Gregory A. Waller - Vice President of Investor Relations & Strategic Analysis Donald R. Lindsay - Chief Executive Officer, President, Director and Member of Executive Committee Ronald A. Millos - Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance Ian C. Kilgour - Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President Timothy C. Watson - Senior Vice President of Project Development Réal Foley - Vice President of Coal Marketing

Sohail Tharani - Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Research Division Greggory Price - Barclays Capital, Research Division Aleksandra Bukacheva - BMO Capital Markets Canada Jeremy Sussman - Clarkson Capital Markets, Research Division Mitesh Thakkar - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division Jorge M. Beristain - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division Orest Wowkodaw - Scotiabank Global Banking and Markets, Research Division Lucas Pipes - Brean Capital LLC, Research Division Kerry Smith - Haywood Securities Inc., Research Division Oscar Cabrera - BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division Alex Terentiew - Raymond James Ltd., Research Division

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to Teck's Fourth Quarter 2014 Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Greg Waller, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us for Teck's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2014 Results Conference Call. Before we start, I'd like to draw your attention to the forward-looking information on Slide 2. This presentation contains forward-looking statements regarding our business. However, various risks and uncertainties may cause actual results to vary. Teck does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statement. Our presentation is a little bit longer this morning since we're dealing with year-end results as well as guidance for 2015. So bear with us, and we'll get to your questions. And at this point, I'd like to turn the call over to Don Lindsay, President and CEO.

Thanks very much, Greg, and good morning, everyone. I'll begin with a brief overview of our annual results and then followed by our fourth quarter results, and then Ron Mills, our CFO, will provide additional color from a financial perspective, and we will conclude with a question-and-answer session when Ron, myself and several additional members of our senior management team will be happy to answer any questions. In these market conditions, we have continued to execute well by controlling the controllables. We had excellent performance in 2014 with solid delivery against our guidance. And for the full year, we also had record production in Steelmaking Coal, record throughput at Antamina and record production at Red Dog. Our focus on cost reduction continues to deliver results with significant sustainable operating cost reductions being achieved. In 2014, this contributed to reduced unit cost at 10 out of our 13 operations, and that all of our operations generated positive cash flows. We also reduced our full year CapEx compared with our plans at the start of the year. We maintained a solid financial position with the year-end cash balance of $2 billion, also an unused revolving credit facility of USD 3 billion and no substantial debt due in the next 2 years. Looking at the overview of full year results on Slide 4. While demand remained strong, revenue was down 8% to $8.6 billion, primarily due to lower prices for steelmaking coal and copper. However, gross profit in our zinc business unit is up 50%, driven by a 13% increase in zinc prices and also record production at Red Dog. Overall, gross profit before depreciation and amortization was $2.9 billion, EBITDA was $2.3 billion and bottom-line profit attributable to shareholders was $362 million. After removing unusual items, adjusted profit attributable to shareholders was…

Thanks, Don. I've summarized our changes in cash for the quarter on Slide 17. Our cash flow from operations was $743 million in the fourth quarter and that included $220 million from working capital changes, as normally happens during the fourth quarter due to the sales profile at Red Dog. We spent $420 million on capital projects, of which $195 million was on Fort Hills and that included our remaining earning commitments. Capitalized stripping costs were $167 million, and we paid $34 million in interest payments and $16 million on principal payments on our debt for a total of $50 million. After these items, distributions to noncontrolling interest and foreign exchange translation, we ended the year with cash and short-term investments of $2 billion. And in addition, our USD 3 billion line of credit remains undrawn at this time. And in early January, as Don mentioned earlier, we did pay our semiannual dividend, which totaled about $259 million. Our pricing adjustments for the fourth quarter were summarized on Slide 18. The lower prices resulted in $70 million of negative pricing adjustments in the fourth quarter compared with positive pricing adjustments of $10 million in the same period in 2013. Copper was down $0.18 and zinc was down $0.05 compared with the third quarter of 2014, and these adjustments are included in our income statement under other operating, income and expense. As a reminder, refining and treatment charges and the Canadian U.S. dollar exchange rate should be considered in your analysis of the impact of price changes in the adjustment and you should also consider taxes and royalties when analyzing the impact on our net earnings. The chart on the right represents a simplified relationship between the change in copper and zinc prices and the reported settlement adjustment, and usually provides…

Okay, thanks, Ron. In summary, on Slide 23, we are controlling what we can control, such as operating costs and CapEx, and we're focused on conserving cash to maintain a strong financial position. As we noted in our release, with our current production and capital spending plans and on the basis of current commodity prices and exchange rates, we expect to conclude the year with at least $1 billion in cash and no draw on our credit line. And this will leave us with a strong balance sheet to enter into the final full year of construction spending on Fort Hills in 2016 and then we'll look forward to completing the project the next year. And with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions. And I should say, please note that some of our management team members are on the line in different locations, so there may be a brief pause after you ask your question as we decide who to have answer it. Okay, over to you, operator?

