior mine technologists. |
Phosphate Operations
We mine phosphate ore and manufacture phosphoric acid, solid and
liquid fertilizers, animal feed supplements and purified
phosphoric acid which is used in food products and industrial
processes.
Properties
We conduct our phosphate operations primarily at two facilities,
one a 35,000-acre facility near Aurora, North Carolina and the
other a 100,580-acre facility near White Springs in northern
Florida. We believe the Aurora facility, with a capacity of
1.2 million tonnes of phosphoric acid
(P2O5)
per year, to be the largest integrated phosphate mine and
phosphate processing complex at one site in the world. The
Aurora facility includes a 6.0 million tonne per-year
mining operation, four sulfuric acid plants, four phosphoric
acid plants, four purified acid plants, a liquid fertilizer
plant, a superphosphoric acid (SPA) plant, a
defluorinated phosphate (DFP) or animal feed plant
and two granulation plants capable of producing diammonium
phosphate (DAP) or monoammonium phosphate
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 7
(MAP). The expansion of the companys purified
acid production facility at Aurora was completed in
June 2006. The expansion increased the facilitys
purified acid capacity by 82,000 tonnes per year, raising the
total plant capacity to 333,000 tonnes per year of purified
phosphoric acid.
The White Springs facility is the third largest phosphoric acid
producer, by capacity, in the United States. The White Springs
facility includes a mine and two production facilities, Suwannee
River and Swift Creek, with two sulfuric acid plants, one
phosphoric acid plant, two DAP plants, a SPA plant, a dicalcium
phosphate plant and a DFP plant located at the Suwannee River
complex and two sulfuric acid plants, a phosphoric acid plant
and a superphosphoric plant located at the Swift Creek complex.
The location of our Aurora and White Springs mining operations
are as shown on the following map.
At our Geismar, Louisiana facility, we manufacture phosphoric
acid. The Geismar facility has a sulfuric acid plant, a
phosphoric acid plant and a liquid fertilizer plant. A
significant portion of the phosphoric acid produced at the
Geismar facility is sold as feedstock to Innophos, Inc. for use
in its neighboring purified acid plant. Our other phosphate
properties include:
|
|
|
animal feed plants in Marseilles, Illinois; Weeping Water,
Nebraska; Joplin, Missouri; and Sao Vincente, Brazil; |
|
a technical and food grade phosphate plant in Cincinnati, Ohio;
and |
|
terminal facilities at Morehead City, North Carolina and
Savannah, Georgia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant Locations |
|
Phosphate Products Produced |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aurora, North Carolina |
|
DAP, MAP, SPA, animal feed, liquid fertilizer, purified acid,
merchant grade phosphoric acid (MGA) |
|
|
|
|
White Springs, Florida |
|
SPA, DAP, MAP, MGA, animal feed |
|
|
|
|
Cincinnati, Ohio |
|
Blended purified acid products |
|
|
|
|
Geismar,
Louisiana(1) |
|
MGA |
|
|
|
|
Marseilles, Illinois |
|
Animal feed |
|
|
|
|
Weeping Water, Nebraska |
|
Animal feed |
|
|
|
|
Joplin, Missouri |
|
Animal feed |
|
|
|
|
Sao Vincente, Brazil |
|
Animal feed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In July 2006, we indefinitely suspended production of
superphosphoric acid and ammonium polyphosphate products at this
location. |
|
Production
We extract phosphate ore using surface mining techniques. At
each mine site, the ore is mixed with recycled water to form a
slurry, which is pumped from the mine site to our processing
facilities. The ore is then screened to remove
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 8
coarse materials, washed to remove clay and floated to remove
limestone and calcareous gangue to produce phosphate
rock. The annual production capacity of our mines is
currently 9.6 million tonnes of phosphate rock. During
2006, the Aurora facilitys total production of phosphate
rock was 4.58 million tonnes and the White Springs
facilitys total production of phosphate rock was
3.11 million tonnes. The sequence for mining portions of
the Aurora property has been identified in the permit issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1997. The permit expires in
2017, but the reserves in these areas could be exhausted before
then. We are seeking a new permit from the Corps to mine
additional areas. The Company expects to have the necessary
approvals for mine continuation by the end of 2007. Failure to
secure the required approvals for continuation of the mining
operations, on acceptable terms, would negatively affect our
reserves and costs.
Phosphate rock is the major input in our phosphorus processing
operations. Substantially all of the phosphate rock produced is
used internally for the production of phosphoric acid, SPA,
chemical fertilizers, purified phosphoric acid and animal feed
products. Unlike the Aurora and White Springs operations, the
Geismar facility does not mine phosphate rock. Presently, the
Geismar facility purchases phosphate rock from Morocco pursuant
to a long-term agreement with a Moroccan government-owned
company, wherein prices are reset at prescribed dates through
negotiation.
In addition to phosphate ore, the principal raw materials we
require are sulfur and ammonia. The production of phosphoric
acid requires substantial quantities of sulfur, which we
purchase from third parties. In December 1997, we entered into a
ten-year supply contract with an offshore supplier to supply a
portion of our sulfur requirements. In connection therewith, we
built a multipurpose ocean-going vessel to ship such sulfur and
to handle sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid and other chemicals. We
produce sulfuric acid at the Aurora facility, White Springs
facility and Geismar facility.
Our phosphate operations purchase all of their ammonia at market
rates from or through our nitrogen and sales subsidiaries.
Phosphoric acid is reacted with ammonia to produce DAP and MAP
as well as liquid fertilizers. In addition, ammonia operations
include the purchase, sale and terminalling of anhydrous
ammonia. Much of the ammonia that we purchase from third parties
is produced in Russia and imported through an ammonia terminal
which we operate located within the port of Savannah.
We produce MGA at Aurora, White Springs and Geismar. Some MGA is
sold to foreign and domestic fertilizer producers and industrial
customers. We further process the balance of the MGA to make
solid fertilizer (DAP and MAP); liquid fertilizers; animal feed
supplements for the poultry and livestock markets; and purified
phosphoric acid for use in a wide variety of food, technical and
industrial applications.
The following table sets forth, for each of the last three
years, the Companys production of phosphate rock
(including tonnage and grade) and the production of phosphoric
acid.
Phosphate Rock
(Millions of tonnes)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
Production | |
|
% P2O5 | |
|
Production | |
|
% P2O5 | |
|
Production | |
|
% P2O5 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Aurora, NC |
|
|
6.0 |
|
|
|
4.577 |
|
|
|
27.62 |
|
|
|
4.417 |
|
|
|
27.68 |
|
|
|
3.964 |
|
|
|
27.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
White Springs, FL |
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
3.114 |
|
|
|
29.79 |
|
|
|
3.186 |
|
|
|
30.28 |
|
|
|
2.745 |
|
|
|
30.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
Geismar, LA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
9.6 |
|
|
|
7.691 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.709 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 9
Phosphoric Acid
(Millions of tonnes
P2O5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual | |
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
Capacity | |
|
Production | |
|
Production | |
|
Production | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Aurora, NC |
|
|
1.202 |
|
|
|
1.080 |
|
|
|
1.048 |
|
|
|
1.018 |
|
|
|
|
|
White Springs, FL |
|
|
0.966 |
|
|
|
0.881 |
|
|
|
0.865 |
|
|
|
0.773 |
|
|
|
|
|
Geismar, LA |
|
|
0.202 |
|
|
|
0.147 |
|
|
|
0.184 |
|
|
|
0.171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
2.370 |
|
|
|
2.108 |
|
|
|
2.097 |
|
|
|
1.962 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserves
Our phosphate deposits in North Carolina occur in a formation
known as the Pungo River formation of the middle Miocene age.
The formation, typically 75 feet to 125 feet below ground
surface, is composed of interbedded phosphatic sands, silts and
clays, diatomaceous clays and phosphatic limestone. Phosphate of
value in the ore horizon occurs as pellets of brown and black
sand-sized particles, with flat-sided angular quartz grains and
variable amounts of silt, clay and interbedded limestone. The
phosphate ore (matrix) horizon throughout is distinguished
by its relative uniformity in thickness, percent
P2O5
and other quality characteristics.
Our White Springs operations are in Hamilton County, Florida.
The Hamilton County phosphate deposits in the North Florida
Phosphate District are reported to be of the middle Miocene and
Pliocene ages. Because of partial reworking during the Pliocene
age, these deposits tend to be more variable than middle Miocene
deposits, such as those found in North Carolina.
In estimating our phosphate reserves, we had previously retained
a third party to prepare reports of the estimated phosphate ore
reserves at Aurora and White Springs. Based on (i) a review
and assessment of the Companys land-ownership maps,
(ii) drilling and technical assays and assessments,
(iii) discussions with Company personnel familiar both with
the geology of the phosphate ore deposits and each sites
mining operations and (iv) judgments regarding the
recoverability of phosphate from the ore deposits based on
economic and technical factors such as the ore grade, mining,
transportation and beneficiation issues and environmental and
regulatory factors, the reserve estimates set forth in the
reports were developed.
Since receipt of the reports (1995 for Aurora and 1997 for White
Springs) we annually adjusted and updated the ore reserve
estimates for both the Aurora and White Springs operations by
making adjustments for ore consumed, number of tonnes sterilized
(i.e., bypassed), deletions (for property sold, traded or agreed
to be set aside for environmental or other purposes), additions
(based on land and mineral right acquisitions) and other
appropriate adjustments. There has been no third party review of
the estimates within the last three years.
The following table sets forth the Companys estimated
proven and probable phosphate reserves for Aurora and White
Springs as at December 31, 2006 at an average grade of
30.7%
P2O5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tonnes of | |
|
|
|
|
Phosphate Rock | |
|
Average Grade | |
|
|
|
|
(Millions of tonnes) | |
|
% P2O5 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Aurora |
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
30.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
White Springs |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
30.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reserves set forth above for Aurora would permit mining to
continue at annual production rates for about 90 years.
This mine life is based on an average annual production rate of
approximately 3.89 million tonnes of 30.7% concentrate over
the three-year period ended December 31, 2006. Prior to our
acquisition of Texasgulf in April 1995, Texasgulf transferred
approximately 408 million tonnes of phosphate reserves to a
newly established company, the common stock of which was
transferred to Elf Aquitaine, Inc. and Williams Acquisition
Holding Company, Inc. We were granted a 20-year right of first
refusal (from April 10, 1995) in the event that the newly
established company proposes to sell the reserves.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 10
The reserves set forth above for White Springs would permit
mining to continue at annual production rates for about
17 years. This mine life is based on an average annual
production rate of approximately 2.98 million tonnes of
30.7% concentrate over the three-year period ended
December 31, 2006.
