Welcome to the SunCoke Energy, Inc. Third Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. My name is Trish, and I will be your operator for today's call. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Ryan Osterholm. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Trish. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us on SunCoke Energy's third quarter 2013 earnings conference call. With me are Fritz Henderson, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and Mark Newman, our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Following the remarks made by management, the call will be opened for Q&A. The conference call is being webcast live on the Investor Relations section of our website at www.suncoke.com. There will be a replay available on our website. If we don't get to your question during the call, please call our Investor Relations Department at (630) 824-1907. Now before I turn over the call to Fritz, let me remind you that the various remarks we make about future expectations constitute forward-looking statements, and the cautionary language regarding forward-looking statements in our SEC filings apply to the remarks on our call today. These documents are available on our website as are reconciliations of any non-GAAP measures discussed on the call. Now I'll turn it over to Fritz.

Thanks, Ryan. Good morning. Earlier this morning, we had our first standalone call with SXCP unitholders, and this is obviously the call to discuss SunCoke Energy. So welcome. The quarter's highlights, another reasonably strong quarter from an operating perspective, sustained high level of operating performance in our coke business. The focus continues to be on driving cash cost in the coal business. Frankly, as I look at the coal results in the quarter, pretty much similar to what we've been experiencing through the year. Good progress on costs -- or maintaining our cost position, I guess, is what I would say. But nonetheless, obviously, the downdraft from pricing continues to weigh on our results. And then maintaining top quartile safety performance, both in coke and coal, actually, continues to be a priority for the company. In terms of growing the business, starting with organic growth. In the quarter, we saw a renewal of our Indiana Harbor contract with ArcelorMittal, a very positive development for us in terms of this is the only coke contract we had whose expiration was prior to 2020, and so this is renewed on a 10-year basis, effective 10/1. So the results, you won't see any impact to that in the third quarter, but you will begin to see that in the fourth quarter. We actually have a chart which will touch on Indiana Harbor later in the deck. The project itself, we continue to spend in the project. About $85 million is the project size, which involves both repairs to ovens, repairs to common tunnels, new equipment. And the project is, I guess I would say, on track. There's a lot of moving parts to this project, but it remains on track. And we're really pleased that we were able to renew the contract in…

Thanks, Fritz. I'd describe the quarter as another decent quarter in which we are in line with our full year guidance, which Fritz just took you through. On a year-over-year basis, our adjusted EBITDA comparable is impacted by really a very strong Q3 of 2012 and the continued weakness in the met coal market on our coal mining results and in the ongoing refurbishment at Indiana Harbor, which affects both the production and operating and maintenance costs. Looking at revenue, we're down roughly 19%. Again, that reflects the low coal price impact on both our coke and coal segments. Our coke sales are actually down on a year-over-year basis by about 33,000. Again it's a comparison against a very strong Q3 last year, also again, reflecting the impact of lower production at Indiana Harbor. We also had lower production at some of our other units, primarily related to the placement of trains. Turning to adjusted EBITDA, we're down roughly 31% to $50.7 million in the quarter. Again, the primary factor here is the year-over-year comparison on coal prices. We'll go through in detail the reduction there. And then on Domestic Coke, really our business was quite flat outside of Indiana Harbor, where we have a major refurbishment underway. On the EPS front, we -- our decline to $0.09 really reflects the impact of coal, the impact of Indiana Harbor, as well as the attribution of earnings to our SXCP public holders, which is about $0.08 in the quarter. Turning to Chart 5, we reported adjusted EBITDA of $50.7 million in Q3 versus $73.7 million in Q3 of last year. As you'll notice in the chart, our Domestic Coke business was down slightly, about $1 million, where really gains at Middletown and Haverhill were offset by poorer result at our Jewell…

