UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016
Commission file number 1-10351
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
(Exact name of the registrant as specified in its charter)
Canada | N/A | |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) |
(I.R.S. employer identification no.) |
Suite 500, 122 1 st Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 7G3
306-933-8500
(Address and telephone number of the registrants principal executive offices)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act):
Title of each class |
Name of exchange on which registered |
|
Common Shares, No Par Value | New York Stock Exchange |
The Common Shares are also listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange in Canada
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act : None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Yes ☑ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Yes ☐ No ☑
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes ☑ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes ☐ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☑
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer ☑ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act ).
Yes ☐ No ☑
At June 30, 2016, the aggregate market value of the 839,432,689 Common Shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $13,632,386,869. At February 20, 2017, the registrant had 839,914,555 Common Shares outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrants Annual Integrated Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the 2016 Annual Integrated Report), attached as Exhibit 13, are incorporated by reference into Part I and Part II of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Portions of the registrants Proxy Circular for its Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 9, 2017 (the 2017 Proxy Circular), attached as Exhibit 99(a), are incorporated by reference into Part II and Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K | ||
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016 | ||
Table of Contents
|
This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the documents incorporated by reference, contains and incorporates by reference forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other U.S. federal securities laws) or forward-looking information (within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation) that relate to future events or our future financial performance. These statements can be identified by expressions of belief, expectation or intention, as well as those statements that are not historical fact. These statements often contain words such as should, could, expect, may, anticipate, forecast, believe, intend, estimates, plans and similar expressions. These statements are based on certain factors and assumptions as set forth in this document and the documents incorporated by reference herein, including with respect to: foreign exchange rates, expected growth, results of operations, performance, business prospects and opportunities, including the completion of the Proposed Transaction (as defined herein), and effective tax rates. While we consider these factors and assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available, they may prove to be incorrect.
Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. The results or events set forth in forward-looking statements may differ materially from actual results or events. Several factors could cause our actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements including, but not limited to:
|
a number of risks and uncertainties relating to the Proposed Transaction, including: |
¡ |
the failure to satisfy all required conditions, including required regulatory approvals, or to satisfy or obtain waivers with respect to all other closing conditions, in a timely manner and on favorable terms or at all; |
¡ |
the occurrence of any event, change or other circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the Arrangement Agreement (as defined herein); |
¡ |
certain costs that we may incur in connection with the Proposed Transaction; |
¡ |
certain restrictions in the Arrangement Agreement on our ability to take action outside the ordinary course of business without the consent of Agrium Inc. (Agrium); |
¡ |
the effect of the announcement of the Proposed Transaction on our ability to retain customers, suppliers and personnel and on our operating future business and operations generally; |
¡ |
risks related to diversion of management time from ongoing business operations due to the Proposed Transaction; |
¡ |
failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the Proposed Transaction and to successfully integrate Agrium and PotashCorp; |
¡ |
the risk that our credit ratings may be downgraded or there may be adverse conditions in the credit markets; |
|
any significant impairment of the carrying amount of certain of our assets; |
|
variations from our assumptions with respect to foreign exchange rates, expected growth, results of operations, performance, business prospects and opportunities, and effective tax rates; |
|
fluctuations in supply and demand in the fertilizer, sulfur and petrochemical markets; |
|
changes in competitive pressures, including pricing pressures; |
|
risks and uncertainties related to any operating and workforce changes made in response to our industry and the markets we serve, including mine and inventory shutdowns; |
|
adverse or uncertain economic conditions and changes in credit and financial markets; |
|
economic and political uncertainty around the world; |
|
changes in capital markets; |
|
the results of sales contract negotiations within major markets; |
|
unexpected or adverse weather conditions; |
|
risks related to reputational loss; |
|
the occurrence of a major safety incident; |
|
inadequate insurance coverage for a significant liability; |
|
inability to obtain relevant permits for our operations; |
|
catastrophic events or malicious acts, including terrorism; |
|
certain complications that may arise in our mining process, including water inflows; |
|
risks and uncertainties related to our international operations and assets; |
|
our ownership of non-controlling equity interests in other companies; |
|
our prospects to reinvest capital in strategic opportunities and acquisitions; |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 1 |
|
risks associated with natural gas and other hedging activities; |
|
security risks related to our information technology systems; |
|
imprecision in reserve estimates; |
|
costs and availability of transportation and distribution for our raw materials and products, including railcars and ocean freight; |
|
changes in, and the effects of, government policies and regulations; |
|
earnings and the decisions of taxing authorities which could affect our effective tax rates; |
|
increases in the price or reduced availability of the raw materials that we use; |
|
our ability to attract, develop, engage and retain skilled employees; |
|
strikes or other forms of work stoppage or slowdowns; |
|
rates of return on, and the risks associated with, our investments and capital expenditures; |
|
timing and impact of capital expenditures; |
|
the impact of further innovation; |
|
adverse developments in pending or future legal proceedings or government investigations; and |
|
violations of our governance and compliance policies. |
In addition to the factors mentioned above, see Risk Factors under Item 1A for a description of other factors affecting forward-looking statements. As a result of these and other factors, there is no assurance that any of the events, circumstances or results anticipated by forward-looking statements included or incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K will occur or, if they do, of what impact they will have on our business, our performance, the results of our operations and our financial condition.
Forward-looking statements are given only as of the date hereof and we disclaim any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements included or incorporated by reference into this report, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
2 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Canada. As used in this document, the term PCS refers to Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and, unless the context requires otherwise, the terms we, us, our, PotashCorp and the Company refer to PCS and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, individually or in any combination, as applicable. The Company is a foreign private issuer under the rules and regulations of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC); however, it currently files voluntarily on the SECs domestic forms.
We are the worlds largest fertilizer producer by capacity producing the three primary crop nutrients: potash, nitrogen and phosphate. We are the largest producer of potash worldwide by capacity. In 2016, we estimate our potash operations represented 22% of global potash capacity 1 , our nitrogen operations represented 2% of global nitrogen capacity and our phosphate operations represented 3% of global phosphate capacity.
At December 31, 2016, we owned and operated five potash operations in Saskatchewan and owned one in New Brunswick. In November 2015, we permanently closed our Penobsquis mine in New Brunswick and in January 2016 we indefinitely suspended our Picadilly, New Brunswick potash operations. Our Picadilly operations are being kept in care-and-maintenance mode.
Our nitrogen operations involve the production of nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen feed and industrial products, including ammonia, urea, diesel emission fluid, nitrogen solutions, ammonium nitrate and nitric acid. We have nitrogen facilities in Georgia, Louisiana, Ohio and Trinidad.
Our phosphate operations include the manufacture and sale of solid and liquid phosphate fertilizers, phosphate feed and industrial acid, which is used in food products and industrial processes. We have phosphate mines and mineral processing plant complexes in Florida and North Carolina. We also have four phosphate feed plants in the United States and produce phosphoric acid at our Geismar, Louisiana facility.
Our principal executive offices are located at Suite 500, 122 1 st Avenue South, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7K 7G3, and our telephone number is (306) 933-8500.
History
PCS is a corporation continued under the Canada Business Corporations Act and is the successor to a corporation without share capital established by the Province of Saskatchewan in 1975. Between 1976 and 1989 substantial interests in the Saskatchewan potash industry were acquired. These acquisitions included the purchase of the Cory mine in 1976 and the Rocanville and Lanigan mines in 1977.
In 1989, the Province of Saskatchewan privatized PCS. While the Province initially retained an ownership interest in PCS, this interest was reduced to zero by the end of 1993. Since the privatization of PCS, we have made the following significant acquisitions:
|
the Allan mine, through the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of Saskterra Fertilizers Ltd. in 1990; |
|
the Penobsquis New Brunswick potash mine, which we permanently closed in November 2015, and our Patience Lake solution mine in Saskatchewan in 1993; |
|
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (formerly Texasgulf Inc.) and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc., phosphate fertilizer and feed producers, in 1995; |
|
Arcadian Corporation, a producer of nitrogen fertilizer, industrial and feed products, in 1997; |
|
PCS Cassidy Lake, a potash mill facility located at Clover Hill, New Brunswick, in 1998, which is now used as a tailings management facility; |
|
approximately 9% of the shares of Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL) pursuant to a public offering by the State of Israel in 1998; additional shares were acquired in transactions between 2005 and 2010, increasing our ownership interest to approximately 14%; |
|
PCS Purified Phosphates (formerly a joint venture we had with Albright & Wilson Americas Inc.), a phosphoric acid joint venture, in 2000; |
|
approximately 20% of the shares of Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (SQM), a Chilean specialty fertilizer, iodine and lithium company, in transactions in 2001 and 2002; additional shares were acquired in various transactions from 2004 through 2007, increasing our ownership interest to approximately 32%; |
1 |
Based on our nameplate capacity at December 31, 2016, which may exceed operational capability. See table under Potash Operations Production for further information. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 3 |
approximately 26% of the shares of Arab Potash Company (APC) from Jordan Investment Corporation, an arm of the Jordanian government, in 2003; additional shares were acquired in transactions in 2005 and 2006, increasing our ownership interest to approximately 28%; and
|
approximately 10% of the shares of Sinofert Holdings Limited (Sinofert), a fertilizer company and a subsidiary of Sinochem Corporation, in 2005; additional shares were acquired in various transactions from 2006 through 2011, increasing our ownership interest to approximately 22%. |
Merger of Equals with Agrium
During the third quarter of 2016, the Company entered into an arrangement agreement (the Arrangement Agreement) with Agrium pursuant to which the Company and Agrium have agreed to combine their businesses (the Proposed Transaction) in a merger of equals transaction to be implemented by way of a statutory arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act. Upon the closing of the Proposed Transaction, the Company and Agrium will become indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of a new parent company (New Parent). PotashCorp shareholders will own approximately 52 percent of New Parent, and Agrium shareholders will own approximately 48 percent of New Parent. The Proposed Transaction is currently anticipated to be completed in mid-2017 and is subject to customary closing conditions, including the receipt of regulatory approvals.
Our potash operations include the mining and processing of potash, which is predominantly used as fertilizer.
Properties
The following map shows the location of our Canadian mining facilities during 2016.
All potash produced by the Company in Saskatchewan is in the southern half of the Province, where extensive potash deposits, or Members, are found. The potash ore is contained in a predominantly rock salt formation known as the Prairie Evaporite, which lies about 1,000 metres below the surface. The evaporite
deposits, which are bounded by limestone formations, contain potash beds of approximately 2.4 to 5.1 metres of thickness. Three potash deposits of economic importance occur in the Province: the Esterhazy, Belle Plaine and Patience Lake Members. The Patience Lake Member is mined at the Lanigan, Allan, Patience Lake and Cory mines, and the Esterhazy Member is mined at the Rocanville mine.
We have the right to mine 923,644 acres of land in Saskatchewan. Included in these holdings are mineral rights to 816,933 acres contained in blocks around our potash mines, of which approximately 25% are owned by us, approximately 58% are under lease from the Province of Saskatchewan and approximately 17% are leased from other parties. Our remaining 106,711 acres are located elsewhere in Saskatchewan.
Our leases with the Province of Saskatchewan are for 21-year terms, renewable at our option. Our significant leases with other parties are also for 21-year terms. Such other leases are renewable at our option, providing generally that production is continuing and that there is continuation of the applicable lease with the Province of Saskatchewan.
In November 2015, in response to a weaker fertilizer environment, we accelerated and completed the permanent closure of our Penobsquis facility in New Brunswick. In January 2016, in light of challenging market conditions, we indefinitely suspended potash operations at our Picadilly facility in New Brunswick. We are keeping idled capacity at Picadilly in a care-and-maintenance mode, which retains the optionality to resume operations as market conditions warrant. We believe that any resumption of operations at our Picadilly facility would take at least one year.
In New Brunswick, we mined pursuant to a mining lease with the Province of New Brunswick. The lease is for a term of 21 years from 1978 with renewal provisions for three additional 21 year periods. This lease was renewed effective June 13, 1999 and amended in 2005 to add additional land. We have the right to mine 58,263 acres of land in New Brunswick. This right is not materially affected by the indefinite suspension of our New Brunswick potash operations. We also hold an interest in certain oil and gas rights in the vicinity of the Picadilly facility.
Production
We produce potash using both conventional and solution mining methods. In conventional operations, shafts are sunk to the ore body and mining machines cut out the ore, which is lifted to the surface for processing. In solution mining, the potash is dissolved in warm brine and pumped to the surface for processing. Eleven grades of potash are produced to suit different preferences of the various markets we serve.
In 2016, our conventional potash operations mined 26.95 million tonnes of ore at an average mineral grade of 22.96% potassium oxide (K 2 O). In 2016, our potash production from all our
4 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
operations consisted of 8.60 million tonnes of potash (KCl or finished product) with an average grade of 60.97% K 2 O, representing 47% of North American production.
In 2016, our nameplate capacity represented an estimated 51% of the North American total capacity (based on our nameplate capacity, see table below for further information). We allocate production among our mines on the basis of various factors, including cost efficiency and the grades of product that can be produced. The Patience Lake mine, which was originally
a conventional underground mine, began employing a solution mining method in 1989. The other Saskatchewan mines we own employ conventional underground mining methods.
Our New Brunswick operations also produced approximately 329,000 tonnes of sodium chloride (salt) in 2016. Despite the suspension of our New Brunswick potash operations, we expect to continue to mine salt for the local market at this time, albeit at a reduced rate.
The following table sets forth, for each of the past three years, the production of ore, grade and finished product for each of our mines.
Annual
Nameplate Capacity (1) |
Annual
Operational Capability 2017 (2) |
Annual
Operational Capability 2016 (2) |
2016 Production | 2015 Production | 2014 Production | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finished
Product (Millions of tonnes) |
Finished
Product (Millions of tonnes) |
Finished
Product (Millions of tonnes) |
Ore
(Millions of tonnes) |
Grade
% K 2 O |
Finished
Product (Millions of tonnes) |
Ore
(Millions of tonnes) |
Grade
% K 2 O |
Finished
Product (Millions of tonnes) |
Ore
(Millions of tonnes) |
Grade
% K 2 O |
Finished
Product (Millions of tonnes) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lanigan SK (3) |
3.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 7.09 | 20.6 | 2.03 | 6.09 | 21.2 | 1.83 | 5.4 | 22.7 | 1.68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rocanville SK |
6.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 8.63 | 23.1 | 2.72 | 7.85 | 23.0 | 2.48 | 7.8 | 23.1 | 2.49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allan SK |
4.0 | 2.0 | 2.6 | 6.82 | 24.9 | 2.38 | 6.75 | 25.2 | 2.38 | 7.0 | 24.9 | 2.47 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cory SK (3) |
3.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 4.41 | 23.5 | 1.24 | 5.15 | 24.5 | 1.51 | 4.1 | 24.9 | 1.18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patience Lake SK (4) |
0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | | | 0.23 | | | 0.26 | | | 0.30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Brunswick (5) |
2.0 | | | | | | 2.38 | 20.3 | 0.65 | 1.9 | 22.3 | 0.61 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Totals |
19.1 | 10.1 | 9.3 | 26.95 | 8.60 | 28.22 | 9.11 | 26.2 | 8.73 |
(1) | Represents estimates of capacity as of December 31, 2016. Estimates are based on capacity as per design specifications or Canpotex entitlements once these have been determined. In the case of New Brunswick, nameplate capacity represents design specifications for the Picadilly mine, which is currently in care-and-maintenance mode. In the case of Patience Lake, estimate reflects current operational capability. Estimates for all other facilities do not necessarily represent operational capability. |
(2) | Estimated annual achievable production level at current staffing and operational readiness (estimated at beginning of year). Estimate does not include inventory-related shutdowns and unplanned downtime. |
(3) | In November 2016 the Company announced operational changes at Cory to produce only white potash with an expected operational capability of approximately 0.8 million tonnes per year, and these operational changes will be fully completed in the third quarter of 2017. Potential exists to reach previous operational capability with increased staffing and operational ramp-up, although timing is uncertain. |
(4) | Solution mine. |
(5) | In November 2015, the Penobsquis, New Brunswick mine was permanently closed. In January 2016, the Company indefinitely suspended its Picadilly, New Brunswick potash operations, which are currently in care-and-maintenance mode. |
The mining of potash is a capital-intensive business subject to the normal risks and capital expenditure requirements associated with mining operations. The processing of ore may be subject to delays and costs resulting from mechanical failures and hazards, including unusual or unexpected geological conditions, subsidence, water inflows, and other conditions involved in mining ore. For more information, see Risk Factors Certain complications may arise in our mining process, including water inflows in our potash mines. on page 21 in Item 1A of Part 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Reserves
The Companys estimates for its conventional mining operations in Saskatchewan are based on exploration drill hole data, seismic
data and actual mining results during the past 46 to 48 years. In Saskatchewan reserves are estimated by identifying material in place that is delineated on at least two sides and material in place within one mile from an existing sampled mine entry or borehole.
The Companys estimates for its conventional mining operations in New Brunswick are based on exploration drill hole data, seismic data and actual mining results during the past 33 years. In New Brunswick, reserves are estimated by identifying material in place that is delineated by drilling or mining with results projected conservatively from these intersections. As of January 2016, the Companys New Brunswick operations no longer produce potash. Reserves remain at our Picadilly, New Brunswick facility, which is in care and maintenance mode, whereas reserves at the Penobsquis
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 5 |
mine have been reduced to zero as a result of its permanent closure. It would take at least a year to restart operations at our Picadilly, New Brunswick facility.
Generally, we distinguish between proven and probable reserves in respect of our potash operations based on the level of certainty and established continuity of the mineralization in the potash
deposits and reserves described. For our Saskatchewan potash operations, we distinguish proven reserves from probable reserves based on greater delineation of the reserve, which is estimated
through drilling and mine entry sampling. For our New Brunswick potash operations, we distinguished proven reserves from probable reserves based on the extent of exploration coverage.
A historical extraction ratio from the 46 to 48 years of mining results is applied to estimate the mineable reserves. The Companys estimated recoverable ore (reserve tonnage only) as of December 31, 2016 for each of our potash mines is as follows:
Proven
Mineral Reserves (Millions of tonnes recoverable ore) |
Probable
Mineral Reserves (Millions of tonnes recoverable ore) |
Total
Mineral Reserves (Millions of tonnes recoverable ore) (1)(2)(3) |
Average
Grade % K 2 O Eq (4)(5) |
Years of Remaining
Mine Life (6) |
||||||||||||||||
Allan (7) |
73 | 205 | 278 | 25.0 | 41 | |||||||||||||||
Cory (7) |
82 | 170 | 252 | 22.8 | 55 | |||||||||||||||
Lanigan (7) (A Zone) |
| 181 | 181 | 23.2 | 29 | |||||||||||||||
(B Zone) |
98 | 233 | 331 | 20.4 | 53 | |||||||||||||||
Rocanville |
216 | 339 | 555 | 23.5 | 69 | |||||||||||||||
Patience Lake (8) |
| | | | | |||||||||||||||
New Brunswick (9) |
159 | | 159 | 24.6 | |
(1) | There has been no third-party review of reserve estimates within the last three years. |
(2) | The extraction ratio of recoverable ore to in-place material for each mine is as follows: Allan 0.33, Cory 0.27, Lanigan 0.26 and Rocanville 0.31. |
(3) | The concentration of recoverable ore tonnes to finished product (KCl) for each of the divisions is as follows (three-year running average): Allan 2.8, Cory 3.5, Lanigan 3.3 and Rocanville 3.2. |
(4) | From in-mine samples, New Brunswick values are from explorative drill holes. . |
(5) |
While the term potash refers to a wide variety of potassium-bearing minerals, at our deposits the predominant potash mineralization is sylvinite, which is comprised mainly of the minerals sylvite (KCl/potassium salt) and halite (NaCl/rock salt) with minor amounts of carnallite (KCl MgCl 2 6 H 2 O) and water insolubles. Potash fertilizer is concentrated, nearly pure KCl (i.e. with a purity greater than 95%), but ore-grade is traditionally reported on a % K 2 O basis. The % K 2 O equivalent gives a standard measurement of the nutrient value of different potassium-bearing rocks and minerals. To convert from K 2 O equivalent tonnes to actual KCl tonnes, multiply by 1.583. |
(6) | Estimates are based upon proven and probable reserves and average annual mining rates (million tonnes of ore hoisted per year) equal to the three-year running average for each of the divisions as follows: Allan 6.9, Cory 4.6, Lanigan 6.2 and Rocanville 8.1. Mining rates are constrained by the equipment and manpower utilized at each mine so that our production capacity at each mine depends, in part, on the ore concentration encountered at each mine. Years of remaining mine life are based on applying the average annual mining rate to reported reserves. Years of remaining mine life for Lanigan is calculated based on the total reserves in the A Zone and the B Zone. For New Brunswick, estimates are not provided as Penobsquis operations were closed in November 2015, and in January 2016, the Picadilly potash operations were suspended indefinitely, with no three year running average for Picadilly available. |
(7) | At each of the Allan, Cory and Lanigan operations, potash mineralization occurs in two separate horizons (A Zone and B Zone). To date, at Allan and Cory we have defined mineral reserves in only one zone (where most mining has occurred at that operation). At Allan and Cory the mineral reserves are in A Zone. At Lanigan, we have defined mineral reserves in both the A Zone and B Zone. |
(8) | Given the characteristics of the solution mining method employed at the Patience Lake mine, it is not possible to estimate reliably the recoverable ore reserve from this operation. In solution mining, the potash is dissolved in warm brine and pumped to the surface for processing. Chemical compositions and volumes of brine pumped into and out of the underground mineralized zone are known, but the precise nature of the solution mining process is not. Estimates are made utilizing the surfaces available for dissolution in the abandoned mine workings, the concentration of the circulated brine recovered from the mine, annual crystallization rates in the ponds and the annual volume of KCl recovered from the ponds. The Patience Lake operation accounted for approximately 2.7% of the Companys potash production in 2016. |
(9) | The Penobsquis, New Brunswick mine, permanently closed in November 2015. As of December 31, 2016, the Picadilly, New Brunswick facility had 159 million of tonnes of Proven Mineral Reserves. In January 2016, the Company indefinitely suspended its potash operation at Picadilly, which operations are being kept in care-and-maintenance mode. It would take at least one year to restart potash operations at the Picadilly facility. |
Resources
Mineral resources, which are exclusive of the mineral reserves reported above, are contained within the lands for which a mining lease is held at each mine. These resources are reported as mineralization in-place while the reserves are reported as recoverable ore.
In Saskatchewan, where geological correlations are straightforward, the mineral resource categories are generally characterized by the Company as follows:
|
areas of detailed, physical exploration through actual drilling or mine sampling, near existing underground workings, and within |
a mining lease are reported in the measured mineral resource category; |
|
areas of sparse exploration, such as areas with 3D surface seismic coverage, little or no drilling, and at some distance from underground workings, and within a mining lease are reported in the indicated mineral resource category; and |
|
areas of limited exploration, such as areas that have been investigated through regional geological studies, or areas with 2D regional surface seismic coverage, little or no drilling, and at some distance from underground workings, and still within a mining lease or exploration permit area are reported in the inferred mineral resource category. |
6 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
Exploration information used to infer and compute resource tonnage estimates for Saskatchewan consists of physical sampling (boreholes) and surface seismic data (3D and 2D). In New Brunswick, where geology is more complex, mineral resource categories are generally characterized by the Company as follows:
|
areas with many drill hole intersections within a seismically defined area and with consistent stratigraphy, mineralogy and potash quality are reported in the measured mineral resource category; |
|
areas with few drill intersections within a seismically defined area, or with structurally modified (folded) and less consistent mineralogy, but still exhibiting good quality potash intersections, are reported in the indicated mineral resource category; and |
|
areas with little or no drilling, complex geology, partial seismic coverage and/or inconsistent potash quality in drill intersections are reported in the inferred mineral resource category. |
Exploration information used to infer and compute resource tonnage estimates in New Brunswick consists of physical sampling (boreholes and regional surface mapping), surface seismic data (3D and 2D), and airborne electromagnetic and regional gravity data. Although all of our New Brunswick operations are currently suspended, we have not closed our Picadilly mine. The Picadilly mine is in care-and-maintenance mode; and we estimate it would take at least a year to restart operations.
The Companys estimated mineral resource tonnage as of December 31, 2016 for each of our mines is as follows:
Mineral Resource | ||||||||||||||||
Measured
(Millions of tonnes
|
Indicated Resource
(Millions of tonnes
|
Inferred Resource
(Millions of tonnes
|
Average
Grade %K 2 O Eq (1) |
|||||||||||||
Allan (2) (A Zone) |
274 | 338 | 1,242 | 25.0 | ||||||||||||
(B Zone) |
1,264 | 343 | 1,258 | 21.5 | ||||||||||||
Cory (2) (A Zone) |
295 | 452 | 1,313 | 22.8 | ||||||||||||
(B Zone) |
1,355 | 458 | 1,329 | 20.4 | ||||||||||||
Lanigan (2) (A Zone) |
836 | 1,369 | 684 | 23.2 | ||||||||||||
(B Zone) |
1,752 | 1,847 | 923 | 20.4 | ||||||||||||
Rocanville |
482 | 1,165 | 1,581 | 23.5 | ||||||||||||
Patience Lake (3) |
| | | | ||||||||||||
New Brunswick (4) |
| 153 | 319 | 24.6 |
(1) | See footnote 5 to the table under Potash Operations Reserves. |
(2) | See footnote 7 to the table under Potash Operations Reserves. |
(3) | Given the characteristics of the solution mining method employed at the Patience Lake mine as described in footnote 8 to the table under Potash Operations Reserves, it is not possible to estimate reliably the resource tonnage from this operation at present. |
(4) | The Penobsquis, New Brunswick mine was permanently closed in November 2015. In January 2016, the Company indefinitely suspended its potash operation at Picadilly which operations are being kept in care-and-maintenance mode. We estimate it would take at least one year to restart operations at Picadilly. |
The scientific and technical information included in the Potash Operations section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K has been prepared by or under the supervision of persons who are qualified persons under Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). In 2016, for our Saskatchewan and New Brunswick operations, Mark Fracchia (President, PCS Potash) was the qualified person who supervised the preparation of the information and who verified the data disclosed herein.
Data for the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates for our Saskatchewan mines reported herein were verified by PotashCorp technical staff as follows:
|
annual review of underground potash sample information (boreholes and in-mine ore samples); |
|
annual review of surface geophysical exploration results (3D and 2D seismic data); |
|
annual cross-checking of mined tonnages reported by minesite technical staff with tonnages estimated from mine survey information; and |
|
annual cross-checking of reserve and resource computations carried out by technical staff. |
This approach to data verification of potash mineral grade and surface seismic information is in accordance with generally accepted industry practice for areas adjacent and contiguous to an existing operating potash mine.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 7 |
Our nitrogen operations include production of nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen chemicals. These products are used for agricultural, industrial and animal nutrition purposes.
Properties
We have four nitrogen production facilities, of which three are located in the United States and one is located in Trinidad. The following table sets forth the facility locations and products produced.
Plant Locations | Nitrogen Products Produced | |
Augusta, GA |
Ammonia, urea, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate and nitrogen solutions | |
Geismar, LA |
Ammonia, nitric acid and nitrogen solutions | |
Lima, OH |
Ammonia, urea, nitric acid and nitrogen solutions | |
Point Lisas, Trinidad |
Ammonia and urea |
Production
Unlike potash and phosphate, nitrogen is not mined. It is synthesized from air using steam and natural gas or coal to produce ammonia. The ammonia is used to produce a full line of upgraded nitrogen products, including urea, nitrogen solutions, ammonium nitrate and nitric acid. Ammonia, urea and nitrogen solutions are sold as fertilizers to agricultural customers and to industrial customers for various applications. Nitric acid and ammonium nitrate are sold to industrial customers for various applications. Urea is also sold for feed applications.
The following table sets forth the annual capacity and, for each of the last three years, the Companys production of ammonia.
Ammonia
(1)
(Millions of Tonnes) |
||||||||||||||||
Annual
Capacity |
2016
Production |
2015
Production |
2014 Production |
|||||||||||||
Trinidad |
2.2 | 1.96 | 2.01 | 2.03 | ||||||||||||
Augusta, GA |
0.8 | 0.69 | 0.78 | 0.80 | ||||||||||||
Lima, OH |
0.7 | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.50 | ||||||||||||
Geismar, LA |
0.5 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.53 | ||||||||||||
Total |
4.2 | 3.83 | 3.75 | 3.86 |
(1) | A substantial portion is upgraded to value-added products. |
Raw Materials
Natural gas is the primary raw material used for the production of nearly all of our nitrogen products. In the United States, we may enter into natural gas hedging transactions with the goal of minimizing risk from volatile gas prices. In Trinidad, natural gas is purchased pursuant to a number of long-term contracts using pricing formulas related to the market price of ammonia. These contracts, which include minimum take or pay requirements, can provide the entire Trinidad ammonia complex with 95% of its expected requirements for 2017 and 2018. With the exception of the Trinidad facility, we purchase most of our natural gas from producers or marketers at the point of delivery of the natural gas into the pipeline system, then pay the pipeline company and, where applicable, the local distribution company to transport the natural gas to our nitrogen facilities. Approximately 84% of our US consumption of natural gas by our nitrogen operations is delivered pursuant to firm transportation contracts, which do not permit the pipeline or local distribution company to interrupt service to, or divert natural gas from, the plant.
We mine phosphate ore and manufacture phosphoric acid, solid and liquid fertilizers, animal feed supplements, purified phosphoric acid, which is used in food products and industrial processes, and hydrofluosilicic acid (HFSA).
Properties
We conduct our phosphate operations primarily at two facilities: a 75,212-acre facility near Aurora, North Carolina and a 99,588-acre facility near White Springs in northern Florida. The Aurora facility includes a 5.4 million tonne per-year mining operation, three sulfuric acid plants, four phosphoric acid plants, four purified acid plants, a liquid fertilizer plant, four superphosphoric acid (SPA) plants, a deflourinated merchant grade acid plant (DFMGA), a low magnesium SPA plant (LOMAG), a defluorinated phosphate (DFP) or animal feed plant, and two granulation plants capable of producing diammonium phosphate (DAP) or monoammonium phosphate (MAP).
The White Springs facility includes a mine, the Swift Creek chemical complex and MAP. The Swift Creek chemical complex consists of two sulfuric acid plants, one phosphoric acid plant, one SPA plant and one LOMAG plant. In October 2016, MAP production was restarted at the Suwannee River chemical complex. Remaining operations at this facility were closed in 2014.
8 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
The location of our Aurora and White Springs mining operations are shown on the following map.
At our Geismar, Louisiana facility we manufacture phosphoric acid. The Geismar facility has a phosphoric acid plant and a liquid fertilizer plant. A significant portion of the phosphoric acid produced at the Geismar facility is sold as feedstock to Innophos Holdings, Inc. for use in its neighboring purified acid plant. Our other phosphate properties include:
|
animal feed plants in Marseilles, Illinois; Joplin, Missouri; and Weeping Water, Nebraska; |
|
a technical and food grade phosphate plant in Cincinnati, Ohio; and |
|
a terminal facility at Morehead City, North Carolina. |
Plant Locations | Primary Products Produced | |
Aurora, NC |
DAP, MAP, SPA, animal feed, liquid fertilizer, purified acid, merchant grade phosphoric acid (MGA), HFSA, DFMGA, LOMAG | |
White Springs, FL |
SPA, MGA (1) , LOMAG, MAP |
|
Cincinnati, OH |
Blended purified acid products | |
Geismar, LA |
MGA |
|
Marseilles, IL |
Animal feed |
|
Weeping Water, NE |
Animal feed |
|
Joplin, MO |
Animal feed |
(1) | All of the MGA from White Springs is consumed internally in the production of downstream products. |
Production
We extract phosphate ore using surface mining techniques. At each mine site, the ore is mixed with recycled water to form a slurry, which is pumped from the mine site to our processing
facilities. The ore is then screened to remove coarse materials, washed to remove clay and floated to remove sand to produce phosphate rock. The annual production capacity of our mines is currently 9 million tonnes of phosphate rock. During 2016, the Aurora facilitys total production of phosphate rock was 4.92 million tonnes and the White Springs facilitys total production of phosphate rock was 1.73 million tonnes. The sequence for mining portions of the Aurora property has been identified in the permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers in June 2009. The permit authorizes mining in excess of 30 years.
Phosphate rock is the major input in our phosphorus processing operations. Substantially all of the phosphate rock produced is used internally for the production of phosphoric acid, SPA, chemical fertilizers, purified phosphoric acid and animal feed products. Unlike the Aurora and White Springs operations, to meet certain customers product requirements, the Geismar facility does not mine phosphate rock. Presently, the Geismar facility purchases phosphate rock from the Moroccan Company OCP S.A.
In addition to phosphate ore, the other principal raw materials we require are sulfur and ammonia. The production of phosphoric acid requires substantial quantities of sulfur, which we purchase from third parties. Any significant disruption in our sulfur supply to the phosphate facilities could adversely impact our financial results. We produce sulfuric acid at the Aurora and White Springs facilities and our Geismar facility purchases sulfuric acid from third parties.
Our phosphate operations purchase all of their ammonia at market rates from or through our nitrogen and sales subsidiaries. Phosphoric acid is reacted with ammonia to produce purified phosphoric acid, DAP and MAP as well as liquid fertilizers. In addition, ammonia operations include the purchase, sale and terminalling of anhydrous ammonia and much of this ammonia is purchased from third parties. Ammonia for Aurora is supplied by rail and truck from our production facilities in Lima, Ohio; Geismar, Louisiana; and Augusta, Georgia.
We can produce MGA at our Aurora, White Springs and Geismar facilities. Some MGA from Aurora and Geismar is sold to foreign and domestic fertilizer producers and industrial customers. We further process the balance of the MGA to make solid fertilizer (DAP and MAP); liquid fertilizers; animal feed supplements for the poultry and livestock markets; and purified phosphoric acid for use in a wide variety of food, technical and industrial applications.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 9 |
The following tables set forth, for each of the last three years, the production of phosphate rock (including tonnage and grade) and the production of phosphoric acid.
Phosphate Rock (Millions of tonnes) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual
Capacity |
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Production | % P 2 O 5 | Production | % P 2 O 5 | Production | % P 2 O 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Aurora, NC |
5.4 | (1) | 4.92 | 28.28 | 5.04 | 25.82 | 4.35 | 25.95 | ||||||||||||||||||||
White Springs, FL |
3.6 | 1.73 | 30.62 | 1.90 | 30.55 | 2.00 | 29.88 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
9.0 | 6.65 | 6.94 | 6.35 |
(1) | Revised capacity based on review completed in 2016 |
Phosphoric Acid (Millions of tonnes P 2 O 5 ) |
||||||||||||||||
Annual
Capacity |
2016
Production |
2015
Production |
2014
Production |
|||||||||||||
Aurora, NC |
1.2 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||
White Springs, FL (2) |
0.5 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.55 | ||||||||||||
Geismar, LA |
0.2 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.12 | ||||||||||||
Total |
1.9 | 1.51 | 1.61 | 1.67 |
(2) |
In August 2014 we shut down the Suwannee River chemical complex which resulted in a reduction in the annual production of P 2 O 5 at White Springs. |
Reserves
Our phosphate deposits in North Carolina occur in a formation known as the Pungo River formation of the middle Miocene age. The formation, typically 75 feet to 125 feet below ground surface, is composed of interbedded phosphatic sands, silts and clays, diatomaceous clays and phosphate limestone. Phosphate of value in the ore horizon occurs as pellets of brown and black sand-sized particles, with flat-sided angular quartz grains and variable amounts of silt, clay and interbedded limestone. The phosphate ore (matrix) horizon throughout is distinguished by its relative uniformity in thickness, percent P 2 O 5 and other quality characteristics.
Our White Springs operations are in Hamilton County, Florida. The Hamilton County phosphate deposits in the North Florida Phosphate District are reported to be of the middle Miocene and Pliocene ages. Because of partial reworking during the Pliocene age, these deposits tend to be more variable than middle Miocene deposits, such as those found in North Carolina.
In connection with our permit at Aurora and the reporting requirements under NI 43-101, the Company engaged Marston & Marston, Inc. (Marston) in late 2009 to update the estimated phosphate ore reserves at both Aurora and White Springs. Marston developed geologic and cost models, mine plans, production schedules and a cash flow estimate for each operation based on (i) a review of Company records and information regarding land areas controlled by the Company, (ii) drilling and sampling databases provided by the Company, (iii) visits to each
sites mining operations and discussions with Company personnel familiar with the geology of the phosphate ore deposits and (iv) a phosphate market study.
From these, Marston developed both reserve and resource estimates for Aurora and White Springs.
The following table sets forth the Companys estimated proven and probable phosphate reserves for Aurora and White Springs as of December 31, 2016 at a stated average grade of 30.66% P 2 O 5 .
Tonnes of
Phosphate Rock (Millions of tonnes) Stated Average Grade 30.66% P 2 O 5 |
||||||||||||
Proven
Reserves |
Probable
Reserves |
Total
Reserves |
||||||||||
Aurora |
||||||||||||
Permitted |
21.4 | 1.0 | 22.4 | |||||||||
To Be Permitted |
53.8 | 6.8 | 60.6 | |||||||||
White Springs |
||||||||||||
Permitted |
22.3 | 0 | 22.3 | |||||||||
To Be Permitted |
1.5 | 0 | 1.5 | |||||||||
Total |
99.0 | 7.8 | 106.8 |
The reserves set forth above for Aurora would permit mining to continue at annual production rates for about 20 years. This mine life is based on an average annual production rate of approximately 4.15 million tonnes of 30.66% concentrate over the
10 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
three-year period ended December 31, 2016. If mineral deposits covered by the permit at Aurora, and now reclassified as resources, are included, the mine life at Aurora would be about 37 years at such rate of production. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
The reserves set forth above for White Springs would permit mining to continue at annual production rates for about 13 years, based on an average annual production rate of approximately 1.86 million tonnes of 30.66% concentrate over the three-year period ended December 31, 2016. Following the closure of the phosphoric acid production operations at the Suwannee River chemical complex in 2014, we forecast a mine life of approximately 14 years based on an average forecasted annual production rate of approximately 1.66 million tonnes of 30.66% concentrate. This mine life is calculated using two years (2015 & 2016) of actual production and one year of budgeted production (2017).
Resources
Mineral resources, which are exclusive of the mineral reserves reported above, are contained within the lands owned or controlled by the Company at each mine. Resources are reported as mineralization in-place with no historical recovery factors applied to quantify the total tonnes, while reserves are reported as recoverable ore, having applied the appropriate historical recovery factors.
At both Aurora and White Springs, where geological correlations are well defined, the mineral resource categories are generally characterized by the Company as follows:
|
measured mineral resource areas with mineral deposit continuity based on 50% of range drill hole distances (2,250 feet) in the geostatistical model; |
|
indicated mineral resource areas with mineral deposit continuity based on at-range drill hole distances (4,500 feet) in the geostatistical model; and |
|
inferred mineral resource areas with mineral deposit continuity based on 150% of range drill hole distances (6,750 feet) in the geostatistical model. |
Information used to infer and compute resource tonnage estimates consists of physical sampling (drill holes) and geologic modeling.
The Companys estimated mineral resource tonnage as of December 31, 2016 for each of our mines is as follows:
Mineral Resource (30.66% P 2 O 5 ) (1) | ||||||||||||
Measured Resource (Millions of tonnes in-place) |
Indicated Resource (Millions of tonnes in-place) |
Inferred Resource (Millions of tonnes in-place) |
||||||||||
Aurora |
172.7 | 4.6 | | |||||||||
White Springs |
67.80 | 0.20 | |
(1) | Resources are different from reserves and are not in addition to reserves. Resources are defined as tonnes in situ before recovery factors have been applied. |
The scientific and technical information included in the Phosphate Operations section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K has been prepared by qualified persons under NI 43-101. The qualified persons who prepared and verified the information at each site are Tyler Cvetan P.E. PCS Phosphate for Aurora and Cameron Lynch, P.E. (PCS Phosphate White Springs, Superintendent Mine Planning) for White Springs.
Data for the mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates reported for our phosphate mining operations reported herein were verified by reviewing:
|
existing reserve areas for ownership status and mining parameters; |
|
drill hole database; |
|
excluded reserve areas; |
|
the calculated area of drill hole influence; and |
|
input and output parameters for analysis in geostatistical 3D modeling software developed by a third-party vendor. |
We sell to a diverse group of customers both by geography and by end product and, apart from sales of potash to Canpotex Limited (Canpotex), no one customer accounted for more than 10% of our total sales in 2016. Market conditions will vary on a period-over-period basis, and sales can be expected to shift from one period to another.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 11 |
The following table summarizes our sales, by geographical distribution, from potash, nitrogen and phosphate products in the past three fiscal years (in millions of US dollars).
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Potash |
||||||||||||
Canada |
$ | 97 | $ | 119 | $ | 153 | ||||||
United States |
752 | 913 | 1,295 | |||||||||
Canpotex (1) |
778 | 1,346 | 1,233 | |||||||||
Other |
3 | 165 | 147 | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 1,630 | $ | 2,543 | $ | 2,828 | ||||||
Nitrogen |
||||||||||||
Canada |
$ | 11 | $ | 19 | $ | 14 | ||||||
United States |
1,200 | 1,557 | 1,896 | |||||||||
Other |
256 | 384 | 515 | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 1,467 | $ | 1,960 | $ | 2,425 | ||||||
Phosphates |
||||||||||||
Canada |
$ | 118 | $ | 156 | $ | 165 | ||||||
United States |
934 | 1,248 | 1,330 | |||||||||
Other |
307 | 372 | 367 | |||||||||
Total |
$ | 1,359 | $ | 1,776 | $ | 1,862 |
(1) | See discussion below for information regarding Canpotex sales. |
Percentages of sales referred to in this section reflect percentages of sales based on US dollars, unless otherwise indicated.
For financial information about our business segments and North American and offshore sales, see the information under Potash Operating Environment and Potash Financial Performance on pages 18 through 19 and 59 through 61, respectively, Nitrogen Operating Environment and Nitrogen Financial Performance on pages 20 through 21 and 65 through 67, respectively, and Phosphate Operating Environment and Phosphate Financial Performance on pages 22 through 23 and 70 through 71, respectively, in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, and Note 3, Segment Information to the Companys audited consolidated financial statements, incorporated by reference under Items 7 and 8, respectively, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Information with respect to the geographical locations of certain non-current assets is disclosed in Note 3, Segment Information to the Companys 2016 audited consolidated financial statements, incorporated by reference under Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Potash from our Saskatchewan mines for sale outside Canada and the United States is sold to Canpotex. Following the suspension of our New Brunswick potash operations in early 2016, international customers that were historically served by PCS Sales (Canada), Inc. and PCS Sales (USA), Inc. (PCS Sales) are now served from Saskatchewan production through Canpotex. Nitrogen and phosphate products are marketed and sold in North America and offshore by PCS Sales. See Offshore Marketing below.
North American Marketing
Potash
In 2016, North American sales of potash products represented 52% of our total potash sales, a significant portion of which were attributable to potash customers in the United States. Typically, our North American potash sales are greater in the first half of the year. The vast majority of sales are made on the spot market with the balance made under short-term contracts. We have no material contractual obligations in connection with North American sales to sell potash in the future at a fixed price.
Nitrogen
In 2016, North American sales of nitrogen products represented 83% of our total nitrogen sales, a significant portion of which was attributable to nitrogen customers in the United States. In 2016, our nitrogen product sales were made on the spot market and under short-term and multi-year contracts. We have no material contractual obligations in connection with North American sales to sell nitrogen in the future at a fixed price.
Ammonia we purchase is used in our operations and is sold to third party customers by PCS Sales.
Phosphate
In 2016, North American sales of phosphate products represented 77% of our total phosphate sales, a significant portion of which were attributable to phosphate customers in the United States. In 2016, the majority of our phosphate product sales were made on the spot market, with the balance made under short-term contracts (generally on an annual basis) and a limited number of sales made pursuant to multi-year contracts. We have no material contractual obligations in connection with North American sales to sell phosphate products in the future at a fixed price.
The primary customers for fertilizer products are retailers, dealers, cooperatives, distributors and other fertilizer producers. Such retailers, dealers and cooperatives have both distribution and application capabilities. The primary customers for industrial products are chemical product manufacturers and the primary customers for feed products are feed manufacturers.
Offshore Marketing
Potash
Potash we produce in Canada for sale outside Canada and the United States is sold exclusively to Canpotex, which is owned in equal shares by us and two other Canadian potash producers. Canpotex, which was incorporated in 1970 and commenced operations in 1972, acts as an export company providing integrated sales, marketing and distribution for all Canadian potash produced by its shareholders that is exported to
destinations outside the United States and Canada. Each shareholder of Canpotex has an equal voting interest as
12 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
a shareholder and a right to equal representation on the Canpotex board of directors. The shareholders of Canpotex have committed to use Canpotex as their exclusive offshore export outlet for potash produced in Canada that is exported to destinations outside the United States and Canada; however, prior to January 2016, production from our New Brunswick mine was not subject to this requirement and was instead marketed internationally by us outside of Canpotex. In January 2016, we elected for New Brunswick production to also be subject to this exclusivity requirement and announced the suspension of our Picadilly New Brunswick potash operations. Since that time, we have not sold any potash we produce in Canada outside of Canada and the United States independently of Canpotex.
In general, Canpotex sales are allocated among the producers based on production capacity. If a shareholder cannot satisfy demand for potash by Canpotex, the remaining shareholders are entitled to satisfy the demand pro rata based on their allotted production capacity. In 2016, we supplied approximately 51.62% of Canpotexs requirements. We expect our Canpotex allocation to change as Canpotexs shareholders complete expansions, including the ramp up of our completed Rocanville expansion. Canpotex generally sells potash to private and public firms and government agencies pursuant to contracts at negotiated prices or by spot sales.
The following table sets forth the percentage of sales volumes by Canpotex for the past three calendar years in the various geographical regions.
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
China |
16% | 20% | 16% | |||||||||
India |
9 | 9 | 10 | |||||||||
Other Asian markets |
36 | 34 | 41 | |||||||||
Latin America |
33 | 30 | 26 | |||||||||
Other countries |
6 | 7 | 7 | |||||||||
Total |
100% | 100% | 100% |
For 2016, sales to Canpotex represented 48% of our total potash sales.
Nitrogen
Ammonia and urea predominate our offshore sales of nitrogen and originate primarily from Trinidad, with other sales coming from purchased product locations. For 2016, our offshore sales of nitrogen products represented 17% of our total nitrogen sales.
Phosphate
The Company executes offshore marketing and sales for its solid phosphate fertilizer through PCS Sales. For 2016, the offshore sales of phosphate products represented 23% of our total phosphate sales.
Offshore sales are subject to those risks customarily encountered in foreign operations, including (i) laws, policies and actions affecting foreign trade; (ii) other economic, political and regulatory policies of foreign governments; (iii) changes in foreign currency and exchange controls; and (iv) fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.
TRANSPORTATION AND DISTRIBUTION
We have an extensive infrastructure and distribution system to store and transport our products. In addition to storage located at our production facilities, in North America in 2016, we leased or owned 296 terminal and warehouse facilities, some of which have multi-product capability, for a total of 409 strategically located distribution points in Canada and the United States to serve our customers. To complement our distribution system in Canada and the United States, we also leased or owned approximately 11,100 railcars. In the offshore market, the Company leased one warehouse in China (which we closed in September 2016), one in Malaysia and had ownership in a joint venture which leases one dry bulk fertilizer port terminal in Brazil. We also leased three vessels used for ammonia transportation and owned one multi-purpose vessel used for molten sulfur and phosphoric acid transportation.
Potash
Transportation costs can be a significant component of the total cost of potash. Producers may have an advantage in serving markets close to their sources of supply depending on prevailing transportation costs. International shipping cost variances permit offshore producers (including those in the former Soviet Union, Germany and the Middle East) to compete with us effectively in many geographies.
Most of our potash for North American customers is shipped by rail. We believe we have a strategic advantage in this market with more than 208 owned or leased potash distribution points and a fleet of approximately 4,700 owned and leased railcars. We believe this is the most extensive domestic distribution network in the potash business. Shipments are also made by rail from each of our Saskatchewan mines to Thunder Bay, Ontario, for shipment by lake vessel to our warehouses and storage facilities in Canada and the United States.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 13 |
In the case of our sales to Canpotex, potash is transported by rail principally to Vancouver, British Columbia, where port facilities store potash pending shipment by ocean-going vessels overseas. We have an equity interest in Canpotex Bulk Terminals Limited, which is a part owner of these port facilities. Through Canpotex, we also transport potash to, and have an interest in, a port facility located in Portland, Oregon. Following the suspension of our Picadilly, New Brunswick potash operations in early 2016, storage and loading facilities at the Port of Saint John including our capacity of up to 2.5 million tonnes per year have been made available to Canpotex for offshore shipping.
Nitrogen
We distribute our nitrogen products by vessel, barge, railcar, truck and direct pipeline to our customers and, in high consumption areas, through our strategically located storage terminals. We lease or own 92 nitrogen terminal facilities. The terminals provide off-season storage and also serve local dealers during the peak seasonal demand period.
We distribute products from Trinidad primarily to markets in the United States and also to Latin America. Our distribution operations in Trinidad employ three long-term chartered ocean-going vessels and utilize short-term and spot charters as necessary for the transportation of ammonia. All bulk urea production from Trinidad is shipped through third-party carriers.
Phosphate
With respect to phosphates, we have long-term leases on shipping terminals in Morehead City and Beaufort, North Carolina, through which we receive and store Aurora facility raw materials and finished product. Most of our offshore phosphate sales are shipped through the terminal at Morehead City. We use barges and tugboats to transport solid products, phosphoric acid and sulfur between the Aurora facility and shipping terminals. Raw materials and products, including sulfur, are also transported to and from the Aurora facility by rail.
Sulfur is delivered to the White Springs facility by rail and truck from Canada and the United States. Most of the phosphoric acid and chemical fertilizers produced at the White Springs facility are shipped to North American destinations by rail. Ammonia for Aurora is supplied by rail and truck from our production facilities in Lima, Ohio; Geismar, Louisiana; and Augusta, Georgia. Much of the Geismar facilitys phosphoric acid is delivered via pipeline to a nearby customer. The balance of the facilitys phosphate products is shipped by rail or tank truck. Phosphate rock feedstock is delivered to Geismar from Morocco in large ocean-going vessels. Sulfur is delivered to the Geismar facility by barge, truck and rail.
Potash
Potash is a commodity, characterized by minimal product differentiation, and, consequently, producers compete based on price, quality and service. We price competitively and sell high quality products and provide high quality service to our customers. Our service includes maintaining warehouses, leasing railcars and chartering ocean-going vessels to enhance our delivery capabilities. The high cost of transporting potash affects competition in various geographic areas. During 2016 our principal competitors in North America included Agrium, Belaruskali, ICL, Intrepid Potash Inc., K+S Group, Mosaic, SQM and Uralkali. In 2016, in offshore markets, Canpotex competed with producers such as APC, Belaruskali, ICL, K+S Group, SQM & Uralkali.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen, the most widely produced nutrient globally, is primarily a regional business. However, ammonia, the feedstock for all downstream nitrogen products, may be manufactured in countries with adequate natural gas supplies and can enable developing nations to monetize their natural gas resources. Several countries with large reserves and low production costs use little of their gas domestically, and can produce ammonia cheaply for the export market. Natural gas typically makes up 70-85% of the cash cost of producing a tonne of ammonia. Nitrogen solutions and ammonium sulfate are also exported.
Nitrogen is an input into industrial production of a wide range of products. Many manufacturers want consistent quality and just-in-time delivery to keep their plants running. A number of industrial consumers are connected to their suppliers by pipeline.
Our nitrogen production serves fertilizer, industrial and feed customers. Our US plants primarily supply industrial and feed customers, and Trinidad supplies both our fertilizer and industrial customers. Our US production has benefited recently from the low cost of natural gas. In Trinidad, our natural gas contracts are primarily indexed to Tampa, Florida ammonia prices. Within North America, sales are regionalized due to transportation costs. In the United States, we compete with other domestic producers, including Agrium, CF Industries Holdings, Inc., CVR Partners, L.P., Koch Industries, Inc., LSB Industries, INC., and OCI N.V. and with imported product from suppliers in the Middle East, North Africa, Trinidad, the former Soviet Union and China. In the offshore market, we compete with a wide range of offshore and domestic producers.
14 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
Phosphate
Markets for phosphate fertilizer products are highly competitive. Our principal advantages at Aurora and White Springs are that we produce higher value, diversified products and that we operate integrated phosphate mine and phosphate processing complexes, while some of our North American competitors are required to ship phosphate rock by rail or truck greater distances from their mines to their mineral processing plants, thus incurring higher rock processing costs.
Our competitors for North American phosphate fertilizer sales are The Mosaic Company, J.R. Simplot Company, Agrium and offshore imports primarily from China, Morocco and Russia.
In offshore markets, we compete primarily with Moroccos OCP S.A., as well as producers from Africa and the Middle East.
Within the animal feed supplement business in the phosphate segment, opportunities exist to differentiate products based on nutritional content. We have a significant presence in the domestic feed supplement market segments. We compete with The Mosaic Company, J.R. Simplot Company and Chinese and Russian producers for feed sales.
Industrial products are the least commodity-like of the phosphate products as product quality is a more significant consideration for customer buying decisions. We market industrial phosphate products principally in the United States and we compete with ICL, Innophos Holdings, Inc. and Chinese producers for North American industrial sales.
At December 31, 2016, we employed 5,130 people, of whom 1,954 were salaried and 3,176 were hourly paid. Of these 5,130 employees, our potash operations employed 2,331 people, our nitrogen operations 823 and our phosphate operations 1,515.
Our sales and transportation and distribution functions were handled by 100 employees in Northbrook, Illinois and various other locations in the United States and by 13 employees in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Excluding sales personnel, the Saskatoon and Northbrook offices together had a corporate staff of 348.
We have entered into eight collective bargaining agreements with labor organizations representing employees. The following table
sets forth the plant locations where we have entered into collective bargaining agreements and their respective expiry dates.
Plant Location |
Collective Bargaining
Agreement Expiry Date |
|
Allan, SK |
April 30, 2019 | |
Cory, SK |
April 30, 2019 | |
Patience Lake, SK |
April 30, 2019 | |
Lanigan, SK |
January 31, 2018 | |
Rocanville, SK |
May 31, 2018 | |
Cincinnati, OH |
November 1, 2019 | |
Lima, OH |
November 1, 2017 | |
White Springs, FL |
December 10, 2018 |
We believe we have an effective working relationship with our employees, and the unions representing them.
Under Saskatchewan provincial legislation, the Company is subject to resource taxes including the potash production tax and the resource surcharge. In 2015, the Government of Saskatchewan announced a potash royalty and taxation review which was postponed indefinitely in 2016. The potash production tax totaled $74 million and the total resource surcharge was $43 million in 2016.
In addition to the potash production tax and resource surcharge, there are royalties, taxes and rental fees payable to the Provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, municipalities and others in respect of potash sales, production or property in those provinces. Such costs are included in cost of goods sold. The amount of these royalties, taxes and fees totaled $57 million in 2016.
There are property and other taxes payable to US governments, municipalities and other entities that are included in cost of goods sold. The amount for these property and other taxes totaled $19 million in 2016.
For 2016, miscellaneous taxes (not included above) totaled $7 million. Information on a proposed carbon tax, is included under Legal and Other Matters General in Note 30 Contingencies and Other Matters, on page 162 of the Companys audited financial statements in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, which is incorporated herein by reference.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 15 |
Income Taxes
PCS and certain subsidiaries are subject to federal and provincial income taxes in Canada. Our subsidiaries that operate in the United States are subject to US federal and state income taxes. Our nitrogen subsidiary operating in Trinidad is subject to Trinidadian taxes.
Income taxes decreased due primarily to significantly lower income before taxes in higher tax jurisdictions. Effective tax rates were as follows:
2016 | 2015 | |||||
Actual effective tax rate on ordinary earnings |
16% | 27% | ||||
Actual effective tax rate including discrete items |
12% | 26% |
Total discrete tax adjustments that impacted the rate in 2016 resulted in an income tax recovery of $17 million (2015 recovery of $7 million). Significant items to note included the following:
|
in 2016, a current tax recovery of $16 million was recorded as a result of tax authority examinations. |
|
in 2015, a current tax recovery of $17 million was recorded upon the conclusion of a tax authority audit. |
Our operations are subject to numerous environmental requirements under federal, provincial, state and local laws and regulations of Canada, the United States and Trinidad and Tobago. These laws and regulations govern matters such as air emissions, wastewater discharges, land use and reclamation, groundwater quality, and solid and hazardous waste management. Many of these laws, regulations and permit requirements are becoming increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance with these requirements can be expected to increase over time.
The Safety, Health and Environment Committee of the Board of Directors measures the Companys safety, health, environmental and security performance against our management policies and procedures. The committee also monitors progress against our safety and environmental goals and targets, working closely with management to ensure that appropriate strategies and processes are in place to promote a culture that prioritizes safety and environmental responsibility.
Our operating expenses, other than costs associated with asset retirement obligations, relating to compliance with environmental laws and regulations governing ongoing operations for 2016 were $95 million (2015 $111 million, 2014 $129 million).
The Company routinely undertakes environmental capital projects. In 2016, capital expenditures of $82 million (2015 $164 million,
2014 $151 million) were incurred to meet pollution prevention and control as well as other environmental objectives. Future capital expenditures are subject to a number of uncertainties, including changes to environmental regulations and interpretations, and enforcement initiatives. While we currently anticipate that our operating and capital expenditures related to environmental regulatory matters in 2017 will not differ materially from amounts expended in the past two years, at this time we are unable to estimate the capital expenditures we may make in subsequent years to meet pollution prevention and control objectives as well as other environmental targets.
Environmental Requirements, Permits and Regulatory Approvals
Many of our operations and facilities are required to operate in compliance with a range of regulatory requirements, permits and approvals. We believe that we are currently in material compliance with existing regulatory programs, permits and approvals. Permits and approvals typically have to be renewed or reissued periodically. We may also become subject to new laws or regulations that impose new requirements or require us to obtain new or additional permits or approvals. However, there can be no assurance that such permits or approvals will be issued in the ordinary course. Further, the terms and conditions of future regulations, permits and approvals may be more stringent and may require increased expenditures on our part.
Air Quality. With respect to air emissions, we anticipate that additional actions and expenditures may be required to meet increasingly stringent US federal and state regulatory and permit requirements, including existing and anticipated regulations under the federal Clean Air Act. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has issued a number of regulations establishing requirements to reduce air pollutant emissions. We continue to monitor developments in these various programs and to assess their potential impact on our operations.
Water Quality . There are international, federal and state regulatory initiatives underway that may result in new regulatory restrictions on discharges of nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, to waters in the United States (Nutrient Criteria). There are also ongoing litigation efforts in several jurisdictions of the United States that seek to require US environmental agencies to develop new Nutrient Criteria. These litigation and regulatory proceedings may result in new Nutrient Criteria that apply to water discharges from several of the Companys facilities. Some of the proposed restrictions imposed through Nutrient Criteria also have the potential to require our customers to reduce or eliminate their uses of the Companys products. These Nutrient Criteria could have a material effect on either the Company or its customers, but the impact is not currently predictable or quantifiable with
16 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
reasonable certainty because many of these initiatives are in relatively early stages and compliance alternatives may be available that do not create material impacts. The Company is closely monitoring and evaluating the impact of these initiatives on its operations.
Climate Change. We have determined that we will pursue a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. A source of greenhouse gases from our operations is process emissions from some of our nitric acid plants. In addition, the use of natural gas at our mines and as a feedstock in our ammonia production results in greenhouse gas emissions. The use of electricity and the transportation of materials associated with our operations are indirect sources of greenhouse gases. The Company has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of nitrogen product by 5 percent from 2014 levels by 2018.
We continue to monitor the international and national efforts to address climate change. Increasing regulation of greenhouse gases could impact our operations by requiring changes to our production processes or increasing raw material, energy, production or transportation costs. The countries where we operate are parties to the Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The impacts of these regulatory efforts on the Companys operations cannot be determined with any certainty at this time.
In addition to the foregoing, the information under Legal and Other Matters General in Note 30, Contingencies and Other Matters on page 162 of the Companys audited consolidated financial statements in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
Asset Retirement Obligations
Provisions are recognized when: (1) the Company has a present legal or constructive obligation as a result of past events; (2) it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and (3) the amount has been reliably estimated. We have recorded in the Companys audited consolidated financial statements provisions for decommissioning obligations (also known as asset retirement obligations) primarily related to mining and mineral activities. The major categories of asset retirement obligations include reclamation and restoration costs at our potash and phosphate mining operations (most particularly phosphate mining), including the management of materials generated by mining and mineral processing, such as various mine tailings and gypsum; land reclamation and revegetation programs; decommissioning of underground and surface operating facilities; general clean-up activities aimed at returning the areas to an environmentally acceptable condition; and post-closure care and maintenance. See Note 18 of the Companys audited consolidated financial statements in the 2016 Annual Integrated Report for further discussion of the treatment of asset retirement obligations.
The estimation of asset retirement obligation costs depends on the development of environmentally acceptable closure and post-closure plans. In some cases, this may require significant research and development to identify preferred methods for such plans that are economically sound and that, in most cases, may not be implemented for several decades. We have continued to use appropriate technical resources, including outside consultants, to develop specific site closure and post-closure plans in accordance with the requirements of the various jurisdictions in which we operate. The asset retirement obligations are generally incurred over an extended period of time. At December 31, 2016, we had accrued a total of $678 million for asset retirement obligations. The current portion totaled $51 million.
In addition, the information contained in paragraphs five through seven of Supporting Information of Note 25, Guarantees to the Companys audited consolidated financial statements on page 144 of the Companys 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
Site Assessment and Remediation
We are also subject to environmental statutes that address investigation and, where necessary, remediation of contaminated properties. The US Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, (CERCLA), and other US federal and state laws impose liability on, among others, past and present owners and operators of properties or facilities at which hazardous substances have been released into the environment and persons who arrange for disposal of hazardous substances that are released into the environment. Liability under these laws may be imposed jointly and severally and without regard to fault or the legality of the original actions, although such liability may be divided or allocated according to various equitable and other factors. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur costs and liabilities because of our current and former operations, including those of divested and acquired businesses. We have generated and, with respect to our current operations, continue to generate substances that could result in liability for us under these laws.
We have accrued $23 million for costs associated with site assessment and remediation, including consulting fees, related to the clean-up of contaminated sites currently or formerly associated with the Company or its predecessors businesses. The current portion of these costs totaled $7 million. The accrued amounts include the Companys or its subsidiaries expected final share of the costs for the site assessment and remediation matters to the extent the incurrence of the costs are likely and can be reasonably estimated.
In addition to the foregoing, the information in the first and second paragraphs under Nitrogen and Phosphate, including the bullets contained therein, and in the second paragraph of
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 17 |
Legal and Other Matters of Note 30, Contingencies and Other Matters to the Companys audited consolidated financial statements on pages 161 and 162 of the Companys 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
It is often difficult to estimate and predict the potential costs and liabilities associated with these programs, and there is no guarantee that we will not in the future be identified as potentially responsible for additional costs under these programs, either as a result of changes in existing laws and regulations or as a result of the identification of additional matters or properties covered by these programs.
Facility and Product Security
Through our Safety, Health and Environment department, we regularly evaluate and address actual and potential security issues and requirements associated with our operations in the
United States and elsewhere using approved security vulnerability methodologies. Additional actions and expenditures may be required in the future. In the United States, chemical facilities are regulated under the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, and the Food Safety Modernization Act (Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Adulteration). It is anticipated that Congress will continue to consider federal legislation designed to reduce the risk of any future terrorist acts at industrial facilities. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable security requirements, and we also have developed and adopted security measures and enhancements beyond those presently required at both our regulated and non-regulated facilities. To date, neither the security regulations nor our expenditures on security matters have had a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. We are unable to predict the potential future costs to us of any new governmental programs or voluntary initiatives.
The name, age, period of service with the Company and position held for each of our executive officers as at February 20, 2017 is as follows:
Name | Age |
Served
Since |
Current Position Held | |||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
53 | 2014 | President and Chief Executive Officer | |||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
64 | 1988 | Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer | |||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
66 | 1999 | President, PCS Sales | |||||||
Mark F. Fracchia |
62 | 1984 | President, PCS Potash | |||||||
Raef M. Sully |
49 | 2012 | President, PCS Nitrogen and PCS Phosphate | |||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
54 | 1997 | Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary | |||||||
Darryl S. Stann |
49 | 2003 | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Risk Officer | |||||||
Kevin Graham |
38 | 2015 | Senior Vice President, Strategy and Corporate Development | |||||||
Brent Poohkay |
47 | 2015 | Senior Vice President, Information Technology | |||||||
Denita C. Stann |
48 | 2006 | Senior Vice President, Investor and Public Relations | |||||||
Lee M. Knafelc |
49 | 1998 | Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration | |||||||
Denis A. Sirois |
61 | 1978 | Vice President and Corporate Controller | |||||||
Fernand Boutin |
46 | 2001 | Vice President, Internal Audit | |||||||
Rob D. Bubnick |
56 | 1998 | Vice President, Safety, Health and Environment |
18 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
Each of the executive officers have held the position indicated above or the positions described below for the previous five years:
Name | Dates of Service | Position Held | ||
Jochen E. Tilk |
November 2009 March 2013 | President and Chief Executive Officer, Inmet Mining Corporation | ||
Mark F. Fracchia |
March 2011 June 2014 | Vice President, Safety, Health and Environment | ||
Raef M. Sully |
June 2010 July 2012 | Principal, Bain & Company, Inc. | ||
August 2012 December 2012 | Vice President, Project Management | |||
January 2013 June 2014 | Vice President, Project Management and Capital | |||
July 2014 January 2016 | President, PCS Nitrogen | |||
Darryl S. Stann |
March 2011 December 2014 | Vice President, Procurement | ||
Kevin Graham |
August 2011 October 2012 | Director, Business Planning & Technical Advisor, Vale | ||
October 2012 October 2013 | Director, Strategic & Business Planning, Vale | |||
November 2013 July 2015 | Chief Strategy & Technology Officer, Vale | |||
Brent Poohkay |
January 2005 March 2015 | Vice President and Chief Information Officer, Chief Privacy Officer, Enbridge Inc. | ||
Denita C. Stann |
January 2011 December 2015 | Vice President, Investor and Public Relations | ||
Lee M. Knafelc |
December 2010 December 2015 | Vice President, Human Resources and Administration | ||
Fernand Boutin |
March 2011 December 2016 | Director, Cost & Inventory | ||
Rob D. Bubnick |
January 2007 July 2014 | General Manager, PCS Potash, Lanigan Division |
PRESENTATION OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION
We have three reportable operating segments: potash, nitrogen and phosphate. For information with respect to the sales, gross margin and assets attributable to each segment and to our North American and offshore sales, see Note 3, Segment Information to the Companys audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016, incorporated by reference under Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Unless otherwise specified, financial information is presented in US dollars.
International Financial Reporting Standards, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IFRS)
We are a foreign private issuer in the United States that voluntarily files our audited consolidated financial statements with the SECs US domestic forms. We are permitted to file our audited consolidated financial statements with the SEC under IFRS, without a reconciliation to US generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP). As a result, we do not prepare a reconciliation of our results to US GAAP. It is possible that certain of our accounting policies could be different from US GAAP.
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION
We file annual, quarterly and current reports and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy any of the information on file with the SEC at the SECs Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site at
www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file, as we do, electronically with the SEC.
We make available, free of charge through our website, www.potashcorp.com , our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to the Act as soon as is reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. We also make available, free of charge, through our website, our filings with Canadian securities regulatory authorities as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities. The Canadian securities regulatory authorities maintain a website ( www.sedar.com ) that contains our filings with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities. The information contained on, or accessible from our website or any other report or document we file with or furnish to the SEC or Canadian securities regulatory authorities, and references to our website are intended to be inactive textual references only, and are not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Our performance and our future operations are and may be affected by a wide range of risks. Any or all of these risks, or other risks not presently known to us or that we do not deem material, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and on the market price of our common shares. We use our integrated risk management framework to identify risks across all segments of the Company, evaluate those risks, and implement strategies
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 19 |
designed to mitigate those risks. This process is further described under Integrated Approach to Strategy and Risk on pages 28 and 29 and Risk on pages 48 through 55 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13. See Forward-Looking Statements earlier in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
A discussion of the Companys strategies to mitigate certain risks is included in our Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations on pages 50 through 55 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13.
Our estimates of future demand for our products, and in particular potash, our primary nutrient, may prove to be overstated.
We estimate the future level of demand for our products and attempt to meet this anticipated demand by adjusting our operational capability at certain facilities. Our customers decisions regarding the purchase of our products are affected by variable market, governmental, seasonal, foreign currency, other economic, weather and other conditions, most of which are outside of our control and can be difficult to accurately predict. For example, farmers decisions about the number of acres planted, the mix of crops planted and application rates for crop nutrients vary from year to year depending on a number of factors including, among others, crop prices, the level of grain inventory, governmental actions (including farm and biofuel policies), input costs, weather-related shifts in planting schedules and the level of the crop nutrients remaining in the soil following the previous harvest. Therefore, the timing of customer purchases will vary each year, and fertilizer sales can shift between periods.
If demand does not meet our estimates, our facilities may be underutilized. To the extent that we underutilize capacity, operating efficiencies may decline, which may require operations or workforce changes. This may result in the return on our investment being lower than expected and may negatively impact our financial performance.
Competitors increase in fertilizer supply may outpace growth in world demand.
Some fertilizer products are characterized by minimal product differentiation within product categories and customers make their purchasing decisions principally on the basis of delivered price and to a lesser extent on customer service and product quality.
Consequently, the market for fertilizer products is subject to competitive pricing pressures and is volatile. This volatility varies by product within the fertilizer industry. Our competitors have undertaken, and may undertake in the future, expansion or greenfield projects to increase fertilizer production capability and may increase supply in response to market conditions or otherwise.
If increases in supply outpace growth in world demand this may lead to saturation in the market, a reduction in prices and declining capacity utilization rates, negatively affecting our financial performance.
Canpotex may be dissolved or its ability to operate impaired.
We rely on Canpotex, our offshore marketing, transportation and distribution company, to deliver our potash to customers outside North America. Unexpected changes in laws or regulations, market or economic conditions, our (or our venture partners) businesses, or otherwise could threaten the existence of Canpotex. A trusted potash brand could be lost and our access to key offshore markets negatively impacted resulting in a less efficient logistics system, decreased sales, higher costs or lower net earnings from offshore sales.
We may not be able to respond in a timely manner to unexpected surges in potash demand.
While we strive to maintain optionality with our operating capabilities, it may take time to restart or expand our operating capability in order to respond when demand surges in an unanticipated manner. Our inability to respond could adversely affect our financial performance or reputation.
We may fail to maintain high levels of safety and health or prevent / appropriately respond to a major security incident.
Safety is a core value for us. The mining and industrial activities we engage in are inherently hazardous and we have personnel working or travelling in countries facing escalating tensions. Failure to prevent or appropriately respond to a safety, health or security incident could result in one or more incidents leading to injuries or fatalities among our employees, contractors and communities near our operations. Such incidents may lead to liabilities arising out of personal injuries or death, operational interruptions and shutdown or abandonment of affected facilities. Accidents could cause us to expend significant managerial time and efforts, and financial resources to remediate safety issues or to repair damaged facilities and may also adversely impact our reputation.
We may fail to protect the environment.
Environmental incidents, including uncontrolled tailings, gypsum stack or other containment breaches, significant subsidence from mining activities and significant release of hazardous and other regulated materials, may occur. Failure to prevent a significant environmental incident can be harmful to our employees, contractors, and communities and impact the biodiversity, water resources and related ecosystems near our operations. Such incidents could also adversely impact our operations, financial performance or reputation.
20 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
We may incur costs related to new or revised environmental laws and regulations.
Our operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations. We incur significant costs and associated liabilities in connection with these laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern matters such as air emissions, wastewater discharges, land use and reclamation and solid and hazardous waste management. Many of the laws and regulations are becoming increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance with these requirements can be expected to increase over time. New or revised laws or regulations may result from pressure on law makers and regulators to address climate change, transition to a low-carbon economy or impose more restrictive conditions on inbound and outbound hazardous material shipments of raw material inputs and end products. Increased regulation could impact our ability to produce certain products, increase our raw material, energy, transportation, and compliance costs and have a negative effect on our customer satisfaction, reputation and financial performance.
Insurance may not adequately cover all losses.
We maintain property, business interruption, casualty and liability insurance policies, but we are not fully insured against all potential hazards and risks incident to our business. If we were to incur significant liability for which we are not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We may not be granted, or may fail to maintain, the relevant permits for our operations.
Many of our existing operations are dependent upon having numerous required permits and approvals, or a determination that we have not violated a law or permit as a result of government inspection of our facilities, from relevant governmental authorities. In addition, expansion or modification of our operations may be predicated upon securing necessary environmental or other permits or approvals. Denial or delay by a government agency in issuing any of our permits and approvals or imposition of restrictive conditions on us with respect to these permits and approvals could have an adverse effect on our ability to continue or expand operations thereby affecting our financial performance or our reputation.
For additional information regarding environmental laws and regulations that impact our operations, see the information contained under Environmental Matters in Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We may be subject to catastrophic events or malicious acts (including terrorism) involving our products, facilities or transportation, storage and distribution network.
Like other companies with major mining and industrial facilities, in addition to cyber security risks, our operations may be impacted by catastrophic events (such as uncontrolled mine inflow, severe
weather or extreme product transportation/storage mishaps) or be targets of terrorist activities (or other intentional acts of destruction). As a result, our facilities, or those of third parties on which we rely, could be damaged or destroyed, or employees, contractors and the public could suffer serious physical injury. Such events could also affect our sales or production and disrupt our supply chain, which may adversely impact our financial results or reputation.
Certain complications may arise in our mining process, including water inflows in our potash mines.
The mining process is a complex process subject to certain geological conditions and hazards, including industrial and environmental hazards. For example, the presence of water-bearing strata above and below many underground mines poses the risk of water inflows. It is not uncommon for water inflows of varying degrees to occur in potash mines; however, it is difficult to predict if, when, or to what degree, such inflows could occur. At our Saskatchewan potash mines we have minor water inflows that we actively monitor and manage, as appropriate. Significant inflows at our potash mines could result in increased operational costs, increased risk of personal injury, production delays or stoppages, or the abandonment and closure of a mine. The risk of underground water inflows, as with most other underground risks, is currently not insured. Any of these risks and hazards relating to our mining process could negatively affect our safety, our reputation or our financial performance.
Our international operations and investments may be affected by political and regulatory regimes.
We have significant operations and investments in countries outside of Canada and the United States. We have a nitrogen production facility in Trinidad. In addition, we have significant investments in entities located in Chile, Jordan, China and Israel.
Various factors may impact these operations including difficulties and costs associated with political and economic conditions, cultures and laws, regulations, foreign trade and fiscal policies; currency exchange rate fluctuations; armed conflict; terrorist activity; and unexpected changes in regulatory requirements, social, and labor conditions. Such factors may lead to restrictions on monetary distributions, selective discrimination, forced divestures or changes to or nullification of existing agreements, mining permits or leases.
Instability in political or regulatory regimes could cause volatility and impact our earnings growth or our reputation.
Non-operated investments may be affected by decisions of third parties.
We hold a minority ownership interest in several companies, including SQM, APC, ICL and Sinofert. The operations and results of these investments are significant to us, and their operations can
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 21 |
affect our earnings. Because we do not control these companies we cannot ensure that these companies will operate efficiently, pay dividends or manage their businesses in our best interests. As a result, these companies may contribute less than anticipated to our earnings and cash flow, and may negatively impact our operations or our reputation.
Our opportunities to strategically reinvest available capital may be limited.
We regularly evaluate all strategic opportunities. We may seek to grow through acquisitions of assets or entities, or interests in other entities, such as our investments in SQM, APC, ICL and Sinofert. We may also consider other growth opportunities such as strategic alliances, evaluation of new products and technologies, or expansion into new markets that complement and extend our portfolio of businesses and capabilities and generate returns that exceed our cost of capital on a risk-adjusted basis.
Various factors may limit our investment opportunities including geopolitical, market or other reasons. Such restrictions could negatively affect our growth.
We may be unable to achieve expected benefits of our growth initiatives.
When we undertake any strategic initiatives, our ability to achieve the expected returns and other benefits will be affected by our degree of preparedness and ability to execute. With respect to acquisitions, we are dependent upon our ability to successfully consolidate functions and integrate operations, technology, procedures and personnel in a timely and efficient manner. The integration of acquired assets and operations requires the dedication of management effort, time and resources, which may divert managements focus and resources from other strategic opportunities or operational matters during the process. The integration process may result in the disruption of our existing business and customer relationships that may adversely affect our ability to achieve the anticipated benefits, and may negatively affect our financial performance.
We also continue to evaluate the potential disposition of assets and operations that may no longer help us meet our objectives. When we decide to sell assets or operations, we may encounter difficulty in finding buyers or executing alternative exit strategies on acceptable terms in a timely manner, which could delay the accomplishment of our strategic objectives.
During the pendency and in the event we are unable to complete the Proposed Transaction, we may be subject to a number of additional risks and uncertainties.
The completion of the Proposed Transaction remains subject to customary closing conditions, some of which are outside of our control, including the receipt of various regulatory approvals.
During the pendency of the Proposed Transaction, we remain subject to a number of risks, including the diversion of time and attention of our management from running our current business, certain provisions in the Arrangement Agreement which may restrict our ability to take certain corporate actions or pursue alternatives to the Arrangement or, in certain circumstances, require us to pay a non-completion fee of $485 million, the incurrence of significant expenses that would generally not be recoverable and have been of only limited, if any utility, in the event we do not complete the Proposed Transaction, and uncertainty surrounding the completion of the Arrangement. If we do not complete the Proposed Transaction, we may no longer have the opportunity to pursue any actions or alternatives that arose during the pendency of the Proposed Transaction, we will still have incurred significant expenses that are not reimbursed or recoverable, and our ability to retain customers, suppliers or personnel may be harmed.
In the event we complete the Proposed Transaction, we, and our shareholders, will be subject to a number of additional risks.
In the event we complete the Proposed Transaction, PotashCorp and Agrium shareholders will become shareholders of New Parent. New Parent may take a number of actions, including issuing equity securities that dilute New Parents cash flow or earnings per share, or adopting a dividend policy different from that of the historical PotashCorp dividend policy. In addition, New Parent may not be able to realize the anticipated benefits of the Proposed Transaction on a timely basis, or at all. In addition, the tax consequences of the Proposed Transaction may differ from the anticipated tax treatment, resulting in some shareholders being required to pay substantial U.S. federal income taxes, New Parents business mix may differ from that of PotashCorp historically, or customers, suppliers and or personnel may choose not to retain their relationships with New Parent. New Parent may also have a lower credit rating than PotashCorp, which could result in more difficulty or additional expense in accessing credit markets, or trigger a change in control offer under certain outstanding debt. The occurrence of any of the foregoing may materially adversely affect the value of your investment in New Parent following the completion of the Proposed Transaction.
We may fail to gain the support of our stakeholders for our business plans.
Underperformance due to weak market fundamentals or business issues, inadequate communication, engagement and/or collaboration with our stakeholders or dissatisfaction with our practices or strategic direction may lead to a lack of support for our business plans. Loss of stakeholder confidence may impair our ability to execute on our business plans, and may also lead to reputational and financial losses, or shareholder action.
22 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
In Trinidad, supply of natural gas, a key raw material for the manufacture of our nitrogen products, may continue to be curtailed.
Due to decreased investment by the energy industry in exploration, development and major maintenance activities we continue to experience curtailments in our natural gas supply. While changes in government policy in Trinidad are intended to support natural gas exploration and development, we continue to expect curtailments of natural gas supply for the coming years. Prolonged interruption of our supply could result in loss of nitrogen production, adversely affecting our financial performance or reputation.
Our information and operations technology systems are subject to cyber security risks.
Targeted attacks on our systems (or on systems of third parties that we rely on), failure or non-availability of a key information or operations technology system or a breach in security measures designed to protect our technology systems could result in property damage, theft, misuse, modification and destruction of information, including trade secrets and confidential business information, and cause business disruptions, reputational damage, extensive personal injury and third-party claims, which could negatively impact our operations and our financial performance.
We may allocate our capital in an inefficient manner or be unable to access capital on a cost-effective or timely basis.
Challenges arise in the capital allocation process due to changing market conditions and our ability to anticipate and incorporate such changes in our decision support. Inefficiencies in the capital allocation process or decisions that are not consistent with strategic priorities or that do not properly assess risk may also lead to inefficient deployment of capital. Access to and cost of capital may be affected by general and industry-specific market and economic conditions impacting our ability to generate cash flows, adverse conditions in the credit markets or restrictions on our ability to repatriate cash offshore. Failure to allocate capital in an efficient manner may lead to reduced returns on capital invested, operational inefficiencies, damage to our reputation and access to capital becoming more limited. Inability to access capital on a cost-effective basis may result in a loss of liquidity, increase in the cost of capital or inability to execute on value-added transactions requiring significant capital.
We may not be able to recover all or a portion of our investment in assets.
Our long-lived and intangible assets are assessed at the end of each reporting period for impairment indicators and when such indicators exist, impairment testing is performed to determine the recoverable value of assets. Changes in market conditions or industry structures, commodity prices, tax rates, technical operating difficulties, inability to recover our mineral reserves or increased operating cost levels relative to lower cost facilities could
represent impairment indicators that trigger impairment testing. Significant assumptions in the determination of recoverable value include, but are not limited to: commodity prices, sales volumes, operating and capital expenditures, discount rates, inflation and growth rates, and reserves. We cannot predict if an event that triggers impairment will occur, when it will occur or how it will affect reported asset amounts. Impairment charges could be significant and could materially adversely affect our financial performance in the periods in which they are recorded.
We may be unable to provide sufficient, cost-effective and timely transportation of our products.
Transportation is a significant element of the sale of our products to customers. Accessing sufficient, cost effective, timely and dependable transportation and port storage and other distribution facilities is important in allowing us and any export, sales and marketing companies, to supply customers near our operating facilities and around the world. Our (or the third parties upon which we rely) ability to provide sufficient, cost-effective and timely transportation and storage of product may be challenged due to labor disputes, system failures, accidents or delays, adverse weather or other environmental events, adverse operating conditions (including aging transportation infrastructure, railroad capacity constraints, changes to rail or ocean freight systems), swings in demand for our products, increased shipping demand for other products, adverse economic conditions, a change in our export, sales or marketing company relationships, or otherwise. This could result in delays and increased costs, lost revenue and reputation damage with our customers.
Antitrust laws or trade agreements and regulations to which we are subject may change.
We are subject to antitrust laws in various countries throughout the world. A significant portion of our business activities are conducted in countries under existing trade agreements and regulations. Changes in these laws, agreements or regulations, or their interpretation, administration or enforcement may occur over time. Additionally, increases in crop nutrient prices, as well as the Proposed Transaction, can increase the scrutiny to which we are subject under antitrust laws. Changes in antitrust laws or trade agreements and regulations globally, or the interpretation, administration or enforcement thereof, may limit our future acquisitions or operations, including the operations of Canpotex, as well as affect our financial performance.
Our advantaged cost position may be impaired.
As we take steps to further improve this position, various factors such as labor costs, lack of technological improvements, operational inefficiencies, currency fluctuations, tax and regulatory costs, and water inflow control and other environmental costs may impact our ability to maintain our low-cost position and adversely affect our financial performance.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 23 |
We may experience increases in the price of or be unable to source required raw materials (such as natural gas and sulfur).
Natural gas and sulfur are key raw materials for the manufacture of our products and represent a substantial part of our production and energy costs. Natural gas is utilized as both a chemical feedstock and a fuel to produce anhydrous ammonia, a key input in the production of our upgraded nitrogen products and in the production of our concentrated phosphate products. Natural gas is also a significant energy source used in the potash mining and milling process.
The cost of our raw materials may not correlate with changes in the prices we receive for our products, either in the direction of the price change or in absolute magnitude. The price of our raw materials can fluctuate widely for a variety of reasons, including changes in availability because of additional capacity or limited availability due to curtailments or other operating problems. Other external factors beyond our control can also cause volatility in raw materials prices, including, without limitation, general economic conditions, the level of business activity in the industries that use our products, competitors actions, international events and circumstances and governmental regulation in the United States and abroad. Relying on sole-sourced or non-diversified supply for specialized material may impact availability of such raw materials.
There can be no assurance that we will be able to pass through increased costs of raw materials to our customers through the end products. A significant increase in the price of natural gas or sulfur that is not recovered through an increase in the price of our products could negatively impact our financial performance. Unavailability of raw materials could result in a loss of production or changes to our nutrient footprint.
We may be unable to attract, develop, engage and retain skilled employees.
Sustaining and growing our business depends on the recruitment, development, engagement and retention of qualified and motivated employees. Although we strive to be an employer of choice in our industry, competition for skilled employees in certain geographical areas in which we operate can be significant and we may not be successful in attracting, developing or retaining such skilled employees. In addition, we invest significant time and expense in training our employees, which increases their value to competitors who may seek to recruit them. In response to market conditions, we have made operating and workforce changes in recent periods. These changes may impact existing employees engagement and retention and our ability to attract qualified and motivated employees in the future.
The inability to attract, develop, engage or retain quality employees could result in decreased productivity, reliability,
efficiency and safety performance, higher costs and reputational harm. It could also negatively impact our ability to take on new projects and sustain operations, which might negatively affect our operations or our ability to grow.
Strikes or other forms of work interruption could disrupt our business.
A significant portion of our workforce is unionized or otherwise governed by collective bargaining or similar agreements. We are therefore subject to the possibility of organized labor disruptions. Adverse labor relations or contract negotiations that do not result in an agreement could result in strikes, slowdowns or impose additional costs to resolve these disputes. These disruptions may negatively impact our ability to produce or sell our products. These disruptions may also impact our ability to recruit and retain personnel and could negatively affect our performance.
We may be unable to successfully execute our internal projects.
We have undertaken and continue to undertake various projects including capital and business process improvement /transformation projects. These projects involve risks, including (but not limited to) difficult environmental conditions, poor project prioritization and capital allocation, factors negatively impacting costs (such as escalating costs of labor and materials, unavailability and underperformance of skilled personnel, suppliers of materials or technology and other third parties we retain, design flaws or operational issues, poor project management oversight) or poor transition through project stages. Any of the foregoing risks could impair our ability to realize the benefits we had anticipated from the projects and negatively impact our financial performance.
Inability to successfully innovate or innovation by others may adversely affect our business.
Our inability to identify and / or appropriately act on opportunities for innovation, flaws in our model of innovation or innovation by others such as development of full or partial substitutes for our products, seeds that require less crop nutrients, or modifications to the application of crop nutrients could result in a loss in our competitive position, a loss in potential revenue streams, financial losses from unsuccessful innovation and inability to meet growth expectations.
We are subject to legal proceedings, the outcome of which may affect our business.