The scientific and technical information included in the
Phosphate Operations section has been prepared by persons who
are qualified persons under Canadian National
Instrument 43-101. For
the Aurora operation, I. K. Gilmore CPG, PG (PCS
Phosphate Aurora, Superintendent Mine Planning &
Chief Geologist) is the qualified person who prepared the
information and who verified the data disclosed here. For the
White Springs operation, Cameron Lynch P.E. (PCS
Phosphate White Springs, Superintendent Mine
Planning/ Mine Services) is the qualified person who supervised
the preparation of the information and verified the data
disclosed herein.
Data for the mineral reserve estimates reported for Aurora were
verified by reviewing:
|
|
|
existing reserve areas for ownership status and mining
parameters; |
|
drill hole database; |
|
surveyed areas mined, sterilized, acquired or deleted; |
|
the calculated area of drill hole influence; and |
|
the calculation of the in situ tonnes of
P2O5
depleted or added as summarized in monthly and annual reports. |
Data for the mineral reserve estimates reported for White
Springs were verified by reviewing:
|
|
|
existing reserve areas for ownership status and mine geometry
parameters; |
|
existing and new drill hole data; |
|
input and output parameters for analysis in geostatistical
three-dimensional modeling software developed by a third-party
vendor; |
|
mined-tonnage reported by mine operations staff with tonnages
forecast by Mine Planning staff; and |
|
reserve computations carried out by senior staff geologist. |
Nitrogen Operations
Our nitrogen operations include production of nitrogen
fertilizers and nitrogen chemicals. These products are used for
agricultural, industrial and animal nutrition purposes.
Properties
We have four nitrogen production facilities, of which three are
located in the United States and one is located in Trinidad. The
following table sets forth the facility locations and production
capabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant Locations(1) |
|
Nitrogen Products Produced |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Augusta, Georgia |
|
Ammonia, urea, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate and nitrogen
solutions |
|
|
|
|
Geismar,
Louisiana(2) |
|
Ammonia, nitric acid and nitrogen solutions |
|
|
|
|
Lima,
Ohio(3) |
|
Ammonia, urea, nitric acid and nitrogen solutions |
|
|
|
|
Point Lisas, Trinidad |
|
Ammonia and urea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In September 2006, we permanently discontinued ammonia and urea
production at our Memphis, Tennessee facility, which had been in
indefinite shutdown since June 2003. |
|
|
(2) |
In June 2003, we suspended production of ammonia and nitrogen
solutions at Geismar due to high U.S. natural gas costs and low
product margins. On September 15, 2005, nitrogen solutions
production in Geismar was restarted. |
|
|
(3) |
INEOS USA LLC operates the Lima facility under an operating
agreement with the Company. |
|
Production
Unlike potash and phosphate, nitrogen is not mined. It is taken
from the air and reacted with a hydrogen source, usually natural
gas reformed with steam, to produce ammonia. We can produce
ammonia at all domestic plants and in Trinidad. The ammonia is
used to produce a full line of upgraded nitrogen products,
including urea, nitrogen solutions, ammonium nitrate and nitric
acid. Ammonia, urea and nitrogen solutions are sold as
fertilizers to agricultural customers and to industrial
customers for various applications, while nitric acid and
ammonium nitrate are sold to industrial customers for various
applications. Urea is also sold for animal feed applications.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 11
Raw Materials
Natural gas is the primary raw material used for the production
of nearly all of our nitrogen products. In the U.S., we employ
natural gas hedges with the goal of minimizing risk from
volatile gas prices. In Trinidad, natural gas is purchased
pursuant to long-term contracts using pricing formulas related
to the market price of ammonia. In Trinidad, we have multiple
long-term gas contracts in place which can provide the entire
ammonia complex with 100% of our needs, including all announced
expansions for 2007, 95% through 2010, 85% through 2011, 81%
through 2012, 69% through 2013 and 61% through 2018. With the
exception of the Trinidad facility, we purchase most of our
natural gas from producers or marketers at the point of delivery
of the natural gas into the pipeline system, then pay the
pipeline company and, where applicable, the local distribution
company to transport the natural gas to our nitrogen facilities.
Approximately 91% of our domestic consumption of natural gas by
our nitrogen operations is delivered pursuant to firm
transportation contracts, which do not permit the pipeline or
local distribution company to interrupt service to, or divert
natural gas from, the plant.
Marketing
The following table summarizes our sales from potash, phosphate
and nitrogen products (by geographical distribution) in the past
three fiscal years. Certain of the prior years figures
have been reclassified to conform with the current years
presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(millions of dollars) | |
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada |
|
$ |
65.7 |
|
|
$ |
69.3 |
|
|
$ |
48.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
|
557.6 |
|
|
|
576.6 |
|
|
|
445.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canpotex(1) |
|
|
467.1 |
|
|
|
577.1 |
|
|
|
421.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
137.1 |
|
|
|
118.1 |
|
|
|
140.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,227.5 |
|
|
$ |
1,341.1 |
|
|
$ |
1,056.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nitrogen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada |
|
$ |
13.9 |
|
|
$ |
16.8 |
|
|
$ |
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
|
1,185.1 |
|
|
|
1,262.1 |
|
|
|
1,116.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
85.1 |
|
|
|
89.9 |
|
|
|
89.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,284.1 |
|
|
$ |
1,368.8 |
|
|
$ |
1,210.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phosphates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada |
|
$ |
78.1 |
|
|
$ |
89.1 |
|
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
|
799.9 |
|
|
|
754.3 |
|
|
|
680.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhosChem(1) |
|
|
232.2 |
|
|
|
166.7 |
|
|
|
140.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
144.9 |
|
|
|
127.2 |
|
|
|
74.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,255.1 |
|
|
$ |
1,137.3 |
|
|
$ |
977.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
See discussion below for information regarding Canpotex Limited
(Canpotex) and Phosphate Chemicals Export
Association, Inc. (PhosChem) sales. |
|
For financial information about our business segments and North
American and offshore sales, see the information under
Business Segment Review on pages 26
through 33 in our 2006 Financial Review, attached as
Exhibit 13, and Note 18, Segment Information, to our
2006 consolidated financial statements, incorporated by
reference under Item 8 in this report. Information with
respect to the geographical locations of long-lived assets is
disclosed in Note 18, Segment Information, to our 2006
consolidated financial statements incorporated by reference
under Item 8 in this report.
We have a diversified customer base and, apart from sales to
Canpotex, no one customer accounted for more than 10% of our
sales in 2006.
Potash from our Saskatchewan mines for sale outside Canada and
the United States is sold exclusively to Canpotex. PCS Sales
(Canada) Inc. and PCS Sales (USA), Inc. execute offshore
marketing and sales for our New Brunswick
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 12
potash and marketing and sales for our potash, phosphate and
nitrogen products in Canada. PCS Sales (USA), Inc. executes
marketing and sales for our potash, phosphate and nitrogen
products in the United States. PhosChem, an association formed
under the U.S. Webb-Pomerene Act, is the principal
vehicle through which we execute offshore marketing and sales
for our phosphate fertilizers. See Offshore
Marketing below.
North American Marketing
In 2006, North American sales from potash products represented
17% of our total sales, substantially all of which were
attributable to potash customers in the United States.
Typically, our North American potash sales are larger in the
first half of the year. The vast majority of sales are made on
the spot market with the balance made under short-term
contracts. We have no material contractual obligations in
connection with North American sales to sell potash in the
future at a fixed price.
In 2006, North American sales from phosphate products
represented 23% of our total sales, substantially all of which
were attributable to phosphate customers in the United States.
In 2006, the majority of our phosphate product sales were made
on the spot market, with the balance made under short-term
contracts (generally on an annual basis) and a limited number of
sales made pursuant to multi-year contracts. We have no material
contractual obligations in connection with North American sales
to sell phosphate products in the future at a fixed price.
In 2006, North American sales from nitrogen products represented
32% of our total sales and our total non-fertilizer products
accounted for approximately 69% of our total nitrogen revenue.
Typically, North American nitrogen fertilizer sales are greatest
in the second calendar quarter. In 2006, the majority of our
nitrogen product sales were made on the spot market, with the
balance made under short-term and multi-year contracts. We have
no material contractual obligations in connection with North
American sales to sell nitrogen in the future at a fixed price.
Ammonia purchased by us is used in our operations and is sold to
third party customers by PCS Sales (USA), Inc.
The primary customers for fertilizer products are retailers,
dealers, cooperatives, distributors and other fertilizer
producers. Such retailers, dealers and cooperatives have both
distribution and application capabilities. The primary customers
for industrial products are chemical product manufacturers. The
majority of our purified phosphoric acid is sold directly to
consumers of the product, with the balance sold through an
authorized non-exclusive distribution network.
Offshore Marketing
Potash we produce in Saskatchewan for sale outside Canada and
the United States is sold to Canpotex, which is owned in equal
shares by the three potash producers in the Province of
Saskatchewan (including us). Canpotex, which was incorporated in
1970 and commenced operations in 1972, acts as an export company
and as a unified sales, marketing and distribution force for all
Saskatchewan potash production in the offshore marketplace. Each
shareholder of Canpotex has an equal voting interest as a
shareholder and through its nominees on the board of directors.
All the shareholders of Canpotex have agreed that, as long as
they are members of Canpotex, and with respect to potash
produced in Canada, they will not make offshore sales
independently. The members of Canpotex have exempted production
from our New Brunswick mine from this requirement. Any member
may terminate its membership in Canpotex at specified times of
the year on six months notice.
In general, Canpotex sales are allocated among the producers
based on production capacity. If a shareholder cannot satisfy
demand for potash by Canpotex, the remaining shareholders are
entitled to satisfy the demand pro rata based on their allotted
production capacity. In 2006 we supplied 55.8% of
Canpotexs requirements. Canpotex generally sells potash to
government agencies and private firms pursuant to contracts at
negotiated prices or by spot sales.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 13
The following table sets forth the percentage of sales volumes
by Canpotex for the past three calendar years in the various
geographical regions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Asia |
|
|
70% |
|
|
|
73% |
|
|
|
69% |
|
|
|
|
|
Latin America |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Oceania |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Europe |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For 2006, sales to Canpotex represented 12% of our total sales.
Offshore sales of potash from the New Brunswick mine, through
PCS Sales (Canada) Inc. and PCS Sales (USA), Inc., represented
4% of our total sales in 2006.