Thanks, Mark. Page 14, last chart on the deck, is just a summary of our growth strategy. Again, on the top of the chart between coke-making Coal Logistics and ore processing or ferrous activities, the areas of focus, and double upside [ph] that which should be organic versus that which might be through acquisition. On the coke-making side, obviously, it remains our core business in the generating the -- actually the lion's share would be my understatement of the morning, but it is the generator of the EBITDA of the company. We do continue to do work on permitting a new plant; preferred location, Kentucky. Anticipate no change actually from what we talked about in prior quarters that we might -- we'd receive that permit first quarter of next year, early next year, I guess, the way I would put it. The contract renewal and refurbishment in Indiana Harbor, I view as probably the most important near-term priority in the domestic coke-making side of the business. We've received a lot of questions post the renewal as to how might -- what this might do for SunCoke. And so the chart today was intended to try to answer that question. Recall what was being done in Indiana Harbor is about allowing the plant to run on a stable, sustainable basis, so have the plant run at production volume levels, have the plant run at production yield levels, targeted yield levels, have the plant run within its cost budgets and then earn a return on the capital that's being investment to refurbish the plant. So we were pleased that we were able to reach a win-win -- excuse me, arrive at a win-win contract renewal in the quarter, and we're looking forward to finishing that project and allowing it to add even…

[Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Neil Mehta from Goldman Sachs.

A couple of high level of questions. First, can you talk through the status of the greenfield opportunity in Kentucky? How should we think about the timeline for major gating factors and then as well as when that facility could most likely come online?

Okay. Let's start with that. So gating factors, one would be permitting, which would be early next year. Second, and frankly our most important, is customer commitments. And our view is that we've had exploratory discussions with customers about this plant. Those we think will accelerate when we have a permit in hand. My view is those are the discussions that will take place in more earnest, I guess. I shouldn't say they're not being done. We've had exploratory discussions today, but for the most part it's, "Well, when the permit's received, let's talk more seriously." So those discussions will take place, call it, first half of next year through the summer of next year. If we're able to secure a reasonable part of the production via contract commitment, what portion is reasonable? Certainly it would be more than 50% in my view, but we haven't said precisely what percentage we would want to have committed before kick the project up. But we'd want to have a reasonable part of this project committed before we would put any shovels in the ground. If you were to take a timeline and draw it from the middle of next year, you're not producing any meaningful EBITDA until late 2016, early 2017.

Got it, got it. And in terms of capital allocation, would you ever consider a dividend to better link the value between the parent and the MLP? And as you get through some of this CapEx here and you're in a more free cash flow generative position, how do you think about a dividend versus a buyback versus the status quo?

So dividend policy, share repurchase policy is obviously a matter for the board. It's also a premature discussion because, really, the limitations that come with our tax sharing agreement have -- basically meant that we haven't had that discussion in any meaningful way with the board. It wouldn't until we got through the expiration of the tax sharing agreement, which is January of next year, [indiscernible] to be specific. I would say dividend policy or share buyback then becomes an interesting discussion to have with the board relative to the capital allocation because I think it's a worthwhile discussion and we should -- not just a worthwhile discussion, it's an important discussion to have with the board. I wouldn't rule it out. We're not saying that we're going to do it today, but I think we'll engage the board. But I think in our business, given the stability of the cash flows, given the MLP, given the earnings we receive from the MLP, that it would be prudent for us to have the discussion with the board about, I'll call it, capital returns to shareholders. And then the question of dividend versus share repurchase and on the view today actually. So I mean, I think it would be something that we would talk with the board about early next year.

Got it. And then final question. It looks like you got approval here on qualifying income on the pelletizing and concentrating, so that's good progress. How should we think about the potential market size for this, relative to the coke-making opportunity?

Mark, do you want to take that one?

Yes. Round numbers, it's about 4 to 5x the coke-making opportunity in terms of the amount of ferrous materials used in steelmaking versus coke. So that's kind of it. I think of the coke market as kind of 20 million tons in North America, U.S. and Canada, and so I think this is considerably larger. Again, we just got the ruling so I think it's early days in terms of what the true potential is today.

Our next question comes from David Gagliano of Barclays.

I just have a couple of questions related to the slides. And thanks, by the way, for the extra information on Indiana Harbor, it's very helpful. The -- my first question is actually tied to that slide. What are the volume assumptions behind the 2014 and 2015 targets that are laid out in the slides?

Well, let me turn to that page. So as we said, in 2014 we do anticipate the customer will have a blast furnace outage -- to do some work on the blast furnace. So typically the capacity of that plan is 1.22 million tons. We would anticipate in 2014 being probably about 100,000 less than that, but the exact number can move around a little bit. And then by 2015, we would anticipate being able to run this plant at 1.22 million tons or potentially more because we obviously need to see how the project works. But it is not like it's going to be a lot more because these coke plants generally run at their targeted capacity.

Okay, great. And then in terms of the refurbishment, itself, what, if any, are the biggest risks in terms of getting this done on time and on schedule and budget, et cetera?

