Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Teck Resources' Q2 2019 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions]. This conference call is being recorded on Thursday, July 25, 2019. I would now like to turn the conference call over to Fraser Phillips, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations and Strategic Analysis. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much, Jen. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for Teck's Second Quarter 2019 Results Conference Call. Before we begin, I would like to draw your attention to the caution regarding forward-looking statements on Slide 2. This presentation contains forward-looking statements regarding our business. This slide describes the assumptions underlying those statements. Various risks and uncertainties may cause actual results to vary. Teck does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statements. I would also like to point out that we use various non-GAAP measures in this presentation. You can find explanations and reconciliations regarding these measures in the appendix. With that, I'll turn the call over to Don Lindsay, our President and CEO.

Thank you, Fraser, and good morning, everyone. We're pretty excited here today. We've got a lot of good news to share. So let's get going. I'll begin on Slide 3 with highlights from our second quarter followed by Ron Millos, our CFO, who will provide additional color on the financial results. We'll conclude with a Q&A session where Ron and I and additional members of our senior management team would be happy to answer any questions. We achieved a number of important milestones in the second quarter that put Teck in a strong position moving forward. First, we updated our capital allocation policy and increased our share buyback to $1 billion. We updated our capital allocation framework to reflect our intention to make additional cash returns to shareholders. I'll speak to this in greater detail later but we intent to supplement our base dividend with an additional amount of at least 30% of available cash flow through a supplemental dividends and all our share repurchases. I know there are a couple of analysts that have already missed the fact that, that 30% is on top of the base dividend. Second, the BC government has endorsed the use of saturated rock fills to treat water at our steelmaking coal operations. We have begun construction of an expansion of the saturated rock fill at Elkview. We estimate that over the long term, saturated rock fills will significantly reduce capital and operating cost compared to tank-based active water treatment facilities of similar capacity. Third, we are accelerating our innovation-driven efficiency program known as RACE21 to generate an initial $150 million in annualized EBITDA improvements by the end of 2019, that will be much more going on into the future. In addition to RACE21, in light of economic uncertainty and trade tensions, we are…

Thanks, Don. Slide 16 summarizes the changes in our cash position during the second quarter. We generated just over $1.1 billion in cash flow from operations this quarter. We spent $599 million on capital projects and CAD 839 -- CAD 835 million redeeming the USD 600 million notes. Our capitalized stripping costs were $117 million. We repurchased $153 million in Class B shares, which were canceled and we paid $101 million in interest and finance charges. We spent $48 million on investments and other assets, $39 million on lease payments and $28 million in our regular-based dividends. After these and other minor items, we ended the quarter with cash and short-term investments of around $1.5 billion. Turning to summary of our financial position on slide 17. Our liquidity remains strong, about $6.8 billion currently. And that includes $1.6 billion in cash or USD 4 billion unused line of credit. $1 billion of the cash is in Chile for the development of the QB2 project. And as Don mentioned earlier, we signed the USD 2.5 billion limited recourse project financing facility to fund the j development of the QB2 project. And that financing is expected to close in the third quarter. As we previously mentioned, the QB2 partnering transaction of financing trend dramatically reduced our funding requirements for the project to just 690 -- USD 693 million and that includes escalation. And no cash is expected from Teck until late 2020. With the reduction of the USD 600 million of notes, our outstanding notes have been reduced to $3.2 billion and as Don mentioned, there's no significant debt maturities prior to 2035. With that, I'll turn the call back to Don for his closing comments.

