Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Quarter Two 2015 Albemarle Corporation Earnings Conference Call. My name is Matthew, and I will be your operator for today. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. We will conduct a question-and-answer session towards the end of this conference. As a reminder, this call is being recorded for replay purposes. And now, I would like to turn the call over to Mr. Matt Juneau, Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy & Investor Relations. Please proceed, sir.

Thank you, and welcome, everyone to Albemarle's second quarter 2015 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 www.albemarle.com. Joining me on the call today are Luke Kissam, Chief Executive Officer; Scott Tozier, Chief Financial Officer; Silvio Ghyoot, President-Refining Solutions; Joris Merckx, President-Chemetall Surface Treatment. 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 forward-looking statements contained in our press release. That same language applies to this call. Please also note that our comments today regarding our financial results exclude all non-operating or special items. Reconciliations related to any non-GAAP financial measures discussed may be found in our press release or earnings presentation, which are both posted on our website. With that, I'll turn the call over to Scott to discuss our second quarter results.

Thanks, Matt, and good morning, everyone. I'll start by discussing the quarter at a high-level and then cover some P&L and balance sheet details, and then close by reviewing the performance of our three GBUs in more detail. Following that, Luke will discuss progress against our key strategic objectives, and close our prepared remarks by updating the outlook for the rest of 2015. To start, the key take away from the second quarter is, we delivered on all of the operational commitments we made at the beginning of the year and that were affirmed in our first quarter call. We are on track to meet our expectations for the year. The second quarter performance of all three of our core GBUs was in line or better than our expectations at the beginning of April. On a constant currency basis with 2Q 2014, these GBUs delivered sales growth of 7%, and adjusted EBITDA growth of 10% in the quarter lead by Performance Chemicals, which delivered double-digit growth in both sales and adjusted EBITDA. At a total company level, including the three businesses targeted for divestiture, net sales in the quarter totaled $931 million, down 3.7% from 2Q 2014, with adjusted EBITDA of $230 million, flat with last year. Adjusted EBITDA margins of 25% were up slightly. Excluding the impact of foreign exchange, sales and adjusted EBITDA would have increased by 3% and 5% respectively. The second quarter results demonstrate the strength of our core businesses with three GBUs delivering adjusted EBITDA margins of 30%, up from 29% in 2Q last year. Our synergy program contributed to these improved margins as most of the new synergies achieved in the quarter were in areas directly related to our GBUs. Performance Chemicals adjusted EBITDA increased by over 24% versus 2Q 2014, with our bromine…

Thanks, Scott, and good morning, everybody. Let me start by noting how pleased I am with the first half of 2015. Our team is executing well, and we are on track to deliver our previously forecasted earnings for the full year. All of our businesses, with the exception of Clean Fuels Technologies and Fine Chemistry Services are meeting or exceeding our expectations for January. We are overcoming significant headwinds related to lower than expected oil prices and the strength of the U.S. dollar. Finally, we're making great progress against our strategic and organizational objectives for 2015 and positioning Albemarle to be even more successful in the future. First, our integration team has now executed projects that will deliver at least the targeted $50 million in savings for 2015. This represents an increase of over $10 million from the $40 million or so that we discussed in our first quarter earnings call. On a full-year basis, actions already taken will deliver savings of roughly $66 million in 2016, meaning we are already two-thirds of our way to our $100 – excuse me – two-thirds of the way to our $100 million 2016 target in savings. The team continues to uncover new opportunities and we are confident in our ability to meet this commitment. Second, the consultation process with the various works councils is continuing with much progress made in the second quarter. As a result, our global business unit realignment is substantially complete. Our first half results highlight the progress we're making in our new reporting and operating structure. Commissioning of the La Negra expansion and the announced rationalization of the butyl lithium capacity in New Johnsonville are two additional examples of this progress. Third, as Scott highlighted, in the second quarter we again demonstrated the cash generation power of Albemarle…

Operator, we are ready to open the lines for Q&A. But before you do so, I would remind everyone to please limit your questions to two per person at one time, so that everyone has a chance to ask questions. Then feel free to get back in the queue for follow-ons, if time allows. Please proceed.

Thank you. And your first question comes from the line of Bob Koort of Goldman Sachs. Please proceed. Robert Andrew Koort - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Thanks. Good morning, guys.