We are, and may in the future be, involved in legal and regulatory proceedings. These proceedings include matters arising from our activities or activities of predecessor companies. The outcome of these proceedings may have a negative impact on our financial performance or reputation.
24 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
Violations of our governance and compliance policies may occur.
We operate in a global environment that encompasses multiple jurisdictions and complex regulatory frameworks. Our governance and compliance processes, which include the review of internal controls over financial reporting and specific internal controls in relation to offers of things of value to government officials and representatives of state-owned enterprises, may not prevent potential violations of law, accounting or governance practice. Our Core Values, together with our mandatory policies, such as the anti-corruption and anti-fraud policies, may not prevent instances of fraudulent behavior and dishonesty nor guarantee compliance with legal or regulatory requirements. This may lead to regulatory fines, disgorgement of profits, litigation, loss of operating licenses or reputational damage.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
Information concerning our properties is set forth under the Properties sections in Item 1 of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K which is incorporated herein by reference.
The information under Legal and Other Matters of Note 30, Contingencies and Other Matters to the Companys audited consolidated financial statements on pages 161 through 163 of the Companys 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
Environmental Proceedings
For further discussion of certain environmental proceedings in which we are involved, see Environmental Matters under Item 1 of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K which is incorporated herein by reference.
General
In the normal course of business, we are also, and expect to continue to be, subject to various other legal proceedings being brought against us. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of such actions at this time, and inherent uncertainties exist in predicting such outcomes, it is the companys belief that the ultimate resolution any of such known actions is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.
ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Safety is a fundamental core value, and we are committed to providing a healthy and safe work environment for our employees, contractors and all others at our sites to help meet our Company-wide goal of achieving no harm to people.
The operations at the Companys Aurora, Weeping Water and White Springs facilities are subject to the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 , as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 , and the implementing regulations, which impose stringent health and safety standards on numerous aspects of mineral extraction and processing operations, including the training of personnel, operating procedures, operating equipment and other matters. Our senior management is responsible for managing compliance with applicable government regulations, as well as implementing and overseeing the elements of our safety program as outlined in our Safety, Health and Environment Manual.
Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Section 1503(a)) requires us to include certain safety information in the periodic reports we file with the SEC. The information concerning mine safety violations and other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) and Item 104 of Regulation S-K is included in Exhibit 95 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 25 |
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
The information under Shareholder Information Dividends, Shareholder Information Ownership, Shareholder Information Common Share Prices, Shareholder Information NYSE Corporate Governance on pages 169 and 170 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference. The information under Compensation Executive Compensation Performance Graphs in our 2017 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a), is incorporated herein by reference.
All equity based benefit plan information has been adjusted to reflect prior stock splits. In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, all share and per-share data reflects prior stock splits. In 2015, the Company declared a cash dividend of $0.38 per common share, in each of the first, second, third and fourth quarters, for a total of
$1.52 for the year. In 2016, the Company declared a cash dividend of $0.25 per common share in the first and second quarters, and $0.10 per common share in the third and fourth quarters, for a total of $0.70 for the year.
Dividends paid to residents in countries with which Canada has bilateral tax treaties are generally subject to the 15% Canadian non-resident withholding tax. Shareholders who have not provided Form NR301 will be subject to the full statutory rate of 25% Canadian non-resident withholding tax. Subject to certain limitations, the Canadian withholding tax is treated as a foreign income tax that can generally be claimed as a deduction from income or as a credit against the income tax liability of the shareholder. Shareholders in the United States who have not filed Form W-9 are also subject to the backup withholding tax (currently 28%). There is generally no Canadian tax on gains from the sale of shares of the Company owned by non-residents not carrying on business in Canada.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The information presented below has been presented on the basis of IFRS. These principles differ in certain significant respects from US GAAP.
(in millions of US dollars, except per-share amounts) | ||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | ||||||||||||||||
Sales |
4,456 | 6,279 | 7,115 | 7,305 | 7,927 | |||||||||||||||
Net income |
323 | 1,270 | 1,536 | 1,785 | 2,079 | |||||||||||||||
Net income per share basic |
0.39 | 1.52 | 1.83 | 2.06 | 2.42 | |||||||||||||||
Cash dividends declared per share |
0.70 | 1.52 | 1.40 | 1.33 | 0.70 | |||||||||||||||
Total assets |
17,255 | 17,469 | 17,724 | 17,958 | 18,206 | |||||||||||||||
Long-term debt obligations (1) |
3,750 | 3,754 | 3,256 | 3,006 | 3,506 |
(1) | Represents non-current long-term debt obligations and does not include unamortized costs. (See Note 21 to the Companys consolidated financial statements for description of such amounts.) |
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The information under Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations on pages 8 through 91 and 98 through 99, Appendix on page 171 and Terms and Measures on page 172 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
The information under Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Other Financial
Information Market Risks Associated With Financial Instruments on page 88 and Note 29 to the Companys audited consolidated financial statements on pages 155 through 160 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The information under Financials & Notes Managements Responsibility for Financial Reporting and Financials & Notes Consolidated Financial Statements, including the Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, contained on pages 100 through 167 and Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Quarterly Results on pages 81 and 82 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, is incorporated herein by reference.
26 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
As of December 31, 2016, we carried out an evaluation under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. There are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of any system of disclosure controls and procedures, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of the controls and procedures. Accordingly, even effective disclosure controls and procedures can only provide reasonable assurance of achieving their control objectives. Based upon that evaluation and as of December 31, 2016, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in the reports the Company files and submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported as and when required and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2016 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting. Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and the Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm contained on pages 103 and 104 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, are incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 27 |
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The information under Business of the Meeting Director Nominees, Report of the Audit Committee and Appointment of Auditors Audit Committee Membership and Appendix A in our 2017 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a), is incorporated herein by reference. Information concerning executive officers is set forth under Our Executive Officers in Part I, Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We have adopted the PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct that applies to all of our directors, officers and employees. We make this code, as well as the PotashCorp Governance Principles and the respective Charters of our Corporate Governance and Nominating, Audit and Human Resources and Compensation Committees, available free of charge on our website, www.potashcorp.com , or by request. We intend to disclose certain amendments to the PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct, or any waivers of the PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct granted to executive officers and directors, on our website within four business days following the date of such amendment or waiver.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The information under (1) About the Board Director Compensation, Human Resources and Compensation Letter from and Report of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee, Human Resources and Compensation
Compensation Discussion and Analysis and Human Resources and Compensation Executive Compensation in our 2017 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a) and (2) the Schedule of Participants included in additional surveys used for compensation purposes, attached as Exhibit 99(b), is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
The information under Ownership of Shares, and the tables under About the Board At-Risk Investment and Year Over Year Changes and Equity Compensation Plans in our 2017 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a), is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
The information under About the Board Director Independence in our 2017 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a), is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
The information under Report of the Audit Committee and Appointment of Auditors in our 2017 Proxy Circular, attached as Exhibit 99(a), is incorporated herein by reference.
28 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED AS PART OF THIS REPORT
1. Consolidated Financial Statements in Annual Report
The consolidated financial statements contained on pages 100 through 167 in our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, attached as Exhibit 13, are incorporated by reference under Item 8.
Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm |
103-104 | |||
Consolidated Statements of Income |
105 | |||
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income |
106 | |||
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow |
107 | |||
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders Equity |
108 | |||
Consolidated Statements of Financial Position |
109-110 | |||
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements |
111-167 |
2. Schedules
The following schedule is included in this Part IV: Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts.
Schedules not listed are omitted because the required information is inapplicable or is presented in the consolidated financial statements.
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016, and the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, and have issued our reports thereon dated February 20, 2017; such consolidated financial statements and reports are included in your 2016 Annual Integrated Report and are incorporated herein by reference. Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of the Company listed in Item 15. This consolidated financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.
/s/ Deloitte LLP
Chartered Professional Accountants
Licensed Professional Accountants
Saskatoon, Canada
February 20, 2017
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 29 |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
(in millions of US dollars)
(audited)
Description |
Balance at
Beginning of Year |
Additions
Charged to Costs and Expenses |
Deductions |
Balance at
End of Year |
||||||||||||
Allowance for doubtful trade accounts receivable |
||||||||||||||||
2016 |
7 | 1 | 2 | 6 | ||||||||||||
2015 |
7 | | | 7 | ||||||||||||
2014 |
7 | | | 7 | ||||||||||||
Allowance for inventory valuation |
||||||||||||||||
2016 |
18 | 7 | 2 | 23 | ||||||||||||
2015 |
12 | 6 | | 18 | ||||||||||||
2014 |
11 | 4 | 3 | 12 |
3. Exhibits
Incorporated By
Reference
(File No. 001-10351, unless otherwise indicated) |
||||||||||||
Exhibit
Number |
Description of Document | Form |
Filing Date/Period
End Date |
Exhibit Number
(if different) |
||||||||
2(a) | Arrangement Agreement, dated September 11, 2016, between Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and Agrium Inc. | 8-K | 9/12/2016 | 2.1 | ||||||||
3(a) | Articles of Continuance of the registrant dated May 15, 2002. | 10-Q | 6/30/2002 | |||||||||
3(b) | General By-Law of the registrant, as amended through April 27, 2015. | 8-K | 4/27/2015 | 3(a) | ||||||||
4(a) | Indenture dated as of February 27, 2003, between the registrant and U.S. Bank National Association, as successor to The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York. | 10-K | 12/31/2002 | 4(c) | ||||||||
4(b) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 5.875% Notes due December 1, 2036. | 8-K | 11/30/2006 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(c) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 6.50% Notes due May 15, 2019. | 8-K | 5/1/2009 | 4(b) | ||||||||
4(d) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 4.875% Notes due March 30, 2020. | 8-K | 9/25/2009 | 4(b) | ||||||||
4(e) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $750,000,000 principal amount of 3.625% Notes due March 15, 2024. | 8-K | 3/7/2014 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(f) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 3.000% Notes due April 1, 2025. | 8-K | 3/26/2015 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(g) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated December 11, 2009. | 8-K | 12/15/2009 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(h) | Revolving Term Credit Facility First Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated September 23, 2011. | 8-K | 9/26/2011 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(i) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Second Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated as of May 24, 2013. | 8-K | 5/28/2013 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(j) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 3.25% Notes due December 1, 2017. | 8-K | 11/29/2010 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(k) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 5.625% Notes due December 1, 2040. | 8-K | 11/29/2010 | 4(b) | ||||||||
4(l) | Agreement of Resignation, Appointment and Acceptance, dated as of June 25, 2013, by and among the registrant, The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York and U.S. Bank National Association. | 8-K | 6/27/2013 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(m) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Third Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated July 8, 2014. | 10-Q | 7/29/2014 | |||||||||
4(n) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Fourth Amending Agreement between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated January 25, 2016. | 8-K | 1/29/2016 | 4(a) | ||||||||
4(o) | Extension Agreement between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated June 27, 2016. | 10-Q | 8/3/2016 | |||||||||
4(p) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 4.000% Notes due December 15, 2026. | 8-K | 12/6/2016 | 4(a) |
30 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
The registrant hereby undertakes to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, copies of any constituent instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of the registrant or its subsidiaries that have not been filed herewith because the amounts represented thereby are less than 10% of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.
Incorporated By Reference (File No. 001-10351, unless otherwise indicated) |
||||||||||
Exhibit
Number |
Description of Document | Form |
Filing Date/Period
End Date |
Exhibit Number
(if different) |
||||||
10(a) |
Consolidated, Restated and Amended Canpotex Shareholders Agreement, Eighth Memorandum of Agreement dated January 1, 2014 between Agrium Inc., Mosaic Canada Crop Nutrition, LP, by its general partner, 4379934 Canada Ltd., the registrant and Canpotex Limited. | 10-K | 12/31/2013 | |||||||
10(b) |
Consolidated, Restated and Amended Producer Agreement, Eighth Memorandum of Agreement dated January 1, 2014 between Canpotex Limited, Agrium Inc., Mosaic Canada Crop Nutrition, LP, by its general partner, 4379934 Canada Ltd. and the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/2013 | |||||||
10(c) |
First Amending Agreement dated January 1, 2016, between Canpotex Limited, Agrium Inc., Mosaic Canada Crop Nutrition, LP, by its general partner, 4379934 Canada Ltd. and the registrant, to the Consolidated, Restated and Amended Producer Agreement Eight Memorandum of Agreement, dated January 1, 2014. | 10-Q | 9/30/2016 | |||||||
10(d) |
Short-Term Incentive Plan of the registrant effective January 1, 2000, as amended. | 8-K | 3/13/2012 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(e) |
Resolution and Forms of Agreement for Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan, for officers and key employees of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/1995 | 10(o) | ||||||
10(f) |
Amending Resolution and revised forms of agreement regarding Supplemental Retirement Income Plan of the registrant. | 10-Q | 6/30/1996 | 10(x) | ||||||
10(g) |
Amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan of the registrant and text of amendment to existing supplemental income plan agreements. | 10-Q | 9/30/2000 | 10(mm) | ||||||
10(h) |
Amendment, dated February 23, 2009, to the amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2008 | 10(r) | ||||||
10(i) |
Amendment, dated December 29, 2010, to the amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2010 | 10(r) | ||||||
10(j) |
Amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan of the registrant, dated February 22, 2016. | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(i) | ||||||
10(k) |
Form of Letter of amendment to existing supplemental income plan agreements of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/2002 | 10(cc) | ||||||
10(l) |
Amendment, dated February 23, 2009, to the amended and restated agreement, dated August 2, 1996, between the registrant and Wayne R. Brownlee concerning the Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2008 | 10(w) | ||||||
10(m) |
Amendment, dated December 29, 2010, to the amended and restated agreement, dated August 2, 1996, between the registrant and Wayne R. Brownlee concerning the Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2010 | 10(z) | ||||||
10(n) |
Supplemental Retirement Agreement dated December 24, 2008, between the registrant and Stephen F. Dowdle. | 10-K | 12/31/2011 | 10(bb) | ||||||
10(o) |
PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S Executives (as amended and restated and in effect as of January 1, 2016). | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(n) | ||||||
10(p) |
Forms of Agreement dated December 30, 1994, between the registrant and certain officers of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/1995 | |||||||
10(q) |
Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated August 8, 1995, between the registrant and certain officers and directors of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/1995 | |||||||
10(r) |
Resolution and Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated January 24, 2001. | 10-K | 12/31/2000 | 10(ii) | ||||||
10(s) |
Resolution and Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated July 21, 2004. | 10-Q | 6/30/2004 | 10(ii) | ||||||
10(t) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Deferred Share Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors. | 10-Q | 3/31/2012 | 10(ll) | ||||||
10(u) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2007 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 10-Q | 3/31/2007 | 10(ee) | ||||||
10(v) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2008 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 10-Q | 3/31/2008 | 10(ff) |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 31 |
Incorporated By Reference (File No. 001-10351, unless otherwise indicated) |
||||||||||
Exhibit
Number |
Description of Document | Form |
Filing Date/Period
End Date |
Exhibit Number
(if different) |
||||||
10(w) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2009 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 10-Q | 3/31/2009 | 10(mm) | ||||||
10(x) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2010 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/7/2010 | 10.1 | ||||||
10(y) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2011 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/13/2011 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(z) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2012 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/18/2012 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(aa) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2013 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/17/2013 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(bb) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2014 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/16/2014 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(cc) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2015 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/13/2015 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(ee) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan. | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.1 | ||||||
10(ff) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan Form of Performance Share Unit Agreement (2016-2018 Phased Grant). | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.2 | ||||||
10(gg) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan Form of Performance Share Unit Agreement. | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.3 | ||||||
10(hh) |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.4 | ||||||
10(ii) |
Executive Employment Agreement, dated July 1, 2014, between registrant and Jochen E. Tilk. | 10-K | 9/30/2014 | 10(nn) | ||||||
10(jj) |
PCS Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for Canadian Executives. | 10-K | 12/31/2014 | 10(oo) | ||||||
10(kk) |
CEO Multi-Year Incentive Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2014 | 10(pp) | ||||||
10(ll) |
Letter Agreement, dated January 13, 2016 and revised February 2, 2016, between registrant and G. David Delaney. | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(gg) | ||||||
10(mm) |
Short-Term Incentive Plan, dated February 22, 2016. | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(hh) | ||||||
10(nn) |
Form of Company Support Agreement. | 8-K | 9/12/2016 | 10.1 | ||||||
10oo) |
Form of Agrium Support Agreement. | 8-K | 9/12/2016 | 10.2 | ||||||
10(pp) |
Form of Change in Control Agreement between the registrant and certain Canadian executives. | 10-Q | 9/30/2016 | |||||||
10(qq) |
Form of Change in Control Agreement, between the registrant and certain U.S. executives. | 10-Q | 9/30/2016 | |||||||
10(rr) |
Letter Agreement, dated January 20, 2016 and revised February 2, 2016, between registrant and Paul E. Dekok. | |||||||||
12 |
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. | |||||||||
13 |
2016 Annual Integrated Report. The 2016 Annual Integrated Report, except for those portions that are expressly incorporated by reference, is furnished for the information of the Commission and is not to be deemed filed as part of or otherwise form part of this filing. | |||||||||
21 |
Subsidiaries of the registrant. | |||||||||
23 |
Consent of Deloitte LLP. | |||||||||
31(a) |
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |||||||||
31(b) |
Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |||||||||
32 |
Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |||||||||
95 |
Information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. | |||||||||
99(a) |
2017 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy. The 2017 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy, except for those portions thereof that are expressly incorporated by reference, are furnished for the information of the Commission and are not to be deemed filed as part of or otherwise form part of this filing. | |||||||||
99(b) |
Schedule of participants included in additional surveys for compensation comparison purposes. |
None.
32 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K |
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC. | ||
By: |
/s/ JOCHEN E. TILK |
|
Jochen E. Tilk | ||
President and Chief Executive Officer | ||
February 24, 2017 |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
Signature | Title | Date | ||
/s/ JOHN W. ESTEY |
Chair of the Board | February 24, 2017 | ||
John W. Estey | ||||
/s/ WAYNE R. BROWNLEE |
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and
(Principal financial and accounting officer) |
February 24, 2017 | ||
Wayne R. Brownlee | ||||
/s/ JOCHEN E. TILK |
President and Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal executive officer) |
February 24, 2017 | ||
Jochen E. Tilk | ||||
/s/ CHRISTOPHER M. BURLEY |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Christopher M. Burley | ||||
/s/ DONALD G. CHYNOWETH |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Donald G. Chynoweth | ||||
/s/ GERALD W. GRANDEY |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Gerald W. Grandey | ||||
/s/ C. STEVEN HOFFMAN |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
C. Steven Hoffman | ||||
/s/ ALICE D. LABERGE |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Alice D. Laberge | ||||
/s/ CONSUELO E. MADERE |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Consuelo E. Madere | ||||
/s/ KEITH G. MARTELL |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Keith G. Martell | ||||
/s/ JEFFREY J. MCCAIG |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Jeffrey J. McCaig | ||||
/s/ AARON W. REGENT |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Aaron W. Regent | ||||
/s/ ELENA VIYELLA DE PALIZA |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Elena Viyella de Paliza | ||||
/s/ ZOË A. YUJNOVICH |
Director | February 24, 2017 | ||
Zoë A. Yujnovich |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K | 33 |
EXHIBIT INDEX
Incorporated By Reference (File No. 001-10351, unless otherwise indicated) |
||||||||
Exhibit
Number |
Description of Document | Form |
Filing Date/Period
End Date |
Exhibit Number
(if different) |
||||
2(a) | Arrangement Agreement, dated September 11, 2016, between Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and Agrium Inc. | 8-K | 9/12/2016 | 2.1 | ||||
3(a) | Articles of Continuance of the registrant dated May 15, 2002. | 10-Q | 6/30/2002 | |||||
3(b) | General By-Law of the registrant, as amended through April 27, 2015. | 8-K | 4/27/2015 | 3(a) | ||||
4(a) | Indenture dated as of February 27, 2003, between the registrant and U.S. Bank National Association, as successor to The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York. | 10-K | 12/31/2002 | 4(c) | ||||
4(b) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 5.875% Notes due December 1, 2036. | 8-K | 11/30/2006 | 4(a) | ||||
4(c) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 6.50% Notes due May 15, 2019. | 8-K | 5/1/2009 | 4(b) | ||||
4(d) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 4.875% Notes due March 30, 2020. | 8-K | 9/25/2009 | 4(b) | ||||
4(e) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $750,000,000 principal amount of 3.625% Notes due March 15, 2024. | 8-K | 3/7/2014 | 4(a) | ||||
4(f) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 3.000% Notes due April 1, 2025. | 8-K | 3/26/2015 | 4(a) | ||||
4(g) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated December 11, 2009. | 8-K | 12/15/2009 | 4(a) | ||||
4(h) | Revolving Term Credit Facility First Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated September 23, 2011. | 8-K | 9/26/2011 | 4(a) | ||||
4(i) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Second Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated as of May 24, 2013. | 8-K | 5/28/2013 | 4(a) | ||||
4(j) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 3.25% Notes due December 1, 2017. | 8-K | 11/29/2010 | 4(a) | ||||
4(k) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 5.625% Notes due December 1, 2040. | 8-K | 11/29/2010 | 4(b) | ||||
4(l) | Agreement of Resignation, Appointment and Acceptance, dated as of June 25, 2013, by and among the registrant, The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company of New York and U.S. Bank National Association. | 8-K | 6/27/2013 | 4(a) | ||||
4(m) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Third Amending Agreement between the Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated July 8, 2014. | 10-Q | 7/29/2014 | |||||
4(n) | Revolving Term Credit Facility Fourth Amending Agreement between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated January 25, 2016. | 8-K | 1/29/2016 | 4(a) | ||||
4(o) | Extension Agreement between The Bank of Nova Scotia and other financial institutions and the registrant dated June 27, 2016. | 10-Q | 8/3/2016 | |||||
4(p) | Form of Note relating to the registrants $500,000,000 principal amount of 4.000% Notes due December 15, 2026. | 8-K | 12/6/2016 | 4(a) |
The registrant hereby undertakes to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, copies of any constituent instruments defining the rights of holders of long-term debt of the registrant or its subsidiaries that have not been filed herewith because the amounts represented thereby are less than 10% of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.
Incorporated By Reference (File No. 001-10351, unless otherwise indicated) |
||||||||||
Exhibit
Number |
Description of Document | Form |
Filing Date/Period
End Date |
Exhibit Number
(if different) |
||||||
10(a) | Consolidated, Restated and Amended Canpotex Shareholders Agreement, Eighth Memorandum of Agreement dated January 1, 2014 between Agrium Inc., Mosaic Canada Crop Nutrition, LP, by its general partner, 4379934 Canada Ltd., the registrant and Canpotex Limited. | 10-K | 12/31/2013 | |||||||
10(b) | Consolidated, Restated and Amended Producer Agreement, Eighth Memorandum of Agreement dated January 1, 2014 between Canpotex Limited, Agrium Inc., Mosaic Canada Crop Nutrition, LP, by its general partner, 4379934 Canada Ltd. and the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/2013 | |||||||
10(c) | First Amending Agreement dated January 1, 2016, between Canpotex Limited, Agrium Inc., Mosaic Canada Crop Nutrition, LP, by its general partner, 4379934 Canada Ltd. and the registrant, to the Consolidated, Restated and Amended Producer Agreement Eight Memorandum of Agreement, dated January 1, 2014. | 10-Q | 9/30/2016 | |||||||
10(d) | Short-Term Incentive Plan of the registrant effective January 1, 2000, as amended. | 8-K | 3/13/2012 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(e) | Resolution and Forms of Agreement for Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan, for officers and key employees of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/1995 | 10(o) | ||||||
10(f) | Amending Resolution and revised forms of agreement regarding Supplemental Retirement Income Plan of the registrant. | 10-Q | 6/30/1996 | 10(x) | ||||||
10(g) | Amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan of the registrant and text of amendment to existing supplemental income plan agreements. | 10-Q | 9/30/2000 | 10(mm) | ||||||
10(h) | Amendment, dated February 23, 2009, to the amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2008 | 10(r) | ||||||
10(i) | Amendment, dated December 29, 2010, to the amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2010 | 10(r) | ||||||
10(j) | Amended and restated Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan of the registrant, dated February 22, 2016. | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(i) | ||||||
10(k) | Form of Letter of amendment to existing supplemental income plan agreements of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/2002 | 10(cc) | ||||||
10(l) | Amendment, dated February 23, 2009, to the amended and restated agreement, dated August 2, 1996, between the registrant and Wayne R. Brownlee concerning the Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2008 | 10(w) | ||||||
10(m) | Amendment, dated December 29, 2010, to the amended and restated agreement, dated August 2, 1996, between the registrant and Wayne R. Brownlee concerning the Supplemental Executive Retirement Income Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2010 | 10(z) | ||||||
10(n) | Supplemental Retirement Agreement dated December 24, 2008, between the registrant and Stephen F. Dowdle. | 10-K | 12/31/2011 | 10(bb) | ||||||
10(o) | PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S Executives (as amended and restated and in effect as of January 1, 2016). | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(n) | ||||||
10(p) | Forms of Agreement dated December 30, 1994, between the registrant and certain officers of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/1995 | |||||||
10(q) | Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated August 8, 1995, between the registrant and certain officers and directors of the registrant. | 10-K | 12/31/1995 | |||||||
10(r) | Resolution and Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated January 24, 2001. | 10-K | 12/31/2000 | 10(ii) | ||||||
10(s) | Resolution and Form of Agreement of Indemnification dated July 21, 2004. | 10-Q | 6/30/2004 | 10(ii) | ||||||
10(t) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. Deferred Share Unit Plan for Non-Employee Directors. | 10-Q | 3/31/2012 | 10(ll) | ||||||
10(u) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2007 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 10-Q | 3/31/2007 | 10(ee) | ||||||
10(v) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2008 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 10-Q | 3/31/2008 | 10(ff) |
Incorporated By Reference (File No. 001-10351, unless otherwise indicated) |
||||||||||
Exhibit
Number |
Description of Document | Form |
Filing Date/Period
End Date |
Exhibit Number
(if different) |
||||||
10(w) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2009 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 10-Q | 3/31/2009 | 10(mm) | ||||||
10(x) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2010 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/7/2010 | 10.1 | ||||||
10(y) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2011 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/13/2011 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(z) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2012 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/18/2012 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(aa) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2013 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/17/2013 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(bb) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2014 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/16/2014 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(cc) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2015 Performance Option Plan and Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/13/2015 | 10(a) | ||||||
10(ee) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan. | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.1 | ||||||
10(ff) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan Form of Performance Share Unit Agreement (2016-2018 Phased Grant). | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.2 | ||||||
10(gg) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan Form of Performance Share Unit Agreement. | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.3 | ||||||
10(hh) | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan Form of Option Agreement. | 8-K | 5/11/2016 | 10.4 | ||||||
10(ii) | Executive Employment Agreement, dated July 1, 2014, between registrant and Jochen E. Tilk. | 10-K | 9/30/2014 | 10(nn) | ||||||
10(jj) | PCS Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for Canadian Executives. | 10-K | 12/31/2014 | 10(oo) | ||||||
10(kk) | CEO Multi-Year Incentive Plan. | 10-K | 12/31/2014 | 10(pp) | ||||||
10(ll) | Letter Agreement, dated January 13, 2016 and revised February 2, 2016, between registrant and G. David Delaney. | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(gg) | ||||||
10(mm) | Short-Term Incentive Plan, dated February 22, 2016. | 10-K | 12/31/2015 | 10(hh) | ||||||
10(nn) | Form of Company Support Agreement. | 8-K | 9/12/2016 | 10.1 | ||||||
10oo) | Form of Agrium Support Agreement. | 8-K | 9/12/2016 | 10.2 | ||||||
10(pp) | Form of Change in Control Agreement between the registrant and certain Canadian executives. | 10-Q | 9/30/2016 | |||||||
10(qq) | Form of Change in Control Agreement, between the registrant and certain U.S. executives. | 10-Q | 9/30/2016 | |||||||
10(rr) | Letter Agreement, dated January 20, 2016 and revised February 2, 2016, between registrant and Paul E. Dekok. | |||||||||
12 | Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. | |||||||||
13 | 2016 Annual Integrated Report. The 2016 Annual Integrated Report, except for those portions that are expressly incorporated by reference, is furnished for the information of the Commission and is not to be deemed filed as part of or otherwise form part of this filing. | |||||||||
21 | Subsidiaries of the registrant. | |||||||||
23 | Consent of Deloitte LLP. | |||||||||
31(a) | Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |||||||||
31(b) | Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |||||||||
32 | Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |||||||||
95 | Information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. | |||||||||
99(a) | 2017 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy. The 2017 Notice of Meeting, Proxy Circular and Form of Proxy, except for those portions thereof that are expressly incorporated by reference, are furnished for the information of the Commission and are not to be deemed filed as part of or otherwise form part of this filing. | |||||||||
99(b) | Schedule of participants included in additional surveys for compensation comparison purposes. |
Exhibit 10(rr)
January 20, 2016
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Paul DeKok
3149 Dundee Road #317
Northbrook, IL 60062
Dear Paul:
This letter agreement (Letter Agreement) sets forth the terms of your departure as President, PCS Phosphate of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (PotashCorp) and as an employee of PCS Administration (USA), Inc. (PCS Administration and, collectively with PotashCorp, the Company).
1. Separation Date . Your last day of active employment with the Company will be January 31, 2016 (the Separation Date).
2. Severance Payments and Benefits . Provided that you execute the Waiver and Release Agreement attached as Schedule A hereto no later than February 10, 2016, and you do not revoke the Waiver and Release in accordance with its terms, you will be entitled to receive the following severance payments and benefits, which you acknowledge are amounts that you would not otherwise be entitled to receive:
(a) | A severance payment in the amount of $1,122,562, which is equal to two times the sum of (i) your base salary of $351,900, (ii) your target short-term incentive plan (STIP) opportunity for 2015 of $193,545 and (iii) your regular employer contributions and target performance-related employer contribution under the PCS U.S. Employees Savings Plan (the Savings Plan) of $15,836 (3.0% plus 1.5% of your base salary of $351,900). |
(b) | A payment of $16,394, which is equal to the product of (i) your target STIP opportunity for 2016 of $193,545 and (ii) a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of days you were employed by the Company in 2016, and the denominator of which is 366. |
(c) | The Company will reimburse you for executive outplacement consulting services from a firm selected by you that is acceptable to the Company. The reimbursable outplacement consulting service fees will not exceed $10,000. |
1101 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 400, P.O. Box 3320, Northbrook, IL USA 60062 T (847) 849-4200 F (847) 849-4695 Toll Free (800) 241-6908 PCS Administration (USA), Inc. www.potashcorp.com
(d) | You will be reimbursed for the legal fees you incur for the review of this Letter Agreement by your attorney, upon presentation of receipts, up to $5,000. |
(e) | You will have continued access to Employee and Family Assistance Program (EFAP) coverage with Cigna Behavior Health for ninety (90) days following your Separation Date. |
The amounts set forth in subparagraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above will be paid in a lump sum within fourteen (14) days following the expiration of the period during which you have the right to revoke the Waiver and Release.
3. STIP Award, Options and Company-Sponsored Benefits .
(a) | You will receive your STIP award for 2015 based on the level of achievement of the applicable corporate financial performance and safety performance goals for 2015. Such amount will be paid on the date that STIP awards are paid to similarly situated executives, but in no event later than March 15, 2016. |
(b) | Contributions to the Savings Plan will cease on the Separation Date and you will cease to accrue service under the PCS U.S. Employees Pension Plan (Pension Plan) on the Separation Date. You will be eligible for the 2015 and 2016 Company performance-related employer contributions as determined in accordance with the performance requirements of the Savings Plan and payable under the terms of the Savings Plan. Such amount will be paid on the date that such contribution is paid to similarly situated executives, but in no event later than March 31, 2016 for the 2015 performance period, and no later than March 15, 2017 for the 2016 performance period. |
(c) | For purposes of your stock options, the termination of your employment will be treated as a termination of employment by reason of retirement. Accordingly, subject to the terms and conditions of each respective performance option plan, you will be entitled to exercise your vested stock options, including such stock options that may vest after your Separation Date, during the period ending on February 28, 2019, failing which exercise the stock options will terminate. |
(d) | Your active employee health care benefits under the Company-sponsored medical, dental and vision plans expire on January 31, 2016. If you and/or your eligible dependents timely enroll, you may continue medical, dental and/or vision coverage for you and/or your eligible dependents pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (COBRA). Such coverage, if elected, will be provided in accordance with the terms of the health care plans, including the monthly premium required by the plans, and COBRA. |
(e) | You are eligible to receive retiree medical and prescription drug coverage benefits (subject to the terms of the Companys retiree health plan as in effect from time to time). You and your eligible dependents must enroll within sixty (60) days of your Separation Date. If you do not enroll within such time period or you decline retiree medical and prescription drug coverage, you will not be able to enroll in the plan at a later date. |
2
(f) | You will receive Company-paid retiree life insurance coverage (subject to the terms of the Companys retiree life insurance plan as in effect from time to time). |
(g) | You will receive a payment of $9,474 in respect of your accrued but unused vacation, based on an assumption of 5.0 days carried over from 2015, plus accrued vacation for January, 2016. This amount will be paid on the first payroll date following the Separation Date. |
(h) | You are eligible to receive retirement benefits under the PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S. Executives (the SERP). The amount of your vested benefit under the SERP is approximately $285,000. The actual amount of your vested benefit will be based on your actual compensation and applicable commuted value interest rates in effect at the time of the calculation. In accordance with the terms of the SERP, your vested benefit will be paid in a lump sum six months following your Separation Date. |
(i) | Basic and Optional Life Insurance and Basic and Voluntary Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance will cease on January 31, 2016. You will have the option to convert any Optional Life Insurance coverage in accordance with the terms of the policy. |
(j) | Short-Term Disability and Long-Term Disability deductions and coverage will cease on your Separation Date. |
4. Tax Withholdings . All payments required under this Letter Agreement are subject to any withholdings required by applicable law.
5. No Future Employment with the Company . You agree that you will not knowingly apply for or accept employment with the Company. You agree that if you knowingly or unknowingly apply for a position with the Company and are offered or accept a position, the Company may withdraw the offer or terminate your employment immediately, without notice. You agree that in the event of such an offer and withdrawal, or hiring and termination, as described in this paragraph 5, you waive any right to seek legal or administrative redress of any kind for events relating to the withdrawal of the offer or termination of employment.
6. Return of Property . In accordance with your existing and continuing obligations to the Company, you represent that you have returned, on or before the Separation Date, all Company property including all copies thereof, such as, but not limited to, files, records, computer access codes, computer programs, keys, key card passes, security access cards, employee information, instruction manuals, documents, business plans, computers or other hardware of any kind, software, and other property, which you received, prepared, or helped to prepare in connection with your employment with the Company. In accordance with your existing and continuing obligations to the Company, you further represent that you have paid in full the entire outstanding balance on your Company-affiliated American Express Corporate card, and/or Diners Club International BMO Mastercard, if any, on or before the Separation Date.
3
7. Assistance and Witness . You agree to fully cooperate and assist the Company with a smooth transition of your duties. You also agree to cooperate with the Company in all investigations of any kind and in providing truthful testimony as a witness or a declarant in connection with any present or future court, administrative, agency, or arbitration proceeding involving the Company and as to which you have relevant information. You will also assist the Company during all phases of any judicial, administrative, agency, or arbitration proceeding involving the Company and as to which you have relevant information including, without limitation, assisting and cooperating in the preparation and review of documents and meeting with counsel. The Company will reimburse you for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such cooperation and you will be compensated at an hourly rate of $180 per hour for time reasonably spent in connection with such cooperation, subject to you presenting evidence to the Company of the time spent. You agree not to act voluntarily as a witness, consultant or expert for any person or party in any action against or involving the Company. You further agree that if contacted by any third party, including such third partys agent or attorney, regarding any anticipated or pending legal action, you will immediately notify the Company by contacting PotashCorps General Counsel c/o PCS Administration (USA), Inc., 1101 Skokie Boulevard, Northbrook, IL 60062. Notwithstanding this paragraph 7, nothing in this Letter Agreement is intended to interfere with your right to participate in an agency investigation.
8. Confidentiality . You agree not to disclose any Confidential Information of PotashCorp, PCS Administration, or their subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, the Employer Group), except upon written consent of the Company. Confidential Information means information (i) disclosed or known by you as a consequence of or through your employment with the Employer Group; (ii) not generally known outside of the Employer Group; and (iii) which is related to the Employer Group business. Examples include, but are not limited to, vendor and supplier agreements, databases, methods, programs, techniques, business information, attorney-client privileged and work product information, financial information, marketing, business plans, proprietary software, personnel information and files, client information, pricing and other information relating to the business of the Employer Group that is not generally known outside of the Employer Group. You also agree that the terms of your separation and the terms of the Letter Agreement, including the fact and amount of severance paid to you, is considered confidential and is not be disclosed or communicated in any manner except as required by law or to your spouse, attorney or financial advisor.
9. Non-Solicitation . You acknowledge and agree that during the 12 months following your Separation Date, you will not, directly or indirectly, without the prior express written consent of the Company, hire, recruit, solicit, or attempt to hire, recruit, or solicit any person employed by the Company.
10. Non-Disparagement . You acknowledge and agree that you will not, at any time, directly or indirectly, take any action detrimental to the interests of the Employer Group, make derogatory statements (either written or oral) about the Employer Group, or otherwise disparage the Employer Group, its products, services, present or former employees, officers or directors, and will not permit others to make derogatory or disparaging statements on your behalf. Officers and directors of the Employer Group will not, at any time, directly or indirectly, make derogatory statements (either written or oral) about you, or otherwise disparage you.
4
11. Breach . You further acknowledge that if you breach any provision of paragraphs 8, 9 or 10 above, the Company will be irreparably harmed as a matter of law and will be entitled to immediate injunctive relief without the necessity of showing any actual damages or that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, and without the necessity of posting any bond or other security, plus its reasonable attorneys fees and any other litigation costs incurred in enforcing such provision.
12. Subsequent Proceedings . The parties agree that this Letter Agreement may be used as evidence only in a subsequent proceeding to enforce the provisions of this Letter Agreement and/or a subsequent proceeding in which the provisions of this Letter Agreement are a defense to a claim or suit brought against the Company by you.
13. Entire Agreement . Except as otherwise stated herein, this Letter Agreement will supersede and nullify any previous written or oral agreements between the Company and you dealing with the same subject matter contained herein and will settle and compromise any and all claims and/or causes of action based on any previous written or oral agreements or alleged agreements between the Company and you. This Letter Agreement may not be modified except by a written agreement between the parties that specifically references the Letter Agreement.
14. Governing Law and Jurisdiction . This Letter Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois without regard to its choice of law provisions. Such construction will be made without regard to the authorship of this Letter Agreement. You agree that the state and federal courts located in the State of Illinois will have exclusive jurisdiction in any action, suit or proceeding based on or arising out of this Letter Agreement. Accordingly, you hereby: (a) submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts; (b) consent to the service of process in connection with any action, suit, or proceeding against you; and (c) waive any other requirement (whether imposed by statute, rule of court, or otherwise) with respect to personal jurisdiction, venue or service of process.
15. No Admission of Liability . The Letter Agreement is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission by the Company of any unlawful act or violation of any federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations.
16. Waiver and Release Agreement . This Letter Agreement, and the consideration set forth in paragraph 2, is contingent upon you signing and not revoking the Waiver and Release Agreement attached as Schedule A hereto, the terms of which are part of this Letter Agreement. If the Waiver and Release Agreement is revoked by you, your employment will terminate on the Separation Date but this Letter Agreement will not be effective or enforceable, and you will not receive any of the severance payments and benefits set forth in paragraph 2.
17. Code Section 409A. It is the intention of the parties that the provisions of this Letter Agreement comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Section 409A) and any rules, regulations or other guidance promulgated thereunder in a manner that does not impose additional taxes, interest or penalties upon you pursuant to Section 409A, and this Letter Agreement will be construed and interpreted in a manner consistent with Section 409A.
5
Notwithstanding any provision of this Letter Agreement to the contrary, any payment of any nonqualified deferred compensation (within the meaning of Section 409A after taking into account all exclusions applicable to such payments under Section 409A) required to be made to you as a result of your separation from service will be delayed until the six (6) month anniversary of the Separation Date to the extent necessary to comply with Section 409A.
No reimbursement of expenses or in-kind benefit that you are entitled to will be subject to liquidation or exchange for another benefit. The reimbursement of expenses or in-kind benefits during a year will not affect the expenses eligible for reimbursement, or the in-kind benefits to be provided in any other taxable year, and any such reimbursements will be made no later than the end of the year following the year in which the relevant expenses were incurred.
You are solely responsible and liable for the satisfaction of all taxes and penalties that may arise under Section 409A.
Date: 2/3/2016 | POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC. | |||
By: |
/s/ Jochen E. Tilk |
|||
Name: | Jochen E. Tilk | |||
Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer | |||
Date: 2/3/2016 | PCS ADMINISTRATION (USA), INC. | |||
By: |
/s/ Jochen E. Tilk |
|||
Name: | Jochen E. Tilk | |||
Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
6
YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL, HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING THE ADVISABILITY OF ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENT, FULLY UNDERSTAND THE FINAL AND BINDING EFFECT, AND ARE EXECUTING THE AGREEMENT VOLUNTARILY.
Agreed to: | ||
Date: 2/3/2016 |
/s/ Paul Dekok |
|
Paul DeKok |
7
SCHEDULE A
WAIVER AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
1. General Release . As consideration for the severance payments and benefits I will receive as described in paragraph 2 of the attached letter agreement dated January 20, 2016 (Letter Agreement), I, on behalf of myself and my heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, attorneys and assigns, hereby waive, release and forever discharge PCS Administration (USA), Inc. and Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (collectively, the Company) together with the Companys parent, sister companies, subsidiaries, divisions and affiliates, whether direct or indirect, its and their joint ventures and joint venturers (including their respective directors, officers, employees, shareholders, attorneys, partners and agents, past, present and future), and each of its and their respective successors and assigns (hereinafter collectively, the Releasees), from any and all known or unknown actions, causes of action, damages, claims or liabilities of any kind that have or could be asserted against any of the Releasees arising out of or related to my employment with and/or separation from employment with the Company or any of the other Releasees up to and including the date of this Waiver and Release Agreement, including, but not limited to:
(a) | claims, actions, causes of action or liabilities arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended; the Equal Pay Act, as amended; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, as amended: the Occupational Safety and Health Act, as amended; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended (with respect to unvested benefits); the Rehabilitation Act, as amended; the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended; the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act, as amended; the National Labor Relations Act, as amended; and/or any other federal, state, municipal or local employment discrimination statutes or ordinances (including, but not limited to, claims based on sex, attainment of benefit plan rights, race, color, religion, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, harassment, parental status, protected genetic information, handicap, disability, retaliation and veteran status); and/or |
(b) | claims, actions, causes of action or liabilities arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or under any other federal, state or local statute, law, ordinance or regulation regarding discrimination on the basis of age; and/or |
(c) | claims, actions, causes of action or liabilities arising under any other federal, state, municipal or local statute, law, ordinance or regulation; and/or |
(d) | any other claim whatsoever including, but not limited to, claims for severance pay or benefits (other than payments and benefits paid under the Letter Agreement), claims based upon breach of contract, promissory or equitable estoppel, detrimental reliance, constructive discharge, breach of any duty, wrongful termination, defamation, false light, fraud, intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, tort, personal injury, invasion of privacy, violation of public policy, whistleblower, negligence, any quasi-contractual claim and/or any other common law, statutory or other claim whatsoever arising out of or relating to my employment with and/or separation from employment; and/or |
(e) | claims, actions, causes of action or liabilities arising under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, as amended, or under any other federal, state or local statute, law, ordinance or regulation regarding layoffs or plant closings; and/or |
(f) | claims under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, including claims that I have been adversely affected by the application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory practice; and/or |
(g) | wage claims, including but not limited to any claims for back wages, vacation, sick leave, bonuses, commissions, or other benefits of any nature or kind, and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended. |
2. Exclusions from General Release . Excluded from the General Release above are any claims or rights which cannot be waived by law, including my rights to accrued vacation, if any. Nothing in this Waiver and Release Agreement shall be construed to prohibit me from filing a charge with an administrative agency, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or participating in an agency investigation. I am, however, waiving all rights to recover money or other individual relief in connection with any administrative charge, whether filed by me or another individual or entity.
3. Covenant Not To Sue . A covenant not to sue is a legal term which means I promise not to file a lawsuit in court. It is different from the General Release of claims contained in paragraph 1 above. In addition to waiving and releasing the claims covered by that paragraph 1 above, I further agree never to sue the Company and/or any of the other Releasees or become party to a lawsuit on the basis of any claim of any type whatsoever arising out of or related to my employment with and/or separation from employment with the Company and/or any of the other Releasees. I agree not to become a member of any class in any case in which claims are asserted against the Company. I warrant and represent that I have not filed any complaint, claim or lawsuit against the Company with any governmental agency or with any court. Notwithstanding this Covenant Not To Sue, I may bring a claim against the Company and/or any of the other Releasees to enforce this Agreement or to challenge the validity of this Waiver and Release Agreement under the ADEA. I further acknowledge and agree in the event that I breach this paragraph, then (i) the Company shall be entitled to apply for and receive an injunction to restrain such violation of this paragraph, (ii) I shall be obligated to pay the Company its costs and expenses incurred in enforcing this paragraph and defending against such lawsuit (including court costs, expenses and reasonable legal fees), and (iii) as an alternative to (ii), at the Companys option, I shall be obligated upon demand to repay to the Company all but $250 of any severance payment paid to me under paragraph 2 of the Letter Agreement. I further agree that this Covenant Not to Sue will not affect the validity of the Letter Agreement and will not be deemed to be a penalty or a forfeiture.
4. Employee Acknowledgements . I acknowledge that my employment with the Company is terminated as of my Separation Date. I further waive, release and discharge the Company and/or
2
any of the other Releasees from any reinstatement rights I have or could have. I acknowledge that I (i) have not suffered any on-the-job injury for which I have not already filed a claim, (ii) have received all compensation owed to me for hours worked, including overtime, if any, and (iii) have been provided all leave required by law or regulation.
5. Additional Employee Acknowledgements . I further acknowledge and agree that:
| I have read this Waiver and Release Agreement and understand all of its terms; |
| I have signed it voluntarily with full knowledge of its legal significance; |
| I was encouraged to consult with my personal attorney, if desired, before signing this Waiver and Release Agreement; |
| I acknowledge that I received a copy of this Waiver and Release Agreement on January 20, 2016 I have been given at least 21 days to consider this Waiver and Release Agreement thoroughly. I agree that any modification of the Letter Agreement or this Waiver and Release Agreement does not restart the 21-day consideration period; |
| I understand that I cannot sign this Waiver and Release Agreement prior to my Separation Date; and |
| I understand that if I sign this Waiver and Release Agreement, I can change my mind and revoke it within 7 days after signing. I understand the Waiver and Release Agreement will not be effective or enforceable until after the 7-day revocation period has expired. |
6. Revocation . I understand that I may revoke this Waiver and Release Agreement within 7 days after its signing and that any revocation must be made in writing and submitted within such 7-day period to PCS Administration (USA), Inc., 1101 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 400, Northbrook, IL 60062 Attn: Danielle Good, either in person or by mail with a postmark within the 7-day period. I further understand that if I revoke this Waiver and Release Agreement, my employment with the Company will still be terminated and I will not receive the severance pay set forth in paragraph 2 of the Letter Agreement.
7. Unemployment . I understand that I am not waiving my right to file for unemployment insurance benefits.
8. Consideration . I also understand that the severance payments and benefits which I will receive in exchange for signing and not later revoking this Waiver and Release Agreement are in addition to anything of value to which I already am entitled.
3
10. Severability . I acknowledge and agree that if any provision of the Waiver and Release Agreement is found, held or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, unlawful or unenforceable under any applicable statute or controlling law, the remainder of the Waiver and Release Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
Paul DeKok | ||||
/s/ Vicky L. DeKok |
/s/ Paul DeKok |
|||
Witness | Signature | |||
2/3/2016 | ||||
Date |
4
Exhibit 12
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions of US dollars, except ratio amounts)
(unaudited)
Year ended December 31 | ||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | ||||||||||||||||
Net income |
$ | 323 | $ | 1,270 | $ | 1,536 | $ | 1,785 | $ | 2,079 | ||||||||||
Income taxes |
43 | 451 | 628 | 687 | 826 | |||||||||||||||
Share of earnings of equity accounted investees |
(95 | ) | (121 | ) | (102 | ) | (195 | ) | (278 | ) | ||||||||||
Fixed charges |
242 | 250 | 253 | 259 | 272 | |||||||||||||||
Amortization of capitalized interest |
31 | 29 | 27 | 23 | 18 | |||||||||||||||
Distributed income of equity accounted investees |
170 | 86 | 172 | 180 | 211 | |||||||||||||||
Interest capitalized |
(11 | ) | (40 | ) | (41 | ) | (79 | ) | (102 | ) | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Total Earnings Available for Fixed Charges |
$ | 703 | $ | 1,925 | $ | 2,473 | $ | 2,660 | $ | 3,026 | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Fixed Charges |
||||||||||||||||||||
Interest expensed and capitalized |
$ | 218 | $ | 222 | $ | 225 | $ | 231 | $ | 244 | ||||||||||
Amortization of debt issue costs |
4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |||||||||||||||
Estimated portion of rent expense representing interest |
20 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 23 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Total Fixed Charges |
$ | 242 | $ | 250 | $ | 253 | $ | 259 | $ | 272 | ||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges |
2.90 | 7.70 | 9.77 | 10.27 | 11.13 | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAKING PLENTIFUL POSSIBLE 2016 Annual Integrated Report
4 | ||||
Our Company |
||||
10 | ||||
12 | ||||
13 | ||||
16 | ||||
24 | ||||
28 | ||||
30 | ||||
48 | ||||
58 | ||||
64 | ||||
69 | ||||
76 | ||||
77 | ||||
78 | ||||
80 | ||||
81 | ||||
83 | ||||
84 | ||||
87 | ||||
88 | ||||
90 | ||||
91 | ||||
92 | ||||
100 | ||||
Other Information |
||||
168 | ||||
169 | ||||
171 | ||||
172 |
Financial data in this report are stated in US dollars unless
otherwise noted.
To learn more online, watch for the following icon:
WEB potashcorp.com
More than 1,000 people including students and farmers are welcomed annually at PotashCorps Model Farm in Trinidad, where visitors learn how fertilizers make bountiful crops possible.
Making Plentiful Possible
Food is essential for life. For nourishment and comfort. No matter which corner of the Earth we live in, whether we grow our own food, or buy it at a store, we all want enough to stay healthy and happy. Its no surprise that when a country starts to grow and prosper, its people choose to eat more and better food.
But can the world produce the fruits, vegetables, grains and protein to feed everyone? This challenge drives demand for PotashCorps products potash, nitrogen and phosphate that help farmers grow healthier, more abundant crops.
By following our vision to play a key role in the global food solution while building long-term value for our stakeholders, PotashCorp is making plentiful possible.
About this report: | ||
You can find this report and additional information about PotashCorp on our corporate website at www.potashcorp.com.
While we include certain non-financial performance in this report, more detailed information on our sustainability performance is provided in our GRI content index available in our online Integrated Reporting Center.
WEB potashcorp.com/irc |
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 1 |
WHY POTASHCORP?
1 |
FERTILIZER IS REQUIRED FOR PLENTIFUL FOOD PRODUCTION |
By 2050, the worlds population is expected to grow by 2.2 billion, to 9.7 billion. At the same time, diets are improving in many emerging regions. The result is greater demand for food. With limited arable land, only increased yields from the worlds farmers can make plentiful possible. Fertilizer is responsible for half of all crop yields; without it, we believe the world would be unable to feed itself.
2 |
THE POTASH BUSINESS HAS ADVANTAGES
|
Of the three primary crop nutrients, potash has the greatest expected long-term rate of consumption growth, due to under-application in emerging markets, where crop yields lag behind those of the developed world.
Significant production occurs in only 11 countries, with approximately 40 percent of global capacity currently located in Canada. In addition, potash operations are very costly to develop and require long lead times.
3 |
WE HAVE AN EXCEPTIONAL POSITION IN
POTASH |
We are the largest potash company in the world by capacity, representing 22 percent of the global total. We also have investments in other potash-related companies that further enhance our exposure to this key nutrient.
With our multi-year expansion program completed, we can bring on more low-cost potash capacity than any other producer to meet rising demand. Our focus is to retain operational flexibility while remaining a low-cost supplier into key markets.
4 |
WE HAVE HIGH-QUALITY NITROGEN AND PHOSPHATE ASSETS |
While potash is our primary nutrient and namesake, our portfolio includes all three essential crop nutrients.
We have nitrogen assets with access to lower-cost natural gas, proximity to key markets and a stable industrial customer base. In phosphate, we have the most diversified product offering in the industry, which has historically provided more favorable and stable returns.
2 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Company
|
FINANCIAL & OPERATIONAL HIGHLIGHTS
Years ended December 31
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | ||||||||||||||||
(millions unless otherwise noted) | ||||||||||||||||||||
FINANCIAL |
||||||||||||||||||||
Sales |
4,456 | 6,279 | 7,115 | 7,305 | 7,927 | |||||||||||||||
Gross Margin |
830 | 2,269 | 2,647 | 2,790 | 3,410 | |||||||||||||||
Net Income |
323 | 1,270 | 1,536 | 1,785 | 2,079 | |||||||||||||||
Net Income per Share Diluted |
0.38 | 1.52 | 1.82 | 2.04 | 2.37 | |||||||||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA 1 |
1,417 | 2,598 | 3,087 | 3,342 | 3,938 | |||||||||||||||
Cash Additions to Property, Plant and Equipment |
(893 | ) | (1,217 | ) | (1,138 | ) | (1,624 | ) | (2,133 | ) | ||||||||||
Cash Flow Return 2 |
5.5% | 10.7% | 13.0% | 15.0% | 19.2% | |||||||||||||||
Total Shareholder Return |
12.4% | (49.0% | ) | 11.6% | (16.4% | ) | (0.2% | ) | ||||||||||||
POTASH |
||||||||||||||||||||
Sales Volumes (thousand tonnes product) |
8,644 | 8,772 | 9,346 | 8,100 | 7,230 | |||||||||||||||
Average Realized Price (per tonne) |
158 | 263 | 269 | 332 | 424 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of Goods Sold (per tonne) |
(105 | ) | (111 | ) | (113 | ) | (136 | ) | (152 | ) | ||||||||||
Gross Margin (per tonne) |
53 | 152 | 156 | 196 | 272 | |||||||||||||||
NITROGEN 3 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Sales Volumes (thousand tonnes product) |
6,373 | 5,926 | 6,352 | 5,896 | 4,946 | |||||||||||||||
Average Realized Price (per tonne) |
217 | 322 | 374 | 377 | 438 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of Goods Sold (per tonne) |
(163 | ) | (206 | ) | (218 | ) | (225 | ) | (254 | ) | ||||||||||
Gross Margin (per tonne) |
54 | 116 | 156 | 152 | 184 | |||||||||||||||
PHOSPHATE |
||||||||||||||||||||
Sales Volumes (thousand tonnes product) |
2,713 | 2,850 | 3,142 | 3,680 | 3,643 | |||||||||||||||
Average Realized Price (per tonne) |
439 | 545 | 510 | 497 | 568 | |||||||||||||||
Cost of Goods Sold (per tonne) |
(428 | ) | (463 | ) | (448 | ) | (415 | ) | (444 | ) | ||||||||||
Gross Margin (per tonne) |
11 | 82 | 62 | 82 | 124 | |||||||||||||||
1 See reconciliation and description of this non-IFRS measure on Page 95
2 See reconciliation and description of this non-IFRS measure on Page 91
3 Includes inter-segment ammonia sales
Note: all amounts listed under Potash, Nitrogen and Phosphate exclude the impact of other miscellaneous and purchased products
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 3 |
2016 was a year
that charted a path
forward, one that
positions us to be
successful in any
market conditions.
4 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Company
|
DEAR SHAREHOLDERS,
2016 was a transformative year for PotashCorp. Not only did we demonstrate how a market-responsive approach, commitment to operational excellence and focus on financial flexibility create resiliency amidst challenging market conditions, we also took important steps to strengthen our best-in-class assets and set a foundation for future success.
Strengthening our position cant happen without ensuring the safety of our people. Im proud to say that in 2016 we achieved the best safety results in our companys history. We made significant progress in each of our safety priority areas and experienced no life-altering injuries. We introduced enhanced measures to help prevent serious injuries and fatalities and were recognized for a new program that empowers our front-line supervisors to be leaders in safety engagement. While our work to keep our employees safe is never done, our focus is making a difference.
During the year, we made the difficult but necessary move to optimize our potash portfolio by shifting capability to our lower-cost facilities. By suspending operations in New Brunswick and initiating operational changes at Cory, we will further reduce our cost profile in 2017 as we ramp up production at Rocanville, our lowest cost operation. At the same time, we reduced our dividend, with an aim to maintain strong credit ratings and enhance our financial flexibility.
We also announced a proposed Merger of Equals with Agrium, to create a highly synergistic, integrated nutrient production and retail distribution platform. We believe this opportunity will create tremendous value for our shareholders.
Importantly, 2016 was a year that charted a path forward, one that positions us to be successful in any market conditions, and enhances our ability to thrive as demand increases for our products the building blocks of making plentiful possible.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 5 |
OUR STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE
Playing a key role in the global food solution and delivering long-term value for all our stakeholders requires strong performance in many areas. Our seven strategic priorities are vital to realizing our vision, and in 2016 we continued to deliver.
12.4%
total shareholder return
(Outperformed our peer group 1 )
$1.3 billion
cash provided by
operating activities
PORTFOLIO & RETURN OPTIMIZATION
Outperformed
our competitors on customer surveys
in the areas of quality, reliability and service
57
educational seminars held
in the US and international markets, focused on the
benefits of our products and proper soil fertility
CUSTOMER & MARKET DEVELOPMENT
3%
annual employee turnover rate
demonstrating that our employees value
working at PotashCorp
Incentive plans
were enhanced
to better align pay and performance
with our strategic priorities
PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT
9%
reduction in our per-tonne cash
cost of goods sold in potash
(compared to 2015)
$135 million
annualized captured
procurement savings
(compared to 2014 levels)
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE
4.2 out of 5
on community surveys
in the areas of local investment,
safety and environmental performance
83%
rated our communications on par with or
better than other best-practice companies
as part of annual shareholder survey
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS
& ENGAGEMENT
1 | Weighted average (based on market capitalization) for Agrium, APC, CF Industries, ICL, Intrepid, K+S, Mosaic, SQM and Yara |
6 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Company
|
Exceeded rating
of best-in-class peers
on the Dow Jones Sustainability
World Index for corporate governance
Top quartile
ranking of governance practices
as determined by The Globe and Mails Board Games
GOOD GOVERNANCE
0
life-altering injuries
25%
reduction in the number of
environmental incidents
(compared to 2015)
SAFETY, HEALTH &
ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE
POSITIONED FOR THE FUTURE
Throughout the year, we continued to focus on positioning our company for long-term success:
| Rocanville Expansion |
Completion and ramp-up of our largest and lowest cost potash mine is expected to reduce cost of goods sold by approximately $10 per tonne in 2017 and increase our Canpotex allocation and future offshore sales potential.
| Production Optimization |
Optimization of our potash production from New Brunswick to our lower-cost Saskatchewan mines, along with operational changes at Cory, will reduce per-tonne cost of goods sold while ensuring we have adequate flexibility to meet rising customer needs.
| Enhanced Distribution |
Our Hammond Regional Distribution Center in Indiana was commissioned in May and offers 100,000 tonnes of additional potash storage capacity and space for up to 1,000 loaded railcars. We expect it to reduce rail cycle times and enhance our ability to serve our US customers.
| Improved Financial Flexibility |
With capital expenditures reduced to approximately $600 million in 2017, and a realigned dividend, we have enhanced financial flexibility and our balance sheet and credit ratings are well positioned.
| Merger of Equals with Agrium |
We expect our Merger of Equals with Agrium to create synergies of up to $500 million annually, greater earnings stability and new avenues for growth. With a broader range of high-quality products and more production locations, we will be better positioned to efficiently serve our customers.
Our company achieved a lot in 2016, and we are well positioned for the future. This couldnt have happened without our employees. I offer my personal thanks for their valuable contributions to our company. I would also like to recognize the guidance and expertise provided by Jeffrey McCaig and Elena Viyella De Paliza, directors who are retiring from our Board after many years of service. At PotashCorp, we help nature provide, but its our people who ensure we can deliver the nutrients to feed a growing population.
Making plentiful possible is vital to more than 7 billion people around the world today, and by 2030 only 13 years from now it will be vital to another 1.2 billion. This is a significant challenge that makes clear the drivers of our business and our opportunity. As the largest producer of the nutrients that are responsible for half of all global crop yields, we are uniquely positioned to build value not only for our shareholders, but the countless others who depend on our enduring success.
Jochen Tilk
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 20, 2017
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 7 |
Discussion &
Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results
of Operations (in US dollars)
To learn more, watch for the following icons: | ||
WEB |
potashcorp.com* |
|
A |
Annual Integrated Report |
|
10K |
Form 10-K |
|
P |
Proxy Circular |
|
FS |
Financial Statements |
The following discussion and analysis is the responsibility of management and is as of February 20, 2017. The Board of Directors carries out its responsibility for review of this disclosure principally through its audit committee, comprised exclusively of independent directors. The audit committee reviews this disclosure and recommends its approval by the Board of Directors. The term PCS refers to Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and the terms we, us, our, PotashCorp and the company refer to PCS and, as applicable, PCS and its direct and indirect subsidiaries as a group. Additional information relating to PotashCorp (which is not incorporated by reference herein) can be found in our regulatory filings on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov.
All references to per-share amounts pertain to diluted net income per share (EPS) as described in Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements.
* The information contained on or accessible from our website or any other website is not incorporated by reference into this Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations or any other report or document we file with or furnish to the US Securities and Exchange Commission or Canadian securities regulatory authorities.
Company
|
Our nutrients help farmers produce thriving crops that sustain people across the globe.
PotashCorp is the worlds largest crop nutrient company by capacity, producing potash (K), nitrogen (N) and phosphate (P). These primary crop nutrients are vital to maintain the healthy and productive soils that make plentiful possible.
2016 |
OUR OPERATIONS AND ASSETS |
OUR PRODUCTS AND MARKETS |
SHARE OF GLOBAL CAPACITY 1 |
CONTRIBUTION TO GROSS MARGIN |
||||||||
K |
POTASH |
Five large-scale, lower-cost potash mines and several decades of high-quality reserves in Saskatchewan; positioned to remain one of the lowest cost producers globally
One potash mine in New Brunswick currently in care-and-maintenance mode
Four potash-related equity investments in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East
Investment in Canpotex, the worlds premier potash exporter |
Produce nine different products; vast majority of production is granular and standard fertilizer
Product sold offshore by Canpotex, utilizing more than 5,000 railcars, three shipping terminals in British Columbia, Oregon and New Brunswick and a state-of-the-art railcar maintenance facility
Product sold within North America by PCS Sales, using 4,700 railcars and more than 200 owned or leased distribution points
|
22%
|
53%
|
|||||||
N |
NITROGEN |
Three US production facilities, near key customers, with access to lower-cost natural gas
One large-scale production facility in Trinidad with four ammonia plants and one urea plant |
Produce ammonia, urea, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate and nitrogen solutions, with a focus on industrial customers
Majority of product is sold in North America; offshore sales sourced primarily from Trinidad
Long-term, fixed-price ammonia vessel leases and access to six deepwater US ports enhance our flexibility and enable us to effectively manage transport costs
|
2%
|
43%
|
|||||||
P |
PHOSPHATE |
Two large, integrated mining and processing facilities and five smaller upgrading plants in the US
Long-term permits in place at Aurora for decades of mining; life-of-mine permit at White Springs |
High-quality rock allows us to produce the most diversified portfolio of products among our peers, including feed, industrial and fertilizers
Majority of product is sold in North America; proximity to customers allows us to minimize freight costs |
3%
|
4%
|
1 Based on nameplate capacity on December 31, 2016, which may exceed operational capability
10 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Company
With operations and investments in seven countries, PotashCorp is an international enterprise and a key player in making plentiful possible to help feed the world.
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES* |
SALES VOLUMES BY PRODUCT CATEGORY |
SALES VOLUMES BY REGION |
||||||
2,331
|
|
|||||||
823 |
|
|||||||
1,515 |
|
* | Includes employees within individual nutrient segments on December 31, 2016 |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 11 |
KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND WHAT MATTERS MOST
Our Vision: To play a key role in the global food solution while building long-term value for all stakeholders
To achieve our vision and help make plentiful possible, we must not only be profitable for our shareholders but also understand and support the priorities of our other stakeholders. By helping our customers, employees, communities and suppliers prosper, we aim to ensure that everyone associated with our business can thrive. This is how we run our business, and this integrated report discusses how we create value for our stakeholders from both financial and non-financial standpoints.
12 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Company
|
HOW WE CREATE VALUE AND WHAT WE REPORT
The priorities of our key stakeholders impact the way we approach value creation. As we consider the opportunities and challenges in our operating environment, these priorities shape our approach to setting strategy, managing risk and governing our actions. They also inform the depth and breadth of our reporting and the topics covered.
For more information on how we establish what matters most for reporting, refer to our Integrated Reporting Center. |
WEB |
potashcorp.com/irc/keytopics |
Operating Environment
We highlight the opportunities and challenges we face in each nutrient and our companys competitive advantages.
A |
Page 16
|
Governance
We detail how PotashCorp is managed in a way that strives to build and protect value for all stakeholders.
A |
Page 24
|
Strategy and Performance
We describe where we direct our efforts and resources to ensure we create long-term, sustainable value for our stakeholders. We discuss performance against targets and show what we are doing to achieve shared success.
A |
Page 30
|
Risk
We outline key risks to our company and the way we seek to manage them on an ongoing basis.
A |
Page 48
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 13 |
Value Creation
Aaliyah Pacifique appreciates an abundant harvest at the PotashCorp Model Farm.
16 | ||||
24 | ||||
Integrated Approach to Strategy and Risk | 28 | |||
30 | ||||
48 |
LONG-TERM OPPORTUNITY
Our growth is tied closely to the need to produce nutritious food for a growing population. To determine how to best position the company for long-term success, we carefully monitor agricultural trends, macroeconomic factors and market opportunities and challenges in each nutrient.
POPULATION GROWTH AND DIETARY CHANGES IMPACT FOOD DEMAND |
WITH LESS ARABLE LAND PER CAPITA, FERTILIZERS ARE NEEDED FOR MORE PLENTIFUL YIELDS |
THE NEED FOR OUR PRODUCTS
|
16 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
NEAR-TERM FACTORS
FERTILIZER AFFORDABILITY
|
GLOBAL SUPPLY, DEMAND AND PRODUCTION COSTS IMPACT OUR MARKET ENVIRONMENT |
THESE FACTORS AFFECT MARGINS FOR OUR PRODUCTS |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 17 |
POTASH OPERATING ENVIRONMENT
USES | NUMBER OF MAJOR PRODUCING COUNTRIES* | |||||||
Fertilizer Improves root and stem strength, water utilization and disease resistance; enhances taste, color and texture of food |
Feed Aids in animal growth and milk production |
Industrial Used in soaps, water softeners,
de-icers, drilling muds
|
11
|
|||||
* Countries producing more than 500,000 tonnes annually
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Economically mineable deposits are geographically concentrated |
Regions that have historically under-applied potash will drive growth in demand |
New capacity requires significant investment of time and money |
||
Securing an economically mineable deposit in a country that has both political stability and available infrastructure presents significant challenges.
Producers in Canada and the FSU account for approximately 40 percent and 30 percent of capacity, respectively. |
Crop production requirements and improving soil fertility practices particularly in emerging markets where potash has been under-applied and crop yields lag are expected to drive strong growth in potash demand.
Economic conditions and government policies in consuming regions can create variability in growth. |
Entry into the potash business is challenging because building new capacity is costly and time-consuming.
Brownfield projects, especially those already completed, have a significant per-tonne capital cost advantage over greenfield projects. |
Our Competitive Advantage |
Our Competitive Advantage | Our Competitive Advantage | ||
We have access to decades of high-quality, permitted potash reserves in a politically stable region with well-established infrastructure. |
Canpotex is well positioned to efficiently supply its customers in approximately 35 countries around the world.
With a lower fixed-cost profile, we can cost effectively reduce production to respond to variability in demand. |
With our expansions completed at a cost well below that of greenfield, we are the largest potash producer in the world by capacity, and have a lower-cost, growth platform that is paid for. |
18 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
GLOBAL USE AS FERTILIZER | ESTIMATED LONG-TERM GROWTH RATE | GLOBAL PRODUCTION TRADED (KCI) | AVERAGE GROSS MARGIN * | |||
~90% | 2.5-3.0% | 76% | 63% |
* PotashCorp 10-year percentage of net sales
Other key market facts
| Asia and Latin America are the largest consuming regions, accounting for 48 percent and 20 percent, respectively. |
| Asia is the largest consumer of standard product, using it as a direct application fertilizer and in compound fertilizers. |
| Granular product is used in more advanced agricultural markets where it is typically blended with other crop nutrients. |
| Most product is sold on a spot basis; customers in certain countries like China and India purchase under contracts. |
| In offshore markets, Canpotex competes against producers such as APC, Belaruskali, ICL, K+S, SQM and Uralkali. |
| In North America, our key competitors are Agrium, Belaruskali, ICL, Intrepid, K+S, Mosaic, SQM and Uralkali. |
PRIMARY POTASH MARKET PROFILE
Country/ Region |
Growth
Rate 1 |
Offshore Imports
2
(MMT 2016) |
Domestic Producer Sales
(MMT 2016) |
Main Consuming Crops | ||||
China | 4.1% | 6.6 | 7.2 | Vegetables, rice, fruits, corn | ||||
India | 0.1% | 3.8 | | Rice, wheat, vegetables, sugar crops | ||||
Other Asia | 4.6% | 8.2 | 0.3 | Oil palm, rice, sugar crops, fruits, vegetables | ||||
Latin America | 4.2% | 9.6 | 1.9 | Soybeans, sugar crops, corn | ||||
North America | 0.2% | 1.2 | 8.5 | Corn, soybeans |
1 10-year CAGR for consumption (2006-2016E) 2 Net imports; does not include product for re-export
Source: | CRU, Fertecon, IFA, PotashCorp |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 19 |
NITROGEN OPERATING ENVIRONMENT
USES
|
NUMBER OF MAJOR PRODUCING COUNTRIES
|
|||||||
Fertilizer |
Feed | Industrial | ~65 | |||||
Essential for protein synthesis; speeds plant growth |
Plays a key role in animal growth and development |
Used in plastics, resins, adhesives and emission controls |
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
Lower-cost energy is essential to success | Proximity to end markets provides advantages | Pricing can be volatile | ||
Natural gas can make up 70-85 percent of the cash cost of producing a tonne of ammonia.
With lower-cost natural gas, the US, Russia, North Africa and the Middle East are major producing regions.
Producers in China and Europe are typically higher-cost suppliers and play a significant role in determining global nitrogen prices. |
The need for expensive, specialized transportation vessels is an obstacle to economical transportation of ammonia over long distances.
Global ammonia trade has historically been limited compared to urea, which can be more easily transported. |
With natural gas feedstock widely available, the nitrogen industry is highly fragmented and regionalized.
Geopolitical events and the influence of Chinese urea exports can impact global trade.
These factors typically make nitrogen markets more volatile than other fertilizer markets. |
Our Competitive Advantage | Our Competitive Advantage | Our Competitive Advantage | ||
Significant supply of lower-priced shale gas provides an advantaged cost position for our US nitrogen production.
In Trinidad, our gas costs are indexed to Tampa ammonia prices, sheltering margins. |
Our production facilities in the US and Trinidad are well- positioned to serve the key consuming regions of North America and Latin America. |
We produce a broad range of nitrogen products and have a relatively stable industrial customer base. Sales to industrial customers make up approximately two-thirds of our total nitrogen sales volumes. |
20 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
GLOBAL USE AS FERTILIZER | ESTIMATED LONG-TERM GROWTH RATE | GLOBAL PRODUCTION TRADED (NH 3 ) | AVERAGE GROSS MARGIN* | |||
~80% |
1.5-2.0% |
10% |
36% |
* PotashCorp 10-year percentage of net sales
Other key market facts
| China and India are the largest-consuming countries, accounting for almost half of world consumption. |
| Capacity has recently expanded significantly in the US, reducing the need for offshore imports. |
| Volume of Chinese exports is an important factor for global urea pricing. |
| We compete in the US market with Agrium, CF Industries, CVR, Koch, LSB and OCI, along with offshore suppliers. |
| We compete in offshore markets with a wide range of offshore and domestic producers. |
US NITROGEN MARKET PROFILE
Product | Fertilizer Use 1 | Non-Fertilizer Use |
Production
2
(MMT 2016) |
Imports
(MMT 2016) |
Key Supplying Countries/Regions |
|||||
Ammonia | 70% |
30% |
12.9 | 4.6 | Canada, Russia, Trinidad | |||||
Urea | 75% |
25% |
7.5 | 6.6 | Africa, Canada, Middle East | |||||
UAN | 99% |
1% |
11.3 | 2.7 | Canada, Russia, Trinidad |
1 Includes production upgraded into other fertilizer products
2 Includes urea liquor used to produce nitrogen solutions and diesel emission fluid (DEF)
Source: | USDOC, Blue Johnson, Fertecon, CRU, PotashCorp |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 21 |
PHOSPHATE OPERATING ENVIRONMENT
USES
|
NUMBER OF MAJOR PRODUCING COUNTRIES
|
|||||||
Fertilizer Required for energy storage and transfer; speeds crop maturity |
Feed Assists in muscle repair and skeletal development of animals |
Industrial
Used in soft drinks, food additives
|
~40 |
|||||
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
High-quality, lower-cost rock is critical
|
Raw material cost changes
affect profitability |
Changes in global trade impact
market fundamentals |
||
Phosphate rock is geographically concentrated: China, Morocco and the US together produce 67 percent of the worlds supply.
Approximately one-third of global producers are non-integrated and rely on purchased rock; those with direct access to a high-quality, lower-cost supply have a significant competitive advantage. |
Changing prices for raw material inputs sulfur and ammonia have historically resulted in production-cost volatility.
Phosphate prices have historically reflected changes in the costs of these inputs, along with rock costs. |
With limited indigenous rock supply, India is the largest importer of phosphate in the world, and its demand can have a significant impact on global markets.
Increased export supply from Morocco, Saudi Arabia and China has lowered US exports of solid fertilizers.
US producers rely more on trade with Latin America and production of specialty phosphate products. |
Our Competitive Advantage |
Our Competitive Advantage | Our Competitive Advantage | ||
We are an integrated producer with access to many years of high-quality, permitted phosphate reserves. |
We sell feed and industrial phosphate products that require minimal ammonia as a raw material input. |
We have the most diversified product offering in the industry and make more than 70
percent of our sales in
|
22 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
GLOBAL USE AS FERTILIZER | ESTIMATED LONG-TERM GROWTH RATE | GLOBAL PRODUCTION TRADED (P 2 O 5 ) | AVERAGE GROSS MARGIN* | |||||||
~90% | 1.5-2.0% | 11% | 21% |
* PotashCorp 10-year percentage of net sales
Other key market facts
| China and India account for more than 40 percent of global consumption. |
| With large deposits in Africa and the Middle East, geopolitical instability can affect investment and operating decisions. |
| Volume of Chinese exports is an important factor in global phosphate pricing. |
| We compete in fertilizer markets with Agrium, Mosaic and Simplot, and imports primarily from China, Morocco and Russia. |
| For feed and industrial sales, our major competitors are ICL, Innophos, Mosaic and producers from China and Russia. |
KEY DAP/MAP MARKET PROFILE
Country/Region |
Growth Rate 1 |
DAP/MAP Production (MMT 2016) |
DAP/MAP Imports (MMT 2016) |
Main Crops | ||||
China |
0.5% |
26.4 |
0.3 |
Vegetables, corn, wheat | ||||
India |
1.7% |
4.4 |
4.3 |
Rice, wheat, oilseeds | ||||
Other Asia |
2.4% |
0.9 |
4.8 |
Rice, wheat, oil palm | ||||
Latin America |
4.8% |
1.9 |
5.9 |
Soybeans, corn, sugar crops | ||||
North America |
0.5% |
9.1 |
1.4 |
Corn, wheat, soybeans |
1 10-year CAGR for consumption (2006-2016E)
Source: | CRU, IFA, PotashCorp |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 23 |
In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, our Board of Directors commitment to excellence in governance permeates our overall approach to business. Whether its shaping the Core Values that guide our actions or ensuring we have the right value-enhancing strategies and risk processes, the Board fosters a culture that encourages us to uphold the highest ethical standards and strive for excellence in our business practices in order to build long-term value for all our stakeholders.
FOCUSING ON GOOD GOVERNANCE
In 2016, we continued to advance our governance practices. Some of these are highlighted below:
CORE VALUES
Our Core Values are the principles that guide the behavior and actions of our people as we seek to achieve our corporate goals. They articulate the expectation that we will hold ourselves to the highest standards and consider factors beyond financial performance when evaluating our opportunities and success.
|
During the year, we updated our Core Values to better reflect our focus in the areas of:
Safety, health, environment and security,
particularly to proactively encourage
Innovation, including technology, reliability and productivity
Diversity, training and leadership development
|
INTEGRITY
We do the
|
SAFETY, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
We put people and the environment first. |
PERFORMANCE
We strive for
|
IMPROVEMENT & INNOVATION
We get better
|
GROWTH
We help each employee succeed. |
COMMUNICATION & COLLABORATION
We connect
|
For additional information on our Core Values, visit WEB potashcorp.com/corevalues_codeofconduct
24 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
We believe that diversity brings broader perspectives and experiences that enhance decision-making within the company and contribute to long- term success.
We reframed our Board diversity objectives in 2015 to maintain at least 30 percent representation by women and ensure that at least half the qualified candidates considered for open Board positions are female. We continued this direction in 2016 and adopted a company-wide Diversity and Inclusion Policy. It includes long-term targets for gender and Aboriginal representation within our workforce.
A Page 41
BOARD EVALUATION
Beyond internal evaluation processes, which are described in our Management Proxy Circular, the Board commissioned an external evaluation of its practices and performance by a corporate governance expert in 2016. The primary objective was to independently assess current practices and performance to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement.
The evaluation conducted by the National Association of Corporate Directors reinforced that PotashCorps Board continues to perform at a very high level. Detailed findings were discussed with the Board and management late in 2016, and recommendations were subsequently evaluated and implemented by the Board and its committees.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 25 |
ENSURING EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT OF STRATEGY AND RISK
One of the key responsibilities of the Board is overseeing the successful execution of strategy and management of risk. In 2016, significant strides were made in advancing the companys defined strategy.
99%
PotashCorp shares
voted in favor
of Merger of Equals
with Agrium
Launching Merger of Equals with Agrium
As part of their continuing mandate to strengthen the company and enhance value for shareholders, the Board and senior management assess strategic opportunities on
an
In early 2016, the Board, with input from management and external advisors,
reviewed
In September, holding a shared view that the combination would unlock significant shareholder value, the Board unanimously approved the transaction. In November, PotashCorp shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed Merger of Equals with Agrium, with more than 99 percent of shares voted at the meeting voting in favor of the transaction.
|
Enhancing our employee compensation program
Following an extensive review, the human resources and compensation committee of the Board together with input from its independent compensation consultant and management implemented a number of compensation program changes in 2016. These were designed to create an incentive compensation program that is more competitive, engaging, cost-effective and aligned with the companys corporate strategy. In addition, a new performance management system was adopted to better facilitate and track progress against corporate and individual objectives. P Proxy Circular |
|
Advancing our innovation platform
During the year, an internal review was conducted to identify opportunities to drive a more standardized approach to innovation across the organization. As part of this process, the Board and management aligned their understanding of the potential role of innovation, established key focus areas and defined a path and timeline to improve capabilities. |
||
26 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE
A LONG-STANDING COMMITMENT TO GOOD GOVERNANCE
For the benefit of all stakeholders, we proactively pursue excellence in corporate governance. This means that when we identify practices that add value for the company and our stakeholders, we often go beyond common standards and legal requirements. Some of our long-standing best practices include:
| Say on Pay vote on executive compensation held annually since 2010, with highly supportive shareholder approvals since inception |
| Majority voting policy to elect Board members (since 2006) |
| Voluntary compliance with the more rigorous Board independence provisions of the New York Stock Exchange governance standards |
| Commitment to conducting periodic external Board evaluations |
| Early adoption of integrated reporting, extending discussion beyond financial performance to include a more holistic discussion of value creation |
For a comprehensive discussion of PotashCorps corporate governance practices, refer to our Management Proxy Circular and our Integrated Reporting Center. P Proxy Circular WEB potashcorp.com/irc/governance |
|
50
Corporate reporting awards
received from CPA Canada
over the past 24 years
4
Consecutive years
recognized as one of the best annual
reports in the world by reportwatch.com
9 times
Over the past 10 years
recognized as one of the top 10
Canadian companies by The Globe and
Mails annual Board Games rankings
87
Governance score
vs best-in-class peers score of 82 on the
Dow Jones Sustainability World Index
(score out of 100)
Value Creation
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 27 |
INTEGRATED APPROACH TO STRATEGY AND RISK
In a complex business environment, it is critical that we understand the interconnection of strategy, risk and value creation. At PotashCorp, this link is formalized through purposeful alignment of our strategy and risk management processes which ensures we are always striving to provide meaningful returns to those who depend on us.
Our strategy and risk frameworks are integrated and enable us to anticipate and adapt to opportunities and risks in a volatile and uncertain global marketplace. Our long-term objectives and strategic priorities and associated risk mitigation plans are aligned throughout the organization, from our corporate actions to those of our functional areas.
28 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
Governance
Our Board of Directors provides guidance and oversight, while management defines and executes strategy. It begins with devising and executing ideas that use, or redeploy as necessary, our capital and resources in the most value-enhancing manner at each level of the organization.
Corporate Strategy
From a corporate strategy perspective, we continually evaluate our existing businesses and new opportunities, allocating capital toward those that we believe create the greatest long-term value.
Business Unit Strategy
Our business units devise and execute plans that seek to extract the maximum value from our potash, nitrogen and phosphate assets.
Functional Strategy
Our functional strategies guided by seven strategic priorities designed to deliver value for all stakeholders support our broader corporate and business unit strategies by ensuring we have the right processes, people and plans in place for sustainable success.
For further details on strategy, see A Page 30
RISK FRAMEWORK
Governance
Our integrated approach to managing risk recognizes the need for clear, timely direction and support from our Board and senior management, as well as business unit and functional management. Risks are monitored and challenged. Where necessary or prudent, we take on additional risk or reduce our risk exposure to achieve our objectives.
Strategic Risk Management
Our starting point for managing risk is our strategic planning process. Our risk framework ensures that we evaluate and consider ways to create or optimize value for the company by continually testing our strategy: observing, analyzing and anticipating macroeconomic, industry-specific, regional and local developments. Importantly, we also consider what we do not know whether it is a risk that could disrupt the assumptions at the core of our strategy or other conditions
we cannot readily observe, such as our competitors actions, innovations or customer preferences. Consideration of these uncertainties, risks and opportunities allows us to evolve our strategy to continually respond to or navigate through them.
Functional Risk Management
Functional risk management processes are focused on value protection by managing risks we face in achieving the objectives of our chosen strategy and new risks resulting from that strategy. We continually identify, measure, assess, respond to and monitor risks and uncertainties that could impact value. We seek to proactively mitigate risks that exceed our appetite and tolerance, and accept risks we believe are manageable and appropriate in relation to expected opportunities. These risks and opportunities are regularly monitored for changes and further action is taken if necessary.
For further details on risk, see A Page 48
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 29 |
Creating superior shareholder value is essential to ensure we can make plentiful possible for all our stakeholders. Strong and sustainable earnings growth coupled with a premium valuation multiple rewards our shareholders and, at the same time, allows us to focus on our broader social and environmental responsibilities. Our seven strategic priorities determine where we focus our efforts to create long-term value for all those associated with our business.
OUR LONG-TERM OBJECTIVE
Create superior shareholder value by:
GROWING EARNINGS AND CASH FLOW
|
PROTECTING AND ENHANCING A
|
MAINTAINING
|
||
Financially, we prioritize earnings growth and investment opportunities in potash while complementing that business with other best-in-class assets.
|
For additional information on our sustainability performance, refer to our GRI content index in our Integrated Reporting Center. |
WEB potashcorp.com/irc/gri |
30 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
SUMMARY SCORECARD |
|
|
|
TARGET METRIC | RESULT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016
|
2015
|
2014
|
2013
|
2012
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
PORTFOLIO & RETURN OPTIMIZATION |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total shareholder return (TSR) vs peers |
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Page 32
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TSR vs DAXglobal Agribusiness Index (DXAG) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow return (CFR) vs sector |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potash per-tonne cash cost savings |
|
|
|
| |
A
|
Page 34
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Procurement savings |
|
| | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Ammonia reliability rate |
|
| | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CUSTOMER & MARKET DEVELOPMENT |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Customer survey score |
|
|
|
|
|
A |
Page 36 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Enhance market development initiatives |
|
|
| | | |||||||||||||||||||||||
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community investment |
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Page 38
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Community survey score |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Shareholder survey score |
|
| | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Employee engagement score |
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Page 40
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Annual employee turnover rate |
|
| |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Implement Diversity and Inclusion Policy |
|
|
| | | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GOOD GOVERNANCE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top quartile of governance practices |
|
|
| |
|
A | Page 42 | |||||||||||||||||||||
SAFETY, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL EXCELLENCE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Life-altering injuries at our sites |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total recordable injury rate |
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Page 44
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Total lost-time injury rate |
|
|
| | | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of nitrogen product |
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
Page 46
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Environmental incidents |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Water consumption per tonne of phosphate product |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Historical financial and non-financial data available in 11 year data on Page 92.
indicates no stated target in noted year
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 31 |
Portfolio & Return Optimization
Maximize returns for our assets and explore other value creation opportunities
2016 PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
TARGET | RESULT | DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||||||
Exceed TSR performance for our sector* and the DXAG
|
|
|
|
PotashCorps TSR of 12.4 percent exceeded the sector return of 7.6 percent due primarily to improving potash fundamentals in the second half of 2016.
Despite exceeding the sector return, our TSR was slightly below the DXAG return of 12.5 percent.
|
||||||||||||||
Exceed CFR 1 for our sector*
|
|
|
|
Our 2016 CFR of 5.5 percent was below the sector average, driven primarily by weaker cash flow generation.
|
||||||||||||||
Expand and further develop innovation teams for each nutrient
|
|
|
|
In 2016, we conducted an evaluation to benchmark our corporate innovation practices to best-in-class peers. We are internalizing what weve learned from this process as we seek to improve our approach to innovation and further develop our capabilities.
|
||||||||||||||
* Sector: weighted average (based on market capitalization) for Agrium, APC, CF Industries, ICL, Intrepid, K+S, Mosaic, SQM and Yara for most recent four fiscal quarters available
1 See reconciliation and description of this non-IFRS measure on Page 91
2017 TARGETS
| Exceed TSR performance for our sector and the DXAG |
| Exceed CFR for our sector |
32 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
TAKING ACTION
Market-responsive potash approach
We produce to meet the needs of our customers as we believe this approach to the market provides the best opportunity to generate the greatest long-term value for our shareholders. In 2016, we responded to challenging market conditions by indefinitely suspending production at our Picadilly, New Brunswick operations and initiating operational changes at Cory. We also took temporary shutdowns at a number of our Saskatchewan operations to manage inventories during the year.