And, Ron. As I said before, this is a very transformational time for Teck. Overall, I'm feeling very good about the direction of the company and the strong foundation that we've built. We finalize the QB2 financing and advanced the project's major works. We increased our share buyback to $1 billion and we further strengthened our balance sheet by redeeming the USD 600 million in notes. And we announced three key developments. First, we updated our capital allocation framework, under which we are prioritizing returning cash to shareholders by adding at least 30% of free cash flow to our base dividend. And the BC government has endorsed saturated rock fills as an alternative form of water treatment, which will significantly reduce capital and our operating costs. And we are accelerating RACE21 to generate an initial $150 million in annualized EBITDA approved by the end of this year, and we believe there will be at multiples of that in the future. These milestones are part of our straightforward strategy of draining our operations ably, efficiently and sustainably to generate cash, successfully executing our QB2 project and returning additional cash to shareholders. And with that, we will be happy to answer your questions. And please note that some of our management team members are calling in from different locations so there maybe a brief pause after you ask your question. So back to you, operator.

[Operator Instructions]. We will take our first question from Matthew Korn with Goldman Sachs.

If you could just a little bit more, what exactly with the detailed analysis done that prompted the push back of so much of QB2 spending this year? Does it all push into 2020?

I'll turn now over to Alex Christopher.

So in terms of the QB spending, it's being pushed into 2020. And that's really a function of some -- two things, number one, a bit of a slower mobilization in some of the noncritical path areas and that's a function of some of the primal clearances and weather impacts as well as some of the timing of some of the initial invoices coming out of the contract because there's a wrap up activities.

Got it. And then another one I want some clarification on. On the saturated rock fills, is the approval and the endorsement you've gotten from the BC government for Elkview and Elkview only? And was that SRF? And do you still need to do some more to prove the viability for future SRF build outs?

The short answer is yes. It's approval for Elkview only at this stage. But they have endorsed the approach and technology overall. And we fully expect that Elkview one will be successful. We've been doing running that now for over a year. And remember it recovers more selenium and more of the nitrates then tank-based active water treatment plants. And it's gets into operation two years faster. So it's not just the cost of advantages but there are number very significant advances that we have to believe that, that's the technology of the future.

We will now take our next question from Chris Terry with Deutsche Bank.

A couple of questions for me. Just in terms of the Slide 4 on the capital management and thinking about where we're at today and then that framework for the future. Given you've already announced the buybacks out, imagine when you get to November, you then talking about what you might announce from that point forward. Is the 30% the historic cash flow as in what you've delivered for 2019? Or is it your forecast for 2020 once you get to the end of this year, make the decision on your next capital management announcement?

I'll turn that over to Ron Millos.

So the 30% will be based on effectively our operating cash flow less the lease payments, the interest payments and the minority interest and not off the capital that Don spoke to earlier in any debt payments that we would have to make. So once we get to the end of the year, have our forecast for the end of the year, we would then look at what that 30% number would kick out and talking about paying or -- as Don mentioned, this is in addition to the base dividend that we're paying. That cover your question?

Okay. No, I'm just trying to check as you've already gone above that 30% this year. When you get to this end of this year, you've already met that and thinking about what you could announce at the end of the year ready for 2020 assuming you've already exhausted the current $600 million buyback program?

Yes. No, that's a good observation for this year. We have allocated more capital than the formula would suggest in terms of returning capital to shareholders. But probably you should use this framework to look at 2020, whatever your model throws out on the 2020, you could apply this framework to it. I should say that while historically we've made the decision in November, there is a bit of a debate amongst shareholders that they've been us feedback that some would prefer the payout to come from the final year end results, which means you do it in February, others think that November, you can kind of predict which year-end results would it be. So one of the other, we'll see.

Okay. And then just in terms of the coal guard and change, it's quite minor but splitting out, I guess, the different parts to how we've evolved through the year. Is it -- so that's more to do with what wasn't produced in the first half rather than what could be produced in the second half? That's how we rate that?

Robin and Real are both nodding their heads in answer to your question. I do want to highlight, though, as we've reduced the guidance that the bulk of the tonnage this within the reduction is the lower margin products. So it has very little effect on our financial results. But it does highlight the logistical challenges that we've had, which we are of course investing in new capacity at Neptune to try to alleviate those challenges.