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Sohail Tharani from Goldman Sachs.

A couple of questions. The guidance you gave for the cash cost before byproduct of $1.90 -- sorry, $1.65, is that what your cash cost -- I'm sorry, you have $1.75 to $1.85. Just one thing...

That's the [indiscernible] byproduct amount.

Yes. And I was just wondering how does this compare to what you thought earlier this year? Because I think the guidance you gave early this year was with the byproduct and obviously byproduct changes as the moly and other product prices change. I was just wondering what was your guidance -- what was your thought at that time when you started the year?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

I think I do. Sohail, so what you're really asking is what we're comparing the last year's guidance to this year's guidance. We came in a little bit under our costs in our copper business unit compared to our guidance for 2014. And now we've decreased our guidance again for 2015, reflecting the success of our cost management program, and we've provided the numbers there. So they'd come down. Ian, the main contributors to the lower cost this coming year or...

Basically, lower costs are coming through increases in production. And that's mainly due to better grades at -- in particular, at Highland Valley and Antamina.

Is there any change on the cost reduction because of the currency or diesel, I'm sure in there also, fuel prices?

Yes. The reduction in diesel is helpful right across our operations predominantly in coal, but also in copper.

Okay, great. And just one more question. What are management costs? This year brought it down to $4 per tonne. Is it like half on capital and half on operating costs? Is that the way we should assume?

We basically have a capital program over the next 5 years. We've completed the Line Creek plant. We'll be planning this year for the Fording River plant, and then a couple of years after that for the Elkview plant. So the capital of around $600 million over that 5 years and then our operating costs will be moving up to the $4 a tonne level as each of those plants gradually comes online.

The next question is from Harry Mateer from Barclays.

This is Greg Price in for Harry. Quick question with respect to the cash balance and the maturity this year. [indiscernible] there won't be any draw under the revolver. I was wondering if the $1 billion guidance assumes any pay down in cash or if you look to refinance the maturity?

We intend to refinance the maturity likely out of the revolver, given the small size. So it's $300 million.

The next question is from Sasha Bukacheva from BMO Capital Markets.

Question on the investment trading. So we've seen 1 downgrade in January, so there seems to be a bit of a disconnect where you are in full compliance with your covenant with respect to debt: To debt to Equity ratios. What else can you do to make sure there are no further downgrade? Or how -- what else can you do to maintain the credit rating?

Yes. We're in discussions and get reviews on a regular basis of all of the rating agencies. S&P just recently downgraded us. You're starting to see downgrades from other agencies as well. So we're not -- we won't be shocked if there's a move there, but we think that we have plenty of room to continue to maintain our investment grade rating with -- so not concerned at this stage.

Right. But are there any particular ratios or metrics that you used to evaluate your performance and those -- is there's anything you can do to improve on those metrics?

No. They look at the debt equity ratio, the interest coverage, the leverage ratios. They look at our capital spending plans. We give them our sort of forecast, so the -- a number of years, and they take their own views on commodity prices. And based on their views of where commodity prices might go and the opportunities that we have, they would look at that. But we certainly have a very good sense of what the metrics are that drive their rating, and we are looking at all the capital spending plans. We're looking at conserving cash and those are the type of things that we would do to maintain those ratings. We have assets on the books that are sort of in development stage that they're small. We potentially could sell some of those if -- to generate small amounts of cash. So there's things that we can do to protect that rating.

Perfect. So my follow-up question is then where does the dividend payments fit into that plan? Is that something you might be willing to reduce to release your cash balances? Or like how much of the maintaining dividend is a priority with respect to your credit rating and balance -- general state of the balance sheet?