Nitrogen and phosphate optimization
We strive to allocate our production toward the combination of products that provides the greatest gross margin with the least volatility. In nitrogen, our focus is on industrial markets and ensuring that product can be reliably and competitively supplied under long-term contracts. In phosphate, we focus on specialized feed and industrial products and niche liquid fertilizers.
Merger of Equals with Agrium
During the third quarter of 2016, the company entered into an Arrangement Agreement with Agrium to combine businesses in the Proposed Transaction, which is designed to:
Bring together world-class nutrient production assets and retail distribution, providing an integrated platform with multiple paths for growth;
Create up to $500 million of annual run-rate operating synergies within 24 months of closing;
Enhance financial flexibility through the use of a strong balance sheet and improved cash flows, enabling the support of growth initiatives and shareholder returns; and
Leverage best-in-class leadership and governance through the combination of two experienced teams that are focused on creating long-term value.
During the fourth quarter, shareholders of both companies overwhelmingly approved the Proposed Transaction and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a final order approving it.
From a regulatory standpoint, we continue to cooperate with the various enforcement agencies in their reviews. We have received clearances in Brazil and Russia, and continue to work on obtaining approval from China, India, Canada and the US.
Upon closing of the Proposed Transaction which is anticipated mid-2017 PotashCorp and Agrium will become indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of a new parent company. PotashCorp shareholders will own approximately 52 percent of the new company and Agrium shareholders will own approximately 48 percent.
Value Creation
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 33 |
Operational Excellence
Improve our competitive position through reliability, productivity and flexibility
2016 PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
TARGET | RESULT | DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||||
Achieve potash cash cost savings
|
|
We expect to achieve our target in 2017 as we ramp up our Rocanville expansion, which was completed in 2016. |
||||||||||||||
Track procurement effectiveness and capture cumulative savings of $125 million from 2014 levels by the end of 2016
|
|
We have captured $213 million in cumulative procurement savings since 2014. |
||||||||||||||
Achieve 96 percent operating rate 1 for all US nitrogen plants and 88 percent in Trinidad |
|
Our ammonia reliability rate was 97 percent in the US and 94 percent in Trinidad for 2016. |
||||||||||||||
1 | The company has clarified that the target refers to ammonia reliability rate, its focus in the nitrogen segment. Operating rate is defined as actual production divided by capacity. Reliability rate is defined as actual production divided by capacity, less non-reliability downtime. |
2017 TARGETS
| Achieve potash cash cost savings of $20-$30 per tonne from 2013 levels by 2017 (excluding foreign exchange and royalties) |
| Capture direct and indirect annualized procurement savings of $170 million from 2014 levels by the end of 2017 |
| Achieve a 95 percent ammonia reliability rate for our nitrogen division |
34 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
TAKING ACTION
Optimizing potash production
Our cash cost of goods sold decreased compared to 2015 due primarily to the shift of production to our lower-cost Saskatchewan mines and the impact of foreign exchange, which more than offset closure-related costs at our Picadilly mine.
Capital expenditures under our multi-year potash expansion program are complete and Rocanville is in the final stages of ramp-up. It will provide additional low-cost production flexibility to meet future customer needs and allow us to increase our Canpotex allocation. We expect cash cost of goods sold to decline further in 2017 as we source a greater proportion of production from Rocanville.
In 2017, we expect to have 10.1 million tonnes of operational capability, maintaining flexibility to meet demand should it exceed our current sales volumes estimate. With the ability to restart idled capacity if market conditions warrant, we believe we are best positioned to meet long-term growth in global demand.
Increasing efficiencies and productivity
In nitrogen, a key focus is to improve our cost position by achieving energy and labor efficiencies through innovation and process improvements. In phosphate, at our Aurora facility we continue to benefit from initiatives to lower rock mining costs and refine our mining and recovery techniques. Across all three nutrients, we are working to better share and standardize maintenance processes to strengthen the reliability of our operations.
In addition, we have transformed the way PotashCorp sources goods and services. Establishing a new center-led approach to procurement has enabled us to improve our supplier relationships, leverage our size and scale to generate significant cost savings, create connections to improve the way we operate and provide our operating sites with new capabilities.
~ $10
Estimated reduction in potash per-tonne
cost of goods
sold in 2017
(compared to 2016)
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 35 |
Customer & Market Development
Encourage product demand and support customer growth
2016 PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
TARGET | RESULT | DISCUSSION | ||||||||
Outperform competitor groups on quality, reliability and service as measured by customer surveys |
|
We outperformed our competitors in quality, reliability and service in 2016. Our average customer survey score was 89 percent compared to 72 percent for our peers.
Our sales team continued to rank higher than competitors in service and knowledge of products, customers and the industry.
|
||||||||
Support development of existing and new markets with initiatives in education, sales and supply chain enhancements
|
|
Our sales and agronomy teams held 57 seminars in the US and international locations, communicating the benefits of our products and proper soil fertility.
Our eKonomics ROI calculator was named one of the top apps in CropLifes list of Agriculture apps that will help you farm smarter in 2017.
|
||||||||
Successfully integrate Hammond, Indiana distribution facility into our North American marketing strategy
|
|
In 2016, we completed construction of our Hammond distribution facility and we are using it to more efficiently deliver potash to our US customers. |
||||||||
2017 TARGETS
| Outperform competitor groups on quality, reliability and service as measured by customer surveys |
| Support development of existing and new markets with enhancements in education, sales and the supply chain |
25%
Reduction in net potash
railcar transit time to the
Chicago interchange
due to our Hammond
facility
36 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
TAKING ACTION
Encouraging potash consumption growth
We explore and invest in market development opportunities primarily through Canpotex and our membership in the International Plant Nutrition Institute to encourage consumption growth in places that have historically under-applied potash, such as Africa, China and India.
Optimizing potash infrastructure
In North America, we added 700 new railcars to our domestic potash fleet and now own approximately 3,000 custom-built high-capacity cars, which increases volumes per trainload. With construction of our regional distribution center in Hammond now complete, we can serve key markets in the US more efficiently.
Our offshore sales are made through Canpotex where our current sales allocation is 51.6 percent. This allocation is expected to grow in the second half of 2017 following the completion of our Rocanville capacity audit. Canpotex currently has export capability of approximately 19 million tonnes annually, which is projected to increase to 20 million tonnes with the expansion of its Portland terminal, expected to be complete in 2017.
Capitalizing on future nitrogen opportunities and maximizing returns
We seek opportunities to enter new market segments where we have a competitive advantage. We have been expanding in the diesel emission fluid (DEF) market, leveraging our ability to produce high-quality products in
an area with strong demand. Our expanded Lima facility is expected to further enhance our ability to serve this profitable and growing market.
Evaluating new fertilizer products to meet customer needs
We continue to explore opportunities to differentiate our products in response to changing needs of our customers. In 2016, we evaluated opportunities to integrate new product offerings into our portfolio through investment and partnerships and are working to leverage such opportunities in 2017.
Farmers value business analysis. Our user-friendly eKonomics website features concise summaries of the latest crop nutrition research, tips and tools for more productive soils, industry news, commodity futures prices, rainfall data, as well as our Nutrient ROI Calculator and Nationwide Nutrient Balance Analysis both industry firsts exclusive to PotashCorp. |
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 37 |
Stakeholder Communications & Engagement
Earn stakeholder trust through strong communications and engagement
2016 PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
TARGET | RESULT | DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||||
Invest 1 percent of consolidated income before income taxes (on a five-year rolling average) in community initiatives |
|
We invested $15 million in community initiatives, representing more than 1 percent of 2016 pre-tax income, but fell short of our five-year rolling average target after realigning our spending with current market conditions during the year.
We refined our community investment objectives to better match our business priorities of community building, education and training, and food solutions.
|
||||||||||||||
Achieve 4 (performing well) out of 5 on surveys of community leaders |
|
We achieved an average score of 4.2 out of 5 among surveyed communities.
Our communities continue to acknowledge us as a key contributor to their local economies and appreciate our commitment to employment, safety and environmental stewardship.
|
||||||||||||||
Achieve rating on third-party annual shareholder survey that exceeds 2015 results for quality of communications
|
|
We achieved an average score of 8 out of 10 on quality of communications with the investment community, an improvement from our 2015 results.
83 percent of respondents rated our communications on par with or better than other best-practice companies.
|
||||||||||||||
2017 TARGETS
| Achieve 4 (performing well) out of 5 on surveys of community leaders |
| Outperform competitor group on quality of communications and responsiveness as measured by investor surveys |
8
Quality of shareholder
communications as
determined by 2016
annual survey
(average score out of 10)
38 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
TAKING ACTION
Building relationships with our communities
Our stakeholders are critical to our long-term success, and we support them by improving the quality of life in our communities. In 2016, we continued our support of school nutrition programs, food banks, our Trinidad Model Farm and other initiatives related to food security. We also supported a number of Aboriginal initiatives, community-building events and funded scholarships that help develop the workforce of the future.
Engaging with our shareholders
Each year we engage a third party to survey a sample of current and potential shareholders to gain additional insight into perceptions of our company, industry and quality of communications. While we proactively ask for feedback over the course of the year, this annual process allows us to formally benchmark shareholder perceptions so we can address their concerns and improve our performance. We monitor changes over time and ensure investor views are communicated to our management team and the Board.
In 2016, we also asked shareholders to rank key topics in all seven of our strategic priorities to better understand what is most important to them. This information will be combined with similar input from other key stakeholders to give us a holistic picture of what matters most to those who depend on our company, allowing us to improve our communications and reporting.
Partnering with our suppliers
We continue to explore opportunities to connect with our suppliers in new and meaningful ways. This helps us improve performance while focusing on safety, the environment and our other core values.
Our procurement strategy is strongly aligned with our diversity and inclusion objectives. We have an objective to allocate 30 percent of our local purchasing in Canada to Aboriginal suppliers by 2020.
$9M
Invested annually in
food security-related
initiatives
(3-year average)
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 39 |
People Development
Attract, develop and retain engaged employees
2016 PERFORMANCE
|
|
On track |
TARGET | RESULT | DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||||||
Achieve an average employee engagement score of 75 percent on the company-wide biennial survey |
|
We achieved our target with an average employee engagement score of 75 percent on our 2016 survey, which represents a 12 percent increase from our 2014 results.
We have made strides over the past two years to improve our internal communications and will review our 2016 results to look for areas of further improvement.
|
||||||||||||||||
Maintain an annual employee turnover rate of 5 percent or less |
|
Our 2016 annual employee turnover was 3 percent, which demonstrates that our employees value working at PotashCorp.
|
||||||||||||||||
Implement Diversity and Inclusion Policy through training and communication initiatives |
|
In 2016, we began advancing our diversity and inclusion priorities through focused communication and training initiatives, and we will continue our work in this area.
|
||||||||||||||||
2017 TARGETS
| Have 95 percent of salaried staff submit and review business goals and individual development plans through our new performance management process |
| Maintain an annual employee turnover rate of 5 percent or less |
| Achieve progress toward our diversity priorities of increasing the representation of women in management to 25 percent or more by 2025 and becoming representative of Aboriginal people in our Canadian operations by 2020 |
12%
Increase in company-
wide employee
engagement score
(compared to 2014)
40 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
TAKING ACTION
Managing performance
In 2016, we designed and implemented a new global performance management process, along with a supporting talent management system. This will help us design performance plans for our staff employees, including business goals and an individual development plan, by the end of 2017. Our goal is to provide clarity for performance and behavioral expectations, with an increased focus on coaching and guided development to support employee growth.
Enhancing employee communications
Based on feedback from our employees, we have taken steps to enhance our internal communications. This includes keeping employees informed of events and changes in our company in a timely and interactive manner through in-person meetings, videos and written communications. We also provide employees with updates on performance, development and compensation.
Growing our diverse workforce
We recognize that having a diverse workforce enhances our organizational strength and better reflects our stakeholders. In 2016, we adopted our global Diversity and Inclusion Policy, which includes long-term initiatives to increase representation of women in management across our operations and increase the representation of Aboriginal people in all our Canadian operations.
Developing our employees
In 2016, PotashCorp introduced a new global leadership development framework so employees at all levels could develop skills in this area. Activities include formal learning opportunities, such as classroom training and development, along with self-directed learning, which allows employees to take ownership of their own professional development.
22%
Increase in management positions held by women
(compared to 2015)
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 41 |
Good Governance
Foster a culture of accountability, fairness and transparency
2016 PERFORMANCE
|
|
|
TARGET | RESULT | DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||||
Remain in the top quartile of governance practices as measured by external reviews |
|
We ranked in the top quartile of governance practices in The Globe and Mails annual Board Games.
Our governance practices were highly ranked by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) and the FTSE4Good Index.
Our 2015 Annual Integrated Report was ranked fifth globally by reportwatch.com and received the Award of Excellence in Financial Reporting from CPA Canada.
|
||||||||||||||
2017 TARGETS
| Remain in the top quartile of governance practices as measured by external reviews |
2015 Annual
Integrated Report
ranked fifth in the world
42 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
TAKING ACTION
Leading governance practices
Our governance score from our 2016 RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment far exceeded both the average for our industry and the average score of Dow Jones Sustainability World Index members, a best-in-class benchmark representing approximately 250 of the top companies globally. The areas where we are most progressive are related to Board composition, diversity and disclosure.
Focusing on Board composition and education
The PotashCorp Board and management team bring a broad range of complementary skills and perspectives that allow us to better identify areas of value creation and potential challenges. To ensure our Board members have the best information available to them regarding our company and industry, we provide and support internal and external education opportunities.
We value diversity and believe it enhances our organization by bringing new perspectives and skills. In 2016, women represented 31 percent of our Board and 20 percent of our management positions. To further our efforts in this area, we adopted a company-wide Diversity and Inclusion Policy in 2016 with the aim of developing a more representative workforce, including enhancing female and Indigenous representation across our organization.
Aligning compensation with stakeholder interests
To ensure alignment with the interests of shareholders, our Board members are required to own shares or deferred share units (DSUs) with a value equal to at least five times their annual retainer. We believe an ownership mentality is important for management as well, and have a similar stipulation for our executives with higher share ownership requirements for more senior roles including our CEO, whose requirement is five times base salary.
For a comprehensive picture of PotashCorps corporate governance practices, refer to our Management Proxy Circular and our Integrated Reporting Center.
P Proxy Circular WEB potashcorp.com/irc
93
Score (out of 100) on The Globe and Mails annual Board Games
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 43 |
Safety, Health & Environmental Excellence
Be relentless in pursuit of the safety of our people and protection of the environment
2016 PERFORMANCE SAFETY AND HEALTH
|
|
|
TARGET | RESULT | DISCUSSION | ||||||||||
Achieve zero life-altering injuries at our sites |
|
There were no life-altering injuries at any of our sites in 2016. As safety is our top priority, we continue to increase our efforts to prevent serious injuries and fatalities (SIF) at our sites so our employees and contractors can return home safe every day.
|
||||||||||
Reduce total recordable injury rate to 0.85 (or lower) and total lost-time injury rate to 0.09 (or lower) |
|
Our total recordable injury rate was 0.87. Although we narrowly missed our target, the rate decreased 14 percent from 2015 and is our lowest on record.
We achieved our total lost-time injury rate target with a rate of 0.08, our second-lowest on record.
During the year we focused on four key priorities: leadership training, SIF prevention, pre-job hazard assessments and work pausing.
|
||||||||||
By 2018, become one of the safest resource companies in the world by achieving recordable injury and lost- time injury rates in the lowest quartile of a best-in-class peer group* |
|
We continue to achieve improvements in our total recordable injury rate while our total lost-time injury rate is one of the lowest in the industry.
While we maintain our overarching objective to be one of the safest resource companies in the world, our primary focus going forward will be on SIF prevention, with targets aimed at continually improving our injury rates and avoiding life-altering injuries.
|
||||||||||
* | Simple average based on most recent publicly available data from a sample of 16 leading global resource companies |
2017 TARGETS SAFETY AND HEALTH
| Achieve zero life-altering injuries at our sites |
| Reduce total recordable injury rate to 0.75 or lower |
| Reduce total lost-time injury rate to 0.07 or lower |
44 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
TAKING ACTION
Driving change on serious injuries and fatalities
To ensure our safety program remains best-in-class, we introduced an enhanced SIF prevention program focused on proactive and reactive processes. Our reactive prevention program helps ensure that in-depth investigations are performed on all potential SIF incidents and that the strongest possible controls are put in place to prevent them from recurring. Our proactive prevention program is focused on discovering potential occurrences in routine work and mitigating them before something happens.
While our aim is preventing all injuries, no matter how minor, we are increasingly focused on SIF prevention.
Highlighting the H in SH&E
In 2016, we undertook an initiative to enhance our corporate health and wellness program, which included reviewing health and wellness best practices at our sites for inclusion in our program. We also established a corporate steering committee and increased education through our new health and wellness website for employees and their families.
WEB potashcorphealth.com
Coaching for safety engagement
A cornerstone of our safety program and one of our four key safety priorities is leadership. For our safety culture to evolve, we have to influence what happens at the worker level where the majority of our safety exposures exist. We recognize that front-line supervisors have the largest influence on what happens at this critical grassroots level. Our objective is to enable each front-line supervisor in our company to become an expert in safety engagement.
We are proud that this program won the Queens University Industrial Relations Center Professional Development Award at the 2016 Canadian HR Awards.
33%
Decrease in our
total recordable
injury rate
(since 2012)
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 45 |
Safety, Health & Environmental Excellence
Be relentless in pursuit of the safety of our people and protection of the environment
2016 PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENT
|
|
|
TARGET |
RESULT |
DISCUSSION | ||||||||||||
By 2018, reduce GHG emissions
|
|
|
|
Our GHG emissions per tonne of nitrogen product decreased by 13 percent compared to 2014 levels. This was mainly a result of enhanced emission controls at our largest nitric acid plant and more CO 2 sold as product and consumed in urea production.
|
||||||||||
By 2018, reduce environmental incidents by 40 percent from 2014 levels
|
|
|
|
In 2016 we had 18 incidents, a 25 percent decrease from 2014 levels. With our continued focus on identifying and implementing best practices, we believe we are on track to meet our 2018 target.
|
||||||||||
By 2018, reduce water consumption per tonne of phosphate product by 10 percent from 2014 levels
|
|
|
|
Our water consumption increased by 23 percent compared to 2014 levels, mainly as a result of a drought at our White Springs facility, which recycles rainwater for use in operations. Although our water consumption increased from 2014 levels, we expect to meet our target due to reductions from our Eagle Creek water recycling project at White Springs, which became operational in the fourth quarter of 2016.
|
2017 TARGETS ENVIRONMENT
| By 2018, reduce GHG emissions per tonne of nitrogen product by 5 percent from 2014 levels |
| By 2018, reduce environmental incidents by 40 percent from 2014 levels |
| By 2018, reduce water consumption per tonne of phosphate product by 10 percent from 2014 levels |
46 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
TAKING ACTION
Reducing our environmental impact
To ensure we are minimizing our environmental impact, we have increased our focus on engaging employees in four key environmental priorities. These are identifying and mitigating environmental hazards before every job, regularly stopping during jobs to check for new or missed environmental hazards, identifying and eliminating significant environmental hazards, and focused environmental leadership.
Elevating our environmental practices
We continue to identify, communicate and implement best practices at all our sites. We have developed and are implementing a series of environmental leading indicators to measure our current practices, with the goal of reducing our reportable environmental incidents. These indicators will focus on environmental professionals time in the field and environmental incident root-cause corrective actions.
Auditing and site assessments
To affirm our environmental excellence and compliance with regulatory requirements, we regularly conduct site assessments and audits of our operations. During the year, we developed an enhanced auditing program that will be used consistently at all our operating sites. This program will provide us with a better understanding of the severity of audit findings so we can improve environmental performance. Further, we have independent third-party environmental audits conducted biennially at each of our sites.
Reducing serious environmental incidents
We currently report our environmental incidents based on regulatory reporting requirements regardless of the nature or severity of the incident. While we want to prevent all environmental incidents, no matter how minor, our focus is increasingly on preventing serious incidents. We are developing an internal severity and consequences classification matrix to assist in classifying our reportable incidents.
91%
Water recycled
company-wide in 2016
(compared to total water use)
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 47 |
OUR RISK MANAGEMENT APPROACH
In line with our commitment to enhance the maturity of our risk management program, in 2016 we pursued improvements in each area of our risk management framework outlined on Page 28. Key activities included:
48 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
RISK PROFILE AND KEY RISKS
PotashCorp uses a risk management ranking methodology to assess the key risks specific to our company. Risks with A or B residual ranking are monitored closely and viewed as key risks, as are those for which we identify elevated changes within C, D or E residual ranking, with implications that could cause a deviation from the desired strategic results. We place a high priority on preserving and maintaining our reputation. Potential damage to our
reputation is a significant consequence we consider in our assessment of key risks and our related risk management approaches as outlined on Pages 50 to 55.
Our key risks, in terms of residual severity of consequence and likelihood, are displayed as follows:
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 49 |
Change in Risk Ranking from 2015 AIR: |
|
Stable |
|
Increased |
|
Decreased | ||||||||||||
Note: Brighter sections below indicate the strategic priority (Page 30) and nutrients/investments (Page 11) impacted by the risk. Faded sections mean the strategic priority and nutrients/investments are not significantly affected by the risk.
Risk: Extreme loss |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
B
|
Operational Excellence
Customer & Market Development
Safety, Health & Environmental Excellence
|
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
We may be subject to catastrophic events or malicious acts (including terrorism) involving our products, facilities or transportation, storage and distribution network. Like other companies with major mining and industrial facilities, in addition to cyber security risks, our operations may be impacted by catastrophic events (such as uncontrolled mine inflow, severe weather or extreme product transportation/storage mishaps) or be targets of terrorist activities (or other intentional acts of destruction). As a result, our facilities, or those of third parties on which we rely, could be damaged or destroyed, or employees, contractors and the public could suffer serious physical injury. Such events could also affect our sales or production and disrupt our supply chain, which may adversely impact financial results or reputation.
|
We have safety, health and security systems and processes that reflect best practice at each of our business locations. We have developed and use world-class geological technology and mining techniques to reduce the likelihood of encountering water-bearing areas and ground collapses in our potash mines. In addition, we have implemented business continuity plans and crisis management plans for each location. We maintain relations with reputable carriers in the transport of hazardous materials and employ effective risk transfer through contract terms and insurance coverage. | The scope for this risk has been revised and enhanced. The change in ranking results from applying likelihood and consequence criteria across this revised scope. |
Risk: Offshore potash sales and distribution |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
B
|
Operational Excellence
Customer & Market Development
|
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
Canpotex may be dissolved or its ability to operate impaired. We rely on Canpotex, our offshore marketing, transportation and distribution company, to deliver our potash to customers outside North America. Unexpected changes in laws or regulations, market or economic conditions, our (or our venture partners) businesses, or otherwise could threaten the existence of Canpotex. A trusted potash brand could be lost and our access to key offshore markets negatively impacted, resulting in a less efficient logistics system, decreased sales, higher costs or lower net earnings from offshore sales.
|
We engage directly with international customers to foster relationships with them, develop internal capacity to market and distribute products offshore and preserve access to Canpotex distribution facilities. |
Effective in 2016, our international customers historically
The proposed merger with Agrium is not expected to change our relationship with Canpotex. We are, and will remain, committed to Canpotex. |
50 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
Risk: Competitive supply |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
B
|
Portfolio & Return Optimization |
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
Competitors increases in fertilizer supply may outpace growth in world demand. Our competitors have undertaken, and may undertake in the future, expansion or greenfield projects to increase fertilizer production capability and may increase supply in response to market conditions or otherwise. If increases in supply outpace growth in world demand, this may lead to saturation in the market, a reduction in prices and declining capacity utilization rates, negatively affecting our financial performance.
|
We produce potash to meet market demand and strive to be a low-cost producer (on a delivered basis) into the key markets we serve. We develop and leverage logistical advantages, maintain operational flexibility and offer diversified product lines in all nutrients. We are committed to being exceptionally responsive to the needs of our customers through a focus on quality, reliability and service. | Competitive supply pressured prices in all three nutrients in 2016, and we expect additional competitive capacity to enter the market in the near term. While the impact of new supply eventually begins to lessen in weak pricing environments, during 2016 we mitigated new supply risk by making operational changes in potash and flexing our product and market diversification capabilities in nitrogen and phosphate. | ||||||||||||||
Risk: Global potash demand |
|
Associated Strategies: |
Associated Nutrients/Investments: |
|||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
B
|
Customer & Market Development |
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
Our estimates of future potash demand may prove to be overstated. Our customers decisions regarding the purchase of our products are affected by variable market, governmental, seasonal, foreign currency, other economic, weather, and other conditions, most of which are outside our control and can be difficult to accurately predict. Reductions in global potash demand could result in our return on investment and financial performance being lower than anticipated.
|
We produce potash to meet market demand, making necessary operational changes to maintain optimal operating flexibility and maximize long-term profitability. These activities may include reductions in workforce, and reducing, suspending or ceasing production at certain facilities. We also engage in market development, education, training and government relations initiatives to support long-term demand growth. | In 2016, we responded to challenging market conditions by taking inventory shutdowns at a number of our Saskatchewan mines, indefinitely suspending our Picadilly, New Brunswick operation and initiating operational changes at Cory. | ||||||||||||||
Risk: Cyber security |
|
Associated Strategies: |
Associated Nutrients/Investments: |
|||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
C
|
Operational Excellence Safety, Health & Environmental Excellence
|
K N P I |
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
Our information and operations technology systems are subject to cyber security risks. Targeted attacks on or breach of our systems by internal or external parties and exposure to potential computer viruses may expose employees, contractors or the public to extensive personal injury, while also leading to property damage, disruptions to our operations, loss of data or confidentiality loss for strategy data resulting in financial or reputational losses.
|
We have developed a cyber security strategy, policy and framework. We test our systems and build controls and mitigation plans at all sites. We monitor and participate in various industry forums directed at new or potential threats. | In 2016, we conducted a third-party cyber risk assessment. Efforts are underway to address findings from the assessment. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 51 |
Risk: Environment |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
C
|
Operational Excellence Safety, Health & Environmental Excellence
|
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
We may fail to protect the environment. Failure to prevent a significant environmental incident can be harmful to our employees, contractors and communities and impact the biodiversity, water resources and related ecosystems near our operations. Costs to comply with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be significant. Such matters could adversely impact our operations, financial performance or reputation.
Insurance coverage may not adequately cover environmental losses. If we were to incur significant liability for which we are not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
|
Safety of the environment is a core value for us and drives our proactive approach to meeting or exceeding compliance requirements. Environmental monitoring and control systems exist to measure and limit the impact on the natural environment, and we have third-party reviews conducted of our key containment structures. We stay abreast of and participate in regulatory developments affecting our operations through active membership in various industry associations. | No significant developments. Details of our environmental performance are discussed on Page 46. |
Risk: International operations and |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
non-operated investments
Risk Ranking:
C
|
Portfolio & Return Optimization Good Governance |
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
Our international operations and investments may be affected by political and regulatory regimes. Political and economic conditions, cultures and laws, combined with complex regulatory frameworks, may result in higher business risk in international jurisdictions. Such risks may lead to restrictions on monetary distributions, forced divestitures or changes to or nullification of existing agreements, mining permits or leases. Instability in political or regulatory regimes could cause volatility and impact our earnings growth or our reputation.
Non-operated investments may be affected by decisions of third parties. We hold a minority interest in several companies. Because we do not control these companies, we cannot ensure they will operate efficiently, pay dividends or manage their businesses in our best interests. As a result, these companies may contribute less than anticipated to our earnings and cash flow and may negatively impact our operations or our reputation. |
We have developed a comprehensive enterprise-wide investee management approach to guide our oversight of non-operated investments.
Where our ownership interest permits, we exercise operational oversight and provide governance direction. Page 11 includes details of strategic investments and our associated ownership levels and board representation.
In locales, where appropriate, we support our business objectives and protect our investments through a proactive public and government relations program. |
The arbitration proceedings between SQM and the Chilean government agency that leases certain significant mining rights to SQM are ongoing. | ||||||||||||||
52 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
Risk: Safety, health and security |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
C
|
Operational Excellence
Safety, Health & Environmental Excellence
|
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
We may fail to maintain high levels of safety and health or prevent/appropriately respond to a major security incident. The mining and industrial activities we engage in are inherently hazardous and we have personnel working or traveling in countries facing escalating tensions. Failure to prevent or appropriately respond to a safety, health or security incident could result in one or more incidents leading to injuries or fatalities among our employees, contractors and communities near our operations. Such incidents could also adversely impact our operations, financial performance or reputation.
Insurance coverage may not adequately cover safety, health and security losses. If we were to incur significant liability for which we are not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
|
Safety of our people is a core value for us. We have structured incident prevention and response systems to protect our employees, contractors and communities near our operations, and consistency in safety leadership development and technical training is a priority. Both leading and lagging indicators help us proactively monitor effectiveness. We have conducted security vulnerability assessments and developed protocols for employees working and traveling abroad. Crisis communication protocols and emergency response programs and personnel are in place in the event of a significant incident. | No significant developments. Details of our safety and health performance are discussed on Page 44. |
Risk: Stakeholder support for our business plans |
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | ||||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
C
|
|
Portfolio & Return Optimization
Stakeholder Communications & Engagement
|
K N P I
|
|||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
We may fail to gain the support of our stakeholders for our business plans. Underperformance due to weak market fundamentals or business issues, inadequate communication, engagement and/or collaboration with our stakeholders, or dissatisfaction with our practices or strategic direction may lead to a lack of support for our business plans. Loss of stakeholder confidence impairs our ability to execute on our business plans, and may also lead to reputational and financial losses, or shareholder action.
Further, the proposed merger with Agrium is subject to various regulatory approvals. Inability to obtain required approvals may result in the agreement not being completed or not completed in the manner contemplated. Uncertainty resulting from the Arrangement Agreement or delays in the completion may have negative impact on relations with key stakeholders such as our investors, customers, suppliers and employees. Without the approval of the regulators and support of other stakeholders, we may not realize the benefits from the proposed merger. |
We have regular and proactive engagement with our many stakeholders to identify and address their concerns. We proactively communicate the long-term value opportunities associated with our business plans and our capital allocation priorities, including the proposed merger. We are actively supporting the regulatory review process in connection with the proposed merger. |
With anticipated benefits associated with the proposed merger being subject to economic conditions at closing and requisite approvals yet to be obtained, we now include this as a key risk. The overall risk ranking remained a C. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 53 |
Risk: Sustaining growth |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
C
|
Portfolio & Return Optimization |
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
Our opportunities to strategically reinvest available capital may be limited or we may be unable to achieve the expected benefits of selected growth initiatives. Various factors may limit our investment opportunities, including geopolitical, market or other reasons. Certain provisions in the Arrangement Agreement with Agrium may restrict our ability to take certain corporate actions or pursue alternatives to the arrangement. Furthermore, as we undertake growth initiatives, including the Proposed Transaction, inability to optimally prepare or execute on business strategies may limit the realization of benefits from our investments. Such restrictions on investments or our failure to prepare and execute on the investment initiatives could negatively affect our growth. |
We have focused our internal capabilities on the development of a strong project management structure for all significant initiatives, while maintaining relationships with external advisory firms when additional expertise is required.
We regularly evaluate all strategic opportunities. With respect to the proposed merger with Agrium, we have instituted a governance structure to guide and support integration efforts. A steering committee oversees all activities and provides direction to the integration management office (IMO) led by the chief integration officer. The IMO will manage the integration efforts and will be supported by integration teams from various business/functional units. These efforts will be further supported by a team of external advisors specializing in integration services. |
As a result of the proposed merger with Agrium, we have expanded the scope of this risk to include preparedness and execution considerations. The revised scope was considered but did not result in a change to our overall risk ranking. |
Risk: Trinidad natural gas supply |
|
Associated Strategies: |
Associated Nutrients/Investments: |
|||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
C
|
Portfolio & Return Optimization Operational Excellence
|
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
In Trinidad, supply of natural gas, a key raw material for the manufacture of our nitrogen products, may continue to be curtailed. Due to decreased investment by the energy industry in exploration, development and major maintenance activities, we continue to experience curtailments in our natural gas supply. Prolonged interruption of our supply could result in loss of nitrogen production, adversely affecting our financial performance or reputation.
|
While changes in government policy in Trinidad are intended to support natural gas exploration and development, we continue to expect similar curtailments of natural gas supply for the coming years. As backup for our Trinidad ammonia customers, we maintain operational flexibility in our US plants. |
The Government of Trinidad and Tobago expects projects scheduled to start up in 2017 to offset any further decline
|
54 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Value Creation
|
Risk: Realization of asset values |
|
Associated Strategies: | Associated Nutrients/Investments: | |||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
D
|
Portfolio & Return Optimization |
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
We may not be able to recover all or a portion of our investment in assets. Changes in market conditions or industry structures, commodity prices, tax rates, technical operating difficulties, inability to recover our mineral reserves or increased operating cost levels relative to lower-cost facilities could result in reduced asset values, requiring financial writedowns that adversely impact our financial results.
|
We seek to optimize returns across our portfolio by enhancing our top-tier assets, including our strategic investments, following a time-tested potash strategy and remaining focused on our competitive cost position.
|
The effects of weaker growth in emerging markets and currency volatility placed significant pressure on global commodities.
During 2016, we recorded impairments of $47 million in the phosphate segment. Refer to Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements for further details. |
Risk: Capital management |
|
Associated Strategies: |
Associated Nutrients/Investments: |
|||||||||||||
Risk Ranking:
D
|
Portfolio & Return Optimization Operational Excellence Stakeholder Communications & Engagement
|
K N P I
|
||||||||||||||
Description and Context
|
Risk Management Approach
|
Developments
|
||||||||||||||
We may allocate our capital in an inefficient manner or be unable to access capital on a cost-effective or timely basis. Challenges arise in the capital allocation process due to changing market conditions and our ability to anticipate and incorporate such changes in our decision support. Inefficiencies in the capital allocation process or decisions that are not consistent with strategic priorities or that do not properly assess risk may also lead to inefficient deployment of capital. Access to and cost of capital may be affected by: general and industry-specific market and economic conditions impacting our ability to generate cash flows; adverse conditions in the credit markets; or restrictions on our ability to repatriate cash offshore. Failure to allocate capital in an efficient manner may lead to reduced returns on capital invested, operational inefficiencies, damage to our reputation and access to capital becoming more limited. Inability to access capital on a cost-effective basis may result in a loss of liquidity, increase in the cost of capital or inability to execute on value-added transactions requiring significant capital. |
We allocate our capital in a manner that is consistent with our strategic priorities. We employ a governance process for all capital allocation decisions and incorporate risk-related factors in those decisions. We ensure access to cost-effective capital by following a capital allocation strategy that is designed to maintain our investment-grade credit rating, and we have sufficient committed loan facilities to meet our current business needs. |
During 2016, we reduced our quarterly dividend and tightened our capital spending plans to remain consistent with our capital allocation strategy.
In December 2016, we issued $500 million of 4.00 percent notes due December 15, 2026.
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 55 |
Nutrient
Performance
More plentiful corn yields are possible with crop nutrients from PotashCorp.
58 | ||||
64 | ||||
69 |
YEAR IN REVIEW
First-half demand deferrals contributed to pricing pressure; fundamentals improved in the second half
Elevated potash inventories and delayed settlements in key contract markets led to cautious buyer behavior and limited shipments during the first half of 2016. This weaker demand environment put substantial downward pressure on prices in all key markets.
Potash demand improved significantly in the second half following the settlement of contracts with buyers in China and India. Along with increased shipments to key contract markets, demand in Latin America and Southeast Asia accelerated due to supportive crop economics and lower potash inventories. In North America, farmers increased application rates in response to strong affordability and a significant need to replenish soil nutrients. Amid improved market fundamentals, spot prices rose in the second half from the lows experienced earlier in the year.
We estimate global potash deliveries were approximately 60 million tonnes in 2016, down slightly from the previous year. Importantly, farm-level consumption was strong and inventories at both the producer and distributor levels in many regions ended 2016 lower than in 2015.
Weaker prices were the primary contributor to lower gross margin compared to 2015. Our sales volumes of 8.6 million tonnes trailed the 8.8 million tonnes sold in the previous year, with an increase in domestic sales more than offset by a reduction in offshore shipments.
OUTLOOK
Improved affordability and lower inventories expected to support increased demand
We expect strong affordability and agronomic need will support potash fertilizer consumption growth of approximately 3 percent in 2017. Along with lower dealer inventories to begin the year, we anticipate global shipments between 61 million and 64 million tonnes, with growth occurring in nearly all markets.
As we have seen in previous years, demand typically rebounds after a year of later-than-normal contract settlements, and we expect 2017 to be no exception. With lower nutrient retail prices and strong agronomic need in India, reduced inventory levels in China and robust palm oil economics expected to support demand in Other Asian countries, we anticipate meaningfully higher shipments to these standard-grade markets.
In Latin America, favorable crop economics are expected to support strong shipments as we continue to see growing consumption driven by acreage expansion and higher application rates. In North America, fertilizer presents a compelling value proposition, and the need to replenish nutrients following a record harvest is expected to support demand.
In this environment, we expect potash sales volumes in the range of 8.7-9.4 million tonnes and gross margin between $550 million and $800 million.
58 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Nutrient Performance
|
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Dollars (millions) | % Change | Tonnes (thousands) | % Change | Average per Tonne 1 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net sales |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
North America |
$ 589 | $ 825 | $ 1,162 | (29 | ) | (29 | ) | 3,367 | 2,591 | 3,549 | 30 | (27 | ) | $ 175 | $ 318 | $ 328 | (45 | ) | (3 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Offshore |
781 | 1,487 | 1,354 | (47 | ) | 10 | 5,277 | 6,181 | 5,797 | (15 | ) | 7 | $ 148 | $ 241 | $ 234 | (39 | ) | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,370 | 2,312 | 2,516 | (41 | ) | (8 | ) | 8,644 | 8,772 | 9,346 | (1 | ) | (6 | ) | $ 158 | $ 263 | $ 269 | (40 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold |
(913 | ) | (977 | ) | (1,060 | ) | (7 | ) | (8 | ) | $ (105 | ) | $ (111 | ) | $ (113 | ) | (5 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
457 | 1,335 | 1,456 | (66 | ) | (8 | ) | $ 53 | $ 152 | $ 156 | (65 | ) | (3 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other miscellaneous and purchased product gross margin 2 |
(20 | ) | (13 | ) | (21 | ) | 54 | (38 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin |
$ 437 | $ 1,322 | $ 1,435 | (67 | ) | (8 | ) | $ 51 | $ 151 | $ 154 | (66 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Rounding differences may occur due to the use of whole dollars in per-tonne calculations.
2 Comprised of net sales $10 million (2015 $17 million, 2014 $21 million) less cost of goods sold $30 million (2015 $30 million, 2014 $42 million).
FS |
Note 3 |
2016 vs 2015 | 2015 vs 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change in Prices/Costs |
Change in Prices/Costs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dollars (millions) |
Change in
Sales Volumes |
Net Sales |
Cost of
Goods Sold |
Total |
Change in
Sales Volumes |
Net Sales |
Cost of
Goods Sold |
Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
North America |
$ 161 | $ (481 | ) | $ (23 | ) | $ (343 | ) | $ (237 | ) | $ (25 | ) | $ 47 | $ (215 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
Offshore |
(134 | ) | (489 | ) | 88 | (535 | ) | 60 | 43 | (9 | ) | 94 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Change in market mix |
(64 | ) | 63 | 1 | | 65 | (68 | ) | 3 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total manufactured product |
$ (37 | ) | $ (907 | ) | $ 66 | $ (878 | ) | $ (112 | ) | $ (50 | ) | $ 41 | $ (121 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
Other miscellaneous and purchased product |
(7 | ) | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
$ (885 | ) | $ (113 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 59 |
Sales to major offshore markets were as follows:
By Canpotex | From New Brunswick | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percentage of Annual Sales Volumes | % Change | Percentage of Annual Sales Volumes | % Change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 2 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 2 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
China |
16 | 20 | 16 | (20 | ) | 25 | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
India |
9 | 9 | 10 | | (10 | ) | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other Asian markets 1 |
36 | 34 | 41 | 6 | (17 | ) | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Latin America |
33 | 30 | 26 | 10 | 15 | 100 | 100 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other markets |
6 | 7 | 7 | (14 | ) | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
1 All Asian markets except China and India.
2 Our international customers were served by New Brunswick through 2015 and have since been served through Canpotex.
The most significant contributors to the change in total gross margin were as follows (direction of arrows refers to impact on gross margin):
60 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Nutrient Performance
|
Sales Volumes | Net Sales Prices | Cost of Goods Sold | ||||||||||
2015 vs 2014 | Ú | North American sales volumes declined due to lower fertilizer demand (caused in part by weather-related issues and cautiousness of buyers) and increased competitor supply. | Ú | North American prices fell mainly due to lower crop prices, slower demand and increased competitive pressures. |
Ù
Ú |
The Canadian dollar weakened relative to the US dollar.
Shutdown weeks were higher in 2015 (28 weeks) compared to 2014 (18 weeks). |
||||||
Ù |
Higher shipments to offshore markets in the first nine months of 2015, due to strong demand and increased Canpotex shipments to China, India and Latin America, were partially offset by weak demand the result of buyer caution in the fourth quarter of 2015.
|
Ù |
Offshore prices rose primarily due to increased contract prices in China and India. |
Ù
Ú |
North American cost of goods sold variance was positive as a relatively higher percentage of products produced at lower-cost mines, or using lower-cost processes, was sold.
Offshore cost of goods sold variance was negative due to more of that product coming from our higher-cost mines as compared to 2014. |
|||||||
The change in market mix produced a favorable variance of $65 million related to sales volumes and an unfavorable variance of $68 million in net sales prices, due primarily to less higher-priced granular product being sold to North America. |
North America typically consumes more higher-priced granular product than standard product.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 61 |
NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Production was down in 2016 due to the indefinite suspension of our Picadilly potash operations in response to decreased offshore demand. |
In 2016, there were 47 recordable injuries and two lost-time injuries. In 2015 there were 77 recordable injuries and five lost-time injuries. The decrease in injury rates between years was partially offset by fewer hours worked in 2016 compared to 2015.
In 2015, the total lost-time injury rate decreased mainly due to four lost-time injuries occurring in 2015, compared to seven in 2014. |
Based on the companys definition of employee turnover rate, announced workforce reductions are excluded. In 2016, we suspended our Picadilly potash operations, impacting 443 employees. Changes announced at Cory in late 2016 will impact approximately 100 employees starting in 2017. Workforce reductions in 2014 affected 545 people.
New collective bargaining agreements at our Allan, Cory, Lanigan and Patience Lake sites were signed in the fourth quarter of 2015. The Lanigan agreement extends through January 2018 while the remaining agreements extend through April 2019.
In 2016, nearly all employees benefited from enhancements to technical training, supported by a new learning management system and strategy to create consistency in training across all sites. Leadership training on our core competencies and safety engagement continued to be a focus for more than 500 employees in 2016 and 2015 (2014 200 employees). |
In 2016, we experienced six incidents: two potash spills, a brine spill, an oil spill, a release of suspended solids into a river, and a non-compliance for partially filling a wetland. In 2015, environmental incidents included brine spills and a minor propane gas release. In 2014, environmental incidents primarily related to brine spills. The decrease from 2014 to 2015 is partially attributable to a focus on trying to reduce high-density polyethylene pipe failures that resulted in spills in 2014.
2016 vs 2015 less waste was produced during manufacturing due to lower potash production.
2015 vs 2014 more waste was produced due to higher production. |
|||
COMMUNITY HIGHLIGHTS
In 2016, 2015 and 2014, our continued career information efforts reached more than 10,000 Aboriginal people. In 2016, more than 15 percent of new employees were self-identified Aboriginal applicants (2015 6 percent and 2014 4 percent). We continue to leverage our community investments to support programs and services that benefit Aboriginal people in Saskatchewan.
MINERAL RESERVES 1
(millions of tonnes of estimated recoverable ore) 2
All Potash Locations 3 | Proven | Probable | Total |
Years of Remaining Mine Life |
||||||||||||
As at December 31, 2016 |
628 | 1,128 | 1,756 | 29 69 | ||||||||||||
1 | For a more complete discussion of important information related to our potash reserves, see Potash Operations Reserves in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016. |
2 | Average grade % K 2 O equivalent of 20.4-25.0. |
3 | Given the characteristics of the solution mining method at Patience Lake, those results are excluded from the above table as it is not possible to estimate reliably the recoverable ore reserve. |
10K | Page 6 Potash Operations Reserves |
62 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Nutrient Performance
|
POTASH PRODUCTION
(million tonnes KCl)
Nameplate Capacity 1 |
Operational
Capability (2017) 2 |
Operational
Capability (2016) 2 |
Production
|
Employees (December 31, 2016) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lanigan SK 3 |
3.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.03 | 1.83 | 1.68 | 411 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rocanville SK |
6.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 2.72 | 2.48 | 2.49 | 751 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allan SK |
4.0 | 2.0 | 2.6 | 2.38 | 2.38 | 2.47 | 605 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cory SK 3 |
3.0 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.24 | 1.51 | 1.18 | 449 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Patience Lake SK |
0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 81 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Brunswick 4 |
2.0 | | | | 0.65 | 0.61 | 34 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
19.1 | 10.1 | 9.3 | 8.60 | 9.11 | 8.73 | 2,331 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Represents estimates of capacity as at December 31, 2016. Estimates based on capacity as per design specifications or Canpotex entitlements once determined. In the case of New Brunswick, nameplate capacity represents design specifications for the Picadilly mine, which is currently in care-and-maintenance mode. In the case of Patience Lake, estimate reflects current operational capability. Estimates for all other facilities do not necessarily represent operational capability. |
2 | Estimated annual achievable production level at current staffing and operational readiness (estimated at beginning of year). Estimate does not include inventory-related shutdowns and unplanned downtime. |
3 | In November 2016, the company announced operational changes at Cory to produce only white potash, with an expected operational capability of approximately 0.8 million tonnes per year; these operational changes will be fully completed in the third quarter of 2017. Potential exists to reach previous operational capability with increased staffing and operational ramp-up, although timing is uncertain. |
4 | In November 2015, the Penobsquis, New Brunswick mine was permanently closed. In January 2016, the company indefinitely suspended its Picadilly, New Brunswick potash operations, which are currently in care-and-maintenance mode. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 63 |
YEAR IN REVIEW
Prices impacted by lower energy costs and increased supply
Nitrogen prices were pressured through most of the year by lower global energy costs and increased supply including in North America, where several new projects began ramping up.
In ammonia, increased global supply and weaker demand for certain downstream industrial and phosphate products weighed on market fundamentals. After reaching historical lows, prices recovered late in the year on tightening supply conditions, including significant curtailments in Russia and plant turnaround and gas availability issues in other key exporting regions.
Similar to ammonia, increased global supply and reduced import demand from the US and India led to weaker urea fundamentals and prices through much of the year. Chinese exports declined by 36 percent compared to the previous year, most notably through the second half as rising energy costs, weak export economics and environmental policy changes resulted in a sharp reduction in operating rates. This reduction, combined with seasonally strong buying patterns, provided pricing support in the second half of the year.
In this environment, our nitrogen gross margin of $361 million fell short of the $706 million realized in 2015. While our cost of goods sold benefited from lower natural gas costs, the impact was more than offset by significantly weaker prices for all our products. We sold 6.4 million product tonnes during the year, up from 5.9 million tonnes sold in 2015, reflecting a full year of increased production at our expanded Lima facility.
OUTLOOK
New capacity could impact prices in the second half
We anticipate nitrogen demand growth of approximately 2 percent in 2017. Tighter supply and seasonally strong demand are expected to support nitrogen markets early in 2017. However, we expect continued market volatility especially in the second half of the year as new capacity is added, trade flows adjust and production economics fluctuate.
Many completed projects in the US are just now starting to produce at commercial levels, and we expect these plants will continue to reduce offshore imports into the US. In this environment, we expect the sharp rise in pricing experienced early in 2017 could abate, although changing energy costs and urea export levels out of China will remain key variables to watch.
We anticipate modestly higher energy prices to increase the global nitrogen cost profile. While we expect US gas costs to stay advantaged, we anticipate a lower price environment could keep gross margin below 2016 levels.
64 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Nutrient Performance
|
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Dollars (millions) | % Change | Tonnes (thousands) | % Change | Average per Tonne 1 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured product 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net sales |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ammonia |
$ | 612 | $ | 978 | $ | 1,260 | (37 | ) | (22 | ) | 2,197 | 2,228 | 2,428 | (1 | ) | (8 | ) | $ | 278 | $ | 439 | $ | 519 | (37 | ) | (15 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Urea |
297 | 362 | 439 | (18 | ) | (18 | ) | 1,161 | 1,048 | 1,049 | 11 | | $ | 256 | $ | 346 | $ | 418 | (26 | ) | (17 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Solutions, nitric acid,
|
477 | 567 | 679 | (16 | ) | (16 | ) | 3,015 | 2,650 | 2,875 | 14 | (8 | ) | $ | 158 | $ | 214 | $ | 236 | (26 | ) | (9 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,386 | 1,907 | 2,378 | (27 | ) | (20 | ) | 6,373 | 5,926 | 6,352 | 8 | (7 | ) | $ | 217 | $ | 322 | $ | 374 | (33 | ) | (14 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold |
(1,041 | ) | (1,219 | ) | (1,383 | ) | (15 | ) | (12 | ) | $ | (163 | ) | $ | (206 | ) | $ | (218 | ) | (21 | ) | (6 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
345 | 688 | 995 | (50 | ) | (31 | ) | $ | 54 | $ | 116 | $ | 156 | (53 | ) | (26 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other miscellaneous and
|
16 | 18 | 15 | (11 | ) | 20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin |
$ | 361 | $ | 706 | $ | 1,010 | (49 | ) | (30 | ) | $ | 57 | $ | 119 | $ | 159 | (52 | ) | (25 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Rounding differences may occur due to the use of whole dollars in per-tonne calculations. |
2 | Includes inter-segment ammonia sales, comprised of net sales $61 million, cost of goods sold $30 million and 160,000 sales tonnes (2015 net sales $86 million, cost of goods sold $30 million and 161,000 sales tonnes, 2014 net sales $101 million, cost of goods sold $42 million and 170,000 sales tonnes). Inter-segment profits are eliminated on consolidation. |
3 | Comprised of third-party and inter-segment sales, including third-party net sales $20 million less cost of goods sold $5 million (2015 net sales $38 million less cost of goods sold $21 million, 2014 net sales $31 million less cost of goods sold $16 million) and inter-segment net sales $1 million less cost of goods sold $NIL (2015 net sales $1 million less cost of goods sold $NIL, 2014 net sales $6 million less cost of goods sold $6 million). Inter-segment profits are eliminated on consolidation. |
FS |
Note 3 |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 65 |
2016 vs 2015 | 2015 vs 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change in Prices/Costs |
Change in Prices/Costs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dollars (millions) |
Change in
Sales Volumes |
Net Sales |
Cost of
Goods Sold |
Total |
Change in
Sales Volumes |
Net Sales |
Cost of Goods Sold |
Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ammonia |
$ | (5 | ) | $ | (353 | ) | $ | 155 | $ | (203 | ) | $ | (46 | ) | $ | (180 | ) | $ | 72 | $ | (154 | ) | ||||||||||
Urea |
12 | (103 | ) | 40 | (51 | ) | 2 | (76 | ) | 25 | (49 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Solutions, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate |
29 | (161 | ) | 32 | (100 | ) | (18 | ) | (59 | ) | 17 | (60 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
Hedge |
| | 11 | 11 | | | (44 | ) | (44 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Change in product mix |
48 | (48 | ) | | | (4 | ) | 4 | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total manufactured product |
$ | 84 | $ | (665 | ) | $ | 238 | $ | (343 | ) | $ | (66 | ) | $ | (311 | ) | $ | 70 | $ | (307 | ) | |||||||||||
Other miscellaneous and purchased product |
(2 | ) | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
$ | (345 | ) | $ | (304 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sales Tonnes (thousands) | % Change | Average Net Sales Price per Tonne | % Change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fertilizer |
2,455 | 1,989 | 2,079 | 23 | (4 | ) | $ | 216 | $ | 321 | $ | 374 | (33 | ) | (14 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Industrial and feed |
3,918 | 3,937 | 4,273 | | (8 | ) | $ | 218 | $ | 323 | $ | 374 | (33 | ) | (14 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6,373 | 5,926 | 6,352 | 8 | (7 | ) | $ | 217 | $ | 322 | $ | 374 | (33 | ) | (14 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The most significant contributors to the change in total gross margin were as follows (direction of arrows refers to impact on gross margin):
66 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Nutrient Performance
|
NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Changes to nitrogen production are not considered significant. |
There were 11 recordable injuries, including three lost-time injuries, in 2016 compared to 14 recordable injuries and two lost-time injuries in 2015.
In 2015, there were 14 recordable injuries compared to 17 in 2014. The total lost-time injury rate increased from 2014 to 2015 mainly due to two lost-time injuries occurring in 2015 compared to one in 2014. |
Employee turnover fell as departures decreased to 21 in 2016 compared to 27 in 2015. Based on the companys definition of employee turnover rate, announced workforce reductions are excluded. Workforce reductions in 2014 affected 21 people.
In 2016, nearly all employees benefited from enhancements to technical training, supported by a new learning management system and strategy to create consistency in training across all sites. Leadership training on our core competencies and safety engagement continued to be a focus for more than 250 employees in 2016 (2015 and 2014 more than 200 employees). |
The seven incidents in 2016 consisted of four ammonia releases, a urea release, a hydrogen fluoride release exceedance and a NOx/nitric acid release. Environmental incidents in 2015 consisted of six ammonia releases.
There were no significant changes in environmental incidents from 2014 to 2015. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 67 |
NITROGEN PRODUCTION
(million tonnes product)
Ammonia | Urea | Solutions, Nitric Acid, Ammonium Nitrate | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Employees
(December 31, 2016) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trinidad |
2.2 | 1.96 | 2.01 | 2.03 | 0.7 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.44 | | | | | 366 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Augusta GA |
0.8 | 0.69 | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.5 | 0.27 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 3.0 | 2.15 | 2.18 | 2.42 | 158 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lima OH |
0.7 | 0.65 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.4 | 0.34 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 0.9 | 0.81 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 157 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geismar LA |
0.5 | 0.53 | 0.49 | 0.53 | | | | | 2.5 | 1.94 | 1.61 | 1.71 | 142 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
4.2 | 3.83 | 3.75 | 3.86 | 1.6 | 1.22 | 1.12 | 1.04 | 6.4 | 4.90 | 4.42 | 4.77 | 823 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
YEAR IN REVIEW
Weaker Indian demand and increased global supply more than offset reduced Chinese exports
Global phosphate markets were challenged in 2016. In India, the worlds largest importer of phosphate products, demand slowed due to uncertainty surrounding fertilizer policy and increased domestic production. In addition, pricing for solid fertilizer products eroded through much of the year on lower ammonia and sulfur feedstock costs and increased competitive pressures from new capacity in Morocco. This combination more than offset reduced Chinese solid phosphate exports.
Tighter supply for feed, industrial and liquid fertilizer products supported more stable demand and prices relative to solid fertilizers through much of 2016. However, liquid fertilizer and feed prices declined more significantly in the second half as markets adjusted to the deterioration in prices for solid fertilizer products earlier in the year, in addition to the impact of increased competition.
In this environment, our phosphate gross margin of $32 million was well below 2015. While our cost of goods sold benefited from lower input prices, the impact was more than offset by significantly weaker realizations and impairment charges. During the year we sold 2.7 million product tonnes, slightly below our previous year total.
OUTLOOK
New supply expected to keep markets subdued
While we expect healthy demand growth of nearly 2 percent in 2017 and potential for seasonal strength, phosphate markets could remain subdued due to strong competitive pressure.
We expect a reduction in Chinese solid phosphate exports as environmental and economic conditions put pressure on its higher-cost producers, although we expect this decrease will largely be offset by new capacity in Morocco and a project in Saudi Arabia anticipated to come online late in 2017. The level of supply from these sources, along with the potential for variability in ammonia and sulfur input costs, will remain key factors to watch through 2017.
Similar to the second half of 2016, we anticipate pressure on liquid fertilizers and feed as markets adjust to the decline in solid phosphate fertilizer prices and increased supply.
Nutrient Performance
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 69 |
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
Dollars (millions) | % Change | Tonnes (thousands) | % Change | Average per Tonne 1 | % Change | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net sales |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fertilizer |
$ | 622 | $ | 827 | $ | 889 | (25 | ) | (7 | ) | 1,720 | 1,713 | 1,987 | | (14 | ) | $ | 362 | $ | 483 | $ | 447 | (25 | ) | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Feed and Industrial |
569 | 727 | 713 | (22 | ) | 2 | 993 | 1,137 | 1,155 | (13 | ) | (2 | ) | $ | 573 | $ | 640 | $ | 617 | (10 | ) | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1,191 | 1,554 | 1,602 | (23 | ) | (3 | ) | 2,713 | 2,850 | 3,142 | (5 | ) | (9 | ) | $ | 439 | $ | 545 | $ | 510 | (19 | ) | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold |
(1,161 | ) | (1,320 | ) | (1,409 | ) | (12 | ) | (6 | ) | $ | (428 | ) | $ | (463 | ) | $ | (448 | ) | (8 | ) | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
30 | 234 | 193 | (87 | ) | 21 | $ | 11 | $ | 82 | $ | 62 | (87 | ) | 32 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other miscellaneous and purchased product gross margin 2 |
2 | 7 | 9 | (71 | ) | (22 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross Margin |
$ | 32 | $ | 241 | $ | 202 | (87 | ) | 19 | $ | 12 | $ | 85 | $ | 64 | (86 | ) | 33 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Rounding differences may occur due to the use of whole dollars in per-tonne calculations.
2 Comprised of net sales $5 million (2015 $49 million, 2014 $59 million) less cost of goods sold $3 million (2015 $42 million, 2014 $50 million).
FS |
Note 3 |
2016 vs 2015 | 2015 vs 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change in Prices/Costs |
Change in Prices/Costs |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dollars (millions) |
Change in
Sales Volumes |
Net Sales |
Cost of
Goods Sold |
Total |
Change in
Sales Volumes |
Net Sales |
Cost of
Goods Sold |
Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fertilizer |
$ | 1 | $ | (208 | ) | $ | 114 | $ | (93 | ) | $ | (27 | ) | $ | 60 | $ | 26 | $ | 59 | |||||||||||||
Feed and industrial |
(19 | ) | (72 | ) | (20 | ) | (111 | ) | | 26 | (44 | ) | (18 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
Change in product mix |
3 | (8 | ) | 5 | | (17 | ) | 16 | 1 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total manufactured product |
$ | (15 | ) | $ | (288 | ) | $ | 99 | $ | (204 | ) | $ | (44 | ) | $ | 102 | $ | (17 | ) | $ | 41 | |||||||||||
Other miscellaneous and purchased product |
(5 | ) | (2 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
$ | (209 | ) | $ | 39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
70 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Nutrient Performance
|
The most significant contributors to the change in total gross margin were as follows (direction of arrows refers to impact on gross margin while ● symbol is neutral):
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 71 |
NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
|
||||||
Production fell in response to decreased demand for feed and liquid products. |
In 2016, there were 28 recordable injuries compared to 24 in 2015. Combined with slightly more hours worked in 2016, a slightly higher recordable injury frequency resulted. There were three lost-time injuries in 2016 compared to five in 2015.
Sadly, a workplace accident resulted in a fatality at our White Springs operation during the first quarter of 2015.
The total lost-time injury rate increased from 2014 to 2015 mainly due to five lost-time injuries occurring in 2015 compared to two in 2014.
|
There were no significant changes from 2015 to 2016. Based on the companys definition of employee turnover rate, announced workforce reductions are excluded. Workforce reductions in 2014 affected 441 people.
In 2016, nearly all employees benefited from enhancements to technical training, supported by a new learning management system and strategy to create consistency in training across all sites. Leadership training on our core competencies and safety engagement continued to be a focus for nearly 300 employees in 2016 and 2015 (2014 more than 180 employees). |
In 2016, four incidents related to a total suspended solids release to waste water, an ammonia release, exceedance of a mercury air emission limit, and a pH exceedance.
Environmental incidents in 2015 primarily related to permit exceedances for total suspended solids in water and air emission stack test exceedances. Environmental incidents in 2014 included releases of oil, phosphoric acid and sulfuric acid and a permit exceedance.
Water consumption rose from 2015 to 2016 due in large part to drought at our White Springs facility which recycles rainwater into the process. In late 2016, we started a new water recycling project to help achieve our annual water reduction targets. |
PHOSPHATE ROCK RESERVES
(millions of estimated tonnes stated average grade 30.66% P 2 O 5 )
As at December 31, 2016 | Proven | Probable | Total |
Average Estimated Years of Remaining Mine Life |
||||||||||||
Aurora, NC 1 |
75.2 | 7.8 | 83.0 | 20 | ||||||||||||
White Springs, FL 2 |
23.8 | | 23.8 | 13 | ||||||||||||
Total |
99.0 | 7.8 | 106.8 | 3 | ||||||||||||
1 |
Page 10 Phosphate Operations Reserves |
1 | The reserves set forth for Aurora would permit mining to continue at annual production rates for about 20 years, based on an average annual production rate of approximately 4.15 million tonnes of 30.66% concentrate over the three-year period ended December 31, 2016. If mineral deposits covered by the permit at Aurora, and now reclassified as resources, are included, the mine life at Aurora would be about 37 years at such rate of production. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. |
2 | The reserves set forth for White Springs would permit mining to continue at annual production rates for about 13 years, based on an average annual production rate of approximately 1.86 million tonnes of 30.66% concentrate over the three-year period ended December 31, 2016. With the closure of the Suwannee River chemical plant, we forecast a mine life of approximately 14 years based on an average forecast annual production rate of approximately 1.66 million tonnes of 30.66% concentrate. This mine life is calculated using two years (2015 and 2016) of actual production and one year of budgeted production (2017). |
3 | Includes 55.3 million tonnes proven reserves and 6.8 million tonnes probable reserves to be permitted. |
72 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Nutrient Performance
|
PHOSPHATE PRODUCTION
(million tonnes) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate Rock | Phosphoric Acid (P 2 O 5 ) | Liquid Products | Solid Fertilizer Products | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Employees
(December 31, 2016) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aurora NC |
5.4 | 1 | 4.92 | 5.04 | 4.35 | 1.2 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.00 | 2.7 | 2.01 | 1.81 | 1.97 | 0.8 | 1 | 0.73 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 852 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
White Springs FL |
3.6 | 1.73 | 1.90 | 2.00 | 0.5 | 0.37 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0.7 | 2 | 0.49 | 0.63 | 0.61 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.01 | | 0.21 | 521 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Geismar LA |
| | | | 0.2 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.20 | | | | | 32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
9.0 | 6.65 | 6.94 | 6.35 | 1.9 | 1.51 | 1.61 | 1.67 |
1 Revised capacity estimates based on review completed in 2016.
2 Represents annual superphosphoric acid capacity. A substantial portion is consumed internally in the production of downstream products. The balance is exported to phosphate fertilizer producers and sold domestically to dealers who custom-mix liquid fertilizer.
3 Restarted MAP plant during 2016, which had been closed in 2014.
4 Production primarily relates to industrial.
PURIFIED ACID AND PHOSPHATE FEED PRODUCTION
(million tonnes) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Annual
Capacity |
2016 |
Production
2015 |
2014 |
Employees
(December 31, 2016) |
||||||||||||||||
Purified acid (P 2 O 5 ) |
0.3 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.24 | n/a | |||||||||||||||
Phosphate feed production |
0.8 | 0.31 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 99 | 1 |
1 19 of these employees are located at Aurora NC.
n/a = not applicable as employees are already included in above employee numbers.
In addition to the above employees at December 31, 2016, 10 employees were located at Cincinnati OH and one at Newgulf TX.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 73 |
Choices abound in this Indian market, made possible thanks to a fruitful harvest.
76 | ||||
77 | ||||
78 | ||||
80 | ||||
81 | ||||
83 | ||||
84 | ||||
87 | ||||
88 | ||||
90 |
We report our results (including gross margin) in three business segments: potash, nitrogen and phosphate reflecting how we manage our business, plan our operations and measure performance.
Net sales 1 (and the related per-tonne amounts), as a component of gross margin, are:
| the primary revenue measures we use and review to make decisions about operating matters; |
| included in assessments of potash, nitrogen and phosphate performance and the resources to be allocated to these segments; |
| used for business planning and monthly forecasting; |
| calculated as sales revenues less freight, transportation and distribution expenses; and |
| also referred to as realized prices. |
FS |
Note 3 for our operating segments |
1 | Included in our segment disclosures in the consolidated financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IFRS), which require segmentation based upon our internal organization and reporting of revenue and profit measures. |
The direction of the arrows in the table below refers to effect on earnings per share (EPS).
Effect on EPS | ||||||||
2016 EPS Compared
to Initial Guidance |
2016 EPS Compared
to 2015 Actual |
|||||||
Initial midpoint estimate for 2016 EPS 1 |
$ 1.05 | |||||||
EPS for 2015 |
$ 1.52 | |||||||
Potash realized prices |
(0.37 | ) | (0.85 | ) | ||||
Potash sales volumes |
(0.01 | ) | | |||||
Share of Canpotexs Prince Rupert exit costs |
(0.02 | ) | (0.02 | ) | ||||
Termination benefit costs 2 |
(0.03 | ) | (0.03 | ) | ||||
Potash costs due to foreign exchange |
(0.02 | ) | 0.04 | |||||
Provincial mining taxes 3 |
0.08 | 0.16 | ||||||
Other potash costs |
0.02 | 0.08 | ||||||
Subtotal potash |
Ú | (0.35 | ) | Ú | (0.62 | ) | ||
Nitrogen realized prices |
(0.25 | ) | (0.58 | ) | ||||
Nitrogen sales volumes |
(0.02 | ) | 0.05 | |||||
Natural gas costs |
0.07 | 0.20 | ||||||
Hedge loss and other nitrogen costs |
0.03 | 0.03 | ||||||
Subtotal nitrogen |
Ú | (0.17 | ) | Ú | (0.30 | ) | ||
Phosphate realized prices |
(0.12 | ) | (0.25 | ) | ||||
Phosphate sales volumes |
(0.03 | ) | (0.01 | ) | ||||
Ammonia, sulfur and rock costs |
0.03 | 0.09 | ||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment |
(0.06 | ) | (0.06 | ) | ||||
Other phosphate costs |
(0.04 | ) | 0.04 | |||||
Subtotal phosphate |
Ú | (0.22 | ) | Ú | (0.19 | ) | ||
Share of earnings of equity-accounted investees and dividend income |
| (0.03 | ) | |||||
Impairment of available-for-sale investment in 2016 |
(0.01 | ) | (0.01 | ) | ||||
Proposed Transaction costs |
(0.02 | ) | (0.02 | ) | ||||
Foreign exchange |
| (0.05 | ) | |||||
Other |
0.03 | 0.02 | ||||||
Subtotal other |
| Ú | (0.09 | ) | ||||
Subtotal of the above |
(0.74 | ) | (1.20 | ) | ||||
Income tax rate on ordinary income |
0.05 | 0.05 | ||||||
Discrete items impacting income taxes |
0.02 | 0.01 | ||||||
Total variance |
Ú | (0.67 | ) | Ú | (1.14 | ) | ||
EPS for 2016 |
$ 0.38 | $ 0.38 | ||||||
1 Based on outlook and assumptions described in our 2015 Annual Integrated Report.
2 Severance and termination costs related to the indefinite suspension of production at Picadilly and operational changes at Cory.
3 Although provincial mining taxes are not part of the potash segment, the effect on EPS is included within potash as these taxes pertain to potash.
76 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
ESTIMATED EARNINGS PER SHARE AND RELATED SENSITIVITIES
2017 Guidance | 2016 Actual | |||||||
Earnings per share |
$ | 0.35-$0.55 | 1 | $ | 0.38 | |||
1 Based on outlook and assumptions as at January 26, 2017 described herein and excludes the potential impact of the Proposed Transaction.
Expected primary changes from 2016 to 2017 are presented in the following graph:
Key factors affecting estimated earnings of the companys three segments and the approximate anticipated
effect on EPS, based on assumptions used in estimating 2017 EPS, are as follows:
Input Cost Sensitivities |
Effect on EPS |
|||
NYMEX gas price increases by $1/MMBtu |
Nitrogen | 0.07 | ||
Potash | 0.01 | |||
Sulfur changes by
$20/long ton |
Phosphate | ±0.03 | ||
Canadian to US dollar strengthens
by $0.02 |
Canadian operating expenses net of provincial taxes and translation
gain/loss |
0.01 |
Price and Volume Sensitivities |
Effect on EPS |
|||
Price | Potash changes by $20/tonne | ±0.14 | ||
DAP/MAP changes by $20/tonne | ±0.02 | |||
Ammonia changes by $20/tonne | ±0.02 | |||
Volume | Potash changes by 100,000 tonnes | ±0.01 | ||
Nitrogen changes by 50,000 N tonnes | ±0.01 | |||
Phosphate changes by 50,000 P 2 O 5 tonnes | ±0.01 |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 77 |
% Change | ||||||||||||||||||||
Dollars (millions), except percentage amounts | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||
Selling and administrative expenses |
$ | (212 | ) | $ (239) | $ (245) | (11 | ) | (2 | ) | |||||||||||
Provincial mining and other taxes |
(124 | ) | (310 | ) | (257 | ) | (60 | ) | 21 | |||||||||||
Share of earnings of equity-accounted investees |
95 | 121 | 102 | (21 | ) | 19 | ||||||||||||||
Dividend income |
33 | 50 | 117 | (34 | ) | (57 | ) | |||||||||||||
Impairment of available-for-sale investment |
(10 | ) | | (38 | ) | n/m | (100 | ) | ||||||||||||
Other (expenses) income |
(30 | ) | 22 | 22 | n/m | | ||||||||||||||
Finance costs |
(216 | ) | (192 | ) | (184 | ) | 13 | 4 | ||||||||||||
Income taxes |
(43 | ) | (451 | ) | (628 | ) | (90 | ) | (28 | ) | ||||||||||
n/m = not meaningful
PERFORMANCE
The most significant contributors to the change in other expenses and income results were as follows:
2016 vs 2015 | 2015 vs 2014 | |||
Provincial Mining and Other Taxes |
Under Saskatchewan provincial legislation, the company is subject to resource taxes including the potash production tax and the resource surcharge. Provincial mining and other taxes decreased primarily due to weaker potash prices. |
Provincial mining and other taxes increased due to higher potash production tax in 2015 resulting from a weaker Canadian dollar. In addition, deductible costs decreased due to the first-quarter 2015 changes to potash taxation in the Province of Saskatchewan, which deferred the timing of the annual allowable deduction for capital expenditures. | ||
Earnings of Equity- Accounted Investees | Share of earnings of equity-accounted investees pertains primarily to SQM and APC. Lower earnings were mainly due to lower earnings at APC, partially offset by higher earnings at SQM. | Share of earnings of equity-accounted investees pertains primarily to SQM and APC. Higher earnings were mainly due to higher earnings for APC over that period. | ||
Dividend Income | Dividend income from ICL decreased. | Dividend income was down due to the company receiving a special dividend of $69 million from ICL in 2014. | ||
Impairment of Available-for-Sale Investment
FS Note 19
|
A non-tax deductible impairment loss of $10 million was recorded in net income on our investment in Sinofert during 2016. No such losses were recognized in 2015. | A non-tax deductible impairment loss of $38 million was recorded in net income on our investment in Sinofert during 2014. No such losses were recognized in 2015. | ||
Other (expenses) income
FS Note 6 |
Other expenses in 2016 were primarily the result of costs associated with the Proposed Transaction and foreign exchange losses. No such expenses or losses were incurred in 2015. Other income in 2015 mainly consisted of foreign exchange gains. | There were no significant changes. |
78 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
2016 vs 2015 | 2015 vs 2014 |
|
||||||||
Finance Costs | There were no significant changes. | There were no significant changes. | ||||||||
Income Taxes |
Income taxes decreased due to significantly lower earnings in higher tax jurisdictions.
Significant items to note include the following:
In 2016, a current tax recovery of $16 was recorded as a result of tax authority examinations.
In 2015, a current tax recovery of $17 was recorded upon the conclusion of a tax authority audit.
In 2016, 131 percent of the effective tax rate on the years ordinary earnings pertained to current income taxes (2015 58 percent) and (31) percent related to deferred income taxes (2015 42 percent). The decrease in the deferred portion was due to the substantial reduction in Canadian earnings. |
Income taxes decreased due primarily to lower income before taxes and discrete tax adjustments. Effective tax rates and discrete amounts are shown in the adjacent table.
Significant items to note include the following:
The actual effective tax rate on ordinary earnings in 2015 decreased compared to 2014 due to increased income from lower tax rate jurisdictions.
In 2015, a current tax recovery of $17 million was recorded upon the conclusion of a tax authority audit.
In 2014, a deferred tax expense of $11 million was recorded as a result of a Chilean income tax rate increase.
In 2015, 58 percent of the effective tax rate on the years ordinary earnings pertained to current income taxes and 42 percent related to deferred income taxes, which was unchanged from 2014.
|
||||||
EFFECTIVE TAX RATES AND DISCRETE ITEMS
|
||||||||
Dollars (millions), except percentage amounts
|
||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||
Actual effective tax rate on ordinary earnings |
16% | 27% | 28% | |||||
Actual effective tax rate including discrete items |
12% | 26% | 29% | |||||
Discrete tax adjustments that impacted the rate |
$ 17 | $ 7 | $ (20) | |||||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 79 |
FOREIGN EXCHANGE
We incur costs and expenses in foreign currencies other than the US dollar, which vary from year to year. In Canada, our revenue is predominantly earned and received in
US dollars while the cost base for our potash operations is predominantly in Canadian dollars. We are also affected
|
IMPACT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE ON NET INCOME
Dollars (millions), except per-share amounts
|
|||||||||||||||||
Increase (Decrease) in Net Income | ||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||
Impact on: |
||||||||||||||||||
Operating costs before income taxes |
$ | 46 | $ | (117 | ) | |||||||||||||
Conversion of balance sheet and treasury activities before income taxes |
9 | (48 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Net income before income taxes |
55 | (165 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Net income after income taxes |
46 | (121 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Diluted EPS after income taxes |
0.05 | (0.14 | ) | |||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||||
Year-end exchange rates |
1.3427 | 1.3840 | 1.1601 | |||||||||||||||
OTHER NON-FINANCIAL INFORMATION
% Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dollars (millions), except percentage amounts | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||
Taxes and royalties (Refer to Page 99 for definition) |
(256) | (654) | (715) | (61) | (9 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||
2016 vs 2015 | 2015 vs 2014 | |||
Taxes and Royalties |
Taxes and royalties declined due to the decreases in provincial mining and other taxes
(described on Page 78) and in current income taxes. The reduction in current income taxes was primarily due to significantly lower earnings in 2016 compared to 2015. |
Taxes and royalties decreased as a result of decreased current income taxes partially offset by increased potash production tax. |
80 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
QUARTERLY RESULTS AND REVIEW OF FOURTH-QUARTER PERFORMANCE
(in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted)
2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Results |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sales |
$ | 1,209 | $ | 1,053 | $ | 1,136 | $ | 1,058 | $ | 4,456 | $ | 1,665 | $ | 1,731 | $ | 1,529 | $ | 1,354 | $ | 6,279 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Less: Freight, transportation and distribution |
(133 | ) | (118 | ) | (154 | ) | (130 | ) | (535 | ) | (128 | ) | (124 | ) | (128 | ) | (108 | ) | (488 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold |
(842 | ) | (692 | ) | (792 | ) | (765 | ) | (3,091 | ) | (870 | ) | (896 | ) | (896 | ) | (860 | ) | (3,522 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
234 | 243 | 190 | 163 | 830 | 667 | 711 | 505 | 386 | 2,269 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income |
159 | 199 | 138 | 86 | 582 | 559 | 619 | 421 | 314 | 1,913 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
75 | 121 | 81 | 46 | 323 | 370 | 417 | 282 | 201 | 1,270 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
11 | (184 | ) | 21 | 193 | 41 | 23 | 37 | (461 | ) | (116 | ) | (517 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income per share 1 |
0.09 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 1.52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash provided by operating activities |
188 | 424 | 295 | 353 | 1,260 | 521 | 836 | 358 | 623 | 2,338 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Non-Financial Results |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Production (KCl tonnes thousands) |
2,230 | 2,273 | 1,557 | 2,544 | 8,604 | 2,612 | 2,387 | 2,131 | 1,975 | 9,105 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Production (N tonnes thousands) |
771 | 789 | 799 | 788 | 3,147 | 792 | 753 | 734 | 802 | 3,081 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Production (P 2 O 5 tonnes thousands) |
411 | 297 | 399 | 397 | 1,504 | 366 | 379 | 442 | 427 | 1,614 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PotashCorps total shareholder return percentage |
2 | (3 | ) | 2 | 12 | 12 | (8 | ) | (3 | ) | (33 | ) | (15 | ) | (49 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product tonnes involved in customer complaints (thousands) |
25 | 37 | 21 | 23 | 106 | 18 | 3 | 30 | 8 | 59 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taxes and royalties |
$ | 78 | $ | 81 | $ | 40 | $ | 57 | $ | 256 | $ | 242 | $ | 215 | $ | 119 | $ | 78 | $ | 654 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Employee turnover rate (percentage) |
3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total recordable injury rate |
1.15 | 0.69 | 0.92 | 0.74 | 0.87 | 0.92 | 0.85 | 1.29 | 0.97 | 1.01 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total lost-time injury rate |
0.20 | 0.04 | | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Environmental incidents |
9 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 18 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Net income per share for each quarter has been computed based on the weighted average number of shares issued and outstanding during the respective quarter; therefore, quarterly amounts may not add to the annual total. Per-share calculations are based on dollar and share amounts each rounded to the nearest thousand.
The companys sales of fertilizer can be seasonal. Typically, fertilizer sales are highest in the second quarter of the year, due to the Northern Hemispheres spring planting season. However, planting conditions and the timing of customer purchases will vary each year, and fertilizer sales can be expected to shift from one quarter to another. Feed and industrial sales are more evenly distributed throughout the year.
Highlights of our 2016 fourth quarter compared to the same quarter in 2015 include (direction of arrows refers to impact on comprehensive income):
K |
Potash |
Ú | Potash gross margin reflected a lower-price environment. |
Ù | Sales volumes were higher as North America shipments exceeded 2015s historically low fourth-quarter figures while offshore shipments also increased, with Canpotex |
achieving record sales volumes in the second half of 2016. The majority of Canpotexs shipments were to China (34 percent) and Other Asian markets outside of China and India (31 percent), while Latin America and India accounted for 21 percent and 9 percent, respectively. |
Ú | Our average realized potash price was down, a result of the decline in spot prices experienced in the first half of 2016 and lower contract prices settled in the second half. |
Ù | Optimizing production to our lower-cost mines in Saskatchewan more than offset an unfavorable adjustment to asset retirement obligations in 2016 and contributed to lower average per-tonne manufactured cost of goods sold compared to 2015 when inventory-related shutdowns and the closure of our Penobsquis, New Brunswick operation increased cost of goods sold. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 81 |
N |
Nitrogen |
Ú | Weaker prices for all our products resulted in lower gross margin. |
Ù | Total sales volumes were slightly higher due to stronger demand for nitrogen solutions more than offsetting decreased ammonia demand. |
Ú | Our average realized price was down significantly as weaker benchmark pricing pulled down realizations for all our nitrogen products. |
Ù | Cost of goods sold was down, driven primarily by lower natural gas costs in Trinidad. |
P |
Phosphate |
Ú | Weaker prices for nearly all our phosphate products resulted in significantly lower gross margin. |
Ú | Sales volumes fell, primarily due to weaker demand for our feed and industrial products. |
Ú | Our average realized phosphate price was down primarily due to weaker fertilizer realizations. |
Ù | Cost of goods sold was lower, primarily due to lower sulfur and ammonia input costs. |
Ú | Cost of goods sold was also impacted by an impairment of property, plant and equipment at Geismar. No similar costs were recognized in the fourth quarter of 2015. |
FS |
Note 13 |
Sales Tonnes (thousands) | Average Net Sales Price per MT | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Three months ended December 31 | 2016 | 2015 | % Change | 2016 | 2015 | % Change | ||||||||||||||||||
Potash |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured Product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
North America |
720 | 459 | 57 | $ | 176 | $ | 271 | (35 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Offshore |
1,489 | 1,277 | 17 | $ | 148 | $ | 226 | (35 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Manufactured Product |
2,209 | 1,736 | 27 | $ | 157 | $ | 238 | (34 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Nitrogen |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured Product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ammonia |
477 | 567 | (16 | ) | $ | 213 | $ | 397 | (46 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Urea |
304 | 308 | (1 | ) | $ | 245 | $ | 297 | (18 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Solutions, nitric acid, ammonium nitrate |
855 | 684 | 25 | $ | 142 | $ | 193 | (26 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Manufactured Product |
1,636 | 1,559 | 5 | $ | 182 | $ | 288 | (37 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Phosphate |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Manufactured Product |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fertilizer |
472 | 474 | | $ | 328 | $ | 461 | (29 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Feed and Industrial |
243 | 284 | (14 | ) | $ | 551 | $ | 624 | (12 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Manufactured Product |
715 | 758 | (6 | ) | $ | 404 | $ | 522 | (23 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Other Financial Results
Proposed Transaction costs during the fourth quarter of 2016 were $10 million. There were no such costs in the same period in 2015.
The actual effective tax rate, including discrete items, was (47) percent (2015 25 percent). The decrease was due to significantly lower earnings in higher tax jurisdictions and a $5 million deferred tax recovery on the dividend receipt from an equity-accounted investee.
Other comprehensive income in the fourth quarter of 2016 was mainly the result of a remeasurement of our defined benefit plans and an increase in the fair value of our investments in ICL and Sinofert. Other comprehensive loss in the fourth quarter of 2015 was mainly the result of a decrease in the fair value of our investment in ICL, partially offset by an increase in the fair value of our investment in Sinofert and a net actuarial gain resulting from a remeasurement of our defined benefit plans.
82 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION ANALYSIS
As at December 31, 2016, total assets decreased 1 percent while total liabilities decreased nil percent and total equity fell 2 percent compared to December 31, 2015. The most significant contributors to the changes in our statements of financial position were as follows (direction of arrows refers to increase or decrease):
Assets | Liabilities | |||||||||
Ú
Ù
Ú |
Receivables decreased mainly due to lower trade accounts receivable.
Property, plant and equipment rose primarily as a result of our potash and nitrogen capacity expansions.
Investments were largely impacted by the lower fair value of our available-for-sale investment in Sinofert and lower carrying amounts of our equity-accounted investments in SQM and APC due to dividends received exceeding equity earnings. |
Ù | Short-term debt and current portion of long-term debt grew due to an increase in current portion of long-term debt partially offset by a decrease in outstanding commercial paper. | |||||||
Ú | Payables and accrued charges were lower mainly due to lower trade payables and a decrease in dividends payable . | |||||||||
Ú | Derivative instruments fell due to increases in natural gas prices and the expiry of hedges in a loss position. | |||||||||
Equity |
Ú |
Retained earnings were lower as a result of dividends paid exceeding net income. |
FS |
Statements of Changes in Shareholders Equity |
As at December 31, 2016, $21 million (2015 $61 million) of our cash and cash equivalents was held in certain foreign subsidiaries. There are no current plans to repatriate the funds at December 31, 2016 in a manner that results in tax consequences. A repatriation of funds totaling $150 million was completed in 2016 with $NIL tax consequences (2015 $118 million with $NIL tax consequences).
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 83 |
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
The following section explains how we manage our cash and capital resources to carry out our strategy and deliver results.
Liquidity risk arises from our general funding needs and in the management of our assets, liabilities and capital structure. We manage liquidity risk to maintain sufficient liquid financial resources to fund our financial position and meet our commitments and obligations in a cost-effective manner.
Liquidity needs can be met through a variety of sources, including:
|
Our primary uses of funds are:
|
|
operational expenses; |
||
cash generated from operations; |
sustaining and opportunity capital spending; |
|
drawdowns under our revolving credit facility; |
intercorporate investments; |
|
issuances of commercial paper; and |
dividends and interest; and |
|
short-term borrowings under our line of credit. |
principal payments on our debt securities. |
CASH REQUIREMENTS
The following aggregated information about our contractual obligations and other commitments summarizes certain of our liquidity and capital resource requirements. The information presented in the table below does not include obligations that have original maturities of less than one year or planned (but not legally committed) capital expenditures.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND OTHER COMMITMENTS
Dollars (millions) at December 31, 2016
Payments Due by Period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
FS | Total | Within 1 Year | 1 to 3 Years | 3 to 5 Years | Over 5 Years | |||||||||||||||||||
Long-term debt obligations 1 |
Note 21 | $ | 4,250 | $ | 500 | $ | 500 | $ | 500 | $ | 2,750 | |||||||||||||
Estimated interest payments on long-term debt obligations |
1,988 | 195 | 340 | 255 | 1,198 | |||||||||||||||||||
Operating leases |
Note 24 | 598 | 87 | 151 | 116 | 244 | ||||||||||||||||||
Purchase commitments |
Note 24 | 380 | 286 | 94 | | | ||||||||||||||||||
Capital commitments |
Note 24 | 16 | 14 | 2 | | | ||||||||||||||||||
Other commitments |
Note 24 | 141 | 49 | 45 | 24 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||||
Asset retirement obligations and environmental costs 2 |
Note 18 | 701 | 58 | 162 | 128 | 353 | ||||||||||||||||||
Other long-term liabilities 3 |
Notes 8, 17, 26 | 3,105 | 96 | 82 | 72 | 2,855 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total |
$ | 11,179 | $ | 1,285 | $ | 1,376 | $ | 1,095 | $ | 7,423 | ||||||||||||||
1 Long-term debt consists of $4,250 million of senior notes that were issued under US shelf registration statements and a net of $NIL under back-to-back loan arrangements. The estimated interest payments on long-term debt in the above table include our cumulative scheduled interest payments on fixed and variable rate long-term debt. Interest on variable rate debt is based on interest rates prevailing at December 31, 2016.
2 Commitments associated with our asset retirement obligations are expected to occur principally over the next 85 years for phosphate (with the majority taking place over the next 35 years) and between 50 and 340 years for potash. Environmental costs consist of restoration obligations, which are expected to occur through 2031.