Hey, Bob. Robert Andrew Koort - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Luke, I think it's probably human nature to sort of pick on the business that's not doing as well since – you seemed to do pretty well on some of those other business where they were concerns but the HPC business appears to be struggling, I think. Scott mentioned low oil prices causing challenges. I guess I was thinking maybe crack spreads are more important to the health of the refining industry. So can you talk a little bit about why you haven't seen a better response, given that refinery margins are actually reasonably healthy right now?

Yeah. I think, it's a couple of things and Silvio may have some more details. Let me just talk at a high-level, Bob. I think crack spreads are more important, but I think if you look at the announcements that you've seen from the big intergraded's like Exxon, Chevron, BP, they are really looking to cut their costs anyway that they can. In addition – so they are looking for costs everywhere. Maybe that's a cheaper catalyst, maybe that's running the catalyst that they have a little bit longer. The second thing is, they are not having to run as hard because there's a big supply out there of the refined product that greatly exceeds demand. So when you look at the cost cutting initiatives that they are seeing and when you look at the – how the operating conditions are lighter, the catalysts are just lasting longer and then when they're switching out, sometimes they're switching out a cheaper catalyst. Silvio?

I agree with that Luke, and like you said, that overall it's the demand of HPC, that volume that is lower than we had expected. And that, driven by the fact that the refiners see opportunities to delaying change-outs, to use weaker mix or even going to the extent of not using fresh catalyst, and using recycled materials. And all that adds up that the overall demand is lower than expected. Robert Andrew Koort - Goldman Sachs & Co.: And then if I could follow up, my second question on the Heavy Oil Upgrading part, you mentioned retention of all your customers that had trialed. Should we expect that might require, given the same characterization of your refinery customers looking for cost savings, that they required a cost concession? And then you and Grace don't want to ever say the word Takreer, but it appears there's some progress there. Is that going to tighten up the markets enough to get some, a resumption of the pricing that you guys had started implementing a couple years ago? Thanks.

I think I can be firm on that; I'm not expecting that trend on the HOU side. The business is strong, the fuels demand is high. There is a globally increase in gasoline demand, which is favoring the HOU or the FCC operations. So I'm not expecting any impact there from the oil price.

And just to add on that, on all of those refills that we had – not refills, but on those contracts that we got, we weren't giving away price on any of that. That was one on performance trials. So you shouldn't view that in any respect. The market is tight, the capacity is tight. So we're looking – it's a great pricing environment right now, and our product performance is what's wining those. We haven't heard any – the question is have you heard anything on Takreer? We haven't heard anything on Takreer. Our catalyst is in there; it's performing as per expectations in the unit, and we are, just like everybody else, waiting to see what's going to happen. Robert Andrew Koort - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Great. Thanks, Luke.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Vincent Andrews of Morgan Stanley. Please proceed. Matt Andrejkovics - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hi, yes, good morning, guys. This is Matt Andrejkovics calling in for Vincent. Thanks for taking the call. Last quarter, you guys had a nice table that broke out equity income contributions by the different segments. I didn't see that this time is; are you going to go back to that at all because it's difficult to parse out how – for example, how lithium progressed during the quarter as you have Talison coming in. So just maybe, if you can help us parse out like what drove maybe the growth, the new order and then Talison and how we can think about that?

Yeah. So as you think about that, I mean the details will be in the Q, which should be out today, latest tomorrow. As you look at lithium specifically with Talison, of course, that was purchased in the end of May of 2014. So we had one month and a couple days of performance in 2014, of course a full quarter of performance this year. On a year-over-year basis, it's contributing roughly $6 million to $6.5 million incremental performance versus last year. It is performing better than expectations, so we're very happy with what's going on down in Australia. Matt Andrejkovics - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. Great. And then just to follow up: the free cash flow number, it looked like the range increased by $50 million to $150 million to $250 million, but I didn't see anything else moving in the outlook. Can you just maybe help reconcile how that would have moved?