Okay. I'll take that one. So first, I want to add a bit more color on your initial question because I know you haven't been following the company for that long. The ratings at each of Moody's, S&P and [indiscernible] were BBB-mid with either negative outlook or negative trend for quite a while, probably 6 months or longer. And so this rating that we've got from S&P was exactly as expected for some time. So it really wasn't anything that was a surprise to us. Most important aspect was, it was a stable rating meaning that, for the foreseeable future, they don't anticipate another significant review and it did include us paying the dividends. With respect to the dividend question specifically, that is, as we've described before, a board decision, the next dividend isn't payable until early July. So the decision will be made sometime between the April board meeting and the June board meeting. At that stage, we will look at the business conditions in all of our commodities but, in particular, we'll be watching the cutbacks in the coal business and to see whether they've actually been implemented. And whether the -- if they've been implemented, they've actually taken the market back into balance or closer to it such that it effects price. We'd note that even a $10 move in the coal price had $320 million of EBITDA per year, and it's not hard to see a price move greater than that because generally if you went back over the last 10 years, price moves were much more than $10 on a great many occasions. So those are the kind of things that the board will look at that time and depending upon what the result of that review is there may be a cut in the dividend or there may not. If the coal price moves at all, significantly it does not like there would be a need to. If it doesn't move, then we may decide to be a bit more conservative and retain the cash that otherwise would have been used for dividend. In the end, it's a capital allocations decision. We might find that there's other opportunities as well that we'd rather devote that cash, too. So we'll just have to see when it comes to that April to June period.

The next question is from Jeremy Sussman from Clarkson Capital.

One potentially favorable development is on the oil service side. Obviously, service costs have come down significantly. Any chance that we could maybe see CapEx move a bit lower on Fort Hills going forward? How should we think about that?

Well, first, we should say that Suncor is the spokesperson for the project as the operator. So we don't want to presume much or get into too much detail. What we have said is that it's definitely a favorable environment to be building a large project. And certainly, Steve Williams and his team have conveyed to us that they're seeing lots of opportunity to be more efficient, higher quality work, better access to labor and particularly, the key skills. The top skills being at your project is your real advantage for productivity. But we haven't disclosed anything in terms of quantifying what those benefits would be. And I think you have to let us run its course for a while before you really see that. But given a choice, we'd much rather be doing a large construction project in this environment than the environment 2, 3 years ago.

Sure. That's helpful. And just my follow-up is on the copper side. I'm looking at obviously solid production in terms of up year-over-year in 2015 and driving down costs as well. Can we just get a sense? Obviously, most of the production increase is coming from Highland Valley. But on the cost side, how much is sort of increased production versus exchange rates, et cetera?

The predominant factor is the increased production, which results from [ph] the increasing grade. There's a little bit of addition there from the byproducts from Antamina as well. But we're really going to be focusing this year on maximizing the utilization of our assets, our projects to maximize throughput really looking to get the very best we can out of our assets and continuing to focus on cost reduction as well, a particular focus on usage of contractors in South America. So we'll be continuing to improve those unit costs.

The next question is from Mitesh Thakkar from FBR Capital Markets. Mitesh Thakkar - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: So my first question is just kind of -- you mentioned that on coal side, you're feeling some upward pressure due to increased strip ratios, is that increase outside of the normal increases, which you see or is it just in line? And how should we think about annual creep in strip ratios going forward?

The outlook for 2015 is fairly similar to 2014 actually. If we look at overall strip ratios, haul distances, the key fundamentals, continue to be at similar levels to 2014. Going forward, we're always looking to optimize our mine plans and look for ways of improving those fundamentals, and that will be continuing activity for us. Mitesh Thakkar - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: Okay. But you don't see any abnormal increases or decreases in the near future as far as this annual creep is concerned?

No, no, we don't. Mitesh Thakkar - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: Okay. And just on the Highland Valley side, you mentioned that the production is going to come down in '16 by almost 20,000 tonnes. Directionally, how should we anticipate it goes from there? Should we assume it just stabilizes at that kind of level or that could be a meaningful upward or downward moment?

Basically, it's looking to stabilize at that level. This year, we are going through particularly higher grade section of the Valley pit for about 9 months, and then we return to that normal grade profile. Mitesh Thakkar - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: Okay. And on the copper CapEx side, $105 million in new mine development. Assuming about $15 million of that is towards other copper projects, is the remaining $90 million all towards QB2? Or is there anything else there, which I'm missing?