Since 1975, PhosChem has been the largest exporter of U.S.
phosphate fertilizers. Currently, the members of PhosChem are
PCS Sales (USA), Inc., Mosaic Global Crop Nutrition LLC and CF
Industries, Inc. The PhosChem members have agreed to export
their fertilizer products exclusively through PhosChem, except
for exports to Canada, any member state of the European Union or
the European Economic Area, sales through the U.S. Agency for
International Development Tenders and sales to certain buyers
affiliated with members. Historically, PhosChem negotiated
prices and other terms for the export sale of its members
phosphate fertilizer products. According to the terms of a
PhosChem agreement effective January 1, 1995, Mosaic Global
Operations Inc. is responsible for the marketing of solid
fertilizers (DAP, MAP and GTSP), and PCS Sales (USA), Inc., is
responsible for the marketing of liquid merchant grade
phosphoric acid to export countries. Total sales for 2006 (on a
P2O5
basis) were apportioned as follows: 78% to Mosaic Global Crop
Nutrition LLC; 18% to PCS Sales (USA), Inc., 2% to Mississippi
Phosphates Corporation and 2% to CF Industries, Inc. The
PhosChem agreement is renewed annually. Effective
December 31, 2006, Mississippi Phosphates Corporation
withdrew from PhosChem.
Revenue from sales to PhosChem accounted for 6% of our total
sales in 2006. Other offshore phosphate sales accounted for 4%
of our total sales in 2006. All of our phosphate fertilizer
sales to China were made through PhosChem. In 2006, 92% of
PhosChems sales volume was in the form of DAP.
The following table sets forth the percentage of DAP sales
volumes of PhosChem for the past three calendar years in the
various geographical regions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Asia |
|
|
71% |
|
|
|
79% |
|
|
|
78% |
|
|
|
|
|
Latin America |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Oceania |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to offshore sales of nitrogen, ammonia and urea
sales predominate and originate primarily from Trinidad, with
other sales coming from purchased product locations. For 2006,
our offshore sales of nitrogen products represented 2% of our
total sales.
Offshore sales are subject to those risks customarily
encountered in foreign operations, including
(i) fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates;
(ii) changes in currency and exchange controls;
(iii) the availability of foreign exchange; (iv) laws,
policies and actions affecting foreign trade; and (v) other
economic, political and regulatory policies of foreign
governments.
Distribution and Transportation
We have an extensive infrastructure and distribution system to
store and transport our products. In addition to storage located
at our production facilities, in 2006, we owned or leased
approximately 176 strategically located warehouses to store our
products and better serve our customers. To complement our
distribution system, we also own or lease approximately 7,100
rail cars.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 14
In 2006, the industry experienced significant cost increases
with regard to truck and rail freight rates, rail equipment and
leasing ocean vessels for dry cargo shipments as a result of
greater demand than available supply.
Potash Products
Transportation costs add significantly to the total cost of
potash. Producers have a definite advantage in markets close to
their sources of supply (e.g., Saskatchewan producers in the
Midwestern United States, New Brunswick producers on the U.S.
Eastern Seaboard and New Mexico producers in the Southern and
Western United States). International shipping cost variances
permit offshore producers (including those in the nations of the
former Soviet Union, Germany and Israel) to compete effectively
in some of our traditional markets.
Most of our potash for North American customers is shipped by
rail. Shipments are also made by rail from each of our
Saskatchewan mines to Thunder Bay, Ontario, for shipment by lake
vessel to our warehouses and storage facilities in Canada and
the United States. Potash from the New Brunswick mine is shipped
primarily by ocean-going vessel from the Port of Saint John,
although truck and rail transport are also used for North
American customers.
In the case of our sales to Canpotex, potash is transported by
rail principally to Vancouver, British Columbia, where port
facilities exist for storage pending shipment overseas. We have
an equity interest in Canpotex Bulk Terminals Limited, which is
a part owner of these port facilities. Through Canpotex, we also
have an interest in a port facility located in Portland, Oregon.
Phosphate Products
With respect to phosphates, we have long-term leases on shipping
terminals in Morehead City and Beaufort, North Carolina, through
which we receive and store Aurora facility raw materials and
finished product. We use barges and tugboats to transport solid
products, phosphoric acid and sulfur between the Aurora facility
and Morehead City, North Carolina. Raw materials and products,
including sulfur, are also transported to and from the Aurora
facility by rail.
Sulfur is delivered to the White Springs facility by rail and
truck from Canada and the U.S. Most of the phosphoric acid and
chemical fertilizers produced at the White Springs facility are
shipped to domestic destinations by rail. We also ship some of
our products, produced at the White Springs facility, through
the bulk terminal located in Morehead City, North Carolina and
through a leased terminal in Tampa, Florida, for offshore sales.
We receive ammonia for our phosphate operations at White Springs
and Aurora primarily through our ammonia terminal in Savannah,
Georgia; the ammonia is shipped by rail from Savannah to the
White Springs facility.
Much of the Geismar facilitys phosphoric acid and sulfuric
acid is delivered via pipeline to nearby customers. The balance
of the facilitys phosphate products are shipped by rail or
tank truck. Phosphate rock feedstock is delivered to Geismar
from Morocco in large ocean-going vessels. Sulfur is delivered
to the Geismar facility by barge, truck and rail.
Nitrogen Products
We distribute our nitrogen products by vessel, barge, railcar,
truck and direct pipeline to our customers and through our
strategically located storage terminals in high consumption
areas. We lease or own approximately 19 nitrogen terminal
facilities. The terminals provide off-season storage and also
serve local dealers during the peak seasonal demand period.
We distribute products from the Trinidad plant to markets in
Latin America and Europe in addition to the United States. Our
distribution operations in Trinidad employ three long-term
chartered ocean-going vessels and utilize short-term and spot
charters as necessary for the transportation of ammonia. All
bulk urea production from Trinidad is shipped through
third-party carriers.
Competition
Potash is a commodity and consequently producers compete based
on price and service (e.g., delivery time and ability to supply
high quality material). We price competitively and sell high
quality products and provide high
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 15
quality service to our customers. Our service includes
maintaining warehouses, leasing railcars and chartering
ocean-going vessels to enhance our delivery capabilities. The
high cost of transporting potash affects competition in various
geographic areas. Our competition includes three North American
producers and offshore producers located in the former Soviet
Union, the Middle East and Europe.
Markets for phosphate products are highly competitive. Our
principal advantage at Aurora and White Springs is that we
operate integrated phosphate mine and phosphate processing
complexes, while most of our competitors are required to ship
phosphate rock by rail or truck greater distances from their
mines to their mineral processing plants, thus incurring
substantially higher rock processing costs. In addition, due to
our location in North Carolina and the relatively high cost of
transportation, our U.S. phosphate sales from Aurora have a
natural advantage in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic and eastern
Midwest regions. Similarly, White Springs and other Florida
producers have a natural advantage in the South. Gulf Coast
producers have a natural advantage in areas of the Midwest
accessible to barge traffic up the Mississippi River.
We compete with government enterprises and independent phosphate
producers in important exporting countries, including Morocco,
Tunisia, Jordan, South Africa, Russia and Australia. In
addition, increased phosphate fertilizer production in the
traditionally important U.S. export markets of China and India
have impacted U.S. export sales to those countries.
Within the animal feed supplement business in the phosphate
segment, opportunities exist to differentiate products based on
nutritional content, thereby making it less commodity-like. We
have a significant presence in the domestic feed supplement
market segments.
Industrial products are the least commodity-like of the
phosphate products as product quality is a more significant
consideration for customer buying decisions. We market
industrial phosphate products only in the U.S. and we compete
against domestic suppliers and imports from Morocco, Israel and
China.
Nitrogen, globally the most widely produced nutrient, is
primarily a regional business. However, ammonia, the feedstock
for all nitrogen products, can be manufactured in any country
with adequate natural gas supplies and can enable developing
nations to monetize their natural gas resources. Several
countries with large reserves and low production costs use
little of their gas domestically, and can produce ammonia
cheaply for the export market. Rising natural gas costs in the
developed world have led to plant closures, since natural gas is
up to 90% of the cash cost of producing ammonia in these
developed countries. The resulting tight supply has increased
prices, attracting less expensive imports from areas of
lower-cost natural gas such as Trinidad, Venezuela and the
Middle East.
Nitrogen is an input into industrial production of a wide range
of products. Manufacturers want consistent quality and
just-in-time delivery to keep their plants running. Many
industrial consumers are attached to their suppliers by pipeline.
Our nitrogen production serves both fertilizer and industrial
customers. Our U.S. plants primarily supply industrial
customers, and Trinidad supplies both our fertilizer and
industrial customers. We are not immune when expensive natural
gas makes U.S. ammonia plants non-competitive with offshore
production, but our lower-cost Trinidad operations help offset
this. Within North America, sales are regionalized due to
transportation costs. CF Industries, Inc., Koch Industries,
Inc., Terra Industries, Inc. and importers are our main
competitors. Imports from inexpensive offshore production are
expected to continue.
Employees
At December 31, 2006, we employed 4,871 persons, of whom
1,692 were salaried and 3,179 were hourly paid. Of these
employees, our potash operations employed 1,677 people, the
phosphate operations 2,052 and the nitrogen operations 669. Our
sales and transportation and distribution functions were handled
by 192 employees in Northbrook, Illinois and various other
locations in the United States and Brazil and 19 employees in
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Excluding sales personnel, the
Saskatoon and Northbrook offices had a staff of 262.
We have entered into eight collective bargaining agreements with
labor organizations representing employees. The collective
bargaining agreements at the Allan, Cory and Patience Lake
divisions expire on April 30, 2008. The Lanigan agreement
expires on January 31, 2009. PCS and the Rocanville Potash
Employees Association have an agreement that expires on
May 31, 2009. The agreement between Mosaic and the union
representing the employees
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 16
at the Esterhazy mine expired on January 31, 2007 and
negotiations for a new agreement have commenced. The agreement
at PCS Cassidy Lake expires on December 31, 2007. The
collective bargaining agreement with the union representing
employees at the White Springs plant expires on December 4,
2009 and the agreement at the PCS Purified Phosphates facility
in Cincinnati expires on November 1, 2007. In addition, the
agreement between INEOS USA LLC and the union representing
employees at the Lima plant expires on February 16, 2009.
We believe our relations with our employees to be good.
Royalties and Certain Taxes
Saskatchewan potash production is taxed at the provincial level
under The Mineral Taxation Act, 1983 (Saskatchewan).
This tax consists of a base payment and a profits tax
(Potash Production Tax). In addition to the Potash
Production Tax, rental fees, taxes and royalties are payable to
the Province of Saskatchewan, municipalities and others by
potash producers in respect of potash sales, production or
property in the Province of Saskatchewan. Our taxes, fees and
royalty expenses were $60.8 million in 2006.
As a resource corporation in the Province of Saskatchewan, we
are subject to capital tax that is the greater of a percentage
of our taxable paid up capital or a percentage of the value of
our resource sales (as defined in The Corporation Capital Tax
Act of Saskatchewan). In addition, we pay capital tax on our
taxable capital as defined in the New Brunswick Income Tax
Act. In 2006, we paid total capital tax of
$33.8 million .
We pay royalties to the New Brunswick government on the basis of
production from our New Brunswick mine. In addition, we pay
municipal taxes. Our expenses for such royalties and municipal
taxes were $8.9 million in 2006.