Okay. And then just on the SRF, is there any federal government approval needed for that? Or is it just by the State? And when would you expect to be able to qualify for the CapEx and operating savings going forward?

There is no federal approval involved, it is the province only. And we have, I think, indicated in our disclosure that we believe the capital cost will be less than quarter of about 20% of what it would cost to build an equivalent size tank-based water treatment plant. And that the operating cost would be about 50% of what a tank-based plant would have. And those plants are -- just order of magnitude for those plants are about $400 million. So if you extend that throughout the model over the next 10 years, that's very significant savings.

Thanks for the color on that one. Just the last one for me, the met coal process obviously waken just a little bit in the last month or so. Just after an updated view on how you're seeing the current creatures in met coal?

I'll turn it over to Réal Foley. Réal Foley: All right, thanks, Chris. So when we look at met coal, one important point to note is that the fundamentals for demand/supply remains strong. Yes, there has been steel production cuts announced mainly in EU and also in the U.S. But when you look at hot metal production, which is a good proxy for steelmaking coal demand as it relies on coke. The reality is that many year-to-date, the global hot metal production is up 5.1%, and it's based on really strong production out of India, Southeast Asia, China. And when you compare the EU and U.S. versus the hot metal production in domestic world, it only represents about somewhere around 10%-or-so of that production. So the strong demand in those other market areas more than offset the cuts that have been announced in EU and U.S.

The next question is from Orest Wowkodaw with Scotiabank.

Just a little bit clarity, if you could on the water treatment. And congratulations on getting the endorsement here on the first plant at Elkview. Can you just remind us about how many water treatment plants do you still have to build in the Valley? And of those, how many do you think are suitable for SRF versus the Active Water Treatment Facility?

Robin Sheremeta.

There's a number of plants that have been established and we talked about that back ways. But there's the Fording River South tank-based active water treatment plant that is being built right now. It's about 20,000 cubic meters a day or 2 million liters of water a day. And then there's the SRF at Elkview that's being constructed right now. Both of those will come online at the end of 2020. And then there's a third large plant, which would be the fourth plant after the Line Creek, the Elkview and the Fording River South. It'd be the fourth plant constructed in Fording River. And that's the optionality, I guess, that we discussed as a best case scenario, which would be to replace that tank-based plant with a statured rock fill. So that's the path we're trying to establish right now around options in terms of water treatment at that end of the valley. And that's what was defined across the five years. And then there are future plants that are really defined by updated modeling and measurements that are taken in the valley. And we had guided rough numbers around annual costs and operating costs of 10, 15 years. So those projections need to be now reassessed with what is extraordinary positive news, which is we are able to now advance the SRF strategy and it's got an enormous amount of potential. And so really that has to be brought into a long-term strategy.

Maybe if I could sort of simplify it all that in the -- from the big picture point of view, in the original plan from the government, there were nine plants contemplated. We've built one and we're building the second. And now we're switching to SRF and we would hope that SRF would be the technology for the rest of them or similar to them.

And you think that the remaining seven plants are all suitable potentially for SRF?

I would say SRF or technology very similar to it.

I think it's important just -- we continue to do a considerable amount of research and that is opening possibilities of other techniques or even more appropriate for specific applications and SRFs also. So lots of work will be done on this.

Okay. When do you think you'll be in a position to give a market guidance than on the net implications for the capital and operating cost?

Well, we are disclosing in our release today that the operating cost will be about half of what a tank-based water treatment plant would be and the capital cost would be around 20%. So that's where we've established so far. And that's what we would apply to the Elkview plant and then other plants would be similar.

The next question is from Greg Barnes with TD Securities.

Question for Don or Real. There's a lot of talk lately about China imposing quotas or meeting quotas like for coal imports in September, the number of thoughts what that impact might that have on coal -- coking coal for China beyond that and the market -- broader market in general?