Yeah. The one item that moved in the outlook – so if you look at our normalized outlook, so that's without the acquisition costs and the one-time tax costs related to the acquisition, that did not change. So $450 million to $550 million, we're feeling very good about that range, given the performance and our current outlook in the second half. On an all-in basis or reported basis, that free cash flow number, it did move up to $150 million to $250 million, and it's related to the tax payments for the acquisition. Part of those tax payments, so about $50 million of those tax payments are being pushed into the first quarter of 2016. And so it's really just related to the timing of those payments. Matt Andrejkovics - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Got it. Okay. Thanks very much.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from line of David Begleiter of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. Luke, nice strong Q2 results, but you maintained the full year guidance. Can you talk about what it would take to hit the low-end or the high-end of the 2015 guidance in the back half of the year?

Well, to hit the low end of the guidance, we've got to see completion fluids really fall off more than what we've anticipated for the year. I think that that we've got – we could see additional foreign exchange – you've got bromine pricing. So if we see some more bromine volume and the pricing continues to stick more than we have, we could see more upside there. The Clean Fuels Technologies that go along there, as you know, it always comes to order time. If we have an order slip one way or the other in the fourth quarter, that could have an impact on our earnings. And really, it comes down to one of the non-core businesses that we have that we're looking to divest in custom services, they have got a big second half. So that could move the needle there, and there is some upside if we can get some synergies earlier. But I think really lithium is pretty solid for what we got – the estimate at the midpoint. A lot of those contracts are baked in at the beginning of the year on price and volume, and at the capacity we're running there, not a whole lot of potential for major upside there. And on Heavy Oil Upgrading, we just got to deliver what we said we're going to deliver and feel very, very confident about our ability to do so there. So, some upside in the bromine area if we can get pricing in a broader area than we have today and then some watch-outs on the HPC and on the Fine Chemistry Services.

Very good. And Luke just on the bromine price increase you announced in late March, can you discuss how that's progressing and what you're seeing from other competitors, including the Chinese?

Yeah, this is Matt. David, I'll take that. So, overall we continue to be very encouraged by what we're seeing in price. If you remember our original view is that we would not really see any net price versus volume this year, and that's changed a little bit with this update, that we're seeing some net benefit. There has been – your point about China, there has been some movement in China of the price heading down a little bit that I know a lot of people have commented on. We don't view that as anything to be too concerned about at this time. There is always some movement in price to the downside in the summer in China because their production rates go up. The price increase is kind of something we got to deal with over the long haul and we're feeling good about where we are right now, and the modest demand improvement that we're continuing to see to kind of underpin the basis for the pricing as well.

Great. And last thing, Scott, was the methyl bromide order about a $5 million EBITDA impact into Q2?

Yeah. So if you look at it, I mean at the end of the day, it was probably $0.07 to $0.08 of EPS.

Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Chris Kapsch of BB&T Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Christopher J. Kapsch - BB&T Capital Markets: Yeah. Good morning. My questions are focused on the lithium business. I think you said that, based on contracts, that pricing is generally understood or fixed for the balance of 2015. Just wondering if you could talk about, given those strength in demand for EDVs, how do you view the pricing entitlement for that business, maybe looking beyond 2015 into 2016?

Yeah. I think, if you look at 2016 there's obviously opportunity for pricing; this is a good pricing environment. People are pretty much sold out of battery-grade lithium carbonate and battery-grade lithium hydroxide. If you look at the cost today of lithium in a battery, it's probably around 2%. So it's very critical for the use of the battery, yet at the same time it's a small cost of that overall battery and we're sold out. So we feel good about the opportunities for lithium pricing in 2016 and it's already started having early conversations making sure the markets understand what those expectations are. Christopher J. Kapsch - BB&T Capital Markets: Okay. And then, if you could just maybe qualify a little bit more on the demand shrink in EDV; where was it geographically pronounced and the plant that you're building to directly convert spodumene-based lithium to battery-grade hydroxide, is that intended to supply just Asian battery customers or is that intended to really supply customers globally? If you could talk about the timeline on that. Thanks.

Yeah. It will be a world-scale plant. So it will supply globally. We'll be able to do that, not just for Asian customers. Really it doesn't make sense just to do it just for Asian customers because the size and scale that you need to build that world-scale plant to meet the needs of the markets. And the timing on that is, as we've said, we've started the work on that, so it will come on line in a 2019, 2020 kind of timeframe. And in the interim, we're making arrangements to ensure that we're able to meet the market demand of that lithium hydroxide as it grows and we're not concerned at all about our ability to do that. We have great plans in place for 2016. I can expand those. So we're going to be – we're going to meet the market demand. We're going to have the hydroxide available to meet the market demand. And we feel great about our process there and are extremely excited by the growth of battery grade and what it's going to do for this business.