3 Other long-term liabilities consist primarily of pension and other post-retirement benefits, derivative instruments, income taxes and deferred income taxes. Deferred income tax liabilities may vary according to changes in tax laws, tax rates and the operating results of the company. Since it is impractical to determine whether there will be a cash impact in any particular year, all deferred income tax liabilities have been reflected as other long-term liabilities in the Over 5 Years category.
84 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
SOURCES AND USES OF CASH
The companys cash flows from operating, investing and financing activities are summarized in the following table:
% Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dollars (millions), except percentage amounts | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash provided by operating activities |
$ | 1,260 | $ | 2,338 | $ | 2,614 | (46 | ) | (11 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash used in investing activities |
(895 | ) | (1,284 | ) | (1,160 | ) | (30 | ) | 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash used in financing activities |
(424 | ) | (1,178 | ) | (1,867 | ) | (64 | ) | (37 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
$ | (59 | ) | $ | (124 | ) | $ | (413 | ) | (52 | ) | (70 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 85 |
The most significant contributors to the changes in cash flows were as follows:
2016 vs 2015 | 2015 vs 2014 | |||
Cash Provided by Operating Activities |
Cash provided by operating activities was impacted by: |
Cash provided by operating activities was impacted by: |
||
Lower net income in 2016; |
Lower net income in 2015; |
|||
A lower non-cash provision for deferred income taxes; |
Cash inflows from receivables in 2015 compared to cash outflows in 2014; |
|||
Lower cash inflows from receivables in 2016; and |
Cash outflows from inventories in 2015 compared to cash inflows in 2014; and |
|||
Net distributed earnings of equity-accounted investees in 2016, when an additional dividend was received from SQM, compared to net undistributed earnings of equity-accounted investees in 2015. |
Net undistributed earnings of equity-accounted investees in 2015 compared to net distributed earnings of equity-accounted investees in 2014 when a special dividend was received from SQM.
|
|||
Cash Used in Investing Activities
|
Cash used in investing activities was primarily for additions to property, plant and equipment.
|
Cash used in investing activities was primarily for additions to property, plant and equipment.
|
||
Cash Used in Financing Activities
|
Cash used in financing activities in 2016 was largely the result of dividends paid and repayment of commercial paper more than offsetting proceeds from the issuance of senior notes. Cash used in financing activities in 2015 was primarily due to dividends paid, repayment of senior notes and repayment of commercial paper exceeding proceeds from senior notes.
|
Cash used in financing activities decreased mainly due to share repurchases in 2014, which did not recur in 2015, being partially offset by lower proceeds from senior notes in 2015.
|
We believe that internally generated cash flow, supplemented by available borrowings under our existing financing sources if necessary, will be sufficient to meet our anticipated capital expenditures and other cash requirements for at least the next 12 months, inclusive of requirements relating to the Proposed Transaction, but exclusive of any possible acquisitions. At this time, we do not reasonably expect any presently known trend or uncertainty to affect our ability to access our historical sources of liquidity.
86 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT
The following section explains how we manage our capital structure in order for our balance sheet to be considered sound by focusing on maintaining an investment grade-credit rating.
PRINCIPAL DEBT INSTRUMENTS
We use a combination of short-term and long-term debt to finance our operations. We typically pay floating rates of interest on our short-term debt and credit facility, and fixed rates on our senior notes. As at December 31, 2016, interest rates on outstanding commercial paper ranged from 0.9 percent to 1.1 percent.
We have the following instruments available to finance operations:
| $3.5 billion syndicated credit facility ; 1 |
| $75 million unsecured line of credit 2 available through August 2017; and |
| $100 million uncommitted letter of credit facility 2 due on demand. |
The credit facility and line of credit have financial tests and other covenants with which we must comply at each quarter-end. Non-compliance with any such covenants could result in accelerated payment of amounts borrowed and termination of lenders further funding obligations under the credit facility and line of credit. We were in compliance with all covenants as at December 31, 2016 and at this time anticipate being in compliance with such covenants in 2017.
FS |
Notes 20 and 21 |
1 | Provides for unsecured advances up to the total facility amount less direct borrowings and amounts committed in respect of commercial paper outstanding. |
2 | Amounts available are reduced by direct borrowings and outstanding letters of credit. |
For additional information on our capital structure and management:
FS |
Notes 23 for capital structure | |
Notes 9 and 22 for outstanding share data |
The accompanying table summarizes the limits and results of certain covenants.
DEBT COVENANTS AT DECEMBER 31 | ||||||||||
Dollars (millions), except ratio amounts
|
Limit | 2016 | ||||||||
Debt-to-capital ratio 1 |
£ | 0.65 | 0.36 | |||||||
Debt of subsidiaries |
< | $ | 1,000 | $ | | |||||
Net book value of disposed assets |
< | $ | 4,367 | 2 | $ | 3 | ||||
1 Debt-to-capital ratio = debt (short-term debt and current portion of long-term debt + long-term debt) / (debt + shareholders equity). This non-IFRS financial measure is a requirement of our debt covenants and should not be considered as a substitute for, nor superior to, measures of financial performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.
2 Limit is 25 percent of the prior years year-end total assets.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 87 |
Our ability to access reasonably priced debt in the capital markets is dependent, in part, on the quality of our credit ratings. We continue to maintain investment-grade credit ratings for our long-term debt. A downgrade of the credit rating of our long-term debt would increase the interest rates applicable to borrowings under our credit facility and our line of credit.
Commercial paper markets are normally a source of same-day cash for the company. Our access to the US commercial paper market primarily depends on maintaining our current short-term credit ratings as well as general conditions in the money markets.
Long-Term Debt | Short-Term Debt | |||||||||||
Rating (Outlook) | Rating | |||||||||||
At December 31 |
2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||
Moodys |
Baa1 (negative) | A3 (negative) | P-2 | P-2 | ||||||||
Standard & Poors |
BBB+ (stable) | A- (stable) | A-2 | 1 | A-2 | 1 | ||||||
1 S&P assigned a global commercial paper rating of A-2, but rated our commercial paper A-1 (low) on a Canadian scale.
A security rating is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities. Such ratings may be subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the respective credit rating agency and each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.
Our $4,250 million of senior notes were issued under US shelf registration statements. If the Proposed Transaction is completed, a downgrade in the companys credit ratings below investment-grade would trigger a change in control offer under existing debt securities, except for the notes issued in 2016, and the company would be required to make an offer to purchase all, or any part, of the senior notes at 101 percent of the $3,750 million outstanding principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest.
For 2016, our weighted average cost of capital was 7.3 percent (2015 7.3 percent), of which 75 percent represented the cost of equity (2015 84 percent).
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
In the normal course of operations, PotashCorp engages in a variety of transactions that, under IFRS, are either not recorded on our consolidated statements of financial position or are recorded at amounts that differ from the full contract amounts. Principal off-balance sheet activities include operating leases, agreement to reimburse losses of Canpotex, issuance of guarantee contracts, certain derivative instruments and long-term contracts. We do not reasonably expect any presently known trend or uncertainty to affect our ability to continue using these arrangements, which are discussed below.
Derivative Instruments
We use derivative financial instruments to manage exposure to commodity price and exchange rate fluctuations. Except for certain non-financial derivatives that were entered into and continued to be held for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of a non-financial item in accordance with expected purchase, sale or usage requirements, derivatives are recorded on the consolidated statements of financial position at fair value and marked-to-market each reporting period regardless of whether they are designated as hedges for IFRS purposes.
FS |
Note 17 |
Leases and Long-Term Contracts
Certain of our long-term raw materials agreements contain fixed price and/or volume components. Our significant agreements, and the related obligations under such agreements, are discussed in Cash Requirements on Page 84.
Additional information about our off-balance sheet arrangements:
FS |
Note 25 for guarantee contracts |
|
Note 30 for contingencies related to Canpotex |
MARKET RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
Market risk is the potential for loss from adverse changes in the market value of financial instruments. The level of market risk to which we are exposed varies depending on the composition of our derivative instrument portfolio, as well as current and expected market conditions. A discussion of enterprise-wide risk management can be found on Pages 48 to 55.
FS |
Note 29 for financial risks, including relevant risk sensitivities |
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES
Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with IFRS.
Our significant accounting policies and accounting estimates are contained in the consolidated financial statements. Certain of these policies, such as long-lived asset impairment, derivative instruments, provisions and contingencies for asset retirement, environmental and other obligations, and capitalization and depreciation of property, plant
88 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
and equipment, involve critical accounting estimates because they require us to make subjective or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because of the likelihood that materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions.
The company identified indicators of potential impairment in its operations in the fourth quarter of 2016. See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements for impairments recorded during 2016.
The following table highlights sensitivities to recoverable amounts which could result in additional impairment losses across cash-generating units (CGUs) in the phosphate segment for which significant judgment and estimates were required:
IMPAIRMENT SENSITIVITIES 1
At December 31, 2016
Dollars (millions), except as noted
|
Potential Change |
Decrease to
Recoverable Amount |
||||||||||
Phosphate sales prices |
Ú | 1% | 2 | $ | 80 | |||||||
Discount rate |
Ù | 0.5% | $ | 64 | ||||||||
Ammonia costs |
Ù | $ | 20/tonne | $ | 23 | |||||||
Sulfur costs 3 |
Ù | $ | 20/long ton | $ | 168 | |||||||
1 | These sensitivities are hypothetical, should be used with caution and cannot be extrapolated because the relationship of the change in assumption to the change in amounts may not be linear. The sensitivities have been calculated independently of changes in other key variables. Changes in one factor may result in changes in another, which could amplify or reduce certain sensitivities. |
2 | Distributed evenly over all periods |
3 | Excludes potential recovery of increased costs from certain industrial sales contracts where pricing is linked to input costs. |
We have discussed the development, selection and application of our key accounting policies, and the critical accounting estimates and assumptions they involve, with the audit committee of the Board.
Refer to Note 31 to the consolidated financial statements for recent accounting changes and effective dates. To ensure effective and timely implementation of IFRS 15, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, we have established an implementation plan. The company does not currently plan to early adopt IFRS 15 and has not yet concluded whether it will apply the full retrospective or modified retrospective adoption method. The company has not yet determined the full accounting effects of adopting IFRS 15. However, we do not expect adoption to significantly impact our underlying profitability trends. Key areas still under review include: principal versus agent relationships, variable priced contracts, shipping as a separate performance obligation, required disclosures, systems implications and documentation and implementation of changes to key controls.
The company expects to complete scoping of the IFRS 16 Leases implementation in 2017. The company has a number of operating leases that are not currently recorded on the statement of financial position and we expect, upon implementation of IFRS 16, additional assets and liabilities will be recorded. In addition, we expect a component of lease-related costs to move from cost of goods sold to interest expense on the statement of operations.
FS |
Notes 2 and 31 for accounting policies, estimates and judgments |
Additional financial information:
FS |
Note 31 for recent accounting changes and effective dates |
|
Note 28 for related party transactions |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 89 |
This 2016 Annual Integrated Report, including the Financial Outlook section of Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, contains and incorporates by reference forward-looking statements or forward-looking information (within the meaning of the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and other US federal securities laws and applicable Canadian securities laws) (forward-looking statements) that relate to future events or our future financial performance. These statements can be identified by expressions of belief, expectation or intention, as well as those statements that are not historical fact. These statements often contain words such as should, could, expect, may, anticipate, forecast, believe, intend, estimates, plans and similar expressions. These statements are based on certain factors and assumptions as set forth in this 2016 Annual Integrated Report, including with respect to: foreign exchange rates, expected growth, results of operations, performance, business prospects and opportunities, including the completion of the Proposed Transaction, and effective tax rates. While the company considers these factors and assumptions to be reasonable based on information currently available, they may prove to be incorrect. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. The results or events set forth in forward-looking statements may differ materially from actual results or events. Several factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements including, but not limited to, the following: a number of matters relating to the Proposed Transaction, including the failure to satisfy all required conditions, including required regulatory approvals, or to satisfy or obtain waivers with respect to all other closing conditions in a timely manner and on favorable terms or at all; the occurrence of any event, change or other
circumstances that could give rise to the termination of the Arrangement Agreement; certain costs that we may incur in connection with the Proposed Transaction; certain restrictions in the Arrangement Agreement on our ability to take action outside the ordinary course of business without the consent of Agrium; the effect of the announcement of the Proposed Transaction on our ability to retain customers, suppliers and personnel and on our operating future business and operations generally; risks related to diversion of management time from ongoing business operations due to the Proposed Transaction; failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the Proposed Transaction and to successfully integrate Agrium and PotashCorp; the risk that our credit ratings may be downgraded or there may be adverse conditions in the credit markets; any significant impairment of the carrying amount of certain of our assets; variations from our assumptions with respect to foreign exchange rates, expected growth, results of operations, performance, business prospects and opportunities, and effective tax rates; fluctuations in supply and demand in the fertilizer, sulfur and petrochemical markets; changes in competitive pressures, including pricing pressures; risks and uncertainties related to any operating and workforce changes made in response to our industry and the markets we serve, including mine and inventory shutdowns; adverse or uncertain economic conditions and changes in credit and financial markets; economic and political uncertainty around the world; changes in capital markets; the results of sales contract negotiations; unexpected or adverse weather conditions; changes in currency and exchange rates; risks related to reputational loss; the occurrence of a major safety incident; inadequate insurance coverage for a significant liability; inability to obtain relevant permits for our operations; catastrophic events or malicious acts, including terrorism; certain complications that may arise in our mining
process, including water inflows; risks and uncertainties related to our international operations and assets; our ownership of non-controlling equity interests in other companies; our prospects to reinvest capital in strategic opportunities and acquisitions; risks associated with natural gas and other hedging activities; security risks related to our information technology systems; imprecision in reserve estimates; costs and availability of transportation and distribution for our raw materials and products, including railcars and ocean freight; changes in, and the effects of, government policies and regulations; earnings and the decisions of taxing authorities which could affect our effective tax rates; increases in the price or reduced availability of the raw materials that we use; our ability to attract, develop, engage and retain skilled employees; strikes or other forms of work stoppage or slowdowns; rates of return on, and the risks associated with, our investments and capital expenditures; timing and impact of capital expenditures; the impact of further innovation; adverse developments in new and pending legal proceedings or government investigations; and violations of our governance and compliance policies. These risks and uncertainties and additional risks and uncertainties can be found in our Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 under the captions Forward-Looking Statements and Item 1A Risk Factors and in our filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the Canadian provincial securities commissions. Forward-looking statements in or incorporated into this report are given only as at the date of this report or the document incorporated into this report and the company disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.
90 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financial Overview
|
NON-IFRS FINANCIAL MEASURES IN MD&A
PotashCorp uses cash flow and cash flow return (both non-IFRS financial measures) as supplemental measures to evaluate the performance of the companys assets in terms of the cash flow they have generated. Calculated on the total cost basis of the companys assets rather than on the depreciated value, these measures reflect cash returned on the total investment outlay. The company believes these measures are valuable to assess shareholder value.
Generally, these measures are a numerical measure of a companys performance, financial position or cash flows that either excludes or includes amounts that are not normally excluded or included in the most directly comparable measure calculated and presented in accordance with IFRS. Cash flow and cash flow return are not measures of financial performance (nor do they have standardized meanings) under IFRS. In evaluating these
measures, investors should consider that the methodology applied in calculating such measures may differ among companies and analysts.
The company uses both IFRS and certain non-IFRS measures to assess performance. Management believes the non-IFRS measures provide useful supplemental information to investors in order that they may evaluate PotashCorps financial performance using the same measures as management. Management believes that, as a result, the investor is afforded greater transparency in assessing the financial performance of the company. These non-IFRS financial measures should not be considered as a substitute for, nor superior to, measures of financial performance prepared in accordance with IFRS.
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(in millions of US dollars except percentage amounts) | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
323 | 1,270 | 1,536 | 1,785 | 2,079 | 3,081 | 1,775 | 981 | 3,466 | 1,104 | 607 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets |
17,255 | 17,469 | 17,724 | 17,958 | 18,206 | 16,257 | 15,547 | 12,922 | 10,249 | 9,717 | 6,217 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Return on assets 1 |
1.9% | 7.3% | 8.7% | 9.9% | 11.4% | 19.0% | 11.4% | 7.6% | 33.8% | 11.4% | 9.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
323 | 1,270 | 1,536 | 1,785 | 2,079 | 3,081 | 1,775 | 981 | 3,466 | 1,104 | 607 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income taxes |
43 | 451 | 628 | 687 | 826 | 1,066 | 701 | 79 | 1,060 | 417 | 142 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change in unrealized (gain) loss on derivatives included in net income |
(3 | ) | (3 | ) | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | | (56 | ) | 69 | (17 | ) | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finance costs |
216 | 192 | 184 | 144 | 114 | 159 | 121 | 121 | 63 | 69 | 86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current income taxes 2 |
(65 | ) | (244 | ) | (356 | ) | (272 | ) | (404 | ) | (700 | ) | (479 | ) | 120 | (995 | ) | (297 | ) | (108 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
695 | 685 | 701 | 666 | 578 | 489 | 449 | 312 | 328 | 291 | 242 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of available-for-sale investment |
10 | | 38 | | 341 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment |
47 | | | | | | | | | | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow 3 |
1,266 | 2,351 | 2,736 | 3,014 | 3,537 | 4,096 | 2,567 | 1,557 | 3,991 | 1,567 | 975 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets |
17,255 | 17,469 | 17,724 | 17,958 | 18,206 | 16,257 | 15,547 | 12,922 | 10,249 | 9,717 | 6,217 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
(32 | ) | (91 | ) | (215 | ) | (628 | ) | (562 | ) | (430 | ) | (412 | ) | (385 | ) | (277 | ) | (720 | ) | (326 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair value of derivative assets |
(6 | ) | (9 | ) | (7 | ) | (8 | ) | (10 | ) | (10 | ) | (5 | ) | (9 | ) | (18 | ) | (135 | ) | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Accumulated depreciation of property, plant and equipment |
6,408 | 5,871 | 5,276 | 4,668 | 4,176 | 3,653 | 3,171 | 2,712 | 2,527 | 2,281 | 2,074 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net unrealized loss (gain) on available-for-sale investments |
346 | 302 | (244 | ) | (439 | ) | (1,197 | ) | (982 | ) | (2,563 | ) | (1,900 | ) | (886 | ) | (2,284 | ) | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Accumulated amortization of other assets and intangible assets |
131 | 105 | 129 | 121 | 104 | 93 | 76 | 57 | 81 | 66 | 80 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payables and accrued charges |
(772 | ) | (1,146 | ) | (1,086 | ) | (1,104 | ) | (1,188 | ) | (1,295 | ) | (1,198 | ) | (798 | ) | (1,191 | ) | (912 | ) | (545 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment |
47 | | | | | | | | | | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adjusted assets |
23,377 | 22,501 | 21,577 | 20,568 | 19,529 | 17,286 | 14,616 | 12,599 | 10,485 | 8,013 | 7,506 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Average adjusted assets |
22,939 | 22,039 | 21,073 | 20,049 | 18,408 | 15,951 | 13,627 | 5 | 11,542 | 9,249 | 7,757 | 6,964 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow return 4 |
5.5% | 10.7% | 13.0% | 15.0% | 19.2% | 25.7% | 18.8% | 13.5% | 43.2% | 20.2% | 14.0% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Return on assets = net income / total assets. |
2 | Current income taxes = current income tax expense (which was already reduced by the realized excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation under previous Canadian GAAP) realized excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation (under IFRS). |
3 | Cash flow = net income + income taxes + change in unrealized loss (gain) on derivatives included in net income + finance costs current income taxes + depreciation and amortization + impairment of available-for-sale investment. |
4 | Cash flow return = cash flow / average adjusted assets (total assets cash and cash equivalents fair value of derivative assets + accumulated depreciation and amortization net unrealized loss (gain) on available-for-sale investments payables and accrued charges). |
5 | Based on adjusted assets as at January 1, 2010 of $12,637, which was calculated similarly to 2009 under previous Canadian GAAP except the following IFRS amounts were used: total assets of $12,842, accumulated depreciation of property, plant and equipment of $2,850 and payables and accrued charges of $(817). |
6 | 2006 figures have been restated to include impairment of property, plant and equipment. Cash flow return in 2006 changed from 13.9% to 14%. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 91 |
In millions of US dollars except share, per-share, percentage and tonnage amounts, and as otherwise noted
The following information is not part of our MD&A on SEDAR and EDGAR and is furnished for those readers who may find value in the use of such information over the long term.
Summary Financial Performance Indicators
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
323 | 1,270 | 1,536 | 1,785 | 2,079 | 3,081 | 1,775 | 981 | 3,466 | 1,104 | 607 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income per share diluted |
0.38 | 1.52 | 1.82 | 2.04 | 2.37 | 3.51 | 1.95 | 1.08 | 3.64 | 1.13 | 0.63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDA |
1,277 | 2,598 | 3,049 | 3,282 | 3,597 | 4,795 | 3,046 | 1,493 | 4,917 | 1,881 | 1,077 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income as percentage of sales |
7.2% | 20.2% | 21.6% | 24.4% | 26.2% | 35.4% | 27.1% | 24.7% | 36.7% | 21.1% | 16.1% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA margin |
36.1% | 44.9% | 47.4% | 49.6% | 53.0% | 58.3% | 50.3% | 40.8% | 54.7% | 39.5% | 31.9% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow prior to working capital changes |
1,200 | 2,211 | 2,704 | 2,927 | 3,358 | 3,704 | 2,509 | 1,351 | 3,781 | 1,525 | 941 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash provided by operating activities |
1,260 | 2,338 | 2,614 | 3,212 | 3,225 | 3,485 | 3,131 | 924 | 3,013 | 1,689 | 697 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Free cash flow |
305 | 927 | 1,544 | 1,303 | 1,154 | 1,456 | 359 | (467 | ) | 2,536 | 926 | 431 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Return on assets see Page 91 |
1.9% | 7.3% | 8.7% | 9.9% | 11.4% | 19.0% | 11.4% | 7.6% | 33.8% | 11.4% | 9.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow return see Page 91 |
5.5% | 10.7% | 13.0% | 15.0% | 19.2% | 25.7% | 18.8% | 13.5% | 43.2% | 20.2% | 13.9% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weighted average cost of capital |
7.3% | 7.3% | 9.2% | 9.8% | 9.1% | 9.6% | 10.2% | 10.1% | 12.0% | 10.0% | 8.8% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total shareholder return |
12.4% | (49.0% | ) | 11.6% | (16.4% | ) | (0.2% | ) | (19.7% | ) | 43.2% | 48.9% | (49.0% | ) | 202.2% | 80.0% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total debt to capital |
35.9% | 33.5% | 32.6% | 29.0% | 29.2% | 36.6% | 45.5% | 38.6% | 40.3% | 19.3% | 41.0% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net debt to capital |
35.7% | 33.0% | 31.4% | 25.6% | 26.2% | 34.4% | 43.6% | 36.3% | 38.1% | 10.6% | 36.6% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total debt to net income |
14.2 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 3.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net debt to EBITDA |
3.6 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets |
17,255 | 17,469 | 17,724 | 17,958 | 18,206 | 16,257 | 15,547 | 12,922 | 10,249 | 9,717 | 6,217 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shareholders equity |
8,199 | 8,382 | 8,792 | 9,628 | 9,912 | 7,847 | 6,685 | 6,440 | 4,535 | 5,994 | 2,755 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
92 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
11 Year Data
|
Share Information and Calculations
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End of year closing share price (dollars) |
18.09 | 17.12 | 35.32 | 32.96 | 40.69 | 41.28 | 51.61 | 36.17 | 24.41 | 47.99 | 15.94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends per share, ex-dividend date (dollars) |
0.98 | 1.49 | 1.40 | 1.19 | 0.56 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total shareholder return |
12.4% | (49.0% | ) | 11.6% | (16.4% | ) | (0.2% | ) | (19.7% | ) | 43.2% | 48.9% | (49.0% | ) | 202.2% | 80.0% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5-year total shareholder return : (47%) | 10-year total shareholder return : 41% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weighted average shares outstanding |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Basic (thousands) |
838,928 | 834,141 | 838,101 | 864,596 | 860,033 | 855,677 | 886,371 | 886,740 | 922,439 | 946,923 | 935,640 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diluted (thousands) |
839,459 | 837,349 | 844,544 | 873,982 | 875,907 | 876,637 | 911,093 | 911,828 | 952,313 | 972,924 | 956,067 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares outstanding, end of year (thousands) 1 |
839,790 | 836,540 | 830,243 | 856,116 | 864,901 | 858,703 | 853,123 | 887,927 | 885,603 | 949,233 | 943,209 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Common shares were repurchased in 2014, 2013, 2010 and 2008 in the amounts of 29.201 million, 14.145 million, 42.190 million and 68.547 million, respectively.
Financial Data, Reconciliations and Calculations
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income 1 |
323 | 1,270 | 1,536 | 1,785 | 2,079 | 3,081 | 1,775 | 981 | 3,466 | 1,104 | 607 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finance costs |
216 | 192 | 184 | 144 | 114 | 159 | 121 | 121 | 63 | 69 | 86 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Income taxes |
43 | 451 | 628 | 687 | 826 | 1,066 | 701 | 79 | 1,060 | 417 | 142 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
695 | 685 | 701 | 666 | 578 | 489 | 449 | 312 | 328 | 291 | 242 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDA 2 |
1,277 | 2,598 | 3,049 | 3,282 | 3,597 | 4,795 | 3,046 | 1,493 | 4,917 | 1,881 | 1,077 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income as percentage of sales |
7.2% | 20.2% | 21.6% | 24.4% | 26.2% | 35.4% | 27.1% | 24.7% | 36.7% | 21.1% | 16.1% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA margin 3 |
36.1% | 44.9% | 47.4% | 49.6% | 53.0% | 58.3% | 50.3% | 40.8% | 54.7% | 39.5% | 31.9% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash flow prior to working capital changes 4 |
1,200 | 2,211 | 2,704 | 2,927 | 3,358 | 3,704 | 2,509 | 1,351 | 3,781 | 1,525 | 941 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Receivables |
114 | 259 | (220 | ) | 276 | 188 | (155 | ) | 256 | 53 | (594 | ) | (155 | ) | 11 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inventories |
(21 | ) | (99 | ) | 70 | 28 | (7 | ) | (146 | ) | 66 | 88 | (324 | ) | 61 | 14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
17 | (19 | ) | 29 | (1 | ) | (32 | ) | (1 | ) | (6 | ) | 21 | (24 | ) | 7 | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payables and accrued charges |
(50 | ) | (14 | ) | 31 | (18 | ) | (282 | ) | 83 | 306 | (589 | ) | 174 | 251 | (269 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changes in non-cash operating working capital |
60 | 127 | (90 | ) | 285 | (133 | ) | (219 | ) | 622 | (427 | ) | (768 | ) | 164 | (244 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash provided by operating activities |
1,260 | 2,338 | 2,614 | 3,212 | 3,225 | 3,485 | 3,131 | 924 | 3,013 | 1,689 | 697 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash additions to property, plant and equipment |
(893 | ) | (1,217 | ) | (1,138 | ) | (1,624 | ) | (2,133 | ) | (2,176 | ) | (2,079 | ) | (1,764 | ) | (1,198 | ) | (607 | ) | (509 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other assets and intangible assets |
(2 | ) | (67 | ) | (22 | ) | | (71 | ) | (72 | ) | (71 | ) | (54 | ) | (47 | ) | 8 | (1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Changes in non-cash operating working capital |
(60 | ) | (127 | ) | 90 | (285 | ) | 133 | 219 | (622 | ) | 427 | 768 | (164 | ) | 244 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Free cash flow 5 |
305 | 927 | 1,544 | 1,303 | 1,154 | 1,456 | 359 | (467 | ) | 2,536 | 926 | 431 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See footnotes on Page 95
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 93 |
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Short-term debt |
389 | 517 | 536 | 470 | 369 | 829 | 1,274 | 727 | 1,324 | 90 | 158 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current portion of long-term debt |
495 | | 496 | 497 | 246 | 3 | 597 | 2 | | | 400 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Long-term debt |
3,707 | 3,710 | 3,213 | 2,970 | 3,466 | 3,705 | 3,707 | 3,319 | 1,740 | 1,339 | 1,357 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total debt |
4,591 | 4,227 | 4,245 | 3,937 | 4,081 | 4,537 | 5,578 | 4,048 | 3,064 | 1,429 | 1,915 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
(32 | ) | (91 | ) | (215 | ) | (628 | ) | (562 | ) | (430 | ) | (412 | ) | (385 | ) | (277 | ) | (720 | ) | (326 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net debt 6 |
4,559 | 4,136 | 4,030 | 3,309 | 3,519 | 4,107 | 5,166 | 3,663 | 2,787 | 709 | 1,589 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total shareholders equity |
8,199 | 8,382 | 8,792 | 9,628 | 9,912 | 7,847 | 6,685 | 6,440 | 4,535 | 5,994 | 2,755 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total debt to capital |
35.9% | 33.5% | 32.6% | 29.0% | 29.2% | 36.6% | 45.5% | 38.6% | 40.3% | 19.3% | 41.0% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net debt to capital 6 |
35.7% | 33.0% | 31.4% | 25.6% | 26.2% | 34.4% | 43.6% | 36.3% | 38.1% | 10.6% | 36.6% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total debt to net income |
14.2 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 4.1 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 3.2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net debt to EBITDA 7 |
3.6 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current assets |
1,394 | 1,553 | 1,938 | 2,189 | 2,496 | 2,408 | 2,095 | 2,272 | 2,267 | 1,811 | 1,310 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current liabilities |
(1,697 | ) | (1,747 | ) | (2,198 | ) | (2,113 | ) | (1,854 | ) | (2,194 | ) | (3,144 | ) | (1,577 | ) | (2,623 | ) | (1,002 | ) | (1,104 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Working capital |
(303 | ) | (194 | ) | (260 | ) | 76 | 642 | 214 | (1,049 | ) | 695 | (356 | ) | 809 | 206 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
(32 | ) | (91 | ) | (215 | ) | (628 | ) | (562 | ) | (430 | ) | (412 | ) | (385 | ) | (277 | ) | (720 | ) | (326 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Short-term debt |
389 | 517 | 536 | 470 | 369 | 829 | 1,274 | 727 | 1,324 | 90 | 158 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current portion of long-term debt |
495 | | 496 | 497 | 246 | 3 | 597 | 2 | | | 400 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Non-cash operating working capital |
549 | 232 | 557 | 415 | 695 | 616 | 410 | 1,039 | 691 | 179 | 438 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See footnotes on Page 95
94 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
11 Year Data
|
1 | There were no discontinued operations in any of the accounting periods. After-tax effects of certain items affecting net income were as follows: |
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Share of Canpotexs Prince Rupert project exit costs |
$ | 18 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment |
29 | | | | | | | | | | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed Transaction costs |
13 | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of available-for-sale investment |
10 | | 38 | | 341 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plant shutdown and closure and workforce reduction costs |
23 | | | 44 | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Takeover response costs |
| | | | | 1 | 56 | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loss (gain) on sale of assets |
| | | | | | | 6 | (16 | ) | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Recovery) impairment of auction rate securities |
| | | | | | | (91 | ) | 67 | 19 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total after-tax effects on net income |
$ | 93 | $ | | $ | 38 | $ | 44 | $ | 341 | $ | 1 | $ | 56 | $ | (85 | ) | $ | 51 | $ | 19 | $ | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
2 | PotashCorp uses EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA as supplemental financial measures of its operational performance and as a component of employee remuneration. Management believes EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA to be important measures as they exclude the effects of items that primarily reflect the impact of long-term investment and financing decisions, rather than the performance of the companys day-to-day operations. As compared to net income according to IFRS, these measures are limited in that they do not reflect the periodic costs of certain capitalized tangible and intangible assets used in generating revenues in the companys business, or the charges associated with impairments, termination costs, exit costs, Proposed Transaction costs, costs associated with takeover response and certain gains and losses on sale of assets. Management evaluates such items through other financial measures such as capital expenditures and cash flow provided by operating activities. The company believes that these measurements are useful to measure a companys ability to service debt and to meet other payment obligations or as a valuation measurement. |
EBITDA has not been adjusted for the effects of the following items:
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Share of Canpotexs Prince Rupert project exit costs |
$ | 33 | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | $ | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment |
47 | | | | | | | | | | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proposed Transaction costs |
18 | | | | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of available-for-sale investment |
10 | | 38 | | 341 | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plant shutdown and closure and workforce reduction costs |
32 | | | 60 | | | | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Takeover response costs |
| | | | | 2 | 73 | | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loss (gain) on sale of assets |
| | | | | | | 8 | (21 | ) | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Recovery) impairment of auction rate securities |
| | | | | | | (115 | ) | 89 | 27 | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total items included in EBITDA |
140 | | 38 | 60 | 341 | 2 | 73 | (107 | ) | 68 | 27 | 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EBITDA |
1,277 | 2,598 | 3,049 | 3,282 | 3,597 | 4,795 | 3,046 | 1,493 | 4,917 | 1,881 | 1,077 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA |
$ | 1,417 | $ | 2,598 | $ | 3,087 | $ | 3,342 | $ | 3,938 | $ | 4,797 | $ | 3,119 | $ | 1,386 | $ | 4,985 | $ | 1,908 | $ | 1,083 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Management believes comparing EBITDA to net sales earned (net of costs to deliver product) is an important indicator of efficiency. In addition to the limitations given above in using adjusted EBITDA as compared to net income, adjusted EBITDA margin as compared to net income as a percentage of sales is also limited in that freight, transportation and distribution costs are incurred and valued independently of sales; adjusted EBITDA also includes earnings from equity investees whose sales are not included in consolidated sales. Management evaluates these items individually on the consolidated statements of income. |
4 | Management uses cash flow prior to working capital changes as a supplemental financial measure in its evaluation of liquidity. Management believes that adjusting principally for the swings in non-cash working capital items due to seasonality or other timing issues assists management in making long-term liquidity assessments. The company also believes that this measurement is useful as a measure of liquidity or as a valuation measurement. |
5 | The company uses free cash flow as a supplemental financial measure in its evaluation of liquidity and financial strength. Management believes that adjusting principally for the swings in non-cash operating working capital items due to seasonality or other timing issues, additions to property, plant and equipment, and changes to other assets assists management in the long-term assessment of liquidity and financial strength. Management also believes that this measurement is useful as an indicator of the companys ability to service its debt, meet other payment obligations and make strategic investments. Readers should be aware that free cash flow does not represent residual cash flow available for discretionary expenditures. |
6 | Management believes that net debt and the net-debt-to-capital ratio are useful to investors because they are helpful in determining the companys leverage. It also believes that, since the company has the ability to and may elect to use a portion of cash and cash equivalents to retire debt or to incur additional expenditures without increasing debt, it is appropriate to apply cash and cash equivalents to debt in calculating net debt and net debt to capital. PotashCorp believes that this measurement is useful as a financial leverage measure. |
7 | Net debt to EBITDA shows the maximum number of years it would take to retire the companys net debt using the current years EBITDA and helps PotashCorp evaluate the appropriateness of current debt levels relative to earnings generated by operations. In addition to the limitation of using EBITDA discussed above, net debt to EBITDA is limited in that this measure assumes all earnings are used to repay principal and no interest payments or taxes. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 95 |
Other Financial Information
IFRS | Previous Canadian GAAP | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sales |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potash |
1,630 | 2,543 | 2,828 | 2,963 | 3,285 | 3,983 | 3,001 | 1,316 | 4,068 | 1,797 | 1,228 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nitrogen |
1,529 | 2,047 | 2,532 | 2,417 | 2,503 | 2,433 | 1,835 | 1,353 | 2,672 | 1,912 | 1,395 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate |
1,359 | 1,776 | 1,862 | 2,067 | 2,292 | 2,478 | 1,822 | 1,374 | 2,881 | 1,637 | 1,255 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Less inter-segment nitrogen |
(62 | ) | (87 | ) | (107 | ) | (142 | ) | (153 | ) | (179 | ) | (119 | ) | (66 | ) | (174 | ) | (112 | ) | (111 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total sales |
4,456 | 6,279 | 7,115 | 7,305 | 7,927 | 8,715 | 6,539 | 3,977 | 9,447 | 5,234 | 3,767 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freight, transportation and distribution |
(535 | ) | (488 | ) | (609 | ) | (572 | ) | (494 | ) | (496 | ) | (488 | ) | (319 | ) | (458 | ) | (470 | ) | (390 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net sales 1 |
3,921 | 5,791 | 6,506 | 6,733 | 7,433 | 8,219 | 6,051 | 3,658 | 8,989 | 4,764 | 3,377 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potash net sales |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
North America |
589 | 825 | 1,162 | 1,210 | 1,231 | 1,502 | 1,222 | 507 | 1,308 | 657 | 471 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Offshore |
781 | 1,487 | 1,354 | 1,482 | 1,835 | 2,223 | 1,506 | 699 | 2,527 | 910 | 576 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other miscellaneous and purchased product |
10 | 17 | 21 | 15 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 24 | 14 | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total potash net sales |
1,380 | 2,329 | 2,537 | 2,707 | 3,079 | 3,739 | 2,742 | 1,222 | 3,859 | 1,581 | 1,059 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potash |
437 | 1,322 | 1,435 | 1,573 | 1,963 | 2,722 | 1,816 | 731 | 3,056 | 912 | 561 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nitrogen |
361 | 706 | 1,010 | 913 | 978 | 916 | 528 | 192 | 737 | 536 | 316 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate |
32 | 241 | 202 | 304 | 469 | 648 | 346 | 92 | 1,068 | 434 | 84 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total gross margin |
830 | 2,269 | 2,647 | 2,790 | 3,410 | 4,286 | 2,690 | 1,015 | 4,861 | 1,882 | 961 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potash |
216 | 214 | 224 | 176 | 158 | 142 | 121 | 40 | 82 | 72 | 58 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nitrogen |
213 | 198 | 173 | 161 | 138 | 132 | 119 | 99 | 97 | 88 | 77 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate |
223 | 240 | 297 | 294 | 261 | 207 | 197 | 164 | 141 | 121 | 95 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
43 | 33 | 7 | 35 | 21 | 8 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total depreciation and amortization |
695 | 685 | 701 | 666 | 578 | 489 | 449 | 312 | 328 | 291 | 242 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating income |
582 | 1,913 | 2,348 | 2,616 | 3,019 | 4,306 | 2,597 | 1,181 | 4,589 | 1,589 | 835 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income per share basic |
0.39 | 1.52 | 1.83 | 2.06 | 2.42 | 3.60 | 2.00 | 1.11 | 3.76 | 1.17 | 0.65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income per share diluted |
0.38 | 1.52 | 1.82 | 2.04 | 2.37 | 3.51 | 1.95 | 1.08 | 3.64 | 1.13 | 0.63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends declared per share |
0.70 | 1.52 | 1.40 | 1.33 | 0.70 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capital spending |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sustaining |
662 | 724 | 601 | 667 | 651 | 509 | 523 | 416 | 303 | 204 | 154 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opportunity |
231 | 493 | 537 | 957 | 1,482 | 1,667 | 1,556 | 1,348 | 895 | 403 | 355 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total cash additions to property, plant and equipment |
893 | 1,217 | 1,138 | 1,624 | 2,133 | 2,176 | 2,079 | 1,764 | 1,198 | 607 | 509 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Management includes net sales in its segment disclosures in the consolidated financial statements pursuant to IFRS, which requires segmentation based upon the companys internal organization and reporting of revenue and profit measures derived from internal accounting methods. As a component of gross margin, net sales (and related per-tonne amounts and other ratios) are primary revenue measures it uses and reviews in making decisions about operating matters on a business segment basis. These decisions include assessments about potash, nitrogen and phosphate performance and the resources to be allocated to these segments. It also uses net sales (and related per-tonne amounts and other ratios) for business segment planning and monthly forecasting. Net sales are calculated as sales revenues less freight, transportation and distribution expenses. Net sales presented on a consolidated basis rather than by business segment is considered a non-IFRS financial measure. |
96 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
11 Year Data
|
Non-Financial Data
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Customers |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Customer survey score |
89% | 92% | 89% | 90% | 92% | 90% | 90% | 89% | 91% | 90% | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product tonnes involved in customer complaints (thousands) 1 |
106 | 59 | 63 | 43 | 64 | 59 | 97 | 190 | 191 | 152 | 289 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community investment ($ millions) |
15 | 28 | 26 | 31 | 28 | 21 | 17 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taxes and royalties ($ millions) |
256 | 654 | 715 | 568 | 654 | 997 | 620 | (8 | ) | 1,684 | 507 | 238 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community survey score (out of 5) |
4.2 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Employees |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Employees at year-end |
5,130 | 5,395 | 5,136 | 5,787 | 5,779 | 5,703 | 5,486 | 5,136 | 5,301 | 5,003 | 4,871 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Employee engagement score |
75% | n/a | 2 | 67% | n/a | 2 | 79% | 73% | 73% | 76% | 79% | 69% | 66% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annual employee turnover rate 3 |
3% | 4% | 5% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 6% | 6% | n/a | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion of women |
9% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 9% | 9% | 9% | 9% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Women in management (percent) |
20% | 17% | 17% | 17% | 16% | 17% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Safety |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total recordable injury rate |
0.87 | 1.01 | 1.01 | 1.06 | 1.29 | 1.42 | 1.29 | 1.54 | 2.21 | n/a | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total lost-time injury rate |
0.08 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.39 | n/a | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total severity injury rate |
0.44 | 0.32 | 0.46 | 0.40 | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.38 | 0.74 | 0.97 | n/a | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Environment |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Environmental incidents |
18 | 24 | 24 | 17 | 19 | 14 | 20 | 22 | 19 | 25 | 26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Waste (million tonnes) |
26 | 29 | 28 | 29 | 24 | 30 | 26 | 15 | 26 | 28 | 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Direct energy used (thousand terajoules) 4 |
184 | 184 | 186 | 180 | 160 | 166 | 162 | 152 | 154 | 159 | n/a | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
n/a = not available as data had not been previously compiled consistent with current methodology
1 | A complaint occurs when our product does not meet our product specification sheet requirements, our chemical analysis requirements or our physical size specifications (for example, product is undersized, has too many lumps or has too much dust). |
2 | No survey was conducted in 2015 or 2013. Engagement survey completed annually for half of employees prior to 2013; beginning in 2014, survey conducted biennially for all employees. |
3 | Prior periods figures have been adjusted to reflect the companys new definition of employee turnover rate, which now excludes announced workforce reductions and aligns with internal targets to measure turnover. |
4 | Direct energy used is energy consumed by our operations in order to mine, mill and manufacture our products. Energy is used by burning fossil fuels, reforming natural gas and consuming electricity. |
Production and Sales Volumes Information
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Production (thousands) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potash production (KCI) tonnage |
8,604 | 9,105 | 8,726 | 7,792 | 7,724 | 9,343 | 8,078 | 3,405 | 8,697 | 9,159 | 7,018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nitrogen production (N) tonnage |
3,147 | 3,081 | 3,170 | 2,952 | 2,602 | 2,813 | 2,767 | 2,551 | 2,780 | 2,986 | 2,579 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate production (P 2 O 5 ) tonnage |
1,504 | 1,614 | 1,671 | 2,058 | 1,983 | 2,204 | 1,987 | 1,505 | 1,942 | 2,164 | 2,108 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sales manufactured product tonnes (thousands) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Potash sales |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
North America |
3,367 | 2,591 | 3,549 | 3,185 | 2,590 | 3,114 | 3,355 | 1,093 | 2,962 | 3,471 | 2,785 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Offshore |
5,277 | 6,181 | 5,797 | 4,915 | 4,640 | 5,932 | 5,289 | 1,895 | 5,585 | 5,929 | 4,411 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total potash sales |
8,644 | 8,772 | 9,346 | 8,100 | 7,230 | 9,046 | 8,644 | 2,988 | 8,547 | 9,400 | 7,196 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nitrogen sales |
6,373 | 5,926 | 6,352 | 5,896 | 4,946 | 5,147 | 5,329 | 5,086 | 5,050 | 5,756 | 4,720 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate sales |
2,713 | 2,850 | 3,142 | 3,680 | 3,643 | 3,854 | 3,632 | 3,055 | 3,322 | 4,151 | 3,970 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 97 |
FINANCIAL TERMS
Adjusted EBITDA
EBITDA + exit costs + termination benefit costs + impairment charges/recoveries + Proposed Transaction costs + takeover response costs loss (gain) on sale of assets + plant shutdown and closure and workforce reduction costs
Adjusted EBITDA margin
Adjusted EBITDA / net sales
Average adjusted assets
Simple average of the current years adjusted assets and the previous years adjusted assets, except when a material acquisition occurred, in which case the weighted average rather than the simple average is calculated; the last material acquisition was in 1997
Cash flow
Net income + income taxes + change in unrealized loss (gain) on derivatives included in net income + finance costs current income taxes + depreciation and amortization + impairment of available-for-sale investment + impairment of property, plant and equipment
Cash flow return
Cash flow / average (total assets cash and cash equivalents fair value of derivative assets + accumulated depreciation and amortization net unrealized gain on available-for-sale investments payables and accrued charges + impairment of property, plant and equipment)
Current income taxes
Current income tax expense (which was already reduced by the realized excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation under previous Canadian GAAP) realized excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation (under IFRS)
EBITDA
Earnings (net income) before finance costs, income taxes, depreciation and amortization
Free cash flow
Cash provided by operating activities additions to property, plant and equipment other assets and intangible assets changes in non-cash operating working capital
Market value of total capital
Market value of total debt cash and cash equivalents + market value of equity
Net debt to capital
(Total debt cash and cash equivalents) / (total debt cash and cash equivalents + total shareholders equity)
Net debt to EBITDA
(Total debt cash and cash equivalents) / EBITDA
Net sales
Sales freight, transportation and distribution
Previous Canadian GAAP
As we adopted IFRS with effect from January 1, 2010, our 2006 to 2009 annual information is presented on a previous Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis and, to the extent such information constitutes Canadian non-GAAP measures, is reconciled to the most directly comparable measure calculated in accordance with previous Canadian GAAP. Accordingly, our information for 2006 to 2009 may not be comparable to the periods 2010 to 2016.
Return on assets
Net income / total assets
Total debt to capital
Total debt / (total debt + total shareholders equity)
Total debt to net income
Total debt / net income
Total shareholder return
Return on investment in PotashCorp stock from the time the investment is made based on two components: (1) growth in share price and (2) return from reinvested dividend income on the shares.
Weighted average cost of capital
Simple monthly average of ((market value of total debt cash and cash equivalents) / market value of total capital x after-tax cost of debt + market value of equity / market value of total capital x cost of equity)
98 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
11 Year Data
|
NON-FINANCIAL TERMS
Arrangement Agreement
The arrangement agreement between PotashCorp and Agrium Inc. (Agrium) dated September 11, 2016.
Community investment
Represents cash disbursements, matching of employee gifts and in-kind contributions of equipment, goods, services and employee volunteerism (on corporate time).
Community survey score
Survey conducted annually by an independent third party in the communities where PotashCorp has significant operations; each community is generally surveyed every three years. Community leaders and representatives are asked to provide a ranking in three broad areas: perception of community involvement, business practices and economic issues. Each question is rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) and results are determined by taking a simple average of the metrics described above.
Customer survey score
Online survey conducted by an independent third party measuring performance in product quality and customer service, which includes a selection of top customers from each sales segment. Results are determined by taking a simple average of individual product quality and customer service scores in fertilizer, feed, industrial nitrogen and purified phosphate.
Employee engagement score
Represents the proportion of employee responses of Agree or Strongly Agree to four best practice employee engagement statements.
Employee turnover rate
The number of permanent employees who left the company (due to deaths and voluntary and involuntary terminations, and excluding retirements and announced workforce reductions) as a percentage of average total employees during the year. Retirements and terminations of temporary employees are excluded.
Environmental incidents
Number of incidents includes reportable quantity releases, permit non-compliance and Canadian reportable releases. Calculated as: reportable quantity releases (a release whose quantity equals or exceeds the US Environmental Protection Agencys notification level and is reportable to the National Response Center (NRC)) + permit non-compliance (an exceedance of a federal, state, provincial or local permit condition or regulatory limit) + Canadian reportable releases (an unconfined spill or release into the environment).
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
Based on 2007 United Nations International Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (UN IPCC Fourth AR).
Proposed Transaction
The pending merger of equals transaction between PotashCorp and Agrium pursuant to which the company and Agrium have agreed to combine their businesses pursuant to a statutory plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Taxes and royalties
Includes tax and royalty amounts on an accrual basis calculated as: current income tax expense (which was already reduced by the realized excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation under previous Canadian GAAP) investment tax credits realized excess tax benefit related to share-based compensation (under IFRS) + potash production tax + resource surcharge + royalties + municipal taxes + other miscellaneous taxes.
Total lost-time injury rate
Total lost-time injuries for every 200,000 hours worked for all PotashCorp employees, contractors and others on site. Calculated as the total lost-time injuries multiplied by 200,000 hours worked divided by the actual number of hours worked.
Total recordable injury rate
Total recordable injuries for every 200,000 hours worked for all PotashCorp employees, contractors and others on site. Calculated as the total recordable injuries multiplied by 200,000 hours worked divided by the actual number of hours worked.
Total severity injury rate
Total of lost-time injuries (a lost-time injury occurs when the injured person is unable to return to work on his/her next scheduled workday after the injury) + modified work injuries (a work-related injury where a licensed health care professional or the employer recommends the employee not perform one or more of the routine functions of the job or not work the full workday that he/she would have otherwise worked) for every 200,000 hours worked for all PotashCorp employees, contractors and others on site.
Waste
Comprised of waste or byproducts from mining, including: coarse and fine tailings from potash mining, salt as brine to injection wells and gypsum (related to phosphate operations).
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 99 |
PotashCorp holds the potential to help produce the food needed by our growing world.
Reports |
||||||
102 | ||||||
103 | ||||||
Consolidated Statements of |
||||||
105 | ||||||
106 | ||||||
107 | ||||||
108 | ||||||
109 | ||||||
Business and Environment |
||||||
Note 1 |
Description of Business | 111 | ||||
Note 2 |
Basis of Presentation | 112 | ||||
Income, Expenses and Cash Flow |
||||||
Note 3 |
Segment Information | 113 | ||||
Note 4 |
Nature of Expenses | 116 | ||||
Note 5 |
Provincial Mining and Other Taxes | 117 | ||||
Note 6 |
Other (Expenses) Income | 117 | ||||
Note 7 |
Finance Costs | 117 | ||||
Note 8 |
Income Taxes | 118 | ||||
Note 9 |
Net Income per Share | 122 | ||||
Note 10 |
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow | 123 | ||||
Operating Assets and Liabilities |
||||||
Note 11 |
Receivables | 124 | ||||
Note 12 |
Inventories | 125 | ||||
Note 13 |
Property, Plant and Equipment | 126 | ||||
Note 14 |
Other Assets | 128 | ||||
Note 15 |
Intangible Assets | 129 | ||||
Note 16 |
Payables and Accrued Charges | 130 | ||||
Note 17 |
Derivative Instruments | 131 | ||||
Note 18 |
Provisions for Asset Retirement, Environmental and Other Obligations | 132 | ||||
Investments, Financing and Capital Structure |
||||||
Note 19 |
Investments | 135 | ||||
Note 20 |
Short-Term Debt | 138 | ||||
Note 21 |
Long-Term Debt | 138 | ||||
Note 22 |
Share Capital | 140 | ||||
Note 23 |
Capital Management | 141 | ||||
Note 24 |
Commitments | 142 | ||||
Note 25 |
Guarantees | 143 | ||||
Personnel |
||||||
Note 26 |
Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits | 144 | ||||
Note 27 |
Share-Based Compensation | 151 | ||||
Other |
||||||
Note 28 |
Related Party Transactions | 154 | ||||
Note 29 |
Financial Instruments and
Related Risk Management |
155 | ||||
Note 30 |
Contingencies and Other Matters | 161 | ||||
Note 31 |
Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments | 163 | ||||
Note 32 |
Proposed Transaction with Agrium | 167 | ||||
Managements Responsibility for Financial Reporting
MANAGEMENTS REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The accompanying consolidated financial statements and related financial information are the responsibility of PotashCorp management. They have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board and include amounts based on estimates and judgments. Financial information included elsewhere in this report is consistent with the consolidated financial statements.
The consolidated financial statements are approved by the Board of Directors on the recommendation of the audit committee. The audit committee of the Board of Directors is composed entirely of independent directors. The audit committee discusses and analyzes PotashCorps interim condensed consolidated financial statements and MD&A with management before such information is approved by the committee and submitted to securities commissions or other regulatory authorities. The annual consolidated financial statements and MD&A are also analyzed by the audit committee and management and are approved by the Board of Directors.
In addition, the audit committee has the duty to review critical accounting policies and significant estimates and
judgments underlying the consolidated financial statements as presented by management, and to approve the fees of our independent registered public accounting firm.
Our independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte LLP, performs an audit of the consolidated financial statements, the results of which are reflected in their report for 2016 included on Page 104. Deloitte LLP have full and independent access to the audit committee to discuss their audit and related matters.
MANAGEMENTS REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Internal control over financial reporting includes maintaining records that accurately and fairly reflect our transactions, providing reasonable assurance that: transactions are recorded for preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board; receipts and expenditures of company assets are made in accordance with management authorization; and
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of company assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements would be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Due to its inherent limitation, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management has assessed the effectiveness of the companys internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and concluded that the companys internal control over financial reporting was effective as at December 31, 2016. The effectiveness of the companys internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2016 has been audited by Deloitte LLP, as reflected in their report for 2016 included on Page 103.
J. Tilk
President and
Chief Executive Officer
February 20, 2017
W. Brownlee
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
102 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Saskatoon, Canada
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Companys management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Companys internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the companys principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the companys board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. A companys internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the companys assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2016, based on the criteria established in Internal Control Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 of the Company and our report dated February 20, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.
Chartered Professional Accountants
Licensed Professional Accountants
February 20, 2017
Saskatoon, Canada
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 103 |
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
Saskatoon, Canada
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial position of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2016, in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on the criteria established in Internal Control Integrated Framework (2013)
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 20, 2017, expressed an unqualified opinion on the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
Chartered Professional Accountants
Licensed Professional Accountants
February 20, 2017
Saskatoon, Canada
104 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
2016
HIGHLIGHTS UNAUDITED
Financials & Notes
|
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
For the years ended December 31 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Consolidated Statements of Income
The consolidated statements of income present a summary of earnings.
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||
Sales |
Note 3 | $ | 4,456 | $ 6,279 | $ 7,115 | |||||||||||
Freight, transportation and distribution |
Note 4 | (535 | ) | (488 | ) | (609 | ) | |||||||||
Cost of goods sold |
Note 4 | (3,091 | ) | (3,522 | ) | (3,859 | ) | |||||||||
Gross Margin |
830 | 2,269 | 2,647 | |||||||||||||
Selling and administrative expenses |
Note 4 | (212 | ) | (239 | ) | (245 | ) | |||||||||
Provincial mining and other taxes |
Note 5 | (124 | ) | (310 | ) | (257 | ) | |||||||||
Share of earnings of equity-accounted investees |
95 | 121 | 102 | |||||||||||||
Dividend income |
33 | 50 | 117 | |||||||||||||
Impairment of available-for-sale investment |
Note 19 | (10 | ) | | (38 | ) | ||||||||||
Other (expenses) income |
Note 6 | (30 | ) | 22 | 22 | |||||||||||
Operating Income |
582 | 1,913 | 2,348 | |||||||||||||
Finance costs |
Note 7 | (216 | ) | (192 | ) | (184 | ) | |||||||||
Income Before Income Taxes |
366 | 1,721 | 2,164 | |||||||||||||
Income taxes |
Note 8 | (43 | ) | (451 | ) | (628 | ) | |||||||||
Net Income |
$ | 323 | $ 1,270 | $ 1,536 | ||||||||||||
Net Income per Share |
Note 9 | |||||||||||||||
Basic |
$ | 0.39 | $ 1.52 | $ 1.83 | ||||||||||||
Diluted |
$ | 0.38 | $ 1.52 | $ 1.82 | ||||||||||||
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |
Note 9 | |||||||||||||||
Basic |
838,928,000 | 834,141,000 | 838,101,000 | |||||||||||||
Diluted |
839,459,000 | 837,349,000 | 844,544,000 | |||||||||||||
(See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
53 percent of 2016 gross margin was earned in the potash segment; nitrogen earned 43 percent and phosphate earned 4 percent.
The companys dividend was reduced from the 2015 level to better align distributions with earnings in consideration of current market conditions and the best interests of the company and shareholders.
|
A
|
Pages 59-61
|
Potash Financial Performance
|
||
Pages 65-67 | Nitrogen Financial Performance | |||
Pages 70-71 | Phosphate Financial Performance | |||
Pages 78-80 | Other Expenses and Income |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 105 |
2016
HIGHLIGHTS UNAUDITED
| Net fair value loss on available-for-sale investments in 2016 fell $512 from 2015 due primarily to changes in the fair value of the companys investment in Israel Chemicals Ltd., which increased in 2016 and significantly decreased in 2015. |
For the years ended December 31 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
The consolidated statements of comprehensive income present changes in net assets during the year other than transactions with shareholders. Amounts recorded in other comprehensive income may be subsequently reclassified to net income or may not pass through net income.
(net of related income taxes) | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |||||||||
Net Income |
$ | 323 | $ | 1,270 | $ | 1,536 | ||||||
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
||||||||||||
Items that will not be reclassified to net income: |
||||||||||||
Net actuarial gain (loss) on defined benefit plans 1 |
16 | 36 | (109 | ) | ||||||||
Items that have been or may be subsequently reclassified to net income: |
||||||||||||
Available-for-sale investments 2 |
||||||||||||
Net fair value loss during the year |
(34 | ) | (546 | ) | (157 | ) | ||||||
Cash flow hedges |
||||||||||||
Net fair value gain (loss) during the year 3 |
7 | (52 | ) | (40 | ) | |||||||
Reclassification to income of net loss 4 |
50 | 54 | 26 | |||||||||
Other |
2 | (9 | ) | 1 | ||||||||
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) |
41 | (517 | ) | (279 | ) | |||||||
Comprehensive Income |
$ | 364 | $ | 753 | $ | 1,257 | ||||||
1 Net of income taxes of $(16) (2015 $(22), 2014 $60).
2 Available-for-sale investments are comprised of shares in Israel Chemicals Ltd., Sinofert Holdings Limited and other.
3 Cash flow hedges are comprised of natural gas derivative instruments and treasury lock derivatives and were net of income taxes of $(4) (2015 $31, 2014 $22).
4 Net of income taxes of $(28) (2015 $(30), 2014 $(14)).
(See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
106 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
2016
HIGHLIGHTS UNAUDITED
Financials & Notes
|
For the years ended December 31 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow
The consolidated statements of cash flow start with net income adjusted for non-cash items affecting net income to arrive at cash flow from operating activities, and present cash used in investing and financing activities.
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||
Operating Activities |
||||||||||||||||
Net income |
Note 10 | $ | 323 | $ | 1,270 | $ | 1,536 | |||||||||
Adjustments to reconcile net income to cash provided by operating activities |
Note 10 | 877 | 941 | 1,168 | ||||||||||||
Changes in non-cash operating working capital |
60 | 127 | (90 | ) | ||||||||||||
Cash provided by operating activities |
1,260 | 2,338 | 2,614 | |||||||||||||
Investing Activities |
||||||||||||||||
Additions to property, plant and equipment |
(893 | ) | (1,217 | ) | (1,138 | ) | ||||||||||
Other assets and intangible assets |
(2 | ) | (67 | ) | (22 | ) | ||||||||||
Cash used in investing activities |
(895 | ) | (1,284 | ) | (1,160 | ) | ||||||||||
Financing Activities |
||||||||||||||||
Proceeds from long-term debt obligations |
496 | 494 | 737 | |||||||||||||
Repayment of, and finance costs on, long-term debt obligations |
(8 | ) | (502 | ) | (500 | ) | ||||||||||
(Repayment of) proceeds from short-term debt obligations |
(128 | ) | (19 | ) | 66 | |||||||||||
Dividends |
(809 | ) | (1,204 | ) | (1,141 | ) | ||||||||||
Repurchase of common shares |
| | (1,065 | ) | ||||||||||||
Issuance of common shares |
25 | 53 | 36 | |||||||||||||
Cash used in financing activities |
(424 | ) | (1,178 | ) | (1,867 | ) | ||||||||||
Decrease in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
(59 | ) | (124 | ) | (413 | ) | ||||||||||
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Year |
91 | 215 | 628 | |||||||||||||
Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Year |
$ | 32 | $ | 91 | $ | 215 | ||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents comprised of: |
||||||||||||||||
Cash |
$ | 13 | $ | 30 | $ | 89 | ||||||||||
Short-term investments |
19 | 61 | 126 | |||||||||||||
$ | 32 | $ | 91 | $ | 215 | |||||||||||
(See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
| The decline in cash provided by operating activities from 2015 was driven primarily by lower net income. |
| During the fourth quarter of 2016, the company completed the issuance of $500 of 4.000 percent senior notes, providing cash from financing activities . |
| Dividend payments decreased year-over-year. When dividends are declared, a liability is recorded and equity is reduced. Amounts flow through the statements of cash flow when the amounts are paid to shareholders. |
A |
Pages 85-86
|
Sources and Uses of Cash
|
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 107 |
in millions of US dollars |
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders Equity
The consolidated statements of changes in shareholders equity show the movements in shareholders equity.
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Share Capital |
Contributed Surplus |
Net unrealized
gain (loss) on available-for- sale investments |
Net (loss) gain
on derivatives designated as cash flow hedges |
Net actuarial
(loss) gain on defined benefit plans |
Other |
Total Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Income (Loss) |
Retained
Earnings |
Total Equity 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2013 |
$ | 1,600 | $ | 219 | $ 780 | $ (105 | ) | $ | 2 | $ | (2 | ) | $ 673 | $ | 7,136 | $ | 9,628 | |||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
| | | | | | | 1,536 | 1,536 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other comprehensive (loss) income |
| | (157 | ) | (14 | ) | (109 | ) | 1 | (279 | ) | | (279 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares repurchased (Note 22) |
(53 | ) | (2 | ) | | | | | | (976 | ) | (1,031 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends declared |
| | | | | | | (1,164 | ) | (1,164 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effect of share-based compensation including issuance
|
49 | 17 | | | | | | | 66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares issued for dividend reinvestment plan |
36 | | | | | | | | 36 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transfer of net actuarial loss on defined benefit plans |
| | | | 109 | | 109 | (109 | ) | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2014 |
$ | 1,632 | $ | 234 | $ 623 | $ (119 | ) | $ | 2 | $ | (1 | ) | $ 503 | $ | 6,423 | $ | 8,792 | |||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
| | | | | | | 1,270 | 1,270 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other comprehensive (loss) income |
| | (546 | ) | 2 | 36 | (9 | ) | (517 | ) | | (517 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends declared |
| | | | | | | (1,274 | ) | (1,274 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effect of share-based compensation including issuance
|
72 | (4 | ) | | | | | | | 68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares issued for dividend reinvestment plan |
43 | | | | | | | | 43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transfer of net actuarial gain on defined benefit plans |
| | | | (36 | ) | | (36 | ) | 36 | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2015 |
$ | 1,747 | $ | 230 | $ 77 | $ (117 | ) | $ | 2 | $ | (10 | ) | $ (50 | ) | $ | 6,455 | $ | 8,382 | ||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
| | | | | | | 323 | 323 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other comprehensive (loss) income |
| | (34 | ) | 57 | 16 | 2 | 41 | | 41 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends declared |
| | | | | | | (590 | ) | (590 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effect of share-based compensation including issuance
|
36 | (8 | ) | | | | | | | 28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shares issued for dividend reinvestment plan |
15 | | | | | | | | 15 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transfer of net actuarial gain on defined benefit plans |
| | | | (16 | ) | | (16 | ) | 16 | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2016 |
$ | 1,798 | $ | 222 | $ 43 | $ (60 | ) | $ | 2 | $ | (8 | ) | $ (25 | ) | $ | 6,204 | $ | 8,199 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 All equity transactions were attributable to common shareholders.
2 Any amounts incurred during a period were closed out to retained earnings at each period-end. Therefore, no balance exists at the beginning or end of period.
(See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
108 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
As at December 31 |
in millions of US dollars |
Consolidated Statements of Financial Position
The consolidated statements of financial position present assets, liabilities and shareholders equity.
2016 | 2015 | |||||||||
Assets |
||||||||||
Current assets |
||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ | 32 | $ | 91 | ||||||
Receivables |
Note 11 | 545 | 640 | |||||||
Inventories |
Note 12 | 768 | 749 | |||||||
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
49 | 73 | ||||||||
1,394 | 1,553 | |||||||||
Non-current assets |
||||||||||
Property, plant and equipment |
Note 13 | 13,318 | 13,212 | |||||||
Investments in equity-accounted investees |
Note 19 | 1,173 | 1,243 | |||||||
Available-for-sale investments |
Note 19 | 940 | 984 | |||||||
Other assets |
Note 14 | 250 | 285 | |||||||
Intangible assets |
Note 15 | 180 | 192 | |||||||
Total Assets |
$ | 17,255 | $ | 17,469 | ||||||
(See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
2016 | 2015 | |||||||||
Liabilities |
||||||||||
Current liabilities |
||||||||||
Short-term debt and current portion of long-term debt |
Note 20, 21 | $ | 884 | $ | 517 | |||||
Payables and accrued charges |
Note 16 | 772 | 1,146 | |||||||
Current portion of derivative instrument liabilities |
Note 17 | 41 | 84 | |||||||
1,697 | 1,747 | |||||||||
Non-current liabilities |
||||||||||
Long-term debt |
Note 21 | 3,707 | 3,710 | |||||||
Derivative instrument liabilities |
Note 17 | 56 | 109 | |||||||
Deferred income tax liabilities |
Note 8 | 2,463 | 2,438 | |||||||
Pension and other post-retirement benefit liabilities |
Note 26 | 443 | 431 | |||||||
Asset retirement obligations and accrued environmental costs |
Note 18 | 643 | 574 | |||||||
Other non-current liabilities and deferred credits |
47 | 78 | ||||||||
Total Liabilities |
9,056 | 9,087 | ||||||||
Shareholders Equity |
||||||||||
Share capital |
Note 22 | 1,798 | 1,747 | |||||||
Contributed surplus |
222 | 230 | ||||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
(25 | ) | (50 | ) | ||||||
Retained earnings |
6,204 | 6,455 | ||||||||
Total Shareholders Equity |
8,199 | 8,382 | ||||||||
Total Liabilities and Shareholders Equity |
$ | 17,255 | $ | 17,469 | ||||||
(See Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements)
Approved by the Board of Directors,
|
|
|
Director | Director |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 109 |
2016
HIGHLIGHTS UNAUDITED
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted
Highlights to the consolidated statements of financial position
| The current ratio 1 was 0.82 as at December 31, 2016 (2015 0.89). |
| As at December 31, 2016, the companys property, plant and equipment accounted for 77 percent of total assets (2015 76 percent). |
| The total debt-to-capital ratio 2 was 36 percent as at December 31, 2016 (2015 34 percent). |
| As at December 31, 2016, the companys defined benefit pension plans were 94 percent funded (2015 92 percent). The companys other defined benefit plans are non-funded. |
| There was a reduction in retained earnings in the year due primarily to dividends declared exceeding net income. |
A |
Page 83 Financial Condition Review | |
Pages 87-88 Capital Structure and Management |
1 | Current assets / current liabilities. |
2 | Total debt / (total debt + total shareholders equity). |
110 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted
Changes to the 2016 Financial Statements
(Unaudited)
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (PCS) known as PotashCorp or the company except to the extent the context otherwise requires aspires to the highest standards of financial reporting and as such, it strives to improve the structure and content of its financial reports for clarity and transparency. The main changes compared to the financial statements included in PotashCorps 2015 Annual Integrated Report are as follows:
| the consolidated financial statements, and related notes, have been reordered by relevant topic; |
| in certain cases, note disclosures were streamlined and language was simplified to aid in readability; and |
| Note 32 has been added to address the pending merger of equals transaction with Agrium Inc. (Agrium) pursuant to which the company and Agrium have agreed to combine their businesses (the Proposed Transaction). |
Description of Business |
PotashCorp is a crop nutrient company and plays an integral role in global food production. The company produces the three essential nutrients potash, nitrogen and phosphate required to help farmers grow healthier, more abundant crops.
With its subsidiaries, PotashCorp forms an integrated fertilizer and related industrial and feed products company. As at December 31, 2016, the company had assets as follows:
Production
(Owned)
K |
Potash |
| five operations in the province of Saskatchewan |
| one operation in the province of New Brunswick (indefinitely suspended in early 2016 and placed in care-and-maintenance mode) |
N |
Nitrogen |
| three plants, one located in each of the states of Georgia, Louisiana and Ohio |
| one large-scale operation in the country of Trinidad |
P |
Phosphate |
| a mine and processing plants in the state of North Carolina |
| a mine and processing plants in the state of Florida |
| a processing plant in the state of Louisiana |
| phosphate feed plants in the states of Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and North Carolina |
| an industrial phosphoric acid plant in the state of Ohio |
Investments in Other
Potash-Related Companies
|
Investments |
| Arab Potash Company (APC), Jordan |
| Canpotex Limited (Canpotex) 1 |
| Israel Chemicals Ltd. (ICL), Israel |
| Sinofert Holdings Limited (Sinofert), China |
| Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A. (SQM), Chile |
See Note 19 for additional information.
Marketing
Potash for use outside Canada and the US is sold exclusively to Canpotex, which resells potash to offshore customers.
Under its own name, PotashCorp markets and sells potash products in North America and nitrogen and phosphate products in North America and offshore.
Transportation and Distribution
(Leased and Owned)
| leased or owned 296 terminals and warehouses (409 multi-product distribution points) in North America |
| leased or owned approximately 11,100 railcars in North America |
| leased a warehouse in Malaysia |
| ownership in a joint venture that leases a dry bulk fertilizer port terminal in Brazil |
| leased three vessels used for ammonia transportation |
| owned one multi-purpose vessel used for molten sulfur and phosphoric acid transportation |
1 A potash export, sales and marketing company owned in equal shares by PotashCorp and two other Canadian potash producers.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 111 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Basis of Presentation |
These consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IFRS). The company has consistently applied the same accounting policies throughout all periods presented, as if these policies had always been in effect.
The company is a foreign private issuer in the US that voluntarily files its consolidated financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on US domestic filer forms. In addition, the company is permitted to file with the SEC its audited consolidated financial statements under IFRS without a reconciliation
to US generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP). As a result, the company does not prepare a reconciliation of its results to US GAAP. It is possible that certain of its accounting policies could be different from US GAAP.
These consolidated financial statements were authorized by the Board of Directors for issue on February 20, 2017.
These consolidated financial statements were prepared under the historical cost convention, except for certain items as discussed in the applicable accounting policies.
Where an accounting policy is applicable to a specific note to the statements, the policy is described within that note, with the related financial disclosures by major caption as noted in the table below. Certain of the companys accounting policies that relate to the financial statements as a whole, as well as estimates and judgments it has made and how they affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements, are disclosed in Note 31. New standards and amendments or interpretations that were either effective and applied by the company during 2016 or that were not yet effective are described in Note 31.
Note | Topic |
Accounting
Policies |
Accounting
Estimates and Judgments |
Page | ||||||
3 | Revenue recognition | X | X | 113 | ||||||
4 | Cost of goods sold | X | 116 | |||||||
4 | Selling and administrative expenses | X | 116 | |||||||
8 | Income taxes | X | X | 118 | ||||||
10 | Cash equivalents | X | 123 | |||||||
11 | Receivables | X | X | 124 | ||||||
12 | Inventories | X | X | 125 | ||||||
13 | Property, plant and equipment | X | X | 126 | ||||||
14 | Other assets | X | 128 | |||||||
15 | Intangible assets | X | X | 129 | ||||||
17 | Derivative instruments | X | X | 131 |
Note | Topic |
Accounting
Policies |
Accounting
Estimates and Judgments |
Page | ||||||
18 | Provisions for asset retirement, environmental and other obligations | X | X | 132 | ||||||
19 | Investments | X | X | 135 | ||||||
21 | Long-term debt | X | 138 | |||||||
24 | Commitments | X | X | 142 | ||||||
25 | Guarantees | X | 143 | |||||||
26 | Pension and other post-retirement benefits | X | X | 144 | ||||||
27 | Share-based compensation | X | X | 151 | ||||||
28 | Related party transactions | X | 154 | |||||||
29 | Fair value and offsetting of financial instruments | X | X | 155 | ||||||
30 | Contingencies | X | X | 161 |
112 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Segment Information |
The company has three reportable operating segments: potash, nitrogen and phosphate. These segments are differentiated by the chemical nutrient contained in the products that each produces.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
Accounting policies of the segments are:
the same as those described in Note 31 and other relevant notes; and
measured in a manner consistent with the financial statements.
Sales revenue is recognized when:
product is shipped;
the sale price and costs incurred or to be incurred can be measured reliably; and
collectibility is probable.
Sales revenue is recorded and measured based on:
the FOB mine, plant, warehouse or terminal price (except for certain vessel sales or specific product sales that are shipped and recorded on a delivered basis); and
the fair value of the consideration received or receivable (net of any trade discounts and volume rebates allowed).
Inter-segment sales are made under terms that approximate market value.
Transportation costs are recovered from the customer through sales pricing. |
Segments are determined based on reports reviewed by the Chief Executive Officer (assessed to be the companys chief operating decision-maker) used to make strategic decisions. |
Supporting Information
Financial information on each of these segments is summarized in the following tables:
|
19%
Gross margin as a
earned from all nutrients in 2016
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | Potash | Nitrogen | Phosphate | All Others | Consolidated | |||||||||||||||||
Sales third party |
$ | 1,630 | $ | 1,467 | $ | 1,359 | $ | | $ | 4,456 | ||||||||||||
Freight, transportation and distribution third party |
(250 | ) | (122 | ) | (163 | ) | | (535 | ) | |||||||||||||
Net sales third party |
1,380 | 1,345 | 1,196 | | ||||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold third party |
(943 | ) | (1,016 | ) | (1,132 | ) | | (3,091 | ) | |||||||||||||
Margin (cost) on inter-segment sales 1 |
| 32 | (32 | ) | | | ||||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
437 | 361 | 32 | | 830 | |||||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
(216 | ) | (213 | ) | (223 | ) | (43 | ) | (695 | ) | ||||||||||||
Share of Canpotexs Prince Rupert project exit costs |
(33 | ) | | | | (33 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Termination benefit costs |
(32 | ) | | | | (32 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment (Note 13) |
| | (47 | ) | | (47 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Assets |
9,795 | 2,515 | 2,306 | 2,639 | 17,255 | |||||||||||||||||
Cash outflows for additions to property, plant and equipment |
342 | 263 | 216 | 72 | 893 |
1 Inter-segment net sales were $62.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 113 |
Note 3 | Segment Information continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
2015 | Potash | Nitrogen | Phosphate | All Others | Consolidated | |||||||||||||||
Sales third party |
$ | 2,543 | $ | 1,960 | $ | 1,776 | $ | | $ | 6,279 | ||||||||||
Freight, transportation and distribution third party |
(214 | ) | (101 | ) | (173 | ) | | (488 | ) | |||||||||||
Net sales third party |
2,329 | 1,859 | 1,603 | | ||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold third party |
(1,007 | ) | (1,210 | ) | (1,305 | ) | | (3,522 | ) | |||||||||||
Margin (cost) on inter-segment sales 1 |
| 57 | (57 | ) | | | ||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
1,322 | 706 | 241 | | 2,269 | |||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
(214 | ) | (198 | ) | (240 | ) | (33 | ) | (685 | ) | ||||||||||
Assets |
9,772 | 2,563 | 2,367 | 2,767 | 17,469 | |||||||||||||||
Cash outflows for additions to property, plant and equipment |
537 | 398 | 202 | 80 | 1,217 | |||||||||||||||
1 Inter-segment net sales were $87.
2014 | Potash | Nitrogen | Phosphate | All Others | Consolidated | |||||||||||||||
Sales third party |
$ | 2,828 | $ | 2,425 | $ | 1,862 | $ | | $ | 7,115 | ||||||||||
Freight, transportation and distribution third party |
(291 | ) | (117 | ) | (201 | ) | | (609 | ) | |||||||||||
Net sales third party |
2,537 | 2,308 | 1,661 | | ||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold third party |
(1,102 | ) | (1,357 | ) | (1,400 | ) | | (3,859 | ) | |||||||||||
Margin (cost) on inter-segment sales 1 |
| 59 | (59 | ) | | | ||||||||||||||
Gross margin |
1,435 | 1,010 | 202 | | 2,647 | |||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
(224 | ) | (173 | ) | (297 | ) | (7 | ) | (701 | ) | ||||||||||
Assets |
9,615 | 2,444 | 2,344 | 3,321 | 17,724 | |||||||||||||||
Cash outflows for additions to property, plant and equipment |
521 | 388 | 203 | 26 | 1,138 | |||||||||||||||
1 Inter-segment net sales were $107.
As described in Note 1, Canpotex executed offshore marketing, sales and distribution functions for certain of the companys products. Financial information by geographic area is summarized in the following tables:
Country of Origin | ||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | Canada | United States | Trinidad | Other | Consolidated | |||||||||||||||
Sales to customers outside the company |
||||||||||||||||||||
Canada |
$ | 97 | $ | 129 | $ | | $ | | $ | 226 | ||||||||||
United States |
752 | 1,820 | 314 | | 2,886 | |||||||||||||||
Canpotex 1 |
778 | | | | 778 | |||||||||||||||
Mexico |
| 91 | 7 | | 98 | |||||||||||||||
Trinidad |
| | 115 | | 115 | |||||||||||||||
Brazil |
2 | 39 | | | 41 | |||||||||||||||
Colombia |
| 6 | 29 | | 35 | |||||||||||||||
Other Latin America |
1 | 22 | 45 | | 68 | |||||||||||||||
India |
| 138 | | | 138 | |||||||||||||||
Other |
| 15 | 56 | | 71 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 1,630 | $ | 2,260 | $ | 566 | $ | | $ | 4,456 | |||||||||||
Non-current assets 2 |
$ | 9,534 | $ | 3,532 | $ | 597 | $ | 14 | $ | 13,677 | ||||||||||
1 Canpotexs 2016 sales volumes were made to: Latin America 33%, China 16%, India 9%, Other Asian markets 36%, other markets 6% (Note 28).
2 Includes non-current assets other than financial instruments, equity-accounted investees, deferred tax assets and post-employment benefit assets.
114 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 3 | Segment Information continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Country of Origin | ||||||||||||||||||||
2015 | Canada | United States | Trinidad | Other | Consolidated | |||||||||||||||
Sales to customers outside the company |
||||||||||||||||||||
Canada |
$ | 119 | $ | 175 | $ | | $ | | $ | 294 | ||||||||||
United States |
913 | 2,299 | 506 | | 3,718 | |||||||||||||||
Canpotex 1 |
1,346 | | | | 1,346 | |||||||||||||||
Mexico |
2 | 98 | | | 100 | |||||||||||||||
Trinidad |
| | 259 | | 259 | |||||||||||||||
Brazil |
65 | 61 | | | 126 | |||||||||||||||
Colombia |
37 | 17 | 35 | | 89 | |||||||||||||||
Other Latin America |
61 | 39 | 53 | | 153 | |||||||||||||||
India |
| 144 | | | 144 | |||||||||||||||
Other |
| 24 | 26 | | 50 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 2,543 | $ | 2,857 | $ | 879 | $ | | $ | 6,279 | |||||||||||
Non-current assets 2 |
$ | 9,472 | $ | 3,472 | $ | 625 | $ | 16 | $ | 13,585 | ||||||||||
1 Canpotexs 2015 sales volumes were made to: Latin America 30%, China 20%, India 9%, Other Asian markets 34%, other markets 7% (Note 28).
2 Includes non-current assets other than financial instruments, equity-accounted investees, deferred tax assets and post-employment benefit assets.
Country of Origin | ||||||||||||||||||||
2014 | Canada | United States | Trinidad | Other | Consolidated | |||||||||||||||
Sales to customers outside the company |
||||||||||||||||||||
Canada |
$ | 153 | $ | 179 | $ | | $ | | $ | 332 | ||||||||||
United States |
1,295 | 2,623 | 603 | | 4,521 | |||||||||||||||
Canpotex 1 |
1,233 | | | | 1,233 | |||||||||||||||
Mexico |
8 | 102 | | | 110 | |||||||||||||||
Trinidad |
| | 364 | | 364 | |||||||||||||||
Brazil |
22 | 30 | | | 52 | |||||||||||||||
Colombia |
39 | 16 | 48 | | 103 | |||||||||||||||
Other Latin America |
78 | 38 | 66 | | 182 | |||||||||||||||
India |
| 169 | | | 169 | |||||||||||||||
Other |
| 17 | 32 | | 49 | |||||||||||||||
$ | 2,828 | $ | 3,174 | $ | 1,113 | $ | | $ | 7,115 | |||||||||||
Non-current assets 2 |
$ | 9,127 | $ | 3,230 | $ | 632 | $ | 17 | $ | 13,006 | ||||||||||
1 Canpotexs 2014 sales volumes were made to: Latin America 26%, China 16%, India 10%, Other Asian markets 41%, other markets 7% (Note 28).
2 Includes non-current assets other than financial instruments, equity-accounted investees, deferred tax assets and post-employment benefit assets.
29%
Decrease in sales dollars
from 2015
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 115 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Nature of Expenses |
Accounting Policies
Cost of goods sold is costs primarily incurred at, and charged to, an active producing facility.
The primary components of selling and administrative expenses are compensation, other employee benefits, supplies, communications, travel, professional services and depreciation and amortization.
8%
Decrease in total
expenses
from 2015
Supporting Information
Expenses by nature were comprised of:
Cost of Goods Sold | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
$ | 652 | $ | 652 | $ | 694 | $ | 43 | $ | 33 | $ | 7 | $ | 695 | $ | 685 | $ | 701 | ||||||||||||||||||
Employee costs 1 |
575 | 566 | 615 | 93 | 90 | 111 | 668 | 656 | 726 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freight |
| | | 367 | 345 | 445 | 367 | 345 | 445 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Energy and fuel |
358 | 452 | 586 | | | | 358 | 452 | 586 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supplies |
258 | 289 | 307 | | | | 258 | 289 | 307 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contract services |
256 | 305 | 291 | | | | 256 | 305 | 291 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raw materials 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas feedstock |
250 | 359 | 498 | | | | 250 | 359 | 498 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sulfur |
151 | 236 | 243 | | | | 151 | 236 | 243 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ammonia |
92 | 114 | 139 | | | | 92 | 114 | 139 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas hedge loss |
77 | 89 | 45 | | | | 77 | 89 | 45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reagents |
76 | 87 | 100 | | | | 76 | 87 | 100 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other raw materials |
110 | 131 | 109 | | | | 110 | 131 | 109 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Railcar and vessel costs |
| | | 106 | 86 | 93 | 106 | 86 | 93 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment (Note 13) |
47 | | | | | | 47 | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Property and other taxes |
39 | 38 | 43 | | | | 39 | 38 | 43 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Royalties |
38 | 69 | 74 | | | | 38 | 69 | 74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Products purchased for resale |
1 | 58 | 56 | | | | 1 | 58 | 56 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Off-site warehouse costs |
| | | 47 | 47 | 60 | 47 | 47 | 60 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
111 | 77 | 59 | 121 | 104 | 116 | 232 | 181 | 175 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
$ | 3,091 | $ | 3,522 | $ | 3,859 | $ | 777 | $ | 705 | $ | 832 | $ | 3,868 | $ | 4,227 | $ | 4,691 | ||||||||||||||||||
Expenses included in: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freight, transportation and distribution |
$ | 535 | $ | 488 | $ | 609 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost of goods sold |
3,091 | 3,522 | 3,859 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Selling and administrative expenses |
212 | 239 | 245 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other expenses (income) |
30 | (22 | ) | (22 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Includes employee benefits and share-based compensation.
2 Includes inbound freight, purchasing and receiving costs.
116 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Provincial Mining and Other Taxes |
Under Saskatchewan provincial legislation, the company is subject to resource taxes, including the potash production tax and the resource surcharge.
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Potash production tax |
$ | 74 | $ | 239 | $ | 181 | ||||||
Saskatchewan resource surcharge and other |
50 | 71 | 76 | |||||||||
$ | 124 | $ | 310 | $ | 257 | |||||||
Other (Expenses) Income |
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Foreign exchange (loss) gain |
$ | (9 | ) | $ | 48 | $ | 8 | |||||
Proposed Transaction costs |
(18 | ) | | | ||||||||
Legal settlements |
| | 17 | |||||||||
Other |
(3 | ) | (26 | ) | (3 | ) | ||||||
$ | (30 | ) | $ | 22 | $ | 22 | ||||||
Finance Costs |
Finance costs mainly arise from interest expense on long-term senior notes.
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Interest expense on |
||||||||||||
Short-term debt |
$ | 9 | $ | 4 | $ | 1 | ||||||
Long-term debt |
188 | 198 | 197 | |||||||||
Interest on net defined benefit pension and other
|
19 | 19 | 13 | |||||||||
Unwinding of discount on asset retirement obligations (Note 18) |
14 | 13 | 15 | |||||||||
Borrowing costs capitalized to property, plant and equipment |
(11 | ) | (40 | ) | (41 | ) | ||||||
Interest income |
(3 | ) | (2 | ) | (1 | ) | ||||||
$ | 216 | $ | 192 | $ | 184 | |||||||
Borrowing costs capitalized to property, plant and equipment during 2016 were calculated by applying an average capitalization rate of 4.0 percent (2015 and 2014 4.5 percent) to expenditures on qualifying assets.
See Note 10 for interest paid.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 117 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Note 8 | Income Taxes |
This note explains the companys income tax expense and tax-related balances within the consolidated financial statements. The deferred tax section provides information on expected future tax payments.
Accounting Policies |
The company operates in a specialized industry and in several tax jurisdictions. As a result, its income is subject to various rates of taxation. Taxation on items recognized in the statements of income, other comprehensive income (OCI) or contributed surplus is recognized in the same location as those items.
Taxation on earnings is comprised of current and deferred income tax.
Current income tax is:
|
Deferred income tax is:
|
|
the expected tax payable on the taxable income for the year;
calculated using rates enacted or substantively enacted at the consolidated statements of financial position date in the countries where the companys subsidiaries and equity-accounted investees operate and generate taxable income; and
inclusive of any adjustment to income tax payable or recoverable in respect of previous years. |
recognized using the liability method;
based on temporary differences between financial statements carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and their respective income tax bases; and
determined using tax rates that have been enacted or substantively enacted by the statements of financial
position date and are expected to apply when the related deferred income tax asset is realized or the deferred
|
The realized and unrealized excess tax benefit from share-based payment arrangements is recognized in contributed surplus as current and deferred tax, respectively.
