Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Q4 2014 Albermarle Corporation Earnings Conference Call. My name is Glen, and I will be your event manager for today. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host for today, Mr. Lorin Crenshaw, Vice President, Treasurer and Investor Relations. Please proceed, sir.

Thank you, and welcome, everyone, to Albermarle's Fourth Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. Our earnings were released after the close of the market yesterday and you'll find our press release, earnings presentation and non-GAAP reconciliations posted on our website under the Investors section at albermarle.com. Joining me on the call today are Luke Kissam, Chief Executive Officer; Scott Tozier, Chief Financial Officer; Matt Juneau, President, Performance Chemicals; and Michael Wilson, President, Catalyst Solutions. As a reminder, some of the statements made during this conference call about the future performance of the company may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of federal securities laws. Please note the cautionary language about our forward-looking statements contained in our press release. That same language applies to this call. Please note that our comments today regarding our financial results exclude all nonoperating or special items, and reconciliations related to any non-GAAP financial measures discussed may be found in our press release or earnings presentation, which are posted on our website. With that, I'll turn the call over to Luke.

Thanks, Lorin, and good morning, everyone. I'll begin the call by commenting on the company results and accomplishments for the year. Scott will review select highlights related to the business segment performance and financial results, and I'll end by providing some perspective on our outlook. At the end of our prepared remarks, Matt and Michael will join Scott and me to address your questions. In 2014, Albermarle delivered full year earnings per share of $4.20, up 5% year-over-year and in line with our guidance. Net sales totaled $2.5 billion, and adjusted EBITDA was $562 million for the full year, resulting in adjusted EBITDA margins right at 23%. We also generated free cash flow of $361 million, up 24% year-over-year. We divested our antioxidant and ibuprofen businesses in order to enhance our margins and strategic focus. And finally, in January of 2015, we closed the acquisition of Rockwood Holdings, which will certainly transform the company. While attaining our financial and strategic goals is critically important, it is essential that we do so in a way that is safe and sustainable. With this in mind, I am very proud of the fact that we incurred 42% fewer injuries in 2014 than in 2013 and dramatically lowered the severity of those injuries that did occur. Our 2014 OSHA recordable rate was 0.327, which we expect will place us in the top quartile of companies in the American Chemistry Council. In a year that marked our 20th anniversary as a public company, we ended 2014 better positioned to grow, innovate and deliver value to our stakeholders than ever before. In terms of our full year financial performance, Catalyst delivered double-digit earnings growth on higher volume and pricing. Our technologies continue to provide significant performance and financial benefits to refiners, which, in uncertain economic times,…

Thanks, Luke, and good morning, everyone. Before I get into the details, you'll notice a change in how we will be reporting and discussing GBU results going forward. We will be using adjusted EBITDA as opposed to segment income, which should provide additional clarity on the businesses' performance. The non-GAAP reconciliation give you the details on how to bridge to reported GAAP numbers. Today, the financial discussion will be primarily around Albermarle's Q4 and 2014 results prior to the acquisition of Rockwood. While I will share some high-level comments around Rockwood's full year results, as the Rockwood transaction closed only a few weeks ago, the results discussed and shown in the earnings deck are indicative, preliminary results. The acquisition and reorganization will make comparisons challenging, but we will strive to provide you information to restate our segments and align reporting definitions anticipating a complete view by our first quarter 2015 earnings call. Financially, we ended 2014 by delivering fourth quarter net income of $77 million or $0.99 per share excluding special items. Our U.S. GAAP basis earnings were a loss of $19 million or $0.24 per share including special items. Two special items in particular impacted our results, the largest related to an approximately $0.90 pension-related mark-to-market loss. This noncash loss reflects the actuarial impact of a lower discount rate and longer projected life expectancies partially offset by better-than-expected asset performance. This has no immediate cash impact as we expect our current funding to be adequate for the next 6 years. We also reported $0.30 per share acquisition and financing costs associated with the Rockwood transaction, and other items amounted to a $0.02 per share loss. These items net to a loss of approximately $1.22 per share, which when added back to our reported EPS of a $0.24 loss, gets…