And Chris, if you want to, I'll touch maybe just a second on the first question around the battery vehicle growth and where it's coming from, and where really the battery grade growth is coming from. One, you ought to think – remember that consumer and portable batteries continue to be a very big driver. And while a lot of that maybe ultimately will be consumed in Asia, it's for global markets. And then if you think about battery electric vehicles, what's continued to really hold up are the true, pure battery electrics. So people think about Tesla, but it's more than just Tesla; it's the other true battery electrics as well – they're also growing. They're holding up very well and continuing to grow. Those are the two combinations that are the biggest drivers for the business. And in a way, I'd say you ought to think of it is the global – where we supply is somewhat irrelevant, it's really global demand that's driving this. Christopher J. Kapsch - BB&T Capital Markets: Gotcha. Thanks, guys.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Mike Ritzenthaler of Piper Jaffray. Please go ahead. Mike Ritzenthaler - Piper Jaffray & Co: Yes, good morning. Just on Refinery Solutions, I guess with the outlook looking a little softer than three months ago, can you remind us of the magnitude of CFT versus HOU in the revenue mix? And then, could you walk us through some of your assumptions for pricing mix and volume over the next couple of quarters? That would be helpful. Thanks.

Okay. Well, I think it was reported before. Both businesses have always been important and contributing both good cash flow and margin. Obviously, with the strength of the FCC today and the weaknesses of the HPC today and foreseeing for the rest of the year, there is an imbalance between the two businesses now. And the FCC is a bigger contributor today than the HPC. Mike Ritzenthaler - Piper Jaffray & Co: Okay. Any thoughts on pricing mix and volume or is that just not something you're willing to comment on at this time?

If you look at the second – if you look at the 2015 versus 2014 in HPC, the volume will be down and we'll have a much worse mix than we had in 2014. 2014 was a pretty high-water mark, but it's really all volume and mix. We hadn't seen much degradation in price at all, when you're looking at Catalyst per Catalyst. So it's really been a mix issue and a volume issue in HPC. And on FCC, volume is strong; we'll see volume up and we'll see earnings up and a really good pricing environment for FCC catalyst, Mike. Mike Ritzenthaler - Piper Jaffray & Co: Okay. Fair enough. I'm curious too about the sale process of the three businesses. Has it impacted the year-to-date – has the sale process itself impacted the year-to-date results? I guess especially within fine chemistry solutions, has it been more difficult to win new business? And have those assets at all been, I guess, sort of impaired because maybe it's harder to sign up new customers?

Mike, this is Matt, I'll take that. In reality, two of the businesses, I want to say, Minerals and Metal Sulfides or what they call trivatech (39:24), those business are doing just in line with what we expected, no impact at all. They're really having solid years. If you talk about Fine Chemistry Services, we knew going into the year we had some tough business comparisons with contracts that were rolling off. We were counting quite a bit on getting some benefit in the electronics material space to help cover the year-on-year change. We've seen some supply chain issues and some delays in that electronics area. That's really been the big driver for the negative year-on-year in Fine Chemistry Services. Don't think it has anything to do with the sales process. Mike Ritzenthaler - Piper Jaffray & Co: Okay, fair enough. Thank you, very much.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Laurence Alexander of Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hi this is Dan Lizo (40:17) in for Laurence. With – just with the changing, or the unfavorable MATS ruling from the Supreme Court last – at the end of the quarter. I mean how does that affect just bromine demand or does it have a significant negative effect at all, or it's not something you're really counting on? Just a little a color, please.

Sure, if you look at MATS, there is a lot of uncertainty about how MATS will ultimately play out and I won't comment in detail, because there's been plenty of that in the last few days in the various earnings calls. But in reality, our business related to mercury has improved year-over-year, as anticipated up to now. And the uncertainty comes in with what will happen post the Supreme Court ruling. We're just going to have to see how that plays out, what the D.C. appellate court does. MATS has not yet been stayed or vacated. We are still within our guidelines clearly for this year of what we expect from Mercury Control. I don't think it will have any impact on this year's numbers. And then depending on what happens in the appellate court, we'll see what happens longer-term.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Mike Sison of KeyBanc. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning, guys, nice quarter.