For 2006, miscellaneous taxes paid (not included above) totaled
$4.0 million. We do not make royalty payments in connection
with our phosphate and nitrogen operations.
Income Taxes
PCS and certain subsidiaries are subject to federal income taxes
(which include the Large Corporations Tax) and provincial income
taxes in Canada.
Our subsidiaries that operate in the United States are subject
to U.S. federal and state income taxes. These subsidiaries are
not currently subject to federal cash income taxes by virtue of
net operating losses incurred. Our nitrogen subsidiary operating
in Trinidad is subject to Trinidadian taxes.
The consolidated reported income tax rate for 2006 was
approximately 20% compared to 33% in 2005. The lower rate
resulted from reducing our consolidated effective income tax
rate from 33% to 30% to reflect lower Canadian federal and
provincial corporate income tax rates enacted during the year.
This decreased our future income tax liability by
$44.8 million, the benefit of which was recorded in 2006.
In addition, we received income tax refunds totalling
$34.1 million during the year.
Environmental Matters
Our operations are subject to numerous environmental
requirements under federal, provincial, state and local laws and
regulations of Canada, U.S., Brazil and Trinidad and Tobago.
These laws and regulations govern matters such as air emissions,
wastewater discharges, land use and reclamation and solid and
hazardous waste management. Many of these laws, regulations and
permit requirements are becoming increasingly stringent, and the
cost of compliance with these requirements can be expected to
increase over time.
Our operating expenses, other than those associated with asset
retirement obligations, relating to compliance with
environmental laws and regulations governing ongoing operations
were approximately $92.6 million for the year ended
December 31, 2006, as compared to $87.2 million and
$68.9 million for the years ending December 31, 2005
and December 31, 2004, respectively. These amounts include
environmental operating expenses related primarily to the
production of phosphoric acid, fertilizer, feed and other
products.
We routinely undertake environmental capital projects. In 2006,
capital expenditures of $13.6 million (2005
$10.0 million) were incurred to meet pollution prevention
and control objectives and $0.2 million (2005
$0.6 million) were incurred to meet other environmental
objectives. Future capital expenditures are subject to a number
of uncertainties, including changes to environmental regulations
and interpretations, and enforcement
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 17
initiatives. While we currently anticipate that our operating
and capital expenditures related to environmental regulatory
matters in 2007 will not differ materially from amounts expended
in the past two years, at this time we are unable to estimate
the capital expenditures we may make in subsequent years to meet
pollution prevention and control objectives and other
environmental objectives.
Environmental Requirements, Permits and Regulatory
Approvals
Many of our operations and facilities are required by federal,
provincial, state and local environmental laws to operate in
compliance with a range of regulatory requirements, permits and
approvals. Such permits and approvals typically have to be
renewed or reissued periodically. We may also become subject to
new laws or regulations that impose new requirements or require
us to obtain new or additional permits or approvals. We believe
that we are currently in material compliance with existing
regulatory programs, permits and approvals. However, there can
be no assurance that such permits or approvals will issue in the
ordinary course. Further, the terms and conditions of future
regulations, permits and approvals may be more stringent and may
require increased expenditures on our part.
With respect to air emissions, we anticipate that additional
actions and expenditures may be required to meet increasingly
stringent U.S. federal and state regulatory and permit
requirements, including existing and anticipated regulations
under the federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) has issued a number of
regulations establishing requirements to reduce nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emissions and other air pollutant emissions.
We continue to monitor developments in these various programs
and to assess their potential impact on our operations.
In 2002, the Canadian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol,
which calls for Canada to reduce its emissions of
greenhouse gases to 94% of its 1990 emissions by
2012. The Kyoto Protocol became effective on February 16,
2005. The Canadian government continues to consider regulatory
approaches for addressing the Kyoto Protocol requirements.
Accordingly, we are unable to predict the impact of this program
on our operations in Canada. The United States is not presently
expected to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and has announced plans
for voluntary programs and incentives. Brazil and Trinidad and
Tobago have also ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Our operations
there would not be immediately impacted by the implementation of
the treaty as these are developing countries, which do not have
any specific emission reduction requirements. We continue to
monitor the development of programs to implement the obligations
established by the Kyoto Protocol and will continue to assess
the range of potential impacts of these programs on our
operations.
The USEPA announced an initiative to evaluate implementation
within the phosphate industry of a particular exemption for
mineral processing wastes under the hazardous waste program. In
connection with this industry-wide initiative, the USEPA
conducted hazardous waste compliance evaluation inspections at
numerous phosphate operations, including our plants in Aurora,
North Carolina, Geismar, Louisiana and White Springs, Florida.
On September 27, 2005 and December 14, 2005,
respectively, the USEPA notified us of various alleged
violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
at our Aurora and White Springs plants. We and other
industry members have met with representatives of the U.S.
Department of Justice, USEPA and various state environmental
agencies regarding potential resolution of these matters. We are
uncertain if any resolution will be possible without litigation
or, if litigation occurs, what the outcome would be. At this
time, we are unable to evaluate the extent of any exposure that
we may have in these matters.
Significant portions of our phosphate reserves in Aurora, North
Carolina are located in wetlands. Under the Clean Water
Act, we must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps) before disturbing the
wetlands. We have a permit from the Corps to mine specified
areas. This permit expires in 2017, but the reserves in these
areas could be exhausted before then. We are seeking a new
permit from the Corps to mine additional areas. This process
includes significant public review and comment that could affect
current mitigation and reclamation practices. The Company
expects to have the necessary approvals for mine continuation by
the end of 2007. Failure to secure the required approvals for
continuation of the mining operations on acceptable terms would
negatively affect our reserves and costs.
In 2003, the Corps issued a federal wetlands impact permit,
expiring in 2040, for mining operations covering nearly all
remaining reserves in the White Springs project area. State
approvals were granted for the same area with no expiration
date. Local (Hamilton County) approval was granted in 2003 for
that area, with provision for a five-year
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 18
compliance review and automatic renewal of the permit,
contingent only upon compliance with permit conditions at the
time of renewal.
Asset Retirement Obligations
We have recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements an asset retirement obligation for the costs
associated with the retirement of our long-lived assets when a
legal liability to retire such assets exists. This includes
obligations incurred as a result of acquisition, construction or
normal operation of these assets. The major categories of asset
retirement obligations include reclamation and restoration costs
at our potash and phosphate mining operations (most particularly
phosphate mining), including the management of materials
generated by mining and mineral processing, such as various mine
tailings and gypsum; land reclamation and revegetation programs;
decommissioning of underground and surface operating facilities;
general clean-up activities aimed at returning the areas to an
environmentally acceptable condition; and post-closure care and
maintenance.
The estimation of asset retirement obligation costs depends on
the development of environmentally acceptable closure and
post-closure plans, which, in some cases, may require
significant research and development to identify preferred
methods for such plans which are economically sound and which,
in most cases, may not be implemented for several decades. We
have continued to utilize appropriate technical resources,
including outside consultants, to develop specific site closure
and post-closure plans in accordance with the requirements of
the various jurisdictions in which we operate. Our asset
retirement obligations include reclamation costs related to the
gypsum stack capping, closure and post-closure operating and
maintenance requirements applicable to our phosphate facilities.
The asset retirement obligations are generally incurred over an
extended period of time. At December 31, 2006, we had
accrued a total of $100.7 million for asset retirement
obligations. The current portion totaled $7.2 million.
Lands mined by White Springs after July 1, 1975 and unmined
lands used in certain mining operations after July 1, 1984
are subject to mandatory reclamation requirements of the State
of Florida. Reclaimed lands include uplands, wetlands and lakes.
Wetlands must be reclaimed on an acre-for-acre basis. For
wetlands mined prior to 2003, alternative mitigation standards
are established by a Memorandum of Agreement between us and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to which
we have contributed $6.9 million through the end of 2006
for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. The
current practice of White Springs is to return most upland areas
to commercial pine plantation, which is the predominant
pre-operation land use.
The environmental regulations of the Province of Saskatchewan
require each potash mine to have decommissioning and reclamation
plans. Financial assurances for these plans must be established
within one year following approval of these plans by the
responsible provincial minister. The Minister of the Environment
for Saskatchewan provisionally approved the plans in July 2000.
In July 2001, a Cdn$2.0 million irrevocable Letter of
Credit was posted. We submitted a revised plan when it was due
in 2006 and are awaiting a response from the Province. The
Company is unable to predict, at this time, the outcome of the
ongoing review of the plans or the timing of implementation and
structure of any financial assurance requirements.
Site Assessment and Remediation
We are also subject to environmental statutes that address
investigation and, where necessary, remediation of contaminated
properties. The U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
and other U.S. federal and state laws impose liability on, among
others, past and present owners and operators of properties or
facilities at which hazardous substances have been released into
the environment and persons who arrange for disposal of
hazardous substances that are released into the environment.
Liability under these laws may be imposed jointly and severally
and without regard to fault or the legality of the original
actions, although such liability may be divided or allocated
according to various equitable and other factors. We have
incurred and expect to continue to incur costs and liabilities
because of our current and former operations, including those of
divested and acquired businesses. We have generated and, with
respect to our current operations, continue to generate
substances that could result in liability for us under these
laws.
We have accrued $18.6 million for costs associated with
site assessment and remediation, including consulting fees,
related to the clean-up of contaminated sites currently or
formerly associated with the company or its predecessors
businesses. The current portion of these costs totaled
$1.8 million. The accrued amounts include the
companys or
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 19
its subsidiaries expected final share of the costs for the
site assessment and remediation matters, including matters
described below to the extent the incurrence of the costs is
reasonably probable and reasonably estimable.
In 1994, PCS Joint Venture responded to information requests
from the USEPA and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) regarding
conditions at its Moultrie, Georgia location. PCS Joint Venture
believes that the lead-contaminated soil and groundwater found
at the site are attributable to former operations at the site
prior to PCS Joint Ventures ownership. In 2005, the GEPD
approved a Corrective Action Plan to address environmental
conditions at this location. As anticipated, the approved remedy
requires some excavation and off-site disposal of impacted soil
and installation of a groundwater recovery and treatment system.
PCS Joint Venture began the remediation in November 2005 and
completed soil excavation in March 2006, and it is proceeding
consistent with the projected schedule and budget.
In 1998, we and other parties were notified by the USEPA of
potential liability under CERCLA with respect to certain soil
and groundwater conditions at a PCS Joint Venture blending
facility in Lakeland, Florida and certain adjoining property. In
1999, PCS Joint Venture signed an Administrative Order and
Consent with the USEPA pursuant to which PCS Joint Venture
agreed to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) of these conditions. PCS Joint Venture and
another party are sharing the costs of the RI/FS, which is
nearing completion. In December 2006, the parties submitted the
focused feasibility study to the USEPA and Florida Department of
Environment for final review and comment. No final determination
has yet been made of the nature, timing or cost of remedial
action that may be needed, nor to what extent costs incurred may
be recoverable from third parties. Although PCS Joint Venture
sold the Lakeland property in July 2006, it has retained the
above described remediation responsibilities and has indemnified
the third-party purchaser for the costs of remediation and
certain related claims.