Uncertain income tax positions are accounted for using the standards applicable to current income tax liabilities and assets; i.e., both liabilities and assets are recorded when probable and measured at the amount expected to be paid to (recovered from) the taxation authorities using the companys best estimate of the amount.
Deferred income tax is not accounted for:
| with respect to investments in subsidiaries and equity-accounted investees where the company is able to control the reversal of the temporary difference and that difference is not expected to reverse in the foreseeable future; and |
| if arising from initial recognition of an asset or liability in a transaction, other than a business combination, that at the time of the transaction affects neither accounting nor taxable profit or loss. |
Deferred income tax assets are reviewed at each statements of financial position date and amended to the extent that it is no longer probable that the related tax benefit will be realized.
Accounting Estimates and Judgments |
Estimates and judgments to determine the companys taxes are impacted by:
| the breadth of the companys operations; and |
| global complexity of tax regulations. |
The final taxes paid, and potential adjustments to tax assets and liabilities, are dependent upon many factors including:
| negotiations with taxing authorities in various jurisdictions; |
| outcomes of tax litigation; and |
| resolution of disputes arising from federal, provincial, state and local tax audits. |
Estimates and judgments are used to recognize the amount of deferred tax assets, which:
| includes the probability future taxable profit will be available to use deductible temporary differences; and |
| could be reduced if projected income is not achieved or increased if income previously not projected becomes probable. |
118 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 8 | Income Taxes continued |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Accounting Policies continued |
Income tax assets and liabilities are offset when:
Supporting Information
Income Taxes in Net Income
The provision for income taxes differs from the amount that would have resulted from applying the Canadian statutory income tax rates to income before income taxes as follows:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
(Loss) income before income taxes |
||||||||||||
Canada |
$ | (43 | ) | $ | 726 | $ | 911 | |||||
United States |
174 | 585 | 717 | |||||||||
Trinidad |
88 | 224 | 355 | |||||||||
Other |
147 | 186 | 181 | |||||||||
$ | 366 | $ | 1,721 | $ | 2,164 | |||||||
Canadian federal and provincial statutory income tax rate |
27.02% | 27.00% | 27.00% | |||||||||
Income tax at statutory rates |
$ | 99 | $ | 465 | $ | 584 | ||||||
Adjusted for the effect of: |
||||||||||||
Non-taxable income |
(37 | ) | (36 | ) | (60 | ) | ||||||
Production-related deductions |
(27 | ) | (37 | ) | (38 | ) | ||||||
Tax authority examinations |
(16 | ) | (17 | ) | | |||||||
Additional tax deductions |
(5 | ) | (6 | ) | (5 | ) | ||||||
Impact of foreign tax rates (US, Trinidad and other) |
17 | 62 | 91 | |||||||||
Withholding taxes |
5 | 7 | 17 | |||||||||
Other |
7 | 13 | 39 | |||||||||
Income tax expense included in net income |
$ | 43 | $ | 451 | $ | 628 | ||||||
The increase in the Canadian and provincial statutory income tax rate from 2015 to 2016 was the result of a legislated increase in New Brunswick income tax rates.
Accounting Estimates and Judgments continued |
16%
Actual effective tax rate
on ordinary earnings for 2016
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 119 |
Note 8 | Income Taxes continued |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Total income tax expense, included in net income, was comprised of the following:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Current income tax |
||||||||||||
Tax expense for current year |
$ | 78 | $ | 263 | $ | 351 | ||||||
Adjustments in respect of prior years |
(13 | ) | (16 | ) | 9 | |||||||
Total current income tax expense |
65 | 247 | 360 | |||||||||
Deferred income tax |
||||||||||||
Origination and reversal of temporary differences |
(17 | ) | 199 | 257 | ||||||||
Other |
(5 | ) | 5 | 11 | ||||||||
Total deferred income tax (recovery) expense |
(22 | ) | 204 | 268 | ||||||||
Income tax expense included in net income |
$ | 43 | $ | 451 | $ | 628 | ||||||
Income Tax Balances
Income tax balances within the consolidated statements of financial position as at December 31 were comprised of the following:
Income Tax Assets (Liabilities) | Statements of Financial Position Location | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Current income tax assets |
||||||||||
Current |
Receivables (Note 11) | $ | 41 | $ | 60 | |||||
Non-current |
Other assets (Note 14) | 67 | 66 | |||||||
Deferred income tax assets |
Other assets | 10 | 10 | |||||||
Total income tax assets |
$ | 118 | $ | 136 | ||||||
Current income tax liabilities |
||||||||||
Current |
Payables and accrued charges (Note 16) | $ | (25 | ) | $ | (14 | ) | |||
Non-current |
Other non-current liabilities and deferred credits | (43 | ) | (74 | ) | |||||
Deferred income tax liabilities |
Deferred income tax liabilities | (2,463 | ) | (2,438 | ) | |||||
Total income tax liabilities |
$ | (2,531 | ) | $ | (2,526 | ) | ||||
120 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 8 | Income Taxes continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Deferred Income Taxes
In respect of each type of temporary difference, unused tax loss and unused tax credit, the amounts of deferred tax assets and liabilities recognized in the consolidated statements of financial position as at December 31 and the amount of the deferred tax recovery or expense recognized in net income were:
Deferred Income Tax Assets (Liabilities) |
Deferred Income Tax Recovery (Expense)
Recognized in Net Income |
|||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||||
Deferred income tax assets |
||||||||||||||||||||
Tax loss and other carryforwards |
$ | 118 | $ | 2 | $ | 116 | $ | (1 | ) | $ | (1 | ) | ||||||||
Asset retirement obligations and accrued environmental costs |
176 | 174 | 2 | | 40 | |||||||||||||||
Derivative instrument liabilities |
35 | 69 | | | | |||||||||||||||
Inventories |
6 | 31 | (25 | ) | 9 | (32 | ) | |||||||||||||
Post-retirement benefits and share-based compensation |
166 | 167 | 13 | 5 | 11 | |||||||||||||||
Other assets |
22 | 16 | 8 | (7 | ) | (15 | ) | |||||||||||||
Deferred income tax liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||
Property, plant and equipment |
(2,930 | ) | (2,837 | ) | (93 | ) | (212 | ) | (273 | ) | ||||||||||
Investments in equity-accounted investees |
(35 | ) | (38 | ) | 2 | (1 | ) | 3 | ||||||||||||
Other liabilities |
(11 | ) | (12 | ) | (1 | ) | 3 | (1 | ) | |||||||||||
$ | (2,453 | ) | $ | (2,428 | ) | $ | 22 | $ | (204 | ) | $ | (268 | ) | |||||||
Reconciliation of net deferred income tax liabilities:
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Balance, beginning of year |
$ | (2,428 | ) | $ | (2,191 | ) | ||
Income tax recovery (charge) recognized in the statements
|
22 | (204 | ) | |||||
Income tax charge recognized in contributed surplus |
| (10 | ) | |||||
Income tax charge recognized in OCI |
(48 | ) | (20 | ) | ||||
Foreign exchange |
1 | (3 | ) | |||||
Balance, end of year |
$ | (2,453 | ) | $ | (2,428 | ) | ||
Amounts and expiry dates of unused tax losses and unused tax credits as at December 31, 2016 were:
Amount | Expiry Date | |||||||
Unused tax losses |
||||||||
Operating |
$ | 414 | 2028 Indefinite | |||||
Capital |
$ | 292 | None | |||||
Unused investment tax credits |
$ | 65 | 2017 2035 | |||||
Unused alternative minimum tax credits |
$ | 6 | None | |||||
Any unused tax losses and credits with no expiry dates can be carried forward indefinitely.
As at December 31, 2016, the company had $337 of tax losses and deductible temporary differences for which it did not recognize deferred tax assets.
The company has determined that it is probable that all recognized deferred tax assets will be realized through a combination of future reversals of temporary differences and taxable income.
The aggregate amount of temporary differences associated with investments in subsidiaries and equity-accounted investees, for which deferred tax liabilities have not been recognized, as at December 31, 2016 was $6,463 (2015 $6,374).
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 121 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Net Income per Share |
Basic net income per share provides a measure of the interests of each ordinary common share in the companys performance over the year. Diluted net income per share adjusts basic net income per share for the effects of all dilutive potential common shares.
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Basic net income per share 1 |
||||||||||||
Net income available to common shareholders |
$ 323 | $ 1,270 | $ 1,536 | |||||||||
Weighted average number of common shares |
838,928,000 | 834,141,000 | 838,101,000 | |||||||||
Basic net income per share |
$ 0.39 | $ 1.52 | $ 1.83 | |||||||||
Diluted net income per share 1 |
||||||||||||
Net income available to common shareholders |
$ 323 | $ 1,270 | $ 1,536 | |||||||||
Weighted average number of common shares |
838,928,000 | 834,141,000 | 838,101,000 | |||||||||
Dilutive effect of stock options |
210,000 | 3,208,000 | 6,443,000 | |||||||||
Dilutive effect of share-settled performance share units |
321,000 | | | |||||||||
Weighted average number of diluted common shares |
839,459,000 | 837,349,000 | 844,544,000 | |||||||||
Diluted net income per share |
$ 0.38 | $ 1.52 | $ 1.82 | |||||||||
1 Net income per share calculations are based on dollar and share amounts each rounded to the nearest thousand.
Net income per share = net income available to common shareholders / weighted average number of common shares issued and outstanding during the year. Diluted net income per share incorporated the following adjustments. The denominator was:
Ù |
increased by the total of the additional common shares that would have been issued assuming exercise of all stock options with exercise prices at or below the average market price for the year; |
Ù |
increased by the total of the additional share-settled performance share units (PSUs) that could be issued if vesting criteria are achieved; and |
Ú |
decreased by the number of shares that the company could have repurchased if it had used the assumed proceeds from the exercise of stock options to repurchase them on the open market at the average share price for the year. |
For performance-based stock option plans, the number of contingently issuable common shares included in the calculation was based on the number of shares, if any, that would be issuable if the end of the reporting period was the end of the performance period and the effect was dilutive.
Options excluded from the calculation of diluted net income per share due to the option exercise prices being greater than the average market price of common shares were as follows:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Weighted average number of options |
12,697,691 | 7,269,775 | 4,454,863 | |||||||||
Option Plan years fully excluded |
2007-2014 |
|
2008, 2009,
2011-2013 |
|
|
2008, 2011-2013
|
|
|||||
122 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow |
Accounting Policy | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less from the date of purchase are considered to be cash equivalents. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
For the years ended December 31 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Reconciliation of cash provided by operating activities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Net income |
$ | 323 | $ | 1,270 | $ | 1,536 | ||||||||||||||||||
Adjustments to reconcile net income to cash provided by operating activities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
695 | 685 | 701 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of property, plant and equipment (Note 13) |
47 | | | |||||||||||||||||||||
Net distributed (undistributed) earnings of
|
70 | (35 | ) | 68 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Impairment of available-for-sale investment (Note 19) |
10 | | 38 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Share-based compensation |
2 | 22 | 28 | |||||||||||||||||||||
(Recovery of) provision for deferred income tax |
(22 | ) | 204 | 268 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pension and other post-retirement benefits |
46 | 30 | 28 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Asset retirement obligations and accrued environmental costs |
29 | 20 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Other long-term liabilities and miscellaneous |
| 15 | 19 | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal of adjustments |
877 | 941 | 1,168 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Changes in non-cash operating working capital |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Receivables |
114 | 259 | (220 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Inventories |
(21 | ) | (99 | ) | 70 | |||||||||||||||||||
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
17 | (19 | ) | 29 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Payables and accrued charges |
(50 | ) | (14 | ) | 31 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Subtotal of changes in non-cash operating working capital |
60 | 127 | (90 | ) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Cash provided by operating activities |
$ | 1,260 | $ | 2,338 | $ | 2,614 | ||||||||||||||||||
Supplemental cash flow disclosure |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest paid |
$ | 189 | $ | 193 | $ | 187 | ||||||||||||||||||
Income taxes paid |
$ | 50 | $ | 171 | $ | 405 | ||||||||||||||||||
$1.3 billion
Total cash provided by
operating activities
in 2016
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 123 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Receivables |
Receivables represent amounts the company expects to collect from other parties. Trade receivables consist mainly of amounts owed to PotashCorp by its customers, the largest individual customer being the related party, Canpotex.
Accounting Policies |
Trade receivables are recognized initially at fair value and subsequently measured at amortized cost less provision for impairment of trade accounts receivable. When a trade receivable is uncollectible, it is written off against the provision. Subsequent recoveries of amounts previously written off are credited to the consolidated statements of income. |
Supporting Information
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Trade accounts Canpotex (Note 28) |
$ | 141 | $ | 148 | ||||
Other |
292 | 327 | ||||||
Less provision for impairment of trade accounts receivable |
(6 | ) | (7 | ) | ||||
427 | 468 | |||||||
Income taxes receivable (Note 8) |
41 | 60 | ||||||
Margin deposits on derivative instruments |
27 | 51 | ||||||
GST and VAT receivable |
22 | 28 | ||||||
Other non-trade accounts |
28 | 33 | ||||||
$ | 545 | $ | 640 | |||||
Accounting Estimates and Judgments |
Determining when amounts are deemed uncollectible requires judgment. |
124 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Inventories |
Inventories consist of product from the companys three segments potash, nitrogen and phosphate in varying stages of the production process.
Accounting Policies |
Inventories are valued monthly at the lower of cost and net realizable value. Costs, allocated to inventory using the weighted average cost method, include direct acquisition costs, direct costs related to the units of production and a systematic allocation of fixed and variable production overhead, as applicable.
Net realizable value is based on:
|
For products and raw materials | For materials and supplies | |||
selling price of the finished product (in ordinary course of business);
less the estimated costs of completion; and
less the estimated costs to make the sale.
|
replacement cost, considered to be the best available measure of net realizable value. |
A writedown is recognized if carrying amount exceeds net realizable value, and may be reversed if the circumstances which caused it no longer exist. | ||
Supporting Information
Inventories as at December 31 were comprised of:
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Finished products |
$ | 269 | $ | 302 | ||||
Intermediate products |
174 | 125 | ||||||
Raw materials |
75 | 94 | ||||||
Materials and supplies |
250 | 228 | ||||||
$ | 768 | $ | 749 | |||||
The following items affected cost of goods sold during the year:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Expensed inventories before the following items |
$ | 2,712 | $ | 3,233 | $ | 3,587 | ||||||
Reserves, reversals and writedowns of inventories |
31 | 11 | 8 | |||||||||
$ |
2,743 |
|
$ | 3,244 | $ | 3,595 | ||||||
The carrying amount of inventory recorded at net realizable value was $47 as at December 31, 2016 (2015 $32), with the remaining inventory recorded at cost.
Accounting Estimates and Judgments |
Judgment involves determining:
the appropriate measure of net realizable value; and
the allocation of production overhead to inventories. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 125 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Property, Plant and Equipment |
The majority of the companys tangible assets are the buildings, machinery and equipment used to produce its three nutrients. These assets are depreciated over their estimated useful lives.
Accounting Policies |
Property, plant and equipment (which include certain mine development costs, pre-stripping costs and assets under construction) are carried at cost less accumulated depreciation and any recognized impairment loss.
Cost includes all expenditures directly attributable to bringing the asset to the location and installing it in working condition for its intended use, including:
income or expenses; 1
a reduction for investment tax credits to which the company is entitled;
additions, betterments and renewals; and
borrowing costs during construction. 2
Each component of an item of property, plant and equipment with a cost that is significant in relation to the items total cost is depreciated separately. When the cost of replacing part of an item of property, plant and equipment is capitalized, the carrying amount of the replaced part is derecognized. The cost of major inspections and overhauls is capitalized and depreciated over the period until the next major inspection or overhaul. Maintenance and repair expenditures that do not improve or extend productive life are expensed in the period incurred.
Any gain or loss arising on the disposal or retirement of an item of property, plant and equipment is determined as the difference between the sale proceeds and the carrying amount of the asset, and is recognized in operating income. |
1 Derived from the necessity to bring an asset under construction to the location and condition necessary to be capable of operating in the manner and location intended.
2 The capitalization rate is based on the weighted average interest rate on all of the companys outstanding third-party debt. Capitalization ceases when assets are substantially ready for their intended use. |
Accounting Estimates and Judgments |
Judgment involves determining:
| which costs are directly attributable (e.g., labor, overhead) and when income or expenses derived from an asset under construction are recognized as part of the asset cost; |
| appropriate timing for cessation of cost capitalization 1 , considering the circumstances and the industry in which the asset is to be operated, normally predetermined by management with reference to such factors as productive capacity; |
| the appropriate level of componentization (for individual components for which different depreciation methods or rates are appropriate); |
| which repairs and maintenance constitute major inspections and overhauls; and |
| the appropriate life over which such costs should be amortized. |
Certain mining and milling assets are depreciated using the units-of-production method based on the shorter of estimates of reserves or service lives. Pre-stripping costs are depreciated on a units-of-production basis over the ore mined from the mineable acreage stripped. Land is not depreciated. Other asset classes are depreciated on a straight-line basis.
The following estimated useful lives have been applied to the majority of property, plant and equipment assets as at December 31, 2016:
Useful Life Range (years) | Weighted Average Useful Life (years) 3 | |||||||
Land improvements | 8 to 60 | 38 | ||||||
Buildings and improvements | 9 to 60 | 39 | ||||||
Machinery and equipment 2 | 3 to 60 | 25 | ||||||
Asset residual values and useful lives are reviewed, and adjusted if appropriate, at the end of each reporting period. Changes in the expected useful life or the expected pattern of consumption of future economic benefits embodied in the asset are accounted for by changing the depreciation period or method, as appropriate, and are treated as changes in accounting estimates.
The company assesses its existing assets and depreciable lives in connection with the review of mine and plant operating plans at the end of each reporting period. When it is determined that assigned asset lives do not reflect the expected remaining period of benefit, prospective changes are made to their depreciable lives. Uncertainties are inherent in estimating reserve quantities, particularly as they relate to assumptions regarding future prices, the geology of the companys mines, the mining methods used and the related costs incurred to develop and mine its reserves. Changes in these assumptions could result in material adjustments to reserve estimates, which could result in impairments or changes to depreciation expense in future periods, particularly if reserve estimates are reduced.
1 Generally when the asset or asset under construction is substantially complete and in the location and condition necessary for it to be capable of operating in the manner intended by management.
2 Comprised primarily of plant equipment.
3 Weighted by carrying amount as at December 31, 2016. |
126 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 13 | Property, Plant and Equipment continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Accounting policies, estimates and judgments related to impairment of long-lived assets are included within Note 31 on Page 164.
Supporting Information
Land and
Improvements |
Buildings and
Improvements |
Machinery and
Equipment |
Mine Development
Costs |
Assets Under
Construction |
Total | |||||||||||||||||||
Carrying amount December 31, 2015 |
$ 538 | $ 3,636 | $ 7,005 | $ 571 | $ 1,462 | $ 13,212 | ||||||||||||||||||
Additions |
| 2 | 9 | 65 | 744 | 820 | ||||||||||||||||||
Change in investment tax credits |
| | (6 | ) | | 5 | (1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Disposals |
| | (1 | ) | | | (1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Transfers |
102 | 639 | 391 | 469 | (1,601 | ) | | |||||||||||||||||
Change in asset retirement costs |
| | | 12 | | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation |
(22 | ) | (65 | ) | (500 | ) | (90 | ) | | (677 | ) | |||||||||||||
Impairment |
| | (39 | ) | | (8 | ) | (47 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Carrying amount December 31, 2016 |
618 | 4,212 | 6,859 | 1,027 | 602 | 13,318 | ||||||||||||||||||
Balance as at December 31, 2016 comprised of: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost |
807 | 4,813 | 11,574 | 1,930 | 602 | 19,726 | ||||||||||||||||||
Accumulated depreciation |
(189 | ) | (601 | ) | (4,715 | ) | (903 | ) | | (6,408 | ) | |||||||||||||
Carrying amount |
618 | 4,212 | 6,859 | 1,027 | 602 | 13,318 | ||||||||||||||||||
Carrying amount December 31, 2014 |
$ 546 | $ 3,615 | $ 6,739 | $ 581 | $ 1,193 | $ 12,674 | ||||||||||||||||||
Additions |
| 1 | 15 | 58 | 1,172 | 1,246 | ||||||||||||||||||
Change in investment tax credits |
| | (6 | ) | | | (6 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Disposals |
| (1 | ) | (19 | ) | | | (20 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Transfers |
11 | 93 | 768 | 31 | (903 | ) | | |||||||||||||||||
Change in asset retirement costs |
| | | (2 | ) | | (2 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Depreciation |
(19 | ) | (72 | ) | (492 | ) | (97 | ) | | (680 | ) | |||||||||||||
Carrying amount December 31, 2015 |
$ 538 | $ 3,636 | $ 7,005 | $ 571 | $ 1,462 | $ 13,212 | ||||||||||||||||||
Balance as at December 31, 2015 comprised of: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost |
$ 708 | $ 4,191 | $ 11,338 | $ 1,384 | $ 1,462 | $ 19,083 | ||||||||||||||||||
Accumulated depreciation |
(170 | ) | (555 | ) | (4,333 | ) | (813 | ) | | (5,871 | ) | |||||||||||||
Carrying amount |
$ 538 | $ 3,636 | $ 7,005 | $ 571 | $ 1,462 | $ 13,212 | ||||||||||||||||||
Depreciation of property, plant and equipment was included in the following:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Cost of goods sold and selling and administrative expenses |
$ 671 | $ 667 | $ 685 | |||||||||
Cost of property, plant and equipment and inventory |
6 | 13 | 13 | |||||||||
$ 677 | $ 680 | $ 698 | ||||||||||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 127 |
Note 13 | Property, Plant and Equipment continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
During the fourth quarter of 2016, an indicator of impairment was determined to exist in the Geismar phosphate cash-generating unit (CGU), as a result of sustained losses in a contract. The Geismar phosphate CGU, part of the phosphate segment reported in Note 3, had a recoverable amount of $NIL at December 31, 2016 based on value in use. As a result, an impairment loss of $20 was recognized in phosphate cost of goods sold during the year ended December 31, 2016 (2015 and 2014 $NIL).
During the first quarter of 2016, property, plant and equipment in the phosphate segment with a carrying amount of $27 was determined to have a recoverable amount of $NIL related to a product that the company will no longer produce. An impairment loss of $27 was recognized in phosphate cost of goods sold during the year ended December 31, 2016 (2015 and 2014 $NIL).
Operating accounts payable incurred for additions to property, plant and equipment do not result in a cash outflow. When paid, the liabilities are reflected as a cash outflow within investing activities. The applicable net change in accounts payable that was reclassified
(to) from investing activities (from) to operating activities on the consolidated statements of cash flow in 2016 was $(68) (2015 $19, 2014 $(43)).
As at December 31, 2016, the carrying amount of idled assets (including our Picadilly, New Brunswick and Lanigan, Saskatchewan potash assets) was $2,142 (2015 $2,015, 2014 $400).
Other Assets |
Accounting Estimates and Judgments |
The costs of certain ammonia catalysts are capitalized to other assets and are amortized, net of residual value, on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives of two to 12 years.
Upfront lease costs are capitalized to other assets and amortized over the life of the leases on a straight-line basis, the latest of which extends through 2037. |
Supporting Information
Other assets as at December 31 were comprised of:
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Long-term income taxes receivable (Note 8) |
$ | 67 | $ | 66 | ||||
Ammonia catalysts net of accumulated amortization of $53 (2015 $43) |
39 | 33 | ||||||
Margin deposits on derivative instruments |
34 | 68 | ||||||
Investment tax credits receivable |
23 | 29 | ||||||
Accrued pension benefit asset (Note 26) |
23 | 21 | ||||||
Upfront lease costs net of accumulated amortization of $11 (2015 $11) |
16 | 16 | ||||||
Other net of accumulated amortization of $21 (2015 $19) |
48 | 52 | ||||||
$ | 250 | $ | 285 | |||||
Amortization of other assets included in cost of goods sold and in selling and administrative expenses for 2016 was $10 (2015 $11, 2014 $12).
128 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
|
Intangible Assets
|
Intangible assets, including goodwill, are identifiable, represent future economic benefits and are controlled by the company. Goodwill is not amortized but is subject to annual impairment reviews.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
An intangible asset is recognized when it is:
reliably measurable;
identifiable (separable or arises from contractual rights);
probable that expected future economic benefits will flow to the company; and
controllable by the company.
Intangible assets are recorded initially at cost, including development and applicable employee costs, and relate primarily to:
production and technology rights;
contractual customer relationships;
computer software;
goodwill; and
computer software and other developed projects (internally generated).
The following expenses are never recognized as an asset in current or subsequent periods:
costs to maintain software programs; and
development costs previously recognized as an expense.
Amortization is recognized in net income as an expense related to the function of the intangible asset.
Useful lives are reviewed, and adjusted if appropriate, at the end of each reporting period.
All business combinations are accounted for using the acquisition method. Identifiable intangible assets are recognized separately from goodwill. Goodwill is carried at cost, is no longer amortized and represents the excess of the cost of an acquisition over the fair value of the companys share of the net identifiable assets of the acquired subsidiary or equity method investee at the date of acquisition.
Separately recognized goodwill is carried at cost less accumulated amortization (recognized prior to 2002) and impairment losses. Gains and losses on the disposal of an entity include the carrying amount of goodwill relating to the entity sold. |
Judgment is applied to determine non-tangible expenditures eligible for capitalization.
Estimation is applied to determine expected useful lives used in the straight-line amortization of intangible assets with finite lives. Changes in accounting estimates can result from changes in useful life or the expected pattern of consumption of an asset (taken into account by changing the amortization period or method, as appropriate).
Goodwill is allocated to CGUs or groups of CGUs for the
purpose
|
|||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 129 |
Note 15 | Intangible Assets continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Supporting Information
Goodwill is the only intangible asset with an indefinite useful life recognized by the company. All other intangible assets have finite useful lives. Following is a reconciliation of intangible assets:
Goodwill 1 | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||
Carrying amount, beginning of year |
$ | 97 | $ | 97 | $ | 95 | $ | 45 | $ | 192 | $ | 142 | ||||||||||||
Additions |
| | 2 | 57 | 2 | 57 | ||||||||||||||||||
Amortization |
| | (14 | ) | (7 | ) | (14 | ) | (7 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Carrying amount, end of year |
$ | 97 | $ | 97 | $ | 83 | $ | 95 | $ | 180 | $ | 192 | ||||||||||||
Balance as at December 31 comprised of: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cost |
$ | 104 | $ | 104 | $ | 122 | $ | 120 | $ | 226 | $ | 224 | ||||||||||||
Accumulated amortization |
(7 | ) | (7 | ) | (39 | ) | (25 | ) | (46 | ) | (32 | ) | ||||||||||||
Carrying amount |
$ | 97 | $ | 97 | $ | 83 | $ | 95 | $ | 180 | $ | 192 | ||||||||||||
1 The companys aggregate carrying amount of goodwill was $97 (2015 $97), representing 1.2 percent of shareholders equity as at December 31, 2016 (2015 1.2 percent). Substantially all of the companys recorded goodwill relates to the nitrogen segment.
Payables and Accrued Charges |
Trade and other payables and accrued charges mainly consist of amounts owed to suppliers, contractors, employees and shareholders that have been invoiced or accrued.
Payables and accrued charges as at December 31 were comprised of:
2016 | 2015 |
44%
Total trade accounts included in
|
||||||||
Trade accounts |
$ | 340 | $ | 426 | ||||||
Dividends |
84 | 318 | ||||||||
Accrued compensation |
76 | 76 | ||||||||
Deferred revenue |
59 | 80 | ||||||||
Current portion of asset retirement obligations and accrued environmental costs (Note 18) |
58 | 85 | ||||||||
Accrued interest |
35 | 34 | ||||||||
Current portion of pension and other post-retirement benefits (Note 26) |
32 | 52 | ||||||||
Income taxes (Note 8) |
25 | 14 | ||||||||
Other payables and other accrued charges |
63 | 61 | ||||||||
$ | 772 | $ | 1,146 | |||||||
130 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Derivative Instruments |
PotashCorp enters into contracts with other parties primarily to fix the price of natural gas used as feedstock in production and the exchange rate for Canadian dollar transactions.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
Derivative financial instruments are used to lock in commodity prices, exchange rates and interest rates. Contracts to buy or sell a non-financial item 1 are recognized at fair value on the consolidated statements of financial position where appropriate.
For designated and qualified cash flow hedges:
the effective portion of the change in the fair value of the derivative is accumulated in OCI until the variability in cash flows being hedged is recognized in net income in future accounting periods; and
the ineffective portions of hedges are recorded in net income in the current period.
The change in fair value of derivative instruments, not designated or not qualified as hedges, is recorded in net income in the current period.
The companys policy is not to use derivative instruments for trading or speculative purposes. The company may choose not to designate a qualifying derivative instrument in an economic hedging relationship as an accounting hedge.
For natural gas derivative instruments designated as accounting hedges, the company formally documents:
all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged items;
its risk management objective and strategy for undertaking the hedge transaction; and
the linkage of derivatives to specific assets and liabilities or to specific firm commitments or forecast transactions.
The company also assesses whether the natural gas derivatives used in hedging transactions are expected to be or were highly effective, both at the hedges inception and on an ongoing basis, in offsetting changes in fair values of hedged items. Hedge effectiveness related to the companys natural gas hedges is assessed on a prospective and retrospective basis using regression analyses.
A hedging relationship is terminated if:
the hedge ceases to be effective;
the underlying asset or liability being hedged is derecognized; or
the derivative instrument is no longer designated as a hedging instrument.
In such instances, the difference between the fair value and the accrued value of the hedging derivatives upon termination is deferred and recognized in net income on the same basis that gains, losses, revenue and expenses of the previously hedged item are recognized. If a cash flow hedging relationship is terminated because it is no longer probable that the anticipated transaction will occur, then the net gain or loss accumulated in OCI is recognized in current period net income. |
Uncertainties, estimates and use of judgment include the assessment of contracts as derivative instruments and for embedded derivatives, application of hedge accounting and valuation of derivatives at fair value (discussed further in Note 29).
For derivatives or embedded derivatives, the most significant area of judgment is whether the contract can be settled net, one of the criteria in determining whether a contract for a non-financial asset is considered a derivative and accounted for as such. Judgment is also applied in determining whether an embedded derivative is closely related to the host contract, in which case bifurcation and separate accounting are not necessary.
The process to test effectiveness and meet stringent documentation standards requires the application of judgment and estimation. |
|||
1 Can be settled net in cash or another financial instrument, or by exchanging financial instruments, as if the contracts were financial instruments (except contracts that were entered into and continue to be held for the purpose of the receipt or delivery of a non-financial item in accordance with expected purchase, sale or usage requirements). |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 131 |
Note 17 | Derivative Instruments continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Supporting Information
Significant recent derivatives included the following:
| natural gas swap agreements to manage the cost of natural gas, generally designated as cash flow hedges of anticipated transactions; and |
| foreign currency forward contracts for the primary purpose of limiting exposure to exchange rate fluctuations relating to expenditures denominated in currencies other than the US dollar, not designated as hedging instruments for accounting purposes. |
Derivatives as at December 31 were comprised of:
2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Assets | Liabilities | Net | Assets | Liabilities | Net | |||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives
|
$ | | $ | 44 | $ | (44 | ) | $ | 9 | $ | 190 | $ | (181 | ) | ||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
6 | 53 | (47 | ) | | | | |||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency derivatives |
| | | | 3 | (3 | ) | |||||||||||||||||
Total |
6 | 97 | (91 | ) | 9 | 193 | (184 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Less current portion |
(1 | ) | (41 | ) | 40 | (4 | ) | (84 | ) | 80 | ||||||||||||||
Long-term portion |
$ | 5 | $ | 56 | $ | (51 | ) | $ | 5 | $ | 109 | $ | (104 | ) | ||||||||||
As at December 31, 2016, the companys net exposure to natural gas derivatives in the form of swaps was a notional amount of 46 million MMBtu with maturities in 2017 through 2022 (2015 65 million).
For the year ended December 31, 2016, gains (losses) before taxes of $11 were recognized in OCI (2015 $(83), 2014 $(62)). For the year ended December 31, 2016, losses before taxes of $78 (2015 $84, 2014 $40) were reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) and recognized in cost of goods sold excluding ineffectiveness, which changed these losses by $2 (2015 $NIL, 2014 $1). Of the losses before taxes in AOCI at December 31, 2016, approximately $44 (2015 $79, 2014 $74) will be reclassified to cost of goods sold within the next 12 months.
As at December 31, 2016, the company had entered into foreign currency forward contracts to sell US dollars and receive Canadian dollars in the notional amount of $21 (2015 $134) at an average exchange rate of 1.3490 (2015 1.3553) per US dollar with maturities in 2017 (2015 maturities in 2016).
Provisions for Asset Retirement, Environmental |
and Other Obligations
A provision is an estimated liability with uncertainty over the timing or amount that will be paid. The most significant asset retirement and environmental restoration provisions relate to costs to restore potash and phosphate sites to their original, or another specified, condition.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
Provisions are recognized when:
there is a present legal or constructive obligation as a result of past events;
it is probable an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and
the amount has been reliably estimated.
Provisions are not recognized for costs that need to be incurred to operate in the future or expected future operating losses.
The company recognizes provisions for termination benefits at the earlier of when it can no longer withdraw the offer of the termination benefits and when it recognizes any related restructuring costs.
Provisions are measured at the present value of the cash flow 1 expected to be required to settle the obligation.
|
Estimates for provisions take into account:
most provisions will not be settled for a number of years;
environmental laws and regulations and interpretations by regulatory authorities could change or circumstances affecting the companys operations could change, either of which could result in significant changes to current plans; and
the nature, extent and timing of current and proposed reclamation and closure techniques in view of present environmental laws and regulations. |
|||
1 Using a pre-tax risk-free discount rate that reflects current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the timing and jurisdiction of the obligation. |
132 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 18 | Provisions for Asset Retirement, Environmental and Other Obligations continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Accounting Estimates and Judgments continued
It is reasonably possible that the ultimate costs could change in the future and that changes to these estimates could have a material effect on the companys consolidated financial statements.
Estimates for asset retirement obligation costs depend on the development of environmentally acceptable closure and post-closure plans. In some cases, this may require significant research and development to identify preferred methods for such plans that are economically sound and that, in most cases, may not be implemented for several decades. The company uses appropriate technical resources, including outside consultants, to develop specific site closure and post-closure plans in accordance with the requirements of the various jurisdictions in which it operates. Other than certain land reclamation programs, settlement of the obligations is typically correlated with mine life estimates.
The risk-free rate and expected cash flow payments for asset retirement obligations at December 31 were as follows:
2016 |
Risk-Free Rate |
Cash Flow Payments 1 |
||
Phosphate | 1.86%-3.06% | 1-85 years | ||
Potash | 5% | 50-340 years |
2015 | ||||
Phosphate | 1.67%-2.95% | 1-85 years | ||
Potash | 6% | 55-385 years |
1 Timeframe in which payments are expected to principally occur from December 31, with the majority of Phosphate payments taking place over the next 35 years.
Employee termination activities are complex processes that can take months to complete and involve making and reassessing estimates.
Sensitivity of asset retirement obligations to changes in the discount rate and inflation rate on the recorded liability as at December 31, 2016 is as follows:
Undiscounted
Cash Flows |
Discounted
Cash Flows |
Discount Rate | Inflation Rate | |||||||||||||||||||||
+0.5% | -0.5% | +0.5% | -0.5% | |||||||||||||||||||||
Potash obligation 1 |
$ 1,001 | 2 | $ | 113 | $ (26) | $ | 36 | $ | 38 | $ (25) | ||||||||||||||
Nitrogen obligation |
62 | 3 | (1) | 1 | 1 | (1) | ||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate obligation |
952 | 591 | (34) | 39 | 39 | (34) |
1 Stated in Canadian dollars.
2 Represents total undiscounted cash flows in the first year of decommissioning. Excludes subsequent years of tailings dissolution, fine tails capping, tailings management area reclamation, post reclamation activities and monitoring, and final decommissioning, which are estimated to take an additional 91-268 years.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 133 |
Note 18 | Provisions for Asset Retirement, Environmental and Other Obligations continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Supporting Information
Following is a reconciliation of asset retirement, environmental restoration and other obligations:
Asset Retirement Obligations |
Environmental Restoration Obligations |
Subtotal |
Other
Obligations |
Total | ||||||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2015 |
$ | 637 | $ | 22 | $ | 659 | $ | 6 | $ | 665 | ||||||||||
Charged to income |
||||||||||||||||||||
New obligations |
3 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 7 | |||||||||||||||
Change in discount rate |
9 | | 9 | | 9 | |||||||||||||||
Change in other estimates |
42 | | 42 | | 42 | |||||||||||||||
Unwinding of discount |
14 | | 14 | | 14 | |||||||||||||||
Capitalized to property, plant and equipment |
||||||||||||||||||||
Change in discount rate |
11 | | 11 | | 11 | |||||||||||||||
Change in other estimates |
1 | | 1 | | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Settled during period |
(40 | ) | (2 | ) | (42 | ) | (4 | ) | (46 | ) | ||||||||||
Exchange differences |
1 | | 1 | | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2016 |
$ | 678 | $ | 23 | $ | 701 | $ | 3 | $ | 704 | ||||||||||
Balance as at December 31, 2016 comprised of: |
||||||||||||||||||||
Current liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||
Payables and accrued charges (Note 16) |
$ | 51 | $ | 7 | $ | 58 | $ | 3 | $ | 61 | ||||||||||
Non-current liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||
Asset retirement obligations and
|
627 | 16 | 643 | | 643 | |||||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2014 |
$ | 609 | $ | 32 | $ | 641 | $ | 2 | $ | 643 | ||||||||||
Charged to income |
||||||||||||||||||||
New obligations |
11 | 1 | 12 | 6 | 18 | |||||||||||||||
Change in discount rate |
(4 | ) | | (4 | ) | | (4 | ) | ||||||||||||
Change in other estimates |
48 | | 48 | | 48 | |||||||||||||||
Unwinding of discount |
13 | | 13 | | 13 | |||||||||||||||
Capitalized to property, plant and equipment |
||||||||||||||||||||
Change in discount rate |
(7 | ) | | (7 | ) | | (7 | ) | ||||||||||||
Change in other estimates |
5 | | 5 | | 5 | |||||||||||||||
Settled during period |
(31 | ) | (11 | ) | (42 | ) | (2 | ) | (44 | ) | ||||||||||
Exchange differences |
(7 | ) | | (7 | ) | | (7 | ) | ||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2015 |
$ | 637 | $ | 22 | $ | 659 | $ | 6 | $ | 665 | ||||||||||
Balance as at December 31, 2015 comprised of: |
||||||||||||||||||||
Current liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||
Payables and accrued charges (Note 16) |
$ | 79 | $ | 6 | $ | 85 | $ | 6 | $ | 91 | ||||||||||
Non-current liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||
Asset retirement obligations and
|
558 | 16 | 574 | | 574 | |||||||||||||||
Environmental Operating and Capital Expenditures
The companys operations are subject to numerous environmental requirements under federal, provincial, state and local laws and regulations of Canada, the US, and Trinidad and Tobago. These laws and regulations govern matters such as air emissions, wastewater discharges, land use and reclamation, and solid and hazardous waste management. Many of these laws, regulations and permit requirements are becoming increasingly stringent, and the cost of compliance can be expected to rise over time. The companys operating expenses, other than costs associated with asset retirement obligations, relating to compliance with environmental laws and regulations governing ongoing operations for 2016 were $95 (2015 $111, 2014 $129).
The company routinely undertakes environmental capital projects. In 2016, capital expenditures of $82 (2015 $164, 2014 $151) were incurred to meet pollution prevention and control as well as other environmental objectives.
Other Environmental Obligations
Other environmental obligations generally relate to regulatory compliance, environmental management practices associated with ongoing operations other than mining, site assessment and remediation of environmental contamination related to the activities of the company and its predecessors, including waste disposal practices and ownership and operation of real property and facilities.
Other Obligations
Other obligations are comprised of provisions for community investment.
134 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Note | 19 | Investments |
PotashCorp holds interests in associates and joint ventures, the most significant being SQM at 32 percent, APC at 28 percent and Canpotex at 33 percent. The companys most significant investments accounted for as available-for-sale are ICL and Sinofert.
Investments in Equity-Accounted Investees
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
Investments in which the company exercises significant influence (but does not control) are accounted for using the equity method. Significant influence is the power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee. Such investees that are not jointly controlled are referred to as associates. All investees the company jointly controls are classified and accounted for as joint ventures, which are also accounted for using the equity method. These associates and joint ventures follow similar accounting principles and policies to PotashCorp.
The companys significant policies include:
its proportionate share of any net income or losses from investees, and any gain or loss on disposal, are recorded in net income;
its proportionate share of post-acquisition movements in OCI is recognized in the companys OCI;
the cumulative post-acquisition movements in net income and OCI are adjusted against the carrying amount of the investment;
dividends received reduce the carrying amount of the companys investment;
an impairment test is performed when there is objective evidence of impairment, such as significant adverse changes in the environment in which the equity-accounted investee operates or a significant or prolonged decline in the fair value of the investment below its carrying amount. An impairment loss is recorded when the recoverable amount 1 becomes lower than the carrying amount; and
impairment losses are reversed if the recoverable amount subsequently exceeds the carrying amount.
1 The higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell.
|
Judgment is necessary in determining when significant influence (power to participate in the financial and operating policy decisions of the investee but not control or joint control over those policies) exists.
Judgment is also used in determining if objective evidence of impairment exists, and if so, the amount of impairment. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 135 |
Note 19 | Investments continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Supporting Information
Equity-accounted investees as at December 31 were comprised of:
Principal Activity |
Principal Place
of Business and Incorporation |
Proportion of Ownership
Interest and Voting Rights Held |
Quoted Fair Value 1 | Carrying Amount | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SQM |
Chemicals & Mining | Chile | 32% | 2 | 32% | 2 | $ | 2,228 | $ | 1,936 | $ | 781 | $ | 833 | ||||||||||||||||||
APC |
Mining | Jordan | 28% | 28% | 618 | 676 | 362 | 378 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Canpotex |
Marketing & Logistics | Canada | 33% | 33% | n/a | 3 | n/a | 3 | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other associates and joint ventures |
30 | 32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total equity-accounted investees |
$ | 1,173 | $ | 1,243 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 The quoted market value (fair value) was based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets (Level 1).
2 Due to provisions in SQMs bylaws, the company holds proportional voting rights of 28 percent.
3 Canpotex is a private company and there is no quoted market price available for the shares.
Aggregated financial information of the companys proportionate interest in equity-accounted investees for the year ended December 31 was as follows:
Associates | Joint Ventures | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||
Income from continuing operations and net income |
$ | 115 | $ | 121 | $ | 137 | $ | 6 | $ | 8 | $ | 10 | ||||||||||||
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
1 | (2 | ) | 3 | | | | |||||||||||||||||
Total comprehensive income |
116 | 119 | 140 | 6 | 8 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||
Additional aggregated financial information of all the companys equity-accounted investees is set out below. The financial information represents an aggregation of full amounts shown in each associates and joint ventures financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS as at and for the year ended December 31, as applicable.
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Current assets |
$ | 3,762 | $ | 4,088 | ||||
Non-current assets |
2,885 | 2,948 | ||||||
Current liabilities |
1,292 | 1,376 | ||||||
Non-current liabilities |
1,730 | 1,950 | ||||||
Non-controlling interest |
61 | 61 | ||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Sales |
$ | 4,739 | $ | 5,892 | $ | 6,019 | ||||||
Gross profit |
811 | 900 | 819 | |||||||||
Income from continuing operations and net income |
382 | 419 | 464 | |||||||||
Dividends received from these equity-accounted investments in 2016 were $170 (2015 $86, 2014 $172).
Available-for-Sale Investments
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
The fair value of investments designated as
available-for-sale
is recorded in the consolidated statements of financial position, with unrealized
The companys significant policies include:
the cost of investments sold is based on the weighted average method;
realized gains and losses on these investments are removed from AOCI and recorded in net income; and
the company assesses at the end of each reporting period whether there is
objective evidence of impairment. A significant or prolonged
|
The companys 22 percent ownership of Sinofert does not constitute
The determination of when an investment is impaired, and if so, the
|
136 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 19 | Investments continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Accounting Policies continued | Accounting Estimates and Judgments continued | |||
exists, the impaired amount (i.e., the unrealized loss) is recognized in net income; any subsequent reversals of a previous impairment would be recognized in OCI and not net income. Any subsequent decline in the fair value below the carrying amount at the impairment date would represent a further impairment to be recognized in net income.
See Note 29 for a description of how the company determines fair value for its investments. |
Supporting Information
Available-for-sale investments as at December 31 were as follows:
Principal Activity |
Principal Place of Business and Incorporation |
Proportion of Ownership
Interest and Voting Rights Held |
Fair Value and Carrying Amount | |||||||||||||||||||||
Name | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||||||||||||||||
ICL |
Fertilizer & Specialty Chemicals | Israel | 14% | 14% | $ | 725 | $ | 716 | ||||||||||||||||
Sinofert |
Fertilizer Supplier & Distributor | China/Bermuda | 22% | 22% | 212 | 266 | ||||||||||||||||||
Other |
3 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
$ | 940 | $ | 984 | |||||||||||||||||||||
As at December 31, 2016, the net unrealized loss on these investments was $346 (2015 $302).
During 2012, the company concluded its investment in Sinofert was impaired due to the significance by which fair value was below cost. During 2014, the company concluded its investment in Sinofert was further impaired due to the fair value declining below the carrying amount of $238 at the previous impairment date. As a result, impairment losses of $341 and $38 were recognized in net income during 2012 and 2014, respectively. During 2016, the company concluded its investment in Sinofert was further impaired due to the fair value declining below the carrying amount of $200 at the previous impairment date. As a result, an impairment loss of $10 was recognized in net income during 2016. The fair value was determined by reference to the market value of Sinofert shares on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
Changes in fair value, and related accounting, for the companys investment in Sinofert since December 31, 2013 were as follows:
Impact of Unrealized Loss on: | ||||||||||||||||
Fair Value |
Unrealized (Loss) Gain |
OCI and AOCI |
Net Income and
Retained Earnings |
|||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2013 |
$ | 254 | $ | (325 | ) | $ | 16 | $ | (341 | ) | ||||||
Decrease in fair value and recognition of impairment |
(54 | ) | (54 | ) | (16 | ) | (38 | ) | ||||||||
Increase in fair value subsequent to recognition of impairment |
52 | 52 | 52 | | ||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2014 |
$ | 252 | $ | (327 | ) | $ | 52 | $ | (379 | ) | ||||||
Increase in fair value during the year |
14 | 14 | 14 | | ||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2015 |
$ | 266 | $ | (313 | ) | $ | 66 | $ | (379 | ) | ||||||
Decrease in fair value and recognition of impairment |
(76 | ) | (76 | ) | (66 | ) | (10 | ) | ||||||||
Increase in fair value subsequent to recognition of impairment |
22 | 22 | 22 | | ||||||||||||
Balance December 31, 2016 |
$ | 212 | $ | (367 | ) | $ | 22 | $ | (389 | ) | ||||||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 137 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Short-Term Debt |
The company uses its $2.5 billion commercial paper program for its short-term cash requirements. The commercial paper program is backstopped by a long-term credit facility.
Short-term debt as at December 31 was comprised of:
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Commercial paper |
$ | 389 | $ | 517 | ||||
The amount available under the commercial paper program is limited to the availability of backup funds under the credit facility. As at December 31, 2016, the company was authorized to issue commercial paper up to $2,500 (2015 $2,500).
The company has a $75 unsecured line of credit available for short-term financing. Net of letters of credit of $NIL and direct borrowings of $NIL, $75 was available as at December 31, 2016 (2015 $75). The line of credit is available through August 2017 (2015 August 2016).
The line of credit is subject to financial tests and other covenants. Principal covenants and events of default are as follows: a debt-to-capital ratio of less than or equal to 0.65:1, net book value
of disposed assets not to exceed 25 percent of the prior year-ends total assets, debt of subsidiaries not to exceed $1,000 and a $300 permitted lien basket. The line of credit is subject to other customary covenants and events of default, including an event of default for non-payment of other debt in excess of the greater of $100 or two percent of shareholders equity. Non-compliance with such covenants could result in accelerated payment of amounts due under the line of credit, and its termination. The company was in compliance with the above-mentioned covenants as at December 31, 2016.
Long-Term Debt |
The companys sources of borrowing for funding and liquidity purposes are primarily senior notes and a long-term credit facility that provides for unsecured borrowings and backstops its commercial paper program.
Accounting Policy |
Issue costs of long-term debt obligations are capitalized to long-term obligations and are amortized to expense over the term of the related liability using the effective interest method. |
138 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 21 | Long-Term Debt continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Supporting Information
Long-term debt as at December 31 was comprised of:
Rate of Interest | Maturity | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||
Senior notes 1 |
||||||||||||||||
Notes issued 2010 |
3.250% | December 1, 2017 | $ | 500 | $ | 500 | ||||||||||
Notes issued 2009 |
6.500% | May 15, 2019 | 500 | 500 | ||||||||||||
Notes issued 2009 |
4.875% | March 30, 2020 | 500 | 500 | ||||||||||||
Notes issued 2014 |
3.625% | March 15, 2024 | 750 | 750 | ||||||||||||
Notes issued 2015 |
3.000% 2 | April 1, 2025 | 500 | 500 | ||||||||||||
Notes issued 2016 |
4.000% | December 15, 2026 | 500 | | ||||||||||||
Notes issued 2006 |
5.875% | December 1, 2036 | 500 | 500 | ||||||||||||
Notes issued 2010 |
5.625% | December 1, 2040 | 500 | 500 | ||||||||||||
Other |
| 4 | ||||||||||||||
4,250 | 3,754 | |||||||||||||||
Less net unamortized debt issue costs |
(48 | ) | (48 | ) | ||||||||||||
4,202 | 3,706 | |||||||||||||||
Less current maturities |
(500 | ) | | |||||||||||||
Add current portion of amortization |
5 | 4 | ||||||||||||||
$ | 3,707 | $ | 3,710 | |||||||||||||
1 Each series of senior notes is unsecured and has no sinking fund requirements prior to maturity. Each series is redeemable, in whole or in part, at the companys option, at any time prior to maturity for a price equal to the greater of the principal amount of the notes to be redeemed and the present value of the remaining scheduled payments of principal and interest based on a predetermined computation of the discount rate, plus accrued and unpaid interest. The series of senior notes issued in 2014, 2015 and 2016 are redeemable, in whole or in part, at the companys option, at any time three months before maturity for a price equal to 100 percent of the principal amount of the notes to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest. If the Proposed Transaction is completed, a downgrade in the companys credit ratings below investment-grade would trigger a change in control offer under existing debt securities, except the notes issued in 2016, and the company would be required to make an offer to purchase all, or any part, of these senior notes at 101 percent of the principal amount of the notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest.
2 Due to the effect of treasury lock derivatives entered into prior to issuance, a gain of $4 (recognized in AOCI) will reduce interest expense over time.
The company has a long-term revolving credit facility that provides for unsecured borrowings and also backstops its commercial paper program. The availability of borrowings is reduced by the amount of commercial paper outstanding. Details of the companys credit facilities were as follows:
2016 1 | 2015 | |||||||
Facility as at December 31 |
|
$3,250 maturity May 31, 2021
$250 maturity May 31, 2020 |
|
|
$3,400 maturity May 31, 2019
$100 maturity May 31, 2018 |
|
||
Borrowings outstanding as at December 31 |
$NIL | $NIL | ||||||
Commercial paper outstanding, backstopped by the credit facility, as at December 31 (Note 20) |
$389 | $517 | ||||||
Amounts borrowed and repaid during the year ended December 31 |
$NIL | $NIL | ||||||
1 During the first quarter of 2016, the company extended its entire $3,500 credit facility to May 31, 2020 and in the second quarter of 2016, $3,250 of the credit facility was extended to May 31, 2021.
Other long-term debt in the above table includes a net financial liability of $NIL (2015 $4) pursuant to back-to-back loan arrangements that have a legally enforceable right to offset and that the company intends to settle with the same party on a net basis (Note 29).
The senior notes are not subject to any financial test covenants, but are subject to certain customary covenants (including limitations on liens and on sale and leaseback transactions) and events of default, including an event of default for acceleration of other debt in excess of $100. Principal covenants and events of default under the credit facility are the same as those under the line of credit described in Note 20. Non-compliance with such covenants could result in accelerated payment of amounts due under the credit facility, and its termination. The back-to-back loan arrangements are not subject to any financial test covenants but are subject to certain customary covenants and events of default, including, for other long-term debt, an event of default for non-payment of other debt in excess of $25. Non-compliance with such covenants could result in accelerated payment of the related debt. The company was in compliance with the above-mentioned covenants as at December 31, 2016.
Long-term debt obligations as at December 31, 2016 will mature as follows:
2017 |
$ | 500 | ||
2018 |
| |||
2019 |
500 | |||
2020 |
500 | |||
2021 |
| |||
Subsequent years |
2,750 | |||
$ | 4,250 | |||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 139 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Share Capital |
Share capital represents amounts associated with issued common shares.
Authorized
The company is authorized to issue an unlimited number of common shares without par value and an unlimited number of first preferred shares. The common shares are not redeemable or convertible. The first preferred shares may be issued in one or more series with rights and conditions to be determined by the Board of Directors. No first preferred shares have been issued.
Issued
Number of
Common Shares |
Consideration | |||||||
Balance, December 31, 2013 |
856,116,325 | $ | 1,600 | |||||
Issued under option plans |
2,285,450 | 49 | ||||||
Issued for dividend reinvestment plan |
1,041,691 | 36 | ||||||
Repurchased |
(29,200,892 | ) | (53 | ) | ||||
Balance, December 31, 2014 |
830,242,574 | $ | 1,632 | |||||
Issued under option plans |
4,803,560 | 72 | ||||||
Issued for dividend reinvestment plan |
1,494,017 | 43 | ||||||
Balance, December 31, 2015 |
836,540,151 | $ | 1,747 | |||||
Issued under option plans |
2,329,600 | 36 | ||||||
Issued for dividend reinvestment plan |
920,628 | 15 | ||||||
Balance, December 31, 2016 |
839,790,379 | 1,798 | ||||||
Dividends Declared
On January 25, 2017, the companys Board of Directors declared a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share payable to shareholders on May 2, 2017. The declared dividend is payable to all shareholders of record on March 31, 2017. The total estimated dividend to be paid is $84. The payment of this dividend will not have any tax consequences for the company.
Under the terms of the agreement governing the Proposed Transaction, the company is permitted to pay quarterly dividends up to but not in excess of existing levels.
140 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Capital Management |
The companys capital management objective is to have the financial flexibility to support existing assets and invest in value-creation opportunities at an acceptable level of risk. To optimize the cost of and access to capital, the company desires to maintain an investment-grade credit rating. Weighted average cost of capital, cash flow return on investments, debt ratios and equity levels are regularly reviewed for their impact on financial flexibility.
The company monitors its capital structure and, based on changes in economic conditions, may adjust the structure by adjusting the amount of dividends paid to shareholders, repurchasing shares, issuing new shares, issuing new debt or retiring existing debt.
The company uses a combination of short-term and long-term debt to finance its operations. It typically pays floating rates of interest on short-term debt and credit facilities, and fixed rates on senior notes.
Net debt and adjusted shareholders equity are included as components of the companys capital structure. The calculation of net debt, adjusted shareholders equity and adjusted capital is set out in the following table:
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Short-term debt obligations |
$ | 389 | $ | 517 | ||||
Current portion of long-term debt obligations |
500 | | ||||||
Long-term debt obligations |
3,750 | 3,754 | ||||||
Net unamortized debt issue costs |
(48 | ) | (44 | ) 1 | ||||
Total debt |
4,591 | 4,227 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
(32 | ) | (91 | ) | ||||
Net debt |
4,559 | 4,136 | ||||||
Total shareholders equity |
8,199 | 8,382 | ||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
25 | 50 | ||||||
Adjusted shareholders equity |
8,224 | 8,432 | ||||||
Adjusted capital 2 |
$ | 12,783 | $ | 12,568 | ||||
1 Comprised of net unamortized debt issue costs less current portion of amortization included in prepaid expenses and other current assets.
2 Adjusted capital = (total debt cash and cash equivalents) + (total shareholders equity accumulated other comprehensive loss).
The company monitors capital on the basis of a number of factors, including the ratios of: net debt to net income before finance costs, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, exit costs, termination benefit costs, certain impairment charges and Proposed Transaction costs (adjusted EBITDA); adjusted EBITDA to finance costs before unwinding of discount on asset retirement obligations, borrowing costs capitalized to property, plant and equipment and interest on net defined benefit pension and other post-retirement plan obligations (adjusted finance costs); net debt to adjusted capital; and fixed-rate debt obligations as a percentage of total debt obligations.
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Components of ratios |
||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA |
$ | 1,417 | $ | 2,598 | ||||
Net debt |
$ | 4,559 | $ | 4,136 | ||||
Adjusted finance costs |
$ | 194 | $ | 200 | ||||
Adjusted capital |
$ | 12,783 | $ | 12,568 | ||||
Ratios |
||||||||
Net debt to adjusted EBITDA 1 |
3.22 | 1.59 | ||||||
Adjusted EBITDA to adjusted finance costs 2 |
7.30 | 13.0 | ||||||
Net debt to adjusted capital 3 |
35.7% | 32.9% | ||||||
Fixed-rate debt obligations as a
|
91.6% | 87.8% | ||||||
1 | Net debt to adjusted EBITDA = (total debt cash and cash equivalents) / adjusted EBITDA. |
2 | Adjusted EBITDA to adjusted finance costs = adjusted EBITDA / adjusted finance costs. |
3 | Net debt to adjusted capital = (total debt cash and cash equivalents) / (total debt cash and cash equivalents + total shareholders equity accumulated other comprehensive (loss) income). |
4 | Fixed-rate debt obligations as a percentage of total debt obligations is determined by dividing fixed-rate debt obligations by total debt obligations. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 141 |
Note 23 | Capital Management continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Net income |
$ | 323 | $ | 1,270 | ||||
Finance costs |
216 | 192 | ||||||
Income taxes |
43 | 451 | ||||||
Depreciation and amortization |
695 | 685 | ||||||
Share of Canpotexs Prince Rupert project exit costs |
33 | | ||||||
Termination benefit costs |
32 | | ||||||
Impairment charges |
57 | | ||||||
Proposed Transaction costs |
18 | | ||||||
Adjusted EBITDA |
$ | 1,417 | $ | 2,598 | ||||
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Finance costs |
$ | 216 | $ | 192 | ||||
Unwinding of discount on asset retirement obligations |
(14 | ) | (13 | ) | ||||
Borrowing costs capitalized to property, plant and equipment |
11 | 40 | ||||||
Interest on net defined benefit pension and other post-retirement plan obligations |
(19 | ) | (19 | ) | ||||
Adjusted finance costs |
$ | 194 | $ | 200 | ||||
Commitments |
A commitment is an agreement that is enforceable and legally binding to make a payment in the future for the purchase of goods or services. These amounts are not recorded in the consolidated statements of financial position since the company has not yet received the goods or services from the supplier. The amounts below are what the company is committed to pay based on current expected contract prices.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
Leases entered into are classified as either finance or operating leases. Leases that transfer substantially all of the risks and rewards of ownership of property to the company are accounted for as finance leases. They are capitalized at the commencement of the lease at the lower of the fair value of the leased property and the present value of the minimum lease payments. Property acquired under a finance lease is depreciated over the shorter of the period of expected use on the same basis as other similar property, plant and equipment and the lease term.
Leases in which a significant portion of the risks and rewards of ownership are retained by the lessor are classified as operating leases. Rental payments under operating leases are expensed in net income on a straight-line basis over the period of the lease.
|
The company is party to various leases, including leases for railcars and vessels. Judgment is required in considering a number of factors to ensure that leases to which the company is party are classified appropriately as operating or financing. Such factors include whether the lease term is for the major part of the assets economic life and whether the present value of minimum lease payments amounts to substantially all of the fair value of the leased asset.
Substantially all of the leases to which the company is party have been classified as operating leases. |
|||
142 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 24 | Commitments continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Supporting Information
Lease Commitments
The company has various long-term operating lease agreements for land, buildings, port facilities, equipment, ocean-going transportation vessels and railcars, the latest of which expires in 2038. The majority of lease agreements are renewable at the end of the lease period at market rates. Rental expenses for operating leases for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $80 (2015 $90, 2014 $90).
Purchase Commitments
The company has entered into long-term natural gas contracts with the National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited, the latest of which expires in 2018. The contracts provide for prices that vary primarily with ammonia market prices, escalating floor prices and minimum purchase quantities. The commitments included in the adjacent table are based on floor prices and minimum purchase quantities.
Agreements for the purchase of sulfur for use in the production of phosphoric acid provide for specified purchase quantities, and prices are based on market rates at the time of delivery. The commitments included in the following table are based on expected contract prices.
Capital Commitments
The company has various long-term contractual commitments related to the acquisition of property, plant and equipment, the latest of
which expires in 2018. The commitments included in the following table are based on expected contract prices.
Other Commitments
Other commitments consist principally of pipeline capacity, throughput and various rail and vessel freight contracts, the latest of which expires in 2026, and mineral lease commitments, the latest of which expires in 2037.
Minimum future commitments under these contractual arrangements were as follows at December 31, 2016:
Operating
Leases |
Purchase
Commitments |
Capital
Commitments |
Other
Commitments |
Total | ||||||||||||||||
Within 1 year |
$ | 87 | $ | 286 | $ | 14 | $ | 49 | $ | 436 | ||||||||||
1 to 3 years |
151 | 94 | 2 | 45 | 292 | |||||||||||||||
3 to 5 years |
116 | | | 24 | 140 | |||||||||||||||
Over 5 years |
244 | | | 23 | 267 | |||||||||||||||
Total |
$ | 598 | $ | 380 | $ | 16 | $ | 141 | $ | 1,135 | ||||||||||
Guarantees |
General guarantees are not recognized in the consolidated statements of financial position but are disclosed.
Accounting Policies
General guarantees are not recognized in the consolidated statements of financial position but are disclosed and include:
| contracts or indemnifications that contingently require the guarantor to make payments based on changes in an underlying; |
| contracts that contingently require payments to a guaranteed party based on another entitys failure to perform under an agreement; and |
| an indirect guarantee of the indebtedness of another party. |
A financial guarantee contract requires the issuer to make payments to reimburse the holder for a loss it incurs because a debtor fails to make payment when due. A financial guarantee contract is recognized as a financial instrument in the consolidated statements of financial position when the company becomes party to the contract.
Supporting Information
The company provides indemnifications, which are often standard contractual terms, to counterparties in transactions such as purchase and sale contracts, service agreements, director/officer contracts and leasing transactions. Indemnification agreements:
| may require the company to compensate counterparties for costs incurred as a result of various events, including environmental liabilities and changes in (or in the interpretation of) laws and regulations, or as a result of litigation claims or statutory sanctions that may be suffered by a counterparty as a consequence of the transaction; |
| will vary based upon the contract, the nature of which prevents the company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount that it could be required to pay to counterparties; and |
| have not historically required the company to make any significant payments and no amounts have been accrued in the accompanying consolidated financial statements (except for accruals relating to the underlying potential liabilities). |
Various debt obligations (such as overdrafts, lines of credit with counterparties for derivatives and back-to-back loan arrangements) and other commitments (such as railcar leases) related to certain subsidiaries and investees have been directly guaranteed by the company under certain agreements with third parties. It would be required to perform on these guarantees in the event of default by the guaranteed parties. No material loss is anticipated by reason of such agreements and guarantees.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 143 |
Note 25 | Guarantees continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
As at December 31, 2016, the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments under significant guarantees provided to third parties approximated $532. It is unlikely these guarantees will be drawn upon and, since the maximum potential amount of future payments does not consider the possibility of recovery under recourse or collateral provisions, this amount is not indicative of future cash requirements or the companys expected losses from these arrangements.
As at December 31, 2016, no subsidiary balances subject to guarantees were outstanding in connection with the companys cash management facilities, and it had no liabilities recorded for other guarantee obligations.
The company has guaranteed the gypsum stack capping, closure and post-closure obligations of PCS Phosphate in White Springs, Florida and PCS Nitrogen in Geismar, Louisiana, respectively, pursuant to the financial assurance regulatory requirements in those states. Notwithstanding these existing obligations, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has proposed rules under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 108(b) that would require the posting of financial assurance for US mining operations, including phosphate rock mining. The company is taking steps to oppose the inclusion of
phosphate rock mining in the USEPA rule. It is too early in the rule-making process to determine what the impact, if any, will be on the companys facilities if and when a final rule is issued. In addition to the foregoing guarantees associated with US mining operations, the company has guaranteed the performance of certain remediation obligations of PCS Joint Venture at the Lakeland, Florida and Moultrie, Georgia sites.
The environmental regulations of the Province of Saskatchewan require each potash mine to have decommissioning and reclamation plans, and financial assurances for these plans, approved by the responsible provincial minister. The next scheduled review of the decommissioning and reclamation plans is to be completed by June 30, 2021. With respect to the financial assurances for these plans, the Minister of the Environment for Saskatchewan (MOE) approved the increase of the previously established CDN $3 trust fund to CDN $25 to be funded by the company in equal annual payments from 2014 through 2021. As at December 31, 2016, the total balance in the trust fund was CDN $12.
The company has met its financial assurance responsibilities as at December 31, 2016. Costs associated with the retirement of long-lived tangible assets have been accrued in the accompanying
consolidated financial statements to the extent that a legal or constructive liability to retire such assets exists.
During the period, the company entered into various other commercial letters of credit in the normal course of operations. As at December 31, 2016, $39 of letters of credit were outstanding.
The company expects that it will be able to satisfy all applicable credit support requirements without disrupting normal business operations.
Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits |
The company offers pension and other post-retirement benefits to qualified employees: defined benefit pension plans; defined contribution pension plans; and health, disability, dental and life insurance (referred to as other defined benefit) plans. Substantially all employees participate in at least one of these plans.
Defined Benefit Plans
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
For employee retirement and other defined benefit plans:
accrued liabilities are recorded net of plan assets;
costs 1 are actuarially determined on a regular basis using the projected unit credit method;
net interest is based on the discount rate used to measure plan obligations or assets at the
beginning
|
Estimates and judgments are required to determine discount rates, health care cost trend rates, projected salary increases, retirement age, longevity and termination rates. These assumptions are determined by management and are reviewed annually by the companys independent actuaries. |
144 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 26 | Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Accounting Policies continued | Accounting Estimates and Judgments continued | |||
past service cost is recognized in net income at the earlier of when i) a plan amendment or curtailment occurs; or ii) related restructuring costs or termination benefits are recognized;
net interest is presented within finance costs; and
other components of costs are presented within cost of goods sold or selling and administrative expenses, as applicable.
Remeasurements, recognized immediately in OCI in the period they occur, are comprised of actuarial gains and losses, return on plan assets (excluding amounts included in net interest) and the effect of the asset ceiling (if applicable).
When a plan amendment occurs before a settlement, the company recognizes past service cost before any gain or loss on settlement.
|
The companys discount rate assumption is impacted by:
the weighted average interest rate at which each pension and other post-retirement plan liability could be effectively settled at the measurement date;
country specific rates; and
the use of a yield curve approach. 2 |
|||
2 Based on the respective plans demographics, expected future pension benefits and medical claims, payments are measured and discounted to determine the present value of the expected future cash flows. The cash flows are discounted using yields on high-quality AA-rated non-callable bonds with cash flows of similar timing where there is a deep market for such bonds. Where the company does not believe there is a deep market for such bonds (such as for terms in excess of 10 years in Canada), the cash flows are discounted using a yield curve derived from yields on provincial bonds rated AA or better to which a spread adjustment is added to reflect the additional risk of corporate bonds. For Trinidad plans, the cash flows are discounted using yields on local market government bonds with cash flows of similar timing. The resulting rates are used by the company to determine the final discount rate. |
||||
1 Including service costs, past service costs, gains and losses on curtailments and settlements, net interest and remeasurements. |
The significant assumptions used to determine the benefit obligations and expense for the companys significant plans were as follows:
Pension | Other | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||||||
Assumptions used to determine benefit obligations as at December 31 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discount rate, % |
4.25 | 4.35 | 4.00 | 4.40 | 4.45 | 4.00 | ||||||||||||||||||
Rate of increase in compensation levels, % |
5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | ||||||||||||||||||
Medical cost trend rate assumed, % |
n/a | n/a | n/a | 5.70-4.50 | 1 | 5.80-4.50 | 1 | 6.90-4.50 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Medical cost trend rate year reaches ultimate trend rate |
n/a | n/a | n/a | 2037 | 2037 | 2027 | ||||||||||||||||||
Mortality assumptions 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Life expectancy at 65 for a male member currently at age 65 |
21.8 | 21.7 | 21.6 | 21.1 | 21.0 | 21.6 | ||||||||||||||||||
Life expectancy at 65 for a female member currently at age 65 |
24.0 | 23.9 | 23.8 | 23.7 | 23.6 | 23.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
Assumptions used to determine benefit expense for the year |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Discount rate, % |
4.35 | 4.00 | 4.80 | 4.45 | 4.00 | 4.80 | ||||||||||||||||||
Rate of increase in compensation levels, % |
5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | n/a | n/a | n/a | ||||||||||||||||||
Medical cost trend rate assumed, % |
n/a | n/a | n/a | 5.80-4.50 | 1 | 6.90-4.50 | 1 | 7.00-4.50 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Medical cost trend rate year reaches ultimate trend rate |
n/a | n/a | n/a | 2037 | 2027 | 2027 | ||||||||||||||||||
Mortality assumptions 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Life expectancy at 65 for a male member currently at age 65 |
21.7 | 21.6 | 20.5 | 21.0 | 21.6 | 20.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Life expectancy at 65 for a female member currently at age 65 |
23.9 | 23.8 | 22.8 | 23.6 | 23.8 | 22.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
1 The company assumed a graded medical cost trend rate starting at 5.70 percent in 2016, moving to 4.50 percent by 2037 (starting at 5.80 and 6.90 percent in 2015 and 2014, respectively, moving to 4.50 percent by 2037 and 2027, respectively).
2 Based on actuarial advice in accordance with the latest available published tables, adjusted where appropriate to reflect future longevity improvements for each country.
n/a = not applicable
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 145 |
Note 26 | Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Other variables that impacted the benefit obligations and expense for the companys significant plans as at December 31 were as follows:
Pension | Other | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||
Average remaining service period of active employees (years) |
9.8 | 9.7 | 11.6 | 11.9 | 11.8 | 11.6 | ||||||||||||||||||
Average duration of the defined benefit obligations 1 (years) |
15.5 | 15.5 | 15.8 | 19.3 | 19.2 | 19.4 |
1 Weighted average length of the underlying cash flows.
Of the most significant assumptions, a change in discount rates has the greatest potential impact on the companys pension and other post- retirement benefit plans, with sensitivity to change as follows:
2016 | 2015 |
These sensitivities are hypothetical, should be used with caution
and cannot be extrapolated because the relationship of the change in assumption to the change in amounts may not be linear. The sensitivities have been calculated independently of changes in other key variables. Changes in one factor may result in changes in another, which could amplify or reduce certain sensitivities. |
||||||||||||||||||
Change in Assumption |
Benefit Obligations |
Expense in Income Before Income Taxes |
Benefit Obligations |
Expense in Income Before Income Taxes |
||||||||||||||||
As reported |
$ | 1,698 | $ | 66 | $ | 1,659 | $ | 49 | ||||||||||||
Discount rate |
1.0 percentage point i | 302 | 18 | 295 | 20 | |||||||||||||||
1.0 percentage point h | (234 | ) | (17 | ) | (229 | ) | (19 | ) |
Supporting Information
Description of Defined Benefit Pension Plans
The company sponsors defined benefit pension plans as follows:
Plan Type | Contributions | |||
United States |
Non-contributory; |
Made to meet or exceed minimum funding requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and associated Internal Revenue Service regulations and procedures. |
||
guaranteed annual pension payments for life; |
||||
benefits generally depend on years of service and compensation level in the final years leading up to age 65;
benefits available starting at age 55 at a reduced rate; and
|
||||
Canada |
Made to meet or exceed minimum funding requirements based on provincial statutory requirements and associated federal taxation rules. |
|||
plans provide for maximum pensionable salary and maximum annual benefit limits. |
||||
Trinidad |
Contributory;
guaranteed annual pension payments for life;
benefits depend on years of service, compensation level in the final years leading up to age 60 and additional voluntary contributions, if any;
benefits available with at least five years of pensionable service at age 50 at a reduced rate; and
plan provides for pensionable salary and maximum annual benefit limits. |
Made to meet or exceed minimum funding requirements based on local statutory requirements; and
any company contributions must meet or exceed any required employee contributions. |
||
Supplemental Plans in US and Canada for Senior Management |
Non-contributory;
unfunded; and
supplementary pension benefits. |
Provided for by charges to earnings sufficient to meet the projected benefit obligations; and
payments to plans are made as plan payments to retirees occur. |
||
146 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 26 | Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
The companys defined benefit pension plans discussed above are funded with separate funds that are legally separated from the company and administered through an employee benefits or management committee in each country, which is composed of employees of the company. The employee benefits or management committee is required by law to act in the best interests of the plan participants and in the US and Canada is responsible for the governance of the plans, including setting certain policies (e.g., investment and contribution) of the funds. In Trinidad, the plans trustee has these responsibilities and the management committee assists the trustee to administer the plan. The current investment policy for each countrys plans does not include any asset/liability matching strategies or currency hedging strategies. Plan assets held in trusts are governed by local regulations and practice in each country, as is the nature of the relationship between the company and the trustees and their composition.
The defined benefit pension plans expose the company to broadly similar actuarial risks. The most significant risks as discussed below include: investment risk, interest rate risk, longevity risk and salary risk. These plans are not exposed to any other significant, unusual or specific risks.
Investment Risk
A deficit will be created if plan assets underperform the discount rate used in the defined benefit obligation valuation. To mitigate investment risk, the company employs:
| a total return on investment approach whereby a mix of equities and fixed income investments is used to maximize long-term return for a prudent level of risk; |
| risk tolerance established through careful consideration of plan liabilities, plan funded status and corporate financial condition; and |
| a diversified mix of equity and fixed income investments. |
For plans in the US and Canada, equity investments are diversified across US and non-US stocks, as well as growth, value and small and large capitalization investments. US equities are also diversified across actively managed and passively invested
portfolios. Other assets such as private equity and hedge funds are not used at this time. Investment risk is measured and monitored on an ongoing basis through quarterly investment portfolio reviews, annual liability measurements and periodic asset/liability studies.
The investment strategy in Trinidad is largely dictated by local investment restrictions (maximum of 50 percent in equities and 20 percent in assets originating from outside of Trinidad) and asset availability since the local equity market is small and there is little secondary market activity in debt securities.
Interest Rate Risk
A decrease in bond interest rates will increase the pension liability; however, this is generally expected to be partially offset by an increase in the return on the plans debt investments.
Longevity Risk
An increase in life expectancy of plan participants will increase the plans liability.
Salary Risk
An increase in the salary of the plans participants will increase the plans liability.
As at December 31, 2016 and 2015, the companys Canadian and Trinidadian defined benefit pension plans were in a surplus position. The company has determined that, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the plans and statutory requirements (such as minimum funding requirements) of the respective jurisdictions, the present value of refunds or reductions in future contributions was higher than the surpluses. This determination was made on a plan-by-plan basis. Therefore, no reduction in the defined benefit asset was required as at December 31, 2016 and 2015.
During 2016, the Canadian plan had a settlement in the amount of $26 and in 2015 the US plan had a settlement in the amount of $45 as certain eligible vested plan members elected a single sum payment. There were no significant plan amendments or curtailments during 2016 or 2015.
Description of Other Post-Retirement Plans
The company provides contributory health care plans for certain eligible retired employees in the US, Canada and Trinidad. Eligibility for these benefits is generally based on a combination of age and years of service at retirement. Certain terms of the plans include:
| coordination with government-provided medical insurance in each country; |
| certain unfunded cost-sharing features such as co-insurance, deductibles and co-payments benefits subject to change; |
| for the US, maximum lifetime benefits; |
| at retirement, the employees spouse and certain dependent children may be eligible for coverage; and |
| benefits are self-insured and are administered through third-party providers. |
Canadian and Trinidad retirees currently pay 25 percent of the annual cost while US retirees share a larger portion of the cost, based on inflation. The companys share of annual inflation is limited to 75 percent of the first 6 percent of total inflation for recent and future eligible retirees. Any cost increases in excess of this amount are funded by retiree contributions. The company currently funds approximately 70 percent of US retiree medical costs while the retirees are responsible for the balance.
The company provides non-contributory life insurance plans for certain US, Canadian and Trinidadian retired employees who meet specific age and service eligibility requirements. Retiree life insurance coverage is generally salary-related, which decreases over retirement years according to varying schedules. These benefits are funded through term insurance premiums with local insurance companies in each country.
The companys other post-retirement plans expose it to similar risks as discussed above related to the defined benefit plans. These plans are not exposed to any other unusual or specific risks.
There were no significant plan amendments, settlements or curtailments during 2016 or 2015.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 147 |
Note 26 | Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Financial Information
Components of defined benefit expense recognized in the consolidated statements of income
Pension | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current service cost for benefits earned during the year |
$ | 35 | $ | 36 | $ | 30 | $ | 10 | $ | 12 | $ | 9 | $ | 45 | $ | 48 | $ | 39 | ||||||||||||||||||
Net interest expense (income) |
3 | 4 | (3 | ) | 16 | 15 | 16 | 19 | 19 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Past service cost, including curtailment gains and settlements |
(2 | ) | (2 | ) | 3 | (2 | ) | | | (4 | ) | (2 | ) | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Foreign exchange rate changes and other |
5 | (7 | ) | (4 | ) | 1 | (9 | ) | (4 | ) | 6 | (16 | ) | (8 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||
Components of defined benefit expense recognized in net income |
$ | 41 | $ | 31 | $ | 26 | $ | 25 | $ | 18 | $ | 21 | $ | 66 | $ | 49 | $ | 47 |
Remeasurements of the net defined benefit liability recognized in the consolidated statements of comprehensive income
Pension | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actuarial loss (gain) arising from
|
$ | 13 | $ | (39 | ) | $ | 145 | $ | (5 | ) | $ (46 | ) | $ | 34 | $ | 8 | $ (85 | ) | $ | 179 | ||||||||||||||||
Actuarial loss (gain) arising from
|
5 | (15 | ) | 14 | 3 | (13 | ) | 12 | 8 | (28 | ) | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Return) loss on plan assets (excluding
|
(48 | ) | 55 | (36 | ) | | | | (48 | ) | 55 | (36 | ) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Components of defined benefit expense recognized in OCI 1 |
$ | (30 | ) | $ | 1 | $ | 123 | $ | (2 | ) | $ (59 | ) | $ | 46 | $ | (32 | ) | $ (58 | ) | $ | 169 |
1 Total net of income taxes was $(16) (2015 $(36), 2014 $109).
94%
Funded percentage for the defined benefit pension plans as at December 31, 2016 (2015 92 percent) |
148 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 26 | Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Movements in the pension and other post-retirement benefit assets (liabilities) as at and for the years ended December 31
Pension | Other | Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||
Change in benefit obligations |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Balance, beginning of year |
$ | 1,305 | $ | 1,403 | $ | 354 | $ | 403 | $ | 1,659 | $ | 1,806 | ||||||||||||
Current service cost |
35 | 36 | 10 | 12 | 45 | 48 | ||||||||||||||||||
Interest expense |
54 | 56 | 16 | 15 | 70 | 71 | ||||||||||||||||||
Actuarial loss (gain) arising from changes in financial assumptions |
13 | (39 | ) | (5 | ) | (46 | ) | 8 | (85 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Actuarial loss (gain) arising from changes in demographic assumptions |
5 | (15 | ) | 3 | (13 | ) | 8 | (28 | ) | |||||||||||||||
Foreign exchange rate changes |
(1 | ) | (38 | ) | 1 | (9 | ) | | (47 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Contributions by plan participants |
1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Benefits paid |
(54 | ) | (48 | ) | (13 | ) | (12 | ) | (67 | ) | (60 | ) | ||||||||||||
Past service cost, including curtailment gains and settlements |
(28 | ) | (51 | ) | (2 | ) | | (30 | ) | (51 | ) | |||||||||||||
Balance, end of year |
1,330 | 1,305 | 368 | 354 | 1,698 | 1,659 | ||||||||||||||||||
Change in plan assets |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair value, beginning of year |
1,197 | 1,316 | | | 1,197 | 1,316 | ||||||||||||||||||
Interest included in net income |
51 | 52 | | | 51 | 52 | ||||||||||||||||||
Return (loss) on plan assets (excluding amounts included in net interest) |
48 | (55 | ) | | | 48 | (55 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Foreign exchange rate changes and other |
(6 | ) | (31 | ) | | | (6 | ) | (31 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Contributions by plan participants |
1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Employer contributions |
35 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 43 | 19 | ||||||||||||||||||
Benefits paid |
(54 | ) | (48 | ) | (12 | ) | (12 | ) | (66 | ) | (60 | ) | ||||||||||||
Settlements |
(26 | ) | (49 | ) | | | (26 | ) | (49 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Fair value, end of year |
1,246 | 1,197 | | | 1,246 | 1,197 | ||||||||||||||||||
Funded status |
$ | (84 | ) | $ | (108 | ) | $ | (368 | ) | $ | (354 | ) | $ | (452 | ) | $ | (462 | ) | ||||||
Balance comprised of: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Non-current assets |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other assets (Note 14) |
$ | 23 | $ | 21 | $ | | $ | | $ | 23 | $ | 21 | ||||||||||||
Current liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payables and accrued charges (Note 16) |
(22 | ) | (43 | ) | (10 | ) | (9 | ) | (32 | ) | (52 | ) | ||||||||||||
Non-current liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pension and other post-retirement benefit liabilities |
(85 | ) | (86 | ) | (358 | ) | (345 | ) | (443 | ) | (431 | ) | ||||||||||||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 149 |
Note 26 | Pension and Other Post-Retirement Benefits continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Plan Assets
The fair value of plan assets of the companys defined benefit pension plans, by asset category, was as follows as at December 31:
2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) |
Other (Levels 2 & 3) |
Total |
Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1) |
Other (Levels 2 & 3) |
Total | |||||||||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ | 9 | $ | 29 | $ | 38 | $ | 8 | $ | 13 | $ | 21 | ||||||||||||
Equity securities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
US |
207 | | 207 | 176 | | 176 | ||||||||||||||||||
International |
26 | 31 | 57 | 23 | 35 | 58 | ||||||||||||||||||
US mutual/commingled funds |
316 | | 316 | 114 | 353 | 467 | ||||||||||||||||||
International mutual/commingled funds |
100 | 53 | 153 | | | | ||||||||||||||||||
Debt securities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
US corporate debt instruments |
| 55 | 55 | | 60 | 60 | ||||||||||||||||||
International corporate debt instruments |
| 19 | 19 | | 19 | 19 | ||||||||||||||||||
US government and agency securities |
| 103 | 103 | | 76 | 76 | ||||||||||||||||||
International government and agency securities |
| 50 | 50 | | 53 | 53 | ||||||||||||||||||
Mortgage-backed securities |
| 28 | 28 | | 32 | 32 | ||||||||||||||||||
US mutual/commingled funds |
123 | 20 | 143 | 136 | 13 | 149 | ||||||||||||||||||
International balanced fund |
| 89 | 89 | | 85 | 85 | ||||||||||||||||||
Other |
(14 | ) | 2 | (12 | ) | | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
Total pension plan assets |
$ | 767 | $ | 479 | $ | 1,246 | $ | 457 | $ | 740 | $ | 1,197 | ||||||||||||
Letters of credit secured certain of the Canadian unfunded defined benefit plan liabilities as at December 31, 2016 and 2015.
Defined Contribution Plans
Accounting Policy
Defined contribution plan costs are recognized in net income for services rendered by employees during the period. |
Supporting Information
Total contributions recognized as expense under all plans as at December 31, 2016 was $20 (2015 $25, 2014 $30).
Cash Payments to All Plans
Total cash payments for pensions and other post-retirement benefits for 2016 were $63 (2015 $44, 2014 $49). The company expects to contribute approximately $56 to all pension and post-retirement plans during 2017.
150 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Share-Based Compensation |
The company has share-based compensation plans for certain employees and directors as part of their remuneration package, including the 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) (comprised of performance share units and stock options), Performance Option Plans (POP) (comprised of nine other stock option plans), the deferred share unit plan and the CEO multi-year incentive plan.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
The accounting for share-based compensation plans is fair value-based.
The grant date is the date the company and the employee have a shared understanding of the terms and conditions of the arrangement, at which time the company confers on the employee the right to cash equity instruments, provided the specified vesting conditions, if any, are met.
For those awards with performance conditions that determine the number of options or units to which employees will be entitled, measurement of compensation cost is based on the companys best estimate of the outcome of the performance conditions.
For plans settled through the issuance of equity:
fair value for stock options is determined on grant date using the Black-Scholes-Merton option-pricing model;
fair value for PSUs is determined on grant date by projecting the outcome of performance conditions;
compensation expense is recorded over the period the plans vest (corresponding increase to contributed surplus);
forfeitures are estimated throughout the vesting period based on past experience and future expectations, and adjusted upon actual vesting; and
when exercised, the proceeds and amounts recorded in contributed surplus are recorded in share capital.
For plans settled in cash or other assets:
a liability is recorded based on the fair value of the awards each period;
expense accrues from the grant date over the vesting period; and
fluctuations in fair value of the award and related compensation expense are recognized in the period the fluctuation occurs.
|
Judgment involves determining:
at which date the company and employee agree to a share-based payment award, and hence what the grant date is; and
the fair value of share-based compensation awards at the grant date.
Estimation involves determining:
stock option pricing model assumptions described in the weighted average assumptions table below;
the number of stock option awards expected to be forfeited;
the projected outcome of performance conditions for PSUs, including the relative ranking of the companys total shareholder return, including expected dividends, compared with a specified peer group using a Monte Carlo simulation option-pricing model and forecasting the companys cash flow return on investment compared with its weighted average cost of capital. Actual results may significantly differ from these estimates; and
the number of dividend equivalent units expected to be earned.
Prior to a POP award vesting, assumptions regarding vesting are made during the first three years based on the relevant actual and/or forecast financial results. As at December 31, 2016, the awards under the 2014 and 2015 POPs were expected to vest at 89 percent and 49 percent, respectively.
PSUs vest based on the achievement of performance metrics over performance periods ranging from one to three years. Changes to vesting assumptions may change based on non-market vesting conditions at the end of each reporting period. As at December 31, 2016, the 2016 PSUs were expected to vest at 71 percent. See under PSUs below for more information.