Okay. Real. Réal Foley: Thanks, Greg. So the first thing, I guess, to keep in mind is our exposure to China is a lot lower than it's been. If you look at 2018, our sales to China were less than 3 million tonnes compared to a peak in 2013 of around 8 million. And for the first time in 2018, our sales to India exceeded to sales to China. And second point is that China has imposed import restrictions at the number of ports, actually at all the ports in China pretty much, since February this year. But when you look at the actual numbers, seaborne imports continued to be strong into China. There are up 3 million tonnes year-to-date year-over-year. And most of the impact actually has been on thermal coal. There were ports, probably call correctly, it was last week saying that two ports in the North were placing additional restrictions on import from traders. When we talked to our customers in China and also to domestic analysts, their view is that this will have a very minimal impact, if any. So what will happen is that steel mills will actually import directly from the producers as opposed to traders.

Don, can I follow with you and just get a broader sense of what your view is on China macroeconomic growth and obviously commodity demand from this point forward? I'm not sure if you've been to China this year yet or not?

I was there about a month ago. I met with our key contacts there. Look, a lot depends on the trade negotiations with the U.S. but the Chinese have been very capable of transitioning their economy from FAI-based fixed asset investment-based growth model to more of a consumption models. It's been very impressive what we've been able to accomplish in the last three to five years. I think that will continue it's structural. They also have the BRI, Belt and Road initiative that is really gaining traction now. You've heard the expression amongst most people, overestimate what they can do in one-year but they vastly underestimate what they can accomplish in five years. And I think that's going to be something that we see in the BRI. They are quick to stimulate to our loose monetary policy if they see spots of weakness. But they are also managing the percent GDP growth rate down on gradual basis, which you would expect because the base is just that much larger. So the incremental dollar amount of additional GDP is actually the same or in some quarters higher. So there will be moments of weakness that get exaggerated by media, generally U.S.-based media. But on balance, I think China is doing pretty well.

Our next question is from Curt Woodworth with Crédit Suisse.

Don, I was wondering if you could provide some of your initial thought or expectations around the QB3 scoping study? And I know there's been some additional drilling down on the resource base? And if you could just kind of broadly talk about expectations there. And then how potential development of QB3 would fit into the capital return program in the sense of how do you view organic growth priority versus capital return for you going forward?

Okay. So I'll make four or five quick points. I don't want to get too far ahead of this one until the scoping studies finished and we can release the details. But it starts with the fact that we have a resource that's much larger than we had realized a year ago. We've increased the published resource from 4 billion to 6.5 billion so far. We have five drills on site. So we anticipated getting a much larger -- that we'll publish by the end of the year and beyond that. So a target of towards 10 billion tonnes. So clearly the operation we're building now is not optimal for the size of the resource. Second is strip ratio, which is the key structural competitive advantage that QB2 has is consistent for the whole vast resource. The mine plan that we have published is 0.7:1, for the whole resources of 0.8:1. And that significantly lower than some of the major names in the copper business such as [indiscernible] nature, Antamina or [indiscernible] itself, it's between a 1/3 and a 1/4 of the strip ratio that they have to deal with. So that just means well that many fewer trucks and for your showelers and graters and loaders and smaller maintenance shop, your maintenance people and it just makes sure ongoing all-in sustaining cost that much more competitive. Third, the nature of the terrain is rolling hills with lots of space to be able to build large plant, which is quite [indiscernible] and some of the operations that you have been to that have very steep mountain terrain where there really isn't room. Fourth, the tailings capacity that we are building with this operation will be about 5 billion tonnes. And then we have a second location already designed and analyzed…

And when do you expect the scoping study done by the end of this year?

We said at the end of the third quarter, but probably saying the end of the year would be safer. But we're intensely working on it now.