Thanks, Scott. As we consider the outlook, we expect our lithium, catalyst and surface treatment businesses will experience nice growth in 2015, but the actual results will be muted somewhat by foreign exchange translations. Ask Scott said, going into 2015, the currency headwind is $40 million to $50 million of EBITDA. The last time we saw crude oil at this price level was in the 2008, 2009 cycle. And applying a similar impact that we saw at that time related to our oilfield related businesses results in an estimated headwind of $30 million to $50 million of EBITDA in 2015. Although certain near-term implications for our businesses are clear today, other impacts, favorable or unfavorable, are not possible to forecast with a high degree of certainty. Against this backdrop, our focus will be on controlling what we can control. That will include focusing on cost and spending levels and ensuring that we are designing the most efficient organizational structure as we integrate these businesses into one company. We will focus on deleveraging by identifying further opportunities to reduce working capital, rigorous scrutiny of capital spending and executing on the announced divestitures. Now let me provide color on each business so that you can understand the fundamental drivers of this outlook. Let me start with Performance Chemicals. We expect meaningful year-over-year growth in lithium, primarily driven by the combination of a full year earnings from Talison and continued strong demand for battery grade lithium salts. The continued proliferation of lithium ion batteries within consumer devices remains the primary driver as demand for electric vehicles is expected to remain a relatively small percentage of the battery market in 2015. As a result, we will allocate an increasing percentage of volume to high-value battery applications at the expense of technical grade accounts. Lithium…

Operator, we're ready to open the lines for Q&A. [Operator Instructions] You can proceed.

[Operator Instructions] And your first question comes from the line of Bob Koort with Goldman Sachs.

This is Ryan Berney on for Bob Koort. I was hoping you could provide a little bit of background on the surface treatment business just for us here. If I recall correctly, a lot of their sales are to Europe, especially into Germany. Could you give us a little bit of a break out there geographically on where else that business sells into?

Yes. I think, it's predominantly European business. And then you would see other sales in the United States would be the second most, with Asia Pacific and Latin America coming in at a distant third. So there's opportunity for growth there, and that's one of the reasons where you'll see in the first quarter the acquisition of that joint venture partner in Asia.

Great. And then as a follow-up, we've been following some bromine pricing recently. And it looks like China maybe is getting slightly better. Could you comment there versus kind of what you're seeing, and if your comments on the lower China bromine pricing are more kind of year-over-year versus sequential?

Yes, go ahead, Matt.

Yes, I'll take that. Ryan, we have not yet seen a significant change in China. But remember, in our businesses at beginning in the year, you've always got the impact of Chinese New Year, so they tend to start pretty slow for us in China in the first quarter. And Chinese New Year is mid-February this year, so it's about where we expect it in January, but I would not say we see a pickup.

And your next question comes from the line of David Begleiter with Deutsche Bank.

This is actually Ram Sivalingam, sitting in for Dave. Luke, just a quick question. Could you perhaps give us bromine utilization rates by region? Just to give us a sense for how loose or tight that is? [ph]

Yes. It will be tough for me to do it by region. But I can tell you that in 2014 overall, we were in the high 60s for bromine utilization rates when you're looking at absolute bromine. So -- and it was about the same for JVC as it was for Magnolia. It's roughly the same, within a couple of percentage points, one way or the other. We can move production around based on where the derivative demand is. But roughly, if you look at that blended rate, it's in the high 60s.

Got it, that's very helpful. And then in the past, given some demand erosion in legacy TV panels, you've talked about reapplications for bromine. Any progress there, just in terms of demand for products? [ph]

Yes, yes. We've made some progress in that. We've developed some particularly as it relates into the oil field where there's the most promising for the shorter term and seeing good results there. Some of the longer-term projects have not panned out from a last scale standpoint, so we've reallocated those resources. So we're making progress. There's nothing -- but everybody needs to understand, this is a long term view. We need to do this, but I don't -- well, there's nothing built into our 2015 numbers relative to these new products. It is a development product at this time.

And your next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews with Morgan Stanley.

Yes, actually, it's Matt Andrejkovics on for Vincent. Could you just help just clarify some of the competitive dynamics that you're seeing in the Performance Catalyst business? Like, what's driving the soft pricing while you're seeing increase in demand? And then additionally, can you help us understand the decision to move that segment into the Performance Chemicals GBU?