Hey, Mike.

If you think – I just wanted to run through the cadence of earnings in the second half. You had a 7/8ths in (41:45) headwind, methyl bromide it looks like. Sequentially, the third quarter looks a little bit tougher. So, when you think about a third quarter EPS, does it sort of come down from the second quarter and the fourth quarter? Is it a lot better or are there things that, like cost savings, integration, that gets your third quarter maybe up or flat from the second quarter?

Go ahead, Scott.

Yeah. I would say, Mike, as you look at the third quarter to fourth quarter, that we would expect that the third quarter be at or above the third quarter slightly, and then we'd see sequential improvement going into the fourth quarter. So if you think about that second half, roughly 45% to 47% in the third quarter and the rest in the fourth quarter.

Great. And then, Grace talked about the FCC capacity largely being slow heading into 2016 and – based on their wins. Can you talk about how your wins are heading into 2016, and where you're going to be in capacity. And are you feeling better about the price, potentially, as we think about FCC catalyst heading into 2016?

Yeah, so go ahead Silvio.

Okay. Thanks, Luke. Well, on the capacity I think it has been stated before with the growth in the demand – with a strong demand and the additions of new units, capacity utilization is increasing, and obviously that situation with the tight supply, the dynamics of the market are creating an atmosphere where there is room for price improvements.

So Mike, this is Luke. As you'll remember we have a debottleneck process going on right now at our Amsterdam site. And we needed that to be able to supply customers in 2016 based on the business that we have. Even when that comes online in early 2016, and again it's a debottleneck, it's not significant capacity, we're still going to be operating at plus-90% in our FCC production units when you look at Amsterdam and Bayport in total.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Jim Sheehan of SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Please go ahead.

Thank you. On your Surface Treatment business, it looks like you're performing quite well there and some of the macro trends are getting a little bit better. Can you talk about your outlook for the second half? Are you seeing increasing order patterns and an acceleration in your business?

Yeah, Joris, can you take that please?

Yeah. Sure, Luke. Well, we expect a better second half in 2015. First of all, we will have carryover effect of market share gains we've done in 2014 and in the first half of 2015. We also have a favorable pricing impact and the impact of our acquisition in Shanghai. So we are operating on a global scale, and we see a very positive demand in automotive globally and also from aerospace.

Great. And just on bromine pricing, can you talk about what impact the strike in Israel had on the tightening of that market? And as that strike has ended, do you think that the pricing environment is moving towards value-based pricing in the industry or do you see any drop-off in pricing power as a result of increased production in Israel?

So, Jim, this is Matt, I'll take that one. We've said all along that the impact of ICL strike was much less on supply than you might have expected. They clearly did a good job in preparing for the strike, had an inventory available for the strike and serving their customers during the strike. So, I'd really say that the strike had a lot less impact than a lot of people seem to think. And we're much more comfortable with where pricing is going based on the trends we've seen overall in demand and based on – yeah, that the push to value is one way to describe that, obviously reflected in our adjusted EBITDA margins this quarter. And our outlook is for that to continue right now.

Thank you.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Mike Harrison of Global Hunter Securities. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning.

Hi, Mike.

Joris, within the Surface Treatment business, you noted higher SG&A costs related to that Shanghai joint venture. Is that just structurally a lower margin business or are we going to be able to rationalize some of the SG&A costs over time?

Well, yes, we will see synergies and savings impacting our P&L going forward. The acquired business is pretty much automotive-driven and it is our strategy to diversify also our sales in China towards other segments with traditionally higher profitability as well. But it's more or less in line with what we see in other regions, so there is no big impact there.

All right. And then you announced a butyl lithium capacity rationalization. Obviously you had a key application go away there. Do you envision other applications coming back over time on the synthesis side? And can you also maybe speak to the butyl lithium demand more broadly, particularly as we look at some potential weakness in China. I know that's a key polymerization market for you.

Sure. Michael, I'll take it. If you look at butyl lithium, originally, we thought we would see enough growth in butyl lithium and other applications to fully cover the loss of that synthesis application from last year in 2015. We've covered a part of it, but not all of it. But other, if you will, other specialty lithiums have continued to grow, and that's reflected in some of the numbers. So I think, while we might not have covered it fully in butyl lithium, we've covered it in other ways at this point. And if you look at the outlook for the growth of elastomers over time, which is the key polymer application for butyl lithium or synthesis application, it will grow. It will grow over time. There's going to be – it's going to get covered; it's more a question of will it be 2016 now than 2015.