It's basically towards QB2. We're moving as efficiently as possible to achieve the permitting for our QB2 project and that involves quite a lot of things like drilling to verify the water balance and a number of other activities, engineering activities to define the project sufficiently to produce a high-quality permit application and essentially, that's what that money is focused on.

The next question is from Jorge Beristain from Deutsche Bank.

I just wanted to follow-up as well on QB2 a little bit and how we should think about the CapEx on that project if you were permitted, effective tomorrow, how would -- how should we think about the balance sheet to accommodate that level of CapEx? And should we think about maybe the actual hard dollars on QB being pushed until you're done with Fort Hills?

I may start with that and then turn it over to Tim or Ian. But we don't need to think about the latter part of the question, there is no chance the project would be permitted today. We won't see a need to even review how we're going to fund it for at least about 21 months, 1 1/3 years, so a lot can happen in the meantime. So that kind of scenario is just not something that we need to sort of stress test our balance sheet for. We probably will be on the schedule where Fort Hills will be just about to finish before any major CapEx needs to be devoted to QB2. Now in terms of the rest of the question, Tim, do you want take that?

Sure. In terms of when the decision is actually made to begin to move forward with the execution phase of the project, we would actually see the ramp up in capital spending probably over about an 18-month period. So we would probably see in that first year a doubling or tripling of the capital expenditure levels of what we're seeing today as we begin to ramp back up on the engineering front and the procurement of the long-lead [ph equipment. And following that, we will go back to the capital expenditure profiles that we had previously identified for the project over the remaining 48 months of the project.

I might just clarify, just -- you heard the words doubling and tripling, but that's from today's amount of about $90 million. So if you go to 2017, which is the last half a year of construction of Fort Hills, which is about 400 million you might start QB2 at that stage with 200 million or 300 million. And then in 2018, you'd start to -- getting into larger amount. So it looks like a pretty good sequence at the moment.

And so if I could just follow-up. My -- drilling this down, what I'm asking concretely is there a risk that QB1 effectively runs out of production before you can fully ramp QB2 and have a kind of seamless handoff? Or is there the risk that maybe in 2019, you are without copper production if you have to differ the CapEx on QB2 because of Fort Hills or -- and/or permitting issues?

We've looked at the mine plan for QB1 and identified several mechanisms to lengthen the life span of the supergene project, including maximizing material to the heap leach and looking at re-treating other materials available on-site. So at this stage, we think we would be able to achieve continuity to QB2.

The following question is from Orest Wowkodaw from Scotiabank.

In terms of your guidance on the cost side for 2015, what oil or diesel price have you actually baked into that guidance? And we appreciate you giving us the sensitivity.

We've used a $65 a barrel.

$55 a barrel, okay.

6-5, that's $65.

$65 a barrel, okay. And in terms of that cash target of $1 billion by the end of '15, is there any working capital changes, either positive or negative, built into that?

It would be the normal changes in working capital we have, nothing substantive.

Nothing material?

No.

Okay. And then just finally, on QB1, at what point in the future do you anticipate that we would see production start to materially roll off, like would it occur as early as 2016? Or do you see sort of the slow grinding decline?

Frankly, at this stage, it's declining year-on-year. But as I've said, we're looking at quite a number of opportunities to limit that decline. And so we're optimistic that several of those opportunities will actually materialize.

Okay. And just as evidence of what he is talking about, when we initially looked at the budget for QB for 2015, that kind of decline, he was mentioning was, what was contemplated and yet when we finish all the work, we're actually hoping for it to be up a couple of thousand tonnes for 2014's results. So that's at least next year's example of what he has talked about. And then back to the oil price, we budgeted it $65 and then as you pointed out for every dollar a barrel it's below that, which is about $15 a barrel and more below that right now. If that lower price flows through we would save about $5 million in operating cost for each dollar.

Okay. And on that point, what kind of delay typically do you get in terms of lag on the falling oil price before you actually realize the lower price?

Really, it's not that much. I was asking that a couple of times, but does anyone have the specific answer? Because I know it started to come down to very fast.

Yes. We've looked at that recently, Don, and if there is a bit of a lag and, of course, what's happening right now in the Western North America as well the refinery strikes are resulting in the refining margins being a little higher than normal. So we're not seeing quite as much of a gap between WTI and diesel prices. But overall, it does. We're pretty much in synchronous change on our price. The one big change for us or the one difference is, of course, the Red Dog where we buy the oil or the diesel there for the year in the spring. So we incur that cost, whatever the cost is in the spring and then we run that through the operations. That take a little longer to work through our cost, but that's only, say, probably 15% of our overall diesel costs.