Yes, let me take the second one first, if you don't mind, to move that into Performance Chemicals, and then I'll let Michael talk a little bit about competition. Essentially for competition, he'll go into more detail, but it's overcapacity in the market. We tried to address that somewhat by taking out our highest cost production in Europe last year, but that's essentially what it is. The second question you had is why move it into that? Because when you look at putting the lithium business together with the lithium alkyls business, they have butyllithium and such, along with our aluminum alkyls, that's where we thought we could get synergies not only from a customer overlap, but from a production overlap, from an asset overlap, from the way those markets go to business. So we thought it was the most efficient way to do it. You don't get those efficiencies in the refining catalyst business. So that decision was made to do that. Mike, do you want to talk a little bit about the competitive dynamics?

Yes, Matt. I think Luke largely answered the question. We've talked about this for most of the past year, and it's just supply and demand. There's overcapacity on the alkyl side of the business. Part of that, we've acknowledged, we've added capacity over the last couple of years, and there were a couple of new competitive entrants. So the good news is, is that demand is continuing to grow. So as that capacity utilization tightens up, we should get back to a point of having some pricing leverage. And of course, as Luke pointed out, we took a significant step last year by taking capacity off-line in Europe.

Great. And just as a follow-up. Have you guys earmarked the net proceeds that you think you would gather from some of these divestitures that you're contemplating?

Well, I certainly have a number in my head that I think we should have, but I think the market will say what that is, and we'll make a decision on whether we divest or do it. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for me to throw a number out there because it sets a floor or a ceiling, and I want to maximize what we can get out of these assets because they're great assets. And in the right hands, they'll be able to grow and be market leaders in each of their respective markets, and we're looking forward to getting through that process.

Your next question comes from the line of Kevin McCarthy with Bank of America.

Luke, can you give us a sense for your rationale in choosing to divest the 3 businesses that you called out as well as a feel for how the $100 million in aggregate EBITDA might be disaggregated among those 3 businesses?

Yes, I can do that kind of generally. I think Scott can get into the numbers. But the way I looked at them is this: We've got 4 core businesses, and we need to focus on those 4 core businesses and to continue to drive them because we've got great opportunities in that, and we need to deploy resources both from a capital standpoint as well as from a people standpoint to drive the growth opportunities we have there. It was going to be taking away from that for us to continue to try to develop these businesses. They're solid businesses. They generate nice EBITDA, but they're not going to be a strategic focus for Albermarle in the long run and they're not big enough to move the needle. So we decide -- we made that point that we thought it was in the best interest of our shareholders to divest these businesses at this time, to take the proceeds to allow us to deleverage more rapidly and move forward with our strategy. So that was the thought process behind it, and Scott can give you a little more details on the numbers.

Yes. So on the 3 businesses, Kevin, minerals is the largest, at roughly $250 million and roughly 10% EBITDA margins. The Fine Chemistry Services is the next the largest, around $200 million, and they've got margins that are up in the -- EBITDA margins in the upper 20s. And the metal sulfide business is roughly $100 million with kind of a high-teen level type EBITDA margin. So that kind of breaks it down a little bit as to where they are.

Great, that's very helpful. Second question, Luke, on lithium. Chile's National Lithium Commission seems to be reevaluating policy as it relates to long term development of the resource there. What is your view of that? Can you maybe elaborate on any discussions or view on how policy might change in Chile, and what, if anything, that would mean for Albermarle?

Right. That's a great question. The lithium commission issued their findings yesterday, and so we've had a chance to review them. I'd also say that the week of the 19th, I was actually in Chile and met with a number of officials in the mining industry and other government officials about the business there to understand their thinking. I think, number one, lithium is a non-concessible mineral so that remains unchanged, which is a good progress. Number two, the existing contracts don't change, so the existing contracts to the SQM and that Rockwood have are remained unchanged, and I was assured time after time that those contracts will be honored. Going forward, I think they are going to establish a state entity to manage the development of future lithium projects, and they are looking for participants that are interested in doing that with a track record in the industry, which is very positive, we believe, from an Albermarle and Rockwood standpoint. So we applaud the government for taking these steps. We look forward to the collaboration, not only for the exploitation of the Salar for the development of lithium, but they also talked about the collaboration from an R&D perspective to drive new uses for lithium, similar is what Albermarle's trying to do for bromine. So we stand ready and able and think we're in the best position to collaborate with them with new uses as well as in the long run, allow us to be their preferred partner. And if you'll allow me, I just -- the agreement that we have, Kevin, we have the right for 2000 metric tons of lithium. We started operating there in 1984, it was the first carbonate production, and we've used essentially 80,000 metric tons of lithium through the end of 2014, which leaves us over 120,000 metric tons of lithium, which at our current extraction rates, allows us to operate under the existing agreement that we have into the 2030 kind of timeframe. So it's not an issue short term. Long term, we ought to be the preferred partner of that commission, and we're going to work very hard to ensure that we are active participants in the lithium markets in Chile forever.