The USEPA has identified PCS Nitrogen, Inc. (PCS
Nitrogen) as a potentially responsible party with respect
to a former fertilizer blending operation in Charleston, South
Carolina, known as the Planters Property or Columbia Nitrogen
Site, formerly owned by a company from which PCS Nitrogen
acquired certain other assets. The USEPA has requested the
reimbursement of $3.0 million of previously-incurred
response costs and the performance or financing of future site
investigation and response activities from PCS Nitrogen and
other named potentially responsible parties. In September 2005,
Ashley II of Charleston, L.L.C., the current owner of the
Planters Property, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina seeking a
declaratory judgment that PCS Nitrogen is liable to pay
environmental response costs that Ashley II of Charleston,
L.L.C. alleges it has incurred and will incur in connection with
response activities at the site. The Court has scheduled a trial
in the first quarter of 2007 for the first phase of the case, in
which it will consider whether PCS Nitrogen has any liability
for these costs. PCS Nitrogen has filed third party
complaints in the case against owners and operators that should
be responsible parties with respect to the site. PCS Nitrogen
denies that it is a potentially responsible party and is
vigorously defending its interests in these actions.
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS Phosphate), along
with several other entities has received notice from parties to
an Administrative Settlement Agreement (Settling
Parties) with USEPA of alleged contribution liability
under CERCLA for costs incurred and to be incurred addressing
PCB soil contamination at the Ward Superfund Site in Raleigh,
North Carolina (Site). PCS Phosphate has agreed to
participate, on a non joint and several basis, with the Settling
Parties in the performance of the removal action and the payment
of other costs associated with the Site, including reimbursement
of USEPAs past costs. The cost of performing the removal
at the Site is estimated at $12 to $17 million. We
understand that removal activities will commence at the Site in
2007. We anticipate recovering some portion of our expenditures
in this matter from other liable parties.
The Company is also engaged in ongoing site assessment and/or
remediation activities at a number of other facilities and
sites. Based on current information, the Company does not
believe, except as set out herein, that its future obligations
and potential liabilities are reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position
or results of operations. However, it is often difficult to
estimate and predict the potential costs and liabilities
associated with these programs, and there is no guarantee that
we will not in the future be identified as potentially
responsible for additional costs under these programs, either as
a result of changes in existing laws and regulations or as a
result of the identification of additional matters or properties
covered by these programs.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 20
Facility and Product Security
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the
United States, we, through our Safety, Health and Environment
department, evaluated and addressed actual and potential
security issues and requirements associated with our operations
in the United States and elsewhere. Additional actions and
expenditures may be required in the future. In the United
States, in the recently passed Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) appropriations bill, Congress adopted language
that authorizes DHS for a three year period to regulate the
security of certain chemical facilities. It is anticipated that
Congress will continue to consider federal legislation designed
to reduce the risk of any future terrorist acts at industrial
facilities. We believe that we are in material compliance with
applicable security requirements and we also have adopted
security measures and enhancements beyond those presently
required. To date, neither the security regulations nor our
expenditures on security matters have had a material adverse
effect on our financial position or results of operations. We
are unable to predict the potential future costs to us of any
new governmental programs or voluntary initiatives.
Our Executive Officers
The name, age, period of service with the Company and position
held for each of our executive officers as at February 20,
2007 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Served | |
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age | |
|
Since | |
|
Position Held |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
William J. Doyle |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
1987 |
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
Wayne R. Brownlee |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
1988 |
|
|
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
James F. Dietz |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer |
|
|
|
|
Barbara Jane Irwin |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Administration |
|
|
|
|
Robert A. Jaspar |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Information Technology |
|
|
|
|
Joseph A. Podwika |
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
|
|
|
|
G. David Delaney |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
President, PCS Sales |
|
|
|
|
Garth W. Moore |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
1982 |
|
|
President, PCS Potash |
|
|
|
|
Thomas J. Regan, Jr. |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
1995 |
|
|
President, PCS Phosphate and PCS Nitrogen |
|
|
|
|
Stephen F. Dowdle |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
1999 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Fertilizer Sales, PCS Sales |
|
|
|
|
Daphne J. Arnason |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
1988 |
|
|
Vice President, Internal Audit |
|
|
|
|
Karen G. Chasez |
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
2000 |
|
|
Vice President, Procurement |
|
|
|
|
John R. Hunt |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
Vice President, Safety, Health and Environment |
|
|
|
|
Denis A. Sirois |
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
1978 |
|
|
Vice President and Corporate Controller |
|
|
|
Each of the officers have held the position indicated above for
the previous five years except as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Dates of Service |
|
Position Held |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne R. Brownlee |
|
July 1999 December 2005 |
|
Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
Robert A. Jaspar |
|
December 2000 June 2003 |
|
Vice President, Internal Audit |
|
|
|
|
Joseph A. Podwika |
|
January 2005 December 2005 |
|
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 2002 December 2004 |
|
Senior Counsel, U.S. |
|
|
|
|
Thomas J. Regan, Jr. |
|
August 1999 January 2007 |
|
President, PCS Phosphate |
|
|
|
|
Stephen F. Dowdle |
|
July 2000 December 2005 |
|
Vice President, Fertilizer Sales, PCS Sales |
|
|
|
|
Daphne J. Arnason |
|
November 2000 June 2002 |
|
Senior Director, Taxation |
|
|
|
|
John R. Hunt |
|
November 2003 January 2005 |
|
Senior Director, Operations Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 2000 October 2003 |
|
General Manager, Memphis Plant |
|
|
|
Presentation of Financial Information
We have three principal business segments: potash, phosphate and
nitrogen. For information with respect to the sales, gross
margin and assets attributable to each segment and to our North
American and offshore sales, see Note 18, Segment
Information, to our consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005 and for
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 21
each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2006, incorporated by reference under
Item 8 of this
Form 10-K.
We present our consolidated financial statements in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in Canada, or
Canadian GAAP. See Note 32, Reconciliation of Canadian and
United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, to our
2006 consolidated financial statements, incorporated by
reference under Item 8 of this
Form 10-K, for a
discussion of certain significant differences between Canadian
GAAP and accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States, or U.S. GAAP, as they relate to us.
Unless otherwise specified, financial information is presented
in U.S. dollars.
Where You Can Find More Information
We file annual, quarterly and current reports and other
information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Commission). You may read and copy any of the
information on file with the Commission at the Commissions
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549. Please call the Commission at
1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference
room. In addition, the Commission maintains an Internet site at
http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information
statements and other information regarding issuers that file, as
we do, electronically with the Commission.
We make available, free of charge through our website,
http://www.potashcorp.com, our annual report on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports on
Form 10-Q, current
reports on
Form 8-K, and
amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as soon as is reasonably practicable after such
material is electronically filed with or furnished to the
Commission. The information on our website is not incorporated
by reference into this annual report on
Form 10-K.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Our performance and future development could be materially
affected by a wide range of risk factors. Any or all of these
risks could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and on
the market price of our common stock. We use an integrated risk
management framework to identify risks across all segments of
the Company, evaluate those risks, and implement strategies
designed to mitigate those risks. Our strategies to mitigate
these risks are described under Managing Risk on
pages 21 and 22 in our 2006 Financial Review, attached as
Exhibit 13, incorporated herein by reference. See also note
regarding Forward-Looking Statements, earlier in
this report.
Set forth below are the most significant risks and uncertainties
that affect the Company and its businesses:
Global demand for our products that differs from
expectations or that is higher or lower than our excess capacity
could adversely affect the results of future operations.
We supply product both in North America and offshore and demand
for our product is affected by regional and global markets. For
example, we expect recent flooding at a global competitors
mine in Russia to increase demand for our potash. We predict the
future level of demand for our products and attempt to meet
growing demand through utilization of our excess capacity.
Accurate predictions allow us to avoid surplus inventory and
missed sales opportunities. However, incorrect predictions can
lead to rising costs and decreased profits. Growth in demand
that exceeds our expectations results in lost opportunity to
sell our products and may harm the credibility of our business
strategy.
Growth in demand below expectations reduces our expected sales
and creates excess inventory and unwanted costs. A decrease in
demand could result from a variety of factors, including
increasing agricultural input costs, depressed commodity prices,
adverse weather conditions, economic downturns, foreign currency
fluctuations or changes in agricultural practices.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 22
Inflows of water into our potash mines, or potash mines in
which we have an interest, could result in increased costs and
could require us to abandon a mine, either of which could
adversely affect the results of our operations.
The presence of water-bearing strata in many underground mines
carries the risk of water inflows into such mines. It is
difficult to predict if water inflow will occur at our mines or
mines in which we have an interest. We are currently managing
water inflows at our New Brunswick mine, while ongoing water
inflows are being managed at the Esterhazy mine, in which we
have an interest in the mineral rights. Additional water inflows
at these or other mines could increase the costs required to
operate such mines, injure our employees or lead to the
abandonment of a mine. The risk of underground water inflows,
similar to other underground risks, are not insurable.
The Company may be adversely affected by changing
anti-trust laws to which it is subject.
We are subject to anti-trust 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 anti-trust laws globally, or the
interpretation, administration or enforcement thereof, may limit
our future acquisitions, or the operations of Canpotex and
PhosChem.
New product supply can create a structural market
imbalance, which could reduce our profits.
Many of our products are commodities and the markets for these
products are highly competitive. We compete with other producers
on price, product quality and service. An increase in the
competitive supply of our products that outpaces the growth in
world consumption could depress prices for a prolonged period. A
decrease in the price of crop nutrients could negatively affect
the Companys financial performance.
Potash
With recently favorable prices for potash products, producers
have been, and will likely continue to be, engaged in expansion
and development projects to increase production. Many of the
proposed projects to increase potash production are speculative.
However, a potash supply increase beyond market demand could
depress prices and negatively affect the Companys
financial performance.
Phosphate
Phosphate producers are both private and government enterprises.
In addition, governments influence a significant proportion of
world capacity for diammonium phosphate (DAP), the
major phosphate fertilizer product. Through subsidy, control or
ownership, governments may encourage overproduction of DAP.
Furthermore, governments may accept little or no profit on DAP
sales to support domestic employment. Such policies increase the
risk of a supply/demand imbalance and lower prices for our
products.