I would say, first of all, we're confident. We're on schedule, the spending level about $85 million. We feel pretty good about that. The interesting thing about this project is the biggest risk of this project is we're doing it while running the plant at the same time. And we've been doing that, so I wouldn't say it's we don't have experience. And I would say the experience we've had, we learn as we go and we get better as we go. So I think that we get into early next year, other than the equipment, which we know will come in the middle of next year, we have a good chance of finishing up this project. It won't be January, but it'll be -- by the spring this project should be completed. I think the second risk of this project is everything needs to be done. In other words, this is not one where you have your punch list and the plant is operating well. This is one where each element of the project is critical to the plant's overall capability to produce at yield, at cost and at volume. And so the way I think about it is we're confident we're on schedule. But this is one where each part of the project's got to get done and we're doing it while running the plant. So we feel good about the project, but we just -- we think we'll get there and we're confident we'll get there.

Okay. And then just last on the Indian Harbor. The ground conditions -- so then the ground condition issues are way, way in the past. Nothing to worry about in terms of any of the targets here?

Though interestingly, once in a while I get a good seismic update and I would say -- I mean, actually the last one I had you've seen some movements, which have been measured in millimeters or inches. But frankly, the facility's pretty much settled and it's not -- you can't say it doesn't move any further, but I would say that it's not on our list of top 10 things to worry about is how I'd look at it.

Okay, perfect. And then I'm almost done, sorry. Just on Slide 10 the coal -- turning over of the coal business. What -- in terms of the pricing for your 2014 contracts, what are you seeing in terms of the outlook for 2014 contract prices?

So it's early. We don't have it yet, but I'll give you some estimate based upon what we see today. As we look at pricing for 2013 without the carryover tons from the prior year, the numbers were $115, $114 and then overall, including all the carryover tons in all the business we did, we thought we'd be between $120 and $130. As I look at it coming into next year, again, pulling out carryover tons because I think it's -- that distorts the analysis, and frankly, I'm not sure we'll have any carryover tons, we'll be down, we think, probably about $10 from where we were in 2013. But that's as of today. This is one that can move around even by the week or the month. So if you thought $114, $115 was the number for new tons, particularly in the Jewell contract actually, you could be down $105 with a range of maybe $100 to $110 based upon what I know today. Again, though it's -- frankly, we're probably 45 days away. Maybe within 45 days, we'll have better line of sight as to what the pricing will look like for 2014.

Okay. And then at that -- if that pricing plays out as it appears now over the next 45 days, should we expect the volumes to remain stable?

Interesting. As I look at what we've accomplished this year, relatively large driver of our push to the cash cost of $120 -- or it's $121, $126, a big driver of that has been mining more coals with 20% less manpower, significantly fewer mines. And we continue to see significant improvements in productivity in terms of feet advancement per shift. And even with the geology issues we've had, it's been a driver of our actual cash cost reduction. We've got our arms around costs, themselves, and we think we'll continue to keep that tight. But I think we could see further productivity improvement even into next year, which might mean we'd actually have marginally more tons rather than ramping them back further. My objective, as I think about this, is to try to hold the results in '14 versus '13, albeit they're not particularly satisfactory results. I'm not suggesting they're anything other than that. But we think that even without the new prep plant, we have line of sight to try to hold our results year-to-year, from '14 to '13, even with a decline in coal prices. And the new prep plant, to the extent we tackle it, is it gives us the potential to take costs down another $10 a ton, so -- which might give us a chance to get down closer to $100 a ton and that's sort of targeting that we have within the company.

Our next question comes from Timna Tanners from Bank of America.

I think we just wanted -- I just want to take a step back and look at capital allocation decisions, if you could because it seems to me like you laid out really nicely on that last slide all of the different options that you're looking at, and there are quite a few, but some of them are kind of smaller capital allocation decisions, things like the infrastructure and the handling. And then you've got the bigger options like a DRI facility, which are hundreds of millions of dollars. So I just wanted to hear a little bit more, what's it going to take for you to decide to pull the trigger on this bigger project? How do you sort out between those projects that are more immediate benefit and can be MLP-able more easily and the bigger ones and then ration that against the decision to -- which it sounds like you're going to do, which is invest in this coal processing? So just wanted to hear a little bit more about how you're looking at different options for uses of the cash.