All right. Thanks very much.

Let me – maybe I should say one more thing though, that if you think about the rationalization, there was always a fair amount of redundant capacity in the butyl lithium supply chain that Rockwood had. And given our setup with organometallics, and the way we've looked at things, it's given us some freedom. So I don't think you should view that we're reducing our capacity to serve the butyl lithium market by this rationalization. We're still in good shape from a supply point of view; it's more just using our assets in a better way.

Thank you for your question. Your next question comes from the line of Tyler Frank of Robert Baird. Please go ahead. Tyler Charles Frank - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Private Wealth Management): Hi, guys. Thanks for taking the question. I was wondering if you could just give – provide a little bit more color on what you're seeing for the drilling completion fluids? Do you think that this will continue to decline over time if low oil prices stay where they are heading into 2016?

Yeah, I think – remember that we are strongest where our applications are in deepwater drilling. So, I believe that if they continue to come low, it depends totally what happens with the capital dollars related to drilling and where they go to drill. There is a lot of data out – I forget who put it out, but I read it earlier this week, that to keep the production flowing of the oil that they are pulling out, some of them are moving to quicker paybacks on some of the drilling, which takes them into the shallower water. So if oil stays low, I think next year you could continue – we expect the second half would be weaker than the first in 2015. And if oil stays where they are, you just have to see what they're going do from a capital standpoint, but it could certainly stay -w e could see the second half of 2015 longer. And historically, the longer oil prices have stayed down during a period of time, the longer it takes from an E&P standpoint for it to pick back up. And then we're the tail of the E&P. So, the longer it stays down, the longer drought I think you would expect to see. But, again, we're going to control what we can control from a cost standpoint, from a technology standpoint, from servicing our customers and meeting the demand where it's there. Tyler Charles Frank - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Private Wealth Management): Got it. And it sounds like demand for bromine remains strong; can you just talk about how you guys look at the overall market demand and price stability in terms of potential future price increases and when we should expect this, the original 30% price increase, to be fully baked into numbers and the model, and then how you guys look at potentially increasing prices again?

So, Tyler, clearly we're still in the implementation process on the initial price increase. I think we will differ the next price increase until we fully implement this one, but we feel good about the trends. What we've said along is that the demand question long-term around bromine is centered on flame retardants. And it's good now to see that we're seeing growth in 2014 over 2013 and we're seeing that growth continue in the first half of 2015. And we continue to feel good about that. If you look at all of the other applications for bromine outside of FR, really the only one that's really a watch-out right now is the one we've been talking about just a second ago, which is what's going on with clear brine fluids. Long-term, that's still an area we feel very good about. Shorter-term or medium-term with low oil prices, we've got to deal with that. So, the trends are headed the right way in our view for overall bromine demand, with the exception of clear brines, which is more of a short-term to medium-term issue related to oil prices. Tyler Charles Frank - Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. (Private Wealth Management): Great. Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed for your questions. I would now like to turn the call over to Matt Juneau for the closing remarks.

Yeah. This is Luke. We've got a number of questions probably that I want to go ahead and address about Michael Wilson. When I talked to Michael about joining Albemarle a few years ago, I knew he had career aspirations to be CEO of a publically traded company, but the kind of guy he was I knew it was worth bringing him in and he came in and he has done an absolute fantastic job for Albemarle over the last two years, driving the business, and more importantly, putting in a leadership team in place that can run that business for him. Now, Michael's got – received a great opportunity with Ingevity to become a CEO, to put together a brand new Board of Directors, to build his management team and do it all in a great place like Charleston, South Carolina. So we're very, very happy for Michael and wish him all the best. But that team that he put together in Performance Chemicals is clearly one of the top teams in the Specialty Chemical area in those businesses. And I'm absolutely confident in their capabilities to continue to drive this business, and we don't expect our Performance Chemicals business to skip a beat. Matt?

Okay. Thanks, everyone, for joining the call. We appreciate your time and attention. And everybody have a great day. Thanks.

Thank you for joining today's conference, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. Good day.