Nitrogen
The barriers to entry into the nitrogen business are relatively
low. Nitrogen is taken from the air and reacted with a hydrogen
source, usually natural gas reformed with steam, to produce
ammonia. Ammonia is then used to produce nitrogen products for a
wide variety of uses. Countries with large reserves of natural
gas and low production costs can produce a large supply of
ammonia cheaply for the export market. While the Companys
lower cost nitrogen operations in Trinidad provide us with
advantages, the Company is affected by the expensive natural gas
markets in the United States.
Cyclicality in supply and demand can result in unfavorable
market conditions and lower profits.
The market for crop nutrients, particularly certain phosphate
and nitrogen products, tends to move in cycles. Periods of high
demand, increasing profits and high capacity utilization
generally lead to new plant investment and increased production.
This growth increases supply until the market is over-saturated,
leading to declining prices and declining capacity utilization
until the cycle repeats. This cyclicality in prices can result
in supply/demand imbalances; pressure on prices, profit margins
and profitable operations; and, eventually, shutdown costs. The
fertilizer business is dependent on conditions in the economy
generally and the agriculture sector, both in North America and
offshore.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 23
The agricultural sector can be affected by adverse weather
conditions, cost of inputs, commodity prices, animal diseases,
the availability of government support programs and other
uncertainties that may affect sales of fertilizer products, and
our performance.
The Company is subject to risks associated with
international operations, which could negatively affect sales to
customers in foreign countries as well as the operations and
assets in such countries.
The Company has operations and investments in countries outside
of Canada and the United States. Historically, these countries
have had less stable political environments. We have a nitrogen
production facility in Trinidad and a feed plant in Brazil. Much
of the ammonia that we purchase from third parties is produced
in Russia. In addition, we have significant investments in SQM,
APC, Sinofert and ICL. Additionally, potash from our
Saskatchewan operations for sale outside Canada and the United
States is sold exclusively to Canpotex, which acts as an export
marketing and sales company. A large portion of Canpotex sales
are to China. Other key offshore customers are located in
Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Japan.
Political and economic conditions, foreign trade policies,
fiscal policies, laws, regulations and other activities of
foreign governments may affect performance and development of
our operations and investments. Our operations and investments
may be affected by abrupt political change, forced divestiture,
selective discrimination, inconvertibility of funds, armed
conflict, terrorist activity and unexpected changes in
regulatory requirements, social, political, labor and economic
conditions. Risks inherent in doing business inside the United
States and Canada also exist in foreign countries and may be
exaggerated by differences in culture, laws and regulations.
Moreover, global expansion opportunities with the lowest cost
and the highest synergies are located in politically sensitive
regions.
A shortage of railcars and bulk ships for carrying our
products and increased transit time could result in customer
dissatisfaction, loss of sales and higher
transportation costs.
We rely heavily upon railcars and ocean freightliners to
transport product to our customers. Transportation is an
important part of the final sale price of our products and some
of our customers require just-in-time delivery. Finding
affordable and dependable transportation is important in
allowing us to supply customers close to our operating
facilities and customers around the world. An interruption in
these transport services due to factors including labor
disputes, adverse weather or other environmental events, and
changes to rail or ocean freight systems would negatively affect
our ability to deliver product to our customers, which could
affect our financial performance.
Strong demand for grain and other products affect railcar
availability. A shortage of railcars for carrying product and
increased transit time in North America may result in customer
dissatisfaction, loss of sales and higher transportation costs.
A strong world economy fuels increased demand and higher dry
bulk freight rates for ocean transport. The shipping industry
has a shortage of ships and the substantial time frame needed to
build new ships prevents rapid market response. Delays and
missed shipments relying on ocean freight could result in
customer dissatisfaction and loss of sales potential, which
could negatively affect our financial performance.
Deliberate, malicious acts involving our products or
facilities or downstream product mishaps may expose employees,
contractors or the public to extensive injury, cause property
damage or affect the Companys reputation.
Intentional acts of destruction could hinder our sales or
production and interrupt our supply chain. Facilities could be
damaged leading to a reduction in our operational production
capacity. Employees, contractors and the public could suffer
substantial physical injury. The consequences of any such
actions could damage our reputation, negatively affecting our
sales and profits.
Damage to our reputation could negatively affect our
performance.
Loss of our reputation can be the consequence of a number of
events. Reputation loss cuts across all risk categories and may
result in loss of investor confidence, loss of customer
confidence, poor community relations and employee apathy. Loss
of our reputation could interfere with our ability to execute
our strategies. Reputation loss is a negative consequence
resulting from these or other risks and can have a detrimental
affect on our performance.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 24
Other risks may hurt our operating results.
In addition to the above, other risks may affect our performance
including unexpected or adverse weather conditions; price risks
associated with feedstocks, including natural gas and sulfur;
other hedging activities; changes in capital markets; changes in
currencies and exchange rates; unexpected geological or
environmental conditions; legal proceedings; changes in
government policy and regulation, including environmental
regulations; inherent risks in industrial operations, including
inability to obtain insurance for underground operations and
rock falls that could cause injury or death; inappropriate
handling and transportation of some of our products by customers
or carriers; and future acquisitions by the Company.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
Item 2. Properties.
Information concerning our properties is set forth under the
Properties sections in Item 1.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
General
In the normal course of business, we are subject to legal
proceedings being brought against us. While the final outcome of
these proceedings is uncertain, we believe that these
proceedings, in the aggregate, are not reasonably likely to have
a material adverse effect on our financial position or results
of operations.
Environmental Proceedings
For a description of certain environmental proceedings in which
we are involved, see Environmental Matters under
Item 1.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security
Holders.
None.
FORM 10-K │ Part I
Page 25
Part II
Item 5. Market for Registrants Common Equity
and Related Stockholder Matters.
The information under Common Share Prices and
Volumes, Ownership, Dividends and
NYSE Corporate Governance on page 88 in our
2006 Financial Review, attached as Exhibit 13 is
incorporated herein by reference and 11 Year
Report on page 49 in our 2006 Financial Review,
attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
In each quarter of 2005 and 2006, the Company paid a cash
dividend of $0.15 per common share, for a total of $0.60 each
year.
Dividends paid to U.S. holders of our Common Shares, who do not
use the shares in carrying on a business in Canada, are subject
to a Canadian withholding tax under the Income Tax Act.
Under the Canada-U.S. Income Tax Convention (1980), the rate of
withholding is generally reduced to 15%. Subject to certain
limitations, the Canadian withholding tax is treated as a
foreign income tax that can generally be claimed as a deduction
from income or as a credit against the U.S. income tax liability
of the holder. Holders are generally not subject to tax under
the Income Tax Act with respect to any gain realized from
a disposition of Common Shares.
During the quarter ended December 31, 2006 the Company did
not purchase any of its equity securities registered pursuant to
Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
The information under 11 Year Report on page 49 in
our 2006 Financial Review, attached as Exhibit 13, is
incorporated herein by reference. Such information has been
presented on the basis of Canadian GAAP. These principles differ
in certain significant respects from U.S. GAAP. The following
supplemental financial data is provided on the basis of
reconciliations between Canadian and U.S. GAAP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions of U.S. dollars, except per-share amounts) | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
U.S. GAAP |
|
2006 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
625.8 |
|
|
|
532.7 |
|
|
|
290.5 |
|
|
|
(84.2 |
) |
|
|
60.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share basic |
|
|
6.02 |
|
|
|
4.91 |
|
|
|
2.69 |
|
|
|
(0.81 |
) |
|
|
0.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
|
7,038.9 |
|
|
|
5,841.8 |
|
|
|
5,202.7 |
|
|
|
4,520.0 |
|
|
|
4,511.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term obligations |
|
|
1,339.8 |
|
|
|
1,257.6 |
|
|
|
1,258.6 |
|
|
|
1,268.6 |
|
|
|
1,019.9 |
|
|
|
|
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
The information under Managements Discussion &
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
on pages 1 through 49 and Appendix on page 89 in our
2006 Financial Review, attached as Exhibit 13, is
incorporated herein by reference.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures
About Market Risk.
The information under Managements Discussion &
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations Market Risks Associated With Financial
Instruments on pages 43 and 44 in our 2006 Financial
Review, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by
reference.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data.
The information under Managements Responsibility for
Financial Reporting, Report of Independent
Registered Chartered Accountants, Comments by
Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on Canada-
FORM 10-K │ Part II
Page 26
United States of America Reporting Differences and
Consolidated Financial Statements contained on pages
53 through 87 in our 2006 Financial Review, attached as
Exhibit 13, are incorporated herein by reference and
Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Quarterly
Results and Review of Fourth-Quarter Performance on pages
35 and 36 in our 2006 Financial Review, attached as
Exhibit 13, are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 9. Changes In and Disagreements With
Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
None.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
As of December 31, 2006, we carried out an evaluation under
the supervision and with the participation of our management,
including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our
disclosure controls and procedures. There are inherent
limitations to the effectiveness of any system of disclosure
controls and procedures, including the possibility of human
error and the circumvention or overriding of the controls and
procedures. Accordingly, even effective disclosure controls and
procedures can only provide reasonable assurance of achieving
their control objectives. Based upon that evaluation and as of
December 31, 2006, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and
procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that
information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company
files and submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
is recorded, processed, summarized and reported as and when
required.
There has been no change in our internal control over financial
reporting during the year ended December 31, 2006 that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting and the Report of Independent
Registered Chartered Accountants contained on pages 53
through 55 in our 2006 Financial Review, attached as
Exhibit 13, are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
FORM 10-K │ Part II
Page 27
Part III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate
Governance of the Registrant.
The information under Board of Directors
Nominees for Election to the Board of Directors and the
first two paragraphs under Corporate
Governance Report of the Audit Committee in
our 2007 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a), is
incorporated herein by reference. Information concerning
executive officers is set forth under Our Executive
Officers in Part I.
We have adopted a Code of Conduct that applies to all of our
directors, officers and employees. We make this code, as well as
our corporate governance principles and the respective Charters
of our Corporate Governance and Nominating, Audit and
Compensation Committees, available free of charge on our
website, http://www.potashcorp.com, or by request. We intend to
disclose certain amendments to our Code of Conduct, or any
waivers of our Code of Conduct granted to executive officers and
directors, on our website within four business days following
the date of such amendment or waiver.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
The information under Board of Directors
Director Compensation, and Compensation in our
2007 Proxy Circular, attached as
Exhibit 99(a), is
incorporated herein by reference.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners
and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.
The information under Ownership of Shares, and the
tables titled At-Risk Investments and Year Over Year
Changes and Equity Compensation Plan
Information in our 2007 Proxy Circular, attached as
Exhibit 99(a), is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions,
and Director Independence.
The information under Board of Directors
Director Independence and Other Relationships on
pages 11 through 13 in our 2007 Proxy Circular,
attached as Exhibit 99(a), is incorporated herein by
reference.
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services.
The information under Appointment of Auditors in our
2007 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a), is
incorporated herein by reference.