So let's -- let me separate the financing and investment decision, talk about investment decisions and then move into the financing side of the balance sheet. On the investment side, we kind of like these -- the smaller acquisitions that we've done within coal handling. We -- it's not an inexhaustible universe, so -- but it's something where we think we could do a few more of those. We've done those directly within the MLP as opposed to doing the acquisitions at the SunCoke level. We think that was the smart thing to do. The MLP, itself, is -- has got dry powder in terms of the leverage capacity. And obviously, MLPs, to the extent that you wrap it up even further, have some ability to not only -- you could actually use leverage but you could also do secondaries on equity if we needed to. So I do think that within the MLP having a balance sheet that's under levered with dry powder gives us ability to do these smaller deals relatively quickly. Obviously, we're still subject to limitations from not only the tax sharing agreement, but also you get into next year then we could do things like shelf registrations. There's things you can do within the MLP that can allow you to move even faster. Big projects, likely to be done within the parent or SXC, big construction projects. The parent, itself, also has significant dry powder in terms of its leverage capacity to the extent we don't have plans today to do drop-downs. But to the extent we did do drop-downs, that would be another source of significant amount of cash and financing capacity for the parent to do such project. So as I think about it, Timna, I think we could do -- continue to…

Well, I think it's the fact -- I don't think that question was designed to talk about leverage and ability to finance. I mean, actually, let's hone in on the big projects. So DRI, we just heard Cliffs say that they're holding off on DRI pellets because they want to make sure they have a buyer. Those big projects, how do you think about going ahead with them? The challenges you found in India, the global coke market conditions, those are the kind of things I'm trying to get a handle on in your sense of your things. So how do you think about the greenfield? Like what stuff that brought the board to process of thinking about whether or not you want to do a greenfield in this market or thinking about DRI particularly in this market?

Yes. So, I think the answer is obviously dialogue and then customer commitment, period. We won't do it without it. We're not going to kick off a major merchant project without having a reasonable part of commitments signed up. And with respect to the question on commitments, the interesting question, I think on the coke side, as I said earlier, having a permit at hand, I think, will allow us to have even more tangible discussions with the blast furnace customers who might-be customers for that plant. And the DRI, it's interesting. There's a lot of activity going on in this area, just a lot of activity. It's not lost on me what Cliffs has said, nor what Nucor said, nor what [indiscernible] said. Frankly, we're still new to this game, but I think we have -- as I think about it, Timna, we have a reputation with customers of being able to be a good supplier and provider of capital, as well as an operator of assets in a way that's noncompetitive with them and I think that provides us a pretty unique role in the industry.

Our next question comes from Dave Katz from JPMorgan. David Adam Katz - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: I was hoping just to drill down into Brazil a little more. The volume there has been lower year-on-year, but the EBITDA has been, if memory serves me right, higher. Could you talk about what's been driving that?

Yes, go ahead Mark.

Yes. I mean, essentially, we had higher corporate costs allocated last year to Brazil, primarily as a result of some legal issues that we were dealing with there that we don't have this year. David Adam Katz - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And is the volume and the EBITDA that we're seeing on a quarter-on-quarter basis now with the exception of the fourth quarter kind of the proper run rate?

Yes. We do have a floor there on fees and so the volumes are lower, but when the floor kicks in, effectively, what you're seeing is a run rate EBITDA at the current volumes.

Our next question comes from Sam Dubinsky from Wells Fargo.

Just to be clear, you expect Indiana Harbor to show a $15 million to $20 million improvement in EBITDA in 2015. Is that compared to 2013 levels? Or is that above 2014?

Above 2014.

Okay, perfect. And then does the JV need an improvement in currency rates to break even or generate meaningful profitability?

No, what we've had is just enormous volatility actually, which, without the hedge in place, we mark the liabilities to market and that's what affected the quarter. The focus -- our focus really on operational stability is about how do you price the coke relative to, I'll call it, replacement cost of the coal. That's the more important and the more relevant statistic in terms of ongoing operating performance. We have, as I said, worked with our partner to put in place what I think is a common sense approach to hedging the coal as it's on the water. So I think, that issue you can't -- you're always going to have some risk because the coal's denominated in dollar even if you hedge it versus where you're pricing your coke in rupee. I think the more important issue is just stability of the underlying business. And I think, we could -- the business could be profitable with even a reasonable amount of volatility. You could have -- if you had a high volatility in any given quarter you could see it affect the results. But it's -- I think, the particular quarter we've had was unusual. The rupee moved 17% and we didn't have a hedge in place.