Changes to vesting assumptions are reflected in earnings immediately for compensation cost already recognized. |
|||
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 151 |
Note 27 | Share-Based Compensation continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Supporting Information
As at December 31, 2016, the company had 12 share-based compensation plans (the LTIP, comprised of PSUs and stock options, POPs (comprised of nine other stock option plans), the deferred share unit plan and the CEO multi-year incentive plan) (2015 12 plans, 2014 12 plans). These plans are described below. The total compensation cost charged against earnings for those plans during 2016 was $13 (2015 $14, 2014 $30).
LTIP
During 2016, the company issued PSUs and stock options to eligible employees under the LTIP. Under the plan, up to 21,000,000 common shares over multiple years would be available for issuance pursuant to the exercise of options and the settlement of share-based PSUs to be granted under the provisions of the plan. Information on PSUs and stock options are summarized below.
PSUs
In 2016, PSUs granted under the LTIP were comprised of three tranches, with each tranche vesting based on the achievement of performance metrics over separate performance periods ranging from one to three years, and will be settled in shares for grantees who are subject to the companys share ownership guidelines and in cash for all other grantees. As at December 31, 2016, 602,740 and 1,014,188 share-settled and cash-settled PSUs were outstanding, respectively. Grant date fair value per unit for share-settled PSUs was $17.19.
Stock Options
The following weighted average assumptions were used in arriving at the grant-date fair values associated with stock options for which compensation cost was recognized during 2016, 2015 and 2014:
Year of Grant | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Assumption | Based On | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | ||||||||||||||||
Exercise price per option |
Quoted market closing price 1 | $ | 16.20 | $ | 32.41 | $ | 36.73 | $ | 43.80 | $ | 39.36 | |||||||||||
Expected annual dividend per share |
Annualized dividend rate 2 | $ | 1.00 | $ | 1.52 | $ | 1.40 | $ | 1.40 | $ | 0.56 | |||||||||||
Expected volatility |
Historical volatility 3 | 30% | 31% | 39% | 50% | 53% | ||||||||||||||||
Risk-free interest rate |
Zero-coupon government issues 4 | 1.06% | 1.54% | 1.66% | 1.06% | 1.06% | ||||||||||||||||
Expected life of options in years |
Historical experience | 5.7 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | ||||||||||||||||
1 Of common shares on the last trading day immediately preceding the date of the grant.
2 As of the date of grant.
3 Of the companys stock over a period commensurate with the expected life of the option.
4 Implied yield available on equivalent remaining term at the time of the grant.
As at December 31, 2016, the outstanding number of options per plan, that vest over three years and settle in shares, was:
LTIP | POPs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3,071,064 |
3,411,500 | 3,082,900 | 1,836,000 | 1,313,100 | 925,800 | 922,800 | 1,286,100 | 995,250 | 2,625,500 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Under the terms of the POPs, no additional options are issuable pursuant to the plans. Under the LTIP, 17,928,936 additional options may be granted in future years, subject to the additional issuance of shares related to share-settled PSUs, up to the aggregate of 21,000,000 shares.
The exercise price is not less than the quoted market closing price of the companys common shares on the last trading day immediately preceding the date of the grant, and an options maximum term is 10 years. In general, options granted under the POPs will vest, if at all, according to a schedule based on the three-year average excess of the companys consolidated cash flow return on investment over the weighted average cost of capital. Under the LTIP, options
152 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 27 | Share-Based Compensation continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
generally vest and become exercisable on the third anniversary of the grant date, subject to continuous employment or retirement.
The company issues new common shares to satisfy stock option exercises. Options granted to Canadian participants had an exercise price in Canadian dollars.
A summary of the status of the stock option plans as at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and changes during the years ending on those dates is as follows:
Number of shares subject to option | Weighted average exercise price | |||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |||||||||||||||||||
Outstanding, beginning of year |
19,153,275 | 20,909,835 | 20,332,335 | $ | 30.97 | $ | 28.01 | $ | 26.45 | |||||||||||||||
Granted |
3,099,913 | 3,474,900 | 3,157,800 | 16.20 | 32.41 | 36.73 | ||||||||||||||||||
Exercised |
(2,329,600 | ) | (4,803,560 | ) | (2,285,450 | ) | (11.09 | ) | (10.95 | ) | (15.91 | ) | ||||||||||||
Forfeited or cancelled |
(453,574 | ) | (427,900 | ) | (294,850 | ) | (33.99 | ) | (43.14 | ) | (50.94 | ) | ||||||||||||
Expired |
| | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||
Outstanding, end of year |
19,470,014 | 19,153,275 | 20,909,835 | $ | 31.15 | $ | 30.97 | $ | 28.01 | |||||||||||||||
The aggregate grant-date fair value of all options granted during 2016 was $6 (2015 $19, 2014 $29). The average share price during 2016 was $16.85 per share (2015 $28.23 per share, 2014 $34.81 per share).
The following table summarizes information about stock options outstanding as at December 31, 2016:
Options Outstanding | Options Exercisable | |||||||||||||||||||
Range of Exercise Prices | Number |
Weighted Average
Remaining Life in Years |
Weighted Average
Exercise Price |
Number |
Weighted Average
Exercise Price |
|||||||||||||||
$15.00 to $21.00 |
5,696,564 | 5 | $ | 17.72 | 2,625,500 | $ | 19.92 | |||||||||||||
$26.00 to $38.00 |
10,136,300 | 6 | 32.37 | 3,641,900 | 31.85 | |||||||||||||||
$39.00 to $44.00 |
2,038,500 | 6 | 41.95 | 2,038,500 | 41.95 | |||||||||||||||
$49.00 to $67.00 |
1,598,650 | 2 | 57.48 | 1,598,650 | 57.48 | |||||||||||||||
19,470,014 | 6 | $ | 31.15 | 9,904,550 | $ | 34.90 | ||||||||||||||
The foregoing options have expiry dates ranging from May 2017 to May 2026.
Other Plans
The company offers a deferred share unit plan to non-employee directors, which allows each to choose to receive, in the form of deferred share units (DSUs), all or a percentage of the directors fees, which would otherwise be payable in cash. The plan also provides for discretionary grants of additional DSUs by the Board, a practice it discontinued on January 24, 2007 in connection with an increase in the annual retainer. Each DSU fully vests upon award, but is distributed only when the director has ceased to be a member of the Board. Vested units are settled in cash based on the common share price at that time. As at December 31, 2016, the total number of DSUs held by participating directors was 582,048 (2015 711,131, 2014 620,091).
The company offered a multi-year incentive plan to the CEO for the period July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015, which provided for an award of DSUs. Dividends on outstanding units result in additional units being issued. The units will vest in three years from July 1, 2014 and were subject to performance criteria (company and individual CEO performance) through December 31, 2015. Vested units are settled in cash when employment is terminated. As at December 31, 2016, the total number of DSUs held by the CEO was 104,481 (2015 98,414).
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 153 |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Related Party Transactions |
The company has a number of related parties with the most significant being Canpotex, key management personnel and post-employment benefit plans.
Accounting Policies |
A person or entity is considered a related party if it is:
an associate or joint venture of PotashCorp;
a member of key management personnel (and their families), which are the companys directors and executive officers as disclosed in its 2016, 2015 and 2014 Annual Reports on Form 10-K, as applicable;
a post-employment benefit plan for the benefit of PotashCorp employees; or
a person that has significant influence over PotashCorp. |
Supporting Information
Sale of Goods
The company sells potash from its Canadian mines for use outside Canada and the US exclusively to Canpotex. Sales are at prevailing market prices and are settled on normal trade terms. Sales to Canpotex for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $778 (2015 $1,346, 2014 $1,233). Canpotexs proportionate sales volumes by geographic area are shown in Note 3.
The receivable outstanding from Canpotex is shown in Note 11, and arose from sale transactions described above. It is unsecured and bears no interest. There are no provisions held against this receivable.
Key Management Personnel Compensation
Compensation to key management personnel was comprised of:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||||||||||
Salaries and other short-term benefits |
$ | 13 | $ | 9 | $ | 12 | ||||||
Share-based payments |
7 | 1 | 14 | |||||||||
Post-employment benefits |
3 | 5 | 6 | |||||||||
23 | $ | 15 | $ | 32 | ||||||||
Transactions With Post-Employment Benefit Plans
Disclosures related to the companys post-employment benefit plans are shown in Note 26.
154 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Financial Instruments and Related Risk Management |
Outlined below are the companys financial instruments, related risk management objectives, policies and exposure, sensitivity and monitoring strategies to financial risks.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
Financial assets and financial liabilities are recognized as follows:
initially in the consolidated statements of financial position at fair value (normally the transaction price) and adjusted for transaction costs (recognized immediately in net income for financial instruments at fair value through profit or loss);
regular way purchases and sales of financial assets are accounted for on the trade date; and
financial instruments recorded at fair value on an ongoing basis are remeasured at each reporting date and changes in the fair value are recorded in either net income or OCI.
Financial assets and financial liabilities are offset and the net amount is presented in the statements of financial position when the company:
currently has a legally enforceable right to offset the recognized amounts; and
intends either to settle on a net basis, or to realize the assets and settle the liabilities simultaneously. |
Judgment is required to determine whether the right to offset is legally enforceable. |
See Note 31 for discussion related to the policies, estimates and judgments for fair value measurements.
Supporting Information
Financial Risks
The company is exposed in varying degrees to a variety of financial risks from its use of financial instruments: credit risk, liquidity risk and market risk. The source of risk exposure and how each is managed are outlined below.
Credit Risk
The companys exposure to credit risk on its cash and cash equivalents, receivables (excluding taxes) and derivative instrument assets is the carrying amount of each instrument on the consolidated statements of financial position.
Credit risk is managed through policies applicable to the following assets:
Acceptable minimum
counterparty credit ratings |
Exposure thresholds
by counterparty |
Daily counterparty
settlement based on prescribed credit thresholds |
Counterparties
quality |
|||||||||||||||||
Cash and Cash Equivalents |
X | X | ||||||||||||||||||
Natural Gas Derivatives |
X | X | X | |||||||||||||||||
Foreign Currency Derivatives |
X |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 155 |
Note 29 | Financial Instruments and Related Risk Management continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Credit risk on trade receivables is managed through a credit management program whereby:
| credit approval policies and procedures are in place to guide the granting of credit to new customers as well as its continued extension to existing customers; |
| existing customer accounts are reviewed every 12-18 months; |
| credit is extended to international customers based upon an evaluation of both customer and country risk; and |
| credit agency reports, where available, and an assessment of other relevant information such as current financial statements and/or credit references are used before assigning credit limits to customers. Those that fail to meet specified benchmark creditworthiness may transact with the company on a prepayment basis or provide another form of credit support that the company approves. |
Other information relating to trade receivables include:
| the company does not hold any collateral as security on trade receivables; |
| guarantees or standby letters of credit, if appropriate, may be requested to mitigate credit risk; |
| export insurance is obtained from the Foreign Credit Insurance Association (covering 90 percent of each balance) for international sales from the US and Trinidad; |
| a total of $46 in receivables as at December 31, 2016 was covered by export insurance, representing 98 percent of offshore receivables (2015 99 percent); |
| Canpotex also obtains export insurance from Export Development Canada for its trade receivables (covering 90 percent of Canpotexs receivables); |
| the credit period on sales is generally 15 days for fertilizer customers, 30 days for industrial and feed customers and up to 180 days for select export sales customers; |
| interest at 1.5 percent per month is charged on balances remaining unpaid at the end of the sale terms; and |
| historically, the company has experienced minimal customer defaults and, as a result, it considers the credit quality of the trade receivables as at December 31, 2016 that are not past due to be high. |
There were no amounts past due or impaired relating to non-trade receivables. There were no significant amounts impaired relating to trade receivables. As at December 31, 2016, 88 percent of trade receivables were current (2015 93 percent) and 12 percent were past due (2015 7 percent).
Liquidity Risk
Liquidity risk arises from the companys general funding needs and in the management of its assets, liabilities and optimal capital structure. It manages its liquidity risk to maintain sufficient liquid financial resources to fund its operations and meet its commitments and obligations in a cost-effective manner. In managing its liquidity risk, the company has access to a range of funding options. It has established an external borrowing policy with the following objectives:
| maintain an optimal capital structure; |
| maintain investment-grade credit ratings that provide ease of access to the debt capital and commercial paper markets; |
| maintain sufficient short-term credit availability; and |
| maintain long-term relationships with a sufficient number of high-quality and diverse lenders. |
The table below outlines the companys available debt facilities as at December 31, 2016:
Total
Amount |
Amount Outstanding
and Committed |
Amount
Available |
||||||||||
Credit facility 1 |
$ | 3,500 | $ 389 | $ | 3,111 | |||||||
Line of credit |
75 | | 2 | 75 | ||||||||
1 | As described in Note 21, $3,500 of this facility was available through May 31, 2020 and $3,250 of this facility was available through May 31, 2021. Included in the amount outstanding and committed was $389 of commercial paper. The amount available under the commercial paper program is limited to the availability of backup funds under the credit facility. |
2 | Letters of credit as discussed in Note 20. |
The company has an uncommitted letter of credit facility of $100. As at December 31, 2016, $40 (2015 $40) was outstanding under this facility. Certain of the companys derivative instruments contain provisions that require its debt to maintain specified credit ratings from two of the major credit rating agencies. If the debt were to fall below the specified ratings, the company would be in violation of these provisions, and the counterparties to the derivative instruments could request immediate payment or demand immediate and ongoing full overnight collateralization on derivative instruments in net liability positions. The aggregate fair value of all derivative instruments with credit risk-related contingent features that were in a liability position on December 31, 2016 was $97, for which the company had posted collateral of $61 in the normal course of business. If the credit risk-related contingent features underlying these agreements had been triggered on December 31, 2016, the company would have been required to post an additional $36 of collateral to its counterparties.
156 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 29 | Financial Instruments and Related Risk Management continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
The following maturity analysis of the companys financial liabilities and gross settled derivative contracts (for which the cash flows are settled simultaneously) is based on the expected undiscounted contractual cash flows from the date of the consolidated statements of financial position to the contractual maturity date.
Carrying Amount of Liability
as at December 31, 2016 |
Contractual Cash Flows |
Within 1 Year | 1 to 3 Years | 3 to 5 Years | Over 5 Years | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Short-term debt obligations 1 |
$ 389 | $ 389 | $ 389 | $ | $ | $ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Payables and accrued charges 2 |
548 | 548 | 548 | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Long-term debt obligations 1 |
4,250 | 6,238 | 695 | 840 | 755 | 3,948 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency derivatives |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Outflow |
21 | 21 | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inflow |
(21 | ) | (21 | ) | | | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
97 | 100 | 41 | 36 | 15 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
$ 5,284 | $ 7,275 | $ 1,673 | $ 876 | $ 770 | $ 3,956 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Contractual cash flows include contractual interest payments related to debt obligations. Interest rates on variable rate debt are based on prevailing rates as at December 31, 2016. Disclosures regarding offsetting of certain debt obligations are provided in Note 21.
2 Excludes taxes, accrued interest, deferred revenues and current portions of asset retirement obligations and accrued environmental costs and pension and other post-retirement benefits.
Market Risk
Market risks, where financial instrument fair values can fluctuate due to changes in market prices, include foreign exchange risk, interest rate risk and price risk (related to commodity and equity securities).
Foreign Exchange Risk
To manage foreign exchange risk (primarily related to Canadian operating and capital expenditures, taxes and dividends), the company may enter into foreign currency derivatives. Treasury risk management policies allow such exposures to be hedged within certain prescribed limits for both forecast operating and capital expenditures. The foreign currency derivatives are not currently designated as hedging instruments for accounting purposes.
The company has certain available-for-sale investments listed on foreign stock exchanges and denominated in currencies other than the US dollar for which it is exposed to foreign exchange risk. These investments are held for long-term strategic purposes.
Exposure to reasonably possible changes in relevant foreign currencies on the companys financial instruments and the pre-tax effects on net income and OCI include the following:
2016 |
Carrying Amount
of Asset (Liability) as at December 31 |
Foreign Exchange Risk | ||||||||||||||||||
5% decrease in US$ | 5% increase in US$ | |||||||||||||||||||
Net Income | OCI | Net Income | OCI | |||||||||||||||||
Available-for-sale investments |
||||||||||||||||||||
ICL (New Israeli shekels) 1 |
$ 725 | $ | $ 36 | $ | $ (36 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Sinofert (Hong Kong dollars) 2 |
212 | | 11 | | (11 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Payables (CDN) |
(83 | ) | (4 | ) | | 4 | | |||||||||||||
Foreign currency derivatives |
| 1 | | (1 | ) | | ||||||||||||||
2015 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Available-for-sale investments |
||||||||||||||||||||
ICL (New Israeli shekels) |
$ 716 | $ | $ 36 | $ | $ (36 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Sinofert (Hong Kong dollars) |
266 | | 13 | | (13 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Payables (CDN) |
(140 | ) | (7 | ) | | 7 | | |||||||||||||
Foreign currency derivatives |
(3 | ) | 7 | | (7 | ) | | |||||||||||||
1 | Assumed a decrease would not represent an impairment. |
2 | Assumed any decrease below the carrying amount at the last impairment date would represent a further impairment recorded through net income. The carrying amount was $190 as at December 31, 2016 (December 31, 2015 $200). All other variables were assumed to remain constant. |
The company has no significant foreign currency exposure related to cash and cash equivalents, receivables and the other available-for-sale investment.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 157 |
Note 29 | Financial Instruments and Related Risk Management continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Interest Rate Risk
Fluctuations in interest rates impact the future cash flows and fair values of various financial instruments.
Interest rate risk on debt is addressed by:
| using a portfolio of fixed and floating rate instruments; |
| aligning current and long-term assets with demand and fixed-term debt; |
| monitoring the effects of market changes in interest rates; and |
| using interest rate swaps, if desired. |
Related to interest rate risk on investments in marketable securities (all of which are included in cash and cash equivalents), the companys primary objectives are to:
| ensure the security of principal amounts invested; |
| provide for an adequate degree of liquidity; and |
| achieve a satisfactory return. |
Treasury risk management policies specify investment parameters including eligible types of investment, maximum maturity dates, maximum exposure by counterparty and minimum credit ratings.
The company had no significant exposure to interest rate risk on its financial instruments as at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.
±$94
Potential impact on OCI (based on a 10 percent change in prices on our significant available-for-sale investments) |
Price Risk
Commodity price risk exists on the companys natural gas derivative instruments. Its natural gas strategy is to diversify its forecast gas volume requirements, including a portion of annual requirements purchased at spot market prices, a portion at fixed prices (up to 10 years) and a portion indexed to the market price of ammonia. Its objective is to acquire a reliable supply of natural gas feedstock and fuel on a location-adjusted, cost-competitive basis.
Price risk also exists for exchange-traded available-for-sale equity securities.
Exposure to reasonably possible changes in price for a relevant commodity or security and the pre-tax effects on net income and OCI include the following:
2016 |
Carrying Amount of Asset (Liability) as at December 31 |
Price Risk | ||||||||||||||||||
Effect of 10% decrease in prices | Effect of 10% increase in prices | |||||||||||||||||||
Net Income | OCI | Net Income | OCI | |||||||||||||||||
Available-for-sale investments |
||||||||||||||||||||
ICL 1 |
$ | 725 | $ | | $ | (73 | ) | $ | | $ | 73 | |||||||||
Sinofert 2 |
212 | | (21 | ) | | 21 | ||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
(91 | ) | (1 | ) | (13 | ) | | 14 | ||||||||||||
2015 |
||||||||||||||||||||
Available-for-sale investments |
||||||||||||||||||||
ICL |
$ | 716 | $ | | $ | (72 | ) | $ | | $ | 72 | |||||||||
Sinofert |
266 | | (27 | ) | | 27 | ||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
(181 | ) | | (18 | ) | | 18 | |||||||||||||
1 | Assumed a decrease would not represent an impairment. |
2 | Assumed any decrease below the carrying amount at the last impairment date ($190 as at December 31, 2016) (December 31, 2015 $200) would represent a further impairment recorded through net income. All other variables were assumed to remain constant. |
The sensitivity analyses included in the tables above should be used with caution as the changes are hypothetical and not predictive of future performance. The sensitivities are calculated with reference to period-end balances and will change due to fluctuations in the balances throughout the year. In addition, for the purpose of the sensitivity analyses, the effect of a variation in a particular assumption on the fair value of the financial instrument was calculated independently of any change in another assumption. Actual changes in one factor may contribute to changes in another factor, which may magnify or counteract the effect on the fair value of the financial instrument.
158 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 29 | Financial Instruments and Related Risk Management continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Fair Value
Estimated fair values for financial instruments are designed to approximate amounts for which the instruments could be exchanged in a current arms-length transaction between knowledgeable, willing parties. The valuation policies and procedures for financial reporting purposes are determined by the companys finance department.
Financial instruments included in the consolidated statements of financial position are measured either at fair value or amortized cost. The tables below explain the valuation methods used to determine the fair value of each financial instrument and its associated level in the fair value hierarchy.
Financial Instruments Measured at Fair Value | Fair Value Method | |
Cash and cash equivalents | Carrying amount (approximation to fair value assumed due to short-term nature). | |
Available-for-sale investments | Closing bid price of the common shares (Level 1) as at the statements of financial position dates. | |
Foreign currency derivatives not traded in an active market | Quoted forward exchange rates (Level 2) as at the statements of financial position dates. | |
Natural gas swaps not traded in an active market | A discounted cash flow model . 1 | |
Natural gas futures | Closing prices on the exchange (NYMEX) (Level 1) as at the statements of financial position dates. |
1 | Inputs included contractual cash flows based on prices for natural gas futures contracts, fixed prices and notional volumes specified by the swap contracts, the time value of money, liquidity risk, the companys own credit risk (related to instruments in a liability position) and counterparty credit risk (related to instruments in an asset position). Futures contract prices used as inputs in the model were supported by prices quoted in an active market and therefore categorized in Level 2. |
Financial Instruments Measured at Amortized Cost | Fair Value Method | |
Receivables, short-term debt and payables and accrued charges | Carrying amount (approximation to fair value assumed due to short-term nature). | |
Long-term debt senior notes | Quoted market prices (Level 1 or 2 depending on the market liquidity of the debt). | |
Other long-term debt instruments | Carrying amount. |
Presented below is a comparison of the fair value of the companys senior notes to their carrying amounts as at December 31.
2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||
Carrying Amount of Liability 1 | Fair Value of Liability | Carrying Amount of Liability 1 | Fair Value of Liability | |||||||||||||
Long-term debt senior notes |
$ | 4,202 | $ | 4,384 | $ | 3,702 | $ | 3,912 | ||||||||
1 | Includes net unamortized debt issue costs. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 159 |
Note 29 | Financial Instruments and Related Risk Management continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
The following table presents the companys fair value hierarchy for financial assets and financial liabilities carried at fair value on a recurring basis:
Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Dates Using: | ||||||||||||
2016 |
Carrying Amount of Asset (Liability) as at December 31 |
Quoted Prices in Active Markets for
Identical Assets (Level 1) 1 |
Significant Other
Observable Inputs (Level 2) 1,2 |
|||||||||
Derivative instrument assets |
||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
$ | 6 | $ | | $ | 6 | ||||||
Available-for-sale investments 3 |
940 | 940 | | |||||||||
Derivative instrument liabilities |
||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
(97 | ) | | (97 | ) | |||||||
2015 |
||||||||||||
Derivative instrument assets |
||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
$ | 9 | $ | | $ | 9 | ||||||
Available-for-sale investments 3 |
984 | 984 | | |||||||||
Derivative instrument liabilities |
||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
(190 | ) | | (190 | ) | |||||||
Foreign currency derivatives |
(3 | ) | | (3 | ) | |||||||
1 | During 2016 and 2015, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2. |
2 | During 2016, there were no transfers into Level 3. During 2015, there were no transfers into Level 3 and $120 of losses was transferred out of Level 3 into Level 2 as the companys valuation technique used a significant portion of observable inputs. The companys policy is to recognize transfers at the end of the reporting period. |
3 | Available-for-sale investments are comprised of shares in ICL, Sinofert and other. |
The following table presents the companys recognized financial instruments that are offset, or subject to enforceable master netting arrangements:
Amounts Not Offset | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial assets (liabilities) | Gross | Offset |
Net Amounts
Presented |
Included in
Gross |
Related To Cash Margin
Deposits (Held) Placed |
Net Amounts Presented
Less Amounts Not Offset |
||||||||||||||||||
December 31, 2016 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Derivative instrument assets |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
$ | 6 | $ | | $ | 6 | $ | | $ | (1) | 1 | $ | 5 | |||||||||||
Derivative instrument liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
(125 | ) | 28 | (97 | ) | (30 | ) | 61 | 2 | (66 | ) | |||||||||||||
Other long-term debt instruments 3 |
(187 | ) | 187 | | | | | |||||||||||||||||
$ | (306 | ) | $ | 215 | $ | (91 | ) | $ | (30 | ) | $ | 60 | $ | (61 | ) | |||||||||
December 31, 2015 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Derivative instrument assets |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
$ | 12 | $ | (3 | ) | $ | 9 | $ | 4 | $ | | 1 | $ | 13 | ||||||||||
Derivative instrument liabilities |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Natural gas derivatives |
(259 | ) | 69 | (190 | ) | (59 | ) | 119 | 2 | (130 | ) | |||||||||||||
Other long-term debt instruments 3 |
(341 | ) | 337 | (4 | ) | | | (4 | ) | |||||||||||||||
$ | (588 | ) | $ | 403 | $ | (185 | ) | $ | (55 | ) | $ | 119 | $ | (121 | ) | |||||||||
1 | Cash margin deposits held related to legally enforceable master netting arrangements for natural gas derivatives. |
2 | Cash margin deposits placed with counterparties related to legally enforceable master netting arrangements for natural gas derivatives. |
3 | Back-to-back loan arrangements (Note 21). |
160 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Contingencies and Other Matters |
Contingent liabilities, which are not recognized in the financial statements but may be disclosed, are possible obligations as a result of uncertain future events outside the control of the company, or present obligations not recognized because the amount cannot be sufficiently measured or payment is not probable.
Accounting Policies | Accounting Estimates and Judgments | |||
Generally, a contingent liability arises from past events and is:
a possible obligation whose existence will be confirmed only by one or more uncertain future events or non-events outside the control of the company; or
a present obligation not recognized because it is not probable an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation, or the amount of the obligation cannot be measured with sufficient reliability.
Contingent liabilities are not recognized in the financial statements but are disclosed unless the possibility of an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits is remote. Where the company is jointly and severally liable for an obligation, the part of the obligation that is expected to be met by other parties is treated as a contingent liability.
A contingent asset is a possible asset that arises from past events and whose existence will be confirmed only by the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of the company. Contingent assets are not recognized in the financial statements and are only disclosed where an inflow of economic benefits is probable. |
The following judgments are required to determine the companys exposure to possible losses and gains related to environmental matters and other various claims and lawsuits pending:
prediction of the outcome of uncertain events (i.e., being virtually certain, probable, remote or undeterminable);
determination of whether recognition or disclosure in the consolidated financial statements is required; and
estimation of potential financial effects.
Where no amounts are recognized, such amounts are contingent and disclosure may be appropriate. While the amount disclosed in the consolidated financial statements may not be material, the potential for large liabilities exists and therefore these estimates could have a material impact on the companys consolidated financial statements. |
|||
Supporting Information
Canpotex
PCS is a shareholder in Canpotex, which markets Canadian potash offshore. Should any operating losses or other liabilities be incurred by Canpotex, the shareholders have contractually agreed to reimburse it for such losses or liabilities in proportion to each shareholders productive capacity. Through December 31, 2016, there were no such operating losses or other liabilities.
Mining Risk
The risk of underground water inflows, as with most other underground risks, is currently not insured.
Legal and Other Matters
The company is engaged in ongoing site assessment and/or remediation activities at a number of facilities and sites, and anticipated costs associated with these matters are added to accrued environmental costs in the manner described in Note 18. This includes matters related to investigation of potential brine migration at certain of the potash sites. The following environmental site assessment and/or remediation matters have uncertainties that may not be fully reflected in the amounts accrued for those matters:
Nitrogen and Phosphate
|
The USEPA has identified PCS Nitrogen, Inc. (PCS Nitrogen) as a potentially responsible party at the Planters Property or Columbia Nitrogen site in Charleston, South Carolina. PCS Nitrogen is subject to a final judgment by the US District Court for the District of South Carolina allocating 30 percent of the liability for response costs at the site to PCS Nitrogen, as well as a proportional share of any costs that cannot be recovered from another responsible party. In December 2013, the USEPA issued an order to PCS Nitrogen and four other respondents requiring them jointly and severally to conduct certain cleanup work at the site and reimburse the USEPAs costs for overseeing that work. PCS Nitrogen is currently performing the work required by the USEPA |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 161 |
Note 30 | Contingencies and Other Matters continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
order. The USEPA also has requested reimbursement of approximately $5 of previously incurred response costs. The ultimate amount of liability for PCS Nitrogen depends upon, among other factors, the final outcome of litigation to impose liability on additional parties, the amount needed for remedial activities, the ability of other parties to pay and the availability of insurance. |
| PCS Phosphate has been identified as a responsible party at the Ward Transformer Superfund Site in Raleigh, North Carolina (Site). In the past, PCS Phosphate worked with certain other responsible parties to address PCB soil contamination at the Site pursuant to an agreement with the USEPA. These response actions are nearly complete at an estimated total cost of $80, including anticipated remaining work on the Site. The USEPA also sought remediation in certain downstream areas that are referred to as Operable Unit 1. PCS Phosphate signed a Consent Decree with the USEPA for Operable Unit 1 in September 2016 that is not expected to require PCS Phosphate to incur any additional remediation costs. Certain ongoing litigation for the recovery of previously incurred cleanup costs has been substantially resolved through mediation and is not currently expected to continue. |
| In 1996, PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. (PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer), then known as Arcadian Fertilizer, L.P., entered into a Consent Order (the Order) with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) in conjunction with PCS Nitrogen Fertilizers acquisition of real property in Augusta, Georgia. Under the Order, PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer is required to perform certain activities to investigate and, if necessary, implement corrective measures for substances in soil and groundwater. The investigation has proceeded and the results have been presented to GEPD. Two interim corrective measures for substances in groundwater have been proposed by PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer and approved by GEPD. PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer is implementing the approved interim corrective measures, which may be modified by PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer from time to time, but it is unable to estimate with reasonable certainty the total cost of its corrective action obligations under the Order at this time. |
Based on current information and except for the uncertainties described in the preceding paragraphs, the company does not
believe that its future obligations with respect to these facilities and sites are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.
Other legal matters with significant uncertainties include the following:
Nitrogen and Phosphate
| The USEPA has an ongoing initiative to evaluate implementation within the phosphate industry of a particular exemption for mineral processing wastes under the hazardous waste program. In connection with this industry-wide initiative, the USEPA conducted inspections at numerous phosphate operations and notified the company of alleged violations of the US Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at its plants in Aurora, North Carolina; Geismar, Louisiana; and White Springs, Florida. The company has entered into RCRA 3013 Administrative Orders on Consent and has performed certain site assessment activities at all of these plants. At this time, the company does not know the scope of action, if any, that may be required. As to the alleged RCRA violations, the company continues to participate in settlement discussions with the USEPA but is uncertain if any resolution will be possible without litigation, or, if litigation occurs, what the outcome would be. The company routinely monitors public information about the impacts of the initiative on other industry members, and it regularly considers this information in establishing the appropriate asset retirement obligations and accruals. |
| In August 2015, the USEPA finalized amendments to the hazardous air pollutant emission standards for phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer production (Final Rule). The Final Rule includes certain new requirements for monitoring and emissions that are infeasible for the company to satisfy in a timely manner. As a result, in October 2015, the company petitioned the USEPA to reconsider certain aspects of the Final Rule and separately asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the Final Rule. Subsequent to these requests, required emissions testing at our Aurora facility in 2016 indicated alleged exceedances of the mercury emission limit that was established by the Final Rule. The company has communicated with the relevant agencies about this issue and supplemented its filings with the USEPA and the court to include reconsideration and review of the mercury emission limit. The facility also entered into an agreed order with the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) in November 2016 to resolve the alleged mercury exceedances and provide a plan and schedule for evaluating alternative compliance |
strategies. In December 2016, the USEPA proposed amendments to the Final Rule to address certain monitoring requirements raised in the companys request for reconsideration. The company is evaluating these amendments and plans to submit comments on the proposal. However, the company will wait for final USEPA action on all petition issues before determining whether to proceed with the court action, which is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the USEPA reconsideration proceeding. Given the pending legal issues and the companys evaluation of alternative compliance strategies, the resulting cost of compliance with the various provisions of the Final Rule cannot be predicted with reasonable certainty at this time. |
General
| The countries where we operate are parties to the Paris Agreement adopted in December 2015 pursuant to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Each country that is a party to the Paris Agreement submitted an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) toward the control of greenhouse gas emissions. The impacts of these INDCs on the companys operations cannot be determined with any certainty at this time. In October 2016, the Canadian government announced a national plan to put a price on carbon emissions beginning in 2018 of $10 per tonne and increasing by $10 per tonne each year through 2022, to be implemented either through a carbon tax or a cap and trade program at the election of each province. The Province of Saskatchewan is considering various alternative approaches to address the national plan. Other countries where the company operates have not at this time announced regulatory plans that would appear to have a significant impact on company operations. The company is monitoring these developments and their future effect on its operations cannot be determined with certainty at this time. |
In addition, various other claims and lawsuits are pending against the company in the ordinary course of business. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of such actions at this time, and inherent uncertainties exist in predicting such outcomes, it is the companys belief that the ultimate resolution of such actions is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.
162 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 30 | Contingencies and Other Matters continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
The breadth of the companys operations and the global complexity of tax regulations require assessments of uncertainties and judgments in estimating the taxes it will ultimately pay. The final taxes paid are dependent upon many factors, including negotiations with taxing authorities in various jurisdictions, outcomes of tax litigation and resolution of disputes arising from federal, provincial, state and local tax audits. The resolution of these uncertainties
and the associated final taxes may result in adjustments to the companys tax assets and tax liabilities.
The company owns facilities that have been either permanently or indefinitely shut down. It expects to incur nominal annual expenditures for site security and other maintenance costs at certain of these facilities. Should the facilities be dismantled, certain other shutdown-related costs may be incurred. Such costs are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the companys consolidated financial position or results of operations and would be recognized and recorded in the period in which they are incurred.
Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments |
Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments
The following table discusses the accounting policies, estimates, judgments and assumptions the company has adopted and made and how they affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements.
Topic
|
Accounting Policies
|
Accounting Estimates and Judgments 1
|
||||||
Principles of Consolidation |
These consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the company and entities controlled by it (its subsidiaries). Control is achieved by having each of:
power over the investee via existing rights that give the company the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the investee;
exposure, or rights, to variable returns from involvement with the investee; and
the ability for the company to use its power over the investee to affect the amount of the companys returns.
The existence and effect of potential voting rights that are currently exercisable or convertible are considered when assessing whether the company controls another entity.
Subsidiaries are fully consolidated from the date on which control is transferred to the company. They are deconsolidated from the date that control ceases. |
Judgment involves:
assessing control, including if the company has the power to direct the relevant activities of the investee; and
determining the relevant activities and which party controls them. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 163 |
Note 31 | Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Topic
|
Accounting Policies
|
Accounting Estimates and Judgments 1
|
||||||
Principles of
Consolidation continued |
Principal (wholly owned)
Operating Subsidiaries: |
Location | Principal Activity |
Consideration is given to:
voting rights;
the relative size and dispersion of the
the extent of participation by those
the right to
direct the investee to enter into
the exposure, or rights, to variability of
|
||||
PCS Sales (Canada) Inc. |
Canada | Marketing and sales of the companys products | ||||||
PCS Sales (USA), Inc. |
United States | Marketing and sales of the companys products | ||||||
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. (PCS Phosphate) PCS Purified Phosphates |
United States | Mining and/or processing of phosphate products in the states of North Carolina, Illinois, Missouri and Nebraska | ||||||
White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. (White Springs) |
United States | Mining and processing of phosphate products in the state of Florida | ||||||
PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. |
United States | Production of nitrogen products in the states of Georgia and Louisiana, and of phosphate products in the state of Louisiana | ||||||
PCS Nitrogen Ohio, L.P. |
United States | Production of nitrogen products in the state of Ohio | ||||||
PCS Nitrogen Trinidad Limited |
Trinidad | Production of nitrogen products in Trinidad | ||||||
PCS Cassidy Lake Company |
Canada | Brine pumping operations for the companys New Brunswick operation | ||||||
Intercompany balances and transactions are eliminated on consolidation. | ||||||||
Long-Lived Asset Impairment |
Long-lived and intangible assets are assessed at the end of each reporting period for impairment indicators and when such indicators exist, impairment testing is performed. Regardless, goodwill is tested at least annually (typically in the second quarter). At the end of each reporting period, the company reviews conditions potentially impacting the carrying amounts of both its long-lived assets to be held and used and its identifiable intangible assets with finite lives to determine whether there is any indication that they have suffered an impairment loss.
For assessing impairment, assets are grouped at the smallest levels for which there are separately identifiable cash inflows that are largely independent of the cash inflows from other assets or groups of assets (this can be at the asset or CGU level).
Where impairment indicators exist for the asset or CGU:
the recoverable amount is estimated (the recoverable amount is the higher of fair value less costs to sell and value in use);
to assess value in use, the estimated future cash flows are discounted to their present value (using a pre-tax discount rate that reflects current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the asset or CGU for which the estimates of future cash flows have not been adjusted);
the impairment loss is the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds its recoverable amount; and
the impairment loss is allocated first to reduce the carrying amount of any related goodwill and then pro rata to each asset in the unit (on the basis of the carrying amount).
Non-financial assets, other than goodwill, that previously suffered an impairment loss are reviewed at each reporting date for possible reversal of the impairment. |
Judgment involves:
identifying the appropriate asset or CGU;
determining the appropriate discount rate for assessing value in use; and
making assumptions about future sales, margins and market conditions over the long-term life of the assets or CGUs.
The company cannot predict if an event that triggers impairment will occur, when it will occur or how it will affect reported asset amounts. It is reasonably possible that the amounts reported for asset impairments could be different if different assumptions were used or if market and other conditions change. The changes could result in non-cash charges that could materially affect the companys consolidated financial statements.
Impairments were recognized during 2016 as shown in Note 13. |
||||||
164 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Financials & Notes
|
Note 31 | Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Topic
|
Accounting Policies
|
Accounting Estimates and Judgments 1
|
||||||
Fair Value Measurements |
Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date, regardless of whether that price is directly observable or estimated using another valuation technique.
Fair value measurements are categorized into levels based on the degree to which inputs are observable and their significance:
|
Fair values estimates:
are at a point-in-time and may change in subsequent reporting periods due to market conditions or other factors;
can be determined using multiple methods, which can cause values (or a range of reasonable values) to differ; and
may require assumptions about costs/prices over time, discount and inflation rates, defaults and other relevant variables.
|
||||||
Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | ||||||
Unadjusted quoted prices (in active markets accessible at the measurement date for identical assets or liabilities). | Quoted prices (in markets that are not active or based on inputs that are observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability). | Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both unobservable and significant to the overall measurement. | ||||||
Determination of the level hierarchy is based on the companys assessment of the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement and is subject to estimation and judgment. | ||||||||
Prepaid Expenses | Freight, transportation and distribution costs related to product inventory stored at warehouse and terminal facilities are classified as prepaid expenses. | Not applicable. | ||||||
Restructuring Charges |
Plant shutdowns, sales of business units or other corporate restructurings may trigger restructuring costs. Incremental costs for employee termination, contract termination and other exit costs are recognized as a liability and an expense when:
a detailed formal plan for restructuring has been demonstrably committed to;
withdrawal is without realistic possibility; and
a reliable estimate can be made. |
Restructuring activities are complex, can take several months to complete and usually involve reassessing estimates throughout the process. | ||||||
Foreign Currency Transactions |
Items included in the consolidated financial statements of the company and each of its subsidiaries are measured using the currency of the primary economic environment in which the individual entity operates (the functional currency).
Foreign currency transactions are generally translated to US dollars at the average exchange rate for the previous month. Monetary assets and liabilities are translated at period-end exchange rates. Foreign exchange gains and losses resulting from the settlement of such transactions, and from the translation at period-end exchange rates of monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies, are recognized and presented in the consolidated statements of income within other income (expenses), as applicable, in the period in which they arise.
Non-monetary assets and liabilities carried at fair value are translated using the exchange rate at the date when the fair value is determined and translation differences are recognized as part of changes in fair value. Translation differences on non-monetary financial assets such as investments in equity securities classified as available-for-sale are included in OCI. Non-monetary assets measured at historical cost are translated at the average monthly exchange rate prevailing at the time of the transaction, unless the exchange rate in effect on the date that the transaction occurred is available and it is apparent that such rate is a more suitable measurement. |
The consolidated financial statements are presented in United States dollars (US dollars), which was determined to be the functional currency of the company and the majority of its subsidiaries. | ||||||
1 Certain of the companys policies involve accounting estimates and judgments because they require the company to make subjective or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because of the likelihood that materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 165 |
Note 31 | Accounting Policies, Estimates and Judgments continued | in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Standards, Amendments and Interpretations Effective and Applied
The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) have issued the following standards and amendments or interpretations to existing standards that were effective and applied by the company.
Standard | Description | Impact | ||
Amendments to IAS 1, Presentation of Financial Statements | Issued to improve the effectiveness of presentation and disclosure in financial reports, with the objective of reducing immaterial note disclosures. | Adopted prospectively effective January 1, 2016. Immaterial disclosures were removed from these consolidated financial statements and in certain tables within the notes immaterial line items were combined. | ||
Amendments to IAS 16, Property, Plant and Equipment and IAS 38, Intangible Assets | Issued to clarify acceptable methods of depreciation and amortization. | Adopted prospectively effective January 1, 2016 with no change to these consolidated financial statements. | ||
Amendments to IFRS 11, Joint Arrangements | Issued to provide additional guidance on accounting for the acquisition of an interest in a joint operation. | Adopted prospectively effective January 1, 2016 with no change to these consolidated financial statements. |
Standards, Amendments and Interpretations Not Yet Effective and Not Applied
The IASB and IFRIC have issued the following standards and amendments or interpretations to existing standards that were not yet effective and not applied as at December 31, 2016. The company does not anticipate early adoption of these standards at this time.
Standard | Description | Impact | Effective Date 1 | |||
Amendments to IAS 7, Statement of Cash Flows | Issued to require a reconciliation of the opening and closing liabilities that form part of an entitys financing activities, including both changes arising from cash flows and non-cash changes. | The company is reviewing the standard to determine the potential impact. | January 1, 2017, applied prospectively. | |||
Amendments to IAS 12, Income Taxes | Issued to clarify the requirements on recognition of deferred tax assets for unrealized losses on debt instruments measured at fair value. | The company is reviewing the standard to determine the potential impact, if any; however, no significant impact is anticipated. | January 1, 2017, applied retrospectively with certain practical expedients available. | |||
IFRS 15, Revenue From Contracts With Customers | Issued to provide guidance on the recognition of revenue from contracts with customers, including multiple-element arrangements and transactions not previously addressed comprehensively, and enhance disclosures about revenue. | The company is reviewing the standard to determine the potential impact, if any. | January 1, 2018, applied retrospectively with certain practical expedients available. | |||
IFRS 9, Financial Instruments | Issued to replace IAS 39, providing guidance on the classification, measurement and disclosure of financial instruments and introducing a new hedge accounting model. | The company is reviewing the standard to determine the potential impact, if any. |
January 1, 2018, applied retrospectively with certain exceptions. |
|||
Amendments to IFRS 2, Share-Based Payment | Issued to provide clarification on the classification and measurement of share-based transactions. Specifically, accounting for cash-settled share-based transactions, share-based payment transactions with a net settlement feature and modifications of share-based payment transactions that change classification from cash-settled to equity-settled. | The company is reviewing the standard to determine the potential impact, if any. | January 1, 2018, with the option of retrospective or prospective application. | |||
IFRS 16, Leases | Issued to supersede IAS 17, IFRIC 4, SIC-15 and SIC-27, providing the principles for the recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure of leases. Lessees would be required to recognize assets and liabilities for the rights and obligations created by leases. Lessors would continue to classify leases using a similar approach to that of the superseded standards but with enhanced disclosure to improve information about a lessors risk exposure, particularly to residual value risk. | The company is reviewing the standard to determine the potential impact. | January 1, 2019, applied retrospectively with certain practical expedients available. |
1 Effective date for annual periods beginning on or after the stated date.
166 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
in millions of US dollars except as otherwise noted |
Proposed Transaction with Agrium |
On September 11, 2016, the company entered into an Arrangement Agreement with Agrium pursuant to which the company and Agrium have agreed to combine their businesses in a merger of equals transaction to be implemented by way of a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act. On November 3, 2016, the Proposed Transaction was approved by shareholders of both companies. On November 7, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice issued a final order approving the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction is currently anticipated to be completed in mid-2017 and is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals.
Upon the closing of the Proposed Transaction, the company and Agrium will become indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of a new
parent company. PotashCorp shareholders will own approximately 52 percent of the new parent, and Agrium shareholders will own approximately 48 percent.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 167 |
Financials & Notes
|
168 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Other Information
|
ANNUAL MEETING
The Annual Shareholders Meeting will be held at 3:30 p.m. Central Standard Time May 9, 2017 in the Radisson Hotel, 405 20th Street East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
It will be carried live on the companys website: www.potashcorp.com.
Holders of common shares as of the close of business on March 13, 2017 will be entitled to vote at the meeting and are encouraged to participate.
DIVIDENDS
Dividend amounts paid to shareholders resident in Canada are adjusted by the exchange rate applicable on the dividend record date. Dividends are normally paid in February, May, August and November, with record dates normally set approximately three weeks in advance of the payment date. During the pending of the Proposed Transaction, record dates will be set on the last business day of each fiscal quarter. Future cash dividends will be paid out of, and are conditioned upon, the companys available earnings. Shareholders who wish to have their dividends deposited directly to their bank accounts should contact the transfer agent and registrar, CST Trust Company.
Registered shareholders can have dividends reinvested in newly issued common shares of PotashCorp at prevailing market rates.
OWNERSHIP
On February 20, 2017, there were 1,424 holders of record of the companys common shares.
COMMON SHARE PRICES
The companys common shares are traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange (composite transactions). Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. is on the S&P/TSX 60 and the S&P/TSX Composite indices.
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 169 |
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Suite 500, 122 1st Ave South
Saskatoon SK S7K 7G3 Canada
Phone: (306) 933-8500
Investor Relations
Investor Relations Department
Email: potashcorp.ir@potashcorp.com
Phone: (306) 933-8637
TRANSFER AGENT
You can contact CST Trust Company, the corporations transfer agent, as follows:
By Telephone: | 1-800-387-0825 | |
(toll-free within Canada and the US), or | ||
1-416-682-3860 | ||
(from any country other than Canada and the US) | ||
By Fax: | 1-514-985-8843 | |
(all countries) | ||
By Mail: | P.O. Box 700 | |
Station B | ||
Montreal, Quebec | ||
Canada H3B 3K3 | ||
Through the Internet: | www.canstockta.com |
NYSE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Disclosure contemplated by 303A.11 of the NYSEs listed company manual is available on our website at www.potashcorp.com. The certifications required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are filed as exhibits to our 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
170 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
Other Information
|
MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA STATEMENT
Some of the market and industry data contained in this Annual Integrated Report and this Managements Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations are based on
internal surveys, market research, independent industry publications or other publicly available information. Although we believe that the independent sources we use are reliable, we have not independently verified and cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this information. Similarly, we believe our internal research is reliable, but such research has not been verified by any independent sources.
Information in the preparation of this Annual Integrated Report is based on statistical data and other material available at February 20, 2017.
ABBREVIATED COMPANY NAMES AND SOURCES*
Name | Source | |
Agrium | Agrium Inc. (TSX and NYSE: AGU), Canada | |
APC | Arab Potash Company (Amman: ARPT), Jordan | |
Belaruskali | PA Belaruskali, Belarus | |
Bloomberg | Bloomberg L.P., USA | |
Blue Johnson | Blue, Johnson Associates Inc., USA | |
Canpotex | Canpotex Limited, Canada | |
CF Industries | CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CF), USA | |
CN Rail | Canadian National Railway Co. (TSX: CNR and NYSE: CNI), Canada | |
CP Rail | Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (TSX and NYSE: CP), Canada | |
CRU | CRU International Limited, UK | |
CVR | CVR Partners, L.P., USA | |
DBRS | Dominion Bond Rating Service, Canada | |
FactSet | FactSet Research Systems Inc., USA | |
FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | |
Fertecon | Fertecon Limited, UK | |
ICL | Israel Chemicals Ltd. (Tel Aviv: ICL), Israel | |
IFA | International Fertilizer Industry Association, France | |
Innophos | Innophos Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: IPHS), USA | |
Intrepid | Intrepid Potash, Inc. (NYSE: IPI), USA |
Name | Source | |
IPNI | International Plant Nutrition Institute, USA | |
K+S | K+S Group (Xetra: SDF), Germany | |
Koch | Koch Industries, Inc., USA | |
LSB | LSB Industries, Inc. (NYSE: LXU), USA | |
Moodys | Moodys Corporation (NYSE: MCO), USA | |
Mosaic | The Mosaic Company (NYSE: MOS), USA | |
NYMEX | New York Mercantile Exchange, USA | |
NYSE | New York Stock Exchange, USA | |
OCI | OCI N.V., (NYSE Euronext: OCI), The Netherlands | |
Simplot | J.R. Simplot Company, USA | |
Sinofert | Sinofert Holdings Limited (HKSE: 0297.HK), China | |
SQM | Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. (Santiago Bolsa de Comercio Exchange, NYSE: SQM), Chile | |
S&P | Standard & Poors Financial Services LLC, USA | |
TSX | Toronto Stock Exchange, Canada | |
Uralkali | JSC Uralkali (LSE and RTS: URKA), Russia | |
USDA | United States Department of Agriculture | |
USDOC | US Department of Commerce, USA | |
Yara | Yara International ASA (Oslo: YAR), Norway |
* | Where PotashCorp is listed as a source in conjunction with external sources, we have supplemented the external data with internal analysis. |
PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report | 171 |
Scientific Terms | ||||
Nitrogen | NH 3 | ammonia (anhydrous), 82.2% N | ||
HNO 3 | nitric acid, 22% N (liquid) | |||
UAN | nitrogen solutions, 28-32% N (liquid) | |||
Phosphate | MGA | merchant grade acid, 54% P 2 O 5 (liquid) | ||
DAP | diammonium phosphate, 46% P 2 O 5 (solid) | |||
MAP | monoammonium phosphate, 52% P 2 O 5 (solid) | |||
SPA | superphosphoric acid, 70% P 2 O 5 (liquid) | |||
Monocal | monocalcium phosphate, 48.1% P 2 O 5 (solid) | |||
Dical | dicalcium phosphate, 42.4% P 2 O 5 (solid) | |||
DFP | defluorinated phosphate, 41.2% P 2 O 5 (solid) | |||
STF | silicon tetrafluoride | |||
Potash | KCI | potassium chloride, 60-63.2% K 2 O (solid) | ||
Product Measures |
||||
K 2 O tonne |
Measures the potassium content of products having different
chemical analyses |
|||
N tonne |
Measures the nitrogen content of products having different chemical analyses | |||
P 2 O 5 tonne |
Measures the phosphorus content of products having different chemical analyses | |||
Product tonne |
Standard measure of the weights of all types of potash, nitrogen and phosphate products | |||
Currency Abbreviations |
||||
CDN | Canadian dollar | |||
USD | United States dollar | |||
Exchange Rates |
||||
CDN per USD at December 31, 2016 1.3427 |
General Terms | ||
2016E | 2016 estimated | |
2017F | 2017 forecast | |
Brownfield capacity | Increase in operational capability at existing operation | |
CAGR | Compound annual growth rate | |
CAPEX | Capital expenditure | |
Canpotex | An export company owned by all Saskatchewan producers of potash (PotashCorp, Mosaic and Agrium) | |
Consumption vs demand | Product applied vs product purchased | |
FOB | Free on Board cost of goods on board at point of shipment | |
FSU | Former Soviet Union | |
GDP | Gross Domestic Product | |
Greenfield capacity | New operation built on undeveloped site | |
Latin America | South America, Central America, Caribbean and Mexico | |
LNG | Liquefied natural gas | |
MMBtu | Million British thermal units | |
MMT | Million metric tonnes | |
Nameplate capacity | Estimated theoretical capacity based on design specifications or Canpotex entitlements does not necessarily represent operational capability | |
North America | The North American market includes Canada and the US | |
Offshore | Offshore markets include all markets except Canada and the US | |
Operational capability |
Estimated annual achievable production level | |
PotashCorp | Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (PCS) and its direct or indirect subsidiaries, individually or in any combination, as applicable | |
Yuzhnyy | A port situated in Ukraine |
172 | PotashCorp 2016 Annual Integrated Report |
LEARN MORE ONLINE...
POTASHCORP INTEGRATED
REPORTING CENTER
potashcorp2016air.com
Our Integrated Reporting Center provides users with an interactive version of our Annual Integrated Report and supplementary performance data as well as access to our public disclosure documents.
SUSTAINABILITY
potashcorp.com/irc/gri
Our GRI Content Index provides users with additional information on our economic, environmental and social performance.
POTASHCORP EKONOMICS
potashcorp-ekonomics.com
Our eKonomics website features the latest crop nutrition research, the industrys first Nutrient Return On Investment Calculator, geographic soil test data, commodity futures prices, rainfall data and much more.
POTASHCORP2016AIR.COM
|
POTASHCORP.COM Visit us online |
|
|
FACEBOOK.COM/POTASHCORP Find us on Facebook |
|
|
TWITTER.COM/POTASHCORP Follow us on Twitter |
Exhibit 21
SUBSIDIARIES OF
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
Name of Entity |
Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Formation |
|
101070338 Saskatchewan Ltd. |
Saskatchewan | |
8727856 Canada Inc. |
Canada | |
175360 Canada Inc. |
Canada | |
628550 Saskatchewan Ltd. |
Saskatchewan | |
4420 Investment LLC |
Delaware | |
AA Sulfuric Corporation |
Louisiana | |
Aboriginal Career Centre Inc. |
Canada | |
Canpotex Bulk Terminals Limited |
Canada | |
Chilkap Resources Ltd. |
Yukon | |
Inversiones El Boldo Limitada |
Chile | |
Inversiones El Roble S.A. |
Chile | |
Inversiones El Sauce S.A. |
Chile | |
Inversiones PCS Chile Limitada |
Chile | |
Inversiones RAC Chile S.A. |
Chile | |
Minera Saskatchewan Limitada |
Chile | |
PCS Administration (USA), Inc. |
Delaware | |
PCS (Barbados) Enterprise SRL |
Barbados | |
PCS (Barbados) Holdings SRL |
Barbados | |
PCS (Barbados) Investment Company Ltd. |
Barbados | |
PCS (Barbados) Shipping, Ltd. |
Barbados | |
PCS Cassidy Lake Company |
Ontario | |
PCS Cassidy Lake Limited |
Canada | |
PCS Chile I LLC |
Delaware | |
PCS Chile II LLC |
Delaware | |
PCS Fosfatos do Brasil Ltda. |
Brazil | |
PCS Hammond LLC |
Delaware | |
PCS Industrial Products Inc. |
Delaware | |
PCS Joint Venture, Ltd. |
Florida | |
PCS Jordan LLC |
Delaware | |
PCS L.P. Inc. |
Delaware | |
PCS LP LLC 2 |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen Ammonia Terminal Corporation I |
Texas | |
PCS Nitrogen Ammonia Terminal Corporation II |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P. |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen Fertilizer Operations, Inc. |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen, Inc. |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen LCD Corporation |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen Ohio, L.P. |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen Trinidad Corporation |
Delaware | |
PCS Nitrogen Trinidad Limited |
Trinidad | |
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. |
Delaware | |
PCS Purified Phosphates |
Virginia | |
PCS Sales (Canada) Inc. |
Saskatchewan | |
PCS Sales (Indiana), Inc. |
Indiana | |
PCS Sales (Iowa), Inc. |
Iowa | |
PCS Sales (USA), Inc. |
Delaware | |
Pérola S.A. |
Brazil | |
Phosphate Holding Company, Inc. |
Delaware | |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (Florida) Inc. |
Florida | |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Transport Limited |
Saskatchewan | |
PotashCorp Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. |
Israel | |
PotashCorp Finance (Barbados) Limited |
Barbados | |
PotashCorp (Luxembourg) Finance S.à r.l. |
Luxembourg | |
Potash Holding Company, Inc. |
Delaware | |
RAC Investments Ltd. |
Cayman | |
White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. |
Delaware |
Exhibit 23
Deloitte LLP 122 1st Ave. S. Suite 400, PCS Tower Saskatoon SK S7K 7E5 Canada
Tel: +13063434400 Fax: +13063434480 www.deloitte.ca |
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.:
|
Registration Statement No. 333-93773 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-75742 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 033-57920 on Form S-3; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-142615 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-150807 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-151942 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-159077 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-166654 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-174170 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-181521 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-188675 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-196015 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-196016 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-196018 on Form S-8; |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-204112 on Form S-8. |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-211285 on Form S-8; and |
|
Registration Statement No. 333-212301 on Form S-3 |
of our reports dated February 20, 2017 relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and the effectiveness of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2016.
/s/ Deloitte LLP
Chartered Professional Accountants
Licensed Professional Accountants
February 24, 2017
Saskatoon, Canada
Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
Exhibit 31(a)
CERTIFICATION
I, Jochen E. Tilk, certify that:
1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.; |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
5. | The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 24, 2017
By: |
/s/ Jochen E. Tilk |
|
Jochen E. Tilk | ||
President and Chief Executive Officer |
Exhibit 31(b)
CERTIFICATION
I, Wayne R. Brownlee, certify that:
1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.; |
2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
4. | The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
5. | The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 24, 2017
By: |
/s/ Wayne R. Brownlee |
|
Wayne R. Brownlee | ||
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 32
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code ), each of the undersigned officers of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:
The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 10-K), of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date: February 24, 2017
By: |
/s/ Jochen E. Tilk |
|
Jochen E. Tilk | ||
President and Chief Executive Officer |
Date: February 24, 2017
By: |
/s/ Wayne R. Brownlee |
|
Wayne R. Brownlee | ||
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K, Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code ) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K.
Exhibit 95
Information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by
Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
The following table reflects citations, orders and notices issued to us by the United States Mine Safety and Health Administration (the MSHA) for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period) and contains certain additional information as required by Section 1503(a) and Item 104 of Regulation S-K of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, including information regarding mining-related fatalities, proposed assessments from the MSHA and legal actions (Legal Actions) before the United States Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), an independent adjudicative agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review of legal disputes arising under the United States Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (the Act).
Included below is the information required by Section 1503(a) with respect to our facilities at Aurora, North Carolina (MSHA Identification Number 31-00212) (Aurora), Weeping Water, Nebraska (MSHA Identification Number 25-00554) (Weeping Water) and White Springs, Florida (MSHA Identification Number 08-00798) (White Springs) for the Reporting Period:
Aurora |
Weeping
Water |
White
Springs |
||||||||||||
(a) |
the total number of alleged violations of mandatory health or safety standards that could significantly or substantially contribute to the cause and effect of a coal or other mine safety or health hazard under Section 104 of the Act for which a citation was received from the MSHA | 7 | 4 | 14 | ||||||||||
(b) |
the total number of orders issued under Section 104(b) of the Act | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
(c) |
the total number of citations received and orders issued under Section 104(d) of the Act for alleged unwarrantable failures of the Company to comply with mandatory health or safety standards | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||||||||||
(d) |
the total number of alleged flagrant violations under Section 110(b)(2) of the Act | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
(e) |
the total number of imminent danger orders issued under Section 107(a) of the Act | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
(f) |
the total value (in dollars) of proposed assessments from the MSHA under the Act | $ | 14,091 | $ | 4,477 | $ | 10,872 | |||||||
(g) |
the total number of mining-related fatalities | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
(h) |
received notice from the MSHA of a pattern of violations under Section 104(e) of the Act | No | No | No | ||||||||||
(i) |
received notice from the MSHA of potential to have a pattern of violations under Section 104(e) of the Act | No | No | No | ||||||||||
(j) |
the total number of Legal Actions pending as of the last day of the Reporting Period | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||||||||
(k) |
Legal Actions initiated during the Reporting Period | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||
(l) |
Legal Actions resolved during the Reporting Period | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
February 20, 2017
Dear Shareholder:
The Board of Directors and management are pleased to invite you to join us at Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.s 2017 annual meeting of shareholders to be held at 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) on Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at the Radisson Hotel, Salon A, 405-20 th Street East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
We expect 2017 to be an exciting year for us as we work to complete our proposed merger of equals with Agrium Inc. On November 3, 2016, our shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed transaction, with more than 99 percent of the PotashCorp shares voted at the PotashCorp special meeting voted in favor of the proposed transaction. The proposed transaction is expected to close mid-2017, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including receipt of regulatory approvals.
As in years past, the 2017 annual meeting is your opportunity to hear first-hand about our performance and also to consider and vote on a number of important matters. We hope that you can join us in person. We will also webcast the meeting on our website at www.potashcorp.com.
The accompanying Management Proxy Circular provides details about all items for consideration at the meeting, including information about each director nominee and his or her compensation, our auditors, our corporate governance practices and reports from each of the standing committees of the Board of Directors. It also contains detailed information about our philosophy, policies and programs for executive compensation and how the Board of Directors receives input from shareholders on these matters. We value your views and encourage you to read the Management Proxy Circular in advance of the meeting. At the meeting, members of management and of the Board of Directors will be present and you will have the opportunity to meet with them and ask questions about our business.
Your participation in the meeting by vote is important to us. You can vote by attending in person, or alternatively by telephone, by the Internet or by completing and returning the enclosed proxy or voting information form. Please refer to the About Voting and How to Vote sections of the accompanying Management Proxy Circular for further information.
The Board of Directors and management look forward to your participation at the meeting and thank you for your continued support.
Sincerely, | ||||
|
|
|||
JOHN W. ESTEY Board Chair |
JOCHEN E. TILK President and Chief Executive Officer |
Suite 500, 122 1 st Avenue South, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7K 7G3
Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual Meeting (such meeting and any adjournments and postponements thereof referred to as the Meeting) of Shareholders of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Corporation), a corporation organized under the laws of Canada, will be held on:
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time)
Radisson Hotel, Salon A
405 20 th Street East
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada S7K 6X6
for the following purposes:
1. | to receive the consolidated financial statements of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 and the report of the auditors thereon; |
2. | to elect the Board of Directors of the Corporation for 2017; |
3. | to appoint auditors of the Corporation for 2017; |
4. | to consider and approve, on an advisory basis, a resolution accepting the Corporations approach to executive compensation; and |
5. | to transact such other business as may properly come before the Meeting. |
This Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Management Proxy Circular are available on the Corporations website (www.potashcorp.com) and on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and EDGAR at www.sec.gov.
Shareholders who are unable to attend the Meeting are encouraged to complete, sign and return the enclosed form of proxy. To be valid, proxies must be received by the Corporations transfer agent, CST Trust Company, at its Toronto office no later than 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) on Friday, May 5, 2017 or, if the Meeting is adjourned or postponed, at least 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) before the Meeting resumes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman of the Meeting has the discretion to accept proxies received after such deadline. The time limit for deposit of proxies may be waived or extended by the Chairman of the Meeting at his or her discretion, without notice.
DATED at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan this 20 th day of February, 2017.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
JOSEPH A. PODWIKA
Secretary
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
SUITE 500, 122 1 st AVENUE SOUTH, SASKATOON, SK CANADA S7K 7G3
2017 MANAGEMENT PROXY CIRCULAR
Whats Inside
Management of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (PotashCorp, the Corporation or the Company) is providing this Management Proxy Circular to solicit proxies for the Annual Meeting of shareholders of the Corporation to be held on May 9, 2017 (such meeting and any adjournments and postponements thereof, the Meeting).
Management is soliciting proxies of all Registered Shareholders and Beneficial (Non-Registered) Shareholders (Beneficial Shareholders) primarily by mail and electronic means, supplemented by telephone or other contact by employees of the Corporation (who will receive no additional compensation) and all such costs will be borne by the Corporation. We have retained the services of Kingsdale Advisors (the Proxy Solicitation Agent) to provide strategic shareholder advisory services and to solicit proxies in Canada and the United States at an estimated cost of Cdn$35,000.
This Management Proxy Circular and related proxy materials are being sent to both Registered and Beneficial Shareholders. The Corporation does not send proxy-related materials directly to Beneficial Shareholders and is not relying on the notice-and-access provisions of applicable securities laws for delivery of proxy-related materials to either Registered or Beneficial Shareholders. The
Corporation will deliver proxy-related materials to nominees, custodians and fiduciaries, and they will be asked to promptly forward them to Beneficial Shareholders. If you are a Beneficial Shareholder, your nominee should send you a voting instruction form or form of proxy with this Management Proxy Circular. The Corporation has elected to pay for the delivery of our proxy-related materials to objecting Beneficial Shareholders.
If you have any questions about the information contained in this Management Proxy Circular or require assistance in voting your Shares, please contact the Proxy Solicitation Agent, by: (i) telephone, toll-free in North America at 1-866-581-1479 or at 416-867-2272 outside of North America; or (ii) email at contactus@kingsdaleadvisors.com.
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING
As at February 17, 2017, 839,914,555 common shares in the capital of the Corporation (the Shares) were outstanding. The Shares trade under the symbol POT on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
10%+ SHAREHOLDERS
To the knowledge of the Corporations directors and officers, no person or company owns or exercises control or direction over more than 10% of the outstanding Shares.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information relating to the Corporation that is not contained in this Management Proxy Circular, including financial information relating to the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, is contained in its consolidated financial statements and Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) included in the Corporations Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 10-K). The Form 10-K, together with any document incorporated by reference therein, is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and EDGAR at www.sec.gov. Copies may be obtained, free of charge, upon request from our Corporate Secretary at Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., Suite 500, 122 1 st Avenue South, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7K 7G3.
PROPOSED TRANSACTION WITH AGRIUM
On September 11, 2016, the Corporation and Agrium Inc. (Agrium) entered into an arrangement agreement pursuant to which the Corporation and Agrium have agreed to combine their businesses in a merger of equals to be implemented by way of a statutory arrangement under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (the CBCA) (the Proposed Transaction). On November 3, 2016, our shareholders overwhelmingly approved the Proposed Transaction, with more than 99 percent of the PotashCorp shares voted at the PotashCorp special meeting voted in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction is
expected to close mid-2017, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including receipt of regulatory approvals.
For further details regarding the Proposed Transaction, refer to the joint information circular of the Corporation and Agrium dated October 3, 2016, which is available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and EDGAR at www.sec.gov.
CURRENCY
Except as otherwise stated, all dollar amounts are expressed in United States dollars.
DATE OF INFORMATION
Except as otherwise stated, the information contained in this Management Proxy Circular is given as of February 20, 2017.
RECORD DATE AND ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE
Each shareholder of record at the close of business on March 13, 2017 (the Record Date) will be entitled to vote at the Meeting the Shares registered in his or her name on that date. Each Share carries the right to one vote for each director nominee and one vote on each other matter voted on at the Meeting.
Unless otherwise noted, all matters to be considered at the Meeting will be determined by a majority of votes cast at the Meeting in person or by proxy.
QUORUM
A quorum for the Meeting shall be two or more persons present and holding or representing by proxy not less than 33.33% of the total number of issued and outstanding Shares.
PROXY VOTING
The persons named in the form of proxy must vote or withhold from voting your Shares in accordance with your instructions on the form of proxy. Signing the form of proxy gives authority to Mr. John W. Estey, Mr. Jochen E. Tilk, Mr. Wayne R. Brownlee or Mr. Joseph A. Podwika, each of whom is either a director or officer of the Corporation, to vote your Shares at the Meeting in accordance with your voting instructions.
In the absence of such instructions, however, your Shares will be voted as follows:
(1) | FOR the election to the Board of each of the nominees listed on the Corporations form of proxy; |
(2) | FOR the appointment of Deloitte LLP as auditors of the Corporation until the close of the next annual meeting; |
(3) | FOR the advisory resolution accepting the Corporations approach to executive compensation; and |
(4) | FOR management proposals generally. |
A proxy must be in writing and must be executed by you or by an attorney duly authorized in writing or, if the shareholder is a corporation or other legal entity, by an officer or attorney duly authorized. A proxy may also be completed over the telephone or over the Internet. To be valid your proxy must be received by our transfer agent, CST Trust Company, at its Toronto office no later than 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) on Friday, May 5, 2017 or, if the Meeting is adjourned or postponed, at least 48 hours
(excluding weekends and holidays) before the Meeting resumes. Please see How to Vote on page 2 for further information.
If you have any questions about the information contained in this Management Proxy Circular or require assistance in voting your Shares, please contact the Proxy Solicitation Agent, by (i) telephone, toll-free in North America at 1-866-581-1479 or at 416-867-2272 outside of North America; or (ii) email at contactus@kingsdaleadvisors.com
AMENDMENTS AND OTHER MATTERS
The persons named in the form of proxy will have discretionary authority with respect to amendments or variations to matters identified in the Notice of the Meeting and with respect to other matters that properly come before the Meeting.
As of the date of this Management Proxy Circular, our management knows of no such amendment, variation or other matter expected to come before the Meeting. If any other matters properly come before the Meeting, the persons named in the form of proxy will vote on them in accordance with their best judgment.
TRANSFER AGENT
You can contact CST Trust Company, the Corporations transfer agent as follows:
By Telephone:
1-800-387-0825 (toll-free within Canada and the United States)
or
1-416-682-3860 (from any country other than Canada or the United States)
By Fax:
1-514-985-8843 (all countries)
By Mail:
P.O. Box 700
Station B
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3B 3K3
By the Internet:
www.canstockta.com
1 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER VOTING
You are a Registered Shareholder if your Shares are held in your name and you have a share certificate. The enclosed form of proxy indicates whether you are a Registered Shareholder.
VOTING OPTIONS
|
In person at the Meeting; or | |||
|
By proxy: | |||
|
By Telephone or Fax; or | |||
|
By Mail; or | |||
|
By the Internet. |
VOTING IN PERSON
If you wish to vote in person at the Meeting, do not complete or return the form of proxy. Please register with the transfer agent, CST Trust Company, when you arrive at the Meeting.
VOTING BY PROXY
Registered Shareholders have four options to vote by proxy:
(a) | By Telephone (only available to Registered Shareholders resident in Canada or the United States): |
Call 1-888-489-5760 from a touch-tone phone and follow the instructions. You will need the control number located on the enclosed form of proxy. You do not need to return your form of proxy.
(b) | By Fax: |
Complete, date and sign the enclosed form of proxy and return it by fax to 1-866-781-3111 (toll-free within Canada and the United States) or 1-416-368-2502 (from any country other than Canada or the United States).
(c) | By Mail |
Complete, date and sign the enclosed form of proxy and return it in the envelope provided.
(d) | By the Internet |
Go to www.cstvotemyproxy.com and follow the instructions on screen. You will need the control number located on the enclosed form of proxy. You do not need to return your form of proxy.
At any time, CST Trust Company may cease to provide telephone and Internet voting, in which case Registered Shareholders can elect to vote by mail or by fax, as described above.
The persons named in the enclosed form of proxy are either directors or officers of the Corporation. Please see About Voting Proxy Voting on page 1. You have the right to appoint
some other person of your choice, who need not be a shareholder, director or officer, to attend and act on your behalf at the Meeting. If you wish to do so, please strike out the four printed names appearing on the form of proxy, and insert the name of your chosen proxyholder in the space provided on the form of proxy.
If you decide to vote by telephone or by the Internet, you cannot appoint a person to vote your Shares other than our directors or officers whose printed names appear on the form of proxy.
It is important to ensure that any other person you appoint as proxy is attending the Meeting and is aware that his or her appointment has been made to vote your Shares.
DEADLINES FOR VOTING
(a) | Attending the Meeting If you are planning to attend the Meeting and wish to vote your Shares in person at the Meeting, your vote will be taken and counted at the Meeting. |
(b) | Using the Form of Proxy If you are voting using the form of proxy, your form of proxy must be received at the Toronto office of CST Trust Company by mail or fax no later than 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) on Friday, May 5, 2017 or, if the Meeting is adjourned or postponed, at least 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) before the Meeting resumes. |
(c) | Telephone or Internet If you are voting by telephone or by the Internet, your vote must be received by CST Trust Company no later than 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) on Friday, May 5, 2017 or, if the Meeting is adjourned or postponed, at least 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) before the Meeting resumes. |
REVOKING YOUR PROXY
As a Registered Shareholder, if you vote by proxy, you may revoke it by timely voting again in any manner (telephone, fax, mail or Internet), or by depositing an instrument in writing (which includes another form of proxy with a later date) executed by you or by your attorney authorized in writing with our Corporate Secretary at Suite 500, 122 1 st Avenue South, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7K 7G3, at any time up to and including the last business day preceding the date of the Meeting (or any adjournment or postponement, if the Meeting is adjourned or postponed), or by depositing it with the Chairman of the Meeting before the Meeting starts or, after any adjournment or postponement, the Meeting continues. A Registered Shareholder may also revoke a proxy in any other manner permitted by law. In addition, participation in person in a vote by ballot at the Meeting will automatically revoke any proxy previously given by you in respect of business covered by that vote.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 2 |
BENEFICIAL SHAREHOLDER VOTING
You are a Beneficial Shareholder if your Shares are held in a nominees name such as a bank, trust company, securities broker or other nominee. Typically, the form of proxy or voting instruction form sent or to be sent by your nominee indicates whether you are a Beneficial Shareholder.
VOTING OPTIONS
|
In person at the Meeting; or |
|
|
By voting instructions. |
VOTING IN PERSON
If you wish to vote in person at the Meeting, insert your own name in the space provided on the request for voting instructions or form of proxy to appoint yourself as proxyholder and follow the instructions of your nominee.
Beneficial Shareholders who instruct their nominee to appoint themselves as proxyholders must, at the Meeting, present themselves to a representative of the transfer agent, CST Trust Company, at the table identified as Beneficial Shareholders. Do not otherwise complete the form of proxy sent to you as your vote will be taken and counted at the Meeting.
VOTING INSTRUCTIONS
Your nominee is required to seek voting instructions from you in advance of the Meeting. Accordingly, you will receive, or will have already received, a request for voting instructions or a form of proxy for the number of Shares held by you.
Each nominee has its own procedures, which you should carefully follow to ensure that your Shares are voted at the Meeting. These procedures generally allow voting in person or by proxy (telephone, fax, mail or Internet). Beneficial Shareholders should contact their nominee for instructions in this regard.
PotashCorp may utilize the Broadridge QuickVote service to assist Beneficial Shareholders with voting their Shares over the telephone. Alternatively, the Proxy Solicitation Agent may contact Beneficial Shareholders to assist them with conveniently voting their Shares directly over the phone.
Whether or not you attend the Meeting, you can appoint someone else to attend and vote as your proxyholder. To do this, please follow the procedures of your nominee carefully. The persons already named in the form of proxy are either directors or officers of the Corporation. Please see About Voting Proxy Voting on page 1.
It is important to ensure that any other person you appoint as proxy is either attending the Meeting in person or returning a proxy reflecting your instructions and is aware that his or her appointment has been made to vote your Shares.
DEADLINE FOR VOTING
(a) | Attending the Meeting If you are planning to attend the Meeting and wish to vote your Shares in person at the Meeting, your vote will be taken and counted at the Meeting. |
(b) | Voting Instructions Every nominee has its own procedures which you should carefully follow to ensure that your Shares are voted at the Meeting. |
If voting by voting instructions, your nominee must receive your voting instructions in sufficient time for your nominee to act on them. For your vote to count it must be received by CST Trust Company at its Toronto office no later than 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) on Friday, May 5, 2017 or, if the Meeting is adjourned or postponed, at least 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) before the Meeting resumes.
REVOKING VOTING INSTRUCTIONS
To revoke your voting instructions, follow the procedures provided by your nominee.
3 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The consolidated financial statements of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 are included in the Form 10-K filed with the SEC and the Canadian Securities Administrators (the CSA).
NOMINEES FOR ELECTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The 11 nominees proposed for election as directors of the Corporation are listed on page 5. All nominees have established their eligibility and willingness to serve as directors. Directors will hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders of the Corporation or until their successors are elected or appointed.
The Board of Directors of the Corporation (the Board) unanimously recommends that shareholders vote FOR the election of each of the nominees listed in the Corporations form of proxy. Unless otherwise instructed, the persons designated in the form of proxy intend to vote FOR the election to the Board of each of the nominees listed in the Corporations form of proxy (or for substitute nominees in the event of contingencies not known at present). If, for any reason, at the time of the Meeting any of the nominees listed on the Corporations form of proxy are unable to serve, it is intended that the persons designated in the form of proxy will vote in their discretion for a substitute nominee or nominees. Alternatively, the Board may determine to reduce the size of the Board.
APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS
The Board, on recommendation from the Audit Committee, recommends the reappointment of Deloitte LLP, the present auditors of the Corporation, as auditors of the Corporation. At the Meeting, shareholders will be asked to vote to reappoint Deloitte LLP, as auditors of the Corporation to hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders of the Corporation.
The Board unanimously recommends that shareholders vote FOR the reappointment of Deloitte LLP as auditors of the Corporation to hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders of the Corporation. Unless otherwise instructed, the persons designated in the form of proxy intend to vote FOR the reappointment of Deloitte LLP as auditors of the Corporation.
A representative of Deloitte LLP is expected to attend the Meeting. At that time, the representative will have the opportunity to make a statement if he or she desires and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.
ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Board and its Human Resources and Compensation (HR&C) Committee have spent considerable time and effort defining, developing and implementing the Corporations executive compensation program and believes that its program achieves the goal of maximizing long-term shareholder value while attracting, developing, engaging and retaining world-class talent. At the 2016 annual and special meeting (the 2016 Annual Meeting), PotashCorps approach to executive compensation was approved by 92.5% of the Shares voted on the advisory vote on executive compensation, referred to as the Say on Pay resolution.
For further information regarding the Corporations approach to executive compensation and its shareholder outreach program, please see the Report of the CG&N Committee and Human Resources and Compensation sections of this Management Proxy Circular beginning on pages 27 and 35, respectively.
The Board proposes that you indicate your support for the Corporations approach to executive compensation disclosed in this Management Proxy Circular by voting in favour of the following advisory resolution:
RESOLVED, on an advisory basis and not to diminish the role and responsibilities of the Board of Directors, that the shareholders accept the approach to executive compensation disclosed in the Corporations Management Proxy Circular delivered in advance of the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
The Board unanimously recommends that shareholders vote FOR the approach to executive compensation disclosed in this Management Proxy Circular. Unless otherwise instructed, the persons designated in the form of proxy intend to vote FOR the advisory resolution.
As this is an advisory vote, the results will not be binding upon the Board or the Corporation. However, the Board and the HR&C Committee will take the results of the advisory vote into account, as appropriate, when considering future executive compensation policies, procedures and decisions and in determining whether there is a need to significantly increase the Corporations engagement with shareholders on executive compensation related matters. In the event that a significant number of shareholders oppose the resolution, the Board expects to consult with shareholders to understand their concerns and will review the Corporations approach to executive compensation in the context of these concerns.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 4 |
INTRODUCTION
The articles of the Corporation provide that the Board shall consist of a minimum of 6 directors and a maximum of 20 directors, with the actual number to be determined from time to time by the Board. The Board has determined that, as at the Meeting, the appropriate number of directors will be 11. Subject to the Corporations by-laws and applicable law, elected directors will hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders or until their successors are elected or appointed in accordance with the Corporations by-laws and applicable law.
NOMINEES
The 11 individuals being nominated for election in 2017 are:
Christopher M. Burley | Consuelo E. Madere | |
Donald G. Chynoweth | Keith G. Martell | |
John W. Estey | Aaron W. Regent | |
Gerald W. Grandey | Jochen E. Tilk | |
C. Steven Hoffman | Zoë A. Yujnovich | |
Alice D. Laberge |
Jeffrey J. McCaig and Elena Viyella de Paliza will not be standing for re-election at the Meeting. Mr. McCaig has been a director since 2001 and Ms. Viyella de Paliza has been a director since 2003. The Board wishes to thank Mr. McCaig and Ms. Viyella de Paliza for their long standing and dedicated service, and wishes them the best in their future endeavors.
The goals of the Corporate Governance and Nominating (CG&N) Committee are to assemble a board with the appropriate background, knowledge, skills and diversity to effectively carry out its duties, including overseeing the Corporations strategy and business affairs, and foster an environment that allows the Board to constructively engage with and guide management.
For the CG&N Committee to recommend an individual for Board membership, candidates are assessed on their individual qualifications, diversity, experience and expertise and must exhibit the highest degree of integrity, professionalism, values and independent judgment.
The CG&N Committee is of the view that the above director nominees represent an appropriate mix of expertise and qualities to effectively carry out the duties of the Board. See the biographies on the following pages for information on each director nominees professional experience, background and qualifications and refer to page 28 for information regarding the diverse skill set of our director nominees.
MAJORITY VOTING POLICY
In an uncontested election, any director nominee who fails to receive votes in favour of his or her election representing a majority of the Shares voted and withheld for the election of the director
will tender his or her resignation for consideration by the CG&N Committee. Except in extenuating circumstances, it is expected that the CG&N Committee will recommend to the
Board that the resignation be accepted and effective within a period of ninety days and that the action taken by the Board be |
|
|
publicly disclosed. To the extent possible, the CG&N Committee and Board members who act on the resignation shall be directors who have themselves received a majority of votes cast. |
INDEPENDENCE
The Board has determined that all director nominees, except for | ||
Mr. Tilk, are independent. See page 14 for details. |
|
DIRECTORS OF NEW PARENT
Upon completion of the Proposed Transaction, Jochen Tilk is expected to serve as the Executive Chair of a newly-incorporated entity that will be formed to manage and hold the combined business of the Corporation and Agrium (New Parent) and Chuck Magro is expected to serve as the Chief Executive Officer of New Parent. The board of directors of New Parent is expected to initially be comprised of 16 members, half being nominees of the Corporation (including the Executive Chair) and half being nominees of Agrium (including the Chief Executive Officer and the lead Independent Director). As a result, it is anticipated that eight of the Corporations director nominees as set forth in this Management Proxy Circular will be directors of New Parent.
BIOGRAPHIES
The following biographies highlight the experience, attributes and qualifications of each director nominee. Specifically, the following table states their names and ages, all other positions and offices they have held with the Corporation, their present principal occupation or employment, their business experience over the last five years (including, where applicable, current and past directorships of public companies over the last five years), the period during which they have served as directors of the Corporation, their principal areas of expertise and their independence status. Also disclosed below is each nominees current security holdings and their value of at-risk holdings as at February 20, 2017, the percentage of votes voted in favour of their election at the 2016 Annual Meeting and their overall Board and committee meeting attendance in 2016.
For further detailed information on director independence, attendance, at-risk holdings and compensation, please see the tables and narratives following the biographies under About the Board commencing on page 12.