Okay. Sounds really good. And then one follow-up on kind of the ongoing issues with logistics at Westshore and then rail issues. Can you talk about your expectations maybe of the next 12 to 18 months in terms of how you're going to reposition your port capacity? And what you think that could mean for your logistics costs? And clearly why short contract is up in early '21, you have Neptune, and then we'll -- let continue to play roles given the new ownership and any comments on that I think would be greatly appreciated.

Sure. We'll finish the Neptune expansion by November of 2020. That's next year, I was on site on Friday, had a good visit. And that will leave us lots of time for helping commissioning, that. So that's then really will certainly be a part of our logistical chain going forward as it is now. We think having the new owners there is a good thing because they will be wanting to maximize the value and throughput in the new investment, that will be great working with the private sector. So we're very encouraged by that. And in terms of the how much time it will go where, we'll determine that in due course. But no matter what configuration you can think of, our costs will be going down significantly.

The next question is from Timna Tanners with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

I was wondering if you could provide a little bit more color on thoughts around zinc since we last heard from you and it's been a pretty weak market so just wanted your take on that? Any plans to address we some of the oversupply with curtailments, if you could address that?

Okay. Over to Andrew Stonkus.

The zinc market, if you look at the concentrate market, the country markets remain still a very well supply. TC, TCs, spot TCs are above the benchmark. Levels that they have capped out and they're starting to trend a little bit downwards as Chinese smelters are trying to increase their utilization rates. But what we're seeing in the same cost free market is disruptions and some -- disruption on the mining side. So the surplus is not as big as it was initially forecast. And so the significant surplus as initially forecast it is coming down. The International zinc study group is forecasting a smaller deficits today than they were earlier. On the metal side, we're still at historically low levels on the LME exchanges. We're down to about seven days of consumption. So again, to as Real pointed out on the coal side quarter, the fundamentals on zinc are still pretty solid. The demand for zinc metal is holding up, inventories are low, prices are being reflected by the macroeconomic negativity. But in terms of fundamentals, metal inventory is still at historically low levels.

And maybe just add a bit of color as we call it on fundamentals. We met with a long-term friend of Teck yesterday, the CEO of one of the very largest base metal companies in China. And he gave an assessment that he thinks it was just now easier to get a permit and to build a mine in Canada than it will be in China because the environmental restrictions are so tough that it, he doesn't think there will be any new inclement built in China. And they’re actually investing in building a zinc mine in Canada. So to extent that people do analysis and think a lot of zinc will show up in the China market, apparently the locals don't think so.

Okay. Helpful. And then I had two questions I had was, one, I was interested to hear about some of the RACE21 debottlenecking productivity lower costs? But in light of what port elaborate on yesterday, does that also entail, perhaps, more volume? Or is that just cost cutting at this point? I believe you're talking about some similar instance debottlenecking and using Big Data. So just wondering, again, if you were also looking at the volumes not just kind of cost. And then the second question just relates to just any update you can provide us on how you're tracking or thinking about [indiscernible] and ammonium?

Okay. The short answer to your question is both, but I'll turn it over to Andrew Milner to talk about RACE21 part of that.

So these spikes -- in the prices in spice, some of the value come through the increasing productivity. And so there are other initiatives and analytics in the mining environment, both site analytics, mining analytics, et cetera. There will be cost savings. What we're saying is there going to be a product we're building here in excess of 20 initiatives right now. We've got a great deal of confidence in delivering the $150 billion uplift -- the $150 million uplift in EBITDA of this year. And from our perspective, that is just the start. So we're going to see huge increases in the next couple of years. We've got a program after '21 where that number of initiatives will probably reach an excess of a 100 initiatives across a range of areas looking at the pricing space, maintenance area and other areas within the mining environment. So it's in both areas.

On your second question and on Project Satellite and Zafranal within it, nothing has changed our position there. We continue to optimize each of the five projects within that. And given what you I've just said about QB3 being so excited that certainly reinforces that with the five projects, the Satellite at a point of time we'll be looking for partners or sales or some sort of transaction to realize value from that. But given the weaker copper markets or general commodity markets that we're in right now, we're in no rush to do so. We clearly don't need the cash. So we'll take our time on that, but it certainly going to be something that would add value over the next year or two.