So if I just add to what Fritz said. Typically, in this market, when the rupee devaluates, the price of coke locally goes up so you have a natural hedge. We actually had a situation where the rupee devalued. And because of the overall economic weakness, as well as some of the issues unique to iron ore mining in India, we had sort of a weak coke market so we weren't able to price through with higher coke prices. So we think kind of a more normal market activity, along with a prudent hedging strategy, we should be able to moderate volatility around FX going forward.

Moderate, but you can't really eliminate it in as much as this is a merchant model so...

Correct.

We're going to have that risk as part of running the business.

Okay. And just my last question on ferrous. Do you think there's greater opportunity in greenfield or there are a lot of assets to be bought?

I'll let Mark take that question.

So I'd say ferrous is very capital intensive. So there a lot of assets that exist today. Again, we just received the ruling in the quarter. And so at this point, we have nothing to say about potential acquisitions other than to say there are many assets there that could be potentially acquired. On the new greenfield opportunities, again, there's a lot of interest in this whole area of DRI, including making DR pellets from available iron ore here in the U.S. and Canada. And so we think in terms of greenfield opportunities vis-à-vis the ruling we have received, there's certainly the opportunity to look at DR pellets as new investment. I'd say there's probably more assets out there today than there are new investment opportunities, but obviously we're interested in both.

Our next question comes from Nathan Littlewood from Credit Suisse. Nathan Littlewood - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: I've got a, I guess, a follow-on line of questioning about this whole ferrous side of things. I'm really curious to understand, I guess, how you're thinking about exposure to different parts of this whole ferrous chain. You just touched on the sort of DRI versus DR pellets, but have there been any conversations about possibly going further back in the chain? In other words, could you even get into concentrating and moving sort of further to the mine site?

Well, I'll let Mark touch on concentrating. I will touch on mining. The answer is we're not a miner, so... Nathan Littlewood - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Yes. No, I wasn't thinking you did that.

You won't see us doing that.

So Nathan, if I can just build on what Fritz said. First of all, in our coke-making business, we're essentially processing met coal into an input that's used in the blast furnace, that is coke. And so we have a processing model where we're not -- other than our small coal mining business, we're not really mining, we're just really processing. The ruling that we've received on ferrous is really around 2 primary activities: converting iron ore to concentrate, which typically happens at the mine mouth; and then converting concentrate or iron fines into pellet. And so in our view, we don't need to be -- we don't need to own resources in the ground or extract resources, iron ore, out of the ground. But we can add a processing step like we do with met coal for the steel industry where we effectively deploy a business model that's fairly consistent with our current coke-making business making model, i.e., where we're providing the capital, we're running the asset and we're effectively being paid for our processing activity without taking the underlying commodity exposure. Nathan Littlewood - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Sure, absolutely. That makes sense. I wasn't suggesting for a second that you'd be mining, but I guess I'm just trying to understand the potential size of the earnings pool here. You commented earlier that in terms of tonnage, the ferrous side of things is 4 or 5x bigger but the difference between a concentrate and a pellet is maybe only sort of $25 to $30 a ton. There's going to be a big chunk of that, which is the sort of cash cost. So the available margin in there is maybe going to be something around $10 a ton, which is obviously a lot less than the $50 a ton or something that you're making in the coke business at the moment.

Right. As I think about it -- this is very good question, actually, what we're trying to do is something that is not done. By the way, we did that with coke years ago, too. The question is, can you insert a processing step and negotiate a contract that provides for tolling at a reasonable return in this part of the value chain? That's the key question. That's what we're trying to get accomplished. Because if we end up being a price taker on both the sell and the cost side, that's not -- we're just not going to do that because what we're saying is if we're going to do a major capital investment, we're going to want to have an offtake that's got a reasonable way for us to recover the capital. The lower cost of capital, the reason you do it at SXCP is it gives us a much lower cost of capital. Frankly, it gives us a much lower cost of capital, and in our judgment, provides a lower cost of capital to our customer that could be used and that's how you create the opportunity. It's not been done before, but it doesn't mean it can't be done actually because we -- one of the things we like about having this MLP is we're the only one that has an MLP like this within the steel space. Nathan Littlewood - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Sure, absolutely. Just one last question before I move onto the next caller. Is -- the DRI is obviously sort of more aligning yourself with the EAF industry. What are your views on sort of the longer-term outlook of BFs versus EAFs? And what is your sort of preference for aligning yourselves more with one or the other?