So we're hoping oil will be about $35 then.

The next question is from Lucas Pipes from Brean Capital.

Maybe just a quick question on the coal markets, Réal. What we're seeing -- spot prices continue to languish in the Pacific Basin, I was curious to hear your update on maybe how you look at the Q2 benchmark at this point. We continue to see further -- there seems to be further risk of softening there And then just, in general, how would you say the sentiment is in that market at this time?

Thank you. Because Réal was getting really worried he wasn't going to be asked a question. It would've been the first, Lucas. Réal Foley: So I had problems hearing the first part of your question, but I think what I understood is you're looking to get a bit of insight as to what we're seeing in the market now and with respect to the Q2 benchmark, is that correct?

You got it. Réal Foley: Okay. So I guess, going back and looking at 2014 and what happened over the year, Lucas, prices trended down generally, but got pretty stable in a range somewhere around $110 million plus or minus. Since the beginning of the year, we've seen spot price assessments trend down a little bit more from there. That's a bit early to talk about the quarterly benchmark for Q2, but what we're seeing is a number of things in the market, either benefiting or impacting demand. And I guess on the positive side, we're seeing good demand in Asia, outside of China. And we're seeing good demand in the Atlantic Basin, a lot of that is related to lower production or strikes, disruptions in Eastern European production, that is a benefit in that Atlantic basin. In the Pacific, we're seeing slower imports into China since the beginning of this year as a result of the new quality testing standards. So I guess, overall, there's been a little bit of a trend down on the spot price assessment. We're seeing good demand in markets outside of China and currently, we're able to place our tonnes. And if you look at our guidance for the quarter, we're still expecting to sell similar tonnage as what we did in Q4. So yes, that's kind of a brief outlook on the market, Lucas.

That's helpful. I appreciate that. And then maybe a quick question on Trail. When we look at that asset, '15 versus '14, should we model in major change to margins there with the change in FX and so from a U.S. dollar basis?

Yes. There is certainly some impact there, Lucas. Maybe one of the best things that I can point to is we do that modeling workshop every few years and there's a good overview there and how to capture the economics of Trail, there certainly is some leverage to Canadian dollar impact there. Of course, the startup on Pend Oreille is a benefit to the company as well, that you'll see part of that, of course, flow through Trail.

And I guess, operationally, the expectations are for a very good year for Trail when we started the year. Last year, we were completing the acid plant project. And now that that's completed and operating well, that provides a very solid basis for operations of our roasters [ph]. And then later in the year, we had a very successful Kivcet set shut down. So that our lead production levels are trending -- our ability for Kivcet throughput has increased. So the year started well at Trail and operationally, we're set for a slight uptick in zinc, although we have guided towards lower lead production.

The following question is from Kerry Smith from Haywood Securities.

Don or maybe somebody can just comment with the proposed strike by CP rail, I can't remember exactly what percentage or volume get shipped over in CP. But just wonder whether you've got much inventory stock pile at the port and how long a strike could potentially have to last before it would really impact your sales.

All right. Yes. Well, the -- I guess, there is a possibility of a strike. I guess, discussions are still ongoing with the unions concerned. We're in touch, closely, with CP on this. I guess that the history is that the government has intervened fairly quickly if -- when strikes do occur. CP also has the capacity to man significant proportion of its trains using staff, and we've got a couple of weeks of inventory at the port. So we don't expect any strike action to affect our sales.

Okay. As long as the strike didn't last for, say, more than that a couple of weeks in rail or...

Yes, in general.

I got you, okay. And Don or maybe somebody else can comment. Your cost-reduction target, you've already kind of blown through the number and you've reached a $640 million. Do you have a new cost-reduction target? Or -- I mean, it would incremental from here, but I'm just wondering if you've maybe kind of changed your target as it were?

Well, I guess, we have focused very much on ensuring that the cost reductions that we've achieved over the last couple of years are sustainable. So that they -- the cost reduction we achieved in 2013 was repeated in 2014, and then your new initiatives that came in 2014 will be repeated in 2015. And we're looking for at least $100 million on top of that as well, so that our focus on cost reduction will absolutely continue this year.