The next question is from Jackie Przybylowski with BMO Capital Markets.

I just had a really quick one, you mentioned in the release that you had workforce lock out in Neptune. I was wondering if you can give us a little bit more color on the circumstances around that?

Andrew?

Yes, it was the long shore -- the lock out on the North Shore. So that was -- the lock out itself was I believe was only eight hours. But it had an effect on the stacking up with railcars, and train sets had an impact to about two to three days for us on the Neptune situation. We had to divert the trains to other ports to overcome that lock out situation.

Okay. And the fact that you've had shipping challenges or delays in both Neptune and Westshore, I'm assuming at this point, you've got a fairly good stockpile of coal at the ports. So shipping going forward, assuming that the ports themselves are shipping out, it shouldn't be constrained by rail or the logistics at this point. Is that fair?

no. Port site inventories are where we would like them to be. There are at normal levels and that's not impacting the moving of vessels on the port inventories. There We have high inventories than normal at the mine site and that's what we still need to work on and draw down those inventories.

We've had some reasonable improvement slightly as the service has been better.

Okay. Great. And maybe just to follow-up on something Chris Terry ask something to Ron. When we're talking about the 30% distribution going forward, I think he asked this but I didn't quite catch the answer. Is it going to be a forward-looking free cash flow? So the estimate of what your free cash flow would be in the falling year? Or is that our backward looking so the free cash flow that you've actually realized in the previous year? Can you just repeat that? Because kind of missed the answer on that.

So it will be based on the current year. As Don mentioned, the Board has looked at the supplemental distributions in November. And there's been some discussion whether they should wait until February. But whatever is decided, if it's done in November, it will be based on the forecast for 2019. If it's done in January, it will be looking backwards on what the actual results for 2019 were. And then of course, the timing of the payments whatever they might be will be dictated by whenever the Board makes that decision.

What I would add, Jackie, is that I would anticipate that the buyback will continue throughout the year. But when we finish the $1 billion that -- there'll be more allocated by the Board because our philosophy is we want to have that buyback in place here in Europe.

The next question is from Lucas Pipes with B. Riley FBR.

Congrats on a good quarter and good update. I wanted to follow up on Neptune. In the release, it mentioned an additional project scope. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? And is the targeted capacity still the same as it was before?

So Andrew or Alex, who want to? Alex will do it.

In terms of target capacity, the target capacity is still the same target capacity. The additional cost, I'd say, that increase is really a function of several factors. We have advanced our engineering design, which is now about 78% complete. We advanced our efforts in our contracting and procurement, it was now 60% complete. And then a construction in the field is about 32% complete. So all of these kind of resulted in an advanced definition of the project scope, the material quantities, the subsurface geotechnical conditions, as well we have better aligned sight on market pricing for equipment materials and installation costs. So those are the things that contribute to the additional CapEx increase that you see.

We should say -- that we announced the capacity at 18.5 million tonnes, but the people involved think that's a very conservative number.

Interesting. Any sense on that what kind of the best guess would be on the max capacity, is 18.5 million too conservative?

No, it's best to leave it at that.

Okay. Quick clarification on capital allocation framework. I assume when you speak about committed enhancement and growth CapEx being subtracted that is only the net contribution. So things like project financing would be added back. So when it comes to QB2, it's really minimal drag on this 30% potential distribution or at least 30% contribution of the next couple of years. Is that right?

That's correct. We would -- the contributions from Sumitomo and the project financing would be pulled out.

Yes. The bottom line because we think if you model this on your forecast for 2020, it's going to look pretty good.