FORM 10-K │ Part III
Page 28
Part IV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
List of Documents Filed as Part of this Report
1. Consolidated Financial
Statements in Annual Report
The consolidated financial statements contained on pages 53
through 87 in our 2006 Financial Review, attached as
Exhibit 13, are incorporated under Item 8 by reference.
|
|
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
|
|
|
54-55 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
|
|
|
56 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Retained Earnings
|
|
|
57 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow
|
|
|
58 |
|
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
59-87 |
|
2. Schedules
Schedules not listed are omitted because the required
information is inapplicable or is presented in the consolidated
financial statements.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Potash Corporation
of Saskatchewan Inc.
We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and subsidiaries (the
Company) as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and
for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2006, managements assessment of the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, and the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, and have
issued our reports thereon dated February 14, 2007 (which
audit report on the consolidated financial statements expresses
an unqualified opinion and includes a separate report titled
Comments by Independent Registered Chartered Accountants on
Canada United States of America Reporting
Differences referring to changes in accounting principles); such
consolidated financial statements and reports are included in
your 2006 Annual Report to Shareholders and are incorporated
herein by reference. Our audits also included the consolidated
financial statement schedules of the Company listed in
Item 15. These consolidated financial statement schedules
are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedules,
when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial
statements taken as a whole, present fairly, in all material
respects, the information set forth therein.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
February 14, 2007
FORM 10-K │ Part IV
Page 29
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying
Accounts
(in millions of U.S. dollars)
(audited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
Charged to | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of | |
|
Costs and | |
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
|
|
|
Description |
|
Year | |
|
Expenses | |
|
Deductions | |
|
End of Year | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful trade accounts receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
4.9 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for inventory valuation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
12.9 |
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
8.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
12.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
11.9 |
|
|
|
5.1 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for deferred income tax assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
45.5 |
|
|
|
11.2 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
53.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
29.4 |
|
|
|
16.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
18.4 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
29.4 |
|
|
|
3. Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
3(a) |
|
|
Articles of Continuance of the registrant dated May 15,
2002, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) to the
registrants report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2002 (the Second Quarter 2002
Form 10-Q). |
|
3(b) |
|
|
Bylaws of the registrant effective May 15, 2002,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(b) to the Second
Quarter 2002 Form 10-Q. |
|
4(a) |
|
|
Term Credit Agreement between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other
financial institutions and the registrant dated
September 25, 2001, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4(a) to the registrants report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2001. |
|
4(b) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Amending Agreement between The
Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the
registrant dated as of September 23, 2003, incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4(b) to the registrants report
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2003 (the Third Quarter 2003
Form 10-Q). |
|
4(c) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Second Amending Agreement
between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions
and the registrant dated as of September 21, 2004,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated
September 21, 2004. |
|
4(d) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Third Amending Agreement between
The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the
registrant dated as of September 20, 2005, incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4(a) to the registrants report
on Form 8-K dated September 22, 2005. |
|
4(e) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Fourth Amending Agreement
between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions
and the registrant dated as of September 27, 2006,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(e) to the
registrants report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2006. |
|
4(f) |
|
|
Indenture dated as of June 16, 1997, between the registrant
and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a) to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated June 18,
1997 (the 1997 Form 8-K). |
|
4(g) |
|
|
Indenture dated as of February 27, 2003, between the
registrant and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New
York, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to the
registrants report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the 2002 Form 10-K). |
|
4(h) |
|
|
Form of Notes relating to the registrants offering of
$400,000,000 principal amount of 7.125% Notes due June 15,
2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to the 1997
Form 8-K. |
FORM 10-K │ Part IV
Page 30
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
4(i) |
|
|
Form of Notes relating to the registrants offering of
$600,000,000 principal amount of 7.75% Notes due May 31,
2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated May 17,
2001. |
|
4(j) |
|
|
Form of Note relating to the registrants offering of
$250,000,000 principal amount of 4.875% Notes due March 1,
2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated
February 28, 2003. |
|
4(k) |
|
|
Form of Note relating to the registrants offering of
$500,000,000 principal amount of 5.875% Notes due
December 1, 2036, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4(a) to the registrants report on
Form 8-K dated November 29, 2006. |
The registrant hereby undertakes to file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, upon request, copies of any constituent
instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of
the registrant or its subsidiaries that have not been filed
herewith because the amounts represented thereby are less than
10% of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries
on a consolidated basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
10(a) |
|
|
Sixth Voting Agreement dated April 22, 1978, between
Central Canada Potash, Division of Noranda, Inc., Cominco Ltd.,
International Minerals and Chemical Corporation (Canada)
Limited, PCS Sales and Texasgulf Inc., incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10(f) to the registrants registration
statement on Form F-1 (File No. 33-31303) (the
F-1 Registration Statement). |
|
10(b) |
|
|
Canpotex Limited Shareholders Seventh Memorandum of Agreement
effective April 21, 1978, between Central Canada Potash,
Division of Noranda Inc., Cominco Ltd., International Minerals
and Chemical Corporation (Canada) Limited, PCS Sales, Texasgulf
Inc. and Canpotex Limited as amended by Canpotex S&P
amending agreement dated November 4, 1987, incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10(g) to the F-1 Registration
Statement. |
|
10(c) |
|
|
Producer Agreement dated April 21, 1978, between Canpotex
Limited and PCS Sales, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(h) to the F-1 Registration Statement. |
|
10(d) |
|
|
Canpotex/ PCS Amending Agreement, dated as of October 1,
1992, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(f) to the
registrants report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1995 (the 1995 Form 10-K). |
|
10(e) |
|
|
Canpotex PCA Collateral Withdrawing/ PCS Amending Agreement,
dated as of October 7, 1993, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(g) to the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
10(f) |
|
|
Canpotex Producer Agreement amending agreement dated as of
January 1, 1999, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(f) to the registrants report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 (the
2000 Form 10-K). |
|
10(g) |
|
|
Canpotex Producer Agreement amending agreement dated as of
July 1, 2002, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(g) to the registrants report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004
(the Second Quarter 2004 Form 10-Q). |
|
10(h) |
|
|
Esterhazy Restated Mining and Processing Agreement dated
January 31, 1978, between International Minerals &
Chemical Corporation (Canada) Limited and the registrants
predecessor, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(e) to
the F-1 Registration Statement. |
|
10(i) |
|
|
Agreement dated December 21, 1990, between International
Minerals & Chemical Corporation (Canada) Limited and
the registrant, amending the Esterhazy Restated Mining and
Processing Agreement dated January 31, 1978, incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10(p) to the registrants
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1990. |
|
10(j) |
|
|
Agreement effective August 27, 1998, between International
Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Global Limited and the
registrant, amending the Esterhazy Restated Mining and
Processing Agreement dated January 31, 1978 (as amended),
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(l) to the 1998
Form 10-K. |
|
10(k) |
|
|
Agreement effective August 31, 1998, among International
Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Global Limited,
International Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Limited
Partnership and the registrant assigning the interest in the
Esterhazy Restated Mining and Processing Agreement dated
January 31, 1978 (as amended) held by International
Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Global Limited to
International Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Limited
Partnership, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(m) to
the 1998 Form 10-K. |
FORM 10-K │ Part IV
Page 31
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
10(l) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Stock Option
Plan Directors, as amended. |
|
10(m) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Stock Option
Plan Officers and Employees, as amended. |
|
10(n) |
|
|
Short-Term Incentive Plan of the registrant effective January
2000, as amended March 10, 2005, incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10(x) to the Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004. |
|
10(o) |
|
|
Resolution and Forms of Agreement for Supplemental Retirement
Income Plan, for officers and key employees of the registrant,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(o) to the 1995
Form 10-K. |
|
10(p) |
|
|
Amending Resolution and revised forms of agreement regarding
Supplemental Retirement Income Plan of the registrant,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(x) to the
registrants report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 1996. |
|
10(q) |
|
|
Amended and restated Supplemental Retirement Income Plan of the
registrant and text of amendment to existing supplemental income
plan agreements, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(mm) to the registrants report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2000 (the Third Quarter 2000 Form 10-Q). |
|
10(r) |
|
|
Form of Letter of amendment to existing supplemental income plan
agreements of the registrant dated November 4, 2002,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(cc) to the 2002
Form 10-K. |
|
10(s) |
|
|
Amended and restated agreement dated February 20, 2007,
between the registrant and William J. Doyle concerning the
Supplemental Retirement Income Plan. |
|
10(t) |
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Benefits Plan for U.S. Executives dated
effective January 1, 1999, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(aa) to the Second Quarter 2002 Form 10-Q. |
|
10(u) |
|
|
Forms of Agreement dated December 30, 1994, between the
registrant and certain officers of the registrant, concerning a
change in control of the registrant, incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10(p) to the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
10(v) |
|
|
Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated August 8, 1995,
between the registrant and certain officers and directors of the
registrant, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(q) to
the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
10(w) |
|
|
Resolution and Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated
January 24, 2001, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(ii) to the 2000 Form 10-K. |
|
10(x) |
|
|
Resolution and Form of Agreement of
Indemnification July 21, 2004,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ii) to the Second
Quarter 2004 Form 10-Q. |
|
10(y) |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer Medical and Dental Benefits,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(jj) to the
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. |
|
10(z) |
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Membership Agreement dated
January 1, 1995, among Phosphate Chemicals Export
Association, Inc. and members of such association, including
Texasgulf Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(t)
to the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
10(aa) |
|
|
International Agency Agreement dated effective December 15,
2006, between Phosphate Chemicals Export Association, Inc. and
PCS Sales (USA), Inc. |
|
10(bb) |
|
|
Deferred Share Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the
registrants Form S-8 (File No. 333-75742) filed
December 21, 2001. |
|
10(cc) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2005 Performance Option
Plan and Form of Option Agreement, as amended. |
|
10(dd) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2006 Performance Option
Plan and Form of Option Agreement, as amended. |
|
10(ee) |
|
|
Medium Term Incentive Plan of the registrant effective January
2006, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(dd) to the
registrants report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005. |
|
11 |
|
|
Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings. |
|
12 |
|
|
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. |
|
13 |
|
|
2006 Financial Review Annual Report. The 2006 Financial Review
Annual Report, except for those portions that are expressly
incorporated by reference, is furnished for the information of
the Commission and is not to be deemed filed as part
of or otherwise form part of this filing. |
|
21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of the registrant. |
|
23 |
|
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP. |
FORM 10-K │ Part IV
Page 32
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
31(a) |
|
|
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
31(b) |
|
|
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
32 |
|
|
Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
99(a) |
|
|
2007 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy. The
2007 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy, except
for those portions thereof that are expressly incorporated by
reference, are furnished for the information of the Commission
and are not to be deemed filed as part of or
otherwise form part of this filing. |
|
99(b) |
|
|
2006 Summary Annual Report. The 2006 Summary Annual Report
is furnished for the information of the Commission and is not to
be deemed filed as part of or otherwise form part of
this filing. |
FORM 10-K │ Part IV
Page 33
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ WILLIAM J. DOYLE
|
|
|
|
____________________________________
William J. Doyle
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 27, 2007 |
|
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following
persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on
the dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ DALLAS J. HOWE
Dallas
J. Howe |
|
Chair of the Board |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ WAYNE R. BROWNLEE
Wayne
R. Brownlee |
|
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal financial and accounting
officer) |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ WILLIAM J. DOYLE
William
J. Doyle |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ FREDERICK J. BLESI
Frederick
J. Blesi |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ JOHN W. ESTEY
John
W. Estey |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ WADE FETZER III
Wade
Fetzer III |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ ALICE D. LABERGE
Alice
D. Laberge |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ JEFFREY J. MCCAIG
Jeffrey
J. McCaig |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ MARY MOGFORD
Mary
Mogford |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ PAUL J. SCHOENHALS
Paul
J. Schoenhals |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
FORM 10-K │ Signatures
Page 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ E. ROBERT STROMBERG,
Q.C.