And your next question comes from the line of Laurence Alexander with Jefferies and Company.

This is actually George D'Angelo in for Laurence. First question, given the 35% EBITDA margin in bromine, can you just give some puts and takes on what happened in the rest of Performance Chemicals segment and where the weakness was?

Yes, I think Scott can do that. But essentially -- or Matt, both of them are here. But essentially, what it is, is if you just look at it, those have always historically been lower margin business, so there wasn't a whole lot of year-over-year change from a dramatic standpoint. But Matt, do you want to comment just a little more?

That's correct. On a year-over-year basis, if you look at the FCS, it was flat to slightly up, that would be Fine Chemistry Services piece. If you look at the minerals business, it was roughly flat as well with a little bit of upside versus 2013. So what you're seeing, really, reflects the impact in the bromine franchise year-over-year. So the EBITDA margins would've been somewhat higher, if you will, in 2013 compared to 2014.

Okay. And can you guys just provide a little bit of a timeline for selling the 3 businesses?

Yes. We're -- our goal is to divest the businesses by year-end. But obviously, that depends a lot upon the third party. So we'll launch the process in the month of February, but -- and we've got a plan laid out to be able to close them by the end of the year, but it depends on who the specific purchasers will be, what their hurdles may be and what the -- you got to deal with the third party. So it could take longer, but that's our goal.

Your next question comes from the line of Dmitry Silversteyn with Longbow Research.

A couple of questions, if I may. First of all, in terms of sort of the strategic thinking in -- I'm sorry to be revisiting ancient history here, but Albermarle spent some capital to build its flame retardant business beyond bromine with phosphorus and minerals. You've sold phosphorus a couple of years ago when that business profitably deteriorated. Now you're selling minerals. So it seems to be kind of a complete about-face from the strategy of, let's say, 10 years ago. Kind of what -- as you kind of look back on your execution over the market developments, what didn't go right for you in sort of building yourself into a flame retardant powerhouse? And how do you -- what do you see yourselves as going forward if it's not a bromine...

Yes, that's a great question. So I think one thing I'd say is we're a different company today, because of the acquisition, than we were before. So number one, I think in phosphorus, the acquisition that they made was a small phosphorus business, and you could not compete with the Chinese because you just didn't have the volume. You didn't have a big enough position in phosphorus to get your cost to a level where you could be competitive. So that's ultimately the death of that phosphorus business from an Albermarle perspective. If you look at minerals, minerals has been an excellent, excellent acquisition for Albermarle. It has -- it had an outstanding return overall. I think we paid $20 million and assumed some debt for that. And you can see the EBITDA that is -- the kind of EBITDA that's throwing off on an annual basis. So it has been a great -- if I just look forward, it's not going to get the kind -- I don't see the kind of growth for that business that I do in lithium, surface treatment and catalyst and I don't see the profitability. So I don't know that I'd call -- I'd say it was more of a change in circumstances than it was a failed strategy on the minerals business.

Okay, that's helpful. And then to stay in the flame retardant topic. I thought you -- I heard you say on your prepared remarks that you expect some headwinds on mix or pricing from the European adoption of the new non-styrenic installation. Can you get a little bit more granular on that, why that's going to be a problem for you? And then also, how will the ICL joint venture in the non-styrenic installation flame retardants work for you when it's active later in 2015?

Okay. So Dmitry, this is Matt, I'll take that. So the bulk of that headwind actually occurred really this year for us because if you remember, we've been unable to enter the market for the new polymeric flame retardant that is replacing HBCD until late in 2014. So what we have seen is faster conversion from HBCD toward the polymeric replacement, and that impacted our 2014 numbers fairly significantly, and that's what we referred to in the script. As we look to 2015, with the announced joint venture with ICL, we are already selling GreenCrest with our tradename for that polymeric in the market. We're entering the market already, and we really don't have the same kind of headwind year-on-year in 2015 that we had in 2014 versus 2013.