5 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
|
Donald G. Chynoweth Age: 56 Calgary, Alberta, Canada Director since 2012 Independent (1) |
Mr. Chynoweth is Senior Vice President of SNC Lavalin O&M, one of the worlds leading engineering and construction groups. Mr. Chynoweth is a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan, with more than 30 years of management experience in business, politics, investment and business development. He is also a graduate of the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) and is a member of the ICD Calgary Executive Committee. Mr. Chynoweth is a member of the board of directors of Hospice Calgary, a member of the Calgary International Airport Authority Advisory Council and a former director of AltaLink, L.P., a subsidiary of SNC Lavalin. | ||||||
Principal Areas of Expertise/Experience: Safety/Environmental/Security Public Policy Finance Global Senior Executive Management |
Board Committee Membership: Audit SH&E |
|||||||
2016 Board & Committee Meeting Attendance : | ||||||||
Board: 14/15 (2) Audit: 8/8 SH&E: 4/4 |
Total Board & Committee Attendance: 96% (2) | |||||||
Other Public Board Memberships Present & Past Five Years: | ||||||||
Present Boards: n/a |
Past Boards: AltaLink, L.P. |
|||||||
Ownership and Value of At-Risk Holdings (4) : | ||||||||
As at February 20, 2017 Share Ownership: 22,000 DSU Ownership: 22,857 Stock Options: None |
Value of At-Risk Holdings: $839,723 |
|||||||
Ownership Requirement Compliance: Yes | 2016 Annual Meeting Votes in Favour: 91.61% |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 6 |
|
John W. Estey Age: 66 Glenview, Illinois, USA Director since 2003 Independent (1) |
Mr. Estey is Chairman of the Board of PotashCorp. He is also Chairman of S&C Electric Company, a global provider of equipment and services for electric power systems. He is a director of Southwire Company and the American Writers Museum as well as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum. | ||||||
Principal Areas of Expertise/Experience: Compensation/Human Resources Safety/Environmental/Security Global Senior Executive Management Innovation/R&D |
Board Committee Membership: Board Chair CG&N |
|||||||
2016 Board & Committee Meeting Attendance : | ||||||||
Board: 15/15 CG&N: 4/4 |
Total Board & Committee Attendance: 100% | |||||||
Other Public Board Memberships Present & Past Five Years: | ||||||||
Present Boards: n/a |
Past Boards: n/a |
|||||||
Ownership and Value of At-Risk Holdings (4) : | ||||||||
As at February 20, 2017 Share Ownership: 32,200 DSU Ownership: 103,242 Stock Options: None |
Value of At-Risk Holdings: $2,535,474 |
|||||||
Ownership Requirement Compliance: Yes | 2016 Annual Meeting Votes in Favour: 90.85% |
7 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
|
C. Steven Hoffman Age: 68 Tampa, Florida, USA Director since 2008 Independent (1) |
Mr. Hoffman is a former senior executive of IMC Global Inc. With over 23 years of global fertilizer sales and marketing management experience, he retired as Senior Vice President and President, Sales and Marketing of IMC Global upon completion of the IMC Global and Cargill Fertilizer merger, which created the Mosaic Company. He is a former Chairman and President of the Phosphate Chemicals Export Association, Inc. and a former Chairman of Canpotex Limited. | ||||||
Principal Areas of Expertise/Experience: Fertilizer Industry Chemical Industry Global Agriculture Safety/Environmental/Security |
Board Committee Membership: SH&E (Chair) HR&C |
|||||||
2016 Board & Committee Meeting Attendance: | ||||||||
Board: 15/15 SH&E: 4/4 HR&C: 5/5 |
Total Board & Committee Attendance: 100% | |||||||
Other Public Board Memberships Present & Past Five Years: | ||||||||
Present Boards: n/a |
Past Boards: n/a |
|||||||
Ownership and Value of At-Risk Holdings (4) : | ||||||||
As at February 20, 2017 Share Ownership: 6,600 DSU Ownership: 47,269 Stock Options: None |
Value of At-Risk Holdings: $1,008,428 |
|||||||
Ownership Requirement Compliance: Yes | 2016 Annual Meeting Votes in Favour: 98.53% |
|
Alice D. Laberge,F.ICD Age: 60 Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Director since 2003 Independent (1) |
Ms. Laberge is a Corporate Director and the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Fincentric Corporation, a global provider of software solutions to financial institutions. She was previously Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. She is a director of the Royal Bank of Canada, Russel Metals Inc. and the B.C. Cancer Foundation and has served as a director of Silverbirch Holdings, Delta Hotels Ltd. and Catalyst Paper Corporation. Ms. Laberge is the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia. She is a Fellow of the Institute of Corporate Directors. | ||||||
Principal Areas of Expertise/Experience: Finance Accounting Compensation/Human Resources IT/Cybersecurity |
Board Committee Membership: Audit CG&N |
|||||||
2016 Board & Committee Meeting Attendance: | ||||||||
Board: 14/15 (2) CG&N: 4/4 Audit: 8/8 |
Total Board & Committee Attendance: 96% (2) | |||||||
Other Public Board Memberships Present & Past Five Years: | ||||||||
Present Boards: Royal Bank of Canada Russel Metals Inc. |
Past Boards: n/a |
|||||||
Ownership and Value of At-Risk Holdings (4) : | ||||||||
As at February 20, 2017 Share Ownership: 17,000 DSU Ownership: 79,376 Stock Options: None |
Value of At-Risk Holdings: $1,804,159 |
|||||||
Ownership Requirement Compliance: Yes | 2016 Annual Meeting Votes in Favour: 90.74% |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
8 |
9 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
|
Aaron W. Regent Age: 51 Toronto, Ontario, Canada Director since 2015 Independent (1) |
Mr. Regent is the Founding Partner of Magris Resources Inc. and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Niobec Inc. He was previously President and Chief Executive Officer of Barrick Gold Corporation, the worlds leading gold producer. Mr. Regent was Senior Managing Partner of Brookfield Asset Management and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Brookfield Infrastructure Group, an asset management company, and President and Chief Executive Officer of Falconbridge Limited. Mr. Regent holds a B.A. from the University of Western Ontario and is a member of CPA Ontario. He is a director of The Bank of Nova Scotia. | ||||||
Principal Areas of Expertise/Experience: Finance Accounting Mining Industry Compensation/Human Resources |
Board Committee Membership: Audit HR&C |
|||||||
2016 Board & Committee Meeting Attendance : | ||||||||
Board: 15/15 Audit: 8/8 HR&C: 3/3 |
Total Board & Committee Attendance: 100% | |||||||
Other Public Board Memberships Present & Past Five Years: | ||||||||
Present Boards: The Bank of Nova Scotia |
Past Boards: Barrick Gold Corporation African Barrick Gold Plc |
|||||||
Ownership and Value of At-Risk Holdings (4) : | ||||||||
As at February 20, 2017 Share Ownership: 1,800 DSU Ownership: 15,842 Stock Options: None |
Value of At-Risk Holdings: $ 330,528 |
|||||||
Ownership Requirement Compliance: Yes | 2016 Annual Meeting Votes in Favour: 98.53% |
|
Jochen E. Tilk Age: 53 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Director since 2014 Non-Independent (1) |
Mr. Tilk is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation (CEO). Prior to joining PotashCorp, Mr. Tilk was President and Chief Executive Officer of Inmet Mining Corporation (2009-2013), a Canadian metals company with operations and projects in numerous countries around the world. He is director of both The Fertilizer Institute and the International Fertilizer Association, is a member of the Business Council of Canada and the C. D. Howe Institute and the Chair of the board of directors of Canpotex Limited. | ||||||
Principal Areas of Expertise/Experience: Mining Industry Global Senior Executive Management Fertilizer Industry Global Agriculture |
Board Committee Membership: None |
|||||||
2016 Board & Committee Meeting Attendance : | ||||||||
Board: 15/15 |
Total Board & Committee Attendance: 100% | |||||||
Other Public Board Memberships Present & Past Five Years: | ||||||||
Present Boards: n/a |
Past Boards: Inmet Mining Corporation |
|||||||
Ownership and Value of At-Risk Holdings (4) : | ||||||||
As at February 20, 2017 Share Ownership: 28,291 DSU Ownership: See Footnote 5 Stock Options: 542,115 PSUs: 287,230 (6) |
Value of At-Risk Holdings: See Footnote 5 |
|||||||
Ownership Requirement Compliance: Yes | 2016 Annual Meeting Votes in Favour: 97.76% |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 10 |
|
Zoë A. Yujnovich Age: 41 Calgary, Alberta, Canada Director since 2016 Independent (1) |
Ms. Yujnovich has over twenty years of global experience in the mining industry, and is currently Executive Vice President Oil Sands for Shell Canada, having previously been the Vice President Oil Sands Joint Venture. She recently concluded her term as Chair of the Mining Association of Canada, having been the first female chair in its 79 year history, and previously served as President and CEO Iron Ore Company of Canada and President of Rio Tinto Brazil. Ms. Yujnovich also served as a member of the advisory board of McGill University. Ms. Yujnovich holds an engineering degree from the University of Western Australia as well as a Masters Degree in Business Administration and an Executive MBA from the University of Utah. | ||||||
Principal Areas of Expertise/Experience: Mining Industry Agricultural/Industrial Technology Global Senior Executive Management Chemical Industry |
Board Committee Membership: SH&E HR&C |
|||||||
2016 Board & Committee Meeting Attendance : | ||||||||
Board: 8/8 SH&E: 2/2 |
Total Board & Committee Attendance: 100% | |||||||
Other Public Board Memberships Present & Past Five Years: | ||||||||
Present Boards: n/a |
Past Boards: n/a |
|||||||
Ownership and Value of At-Risk Holdings (4) : | ||||||||
As at February 20, 2017 Share Ownership: None DSU Ownership: 3,930 Stock Options: None |
Value of At-Risk Holdings: $ 73,570 |
|||||||
Ownership Requirement Compliance: Yes | 2016 Annual Meeting Votes in Favour: 92.25% |
(1) | See Director Independence and Other Relationships and Director Independence on page 14. |
(2) | Any Board meetings where a director was not in attendance were non-regularly scheduled meetings. Mr. Regent was appointed to the HR&C Committee on May 11, 2016. Ms. Yujnovich was elected to the Board at the 2016 Annual Meeting, was appointed to the SH&E Committee on May 11, 2016 and was appointed to the HR&C Committee on January 25, 2017. |
(3) | Mr. Burley was a director of Parallel Energy Inc., administrator of Parallel Energy Trust (Parallel Energy). On or about November 9, 2015, Parallel Energy and its affiliates filed applications for protection under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (the CCAA) and voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code. Mr. Burley resigned from the board of directors of Parallel Energy Inc. on March 1, 2016.The Canadian entities of Parallel Energy each filed an assignment in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act on March 3, 2016. In 2015, securities regulators for the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick issued cease trading orders in relation to the securities of Parallel Energy for the failure by Parallel Energy to timely file financial statements as well as related continuous disclosure documents. Such cease trade orders continue to be in effect. The TSX delisted the trust units and debentures of Parallel Energy at the close of business on December 11, 2015. |
(4) | See At-Risk Investment and Year Over Year Changes on pages 21 and 22 for additional detail. |
(5) | Mr. Tilk, as CEO, is subject to the Corporations executive share ownership requirements. For a discussion of Mr. Tilks executive share ownership requirements and the value of his at-risk holdings see Human Resources and Compensation Compensation Discussion and Analysis Executive Share Ownership Requirements on page 44 and Executive Share Ownership on page 68. |
(6) | PSU amounts assume future performance at target levels. |
11 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
OVERVIEW
The Boards Charter (attached as Appendix A to this Management Proxy Circular) provides that the Board is responsible for the stewardship and oversight of management of the Corporation and its global business. The Boards principal duties include overseeing and approving the Corporations business strategy and strategic planning process as well as approving policies, procedures and systems for implementing strategy and managing risk. The Board regularly schedules meetings during the year, including risk management and strategy as key components of these meetings. Special meetings of the Board are convened as appropriate, including in 2016 with respect to the Proposed Transaction. In 2016, the Board met 15 times.
The Board exercises its duties directly and through its Committees. The Board has four standing committees: the Audit Committee, the CG&N Committee, the Safety, Health and Environment (SH&E) Committee and the HR&C Committee. The reports of the Audit Committee, CG&N Committee, SH&E Committee and HR&C Committee can be found beginning on pages 23, 27, 33 and 35, respectively, each of which provide an overview of the respective committees area of responsibilities and recent activities.
CORE VALUES, CODE OF CONDUCT AND GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES
The Board has adopted the PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct, which sets out our core values: (a) integrity we do the right thing; (b) safety, health and environment people and the environment come first; (c) performance we strive for superior results; (d) improvement and innovation we get better every day; (e) growth & diversity we help each employee succeed; and (f) communication & collaboration we connect with others.
We expect all directors, officers, employees and representatives of PotashCorp, all of its subsidiaries and, where applicable, joint ventures, to comply with our Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct, in line with our Core Values, contains principles and guidelines for ethical behavior in the following key areas:
| financial reporting and the maintenance of accurate books, records and communications; |
| commitment to safety, health and the environment; |
| maintaining a respectful workplace and protecting personal information; |
| avoiding conflicts of interest, protecting company assets and engaging in external communications; |
| complying with company policies, as well as the laws, rules and regulations in the countries and communities in which we operate; |
| commitment to our customers, suppliers and other business partners; |
| community investment and engagement; and |
| reporting misconduct or violations of the Code of Conduct. |
The Audit Committee reviews the process for communicating the PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct to relevant personnel and is responsible for monitoring compliance as well as compliance with applicable law, regulations and other corporate policies. The Board, both directly and through the Audit Committee Chair, receives reports from the Corporate Ethics and Compliance Committee and in-house ethics and compliance personnel regarding ethics and compliance activities and programs including, in 2016, receipt of the compliance risk assessment, summary of ethics and compliance training and plans for ethics and compliance training in the coming year. Online and in person training programs are provided to pertinent personnel and an acknowledgement of compliance with the Code of Conduct is sought from each employee and director annually.
The Board, both directly and through the Audit Committee Chair, also receives reports of all financial or accounting issues which come to the attention of management, including those raised through the Corporations anonymous reporting mechanisms.
The Corporation has not filed any material change report since the beginning of the 2016 financial year that pertains to any conduct of a director or executive officer that constitutes a departure from the Code of Conduct. Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles, no waiver of the application of the Code of Conduct to directors or executive officers is permitted.
The Board has also adopted the PotashCorp Governance Principles. The Board is committed to establishing and following Governance Principles that are designed to facilitate the successful exercise of each directors responsibilities to the Corporation. The Governance Principles contain principles and guidelines in the following key areas:
| Board independence and integrity; |
| functions of the Board; |
| Board committees; |
| selection and composition of the Board; |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 12 |
| Board leadership; |
| performance evaluation and compensation; |
| meeting procedures; |
| evaluation of CEO performance and succession planning; |
| access to management and outside advisors; and |
| communications from and with shareholders. |
In addition to the above, PotashCorp has adopted diversity and inclusion initiatives through its board diversity policy and company-wide diversity and inclusion policy, as discussed below on page 29. In Canada, the Corporation complies with the governance rules of the CSA and the TSX. In the United States, the Corporation complies with the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the rules of the SEC and the NYSE, in each case as applicable to a foreign private issuer. There are no significant differences between the Corporations corporate governance practices and those required of U.S. domestic issuers under the NYSE rules.
The PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct, Governance Principles and other governance related documents, together with reference to the rules of the CSA, can be found on the Corporations website, at www.potashcorp.com, and are available in print to any shareholder who requests a copy. The information on our website is not a part of, or incorporated by reference into, this Management Proxy Circular.
EXPECTATIONS OF DIRECTORS
Each member of the Board is expected to act honestly and in good faith and to exercise business judgment that is in the Corporations best interest.
Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles each director is, among other things:
| bound by the PotashCorp Code of Conduct and expected to comply with the PotashCorp Governance Principles; |
| expected to attend all meetings of the Board and the committees upon which they serve and to come to such meetings fully prepared (where a directors absence is unavoidable, the director is expected to, as soon as practicable, contact the Board (or applicable committee) Chair, the CEO or the Corporate Secretary for a briefing on the substantive elements of the meeting); |
| expected to participate in the Board, committee and related effectiveness evaluation program; and |
| expected to take personal responsibility for and participate in continuing director education programs. |
A director who has a conflict of interest regarding any particular matter under consideration is expected to advise the Board, refrain from debate on the matter and abstain from any vote regarding it. As noted below, the Board has developed categorical independence standards to assist it in determining whether individual directors are free from conflicts of interest and are exercising independent judgment in discharging their responsibilities.
BOARD MEETINGS AND ATTENDANCE OF DIRECTORS
The following table provides a summary of the Board and Committee meetings held during 2016. The increase in meetings in 2016 was primarily due to a number of meetings related to discussions about the Proposed Transaction. Each director nominees attendance record for such meetings, as applicable, is set forth above in their respective biographies. Overall, the directors attended 98% of applicable Board and Committee meetings in 2016.
Type of Meeting Held | Number of Meetings | Attendance | ||||||
Board of Directors (Regularly Scheduled) |
7 | 100% | ||||||
Board of Directors (Non-Regularly Scheduled) |
8 | 94% | ||||||
Audit Committee |
8 | 100% | ||||||
HR&C Committee |
5 | 100% | ||||||
CG&N Committee |
4 | 100% | ||||||
SH&E Committee |
4 | 100% |
In an effort to provide directors with a more complete understanding of the issues facing the Corporation and in line with the Corporations Core Values, directors are encouraged to attend committee meetings of which they are not a member. In addition to the committees of which he or she is a member, the Board Chair regularly attends other committee meetings. In 2016, Mr. Estey attended substantially all of the committee meetings at the invitation of the committees. At the invitation of the committees, the CEO also attended substantially all of the committee meetings held in 2016.
13 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles, the Board has adopted a policy of meeting in executive session, without management present, at each meeting of the Board. In practice, two such sessions generally occur at each meeting of the Board; one prior to the business of the meeting and one at the conclusion of the meeting. The Board has also adopted a policy of meeting in executive session, with only independent directors present, at each meeting of the Board. The presiding director at these executive sessions is the Board Chair or, in his or her absence, a director selected by majority vote of those directors present. Sessions are of no fixed duration and participating directors are encouraged to raise and discuss any issues of concern. Each Committee of the Board also meets in executive session, without management present, at each meeting of the respective Committee. These policies were complied with for all meetings of the Board and each Committee in 2016.
Directors and new director nominees are also expected to attend each annual meeting of shareholders of the Corporation. Each director nominated for election at the 2016 Annual Meeting was present at such meeting.
DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE AND OTHER RELATIONSHIPS
Committees | ||||||||
Audit (1) | HR&C (1) | CG&N (1) | SH&E (2) | |||||
Not Independent |
||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk (management) |
||||||||
Elena Viyella de Paliza (family business relationship) (3) |
Ö | |||||||
Independent |
||||||||
Christopher M. Burley (4) |
Chair | Ö | ||||||
Donald G. Chynoweth |
Ö | Ö | ||||||
John W. Estey (Board Chair) |
Ö | |||||||
Gerald W. Grandey |
Ö | Chair | ||||||
C. Steven Hoffman |
Ö | Chair | ||||||
Alice D. Laberge (4) |
Ö | Ö | ||||||
Consuelo E. Madere |
Ö | Ö | ||||||
Keith G. Martell |
Chair | Ö | ||||||
Jeffrey J. McCaig (3) |
Ö | Ö | ||||||
Aaron W. Regent (4) |
Ö | Ö | ||||||
Zoë A. Yujnovich |
Ö | Ö |
(1) | All members of the Audit Committee, HR&C Committee and CG&N Committee are independent in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and the charter of each such committee requires that each member of the respective committee be independent. |
(2) | A majority of the SH&E Committee is independent. |
(3) | Mr. McCaig, who is an independent director, will continue to serve as a member of the HR&C Committee and SH&E Committee until the expiration of his term as a director at the Meeting. Ms. Viyella de Paliza, who is not an independent director, will continue to serve as a member of the SH&E Committee until the expiration of her term as a director at the Meeting. |
(4) Audit | Committee financial expert under the rules of the SEC. |
DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
The Board has determined that all of the directors of the Corporation, with the exception of Mr. Tilk and Ms. Viyella de Paliza, are independent within the meaning of the PotashCorp Governance Principles, National Instrument 58-101 Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices (NI 58-101), applicable rules of the SEC and the NYSE rules. As noted above, Ms. Viyella de Paliza will be retiring as a director at the expiry of her current term and will not be standing for re-election at the Meeting.
For a director to be considered independent, the Board must determine that the director does not have any material relationship with the Corporation, either directly or indirectly (e.g., as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Corporation). Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles and the PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct,
directors and executive officers of the Corporation inform the Board as to their relationships with the Corporation and provide other pertinent information pursuant to questionnaires that they complete, sign and certify on an annual basis. The Board reviews such relationships under applicable director independence standards and in connection with the related person transaction disclosure requirements of Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).
As permitted by the NYSE rules, the Board has adopted categorical standards (the Categorical Standards) to assist it in making determinations of director independence. These standards are set out in Part A of the PotashCorp Governance Principles, which are available on PotashCorps website at www.potashcorp.com.
Mr. Tilk is the CEO of the Corporation and is therefore not independent.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 14 |
Two of Ms. Viyella de Palizas brothers are executive officers of Fertilizantes Santo Domingo, C. por A (Fersan), a fertilizer bulk blender and distributor of agrichemicals based in the Dominican Republic, which entered into transactions with the Corporation in 2016 in excess of 2% of Fersans 2016 gross revenues. As a result, the Board has determined that Ms. Viyella de Paliza is not considered independent for purposes of the NYSE rules. Ms. Viyella de Paliza has had no direct or indirect interest in the transactions between the Corporation and Fersan, and all such transactions are completed on normal trade terms.
In determining the independence of its other directors, the Board evaluated business and other relationships that each director had with the Corporation. In doing so, the Board determined as immaterial: (i) certain relationships with the employers of Mr. Chynoweth, Mr. McCaig and Ms. Yujnovich falling below the monetary thresholds set forth in paragraph (c) of our Categorical Standards; (ii) certain immaterial contributions by the Corporation to certain tax exempt/charitable organizations of which Mr. Estey has relations which fall below the transaction thresholds or otherwise fall outside the scope of paragraph (d) of our Categorical Standards; and (iii) any business relationship between the Corporation and an entity as to which the director in question has no relationship other than as a director thereof, including certain directorships of Mr. Burley, Mr. Regent and Ms. Laberge.
INDEPENDENT BOARD CHAIR
Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles, the Board has determined that the Corporation is best served by dividing the responsibilities of the |
|
|
Board Chair and Chief Executive Officer. The Board Chair is independent and chosen by the full Board. |
John W. Estey is an independent director and was appointed as Board Chair following the 2015 Annual Meeting. Mr. Estey has been a director of PotashCorp since 2003 and has previously served as chair of the HR&C Committee and as chair of the CG&N Committee.
A position description for the Board Chair has been developed and approved by the Board and is available on the Corporations website at www.potashcorp.com. Among other things, the Board Chair is expected to:
| provide leadership to ensure effective functioning of the Board; |
| chair meetings of the Board and assist with setting meeting agendas; |
| lead in the assessment of Board performance; |
| assist the HR&C Committee in monitoring and evaluating the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and senior officers of the Corporation; |
| lead the Board in ensuring succession plans are in place at the senior management level; and |
| act as an effective liaison among the Board and management. |
In addition, position descriptions for each Board Committee Chair have been developed and approved by the Board and can be found on the Corporations website at www.potashcorp.com as attachments to the relevant Board Committee Charter.
BOARD INTERLOCKS
In addition to the independence requirements, the Corporation has established an additional requirement that there shall be no more than two board interlocks at any given time. A board interlock occurs when two of the Corporations directors also serve together on the board of another for-profit company. As of the date of this Management Proxy Circular, there are no board interlocks among the Board members.
LIMITATIONS ON OTHER BOARD SERVICE
The PotashCorp Governance Principles also contain limitations on the number of other directorships that directors and the CEO of the Corporation may hold. Directors who are employed as CEOs, or in other senior executive positions on a full-time basis, should not serve on more than two boards of public companies in addition to the Corporations Board. Other directors should not serve on more than three boards of public companies in addition to the Corporations Board. The CEO of the Corporation should not serve on the board of more than two other public companies and should not serve on the board of any other company where the CEO of that other company serves on the Corporations Board. In all cases, prior to accepting an appointment to the board of any company, the CEO of the Corporation must review and discuss the appointment with the Board Chair of the Corporation and obtain Board approval.
CEO POSITION DESCRIPTION
A written position description for the CEO has been developed and approved by the Board. The CEO reports to the Board and has general supervision and control over the business and affairs of the Corporation. Among other things, the CEO is expected to:
| foster a corporate culture that promotes ethical practices, encourages individual integrity and fulfils social responsibility; |
| develop and recommend to the Board a long-term strategy and vision for the Corporation that leads to creation of shareholder value; |
| develop and recommend to the Board annual business plans and budgets that support the Corporations long-term strategy; and |
| consistently strive to achieve the Corporations financial and operating goals and objectives. |
15 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
BOARD TENURE AND RETIREMENT POLICY
As at February 20, 2017, the Corporations average Board tenure is 8.1 years. Following the Meeting, with the retirement of Mr. McCaig and Ms. Viyella de Paliza, the Corporations average Board tenure will be 6.8 years.
Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles, directors should not generally stand for re-election after reaching the age of seventy-two. At this time, the Board does not believe that term limits are appropriate, nor does it believe that directors should expect to be re-nominated annually until they reach the normal retirement age established by the Board. The Board believes that on an ongoing basis a balance must be struck between ensuring that there are fresh ideas and viewpoints while not losing the insight, experience and other benefits of continuity contributed by longer serving directors. Following a recent review by certain members of the Board of term limit and retirement policy practices, the Board believes that its board assessment practices, including its six-part effectiveness evaluation program, discussed in greater detail below, combined with its nomination practices, are working effectively to ensure appropriate Board renewal and diversity.
Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles, the CEO must resign from the Board immediately upon retirement or otherwise resigning as CEO. Also, a director should offer to resign in the event of a change in principal job responsibilities or in the event of any other significant change in his or her circumstances, including one where continued service on the Board might bring the Corporation into disrepute. For greater certainty, a determination by the Board that a director is no longer independent shall be considered a significant change in such directors circumstances. The CG&N Committee will consider the change in circumstance and recommend to the Board whether the resignation should be accepted.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 16 |
BOARD, COMMITTEE & DIRECTOR ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to the PotashCorp Governance Principles, the Board has adopted a six-part effectiveness evaluation program for the Board, each Committee and each individual director, which is summarized in the following table. In 2016, the Board conducted an external third party board evaluation with the objective of independently assessing current practices and performance to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement . The third party evaluation included the first five parts of the normal six-part process, while the sixth component was completed as usual with both the Board Chair and the third party evaluator meeting individually with each director. For further information see the Report of the CG&N Committee Director Orientation, Continuing Education and Assessments on page 30.
Review
(Frequency) |
By | Action | Outcome 1 | |||
Full Board (Annual) | All Members of the Board |
Board members complete a detailed questionnaire which: (a) provides for quantitative ratings in key areas and (b) seeks subjective comment in each of those areas.
Responses are reviewed by the Chair of the CG&N Committee.
The Board also reviews and considers any proposed changes to the Board of Directors Charter. |
A summary report is prepared by the Chair of the CG&N Committee and provided to the Board Chair, the CG&N Committee and the CEO.
The summary report is reported to the full Board by the Chair of the CG&N Committee.
Matters requiring follow-up are identified and action plans are developed and monitored on a go-forward basis by the CG&N Committee. |
|||
Full Board (Periodic) | Management |
Members of senior management who regularly interact with the Board and/or its Committees are surveyed to solicit their input and perspective on the operation of the Board and how the Board might improve its effectiveness.
Survey includes a questionnaire and one-on-one interviews between the management respondents and the Chair of the CG&N Committee. |
Results are reported by the Chair of the CG&N Committee to the full Board. |
|||
Board Chair (Annual) | All Members of the Board |
Board members assess and comment on the Board Chairs discharge of his or her duties. The CEO provides specific input from his or her perspective, as CEO, regarding the Board Chairs effectiveness.
Individual responses are received by the Chair of the CG&N Committee. |
A summary report is prepared by the Chair of the CG&N Committee and provided to the Board Chair and the full Board.
The Board also reviews and considers any proposed changes to the Board Chair position description. |
|||
Board Committees (Annual) | All Members of each Committee |
Members of each Committee complete a detailed questionnaire to evaluate how well their respective Committee is operating and to make suggestions for improvement.
The Chair of the CG&N Committee receives responses and reviews them with the appropriate Committee Chair.
The Board reviews and considers any proposed changes to the Committee Charters. |
A summary report is prepared and provided to the Board Chair, the Chair of the CG&N Committee, the appropriate Committee and the CEO. The summary report for each Committee is then reported to the full Board by the appropriate Committee Chair.
The Committee Chair is expected to follow-up on any matters raised in the assessment and take action, as appropriate. |
|||
Committee Chair (Annual) | All Members of each Committee |
Members of each Committee assess and comment on their respective Committee Chairs discharge of his or her duties.
Responses are received by the Chair of the CG&N Committee and the Committee Chair under review. |
A summary report is provided to the appropriate Committee and to the full Board.
The Board reviews and considers any proposed changes to the Committee Chair position descriptions. |
|||
Individual Directors (Annual) | Each Director |
Each director formally meets with the Board Chair (and if desired, the Chair of the CG&N Committee) to engage in a full and frank discussion of any and all issues either wishes to raise, with a focus on maximizing each directors contribution to the Board and his or her respective Committees.
Each director is expected to be prepared to discuss how the directors, individually and collectively, can operate more effectively. |
The Board Chair employs a checklist, discussing both short- and long-term goals, and establishes action items for each director to enhance his or her personal contributions to the Board and to overall Board effectiveness.
The Board Chair shares peer feedback with each director as appropriate and reviews progress and action taken.
The Board Chair discusses the results of the individual evaluations with the Chair of the CG&N Committee and reports summary findings to the full Board. |
1 | Attribution of comments to specific individuals is generally only made if authorized by the individual. |
17 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Approach to Director Compensation
In establishing and reviewing PotashCorps director compensation program, we have three goals:
1. | recruit and retain qualified individuals to serve as members of the Board and contribute to our overall success; |
2. | align the interests of the Board and shareholders by requiring directors to own at least a minimum number of Shares and/or Deferred Share Units (DSUs), and permitting directors to receive up to 100% of their annual retainer in DSUs; and |
3. | pay competitively by positioning director compensation near or at the median of the Comparator Group (as defined below). |
2016 Director Compensation Package
We establish director compensation after considering the advice of Willis Towers Watson, our independent compensation consultant. Only non-employee directors (the outside directors) are compensated for service on the Board. The Board determined not to grant any increase in director compensation for 2016.
The following table displays the compensation structure for 2016 for outside directors.
Outside Director 2016 Compensation Structure | Fee | |||
Board Chair retainer |
$ | 400,000 | ||
Director retainer |
$ | 200,000 | ||
Committee Chair retainers |
||||
Audit Committee |
$ | 20,000 | ||
HR&C Committee |
$ | 20,000 | ||
CG&N Committee |
$ | 15,000 | ||
SH&E Committee |
$ | 15,000 | ||
Non-Chair Committee member retainer |
$ | 5,000 | ||
Travel fee (per day) |
$ | 500 | ||
Per diem for Committee meeting |
$ | 1,500 | (1) |
(1) | Each outside director who was a member of a Board Committee, other than the Board Chair, received a per diem fee of $1,500 for committee meetings he or she attended. |
Stock-Based Compensation
Effective April 26, 2012, we adopted the Deferred Share Unit Plan (the DSU Plan), which allows outside directors to defer, in the form of DSUs, up to 100% of the annual retainer payable to him or her in respect of serving as a director that would otherwise be payable in cash. The DSU Plan is intended to enhance our ability to attract and retain highly qualified individuals to serve as directors and to promote a greater alignment of interests between such directors and our shareholders. Each DSU has an initial value equal to the market value of a Share at the time of deferral.
Each DSU is credited to the account of an individual director and is fully vested at the time of grant, but is distributed only when the outside director ceases to be a member of the Board, provided that the director is neither our employee nor an employee of any of our subsidiaries. In accordance with elections made pursuant to
the terms of the DSU Plan, the director will receive, within a specified period following retirement, a cash payment equal to the number of his or her DSUs multiplied by the applicable Share price at the date of valuation (reduced by the amount of applicable withholding taxes). While the HR&C Committee, with Board approval, has the discretion to distribute Shares in lieu of cash, the HR&C Committee and Board have determined that all distributions pursuant to the DSU Plan will be made in cash. DSUs earn dividends in the form of additional DSUs at the same rate as dividends are paid on Shares.
The number of DSUs credited to the directors account with respect to director retainer fees that the director elects to allocate to the DSU Plan is determined as of the last trading day of each calendar quarter and is equal to the quotient obtained by dividing (a) the aggregate amount of retainer fees allocated to the DSU Plan for the relevant calendar quarter by (b) the market value of a Share on such last trading day (determined on the basis of the closing price on the TSX for participants resident in Canada and on the basis of the closing price on the NYSE for all other participants).
In 2016, 7 of 12 of the outside directors elected to receive all or a portion of his or her 2016 director retainer fees in the form of DSUs. Unfortunately, due to an administrative error, U.S. directors were unable to elect to receive all or a portion of their director retainer fees in the form of DSUs in 2016.
The outside directors were not granted any stock options in 2016 and have not been granted any stock options since the Boards decision in 2003 to discontinue stock option grants to outside directors.
Director Share Ownership Requirements
The Board believes that the economic interests of directors should be aligned with those of shareholders. As a result, it is the Corporations policy that, by the time a director has served on the Board for five |
|
|
years, he or she must directly or indirectly own Shares and/or DSUs with a value equal to at least five times the annual retainer paid to directors (i.e., $1,000,000 based on the current annual retainer), with at least one-half of such ownership requirement to be satisfied by the time a director has served on the Board for two and one-half years. The Board may make exceptions to these standards in particular circumstances. For purposes of determining compliance, the directors Shares and DSUs are valued at the higher of cost or market value. Directors have three years to comply with increased requirements following a significant change in retainer. |
As of February 20, 2017, all of our directors were in compliance with the director share ownership requirements described above.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 18 |
Other Benefits
Directors participate in our Group Life Insurance coverage (Cdn$50,000), Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage (Cdn$100,000), Business Travel Accidental coverage (Cdn$1,000,000) and Supplemental Business Travel Medical coverage (Cdn$1,000,000). The amounts set forth in parentheses with respect to each benefit indicates the per calendar year coverage for each director.
The following table sets forth the compensation earned by our outside directors during fiscal 2016 as prescribed in accordance with Item 402(k) of Regulation S-K. The table in footnote (2) below sets forth further details, including the amount of each outside directors 2016 annual retainer and committee meeting and other fees received in the form of cash and DSUs.
2016 Non-Employee Director Compensation (1)
Name |
Fees Earned
or Paid in Cash ($) (2) |
Stock Awards
($) (2)(3)(4) |
Option
Awards ($) (5) |
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Compensation ($) |
Change In
Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings |
All Other
Compensation ($) (6) |
Total
($) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Christopher M. Burley |
129,240 | 126,256 | | | | 142 | 255,638 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Donald G. Chynoweth |
62,442 | 172,643 | | | | 7,275 | 242,360 | |||||||||||||||||||||
John W. Estey |
400,000 | 96,863 | | | | 7,871 | 504,734 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Gerald W. Grandey |
225,372 | 28,700 | | | | 142 | 254,214 | |||||||||||||||||||||
C. Steven Hoffman |
230,556 | 44,349 | | | | 7,081 | 281,986 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Alice D. Laberge |
146,942 | 146,066 | | | | 7,259 | 300,267 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Consuelo E. Madere |
222,942 | 13,568 | | | | 7,722 | 244,232 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Keith G. Martell |
53,056 | 212,475 | | | | 9,736 | 275,267 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Jeffrey J. McCaig |
4,942 | 345,753 | | | | 5,863 | 356,558 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Aaron W. Regent |
15,500 | 214,494 | | | | 20,088 | 250,082 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Elena Viyella de Paliza |
215,000 | 51,589 | | | | 9,260 | 276,349 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Zoë A. Yujnowich |
70,893 | 66,362 | | | | 94 | 137,349 |
(1) | Those amounts that were paid in Canadian dollars have been converted to United States dollars using the average exchange rate for the month prior to the date of payment. |
(2) | Stock award amounts set forth above include the amount of annual retainer deferred into DSUs plus dividend amounts on DSUs. The following table sets forth each outside directors annual retainer, meeting and other fees for fiscal year 2016 that were earned or paid in the form of cash or deferred in the form of DSUs. |
Remuneration of Directors For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2016
Annual Retainer |
Committee Meeting
and Other Fees ($) |
Total
|
Percentage of Total
Remuneration in DSUs (%) |
|||||||||||||||||
Name |
Cash
($) |
DSUs
($) |
||||||||||||||||||
Christopher M. Burley |
112,500 | 112,500 | 16,740 | 241,740 | 46.54 | |||||||||||||||
Donald G. Chynoweth |
52,500 | 157,500 | 9,942 | 219,942 | 71.61 | |||||||||||||||
John W. Estey |
400,000 | | | 400,000 | | |||||||||||||||
Gerald W. Grandey |
220,000 | | 5,372 | 225,372 | | |||||||||||||||
C. Steven Hoffman |
220,000 | | 10,556 | 230,556 | | |||||||||||||||
Alice D. Laberge |
136,500 | 73,500 | 10,442 | 220,442 | 33.34 | |||||||||||||||
Consuelo E. Madere |
210,000 | | 12,942 | 222,942 | | |||||||||||||||
Keith G. Martell |
45,000 | 180,000 | 8,056 | 233,056 | 77.23 | |||||||||||||||
Jeffrey J. McCaig |
| 210,000 | 4,942 | 214,942 | 97.70 | |||||||||||||||
Aaron W. Regent |
| 208,201 | 15,500 | 223,701 | 93.07 | |||||||||||||||
Elena Viyella de Paliza |
205,000 | | 10,500 | 215,500 | | |||||||||||||||
Zoë A. Yujnowich |
65,893 | 65,893 | 5,000 | 136,786 | 48.17 | |||||||||||||||
Total |
1,667,393 | 1,007,594 | 109,992 | 2,784,979 | 36.18 |
19 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
(3) | Reports the grant date fair value, as calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, for DSUs received in 2016 pursuant to the DSU Plan. The grant date fair value of each grant of DSUs received by each outside director in 2016 was as follows: |
Name |
February 4,
2016 (Dividend) |
March 31,
2016 (Deferred Fees) |
May 3,
2016
|
June 30,
2016
|
August 2,
2016 (Dividend) |
September 30,
2016 (Deferred Fees) |
November 2,
2016 (Dividend) |
December 31,
2016 (Deferred Fees) |
||||||||
Christopher M. Burley |
$4,657 | $28,125 | $3,456 | $28,125 | $3,894 | $28,125 | $1,749 | $28,125 | ||||||||
(277.07 units) | (1754.92 units) | (204.85 units) | (1733.30 units) | (245.71 units) | (1711.74 units) | (108.08 units) | (1,555.96 units) | |||||||||
Donald G. Chynoweth |
$4,912 | $39,375 | $3,797 | $39,375 | $4,409 | $39,375 | $2,025 | $39,375 | ||||||||
(292.22 units) | (2456.89 units) | (225.08 units) | (2426.63 units) | (278.16 units) | (2396.43 units) | (125.17 units) | (2,178.35 units) | |||||||||
John W. Estey |
$36,789 | | $24,751 | | $25,118 | | $10,205 | | ||||||||
(2188.55 units) | (1467.14 units) | (1584.70 units) | (630.75 units) | |||||||||||||
Gerald W. Grandey |
$11,215 | | $7,259 | | $7,276 | | $2,950 | | ||||||||
(667.16 units) | (430.29 units) | (459.07 units) | (182.34 units) | |||||||||||||
C. Steven Hoffman |
$16,844 | | $11,332 | | $11,500 | | $4,673 | | ||||||||
(1002.03 units) | (671.73 units) | (725.56 units) | (288.79 units) | |||||||||||||
Alice D. Laberge |
$27,887 | $18,375 | $18,338 | $18,375 | $18,663 | $18,375 | $7,678 | $18,375 | ||||||||
(1658.94 units) | (1146.55 units) | (1087.03 units) | (1132.43 units) | (1177.49 units) | (1118.34 units) | (474.55 units) | (1016.56 units) | |||||||||
Consuelo E. Madere |
$5,153 | | $3,467 | | $3,518 | | $1,430 | | ||||||||
(306.57 units) | (205.51 units) | (221.98 units) | (88.35 units) | |||||||||||||
Keith G. Martell |
$11,541 | $45,000 | $8,176 | $45,000 | $8,884 | $45,000 | $3,874 | $45,000 | ||||||||
(686.53 units) | (2807.87 units) | (484.63 units) | (2773.29 units) | (560.50 units) | (2738.78 units) | (239.41 units) | (2489.54 units) | |||||||||
Jeffrey J. McCaig |
$51,706 | $52,500 | $34,291 | $52,500 | $35,176 | $52,500 | $14,580 | $52,500 | ||||||||
(3075.93 units) | (3275.85 units) | (2032.66 units) | (3235.50 units) | (2219.32 units) | (3195.25 units) | (901.10 units) | (2904.47 units) | |||||||||
Aaron W. Regent |
$1,142 | $51,250 | $1,543 | $51,951 | $2,342 | $52,500 | $1,266 | $52,500 | ||||||||
(69.73 units) | (3197.85 units) | (91.47 units) | (3201.67 units) | (147.75 units) | (3195.25 units) | (78.26 units) | (2904.47 units) | |||||||||
Elena Viyella de Paliza |
$19,594 | | $13,182 | | $13,378 | | $5,435 | | ||||||||
(1165.63 units) | (781.41 units) | (844.02 units) | (335.94 units) | |||||||||||||
Zoë A. Yujnowich |
| | | $14,643 | $224 | $25,625 | $245 | $25,625 | ||||||||
(902.43 units) | (14.14 units) | (1559.58 units) | (15.17 units) | (1417.66 units) |
(4) | As of December 31, 2016, the total number of DSUs held by each outside director was as follows: Mr. Burley, 19,305; Mr. Chynoweth, 22,733; Mr. Estey, 102,685; Mr. Grandey, 29,944; Mr. Hoffman, 47,015; Ms. Laberge, 78,945 Ms. Madere, 14,384; Mr. Martell, 41,804; Mr. McCaig, 150,878; Mr. Regent, 15,758; Ms. Viyella de Paliza, 54,691 and Ms. Yujnowich, 3,909. |
(5) | As of December 31, 2016, none of the outside directors held outstanding options. |
(6) | Reports the cost of tax gross-ups for taxable benefits and life insurance premiums paid for the benefit of each director. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 20 |
AT-RISK INVESTMENT AND YEAR OVER YEAR CHANGES
The following table provides ownership information for our current non-executive directors as at February 20, 2017 and February 22, 2016, respectively. For a discussion of Mr. Tilks executive share ownership requirements and the value of his at-risk holdings, see Human Resources and Compensation Compensation Discussion and Analysis Executive Share Ownership Requirements on page 44 and Human Resources and Compensation Executive Compensation Executive Share Ownership on page 68.
Director
Since |
Year |
Common
Shares (#) |
DSUs
(#) |
Common Shares
(#) |
Total
At-Risk Value of Common Shares and DSUs ($) |
Value of
Common Shares/DSUs Needed to Meet 2016 Ownership Requirement ($) |
Ownership
Guideline Compliance |
Equity
at Risk Multiple of 2016 Annual Retainer (5) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Christopher M. Burley |
2009 | 2017 | 30,000 | 19,410 | 49,410 | 924,955 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 4.62 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 30,000 | 11,712 | 41,712 | 671,146 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 7,698 | 7,698 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donald G. Chynoweth |
2012 | 2017 | 22,000 | 22,857 | 44,857 | 839,723 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 4.20 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 22,000 | 12,354 | 34,354 | 552,756 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 10,503 | 10,503 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John W. Estey |
2003 | 2017 | 32,200 | 103,242 | 135,442 | 2,535,474 | $ | 2,000,000 | YES | 6.34 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 26,000 | 96,813 | 122,813 | 1,976,061 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 6,200 | 6,429 | 12,629 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gerald W. Grandey |
2011 | 2017 | 21,700 | 30,107 | 51,807 | 969,827 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 4.85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 10,500 | 28,204 | 38,704 | 622,747 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 11,200 | 1,903 | 13,103 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
C. Steven Hoffman |
2008 | 2017 | 6,600 | 47,269 | 53,869 | 1,008,428 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 5.04 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 6,600 | 44,326 | 50,926 | 819,399 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 2,943 | 2,943 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alice D. Laberge |
2003 | 2017 | 17,000 | 79,376 | 96,376 | 1,804,159 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 9.02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 17,000 | 70,133 | 87,133 | 1,401,970 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 9,243 | 9,243 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consuelo E. Madere |
2014 | 2017 | 16,500 | 14,462 | 30,962 | 579,609 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 2.90 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 16,500 | 13,562 | 30,062 | 483,698 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 900 | 900 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Keith G. Martell |
2007 | 2017 | 11,000 | 42,033 | 53,033 | 992,778 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 4.96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 13,100 | 29,024 | 42,124 | 677,775 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | -2,100 | 13,009 | 10,909 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeffrey J. McCaig (6) |
2001 | 2017 | 252,000 | 151,702 | 403,702 | 7,557,301 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 37.79 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 252,000 | 130,036 | 382,036 | 6,146,959 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 21,666 | 21,666 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aaron W. Regent |
2015 | 2017 | 1,800 | 15,842 | 17,642 | 330,258 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 1.65 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 1,800 | 2,872 | 4,672 | 75,172 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 12,970 | 12,970 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Elena Viyella de Paliza |
2003 | 2017 | 79,480 | 54,987 | 134,467 | 2,517,222 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 12.59 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 57,000 | 51,564 | 108,564 | 1,746,795 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 22,480 | 3,423 | 25,903 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zoë A. Yujnovich |
2016 | 2017 | 0 | 3,930 | 3,930 | 73,570 | $ | 1,000,000 | YES | 0.37 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 0 | 3,930 | 3,930 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
2017 | 490,280 | 585,217 | 1,075,497 | 20,133,304 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2016 | 452,500 | 490,600 | 943,100 | 15,174,478 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change | 37,780 | 94,617 | 132,397 |
21 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
(1) | DSUs do not carry any voting rights. The number of DSUs held by each director has been rounded down to the nearest whole number. |
(2) | No Shares beneficially owned by any of the directors are pledged as security. |
(3) | Based on the closing price per Share on the NYSE of $16.09 on February 22, 2016 and $ 18.72 on February 17, 2017. |
(4) | By the time a director has served on the Board for five years, he or she must directly or indirectly own Shares and/or DSUs with a value at least five times the annual retainer paid to directors. One-half of this ownership requirement is required to be achieved within 2.5 years of joining the Board. For purposes of determining compliance, the directors Shares and/or DSUs will be valued at the higher of cost or market value. Directors will have three years to comply with increased requirements following a significant change in retainer. |
Ms. Madere has until May 15, 2019, Mr. Regent has until September 9, 2020 and Ms. Yujnovich has until May 10, 2021 to satisfy their share ownership requirement. |
(5) | Although the market value of Mr. Burleys, Mr. Chynoweths, Mr. Grandeys and Mr. Martells Shares and DSUs is less than $1,000,000 (i.e., five times the annual retainer paid to directors), the cost-base for each such individuals Shares and DSUs is as follows: Mr. Burley $1,424,877; Mr. Chynoweth $1,138,824; Mr. Grandey $1,431,523; and Mr. Martell $1,606,717. Each such individual is therefore in compliance with the Corporations director share ownership requirements. |
(6) | Includes 131,276 Shares held in The Jeffrey & Marilyn McCaig Family Foundation. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 22 |
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS
PotashCorp strongly values the importance of accurate and transparent financial disclosure and effective internal control over financial reporting. To that end, PotashCorp is continually working to maintain sound accounting practices, internal controls and risk management practices. PotashCorps standing Audit Committee actively assists the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities to ensure (i) the integrity of PotashCorps financial statements, (ii) PotashCorps compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, (iii) the qualification and independence of PotashCorps independent auditors and (iv) the effective performance of PotashCorps independent auditors.
|
|
|
|
|
||||
C. Burley, Chair | D. Chynoweth | A. Laberge | C. Madere | A. Regent |
LETTER FROM AND REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
To Our Fellow Shareholders:
Under the Audit Committee Charter, the Audit Committee has responsibility for the oversight of PotashCorps financial reporting and audit processes and related internal controls on behalf of the Board. In connection with fulfilling our duties, we met 8 times in 2016. At these meetings, we met with senior members of PotashCorps financial management team as well as the Corporations independent auditors. Additionally, we had multiple private sessions with various members of the executive team, including PotashCorps Chief Financial Officer, Vice President Internal Audit, General Counsel and their designees. At these meetings, we had candid discussions regarding PotashCorps financial disclosures, financial and risk management and other legal, accounting, auditing and internal control matters.
Deloitte LLP, PotashCorps independent auditor, reports directly to us, and we have the authority to recommend the appointment and discharge of, oversee and evaluate the independent auditors and to approve fees paid for their services. At our meetings, we discuss PotashCorps financial reporting with Deloitte LLP, with and without management present. We review with Deloitte LLP the results of its audits as well as its review of PotashCorps internal control over financial reporting and the overall quality of PotashCorps financial reporting.
We are pleased to report that PotashCorp continues to be recognized by external third parties for the quality of its corporate reporting. In 2016, PotashCorp received the CPA Award of Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada and our 2015 annual integrated report was ranked fifth in the world for annual reports by reportwatch.com.
Audit Committee Charter
At least annually, we review the Audit Committee Charter and PotashCorps Disclosure Controls and Procedures. This review gives us an opportunity to analyze our responsibilities under these documents and to confirm that the documents comply with current regulatory requirements. The Audit Committee Charter is available on PotashCorps website, www.potashcorp.com. The Audit Committee Charter is also attached as Appendix B to this Management Proxy Circular.
Report of the Audit Committee
In overseeing the audit process, we received the independent auditors written disclosures and a letter dated February 20, 2017, as required by the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the PCAOB), describing all relationships between the auditors and PotashCorp that might bear on the auditors independence and the auditors judgment that they are, in fact, independent. We also discussed with the independent auditors their independence and their written disclosures required by the applicable requirements of the PCAOB. We also reviewed:
| the organizational structure, procedures and practices that support the objectivity of the internal audit department; |
| the Internal Audit Department Charter; and |
| with both the independent and the internal auditors, their audit plans and scope, as well as the identification of audit risks. |
23 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
In our meetings with financial management, internal audit and the independent auditors, we: (i) reviewed the unaudited interim financial statements and interim earnings releases and approved the unaudited interim financial statements for the applicable quarter; (ii) reviewed and approved the quarterly MD&A; and (iii) reviewed and discussed with management and the independent auditors the MD&A and the audited financial statements of PotashCorp as at and for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, including the quality and acceptability of PotashCorps financial reporting practices and the completeness and clarity of the related financial disclosures. Management is responsible for the preparation of PotashCorps financial statements and the independent auditors are responsible for auditing those financial statements. In addition, in our meetings with financial management, internal audit and the independent auditors, we also received reports from management regarding ethics and compliance activities on a quarterly basis.
We reviewed the processes involved in evaluating PotashCorps internal control environment, and we also oversaw and monitored the 2016 compliance process related to the certification and attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act).
Based on our review and discussions with management and the independent auditors discussed above, we recommended to the Board that the audited consolidated financial statements and MD&A be included in the Form 10-K for filing with the SEC and CSA.
Risk Management
At PotashCorp, risk management is an integrated discipline that supports informed decision-making throughout the Corporation.
Our integrated approach to managing strategy and risk recognizes the need for clear, timely direction and support among the Board, senior management and our business unit management (top-down activities). Risk management is also embedded into day-to-day decision making and operational activities (bottom-up activities).
Although PotashCorps risk management processes are established by management, the Board oversees these processes and plays a significant advisory role.
The Board also believes risk management is most effective if it is fully integrated with strategy. The Board and
management have developed an integrated strategy and risk framework in an effort to enable us to better anticipate, adapt or exploit risks and opportunities in a global marketplace. |
|
The Board satisfies its risk management responsibilities in part through its committees, each of which focuses primarily on risks related to its area of oversight. The Audit Committee focuses primarily on financial and regulatory compliance risk. We receive regular reports of PotashCorps ethics and compliance activities, including a review of quantitative and qualitative accounts of compliance matters that have been reported to PotashCorp. In addition to ensuring that there are mechanisms for the anonymous submission of ethics and compliance reports generally, we have established specific procedures for:
| the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by PotashCorp regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters; and |
| the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of PotashCorp of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters. |
In 2016, we received presentations and reports in the areas of subsidiary management, corporate social responsibility, internal control compliance, pension funding and investment performance, natural gas hedging, credit risk, treasury, and extractive sector and tax transparency initiatives.
For additional information regarding risk management, see
Integrated Approach to Strategy and Risk beginning on page 28 and Risk beginning on page 48 of our 2016 Annual Integrated Report.
Conclusion
We are proud of PotashCorps financial reporting processes and procedures and continue to work hard to accurately disclose financial information and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting.
By the Audit Committee:
Christopher M. Burley (Chair)
Donald G. Chynoweth
Alice D. Laberge
Consuelo E. Madere
Aaron W. Regent
February 20, 2017
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 24 |
AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
The Board has determined that the following directors, each of whom served as members of the Audit Committee during the year ended December 31, 2016, are independent according to the Boards independence standards as set out in the PotashCorp Governance Principles, National Instrument 52-110 Audit Committees (NI 52-110), applicable rules of the SEC and the NYSE rules. See also About the Board Director Independence and Other Relationships and About the Board Director Independence on page 14.
Christopher M. Burley (Chair)
Donald G. Chynoweth
Alice D. Laberge
Consuelo E. Madere
Aaron W. Regent
The Board has determined that Mr. Burley, Ms. Laberge and Mr. Regent each qualify as an audit committee financial expert under SEC rules, and all members of the Audit Committee have the requisite accounting and/or related financial management expertise required under NYSE rules. In addition, the Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate within the meaning of and as required by NI 52-110.
Education and Experience of Audit Committee Members
The following is a brief description of the qualifications, education and experience of each current member of the Audit Committee that are relevant to the performance of his or her responsibilities as a member of the Audit Committee.
Mr. Burley has acquired significant financial experience and exposure to accounting and financial issues as a corporate director, former Managing Director and Vice Chairman, Energy of Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. and former Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer of Smith Barney Canada, where his duties included direct supervisory experience of accounting personnel and responsibility for the firms Canadian regulatory filings and compliance. Mr. Burley has over two decades of experience in the investment banking industry and has significant experience relevant to the performance of his responsibilities as Chair of the Audit Committee. Mr. Burley completed his Master of Business Administration at the University of Western Ontario and has completed the Directors Education Program with the Institute of Corporate Directors and holds the ICD.D designation.
Mr. Chynoweth has gained financial experience through his experience in operational management, including a significant understanding of audit review processes. Mr. Chynoweth is Senior Vice President of SNC Lavalin O&M and previously sat on the board of AltaLink, L.P. Mr. Chynoweth received a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Saskatchewan and has completed the Directors Education Program with the Institute of Corporate Directors.
Ms. Laberge has acquired significant financial experience and exposure to accounting and financial issues as a corporate director, the former President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Fincentric Corporation, Chief Financial Officer of MacMillan Bloedel Limited and a director and audit committee member of the Royal Bank of Canada and a director and audit Committee chair of Russel Metals Inc. Ms. Laberge is also the past Chair of the Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia and the past chair of its audit committee.
In her positions with previous companies, she was actively involved in assessing the performance of the companies auditors. Ms. Laberge completed her Masters of Business Administration at the University of British Columbia.
Ms. Madere, as a retired former executive officer of Monsanto Company, has significant domestic and global experience spanning manufacturing, strategy, technology, business development, profit & loss responsibility and general management. Over the course of her career she gained significant experience relevant to the performance of her responsibilities as an Audit Committee member and she received her Masters of Business Administration from the University of Iowa.
Mr. Regent serves on the board of and is a former member of the audit committee of The Bank of Nova Scotia, and is also the Founding Partner of Magris Resources Inc. and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Niobec Inc. Mr. Regent has acquired significant financial experience during his time as President and Chief Executive Officer of Barrick Gold Corporation, Senior Managing Partner of Brookfield Asset Management and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Brookfield Infrastructure Group, and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Falconbridge Limited. Mr. Regent is a member of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario.
Pre-Approval Policy for External Auditor Services
Subject to applicable law, the Audit Committee is directly responsible for the compensation and oversight of the work of the independent auditors. The Audit |
|
Committee has adopted procedures for the pre-approval of engagements for services of its external auditors.
The Audit Committees policy requires pre-approval of all audit and non-audit services provided by the external auditor. The policy identifies three categories of external auditor services and the pre-approval procedures applicable to each category, as follows:
| Audit and audit-related services these are identified in the annual Audit Service Plan presented by the external auditor and require annual approval. The Audit Committee monitors the audit services engagement at least quarterly. |
25 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
| Pre-approved list of non-audit services non-audit services which are reasonably likely to occur have been identified and receive general pre-approval of the Audit Committee, and as such do not require specific pre-approvals. The term of any general pre-approval is 12 months from approval unless otherwise specified. The Audit Committee annually reviews and pre-approves the services on this list. |
| Other proposed services all proposed services not categorized above are brought forward on a case-by-case basis and specifically pre-approved by the Chair of the Audit Committee, to whom pre-approval authority has been delegated. |
Auditors Fees
For the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, Deloitte LLP billed PotashCorp the following fees:
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Audit Fees |
$ | 1,948,011 | $ | 2,156,534 | ||||
Audit-Related Fees |
$ | 306,905 | $ | 376,794 | ||||
Tax Fees |
$ | 298,904 | $ | 125,125 | ||||
All Other Fees |
$ | 319,058 | $ | 839,810 |
Audit Fees
Deloitte LLP billed PotashCorp $1,948,011 and $2,156,534 for 2016 and 2015, respectively, for the following audit services: (i) audit of the annual consolidated financial statements of PotashCorp for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016 and
2015; (ii) review of the interim financial statements of PotashCorp included in quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2016 and 2015; (iii) the provision of consent letters; and (iv) the provision of comfort letters.
Audit-Related Fees
Deloitte LLP billed PotashCorp $306,905 and $376,794 for 2016 and 2015, respectively, for the following services: (i) employee benefit plan audits; (ii) audits of individual statutory financial statements; (iii) verification letters issued for certain of the Corporations environmental liabilities; (iv) specified procedure engagements; and (v) subscription based service for accounting literature.
Tax Fees
Deloitte LLP billed PotashCorp $298,904 and $125,125 for 2016 and 2015, respectively, for the following services: (i) tax compliance; and (ii) tax advice, including minimizing tax exposure or liability.
All Other Fees
Deloitte LLP billed PotashCorp $319,058 and $839,810 for 2016 and 2015, respectively, for the following services: (i) preliminary evaluation of software and accompanying planning; (ii) operations advice and training; and (iii) subscription based services for human resources related literature.
All fees paid to the independent auditors for 2016 and 2015 were approved in accordance with the pre-approval policy.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 26 |
PotashCorp, its Board and its management are committed to the highest standards of corporate governance and transparency. The Corporation has a standing Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee comprised entirely of independent directors.
|
|
|
|
|
||||
J. Grandey, Chair |
C. Burley | J. Estey | A. Laberge | K. Martell |
LETTER FROM AND REPORT OF THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & NOMINATING COMMITTEE
To Our Fellow Shareholders:
While we are proud of our achievements and performance to date in the area of corporate governance, we continue to strive to remain at the forefront of best governance practices and transparency. Our Committee and the Board are continually guided by doing the right thing for our company and our stakeholders. The role of the CG&N Committee, our governance practices and our current areas of focus are described in more detail below and elsewhere in this Management Proxy Circular.
Role of the CG&N Committee
The CG&N Committee actively assists the Board by, among other things:
| continually evaluating and updating the Corporations governance principles and practices; |
| overseeing the Corporations compliance with regulatory requirements relating to corporate governance; |
| facilitating the director nomination and recruitment process; |
| managing the review of Board and Committee performance; |
| implementing the Corporations director orientation and ongoing education programs; and |
| ensuring the Corporation has instituted appropriate outreach and communication strategies for stakeholders. |
During 2016, the CG&N Committee met 4 times. The Chair of the CG&N Committee works closely with the General Counsel, the Deputy General Counsel and the Senior Vice President of Investor and Public Relations to ensure the CG&N Committee is aware of developments and trends in governance practices.
The CG&N Committee Charter, Board of Directors Charter and our other governance related documents are available on our website at www.potashcorp.com. The Board of Directors Charter is also attached as Appendix A to this Management Proxy Circular.
2016 Governance Activities
The CG&N Committees activities during the past year included the following:
| overseeing and conducting an external third party board evaluation with the objective of independently assessing current practices and performance to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement; |
| recommending the adoption of a formal board diversity policy as more fully discussed below; |
| the on-going review of the Board skills matrix and board renewal matters generally, including Ms. Yujnovich being proposed as a nominee to the Board at the 2016 Annual Meeting; and |
| receiving presentations from management on relevant and/or emerging governance topics at each committee meeting. |
27 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Nomination Processes, Succession Planning and Board Renewal
A core responsibility of the CG&N Committee is to identify prospective Board members, consistent with Board-approved criteria, and to recommend such individuals as nominees for election to the Board at each annual meeting of shareholders or to fill vacancies on the Board.
For the CG&N Committee to recommend an individual for Board membership, candidates are assessed on their individual qualifications, diversity, experience and expertise and must exhibit the highest degree of integrity, professionalism, values and independent judgment. The CG&N Committee and the Board do not adhere to any quotas in determining Board membership;
however, the Boards formal processes for director succession and recruitment expressly encourages the promotion of diversity and the Board has adopted a formal diversity policy (as more fully described below) which provides that the Board will strive to ensure a minimum of 30% of the Board be comprised of women.
The CG&N Committee believes that the Board should be comprised of directors with a broad range of experience and expertise and utilizes a skills matrix to identify those areas which are necessary for the Board to carry out its mandate effectively. The following table reflects the diverse skill set requirements of the director nominees and identifies the specific experience and expertise brought by each individual director nominee.
In connection with recent Board appointments, the CG&N Committee has engaged the services of a search firm to assist in the identification of director candidates with the necessary skills and experience relative to the skills and experience of the incumbent Board. In conjunction with the engagement of such search firms, the CG&N Committee, in consultation with the Board Chair and CEO, identifies on an ongoing basis the mix of expertise and qualities required for the Board.
The Chair of the CG&N Committee, in consultation with the CG&N Committee, the Board Chair and the CEO, maintains an evergreen list of potential candidates. In the past, when it has become apparent that a new nominee may be required and/or considered for the Board, the CG&N Committee has utilized the above skills matrix in reviewing potential candidates, including those identified by any external search firm being utilized, against the skill set of the incumbent Board and the experience and expertise necessary
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 28 |
for the Board. The CG&N Committee reviews and updates its skills matrix, as necessary. Prior to joining the Board, potential new directors are informed of the degree of energy and commitment the Corporation expects of its directors.
In accordance with section 137 of the CBCA, shareholders holding in the aggregate not less than 5% of the Corporations outstanding Shares may submit a formal proposal for individuals to be nominated for election as directors. Shareholders wishing to make such a formal proposal should refer to the relevant provisions of the CBCA for a description of the procedures to be followed.
Shareholders who do not meet the threshold criteria for making, or otherwise choose not to make, a formal proposal may at any time suggest nominees for election to the Board. Names of and supporting information regarding such nominees should be submitted to: Corporate Secretary, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., Suite 500, 122 1st Avenue South, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7K 7G3.
Diversity
Building a diverse workforce through training, education and communication that helps cultivate inclusiveness is a Core Value of the Corporation. We value our people and encourage a diverse and inclusive culture where all employees can develop to their fullest potential.
In 2016, PotashCorp adopted a formal board diversity policy relating to, among other things, the identification and nomination of women directors (the Board Diversity Policy). The aim of the Board Diversity Policy is to foster PotashCorps growth and
development with respect to diversity among its Board members. This includes, but is not limited to, diversity of personal characteristics such as gender, geographic origin and ethnicity in addition to relevant and diverse professional experiences, skills and knowledge. Under the Board Diversity Policy, the Board has committed to strive to ensure a minimum of 30% of the Board be comprised of women. Under the Board Diversity Policy, the Board shall ensure that qualified candidates considered for open Board positions include a minimum of 50% female candidates. Currently, as to gender, the Board includes four female directors (31%). Following the Meeting, assuming all of the director nominees are elected, the Board will include three female directors (27%). The Board Diversity Policy is available on the Corporations website at www.potashcorp.com.
The Corporation has adopted a company-wide diversity and inclusion policy, an important component of which is to increase the representation of women in the Corporation. While we have not adopted specific targets for the representation of women in our executive officer positions, we recognize that the management group offers a strong cohort for aspiring leaders and acts as a catalyst for advancing leaders at all levels. Increasing the representation of women in this group is a key focus around which the Corporation aligns its people development initiatives. As part of our diversity and inclusion policy, we are currently aiming to achieve representation of a minimum of 25% women in our management group by 2025.
Currently approximately 20% of our over 300 managers are women, although senior executive positions continue to reflect more limited female representation, with 1 of 11 (9%) being female. This is in fact reflective of the overall representation of women in our global workforce, which is 9%, slightly below the industry average. Nonetheless, the Corporation does not accept this level of representation as appropriate.
The Corporations diversity and inclusion policy is supported with strategic community investments. These investments help us to identify increased opportunities to support programs, services, education, training, research, and advocacy measures which enhance the representation of women in leadership and in non-traditional roles in our industry, including STEM opportunities for girls and women. Along with these investments, the alignment of the Corporations procurement processes to identify and include women-owned businesses also increases overall opportunities for the inclusion of women in our industry.
29 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Director Orientation, Continuing Education and Assessments
The Board has adopted a Director Orientation Policy for new directors designed to provide each new director with a baseline of knowledge about the Corporation that serves as a basis for informed decision-making. The orientation program is tailored to the skills, experience, education, knowledge and needs of each new director and consists of a combination of written materials, one-on-one meetings with senior management, site visits and other briefings and training as appropriate. Current directors may also participate to augment their knowledge or to re-familiarize themselves with the Corporations facilities through the site visits. As part of the orientation program, the PotashCorp Core Values and Code of Conduct is reviewed and affirmed. The Board has also established a buddy system for new Board members, in which they are paired with a current member of the Board to assist with their transition as a member of the Board.
The Board recognizes the importance of continuing education for directors. To facilitate ongoing education, the Corporation (i) maintains a membership for each director in organizations dedicated to corporate governance and ongoing director education, (ii) each year encourages and funds the attendance of each director at one seminar/conference of interest and relevance and one additional seminar/conference for each Committee Chair (each with advance approval of the Corporate Secretary), (iii) encourages presentations by outside experts on matters of particular import or emerging significance, (iv) at least annually,
holds a Board meeting at or near an operating site or other facility of the Corporation, a key customer, supplier or affiliated company, (v) provides directors with materials about the Corporation and the industries in which it operates and on topics of governance and compensation and (vi) in cooperation with the Chair of each Committee, provides Committee members with noteworthy articles and other information pertinent to the applicable committee. In addition, directors are canvassed for suggestions on educational presentations and reports and may request presentations by management or external advisors on issues of particular interest. Some of the 2016 director education activities are outlined on page 31.
Along with the Board Chair and incorporating input from management, the CG&N Committee oversees the review of the performance of the Board, its Committees and individual directors. While not expected to be a vehicle used annually, in 2016 an external third party corporate governance expert (the National Association of Corporate Directors) conducted a board evaluation with the primary objective of independently assessing current practices and performance to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. The evaluation reinforced that the Board continues to perform at a very high level. Detailed findings were discussed with the Board and management, and recommendations are now being evaluated for implementation by the Board and its Committees. For additional information on the assessment process, see About the Board Board, Committee & Director Assessment on page 17.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 30 |
2016 Director Education Activities
During 2016, the Board, its Committees and individual directors participated in presentations and received educational information and/or materials on a variety of matters and topics, including those set out in the table below.
Date | Topic |
Presented/
Hosted By |
Attended By | |||
January 19 |
How to Advance your Board | ICD | D. Chynoweth | |||
January 29 February 3 |
Fresh Perspective on Global Business Issues | Harvard Business School | E. Paliza | |||
March 8 |
Cybersecurity and IT Governance | ICD | A. Laberge | |||
March 14-17 |
Safety Summit | Management |
D. Chynoweth J. Estey S. Hoffman |
|||
March 30 |
Canadian Landscape for Business and Global Perspectives | KPMG | A. Laberge | |||
April 7 |
Taking the Long Term View Around the Board Table | ICD/Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP |
A. Laberge D. Chynoweth |
|||
April 7 |
Are Canadian Directors Ready for a Corporate Crisis | Deloitte |
A. Laberge D. Chynoweth |
|||
April 13 |
The Boards Role in Innovation | ICD | A. Laberge | |||
April 13 |
Challenging Issues for Not-For-Profit Boards | ICD | D. Chynoweth | |||
April 26 |
Boards Oversight of Strategy | Canadian Directors Network | A. Laberge | |||
April 29 May 1 |
Latin Corporate Directors Summit | Hispanic Association for Corporate Responsibility and Latin Corporate Directors Association | C. Madere | |||
June 2 |
ICD National Conference | ICD |
C. Burley D. Chynoweth J. Estey G. Grandey |
|||
June 3 |
The Value of Diversity | The Catalyst | G. Grandey | |||
June 14 |
Social Media: The Business Reality for Boards | ICD | A. Laberge | |||
June 14-15 |
Bank Risk Oversight & Insight | Global Risk Institute, Rotman School of Business | A. Regent |
Date | Topic |
Presented/
Hosted By |
Attended By | |||
October 16 |
Environmental Disruption and Climate Related Financial Disclosures | NACD | C. Madere | |||
October 19 |
Board Chairmanship/Evaluations | ICD | D. Chynoweth | |||
October 20 |
Reforming Culture & Behaviour in the Financial Services Industry | Federal Reserve Bank of New York | A. Regent | |||
November 10 |
Black Swan Events | ICD | D. Chynoweth | |||
November 18 |
Major Challenges in Todays Boardrooms | Stanford University and Rotman School of Business | A. Laberge | |||
November 28 |
Enterprise Risk Oversight for Directors | ICD | G. Grandey | |||
December 5-6 |
Advanced Director Professionalism | NACD | C. Madere | |||
December 8 |
Compensation Performance Metrics and Tools for new Economic Reality | ICD | D. Chynoweth | |||
December 15 |
The Impact of the 2016 Election Outcome on the Boardroom | NACD | C. Madere |
Stakeholder Outreach
Communicating and collaborating with stakeholders to cultivate a mutually beneficial relationship is a Core Value of PotashCorp. The Board encourages stakeholders to engage with appropriate company representatives on relevant matters and actively monitors stakeholder feedback.
The Corporation carries out its shareholder outreach program through a variety of vehicles. For example, it utilizes its website, including the live streaming of the Annual Meeting of Shareholders and an annual investor survey, and in 2016 continued its outreach program of investor conferences and meetings. Listening carefully to the views of shareholders and others is crucial in understanding investors concerns and sentiment. In addition to the foregoing, investors are provided the ongoing opportunity to contact the Investor Relations department by letter, email or phone.
Further, in 2016, the Corporation continued to use social media channels to engage with a broader group of stakeholders on topics including general corporate information, recruitment and career opportunities at PotashCorp and local Saskatchewan project and community investment news.
31 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
As part of its long-established process for engagement beyond the annual meeting, the Board invites shareholders and stakeholders to communicate with its members, including the Board Chair or non-management directors specifically, by directing communications by email to directors@potashcorp.com or by mail to:
PotashCorp Board of Directors
c/o Corporate Secretary
Suite 500, 122-1st Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada S7K 7G3
Matters relating to the Corporations accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters are referred to the Audit Committee. Other matters are referred to the Board Chair. Additionally, to facilitate communications between the Corporations shareholders and the Board, it is a PotashCorp policy that both directors standing for re-election and new director nominees are expected to attend the Meeting. In 2016, all such directors and nominees were in attendance.
External Recognition
Our governance practices continue to be recognized by external third parties. Our governance practices have ranked within the top ten Canadian companies in the Globe and Mails annual Board Games 9 times over the past 10 years and are regularly ranked as
outperforming our peers by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the FTSE4Good Index. In addition, our practices are often cited by the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance in their annual Best Practices for Proxy Circular Disclosure publication, including most recently for our succession, director nomination and board diversity disclosures and practices.
Conclusion
PotashCorp is dedicated to the pursuit of the best governance practices and ensuring optimal board membership and performance through our nomination and Board renewal processes. We also remain committed to ongoing director education and to ensuring the Corporation constructively engages with our shareholders and other stakeholders. In this regard, we welcome our stakeholders feedback on our governance practices and performance.
By the CG&N Committee:
Gerald W. Grandey (Chair)
Christopher M. Burley
John W. Estey
Alice D. Laberge
Keith G. Martell
February 20, 2017
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 32 |
At PotashCorp, safety, health and environmental stewardship are of paramount importance. Simply stated, one of the Corporations Core Values is the relentless pursuit of the safety and health of our people and minimizing our environmental impacts. The Corporation has a standing Safety, Health & Environment Committee. The SH&E Committee Charter is available on the Corporations website at www.potashcorp.com.
The SH&E Committee regularly reviews policies, management systems and performance with respect to safety, health, environment and security matters affecting the Corporation, its employees, contractors and the communities in which it operates. We strive to create a culture in which safety, health, the environment and security become part of every decision we make and every activity we undertake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
S. Hoffman, Chair | D. Chynoweth | C. Madere | J. McCaig | E. Viyella de Paliza | Z. Yujnovich |
LETTER FROM AND REPORT OF THE SAFETY, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
To Our Fellow Shareholders:
One of the Corporations Core Values is our overriding concern for the safety of people and the protection of the environment. The Board, through the SH&E Committee, is committed to continuous improvement of the Corporations safety, health and environmental processes at our facilities (including a commitment to reduce waste, emissions and discharges from our operations). We are also continually strengthening safety and environmental processes in all of our contractor relationships to improve SH&E performance. In addition, we continue to promote the safe transport and responsible downstream use of our products.
Role and Responsibilities of the SH&E Committee
The SH&E Committee has oversight responsibility for the safety, health, environmental and security performance of the Corporation. The committee also monitors compliance with applicable internal policies, legislation and regulations. As part of its general oversight responsibility, the committee has the following duties:
| review and approve the Corporations short and long term objectives and performance targets, and the Corporations strategies to achieve those goals; |
| receive and review written and oral reports from management regarding compliance with the Corporations policies and with applicable regulatory requirements; |
| review with management, safety, health, environmental and security emergency response planning procedures; |
| review existing and proposed regulatory requirements in each of the jurisdictions in which the Corporation has operations and assess their legal and operational consequences; and |
| in the event of a significant safety, health, environmental or security incident, receive and review reports from management detailing the incident and describing remedial actions taken. |
2016 in Review
In 2016, the SH&E Committee met 4 times.
Safety
We are actively pursuing approaches to enhance existing safety systems and implement industry and company best |
|
practices to improve safety. A cornerstone of our safety program and one of our four key safety priorities is safety leadership. We recognize that our front line supervisors have the greatest influence on what happens at our sites and our safety program vision is to enable and empower each and every front line supervisor to become an expert in safety engagement. We are proud that this program won the Queens University Industrial Relation Center Professional Development Award at the 2016 Canadian HR Awards.
33 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
In 2016, we introduced an enhanced serious injury and fatality (SIF) prevention program, which focuses on both proactive and reactive processes and reinforces SIF protection thinking in all that we do. We also set safety and health targets, which are described in detail on page 44 of our 2016 Annual Integrated Report, including an assessment of our performance against those targets.
For 2017, we have updated our safety targets which now include: (i) achieving zero annual life altering injuries at our sites, (ii) reducing our total site recordable injury rate to 0.75 (or lower) and lost time injury rate to 0.07 (or lower) per 200,000 hours worked, and (iii) by 2018, becoming one of the safest resource companies in the world by achieving recordable injury and lost-time rates in the lowest quartile of a best-in-class peer group. Specific targets and initiatives are in place and all sites began to execute toward identified areas of opportunity.
Health
In November of 2015 we approved a strategy designed to create alignment with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Total Worker Health Program by 2020 (the Five Year Health Action Plan). Foundational to the new strategy is the standardization and integration of health and wellness initiatives throughout the Corporation in order to maximize the health and wellness of all employees. The complete integration of our traditional occupational health program with site and nutrient specific wellness objectives further facilitates the strategic allocation of resources to those initiatives that truly protect worker health and promote the adoption of healthy lifestyles.
In 2016, we undertook an initiative to enhance our corporate health and wellness program, which included (i) a review of all operating sites health and wellness best practices for inclusion in our corporate programs; (ii) establishing a corporate steering committee; and (iii) increasing education and promotion through our new health and wellness website.
Environmental
The strategy we adopted in November 2015 aims to continuously reduce our environmental impact and enhance stakeholder trust. At the core of the strategy is implementing an improved environmental management framework. We refer to this framework as a Plan, Do, Check, and Adjust model designed for continuous improvement.
For 2016, we established environmental targets that included accomplishing the following by 2018: (i) reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per tonne of nitrogen product by 5% from 2014 levels; (ii) reducing environmental incidents by 40% from 2014 levels; and (iii) reducing water consumption per tonne of phosphate product by 10% from 2014 levels.
We have lowered GHG emissions per tonne of nitrogen product by 13% compared to the 2014 levels. In 2016, we had 18 environmental incidents, a 25% decrease from 2014 levels. Our water consumption increased by 23% compared to 2014 levels, mainly as a result of a drought at our White Springs facility, which recycles rainwater for use in operations.
For more information on our value model, targets and our scorecard please see pages 31 and 44 through 47 of our 2016 Annual Integrated Report.
By the SH&E Committee:
C. Steven Hoffman (Chair)
Donald G. Chynoweth
Consuelo E. Madere
Jeffrey J. McCaig
Elena Viyella de Paliza
Zoë A. Yujnovich
February 20, 2017
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 34 |
HUMAN RESOURCES AND COMPENSATION
Human resources initiatives and director and executive compensation are focal points for investors and important responsibilities of PotashCorp. Our overarching goal in setting executive compensation is to link executive pay with PotashCorp performance. PotashCorp also believes that transparent and concise disclosure of all facets of our approach to human resources matters and our director and executive compensation philosophy and program greatly enhances understanding for our shareholders and benefits our compensation program as a whole.
To help shareholders understand our approach to human resources matters and director and executive compensation, we discuss the highlights of the philosophy and program in the following Letter from and Report of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee. A more detailed discussion is contained under About the Board Director Compensation, Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) and Executive Compensation beginning on pages 18, 42 and 61, respectively. We encourage you to read the accompanying letter, the director compensation disclosure, the CD&A and the executive compensation disclosure, and we welcome your feedback on our compensation program and disclosure.
The Human Resources and Compensation Committee is referred to as we, our, us and the Committee throughout the Letter from and Report of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee, and as the Committee throughout the rest of this Compensation section. The Committee consists of the six directors set out below, each of whom the Board determined has the knowledge, independence and experience to perform their responsibilities. The members below, except for Mr. Regent and Ms. Yujnovich, were members of the Committee at all relevant times for determining 2016 compensation. Mr. Regent became a member of the Committee following the 2016 Annual Meeting and has been a member since May 11, 2016, and Ms. Yujnovich became a member of the Committee on January 25, 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
K. Martell, Chair | G. Grandey | S. Hoffman | J. McCaig | A. Regent | Z. Yujnovich |
LETTER FROM AND REPORT OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
To Our Fellow Shareholders:
Our Roles and Responsibilities
Together with the Board, we are committed to getting PotashCorps approach to human resources matters and compensation right, both for PotashCorp shareholders and for PotashCorps long-term success. One of the primary purposes of the Committee is to carry out the Boards overall responsibility for executive and director compensation. Specifically, under the Committees charter, we:
| are responsible for all compensation issues relating to our directors and executive officers; |
| provide oversight of the talent development and succession planning process; |
| have a broad role in overseeing PotashCorps human capital strategy, including compensation and benefits; and |
| oversee and regularly review PotashCorps diversity and inclusion initiatives. |
The Committees charter is available on PotashCorps website at www.potashcorp.com. The Committee held 5 meetings in 2016 and met in executive session without management present at each of these meetings.
For further information on the process, information flow and inputs used in determining the compensation of our CEO, our Chief Financial Officer, each of our other three most highly compensated executive officers employed at the end of 2016 and
35 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
G. David Delaney and Paul Dekok, each of whom retired from the Corporation on January 31, 2016 (collectively, the Named Executive Officers or NEOs) for services rendered to us and our subsidiaries, see Appendix C to this Management Proxy Circular.
Committee Member Independence
The Board has affirmed the CG&N Committees determination that each director who served as a member of the Committee during the year ended December 31, 2016 was independent according to the Boards independence standards as set out in the PotashCorp Governance Principles, the applicable rules under Canadian securities laws, the applicable SEC rules and the NYSE corporate governance rules. For additional information regarding director independence, see About the Board Director Independence and Other Relationships on page 14.
Independent Advice
In designing and implementing PotashCorps executive compensation philosophy, policies and program, we benefit from the input and recommendations of an independent compensation consultant. Since 2005, we have annually engaged Willis Towers Watson as our compensation consultant. Willis Towers Watson reports to our Committee Chair, Mr. Martell, and provides input to us on the philosophy, design and competitiveness of our executive and director compensation programs.
In 2016, we reviewed Willis Towers Watsons independence and concluded that Willis Towers Watson had no conflicts of interest, and provided us with objective and independent executive compensation advisory services. For additional information about the role of our compensation consultant and its independence, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis Decision-Making Process Compensation Consultant on page 45.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Philosophy and Implementation
We strive to make our compensation philosophy simple and clear, so as to be easily communicated to and understood by all of our employees, including executive officers, our shareholders and our other stakeholders.
We believe that the most effective compensation program is one that (1) aligns the interests of employees and shareholders by rewarding the achievement of specific annual and long-term financial and other strategic goals, set and designed to increase shareholder value; and (2) is competitive within the marketplace.
Specifically, our compensation philosophy for employees, including executive officers, is designed and implemented to:
| motivate PotashCorp employees actions to be aligned with the long-term interests of PotashCorp shareholders and other stakeholders; |
| reward performance in line with PotashCorps strategic priorities and shareholder experience, with Board or Committee discretion and flexibility to adjust awards up or down to address unique circumstances, supported by well-disclosed rationale; |
| support the appropriate level of risk-taking that balances short- and long-term objectives; |
| provide an appropriate and affordable level of value sharing between PotashCorp shareholders and employees; |
| attract, develop, engage and retain quality employees; and |
| create an ownership mentality in the PotashCorp management team. |
As applied to our executive compensation, the Committee believes that this philosophy aligns with the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance Principles of Executive Compensation.
Guided by this philosophy, at the end of 2015 we completed an extensive review and redesign of the Companys short-, medium- and long-term incentive compensation programs, which was implemented in 2016 and is described throughout the CD&A following this Letter. The Committee believes that periodic reviews such as this are an important part of maintaining a compensation strategy that is competitive, engaging, cost-effective and aligned with the Companys strategy.
Compensation Program
Our executive compensation program components, described below, have different time horizons, and we seek to identify and implement components that are generally complementary in metrics or objectives. There are five primary, complementary components of our executive compensation program:
1. base salary
|
||
2. short-term incentives under our Short-Term Incentive Plan (STIP) |
at-risk compensation | |
3. medium-term incentives in the form of performance share units (PSUs) and long-term incentives in the form of stock options both issued under our 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the LTIP) |
||
4. retirement benefits |
||
5. severance benefits |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 36 |
The following graphs summarize the components of our 2016 executive compensation program for those NEOs employed by PotashCorp at the end of 2016.
Chief Executive Officer Compensation
Other Named Executive Officer Compensation*
For information on the actual payments made under these components, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis At-Risk Compensation and Compensation Discussion and Analysis Chief Executive Officer Compensation beginning on pages 51 and 57, respectively.
Alignment of Executive Pay with Long-Term Shareholder Interests and PotashCorps Strategic Priorities
We understand that long-term shareholder interests are inextricably tied to PotashCorps performance. We believe that executive compensation should align PotashCorps executives actions with the long-term interests of PotashCorps shareholders. In this regard, we believe it is appropriate to tie executive compensation to PotashCorps performance and the achievement of its strategic priorities.
To that end, the majority of our executive compensation opportunity is at-risk, based on individual performance targets and company performance targets, designed to pay in proportion to PotashCorps performance and subject to maximum payouts. For example, in 2016, Mr. Tilks at-risk compensation was targeted at 86% of his total compensation and the at-risk compensation of each of our other NEOs (other than Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok, both of whom retired from the Company on January 31, 2016) was targeted at 74% of such NEOs total compensation.
Furthermore, we set performance targets that we believe will appropriately incentivize our executives to help PotashCorp achieve its strategic priorities, and tie their compensation to performance in those areas. We measure our performance against these strategic priorities as discussed below and in more detail in the CD&A following this Letter.
For 2016, PotashCorp considered the following strategic priorities in connection with the design of its executive compensation program:
1: Safety, Health & Environmental Excellence.
| We relentlessly pursue the safety and health of our people and the environment, and our compensation program underscores these priorities. For individuals at our plant locations, one-half of the annual STIP payout is tied to on performance in relation to local metrics, including safety, health & environment (SH&E) performance. As a result, plant employees are strongly motivated to achieve the local SH&E goals to earn target or higher STIP payments. SH&E performance is also an important metric in our STIP awards made to all corporate office employees, including our NEOs. Specifically, for corporate office employees, 10 percent of the annual STIP payout is tied to PotashCorps overall SH&E performance, motivating PotashCorp employees at all levels toward SH&E awareness and superior performance in these areas. |
2: Portfolio & Return Optimization.
| We aim to maximize returns for our assets and explore other value creation opportunities. Executive compensation is aligned with this priority through our at-risk compensation plans, which include short-, medium- and long-term cycles based on metrics that include total shareholder return (TSR), share appreciation, Adjusted EBITDA and CFROI-WACC (each as defined herein) and similar measures. |
3: Operational Excellence.
|
We align our executive compensation with our strategic priority of improving our competitive position through reliability, productivity and flexibility by basing our STIP on Board-approved annual goals relating to SH&E performance, communication with stakeholders, good governance, sales, productivity, efficiency, employee development and profitability. Achieving |
37 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
target or higher STIP payments requires those goals to be met or exceeded, which in turn requires cost savings, more effective procurement and higher product reliability rates. |
4: Customer & Market Development.
| We work to encourage product demand and support customer growth across each of our business segments by outperforming our competitors in quality, reliability and service, and through education initiatives and supply chain enhancements. The Committee believes that the changes to our executive compensation program that became effective in 2016 will improve the programs market-competitive position and better focus the program on sustained performance and meeting the needs of customers and other stakeholders throughout the year, resulting in value-creation over the long-term. |
5: Stakeholder Communications & Engagement.
| We prioritize earning the trust of our stakeholders through strong communications and engagement. PotashCorp actively encourages all employees to participate in philanthropic programs in their communities, and PotashCorp offers significant gift-matching opportunities to its employees and directors. To enable meaningful investments in our communities, it is important to sustain earnings and provide opportunities for meaningful compensation on a consistent basis. |
6: People Development.
| We strive to attract, develop and retain engaged employees. Our executive compensation program is aligned with this strategic priority, as our target executive compensation is designed to be competitive within our industry, and executives are provided opportunities for professional development and promotion. Our executives are motivated to achieve strong results through opportunities to earn above target compensation based on company and individual performance. Further, in 2016 we designed and implemented a new global performance management process that ensures all designated employees, including executive officers, have an individualized performance and development plan. |
7: Good Governance.
| We foster a culture of accountability, fairness and transparency. That culture is reflected in our approach to executive compensation through the cultivation of an ownership mentality in our management team, and evidenced by consistently supportive shareholder approvals on annual Say-on-Pay votes. We have Share ownership requirements for our executive management, at-risk incentive plans, policies on recoupment of compensation and a prohibition on hedging transactions by executive officers, each of which we believe aligns the interests of our management with our shareholders and improves personal and organizational accountability. |
Measuring Pay for Performance
We believe that it is important to regularly measure how successful we have been in aligning executive pay with performance. We regularly test the outcomes of our compensation program to measure its reasonableness and our success in aligning pay with performance. The tests apply to all elements of compensation, including retirement benefits and perquisites.
In 2016, as it has in each year since 2007 at the request of the Committee, Willis Towers Watson conducted a study of the relationship of our Named Executive Officers pay to PotashCorps performance, as discussed in more detail under Compensation Discussion and Analysis Compensation Overview Performance Measurement on page 43.
The results of the study conducted by Willis Towers Watson are shown as follows:
Overall, the Committee believes that there is an appropriate alignment between our Named Executive Officers compensation and PotashCorps performance. As described below, the changes to the compensation program for 2016 were designed to further align executive pay with PotashCorps performance. For information on the changes made to the compensation program for 2016, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis Compensation Overview on page 42.
Value Sharing and Affordability
We believe that our executive compensation program should provide an appropriate level of value sharing between PotashCorp executives and shareholders, with payouts to executives in proportion to PotashCorps TSR, Adjusted EBITDA and CFROI-WACC, as applicable. In addition, we believe it is important that compensation be affordable to PotashCorp. To measure
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 38 |
affordability, Willis Towers Watson measures the Realizable Pay (as defined herein) earned by our NEOs as a percentage of PotashCorps net income. This percentage over the three years ended December 31, 2015, the most recent period for which information is available, was the lowest among PotashCorps Comparator Group (as defined herein) at just 0.4%.
We believe our executive compensation program is affordable and reasonable, with metrics, targets and maximum payout opportunities that are designed for affordability and reasonableness in absolute terms and relative to the programs of the companies in PotashCorps Comparator Group.
Encouraging Ownership Mentality
To further align the interests of our executive officers with those of PotashCorps shareholders, each executive is required to meet and maintain an applicable Share ownership minimum. Stock options and unvested PSUs under the LTIP and POPs, as defined below, are not included in the definition of Share ownership for purposes of the requirements. Currently, all Named Executive Officers who are employees of the Corporation satisfy the applicable minimum Share ownership requirements.
Our at-risk incentive plans further this ownership mentality. For example, the value realized with respect to our stock options is based on our Share price performance. Stock options under the Performance Option Plans (the POPs), PotashCorps historical share-settled performance option plans, and the LTIP continue to vest in accordance with their original vesting schedule in the event of retirement, continuing a retirees economic interest in the Company. In addition, certain awards under the LTIP are designed to provide plan participants the opportunity to earn meaningful compensation dependent upon the medium- and long-term financial performance of the Company. PSU awards under the LTIP have multi-year performance and vesting conditions, and have values tied to the value of Shares.