So let me deal with each of those. Well-run blast furnaces today, if you look at the costs relative to hot metal, are competitive costs. But it's not -- if you look over time in the U.S. obviously, you'd see a significant shift such that the arc furnace today is about 60%, I think, of the production versus 40% blast furnace. That blast furnaces that are run today generally are competitive if you have a good strategy within your raw material chain. DRI and things like that might actually change the equation even more. And now here, very long term, i.e., obviously something you'd -- here you think about 5, 10-year type strategy. But I think, today, what you've seen is some leveling off of the blast furnace penetration of total production. Obviously, you've seen the arc furnace manufacturers continue to improve the quality of their output so that they've opened up additional markets to themselves over time, and I think the competitive dynamic today is a well-run blast furnace with a good supply chain can be very competitive from a cost perspective. So -- and then the second question now is, from our perspective, interesting. If you think about our business, we have 3 customers within SXC, we have -- if you take aside the coal logistics, and then we have 2 within SXCP. Any activity that we could take on that would allow us to open up additional customers to SunCoke Energy has real value to us. The customers that we have, we love our customers, right? We have 3 customers. But anything we can do that would allow us to open up an additional set of customers to us, we think could have really value not only to growing the business, but diversing the risk of our business.

Our next question comes from the Lucas Pipes from Brean Capital.

Quick question on CapEx. So I think Indiana Harbor refurbishment came down $10 million versus your previous guidance. Is that deferred? Or should we expect the total amount spent on the refurbishment to come down?

Go ahead, Mark.

Yes, the total amount today is unchanged. This is basically retiming some into next year.

Okay, that's helpful. And then on -- back on India. Could you maybe give us a sense or remind us how much of the output from your JV is sold directly to VISA Steel versus more broadly into the merchant market?

About 1/3 would go to VISA Steel over time and it hasn't been that way the first part of this year when VISA wasn't running their blast furnace. But ongoing basis, you would expect about 1/3 of the production would go to VISA Steel and 2/3 will go into the market.

Great, that's helpful. And then one final question on the coal business. You mentioned the prep plant earlier. How quickly do you think that is going to come online and change our costs on the coal side? And what the amount of CapEx would we be looking at for that new prep plant?

Well, we're assessing the potential that today. But if you think about it, it'd be $70 million and that was not just the prep plant. That's the prep plant and load-out facility because what we would be doing is not only replacing the prep plant, we'd be moving it to a different location with the coal load-out facility to de-link the situation that we have today where the prep plant is linked at the hip to the coke battery. So you basically run the coke plant like a coke plant and you'd run the coal mine like a coal mine as part of this. So about $70 million in total for both the prep plant and load-out. And timing, to the extent we take on the project, it would be done through -- it would obviously depend on when we kick it off, but if we kicked it off in the relatively near term, let's say, over the next -- you'd have the permit things. But if you kicked it off in the next 3 months or so, it's a 12-month project, so you'd be talking about it coming online in early '15.

So with cost savings in 2014, would they be driven by a change in the mix? Or what would that be a function of?

It'd be driven by further mine face productivity, further minor productivity. It would not be driven by -- we have made some improvements in the prep plant, existing prep plant. We put in a fourth circuit. We did some things to try to get better yield. Frankly, it's part of the part of the reason that I've been -- we've been considering this new prep is the current one. I mean, we've been investing about $6 million or $7 million in the existing one each year to try to address its deficiencies and it's not a very satisfying result, though some part of it we can reuse. But we're having to spend money to try to keep the existing prep plant operating and functioning safely and effectively. And this is a prep that was purchased used in 1958. So part of this is -- it is at the end of its useful life. But you really wouldn't get the $10 until '15. That would be a '15 item. It's much more about the next year productivity mine face activity, continued cost control. By the way, the other thing you'd have is you'd have some reduction in royalties. If prices were down, you'd have also some reduction in royalty. But the bigger issue would be productivity. Thank you. I think, at this point, I don't -- there are not any other further -- there are not any other question. So thanks very much for your interest in SunCoke, and look forward to talking to you next quarter. Thanks.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.