Okay, I got it. So the headwind was really in 2014, and you actually expect it to be a good guide for you in 2015?

We expect it to start contributing in 2015.

And your next question comes from the line of Mike Sison with KeyBanc.

Luke, when you think about the Rockwood transaction back in July, I think the expectation that you'd hoped to do in '15 was EBITDA over $1 billion and free cash flow closer to $500 million. And at the midpoint, you're about the $100 million off in EBITDA and free cash flow is certainly up quite a bit. Can you help bridge the gap of -- and I know there's foreign currency, yield services, but just kind of help us bridge the gap of where the delta is? And then I have a follow-up.

Yes. So I'll let Scott talk through the bridge. I think on the cash bridge though, the one thing that's important to remember is, remember that the $500 million was on a full year run rate basis, which did not include the tax payments, okay, that we talked about to repatriate the cash. The $100 million to $200 million that we talked about today includes that tax payment, so it's not that big of a gap, as Scott can go through. Scott, can you walk through the bridge, please?

Yes. So Mike, you've got the numbers, right? So overall, versus what we were expecting, currency plays a big role as you might expect. Roughly $40 million -- as we said, $40 million to $50 million, the same as what it is on a year-over-year basis. The second key one is a change in reporting that we've made with how Rockwood traditionally reported a JV EBITDA. So traditionally, Albermarle has used a net income from our joint ventures and included that in our EBITDA. Rockwood has used a JV EBITDA rather than the net income. And so we've converted them to that same methodology. That drives roughly $25 million. And then you get down to business results and business outlooks, and that's roughly the $100 million that you referred to. The predominant side of that is really in Performance Chemicals and the lack of growth and the challenge that we've had with the drilling fluids and dropping off on the bottom of us. A little bit of lithium but not much. So those are the big drivers. Cash flow, as Luke said, if you would have looked at our free cash flow with that tax payment, it would have been around $100 million in the model, so $500 million less that $400 million tax payment. We're still forecasting $100 million to $200 million of free cash flow next year on a better tax payment primarily and a little bit better in joint venture dividends.

Okay, great. And then Luke, when you think about what the -- your earnings potential should be longer term, maybe take us out '17, '18, it might be early, but where do you think the EBITDA potential combined with all the synergy growth potential could be longer term?

Well, I think we still -- we've got about $50 million of synergies built into this, so there's another $50 million of synergies on top of that. And we've talked about the growth that we would expect. I think that surface treatment, I see no reason they can't continue with double-digit -- high single, double-digit EBITDA growth as long as they can continue to drive their services. So I see that. Catalyst, a high oil upgrade, we've always said we've been in a period of time, depending upon the crude slate, but I expect our catalyst business, refining catalyst continue to grow. And lithium will grow the way we've described it, in the high single digits as well as double-digits once -- mid-double-digits once we see the, really, adoption and proliferation of electronic vehicles. So there's not a reason in this world when we look out '17 and '18, we can't be at $1 billion. We've got just some issues that are impacting us this year from a macroeconomic trend on that price of oil that I can't tell you where that's going to go, and currency just punched us in the gut. So those are the 2 main factors.

Your next question comes from the line of Ben Kallo with Robert W. Baird. Benjamin J. Kallo - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Real quickly, housekeeping on the EPS, did that include businesses that you're going to divest? And if so, how much EPS, roundabout, does that include?

Yes. So that does include the businesses that are being divested. So we're not assuming that there's any divestitures at this point in time. It's roughly $100 million of EBITDA, so a roundabout [ph] EPS impact for you. Benjamin J. Kallo - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Okay, got it. And then on some of the commentary on FCC, I know you've addressed this. But what are you seeing on the FCC catalyst business right now as far as your refiners? Are they in kind of a shock mode in purchasing, where they're still waiting on commodity price changes? So is that what some of the uncertainty is that you're seeing there?

I think what we're seeing in FCC catalyst is more, right now, we've got some change outs in the first half -- I mean, not change outs, some competitive trials in the first half of the year that will reduce our volume. We're seeing more in the high oil -- in the clean fuels or the hydro treating catalysts where they seem to be pushing out some trials, pushing out some change outs in running at a little more cost focus. But, Michael, do you want to address that in a little more detail?