I would agree with that. Maybe one last one on RACE21, the way I understand it, the $150 million is in guidance for 2019. Would it be kind of netted out against other cost pressures so that we wouldn't be saying, for example, cost greatness in that cold segment come down. How should we think about that? Where were we found the $150 million, I guess, it's sprinkled in but if you could be elaborate, that would be helpful.

Yes, so our intention is February when we report the results for the year would be to report more detailed the results of RACE21. So you can see where the $150 million came from, the 12 or 14 or 15 different projects and the source of that.

Your next question is from Brian MacArthur with Raymond James.

So I just wanted to go back to the water treatment. There's a statement in here saying we expect Active Water Treatment Facility will continued to be required in some locations when SRF aren't at work. Is that now just referring back to the current AWT plant that's in place while you can't convert it? Because I think you mentioned you think you can make all the plants going forward SRF or is there something different in there?

So I'll start and then we've got a couple of people wanting to jump in here. So we're very, very pleased with the government endorsement of the SRF. We think it's a much better technology. For not so much better technology because it has been proven and running for the last year. And so that technology and technology similar to that, we think with will be -- what would be recommended in all the different things going forward. But we won't know until we get to each of those different situations and have to get government approval and endorsement. We will start with the SRF or a large technology. And only some circumstance present itself that we weren't getting approval for that, we go back to a tank-based technology. But we really don't think that's going to happen. But in terms of disclosure, we had to leave all the options out. Robin, do you want to add anything so that?

No.

Okay.

So just then when we did the investor day, you talked about between 2,000 and through '18 to '22, there were 600 coming down to 650 or 6 -- going down from 650 to 600 in capital if you could do this. Was that just for this Elkview plant or were there other plants in there? That is to say now that we think we can do this assuming we can do it that, that 650 will come down to like 400-or-something?

No. The 600 to 650 would be SRFs replacing -- Now one of them was the SRF replacement at Elkview. The other would be the replacement of Fording River North plant, which would be the second tank-based plant. It would be replaced with an SRF. And we know we have capacity at that end of the valley to do that. And that's what would create the 600 to 650.

It wouldn't be better than that. Because you're sort of saying that the capital cost of 50%. So if you knew that second tank-based one at SRF, does that not bring that capital number down?

No, the capital costs are 20%. The operating costs are 50%. Let me take another shot at that. In the Elkview case, if we had to build a tank-based plant, that would've been $400 million-plus. And now order of magnitude would be probably $100 million or something like that. In the Fording River [indiscernible] plant, that would be $400 million to $500 million. And now we believe, it's not approved yet, but we believe that will go with SRF out there as well -- yes, Fording River as well. So these are substantial chunks of capital that if there were linear model, they should be taken out of the model.

Right. That was what I was just trying to figure out the magnitude. So that's very helpful doing it that way. One other quick question just on capital allocation, we keep talking about November or February, so I assume this is going to be an annual decision not a quarterly decision, i.e., like some people put in back-based looking cash flow and payout 30% access, it's going to be a one-time year thing. And the share buyback will be throughout the year to give support. Is that kind of what you're thinking here. So you don't get a total variable dividend, if you go that way all the time?

Normally, here yes, we described it would be how we work. The Board has the flexibility to do what it wants at any time. If we sold an asset, for example, they may decide to do something in midyear. But generally, how you described it is the way we would.

Operator, Jen, I think we're past time here and we'll hand it over to Don for his closing comments.

Thank you all for joining us this morning. As I said, that we're excited here. There are a number of really important good news items that we just reviewed. The SRF government endorsement is a very big deal in terms of capital savings and operating cost savings for the future. RACE21 is off to a Alex racing side. I was visiting four of our operating sites last week, got to speak to the engineers rightly on the front lines, to implement the themes in there. So exciting, it's fantastic to see the passion with what they speak about these projects and the potential for it. And of course, the buybacks up to $1 billion and going strong. So lots of excitement ahead. Thank you all. We'll speak to you again, I guess, next in October. Thank you.

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