E.
Robert Stromberg, Q.C. |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ JACK G. VICQ
Jack
G. Vicq |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
|
/s/ ELENA VIYELLA DE
PALIZA
Elena
Viyella de Paliza |
|
Director |
|
February 27, 2007 |
FORM 10-K │ Signatures
Page 35
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
3(a) |
|
|
Articles of Continuance of the registrant dated May 15,
2002, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(a) to the
registrants report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2002 (the Second Quarter 2002
Form 10-Q). |
|
|
3(b) |
|
|
Bylaws of the registrant effective May 15, 2002,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3(b) to the Second
Quarter 2002 Form 10-Q. |
|
|
4(a) |
|
|
Term Credit Agreement between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other
financial institutions and the registrant dated
September 25, 2001, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4(a) to the registrants report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2001. |
|
|
4(b) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Amending Agreement between The
Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the
registrant dated as of September 23, 2003, incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4(b) to the registrants report
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2003 (the Third Quarter 2003
Form 10-Q). |
|
|
4(c) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Second Amending Agreement
between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions
and the registrant dated as of September 21, 2004,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated
September 21, 2004. |
|
|
4(d) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Third Amending Agreement between
The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the
registrant dated as of September 20, 2005, incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 4(a) to the registrants report
on Form 8-K dated September 22, 2005. |
|
|
4(e) |
|
|
Syndicated Term Credit Facility Fourth Amending Agreement
between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions
and the registrant dated as of September 27, 2006,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(e) to the
registrants report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2006. |
|
|
4(f) |
|
|
Indenture dated as of June 16, 1997, between the registrant
and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(a) to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated June 18,
1997 (the 1997 Form 8-K). |
|
|
4(g) |
|
|
Indenture dated as of February 27, 2003, between the
registrant and The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New
York, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(c) to the
registrants report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the 2002 Form 10-K). |
|
|
4(h) |
|
|
Form of Notes relating to the registrants offering of
$400,000,000 principal amount of 7.125% Notes due June 15,
2007, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4(b) to the 1997
Form 8-K. |
|
|
4(i) |
|
|
Form of Notes relating to the registrants offering of
$600,000,000 principal amount of 7.75% Notes due May 31,
2011, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated May 17,
2001. |
|
|
4(j) |
|
|
Form of Note relating to the registrants offering of
$250,000,000 principal amount of 4.875% Notes due March 1,
2013, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4 to the
registrants report on Form 8-K dated
February 28, 2003. |
|
|
4(k) |
|
|
Form of Note relating to the registrants offering of
$500,000,000 principal amount of 5.875% Notes due
December 1, 2036, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 4(a) to the registrants report on
Form 8-K dated November 29, 2006. |
The registrant hereby undertakes to file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, upon request, copies of any constituent
instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of
the registrant or its subsidiaries that have not been filed
herewith because the amounts represented thereby are less than
10% of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries
on a consolidated basis.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
10(a) |
|
|
Sixth Voting Agreement dated April 22, 1978, between
Central Canada Potash, Division of Noranda, Inc., Cominco Ltd.,
International Minerals and Chemical Corporation (Canada)
Limited, PCS Sales and Texasgulf Inc., incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10(f) to the registrants registration
statement on Form F-1 (File No. 33-31303) (the
F-1 Registration Statement). |
|
|
10(b) |
|
|
Canpotex Limited Shareholders Seventh Memorandum of Agreement
effective April 21, 1978, between Central Canada Potash,
Division of Noranda Inc., Cominco Ltd., International Minerals
and Chemical Corporation (Canada) Limited, PCS Sales, Texasgulf
Inc. and Canpotex Limited as amended by Canpotex S&P
amending agreement dated November 4, 1987, incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10(g) to the F-1 Registration
Statement. |
|
|
10(c) |
|
|
Producer Agreement dated April 21, 1978, between Canpotex
Limited and PCS Sales, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(h) to the F-1 Registration Statement. |
|
|
10(d) |
|
|
Canpotex/ PCS Amending Agreement, dated as of October 1,
1992, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(f) to the
registrants report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1995 (the 1995 Form 10-K). |
|
|
10(e) |
|
|
Canpotex PCA Collateral Withdrawing/ PCS Amending Agreement,
dated as of October 7, 1993, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(g) to the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(f) |
|
|
Canpotex Producer Agreement amending agreement dated as of
January 1, 1999, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(f) to the registrants report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 (the
2000 Form 10-K). |
|
|
10(g) |
|
|
Canpotex Producer Agreement amending agreement dated as of
July 1, 2002, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(g) to the registrants report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004
(the Second Quarter 2004 Form 10-Q). |
|
|
10(h) |
|
|
Esterhazy Restated Mining and Processing Agreement dated
January 31, 1978, between International Minerals &
Chemical Corporation (Canada) Limited and the registrants
predecessor, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(e) to
the F-1 Registration Statement. |
|
|
10(i) |
|
|
Agreement dated December 21, 1990, between International
Minerals & Chemical Corporation (Canada) Limited and
the registrant, amending the Esterhazy Restated Mining and
Processing Agreement dated January 31, 1978, incorporated
by reference to Exhibit 10(p) to the registrants
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1990. |
|
|
10(j) |
|
|
Agreement effective August 27, 1998, between International
Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Global Limited and the
registrant, amending the Esterhazy Restated Mining and
Processing Agreement dated January 31, 1978 (as amended),
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(l) to the 1998
Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(k) |
|
|
Agreement effective August 31, 1998, among International
Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Global Limited,
International Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Limited
Partnership and the registrant assigning the interest in the
Esterhazy Restated Mining and Processing Agreement dated
January 31, 1978 (as amended) held by International
Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Global Limited to
International Minerals & Chemical (Canada) Limited
Partnership, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(m) to
the 1998 Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(l) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Stock Option
Plan Directors, as amended. |
|
|
10(m) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Stock Option
Plan Officers and Employees, as amended. |
|
|
10(n) |
|
|
Short-Term Incentive Plan of the registrant effective January
2000, as amended March 10, 2005, incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10(x) to the Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004. |
|
|
10(o) |
|
|
Resolution and Forms of Agreement for Supplemental Retirement
Income Plan, for officers and key employees of the registrant,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(o) to the 1995
Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(p) |
|
|
Amending Resolution and revised forms of agreement regarding
Supplemental Retirement Income Plan of the registrant,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(x) to the
registrants report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 1996. |
|
|
10(q) |
|
|
Amended and restated Supplemental Retirement Income Plan of the
registrant and text of amendment to existing supplemental income
plan agreements, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(mm) to the registrants report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2000 (the Third Quarter 2000 Form 10-Q). |
|
|
10(r) |
|
|
Form of Letter of amendment to existing supplemental income plan
agreements of the registrant dated November 4, 2002,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(cc) to the 2002
Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(s) |
|
|
Amended and restated agreement
dated February 20, 2007, between the registrant
and William J. Doyle concerning the Supplemental Retirement
Income Plan. |
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit | |
|
|
Number | |
|
Description of Document |
| |
|
|
|
|
10(t) |
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Benefits Plan for U.S. Executives dated
effective January 1, 1999, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(aa) to the Second Quarter 2002 Form 10-Q. |
|
|
10(u) |
|
|
Forms of Agreement dated December 30, 1994, between the
registrant and certain officers of the registrant, concerning a
change in control of the registrant, incorporated by reference
to Exhibit 10(p) to the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(v) |
|
|
Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated August 8, 1995,
between the registrant and certain officers and directors of the
registrant, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(q) to
the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(w) |
|
|
Resolution and Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated
January 24, 2001, incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10(ii) to the 2000 Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(x) |
|
|
Resolution and Form of Agreement of
Indemnification July 21, 2004,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(ii) to the Second
Quarter 2004 Form 10-Q. |
|
|
10(y) |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer Medical and Dental Benefits,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(jj) to the
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. |
|
|
10(z) |
|
|
Second Amended and Restated Membership Agreement dated
January 1, 1995, among Phosphate Chemicals Export
Association, Inc. and members of such association, including
Texasgulf Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(t)
to the 1995 Form 10-K. |
|
|
10(aa) |
|
|
International Agency Agreement dated effective December 15,
2006, between Phosphate Chemicals Export Association, Inc. and
PCS Sales (USA), Inc. |
|
|
10(bb) |
|
|
Deferred Share Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the
registrants Form S-8 (File No. 333-75742) filed
December 21, 2001. |
|
|
10(cc) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2005 Performance Option
Plan and Form of Option Agreement, as amended. |
|
|
10(dd) |
|
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2006 Performance Option
Plan and Form of Option Agreement, as amended. |
|
|
10(ee) |
|
|
Medium Term Incentive Plan of the registrant effective January
2006, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10(dd) to the
registrants report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2005. |
|
|
11 |
|
|
Statement re Computation of Per Share Earnings. |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. |
|
|
13 |
|
|
2006 Financial Review Annual Report. The 2006 Financial Review Annual Report, except for
those portions that are expressly incorporated by reference, is
furnished for the information of the Commission and is not to be
deemed filed as part of or otherwise form part of
this filing. |
|
|
21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of the registrant. |
|
|
23 |
|
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP. |
|
|
31(a) |
|
|
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
31(b) |
|
|
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
32 |
|
|
Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
99(a) |
|
|
2007 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy. The
2007 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy, except
for those portions thereof that are expressly incorporated by
reference, are furnished for the information of the Commission
and are not to be deemed filed as part of or
otherwise form part of this
filing. |
|
|
99(b) |
|
|
2006 Summary Annual Report. The 2006 Summary Annual Report
is furnished for the information of the Commission and is not to
be deemed filed as part of or otherwise form part of
this filing. |