No, I mean, I would say on the FCC side for the full year, I mean, we're still expecting a significant volume growth year-over-year. Now the timing of that from a quarter calendarization standpoint, as Luke has pointed out, is going to be stronger in the second half of the year for the reasons that he has given. But overall, still strong demand growth. And I think that is attributed both to business that we've already won, that's coming on stream and also just the suite of products that we have to offer refiners to solve their problems regardless of what changes they may see in crude dye [ph] or end products. So I don't really see that much of an issue on HOU. It's going to contribute, I think, strongly both to volume and earnings growth in 2015. Benjamin J. Kallo - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: And then my last question. We understand the foreign currency translation impact, but how is it -- can you run through the business units from a competitive standpoint where you have foreign competitors? And how that changes the competitive landscape because of the currency impact?

Yes. I think if you look at surface treatment, surface treatment is really very localized and regional. So I don't -- it doesn't have much of an impact on the surface treatment business from a competitive landscape. It has a big transitional impact for us, but from a competitive landscape, because it so -- such a regional business, it doesn't have as big of an impact. If you look at the bromine businesses from a standpoint that's not a European producer really, so the impact there is -- Chemtura of U.S., they've got kind of the same U.S. production that we do, probably sell in the same currencies that we do. They probably got the same yen issue that we do. And ICL is about the same, it's a bucket of currencies. So it may give, overall, an edge a little bit to the Chinese, some of those producers. And Tosoh is a Japanese producer, but doesn't really participate outside of that region. So I don't see that as much of an issue. If you look in our catalyst business, we -- in refining catalysts we sell in the U.S. We got a plant in the U.S. We got a plant in Amsterdam. We've got joint ventures all over the world. W.R. Grace pretty much has the same thing. BASF, their production facilities are the same. So from a competition standpoint, some of that depends upon where you're building your catalyst and where you have to ship it to. So I don't see a tremendous impact there across the portfolio. And with regard to lithium, not really a huge competitive market. So while we have about $40 million or $50 million of translational issues that will impact the what -- our earnings, I don't see it creating a huge competitive impact in any region of the country vis-à-vis our major competitors, with maybe the single exception of bromine out of Asia.

And your final question comes from the line of Alex Yefremov with Nomura.

First question on lithium. What kind of volume growth do you expect there this year and next? And also, what are your plans in regards to lithium carbonate expansion in Chile? What is the status of that expansion?

Alex, I think what you're kind of -- we can barely hear you. I think what you said was, what are we looking at for lithium volumes in 2015? And then there was a question about lithium carbonate that I just didn't catch.

Mr. Yefremov removed himself from queue, sir.

Okay, go ahead, Michael, I guess from a volume and a lithium standpoint.

Yes, I mean, I think from a volume standpoint we expect to see continued growth in lithium salts. Again, battery applications are going to drive the market growth predominantly, the non-battery applications or more industrial uses that are going to grow more like GDP. I think what you're going to see us do in terms of the capacity that we have available will increasingly shift that to higher value battery applications away from technical grades. I do think there is going to be some tightness in the market overall in terms of lithium availability, so -- hence, the guidance that we gave that we expected to see higher pricing in lithium. If you think about the downstream of lithium and the organolithiums, I think the one issue is on butyllithium, where we talked about the major business that was lost last year by Rockwood as a key synthesis account switched to a different route that eliminated butyllithium from synthesis. We'll see the full year impact of that this year. Last year was not a full year impact. So I think overall, butyllithium will grow, but we won't completely be able to overcome the loss of that major piece of business that really affected the industry, not just our lithium business.

And Alex, we couldn't hear what the last question was on lithium carbonate.

I think the last question you asked was about the plant in Chile. And from a startup standpoint, we see bringing on that capacity in the second quarter to midyear sort of time frame. So -- and then what I think you need to recognize is that, that capacity, the lithium carbonate that we've added there, is predominantly targeted for providing for battery grade accounts. So there will be a qualification period associated with that. So the impact of that from a volume standpoint will come on gradually over time, probably from midyear this year through midyear 2016.

I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Lorin Crenshaw for closing remarks.

Well, thanks to those listening, and I invite you to call us with any further questions, and -- so you have a good day.

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect, and have a great day.