The next question is from Oscar Cabrera from Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

If I may just round up the question on the target for cash balance of $1 billion, you state that your assuming current commodity prices. What hard coking coal price are you seeing? The settlement for the first quarter are $117 a tonne or are we using spot prices of $106?

Yes, we're using what our current realized is in these quarters, and we're reflecting current prices, are -- would be our current realized.

Okay. And then the second question just that I have this is clear in my mind in terms of your capital structure and capital allocation, would it be fair to say that the debt rating sits higher in your priority list than the dividend and then Don also mentioned that there would be other opportunities, can you just clarify that as well?

Yes. That will always be a board decision, and we can't predict, say, in June when we're looking at which way it will go, it will depend on conditions at that time and what other potential uses of the capital might be. But I've made some pretty strong statements before about wanting to stay investment grade and nothing's changed on that side of it from my point of view.

Again, it is a board's decision.

It's great. No, no, it's well understood. But I think investors would -- perhaps somebody brought this up to my attention the other day, perhaps the question should be phrased as, what is management proposing to the board? But understood.

We -- I mean, to try and be helpful, we, too, will wait until that time period to see what the world looks like. Yes, I think it's just too early to tell. We're seeing shutdowns every week of some sort. They've been pretty small so far, but if it continues we could be in a very different world in June. I'll just -- I was going to save this for the end, but I'll do it right now. If you look at the latest Wood Mack reports on cost curves, and the like, and how much of the coking coal -- hard coking coal industry is underwater. In Australia, it looks like at a price of $106 that about 16.5 million tonnes is losing cash. And in the U.S., which doesn't get the benefit of a currency depreciating, it looks like 30 million to 35 million tonnes are losing cash. We think that we need roughly 12 million tonnes on top of what the 30 we talked about before to shut down. So there's quite a tonnage that certainly candidate to get shut down between now and June. And if it does, then your question will be somewhat academic because the coal price will have started to move. And if it doesn't, then it becomes a very valid question, and we don't know the answers. So we can't be more helpful on that.

The next question is from Alex Terentiew from Raymond James.

Just sort of a follow-up, I guess, from the last question on the coal prices. You note that the current coal prices are unsustainably low and I concur that most forecasts out there for a met coal prices to rise longer term to even in the $140 to $150 range. However, with the decline in the Canadian and Australian dollars and lower oil fuel cost combining to lower the cost curve, can you give me a little bit of color on what your recent analysis or what you think about the market today? And what the met coal price should rise to? Or may be to put it another way, what a sustainable met coal price is in today's market?

So I think you've raised a really good point and for us to give you an answer to that, we'd almost want to ask you what exchange rates would you like us to use? What would you forecast a Canadian dollar and Australian dollar would be at, because that's one of the key things that affects the cost curve and the cost curve will affect the answer to your question. But normally, what I say is that we think the price could move to $150 benchmark, $140 spot without much production coming back that's been shut down certainly around here in Canada. So a normalization of $30 or more could happen fairly easily once the mark gets to balance. Just looking back in history, when the coal price was $300, the deficit was only 10 million tonnes. And so now we think we need another 12 million tonnes of cuts to get to balance. So these aren't sort of huge, huge moves in terms of tonnes that have to come off to market before you see things change quite a bit. So is there a possibility to go to $140, $150? Absolutely. And what that does for Teck, a $32 million of EBITDA for every $1, that would add $1 billion or more to our EBITDA and be whole new ball game.

Operator, gone through hour. If anybody is left on the line with questions, we're certainly happy to take up questions with Ron Millos and myself afterwards. But other than that, I think we'll call the Q&A at this the point.

Thank you. Please go ahead.

Do have any other closing comments, Ron, you really got your closing comment in there.

I guess, just to summarize, solid operating results. The company continues to execute well on its plans. You have noted most of the analysts, I think, have said that our guidance for 2015 is a little bit better, certainly in copper than people expected and then in costs on coal. So it's now our challenge to deliver against that. The coal market remains weak. We're waiting for the shutdowns to occur. We are seeing their progress each week on that, but we'll wait until later in the year before we see whether that has any effect on capital allocation in terms of dividends or other things we might do. In the long term, the business is well positioned on the cost curve, and we're looking forward to seeing Fort Hills get built and become the fourth leg of the business. So -- and time is coming along with that. That will happen before we know it. In the meantime, coal prices are very good with that. With that, thanks very much, all. We'll talk to you next quarter.

Thank you. The conference has now ended. Please disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.