MANAGING COMPENSATION RISK
Risk management begins with an active Board and management team engaged in analyzing the many risks PotashCorp faces and working with PotashCorp leaders to manage those risks. We believe the design, structure and implementation of our executive compensation program should not encourage executives to take unapproved or inappropriate risks or engage in other improper behavior. We also believe that, among other factors, the following elements of our compensation program, described in greater detail in the CD&A, help to discourage inappropriate risk-taking:
| an appropriate mix of each of the primary, complementary compensation components; |
| a significant percentage of compensation in the form of medium- and long-term awards subject to performance and time thresholds that must be achieved before certain awards vest; |
| goals that reflect a balanced mix of quantitative and qualitative performance measures, including SH&E metrics; |
| caps on compensation payments, even in the case of extraordinary performance; |
| detrimental activity clawback provisions in certain of our incentive plans; |
| the PotashCorp Policy on Recoupment of Unearned Compensation; |
| Share ownership requirements; |
| a tail period of continued vesting of stock options under the LTIP for up to three additional years upon retirement; |
| an annual advisory Say on Pay vote by our shareholders; |
| a review of, and approval by PotashCorp shareholders, of the LTIP in 2016; |
| a prohibition on executive officers, directors and certain other PotashCorp employees entering into hedging transactions involving Shares (including stock options and other stock awards); |
| a general prohibition on executive officers and directors pledging Shares; and |
| periodic evaluation and testing by the Committee of variable compensation plan metrics. |
See Compensation Overview Managing Compensation Risk on page 43.
In 2016, Willis Towers Watson analyzed our compensation program from a risk management perspective. As part of its risk assessment, Willis Towers Watson considered the elements discussed above, such as our Policy on Recoupment of Unearned Compensation, our Share ownership requirements and the significant percentage of compensation provided in the form of medium- and long-term awards, all of which help to align compensation with appropriate risk-taking. The Committee agreed with the conclusions of Willis Towers Watson and determined that PotashCorps compensation program does not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on PotashCorp. For additional information regarding PotashCorps overall risk management, see Integrated Approach to Strategy and Risk beginning on page 28 and Risk beginning on page 48 of PotashCorps 2016 Annual Integrated Report.
39 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
CEO PERFORMANCE AND PAY
One of our important annual responsibilities is the assessment of our CEOs performance and the setting of his compensation.
In January 2016, based on a consideration of then-current market conditions, the Committee recommended, and the independent members of the Board approved, no adjustments for 2016 in Mr. Tilks base salary of Cdn$1,035,000. The Committee also recommended, based on a detailed assessment of Mr. Tilks peformance in 2015 relative to his goals, a target 2016 STIP award for Mr. Tilk equal to 100% of his base salary. This recommandation was approved by the independent members of the Board.
In January 2017, based on that assessment and the consideration of current market conditions, the Committee recommended, and the independent members of the Board approved, an adjustment of Mr. Tilks base salary to Cdn$1,200,600 for 2017. The Committee also recommended, and the independent members of the Board approved, a target 2017 STIP award for Mr. Tilk equal to 130% of his base salary. The adjustments to Mr. Tilks base salary and target 2017 STIP award were made to better align Mr. Tilks total target direct compensation with market competitors.
SUCCESSION PLANNING
One of the major responsibilities of the Committee is to oversee PotashCorps management succession planning. Each year, we review our progress, examine any gaps in succession plans and discuss ways to improve succession planning. At least once each year, we meet with our CEO to discuss succession plans for our senior executive officers. In addition, the Board regularly interacts with PotashCorps senior management and management team. As a result of this active succession planning process, in 2016, approximately 83% of senior staff openings were filled by qualified internal candidates who were trained and developed for the promotions they received.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
The Boards compensation was not increased in 2016. The annual retainer for 2016 remained at $200,000 for outside directors and $400,000 for the Board Chair. The total compensation for outside directors in 2016 was at the median of the Comparative Compensation Information, as defined in Compensation Discussion and Analysis Decision-Making Process Comparative Compensation Information on page 45. Much like our executive officers, directors must reach and maintain certain minimum Share ownership levels, resulting in each of PotashCorps directors being required to hold a significant at-risk investment. For additional information on director compensation, see About the Board Director Compensation beginning on page 18.
SHAREHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The Committee greatly values and carefully considers shareholder feedback on our executive compensation program. Historically, shareholder input has been sought and used in the design of our long-term incentive plans. In 2016, consistent with common practice among Canadian and U.S. issuers, we sought approval of 21,000,000 Shares available for issuance under the LTIP that we believe will support our medium- and long-term equity awards for a period of approximately four years from the date of such approval. At the 2016 Annual Meeting, the resolution to approve the LTIP received shareholder support with approximately 80.5% affirmative votes. As discussed in more detail under Adoption of the LTIP and Compensation Discussion and Analysis At-Risk Compensation Medium- and Long-Term Incentives, the LTIP sets clear limitations on the types of awards that may be granted and the number of Shares issuable with respect to such awards, while allowing flexibility to make two different types of awards over a broader time frame: stock options and PSUs. Following shareholder approval of the LTIP in 2016, 21,000,000 Shares were available for issuance, of which 16,960,620 Shares remained available for issuance as of December 31, 2016. The Committee believes that the flexibility afforded by the approval of the LTIP provides the Company with a greater ability to attract, develop, engage and retain employees to achieve the Companys long-term goals.
In addition, since 2010, building on PotashCorps status as one of the first companies in North America to adopt an advisory Say on Pay vote, we have worked to improve shareholder outreach, including implementing new features on our website, such as the live streaming of PotashCorps Annual Meeting of Shareholders and a shareholder survey that helps users understand the key elements of our executive compensation program as well as provide feedback on its perceived effectiveness. In 2016, PotashCorps Say on Pay resolution received significant shareholder support, with approximately 92.5% of shares voted being voted in favor of the resolution.
HIGHLIGHTS OF RECENT EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION UPDATES
Recently, we have taken the following actions, among others, which we believe will further enhance our ability to attract, develop, engage and retain effective leaders and promote shareholder value:
|
In 2015, the Committee completed an extensive review of the Corporations short, medium and long-term incentive compensation programs which resulted in, among other things, a redesigned STIP and the adoption of the LTIP. For 2016, the STIP was redesigned to better align our short-term incentives with individual performance. We expanded our training and introduced an aligned performance management system to support implementation of the revised STIP across the company. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 40 |
In addition, the LTIP replaced the Medium-Term Incentive Plan (the MTIP), PotashCorps historical cash-settled medium-term incentive plan, and the annual POP. The Committee believes that these changes to PotashCorps executive compensation program will maintain the programs market-competitive position and will better focus the program on sustained performance, the cultivation of an ownership mentality in our management team and value-creation over the long-term. Furthermore, this new compensation program design supports a balanced approach to risk management. The Board, on the recommendation of the Committee, unanimously approved the new STIP and LTIP, and shareholders approved the LTIP at the 2016 Annual Meeting. For more information regarding the redesigned STIP and the LTIP, see the CD&A following this Letter. |
| In 2016, we updated our executive Share ownership policy, as described in more detail in Compensation Discussion & Analysis Executive Share Ownership Requirements on page 44. |
| In November 2016 in order to maintain a stable work environment in connection with the Proposed Transaction, we entered into double-trigger change-in-control agreements with certain of our Named Executive Officers, namely Messrs. Dowdle, Podwika and Sully, which provide for compensation in the event of a termination of employment by PotashCorp without cause or by the executive for good reason within 24 months following a change-in-control. For purposes of these change-in-control agreements, the consummation of the Proposed Transaction would constitute a change-in-control, but compensation would only become payable in the event of a qualifying termination of, or other cessation of employment by, the affected executive. For more information regarding these change in control agreements, see the CD&A following this Letter. |
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION
During 2016, none of the members of the Committee served, or has at any time served, as an officer or employee of PotashCorp or any of its subsidiaries. In addition, none of PotashCorps executive officers has served as a member of a board of directors or a compensation committee, or other committee serving an equivalent function, of any other entity, one of whose executive officers served as a member of the Board or the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee members have no interlocking relationships required to be disclosed under SEC rules and regulations.
Furthermore, no two directors serve together on both the PotashCorp Board and any other for-profit company board or any committee thereof.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
We have reviewed and discussed the CD&A with management and, based on this review and discussion, recommend that the CD&A be included in this Management Proxy Circular and in the Form 10-K.
CONCLUSION
We are committed to PotashCorps success and believe that our executive compensation philosophy and program supports PotashCorp business strategies and promotes superior shareholder value. Through this program, we have been able to attract, develop, engage and retain successful executive officers.
We believe that periodic reviews are an important part of maintaining a compensation philosophy and structure that is current, competitive, engaging, cost-effective and aligned with the Companys corporate strategy. As described above, beginning in 2016, we made a number of changes to our compensation program. We are satisfied with this review and the changes we have made to our program.
We hope that this summary of our philosophy and approach to executive compensation has helped you see why we believe our program is right for PotashCorp shareholders and for PotashCorps long-term success. We encourage you to read the CD&A, which follows this Letter, for additional details on our executive compensation program. As always, we invite you to provide any input you may have regarding our executive compensation philosophy and program through our shareholder outreach program discussed above.
By the Human Resources and Compensation Committee:
Keith G. Martell (Chair)
Gerald W. Grandey
C. Steven Hoffman
Jeffrey J. McCaig
Aaron W. Regent
Zoë A. Yujnovich *
February 20, 2017
* | Ms. Yujnovich joined the Committee on January 25, 2017. |
41 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
This CD&A discusses the structure, principles, policies and elements of our executive compensation program, as well as the process related to and individuals involved in executive compensation decisions. Additional information about the compensation paid or payable to our NEOs is also included.
A table of contents for the CD&A is set forth below:
Section |
Page No. | |||
42 | ||||
42 | ||||
42 | ||||
43 | ||||
43 | ||||
43 | ||||
43 | ||||
44 | ||||
44 | ||||
44 | ||||
45 | ||||
45 | ||||
45 | ||||
47 | ||||
51 | ||||
51 | ||||
51 | ||||
54 | ||||
56 | ||||
57 | ||||
57 | ||||
58 |
The philosophy and structure of our executive compensation program are also discussed in the immediately preceding Letter from and Report of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee beginning on page 35.
Specifically, our compensation philosophy for our employees, including executive officers, is designed and implemented to:
| motivate PotashCorp employees actions to be aligned with the long-term interests of PotashCorp shareholders and other stakeholders; |
| reward performance in line with PotashCorps strategic priorities and shareholder experience, with Board or Committee discretion and flexibility to adjust awards up or down to address unique circumstances, supported by well-disclosed rationale; |
| support the appropriate level of risk-taking that balances short- and long-term objectives; |
| provide an appropriate and affordable level of value sharing between PotashCorp shareholders and employees; |
| attract, develop, engage and retain quality employees; and |
| create an ownership mentality in the PotashCorp management team. |
Compensation Guiding Principles
Translating our compensation philosophy into practice, the following principles guide the implementation of our executive compensation program:
| emphasize performance-based compensation with an appropriate balance between corporate and individual performance measured over the short-, medium- and long-term; |
| determine competitive and median levels of compensation as a market check with the assistance of an independent compensation consultant (for details on the role of this compensation consultant, see Decision-Making Process Compensation Consultant and Decision-Making Process Comparative Compensation Information on page 45); |
| consider the median of comparable companies when establishing the level of total direct compensation (salary plus target short-term incentive compensation and target long-term incentive compensation); |
| provide the opportunity to earn above-median compensation through medium and long- term incentive awards in alignment with above-median performance relative to comparable companies, and below-median compensation in alignment with below-median performance; |
| adopt appropriate financial and operating metrics and consider performance on an absolute basis and relative to comparable companies; |
| establish the overall value of retirement and healthcare benefits at a level that is market-competitive; and |
| provide transparent programs that are well communicated and understood. |
These principles were considered in connection with the implementation in 2016 of our redesigned executive compensation program. Detailed information about the compensation paid to our Named Executive Officers can be found in the Summary Compensation Table and the related compensation tables beginning on page 63.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 42 |
We believe that the design, structure and implementation of our executive compensation program should not encourage executives to take unapproved or inappropriate risks or engage in other improper behavior.
To accomplish these goals, we believe that it is appropriate for a majority of compensation opportunity to be at-risk based on individual performance targets and company performance targets, designed to pay in proportion to PotashCorps performance. Our executive compensation program components, described below, have different time horizons, and components are generally complementary. To discourage inappropriate risk taking, we design our at-risk compensation programs with a diverse set of metrics related to multiple aspects of PotashCorp performance that includes limits on the maximum amounts payable thereunder, even in the event of extraordinary performance in any period, and maintain a recoupment policy applicable to incentive compensation as well as incentive plans that contain detrimental activity clawback provisions. We also have Share ownership requirements that apply to our Named Executive Officers.
For a discussion of the assessment of the risks associated with our compensation policies and programs and the measures taken to mitigate inappropriate risk-taking, see the discussion under Letter from and Report of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee Managing Compensation Risk on page 39.
Pay-for-performance starts with plan design. Even though the individual components of our pay programs are designed to align pay with performance, we believe that it is important to regularly measure how successful we have been in achieving this objective. The Committee believes that historically there has been, and currently is, an appropriate alignment between our Named Executive Officers compensation and PotashCorps performance.
In 2016, as it has in each year since 2007 at the request of the Committee, Willis Towers Watson conducted a study of the relationship of our Named Executive Officers pay to PotashCorps performance. For purposes of the study, Realizable Pay included: base salary; the payout value or, if not yet paid, the year-end (2015) value of incentive awards granted during the three-year measurement period; and the aggregate annual change in the value of stock options granted during the measurement period. PotashCorp measures company performance as the composite of TSR growth, earnings per Share growth and cash flow per Share growth during the measurement period. PotashCorp then compares its Realizable Pay and performance to that of the Companys Comparator Group, measured on the same basis, to determine the percentile rank of each. The performance percentile rank is then compared to the Realizable Pay percentile rank to determine correlation. Our objective is to have the result fall within
an alignment zone that is no more than one standard deviation away from complete alignment of Realizable Pay and PotashCorps performance.
Consistent with the broader potash industry, PotashCorps absolute TSR declined during the three-year period ended December 31, 2015. However, due to our relatively favorable financial performance, PotashCorps composite percentile rank was only slightly below the Comparator Group median. The decrease in TSR, coupled with an executive compensation program that was more heavily weighted towards stock options (which are more sensitive to stock price volatility) than that of the other members of the Comparator Group, resulted in the low Realizable Pay percentile for our Named Executive Officers over the same three-year period.
The changes to the compensation program for 2016, as described in the section entitled Summary of the Compensation Program in 2016 below, were designed to more closely align such compensation with a more diverse set of metrics related to multiple aspects of PotashCorps performance.
Policy on Recoupment of Unearned Compensation
The Board has approved and we have adopted the PotashCorp Policy on Recoupment of Unearned Compensation. Under this policy, if the Board learns of misconduct by an executive that contributed to a restatement of PotashCorps financial statements, the Board can take action it deems necessary to remedy the misconduct. In particular, the Board can require reimbursement of incentive compensation or effect the cancellation of unvested performance option awards under the POP plans and stock options and performance share units under the LTIP with respect to that executive if:
(1) | the amount of the compensation was based on achievement of financial results that were subsequently restated; |
(2) | the executive engaged in misconduct that contributed to the need for the restatement; and |
(3) | the executives compensation would have been a lesser amount if the financial results had been properly reported. |
In addition, awards historically made under the POPs and awards made under the LTIP are subject to a detrimental activity clawback provision. See At-Risk Compensation Medium- and Long-Term Incentives Clawback of Awards on page 56.
The Board continues to monitor the proposed SEC clawback rules and may, if necessary or appropriate, revise the PotashCorp Policy on Recoupment of Unearned Compensation and the POPs and LTIPs detrimental activity clawback provision.
Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (the Code) limits deductibility of certain compensation up to $1 million for
43 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
our CEO and the three other executive officers (other than the Chief Financial Officer) who are highest-paid and employed at year-end. If certain conditions are met, performance-based compensation may be excluded from this limitation. Where appropriate, we design our compensation arrangements to potentially provide relief from Section 162(m) of the Code. However, we may decide to grant compensation that will not constitute qualified performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code. Moreover, even if we intend, in the case of certain of our U.S. executives, to grant compensation that constitutes qualified performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code, we cannot guarantee that it will actually constitute qualified performance-based compensation or ultimately be deductible by us.
As a general matter, our executive officers are prohibited from entering into hedging transactions involving our Shares (including stock options and other stock awards), pledging our Shares and otherwise shorting our Shares.
Executive Share Ownership Requirements
We strongly support Share ownership by our executives through significant Share ownership requirements that exceed market levels. Any individual promoted or appointed into a position subject to our Share ownership requirements has a five-year period from the date of promotion or appointment within which to meet the Share ownership requirements. The Share ownership requirements can be met through direct or beneficial ownership of Shares, including Shares held through our registered/qualified defined contribution savings plans. Stock options and unvested PSUs are not included in the definition of Share ownership for purposes of the requirements. For purposes of determining compliance, the executives Shares are valued at the higher of cost or market value.
Named Executive Officers, officers and other specified executives are subject to our Share ownership guidelines for so long as they remain employed by us, and compliance with these Share ownership requirements is reviewed at Committee meetings. If an executives Share ownership requirement increases due to a significant upward salary adjustment, the executive will have three years to regain compliance, if necessary.
The Share ownership requirements are as follows:
Title | Share Ownership Requirement | |||
Chief Executive Officer |
5 times base salary | |||
Chief Financial Officer, Division Presidents and Designated Senior Vice Presidents |
3 times base salary | |||
Designated Senior Vice Presidents and Vice Presidents | 1 times base salary |
As of February 20, 2017, each of our Named Executive Officers are in compliance with their applicable Share ownership requirements. See Executive Compensation Executive Share Ownership on page 68.
Summary of the Compensation Program in 2016
In 2016, after an extensive review of the Companys short-, medium- and long-term incentive compensation programs in 2015, the Committee made the following alterations to the compensation program:
| Adjustments to PotashCorps compensation philosophy and guiding principles . These adjustments reflected (1) a renewed balance between corporate and individual performance, (2) incentives for appropriate risk-taking to avoid excessive risk, (3) a focus on revised performance and operating metrics and (4) improved transparency. These adjustments were implemented through corresponding changes to the STIP and the implementation of the LTIP. |
| Adjustments to the performance measures used in the STIP . For 2016 NEO STIP awards, 70% of the payout was determined based on adjusted 1 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (Adjusted EBITDA), 20% of the payout was determined based on individual performance against specific objectives and 10% of the payout was determined based on performance against SH&E metrics. Prior to 2016, 95% of the payout of PotashCorps NEO STIP awards was determined using Adjusted Actual Cash Flow Return (ACFR), while the remaining 5% represented a safety component. |
| Medium-term incentive awards were incorporated into the LTIP, rather than a stand-alone program. As a general matter, medium-term incentive awards were incorporated into the LTIP, and PotashCorp does not intend to adopt a stand-alone medium-term incentive plan similar to those used in prior years. |
| Adjustments to PotashCorps long-term incentives. The LTIP provides for medium- and long-term incentive awards in the form of PSUs and stock options, respectively, with overlapping cycles and different vesting provisions. The PSUs represent medium-term incentives, with 3-year performance-based cliff vesting (other than with respect to PSUs granted in 2016, as further discussed below), whereas the stock options represent long-term incentives, with 3-year time-based vesting and a 10 year term. The equally-weighted performance metrics used to determine vesting of PSUs are (1) TSR relative to an industry comparator group of companies (the TSR Comparator Group,), and (2) CFROI WACC. Under the LTIP program, 70% of the target value of 2016 NEO awards consisted of stock-settled PSUs and 30% of the target value consisted of stock options. Additional information about the terms of the LTIP can |
1 | Adjustments to EBITDA are made for: (1) non-recurring/unusual items included in operating income; (2) changes in unrealized gains/losses on derivative instruments included in operating income; and (3) accrued incentive awards. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 44 |
be found under At-Risk Compensation Medium- and Long Term Incentives on page 54. |
In addition to the alterations to the compensation program discussed above, the Committee also made adjustments to our NEOs individual performance goals. While the primary goals remained substantially unchanged from 2015, certain objectives were refocused to reflect our NEOs growth within the organization and tenure to date. Additionally, achievement of the SH&E objective changed from a discretionary adjustment to a mandatory adjustment within the parameters of the STIP.
The Committee believes that these changes to the Companys executive compensation program will result in a compensation strategy that is more competitive, engaging, cost-effective and aligned with the Companys strategy.
The Committee will continue to periodically review the compensation program and make adjustments that it believes are appropriate.
The Board, the Committee and our CEO are involved in compensation decision-making. As shown in Appendix C to this Management Proxy Circular, the Committee considers various inputs in making determinations of executive officer compensation, including advice from its independent compensation consultant and input from our CEO (with respect to the compensation of the Named Executive Officers other than our CEO). Although these inputs are important tools in the Committees processes, the decisions made are solely those of the Committee and may also reflect other factors and considerations. These determinations are shared with the Board and, with respect to our CEO, are considered a recommendation subject to the approval of the independent members of the Board.
The Committee relies on its independent compensation consultant for input on PotashCorps executive compensation philosophy and the competitiveness of the design and award values for certain of our executive and director compensation programs. The independent compensation consultant also assists in the evaluation of compensation arrangements associated with certain strategic opportunities. Although this information and these inputs are important tools in the Committees processes, the decisions made are solely those of the Committee and also reflect other factors and considerations.
Since 2005, the Committee has annually engaged Willis Towers Watson as its independent compensation consultant. Willis Towers Watson reports to the Committee Chair. In its role as executive
compensation consultant, in 2016, Willis Towers Watson attended Committee meetings at which executive compensation matters were discussed.
In accordance with our adherence to the best practice of retaining independent executive compensation consultants, any work other than annually approved executive compensation consulting services performed by Willis Towers Watson must be approved in advance by our Committee Chair, Mr. Martell. The following table sets forth the fees paid to Willis Towers Watson in 2016 and 2015.
Year ended
December 31, |
||||||||
2016 | 2015 | |||||||
Fees attributable to executive and director compensation consulting services (1) |
$ | 401,979 | $ | 543,019 | ||||
Fees attributable to other services (2) |
$ | 175,000 | |
(1) | Includes $27,081 and $17,144 for 2016 and 2015, respectively, attributable to compensation consulting services for executives, other than the Named Executive Officers, requested by management and approved by the Committee, including calculation of stock and option award grant date fair value amounts in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718 (FASB ASC Topic 718), Compensation Stock Compensation. |
(2) | Amounts reflect payments to Willis Towers Watson in 2016 for certain other services, including P&C insurance coverage and loss control engineering and analytics. |
In 2016, the Committee reviewed the independence of Willis Towers Watsons advisory role relative to the independence factors adopted by the SEC to guide listed companies in determining the independence of their compensation consultants, legal counsel and other advisers. Following its review, the Committee concluded that Willis Towers Watson had no conflicts of interest, and provides the Committee with objective and independent executive compensation advisory services.
Comparative Compensation Information
In executing its responsibilities related to executive compensation, the Committee uses executive compensation analyses prepared by Willis Towers Watson and other compensation consultants (Comparative Compensation Information) as a market check. Such analyses typically include information from (1) a group of 18 publicly traded U.S. and Canadian companies, selected on the basis of a number of factors, including similar industry characteristics, revenues and market capitalization (the Comparator Group); and (2) additional executive compensation surveys of U.S. and Canadian companies with similar industry and revenue size (the Additional Surveys). We periodically review our Comparator Group to ensure that the companies included in the group share similar industry characteristics, revenues and market capitalization.
45 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
The 18 companies included in the Comparator Group in 2016 were:
Agrium Inc. |
Goldcorp Inc. | |
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. |
Kinross Gold Corporation | |
Ashland Inc. |
Methanex Corporation | |
Barrick Gold Corporation |
Monsanto Company | |
Cameco Corporation |
The Mosaic Company | |
Celanese Corporation |
Newmont Mining Corporation | |
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. |
PPG Industries, Inc. | |
Eastman Chemical Company |
Praxair, Inc. | |
Ecolab Inc. |
Teck Resources Limited |
For 2016 compensation, the two Additional Surveys considered were: (1) the WTWDS 2016 Canadian CDB General Industry Executive Compensation Database and (2) the WTWDS 2016 U.S. CDB General Industry Executive Compensation Database. A list of the companies included in each of the Additional Surveys is filed as Exhibit 99(b) to our Form 10-K.
The Committee recognizes that over-reliance on external comparisons can be of concern, and the Committee is mindful of the value and limitations of comparative data. As such, although the Committee includes market data in the overall mix of factors it considers in assessing Named Executive Officer compensation, it does not target specific market levels. Rather, it considers the market median as a general reference point, while considering other factors outlined in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, including its own subjective determinations with respect to the Company and the Named Executive Officers performance.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 46 |
ELEMENTS OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION: OVERVIEW
There are five primary, complementary components of our executive compensation program:
More detail on each element and its purpose within our executive compensation program for 2016 is described in the following tables and associated discussion and analysis.
BASE SALARY
|
||||||
Eligibility | Design | |||||
All salaried and non-union hourly employees (Union hourly employees are subject to terms of collective bargaining agreements) |
Cash The only fixed component of total direct compensation Typically reviewed annually and adjusted, if appropriate, for salaried employees to reflect individual performance, progression on the job and internal pay equity, referencing the Comparative Compensation Information as a market check |
|||||
AT- RISK COMPENSATION SHORT-TERM INCENTIVES
|
||||||
Form | Eligibility |
Performance /
Vesting Period |
Design | |||
Cash under the Short-Term Incentive Plan (STIP) | All executives and most salaried staff and union and non-union hourly employees | Annual |
Annual cash bonus one-year performance period Payout is based on three performance metrics (1) a Board-established Adjusted EBITDA metric; (2) Company SH&E performance targets, for corporate employees, or site-specific goals, for site employees; and (3) for corporate employees and designated site employees in 2016, individual performance No payout with respect to Adjusted EBITDA metric for achieving less than 50% of the Adjusted EBITDA performance ratio target; maximum payout is capped at two times target regardless of performance results achieved. SH&E performance accounts for 10% of the target STIP award for NEOs. The percentage of the target STIP award that is attributed to EBITDA performance and individual performance varies according to the employees STIP tier |
47 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Form | Eligibility |
Performance /
Vesting Period |
Design | |||
Cash under the Sales Incentive Plan (SIP) | Selected Sales Representatives and Managers (19 individuals as of December 31, 2016) | Annual |
Annual cash bonus one-year performance period Payout is based on three performance metrics (1) 60% Adjusted EBITDA metric; (2) 10% Company SH&E performance target; and (3) 30% individual performance based on their individual SIP target No payout with respect to Adjusted EBITDA metric for achieving less than 50% of the Adjusted EBITDA performance ratio target; maximum payout is capped at two times target regardless of performance results achieved |
|||
Cash under the Trinidad Performance Incentive Bonus Plan | All Trinidad permanent hourly employees | Annual |
Targets are per STIP, but limited to a maximum payout of 14% of qualifying annual salary |
|||
AT- RISK COMPENSATION MEDIUM- AND LONG-TERM INCENTIVES
|
||||||
Form | Eligibility |
Performance /
Vesting Period |
Design | |||
PSUs under the LTIP | All executives, senior management and other selected managers (312 individuals as of December 31, 2016) | 3-year |
Medium-term incentives in the form of PSUs with 3-year performance-based cliff vesting Performance is based on two equally weighted metrics over a three-year performance period: (1) total shareholder return relative to the TSR Comparator Group, and (2) CFROI-WACC The 2016 PSU grant consisted of three tranches, with varying performance periods, as discussed in At-Risk Compensation Medium- and Long-Term Incentives on page 54 The LTIP was approved by shareholders in 2016 |
|||
Stock options under the LTIP | All executives, senior management and other selected managers (312 individuals as of December 31, 2016) | 3-year vesting with a 10-year term |
Long-term incentives in the form of stock options with 3-year time-based cliff vesting and a 10 year term Value of stock options, if any, is based on Share price performance The LTIP was approved by shareholders in 2016 |
|||
RETIREMENT BENEFITS
|
||||||
Form | Eligibility |
Performance
Period |
Design | |||
Cash under the Canadian Pension Plan | All Canadian salaried staff and certain union and non-union hourly employees | Pensionable service period |
Benefits are based on the participants required contributions (up to 5.5% of eligible base pay) and equivalent matching contributions by PotashCorp |
|||
Cash under the New Canadian Supplemental Plan | Selected senior executives eligible on or after July 1, 2014 (9 individuals as of December 31, 2016) | 2 year vesting |
Benefits are based on 10% of eligible base pay plus earned STIP bonus, offset by PotashCorp contributions to the Canadian Pension Plan |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 48 |
Form | Eligibility |
Performance
Period |
Design | |||
Cash under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan (closed to new hires on June 30, 2014) | Selected senior executives eligible prior to July 1, 2014 (24 individuals as of December 31, 2016) | Pensionable service period to a maximum of 35 years |
Benefits are based on 1.5% of the average of the participants three highest consecutive years earnings multiplied by years of pensionable service, minus the company contributions payable by PotashCorp under the Canadian Pension Plan. Certain senior executives benefits and all benefits for accrued service prior to January 1, 2011 are calculated differently No benefits are payable if termination is before age 55 |
|||
Cash under the U.S. Pension Plan | All U.S. salaried and non-union hourly employees | Pensionable service period to a maximum of 35 years |
Benefits are based on 1.5% of the participants final average compensation, which is calculated using the highest paid 60 consecutive months of service out of the last 120 months, multiplied by years of service accrued after December 31, 1998. A participant with service accrued prior to January 1, 1999 under previous plans will have a portion of his or her benefit calculated pursuant to such plans |
|||
Cash under the U.S. Supplemental Plan | Eligible U.S. salaried and non-union hourly employees | Pensionable service period to a maximum of 35 years |
Benefits are intended to provide participants with the same aggregate benefits they would have received under the U.S. Pension Plan had there been no legal limitations on providing those benefits. Separate limits on includable compensation apply to benefits earned under this plan No benefits are payable if termination is before age 55 |
|||
Cash under the U.S. 401(k) Plans | All U.S. employees | Annual |
Benefits are based on the participants optional contributions (up to 50% of eligible earnings), matching PotashCorp contributions (up to 3% of eligible earnings), and performance contribution (up to 3% of eligible earnings) |
|||
Cash under the Canadian Savings Plan | All Canadian salaried staff and certain union and non-union hourly employees | Annual |
Benefits are based on the participants optional contributions (up to Canada Revenue Agency limits), basic PotashCorp contributions (3% of eligible earnings), and performance contributions (up to 3% of eligible earnings) |
|||
Cash under the Trinidad Pension Plan | All Trinidad permanent employees | Pensionable service period up to 60 years of age |
Benefits are based on 2% of the participants final salary multiplied by years of service less 0.5% of the National Insurance Scheme salary multiplied by years of service. The maximum benefit is 66.67% of the participants final salary |
|||
Stock under the Trinidad Employee Stock Ownership Plan | All Trinidad permanent employees | Annual |
Benefits are based on 4% of PCS Nitrogen Trinidads total annual earnings less any incentive payments received |
|||
SEVERANCE BENEFITS
|
||||||
Form | Eligibility |
Performance
Period |
Design | |||
Cash pursuant to general severance benefits | All salaried employees | Upon qualifying termination of employment |
Two weeks of salary for each complete year of service, subject to a minimum of four weeks and a maximum of 52 weeks, are generally awarded in connection with termination without cause A retention severance program is expected to be implemented in connection with the Proposed Transaction |
49 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Form | Eligibility |
Performance
Period |
Design | |||
Cash, Insurance and Other Benefits pursuant to Employment Agreements and Change-in-Control Severance Agreements | Specified senior executives (19 individuals as of December 31, 2016) | Upon qualifying termination of employment |
Under one legacy change-in-control contract, benefits will be generally awarded in connection with involuntary termination within two years of the change-in-control (except that, pursuant to such contract, stock options will vest immediately upon a change-in-control) Other change-in-control payments, including any such payments to our CEO under his Employment Agreement (defined herein) and those to our other NEOs pursuant to their respective change in control agreements, like our legacy change-in-control contract described above, generally require a double trigger of change-in-control and qualifying termination of employment |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 50 |
Purpose : A fixed component of compensation necessary to attract and retain qualified employees.
We have established a system of tiered salary levels for senior executives (vice president and above). We assign senior executive positions to an appropriate salary tier that reflects the positions internal value to PotashCorp and internal equity considerations based on a review of salaries for relevant positions in the Comparative Compensation Information. For our Named Executive Officers, although the Committee considers the Comparative Compensation Information to better understand the comparative level of base salary for each of the Named Executive Officers relative to officers holding comparable positions at our competitor companies, it does not target a specified level of compensation with respect to such competitor companies. Salaries for executives that report directly to our CEO are recommended by our CEO and subject to approval by the Committee. Our CEOs salary is recommended by the Committee and subject to approval by the independent members of the Board.
Our executives, including our Named Executive Officers, are generally eligible for only one merit-based salary increase per year. As described above, based on an assessment of Mr. Tilks 2016 performance and a consideration of current market conditions, the Committee recommended an adjustment of Mr. Tilks base salary to Cdn$1,200,600 for 2017, which recommendation was approved by the independent members of the Board. As part of our annual salary review process including consideration of the factors described above, the base salaries of each of our other Named Executive Officers who remain employed by the Company was adjusted by not more than 2.15% for 2017.
We design our at-risk compensation plans with goals and performance periods of varying durations in order to provide incentives over varied time horizons. The Committee analyzes potential payouts based on actual and potential performance scenarios to ensure that the value of the incentive awards granted or potentially paid to our Named Executive Officers is affordable and appropriately linked to our performance. We have historically provided executives with (1) annual incentives through the STIP, (2) three-year incentives through performance-based medium-term incentives and (3) 10-year incentives through long-term equity awards. Our current compensation program includes both a
STIP and the LTIP, and generally provides these incentives with performance measures relatively weighted between the awards and certain general features, as further detailed in Short-Term Incentives below and Medium- and Long-Term Incentives on page 54.
1. | Short-term : For short-term incentives, under the STIP, we annually set corporate and operating group financial, individual and operating goals. |
2. | Medium-term: For medium-term incentives, under the LTIP, the PSUs granted in 2016 are subject to one, two and three-year performance periods, as discussed below. PSUs made up 70% of the 2016 NEO target awards under the LTIP program, as discussed further in Compensation Overview on page 42. |
3. | Long-term: For long-term incentives, under the LTIP, we generally grant stock options, with 3-year time-based vesting and a 10-year term. Stock options made up 30% of the 2016 NEO target awards under the LTIP program, as discussed further in Compensation Overview on page 42. |
We believe that, in the aggregate, the range of performance periods in our at-risk compensation plans creates a strong alignment between the interests of our executive officers and shareholders. We do not have non-qualified deferred compensation plans or arrangements pursuant to which our Named Executive Officers may elect to defer current compensation.
Purpose : To develop strong corporate management by providing annual financial incentives to align with approved corporate and individual objectives; to attract, develop, engage and retain employees who support corporate and operational goals.
The STIP provides incentives to individuals over a one-year performance period, and payout is based on both PotashCorp and the individual successfully achieving annual financial and operating goals.
Design of STIP
The Committee assigns participants an incentive award target, expressed as a percentage of salary. Award targets are designed to align individual and Company performance and to attract, develop and retain key employees.
51 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
The components, and relative weighting, used to determine 2016 NEO STIP awards were:
We believe the STIP appropriately aligns our short-term incentives with individual and Company performance for most employees. Adjusted EBITDA is consistent with the measurement that management uses internally to evaluate the Companys performance. The Committee believes that Adjusted EBITDA is a more commonly used and understood financial metric and facilitates comparisons on a quarterly basis.
STIP Components and Determination of 2016 STIP Payout
For senior executives, including our Named Executive Officers, incentive awards under the STIP can range from 0% to 200% of salary, depending upon an executives responsibilities, and achievement against annual targets of (1) our Adjusted EBITDA, (2) the senior executives individual performance, and (3) our SH&E performance.
STIP Metric #1: Adjusted EBITDA Performance (70% of STIP target award opportunity for 2016)
Adjusted EBITDA Ratio | Award Percentage | |
Less than 50% |
0% | |
At least 50% but less than 100% |
50%-100% | |
100% |
100% | |
More than 100% but less than 150% |
100%-200% | |
150% and above |
200% |
The Adjusted EBITDA performance metric has a performance accelerator such that when the Adjusted EBITDA ratio is greater than 100%, the payout for the portion above 100% is doubled to a maximum of 100%. Under the terms of the STIP, if the Adjusted EBITDA ratio is less than 50% of the target set by the Board for that year, we generally make no payments in respect of the Adjusted EBITDA performance component.
The following table sets forth our Adjusted EBITDA performance under the 2016 STIP:
2016 | ||||
Adjusted EBITDA Target |
8.62 | % | ||
Actual Adjusted EBITDA |
5.86 | % | ||
Adjusted EBITDA Ratio |
67.98 | (1) |
(1) | Due to rounding, dividing actual Adjusted EBITDA by the Adjusted EBITDA target may not result in the exact Adjusted EBITDA ratio. |
Based on the foregoing, the Adjusted EBITDA ratio of 67.98 resulted in payouts for our currently employed NEOs under the Adjusted EBITDA component of the 2016 STIP at 67.98% of target. No payments under the STIP were made to either Mr. Delaney or Mr. Dekok, as, due to their retirements, they did not participate in the STIP.
STIP Metric #2: Individual Performance (20% of STIP target award opportunity for 2016)
Payout under the individual performance component of the NEOs STIP award is based on individual achievement corresponding to such NEOs position and responsibilities against business and development goals in the following seven categories:
1. Safety, Health and Environmental Excellence
| Develop and design programs to increase SH&E awareness within the appropriate Company departments, and where applicable, improve SH&E performance in alignment with corporate strategy |
2. Portfolio & Return Optimization
| Develop, execute and support corporate strategy |
3. Operational Excellence
| Oversee, support and drive proactive innovation and continuous improvement in each relevant department, as appropriate, and advance organizational programs |
4. Customer & Market Development
| Explore opportunities for product growth and facilitate and support market development efforts |
5. Stakeholder Communications & Engagement
| Communicate our corporate strategy to relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, and continue to advantage and encourage employee engagement and internal communication |
6. People Development
| Advance and support employee development, team engagement and organizational leadership and training programs |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 52 |
7. Good Governance
| Improve board and management interactions as well as support corporate initiatives and Board efficiency and effectiveness |
Each NEO, including our CEO, was evaluated with respect to multiple qualitative areas of achievement that comprise each of the seven categories above. None of those particular qualitative areas of achievement was in itself material to overall compensation decisions, but was among several factors considered by the Committee in determining the level of performance in each of the seven categories above.
Achievement of the individual business and development goals correspond to the following target payouts:
Performance Assessment | Target Payout | |
Does Not Meet Expectations |
0.00%-49.99% | |
Partially Meets Expectations |
50.00%-99.99% | |
Fully Meets Expectations |
100.00% | |
Exceeds Expectations |
100.01%-200.00% |
Because the payout of the awards under the STIP is capped at a specified percentage of participants salaries, the Committee can more readily stress-test executive officer compensation and analyze the effect of significant upturns or downturns in PotashCorps performance.
Based on individual performance under the seven categories listed above, payouts for our currently employed NEOs under the individual performance component of the 2016 STIP were at an average of 113.25% of target. For individual NEO payouts, see the table on page 54 titled NEO STIP Awards for Fiscal 2016.
STIP Metric #3: Safety, Health and Environmental (SH&E) Performance (10% of STIP target award opportunity for 2016)
Payout under the SH&E performance component of the NEOs STIP award is based on annual performance against three equally-weighted SH&E trailing performance metrics:
1. | Recordable Injury Rate |
2. | Lost-Time Injury Rate |
3. | Environmental Incidents |
Target payouts for performance against these three metrics are as follows:
SH&E Target Performance* | Target Payout | |||
110.0% |
0% | |||
100.0% | 100% | |||
90.0% | 200% |
* | Payouts for performance results between the performance percentages listed above are interpolated. |
The following table sets forth our SH&E performance used to determine NEO payouts under the 2016 STIP:
2016
Target |
2016
Actual |
Performance
(%) |
Safety
Payout |
|||||||||||||
Recordable Injury Rate Frequency |
0.85 | 0.87 | 102.35% | 76.47% | ||||||||||||
Lost-Time Injury Rate |
0.09 | 0.08 | 88.89% | 200% | ||||||||||||
Number of Environmental Incidents |
18 | 18 | 100.00% | 100% | ||||||||||||
Total |
125.49% |
Based on the foregoing, payouts for currently employed NEOs under the SH&E performance component of the STIP were at 125.49% of target.
2016 STIP Payout
2016 STIP payouts for the currently employed Named Executive Officers were made at a percentage of 82.75% of target overall. The table below breaks down the 2016 STIP Award into its component parts and associated payouts. For further information regarding each NEOs actual STIP payouts, see Executive Compensation Summary Compensation Table beginning on page 63.
53 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
NEO STIP Awards for Fiscal 2016
2016 STIP Award | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Base Salary |
Target STIP
Award Opportunity as a Percentage of Base Salary |
Target STIP
Award Opportunity |
Adjusted
EBITDA Performance (1) |
Individual
Performance (2) |
SH&E
Performance (3) |
Total STIP
Award Actually Paid |
STIP Award
Actually Paid as Percentage of Target STIP Award Opportunity |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jochen Tilk |
Cdn$ | 1,035,000 | 100% | Cdn$ | 1,035,000 | Cdn$ | 492,515 | Cdn$ | 238,050 | Cdn$ | 129,882 | Cdn$ | 860,000 | 83.09% | ||||||||||||||||||
Wayne Brownlee |
$ | 625,674 | 70% | $ | 437,972 | $ | 208,413 | $ | 95,259 | $ | 54,961 | $ | 359,000 | 81.97% | ||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Dowdle |
$ | 465,000 | 55% | $ | 255,750 | $ | 121,701 | $ | 54,986 | $ | 32,094 | $ | 209,000 | 81.72% | ||||||||||||||||||
Joseph Podwika |
$ | 465,000 | 55% | $ | 255,750 | $ | 121,701 | $ | 57,544 | $ | 32,094 | $ | 211,000 | 82.50% | ||||||||||||||||||
Raef Sully |
$ | 465,000 | 55% | $ | 255,750 | $ | 121,701 | $ | 62,659 | $ | 32,094 | $ | 216,000 | 84.46% |
(1) | Based on an Adjusted EBITDA Ratio of 67.98 and a corresponding award percentage of 67.98%. |
(2) | Represents the actual STIP award to each NEO based on achievement of individual performance goals as follows: Mr. Tilk, 115% of his target STIP award opportunity; Mr. Brownlee, 108.75% of his target STIP award opportunity; Mr. Dowdle, 107.50% of his target STIP award opportunity; Mr. Podwika, 112.50% of his target STIP award opportunity; Mr. Sully, 122.50% of his target STIP award opportunity. |
(3) | Based on SH&E performance of 125.49 and a corresponding award percentage of 125.49%. |
Medium- and Long-Term Incentives
Purpose : To align the interests of our executive officers and key employees with shareholders; to provide incentives to executive officers and key employees to promote long-term shareholder interests; to reward executive officers and key employees for superior performance over a three-year performance period and beyond for their continued contributions to our success.
On May 10, 2016, our shareholders approved the LTIP. Under the LTIP, we can grant to eligible officers and employees awards for the issuance of up to 21,000,000 Shares pursuant to the settlement of PSUs (in Shares) and the exercise of stock options granted under the provisions of the LTIP. Starting in 2016, all medium- and long-term incentive awards are granted under the LTIP. Stock options to purchase Shares are granted at an exercise price equal to the market value of the Shares on the date of grant.
As of January 1, 2017, awards for the issuance of 3,673,804 Shares, consisting of stock options to acquire 3,071,064 Shares and PSUs to be settled for 602,740 Shares, or approximately 0.44% of the total outstanding Shares (assuming the exercise of
all such stock options and the settlement of all such PSUs), were issued and outstanding under the LTIP. In addition, based on the closing price of our common stock on the NYSE as of January 1, 2017, currently outstanding awards for the issuance of PSUs to be settled in cash for an aggregate amount equal to $18,391,668.84 had been granted.
Design of the LTIP
The LTIP provides for medium- and long-term incentive awards with overlapping cycles and different vesting provisions from our historical POPs. The PSUs generally represent medium-term incentives, with 3-year performance-based cliff vesting (except with respect to 2016 PSUs, as further discussed below), whereas stock options represent long-term incentives, with 3-year time-based vesting and a 10 year term. Under the LTIP, 2016 target values were as follows:
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 54 |
An individuals LTIP target award value is calculated as the individuals LTIP target award percentage multiplied by the individuals eligible base salary rate. The LTIP target award percentage is determined based on an individuals incentive plan tier. The table below sets out these tiers and the associated executive LTIP target award percentages.
Stock Options under the LTIP
For 2016, stock options made up 30% of LTIP target award value. Subject to the terms of the LTIP and any applicable award agreement, stock options granted under the LTIP vest on the third anniversary of their grant date, subject to continuous employment with the Company or a subsidiary of the Company until such date, and will generally expire no later than the tenth anniversary of the grant date. Stock options granted under the LTIP for 2016 do not have a performance based vesting condition. See Executive Compensation Outstanding Stock Options on page 68 for information on the number of outstanding stock options under each of our existing stock option plans.
Performance Share Units under the LTIP
The performance metrics used to determine vesting of PSUs awarded under the LTIP in 2016 are:
| (a) TSR relative to the TSR Comparator Group, and |
| (b) average annual cash flow return on investment (CFROI) 1 compared to weighted average cost of capital (WACC) 2 , |
with equal weighting between the two metrics. PSU awards pursuant to such performance metrics are referred to as Relative TSR PSUs and CFROI WACC PSUs, respectively.
1 | CFROI is the ratio of after-tax operating cash flow to average gross investment. After-tax operating cash flow is calculated by measuring operating income (net income before deducting income taxes and interest) and removing nonrecurring or unusual items, change in unrealized gains/losses on derivative instruments included in operating income, incentive award accruals, non-cash items such as depreciation and amortization and current income taxes. Average gross investment is calculated by measuring the average of total assets and making adjustments for amortization and depreciation, the fair value adjustment for certain investments, fair value of derivative instrument assets, cash and cash equivalents and certain current liabilities. |
2 | WACC is calculated by measuring the product of (1) the market yield cost of net debt and (2) the market value of net debt divided by the market value of net debt and equity, and adding the product of (a) the cost of equity and (b) the market value of equity divided by the market value of net debt and equity, in each case subject to certain adjustments. |
Each PSU represents one Share and will be settled (to the extent earned) in the form of (1) Shares for grantees subject to the Share ownership guidelines, and (2) cash for all other grantees. The Committee believes that 100% vesting under our PSUs requires superior performance during the applicable performance period and believes that our PSU vesting schedule appropriately links vesting of PSUs to our performance relative to our TSR Comparator Group and with respect to our CFROI-WACC performance. See Executive Compensation Outstanding Stock Options on page 68 for information on the number of outstanding stock options under each of our existing stock option plans.
Three-Year Performance Period for PSUs
In connection with the transition to the LTIP, which is based on a three-year measurement period, the PSU grant in 2016 (2016 PSUs) vests on a pro-rata basis for performance after one year and again after two and three years (each such period, a Performance Period). The PSU grant in 2017 (2017 PSUs) vests after a three-year Performance Period. Vesting is subject to performance and continued employment with the Company. Performance for the 2017 PSUs and each tranche of the 2016 PSUs is measured, and the applicable payouts will be determined, at the end of the applicable Performance Period using the two equally-weighted performance metrics discussed above.
Tranche of
PSU Awards |
Performance Period | Potential PSU Payout | ||
2016 1 (Year 1) |
January 1, 2016 until
December 31, 2016 |
Early 2017 | ||
2016 2 (Year 2) |
January 1, 2016 until
December 31, 2017 |
Early 2018 | ||
2016 3 (Year 3) |
January 1, 2016 until
December 31, 2018 |
Early 2019 | ||
2017 |
January 1, 2017 until
December 31, 2019 |
Early 2020 |
Between 0% and 200% of the target number of each tranche of PSUs may be earned based on performance achievement during the applicable Performance Period.
Vesting Determination: Relative TSR PSUs
Following each Performance Period, the Committee determines our relative TSR for such Performance Period and determines the number of Relative TSR PSUs from the applicable tranche that will vest as set out in the following table:
55 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Relative TSR PSU Vesting Schedule | ||
Peer Group Relative TSR
Ranking |
Relative TSR PSUs Vested from
Tranche |
|
1 |
200% | |
2 |
180% | |
3 |
155% | |
4 |
130% | |
5 |
100% | |
6 |
80% | |
7 |
60% | |
8 |
40% | |
9 |
0% | |
10 |
0% |
The nine peer companies within the TSR Comparator Group are Agrium Inc., Arab Potash Company PLC, CF Industries Holdings Inc., Intrepid Potash Inc., Israel Chemicals Ltd., K+S Aktiengesellschaft, The Mosaic Company, Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile S.A. and Yara International. Maximum vesting at 200% requires that PotashCorp have the highest TSR in the TSR Comparator Group, 100% vesting requires PotashCorp to rank 5 th and no Relative TSR PSUs will vest if PotashCorps ranking is 9 th or lower as compared to the TSR Comparator Group.
Vesting Determination: CFROI-WACC PSUs
Following each Performance Period, the Committee will determine whether and to what extent the CFROI-WACC goal has been satisfied for such Performance Period and will determine the number of CFROI-WACC PSUs from the applicable tranche that will be deemed earned as set out in the following table:
CFROI WACC PSU Vesting Schedule | ||||||||
Performance
Level |
Average CFROI WACC |
% of CFROI-WACC
PSUs Vested from Tranche |
||||||
Below Threshold |
<0% | 0% | ||||||
Threshold |
0% | 50% | ||||||
Target |
2.5% | 100% | ||||||
Maximum |
5% | 200% |
CFROI-WACC PSU vesting at the maximum level requires the average CFROI-WACC to be 5% or greater, and no PSUs will be deemed earned if the CFROI-WACC performance level is less than 0%. Whenever average CFROI-WACC falls between the stated thresholds, the percentage of CFROI-WACC PSUs to vest will be interpolated.
Clawback of Awards
As previously described on page 43, the Company has a general policy on recoupment of compensation. In addition, awards made
under the LTIP, and historically the POPs, contain a detrimental activity clawback provision. The detrimental activity clawback provision permits the Committee to withhold any amounts otherwise payable to the participant or to require the participant to repay certain amounts to PotashCorp in the event that the participant engages in a detrimental activity (including competitive activities, solicitation of our employees or disclosure of our confidential information).
Determination of PSU Vesting
Relative TSR PSUs
During the Year 1 Performance Period ended December 31, 2016, our #3 ranking relative to the TSR Comparator Group resulted in a 155% vesting percentage for Relative TSR PSUs. Year 2 Relative TSR PSUs and Year 3 Relative TSR PSUs will vest based on performance periods ending December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018, respectively.
CFROI-WACC PSUs
During the Year 1 Performance Period ended December 31, 2016, our CFROI-WACC performance of -1.40 resulted in the vesting of 0% of the Year 1 CFROI WACC PSUs. Year 2 CFROI WACC PSUs and Year 3 CFROI WACC PSUs will vest based on Performance Periods ending December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018, respectively.
Purpose : To supplement the income of our employees after their retirement.
We provide post-retirement benefits to employees generally. For a description of our pension plans, see Executive Compensation Pension Benefits beginning on page 69. For information about the amount of Company contributions made for the benefit of Named Executive Officers pursuant to our post-retirement benefit plans, see Executive Compensation Summary Compensation Table beginning on page 63. We do not grant extra years of credited service under our pension plans and post-retirement plans, except as discussed under Employment Agreements and Change-in-Control Agreements on page 58 and otherwise, as appropriate, in exceptional circumstances. As calculated in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IFRS) for financial statement reporting purposes, the following table sets forth our total balance sheet liability under the New Canadian Supplemental Plan, the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan and the U.S. Supplemental Plan for all current and former executive officers and other covered employees as of December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015:
December 31, 2016 | December 31, 2015 | |||||||
Total Supplemental Plan Liability |
$58.1 million | $83.8 million |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 56 |
Purpose : To provide appropriate benefits that reflect the potential difficulty in obtaining comparable employment in a short period of time; to provide for a complete separation between the terminated employee and PotashCorp.
Our current severance policy for termination without cause, which is generally applicable to salaried employees including our currently employed Named Executive Officers, is to provide notice of impending termination, or payment of salary in lieu of notice, equivalent to two weeks for each complete year of service (subject to a minimum of four weeks and a maximum of 52 weeks). Such policy is superseded by specific termination provisions contained in any applicable written agreement and may be subject to adjustment as appropriate in specific circumstances. Payment of severance benefits is discretionary, except as may be required by law.
For additional information regarding certain qualifying termination and change-in-control arrangements entered into with Mr. Tilk and our other currently employed NEOs, see Employment Agreements and Change-in-Control Agreements on page 58.
In connection with G. David Delaneys retirement from his position as PotashCorps Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer on January 31, 2016, PotashCorp entered into a letter agreement with Mr. Delaney, dated as of February 3, 2016, pursuant to which Mr. Delaney agreed to customary non-disparagement and non-solicitation provisions and also agreed to sign a customary release.
The letter agreement entitled Mr. Delaney to:
| a payment of $2,075,078, which was equal to two times the sum of (1) his then-current base salary, (2) his target STIP opportunity for 2015 and (3) his regular employer contributions and target performance-related employer contribution under the PCS U.S. Employees Savings Plan; |
| a payment of $185,253, which was equal to the pro rata portion of his 2016 target STIP opportunity plus an additional $150,000 in recognition of his contributions to the Company; |
| reimbursement of certain outplacement and other costs; |
| exercise his vested stock options, including stock options that may vest after January 31, 2016, during the period ending thirty-six months after retirement; |
| a payout of his 2015 STIP award based on the applicable level of achievement; |
| retirement benefits under the PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S. Executives; and |
| certain other retirement benefits under PotashCorps existing health and benefit plans. |
In connection with Paul Dekoks retirement from his position as President of PCS Phosphate on January 31, 2016, PotashCorp entered into a letter agreement with Mr. Dekok, dated as of February 2, 2016, pursuant to which Mr. Dekok agreed to customary non-disparagement and non-solicitation provisions and also agreed to sign a customary release.
The letter agreement entitled Mr. Dekok to:
| a payment of $1,122,562, which was equal to two times the sum of (1) his then-current base salary, (2) his target STIP opportunity for 2015 and (3) his regular employer contributions and target performance-related employer contribution under the PCS U.S. Employees Savings Plan; |
| a payment of $16,394, which was equal to the pro rata portion of his 2016 target STIP opportunity; and |
| reimbursement of certain outplacement and other costs; |
| exercise his vested stock options, including stock options that may vest after January 31, 2016, during the period ending thirty-six months after retirement; |
| a payout of his 2015 STIP award based on the applicable level of achievement; |
| retirement benefits under the PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S. Executives; and |
| certain other retirement benefits under PotashCorps existing health and benefit plans. |
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION
The Committee annually reviews our CEOs salary and makes recommendations for the following years compensation to the independent members of the Board. With the assistance of Willis Towers Watson, the Committee analyzes, among other things, the relationship between PotashCorps performance and our CEOs annual earnings.
Our CEOs annual compensation is typically determined primarily on the basis of his individual performance and PotashCorps performance. The Committee considers factors that it deems relevant, including our financial results, our TSR and performance relative to similar companies within our industry, survey compensation data obtained from our compensation consultants, the duties and responsibilities of our CEO, our CEOs individual performance relative to written goals established at the beginning of each year, current compensation levels and the effect of significant upturns or downturns in the industry and in our performance. The Committee also considers the compensation of CEOs in the Comparative Compensation Information, although it does not target specific market levels. The comparison of our CEOs compensation to the compensation of CEOs in the Comparative Compensation Information incorporates many
57 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
factors, including the relative sales and market capitalization of the companies, their profitability and shareholder return history, the duties of the CEO and any other extenuating or special circumstances.
The Committee is also responsible for reviewing, approving and recommending to the Board for approval, on an annual basis, the corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our CEO. Outlined below are the factors considered in setting Mr. Tilks base salary and the makeup for his STIP for 2016. For more information regarding NEO STIP metrics see At-Risk Compensation Short-Term Incentives STIP Components and Determination of 2016 STIP Payouts on page 52.
Base Salary
In January 2016, based on a detailed assessment of Mr. Tilks performance in 2015 and the evaluation of then-current market conditions, the Committee recommended no adjustments in Mr. Tilks then-current base salary of Cdn$1,035,000 for 2016, which recommendation was approved by the independent members of the Board.
In January 2017, based on an assessment of 2016 performance and the evaluation of current market conditions, the Committee recommended Cdn$1,200,600 for Mr. Tilks base salary in 2017, which recommendation was approved by the independent members of the Board. The adjustments to Mr. Tilks base salary was made in part to better align Mr. Tilks total target direct compensation with market competitors.
STIP
Mr. Tilks STIP target award for 2016 was 100% of his annual base salary. Like our other NEOs, Mr. Tilks 2016 STIP target award was based on the following components:
1. | Adjusted EBITDA (70% of NEO 2016 STIP target award); |
2. | Individual performance (20% of NEO 2016 STIP target award); and |
3. | SH&E (10% of NEO 2016 STIP target award). |
As described above, with an Adjusted EBITDA Ratio of 67.98, payouts for our NEOs under the Adjusted EBITDA metric of the 2016 STIP were at 67.98% of target and payouts for NEOs under the SH&E performance component of the STIP were at 125.49% of target. Mr. Tilks payout under the individual performance metric of the STIP was at 115% of target. For more information regarding the individual performance goals see At-Risk Compensation Short-Term Incentives STIP Components and Determination of 2016 STIP Payout on page 52.
In January 2017, the Committee and the other independent members of the Board reviewed all relevant factors and Mr. Tilks achievement against the individual performance goals for the purpose of determining Mr. Tilks STIP award. Based on this
assessment, the Committee recommended, and the other independent members of the Board approved, a 2016 STIP award to Mr. Tilk of Cdn$860,000, 83.09% relative to target.
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND CHANGE-IN-CONTROL AGREEMENTS
Chief Executive Officer Employment Agreement
Purpose : To provide certainty around the employment terms for our current Chief Executive Officer.
Effective July 1, 2014, PotashCorp entered into an executive employment agreement with Mr. Tilk (the Employment Agreement). Under the Employment Agreement and accompanying Conditional Offer of Employment (the Offer), PotashCorp agreed to employ Mr. Tilk as Chief Executive Officer for an indefinite period of time.
Under the Employment Agreement and the Offer, Mr. Tilk is generally entitled to the following:
| participation in the STIP with a target award equal to 100% of Mr. Tilks base salary; |
| in lieu of any signing bonus or participation in any medium-term incentive plan and the POP for the 18-month period ended December 31, 2015, a multi-year performance-based incentive award payable in DSUs (the performance period for these awards has passed and 98,414 DSUs (plus dividend equivalents) will vest on July 1, 2017, assuming continued employment); |
| severance benefits equal to two times his annual salary plus the average short term bonus received by Mr. Tilk in the two years prior to termination, plus benefits for two years; and |
| a double-trigger change-in-control severance benefit described under Change-in-Control Agreements below. |
Mr. Tilk also participates in the Canadian Pension Plan and the New Canadian Supplemental Plan and is entitled to other benefit arrangements generally available to PotashCorp executives.
Mr. Tilk has agreed that upon termination by PotashCorp, he will provide a general release of claims with respect to PotashCorp and will be subject to non-compete, non-solicitation and confidentiality restrictions. The non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions will be in force for two years after Mr. Tilk leaves the employ of PotashCorp.
Change-in-Control Agreements
Purpose : To incent executives to remain employed by us when facing a potential change-in-control.
Mr. Tilk
The Employment Agreement with Mr. Tilk includes change-in-control benefits. Change-in-control benefits pursuant to Mr. Tilks Employment Agreement require a change-in-control and either (a) termination by Mr. Tilk of his employment following the
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 58 |
occurrence of a Good Reason, or (b) involuntary termination of Mr. Tilks employment without Cause within two years following a change-in-control. For purposes of this change-in-control agreement, the consummation of the Proposed Transaction would constitute a change-in-control. The severance benefit entitlements upon qualifying termination of employment within two years of a change-in-control are:
| payment of two years of then current base salary plus Mr. Tilks STIP award, calculated by averaging the amount of short-term bonus received by Mr. Tilk in the two years prior to the termination; |
| benefits for two years; and |
| if terminated without just cause, up to two years of coverage under the Canadian Pension Plan and the New Canadian Supplemental Plan. |
In addition, if the change-in-control occurs before Mr. Tilks DSUs awarded under his multi-year incentive plan have vested and either (a) PotashCorp terminates Mr. Tilks employment without just cause or (b) Mr. Tilk terminates his employment following the occurrence of a Good Reason, then the full amount of the units earned will vest as of the date of the change-in-control, subject to certain exceptions.
For additional information about Mr. Tilks Employment Agreement, including the change-in-control provisions and the definitions of change-in-control and Good Reason, see the Executive Employment Agreement, dated July 1, 2014, between PotashCorp and Jochen A. Tilk, filed as Exhibit 10(nn) to our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2014.
Mr. Brownlee
Effective December 30, 1994, we entered into a change-in-control agreement with Mr. Brownlee. The term of Mr. Brownlees agreement automatically renews for successive one-year terms until he reaches age 65 or unless either party gives notice of termination.
Benefits pursuant to Mr. Brownlees change-in-control agreement require both a change-in-control and an involuntary termination of the executives employment within two years following a change-in-control. For purposes of the change-in-control agreement, involuntary termination includes ceasing to be employed for any reason, including constructive dismissal, except by reason of death, disability, resignation or voluntary retirement, or dismissal for dishonest or willful misconduct. In addition, for purposes of this change-in-control agreement, the consummation
of the Proposed Transaction would constitute a change-in-control. The severance benefit entitlements upon termination of employment following a change-in-control are:
| a lump-sum payment of three times his current base salary and average bonus for the last three years; |
| a lump-sum payment of the pro rata target bonus for the year in which the termination occurs; |
| a credit of three additional years of service under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan; |
| up to a three-year continuation of medical, disability and group term life insurance, provided that these benefits terminate upon obtaining similar coverage from a new employer or upon commencement of retirement pension benefits; and |
| financial or outplacement counseling to a maximum of Cdn$10,000. |
Mr. Brownlees change-in-control agreement further provides that all outstanding unvested stock options and PSUs granted to him become exercisable upon the occurrence of a change-in-control. In the event no public market for the Shares exists, we will compensate him for the value of his stock options based on a Share value approved by our shareholders upon a change-in-control, or, if no such value has been approved, the market value of the Shares when last publicly traded. For additional information about Mr. Brownlees change-in-control agreement, including the definitions of change-in-control and termination of employment, see the Form of Agreement dated December 30, 1994, filed as Exhibit 10(p) to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995.
Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully
In November 2016, we entered into change-in-control agreements with Stephen Dowdle, Joseph Podwika and Raef Sully. Mr. Dowdles, Mr. Podwikas and Mr. Sullys change-in-control agreements provide for compensation in the event of a termination of employment by PotashCorp without cause or by the employee for good reason within 24 months following a change-in-control. For purposes of these change-in-control agreements, the consummation of the Proposed Transaction would constitute a change-in-control. Mr. Dowdles, Mr. Podwikas and Mr. Sullys change-in-control agreements will expire 24 months following the earlier of (1) the second anniversary of the consummation of the Proposed Transaction and (2) the termination of the Arrangement Agreement.
59 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
In the event of a qualifying termination of employment, Mr. Dowdles, Mr. Podwikas and Mr. Sullys change-in-control agreements generally entitle each of the foregoing to:
| all earned but unpaid base salary; |
| a lump sum payment consisting of: |
| an amount equal to two times the sum of (1) his base salary plus (2) his target STIP award opportunity as of the date of the termination, |
| an amount equal to his target STIP award opportunity for the year in which the termination occurs, pro-rated based on his period of employment during the applicable fiscal year, |
| an amount equivalent to his matching employer contributions and target performance-related contributions under the PCS U.S. Employees Savings Plan that would have been contributed during the 24 months following termination, |
| an amount reasonably equivalent to his additional periodic benefits that would have accrued in the 24 months following |
termination under the PCS U.S. Employees Pension Plan, the PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S. Executives, and (for Mr. Dowdle) an individual agreement that provides for SERP-like benefits, and |
| 24 months of certain health and welfare benefit premiums; |
| reimbursement of certain outplacement services; and |
| certain additional welfare benefits for a limited period following termination. Mr. Dowdles, Mr. Podwikas and Mr. Sullys change-in-control agreements do not provide for accelerated payments or vesting of stock options or PSUs, except in the circumstances set out in the incentive compensation plans. |
For additional information about the change-in-control agreements signed by Messrs. Dowdle, Podwika and Sully, see the Form of Change in Control Agreement for certain U.S. executives, filed as Exhibit 10(mm) to our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 60 |
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
A table of contents for this Executive Compensation section is set forth below:
Section |
Page No. | |
62 | ||
63 | ||
64 | ||
65 | ||
65 | ||
66 | ||
66 | ||
68 | ||
68 | ||
68 | ||
69 | ||
70 | ||
72 | ||
Payments Made Upon Involuntary Termination or Termination Without Cause |
73 | |
Payments Made Upon Termination Following a Change-in-Control |
73 | |
74 | ||
74 | ||
75 |
61 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Below is a description of our CEO and our Chief Financial Officer, and each of our other Named Executive Officers, excluding Mr. Delaney, who retired from his position as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer on January 31, 2016, and Mr. Dekok, who retired from his position as President of PCS Phosphate on January 31, 2016. Detailed information about the compensation awarded to our Named Executive Officers in 2016, 2015 and 2014 can be found in the Summary Compensation Table and the related compensation tables beginning on page 63.
|
Jochen E. Tilk Age: 53
President and Chief Executive Officer |
Jochen Tilk joined the Company on July 1, 2014 in his current capacity of President and Chief Executive Officer. He serves as the Chairman of Canpotex Limited. He is also a director of both The Fertilizer Institute and the International Fertilizer Association, and is a member of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the C. D. Howe Institute. | ||
|
Wayne R. Brownlee Age: 64
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
Wayne Brownlee was appointed Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer in 2006 after seven years as Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Brownlee is a director of the Saskatoon Community Foundation and the Saskatoon Public Schools Foundation and Co-Chair of the Wanuskewin Fundraising Campaign. | ||
|
Stephen F. Dowdle Age: 66
President, PCS Sales |
Stephen Dowdle was appointed President, PCS Sales in June 2010, after 11 years with the Fertilizer Sales division, most recently as Senior Vice President. He joined PotashCorp in 1999 as Vice President, International Fertilizer Sales. He is on the board of Canpotex Limited, Sinofert Holdings Ltd. (Sinofert) and the International Plant Nutrition Institute. | ||
|
Joseph A. Podwika Age: 54
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |
Joseph Podwika was appointed Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary in 2007. He joined PotashCorp in 1997 as litigation and general business counsel at its Memphis office and later became senior counsel to the phosphate business in Northbrook, where he also assumed responsibility for all US legal affairs. | ||
|
Raef M. Sully Age: 49
President, PCS Nitrogen & Phosphate |
Raef Sully was appointed President, PCS Nitrogen and Phosphate in February of 2016. He most recently served as President, PCS Nitrogen, and was previously Vice President, Project Management and Capital after joining PotashCorp in 2012. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 62 |
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE (1)
The following table sets forth, for our 2016, 2015 and 2014 fiscal years, all compensation of each of the NEOs.
Name and Principal Position | Year |
Salary ($) (2) |
Bonus
($) |
Stock
($) |
Option
($) |
Non-Equity
|
Change in
($) |
All Other
Compensation (7) ($) |
Total ($) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
2016 | 779,649 | | 1,600,063 | (3) | 681,360 | 648,763 | 110,396 | 86,565 | 3,906,796 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President and Chief |
2015 | 822,105 | | 1,494,909 | (4) | | 323,420 | 159,583 | 108,072 | 2,908,089 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Officer |
2014 | 454,373 | | | | 825,423 | 34,161 | 47,338 | 1,361,295 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
2016 | 625,674 | | 743,256 | (3) | 316,626 | 359,000 | | 45,433 | 2,089,989 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Vice |
2015 | 608,928 | | | 669,316 | 351,000 | 2,158,337 | 49,462 | 3,837,043 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President, Treasurer |
2014 | 588,336 | | | 1,486,797 | 550,000 | 806,792 | 50,064 | 3,481,989 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and Chief Financial Officer |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
2016 | 465,000 | | 371,591 | (3) | 156,984 | 209,000 | 164,488 | 28,491 | 1,395,563 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President, PCS Sales |
2015 | 450,863 | | | 340,340 | 204,000 | 482,366 | 30,184 | 1,507,753 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014 | 435,616 | | | 554,822 | 350,000 | 317,693 | 29,210 | 1,687,341 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
2016 | 465,000 | | 371,591 | (3) | 156,984 | 211,000 | 287,845 | 30,497 | 1,522,917 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Vice President, |
2015 | 450,169 | | | 340,340 | 204,000 | 237,880 | 22,891 | 1,255,280 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General Counsel and |
2014 | 434,946 | | | 554,822 | 320,000 | 376,265 | 23,573 | 1,709,606 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Secretary |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raef M. Sully (10) |
2016 | 465,000 | | 371,591 | (3) | 156,984 | 216,000 | 80,426 | 18,727 | 1,308,728 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PCS Nitrogen & |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
G. David Delaney |
2016 | 65,556 | | | | | 662,674 | 2,274,019 | 3,002,249 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former Executive Vice |
2015 | 594,578 | | | 756,756 | 343,000 | 799,638 | 29,024 | 2,522,996 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
President and Chief |
2014 | 574,471 | | | 1,198,447 | 540,000 | 1,909,877 | 28,575 | 4,251,370 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Operating Officer (8) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paul E. Dekok (10) |
2016 | 38,769 | | | | | | 1,147,044 | 1,185,813 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former President, PCS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phosphate (9) |
(1) | Amounts that were paid in Canadian dollars have been converted to United States dollars using the average exchange rate for the month prior to the date of payment. |
(2) | These amounts represent base salary in United States dollars for 2016. Mr. Tilks base salary for 2016 was Cdn$1,035,000. |
(3) | Reports the grant date fair value, as calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation Stock Compensation, of 173,574 PSUs for Mr. Tilk, 80,268 PSUs for Mr. Brownlee, 40,310 PSUs for each of Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully granted under the LTIP on May 11, 2016. Each individuals 2016 grant of PSUs is comprised of three equal tranches of PSUs, which will vest, if at all, based on the achievement of performance metrics over a separate performance period (i.e., a 1-year performance period for the first tranche, a 2-year performance period for the second tranche, and a 3-year performance period for the third tranche, with each performance period beginning on January 1, 2016). If maximum performance levels are achieved under the LTIP for the two-year performance period ending December 31, 2017, the Year 2 PSU awards would pay out in the following amounts and, based on the closing price of the Companys common shares on the NYSE as of February 17, 2017, at the following values: Mr. Tilk, 115,716 PSUs with a value of $2,166,203.52; Mr. Brownlee, 53,804 PSUs with a value of $1,007,210.88; Mr. Dowdle, 26,873 PSUs with a value of $503,062.56; Mr. Podwika, 26,873 PSUs with a value of $503,062.56; and Mr. Sully 26,873 PSUs with a value of 503,062.56. If maximum performance levels are achieved under the LTIP for the three-year performance period ending December 31, 2018, the Year 3 PSU awards would pay out in the following amounts and, based on the closing price of the Companys common shares on the NYSE as of February 17, 2017, at the following values: Mr. Tilk, 115,716 PSUs with a value of $2,166,203.56; Mr. Brownlee, 53,804 PSUs with a value of $1,007,210.88; Mr. Dowdle, 26,874 PSUs with a value of $503,062.56; Mr. Podwika, 26,874 PSUs with a value of $503,062.56; and Mr. Sully 26,874 PSUs with a value of 503,062.56. The Year 1 PSU Awards that were earned as of December 31, 2016 have the following values: Mr. Tilk, $829,050; Mr. Brownlee, $385,072; Mr. Dowdle, $192,536; Mr. Podwika, $192,536; and Mr. Sully, $192,536. The performance periods for Year 2 PSUs and Year 3 PSUs are not yet complete. For further discussion, see Stock Awards on page 66. |
(4) | Reports the fair market value of the 98,414 deferred share units actually earned by Mr. Tilk under his multi-year incentive plan based on the $15.19 closing price of PotashCorp common stock on January 27, 2016. For further discussion, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis Employment Agreements and Change- in- Control Agreements Chief Executive Officer Employment Agreement on page 58. The grant date fair value, as calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation Stock Compensation, of Mr. Tilks deferred share units was $3,390,401. For purposes of the FASB ASC Topic 718 calculations, the grant date fair value of the PSUs was estimated based on multiple input variables that determine the probability of satisfying the performance conditions (including internal financial metrics, PotashCorp and peer total shareholder return and other variables) and based on the $36.98 closing price of PotashCorp common stock on February 20, 2015. |
(5) | Reports the grant date fair value, as calculated in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, of options granted pursuant to the LTIP, 2015 POP and 2014 POP, respectively. The amounts reported with respect to options granted assume that all option grants vest at 100%. The grant date fair value of options granted pursuant to the 2014 POP include both the May 15, 2014 and the December 12, 2014 POP |
63 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
grants. For a discussion of the assumptions made in the valuation of the awards, see Note 27 to our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, Note 24 to our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and Note 24 to our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. |
(6) | Reports amounts earned pursuant to our STIP for 2016, 2015 and 2014 performance, which amounts were paid in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. For further discussion, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis At-Risk Compensation Short-Term Incentives on page 51. |
(7) | The following table sets forth the amounts attributable to each of the compensation items included in All Other Compensation for each Named Executive Officer in 2016: |
Company
($) |
Company
($) |
Life Insurance
($) |
Tax Gross-ups for
($) |
Severance ($) |
Perquisites ($) |
Total ($) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
9,346 | 38,393 | 4,633 | 15,006 | | 19,187 | (e) | 86,565 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
9,386 | 30,949 | 3,760 | 1,338 | | | 45,433 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
| 16,758 | (a) | 8,105 | 3,628 | | | 28,491 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
| 15,872 | (b) | 4,404 | | | 10,221 | (f) | 30,497 | |||||||||||||||||||
Raef M. Sully |
| 15,247 | (c) | 3,480 | | | | 18,727 | ||||||||||||||||||||
G. David Delaney |
| 12,635 | 1,053 | | 2,260,331 | (d) | | 2,274,019 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Paul E. Dekok |
| 7,478 | 610 | | 1,138,956 | (d) | | 1,147,044 |
(a) | For 2016, contributions to the 401(k) plan of $13,041 were made for Mr. Dowdle. In addition, contributions of $3,717 exceeded the 401(k) plans statutory limits for 2016 and therefore, were immediately taxable and paid to Mr. Dowdle in cash. |
(b) | For 2016, contributions to the 401(k) plan of $12,169 were made for Mr. Podwika. In addition, contributions of $3,703 exceeded the 401(k) plans statutory limits for 2016 and therefore, were immediately taxable and paid to Mr. Podwika in cash. |
(c) | For 2016, contributions to the 401(k) plan of $13,095 were made for Mr. Sully. In addition, contributions of $2,152 exceeded the 401(k) plans statutory limits in 2015 and therefore, were immediately taxable and paid to Mr. Sully in cash. |
(d) | Includes any severance payment, the value of any acceleration of vesting of stock and option awards triggered by retirement, and any other payment or benefit that was paid or accrued in connection with retirement. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis Severance Benefits beginning on page 57 for additional information. |
(e) | Perquisites include, for Mr. Tilk, spousal/family travel benefits (while accompanying the executive on company business), executive physicals and parking. The aggregate incremental cost of spousal/family travel benefits, executive physicals, and parking paid for the benefit of Mr. Tilk was $19,187 in 2016. |
(f) | Perquisites include, for Mr. Podwika, spousal/family travel benefits (while accompanying the executive on company business) and executive physicals. The aggregate incremental cost of spousal/family travel benefits paid for the benefit of Mr. Podwika was $10,221 in 2016. |
(8) | Mr. Delaney retired from his position as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company on January 31, 2016. |
(9) | Mr. Dekok retired from his position as President of PCS Phosphate on January 31, 2016. |
(10) | Mr. Sully and Mr. Dekok were not NEOs in 2015 or 2014. |
The following table sets forth the total compensation awarded to the CEO and all our Named Executive Officers, collectively, in each case as a percentage of our net income in each of the last five completed fiscal years. Total compensation reflects the Named Executive Officers total compensation as disclosed in the Total column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 63. Net income is calculated in accordance with IFRS.
For additional information about net income, see our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014.
Net Income |
Total Compensation
of Chief Executive Officer |
% of Net
Income |
Aggregate Total
Compensation of NEOs |
% of Net
Income |
||||||||||||||||
2016 |
$ | 323 million | $ | 3.9 million | 1.2% | $ | 14.4 million | 4.5% | ||||||||||||
2015 |
$ | 1,270 million | $ | 2.9 million | 0.2% | $ | 12.0 million | 0.9% | ||||||||||||
2014 (1) |
$ | 1,536 million | $ | 5.3 million | 0.3% | $ | 20.4 million | 1.3% | ||||||||||||
2013 |
$ | 1,785 million | $ | 6.4 million | 0.4% | $ | 12.9 million | 0.7% | ||||||||||||
2012 |
$ | 2,079 million | $ | 11.0 million | 0.5% | $ | 24.3 million | 1.2% |
(1) | Total compensation of Chief Executive Officer includes compensation paid to both Mr. Tilk, who began serving as our CEO on July 1, 2014, and William J. Doyle, who served as CEO through such date in 2014. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 64 |
The following table provides information relating to plan-based awards granted in 2016 to each of the Named Executive Officers.
Estimated Possible Payouts Under
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (1) |
Estimated Future Payouts Under
Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2) |
All Other
Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options (3) |
Exercise or
Base Price of Option Awards (4) ($/Sh) |
Grant Date
Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards ($) (6) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name |
Grant
Date |
Threshold
($) |
Target
($) |
Maximum
($) |
Threshold
(#) |
Target
(#) |
Maximum
(#) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
STIP |
272,877 | 779,649 | 1,559,298 | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (Options) |
5/11/16 | 351,792 | Cdn$ | 20.87 | 681,630 | (5) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (PSUs) |
5/11/16 | 78,108 | 173,574 | 347,148 | 1,600,063 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
STIP |
153,290 | 437,972 | 875,944 | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (Options) |
5/11/16 | 163,412 | Cdn$ | 20.87 | 316,626 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (PSUs) |
5/11/16 | 36,283 | 80,628 | 161,256 | 743,256 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
STIP |
89,513 | 255,750 | 511,500 | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (Options) |
5/11/16 | 72,678 | 16.15 | 156,984 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (PSUs) |
5/11/16 | 18,140 | 40,310 | 80,620 | 371,591 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
STIP |
89,513 | 255,750 | 511,500 | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (Options) |
5/11/16 | 72,678 | 16.15 | 156,984 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (PSUs) |
5/11/16 | 18,140 | 40,310 | 80,620 | 371,591 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raef M. Sully |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
STIP |
89,513 | 255,750 | 511,500 | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (Options) |
5/11/16 | 72,678 | 16.15 | 156,984 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LTIP (PSUs) |
5/11/16 | 18,140 | 40,310 | 80,620 | 371,591 |
(1) | The amounts in the columns under Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards set forth the threshold, target and maximum values of the 2016 STIP awards based on respective Adjusted EBITDA of 50%, 100% and 150% of target Adjusted EBITDA for 2016, assuming performance with respect to SH&E and individual performance metrics at 100% of target. The actual payout of each Named Executive Officers 2016 STIP award is set forth in the Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 63. |
(2) | The LTIP permits the grant to eligible employees of awards of PSUs. |
(3) | The LTIP permits the grant to eligible employees of awards of time-based stock options. |
(4) | Pursuant to the terms of the plan, stock options under the LTIP were granted with an exercise price equal to the closing market price per Share on the TSX for Mr. Tilk and Mr. Brownlee, and on the NYSE for Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully, in each case on the trading day prior to the grant date. Stock options under the LTIP were granted following shareholder approval of the plan at the 2016 Annual Meeting on May 10, 2016. |
(5) | For purposes of the FASB ASC Topic 718 calculations, the grant date fair value of the PSUs was estimated based on multiple input variables that determine the probability of satisfying the performance conditions (including internal financial metrics, PotashCorp and peer total shareholder return and other variables) and based on the $16.15 closing price of PotashCorp common stock on May 10, 2016. |
(6) | Amounts that were paid in Canadian dollars have been converted to United States dollars using the average exchange rate for the month prior to the date of payment. |
The grant date fair value of stock options granted during 2016, 2015 and 2014 pursuant to our LTIP, 2015 POP and 2014 POP, respectively, are reported in the Option Awards column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 63. The grant date fair value of stock options granted during 2016 is also included in the Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards column of
the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table above. On May 15, 2014, Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Delaney each received a grant of 101,900 performance options and Mr. Podwika and Mr. Dowdle each received a grant of 48,300 performance options. In addition, on December 12, 2014 and in lieu of commencing a 2015 2017 MTIP, Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Delaney each received a grant of 46,500 performance options, and Mr. Podwika and Mr. Dowdle
65 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
each received a grant of 20,200 performance options. On May 12, 2015, Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Delaney each received a grant of 132,300 performance options and Mr. Dowdle and Mr. Podwika each received a grant of 59,500 performance options. On May 11, 2016, Mr. Tilk received a grant of 351,792 time-based vesting stock options under the LTIP, Mr. Brownlee received a grant of 163,412 time-based vesting stock options under the LTIP, and Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully each received a grant of 72,678 time-based vesting stock options under the LTIP. Mr. Tilk was not granted any performance options in 2015 or 2014 because pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement he would not have otherwise been entitled to participate in a medium term incentive plan for the 2015-2017 period. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis At-Risk Compensation Medium- and Long-Term Incentives beginning on page 54 for a description of our LTIP under which we granted stock options to officers and employees in 2016.
Unless otherwise noted, amounts reported under the Stock Awards column of the Summary Compensation Table above reflect Share-settled PSUs granted during 2016 pursuant to the LTIP. On May 11, 2016, Mr. Tilk received a grant of 173,574 PSUs, Mr. Brownlee received a grant of 80,268 PSUs, and Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully each received a grant of 40,310 PSUs. The grant date fair values of PSUs granted in 2016 under the LTIP are reported in the Stock Awards column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 63. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis At-Risk Compensation Medium-and Long-Term Incentives Performance Share Units under the LTIP beginning on page 55 for a description of our LTIP under which we granted PSUs during 2016, as well as an explanation of the vesting of such PSUs.
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END
The following table provides information relating to exercisable and unexercisable stock options and unvested stock awards as of December 31, 2016 for each of the Named Executive Officers.
Option Awards | Stock Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name |
Number of
Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable (1) |
Number of
Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable (2) |
Equity Incentive
Options (3) |
Option
Exercise Price |
Option
Expiration Date |
Equity Incentive
Rights That
Vested (4) |
Equity Incentive
Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (6) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 351,792 | Cdn$ | 20.87 | 5/11/2026 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
57,858 | (4) | $ | 1,041,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
57,858 | (5) | $ | 1,041,000 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
270,000 | | Cdn$ | 23.16 | 5/3/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
70,950 | Cdn$ | 66.57 | 5/8/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
93,000 | Cdn$ | 37.32 | 5/7/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
60,300 | Cdn$ | 35.00 | 5/6/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
43,100 | Cdn$ | 50.20 | 5/12/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
66,500 | Cdn$ | 39.93 | 5/17/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
74,300 | Cdn$ | 44.67 | 5/16/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
101,900 | (7) | Cdn$ | 40.43 | 5/15/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46,500 | (7) | Cdn$ | 40.42 | 12/12/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
132,300 | Cdn$ | 39.15 | 5/12/2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
26,876 | (4) | $ | 483,562 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
26,876 | (5) | $ | 483,562 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
163,412 | Cdn$ | 20.87 | 5/11/2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60,300 | | $ | 20.91 | 5/3/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
16,500 | $ | 66.26 | 5/8/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,700 | $ | 32.01 | 5/7/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,800 | $ | 34.05 | 5/6/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,900 | $ | 52.31 | 5/12/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
33,000 | $ | 39.46 | 5/17/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
35,700 | $ | 43.78 | 5/16/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
48,300 | (7) | $ | 37.13 | 5/15/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,200 | (7) | $ | 35.07 | 12/12/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59,500 | $ | 32.32 | 5/12/2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,436 | (4) | $ | 241,745 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,437 | (5) | $ | 241,745 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
72,678 | $ | 16.15 | 5/11/2026 |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 66 |
Option Awards | Stock Awards | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name |
Number of
Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable (1) |
Number of
Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable (2) |
Equity Incentive
Options (3) |
Option
Exercise Price |
Option
Expiration Date |
Equity Incentive
Rights That
Vested (4) |
Equity Incentive
Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (6) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60,300 | $ | 20.91 | 5/3/2017 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
35,250 | | $ | 66.26 | 5/8/2018 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46,500 | $ | 32.01 | 5/7/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
30,000 | $ | 34.05 | 5/6/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,900 | $ | 52.31 | 5/12/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
33,000 | $ | 39.46 | 5/17/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
35,700 | $ | 43.78 | 5/16/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
48,300 | (7) | $ | 37.13 | 5/15/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,200 | (7) | $ | 35.07 | 12/12/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59,500 | $ | 32.32 | 5/12/2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,436 | (4) | $ | 241,745 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,437 | (5) | $ | 241,745 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
72,678 | $ | 16.15 | 5/11/2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raef M. Sully |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,000 | $ | 43.78 | 5/16/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
23,800 | (7) | $ | 37.13 | 5/15/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,200 | (7) | $ | 35.07 | 12/12/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59,500 | $ | 32.32 | 5/12/2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
72,678 | $ | 16.15 | 5/11/2026 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,346 (4) | $241,745 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13,347 (5) | $241,745 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
G. David Delaney (8) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
140,400 | | $ | 20.91 | 5/3/2017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
35,250 | $ | 66.26 | 5/8/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
46,500 | $ | 32.01 | 5/7/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
30,000 | $ | 34.05 | 5/6/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
43,100 | $ | 52.31 | 5/12/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
66,500 | $ | 39.46 | 5/17/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
74,300 | $ | 43.78 | 5/16/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
101,900 | (7) | $ | 37.13 | 5/15/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
46,500 | (7) | $ | 35.07 | 12/12/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
132,300 | $ | 32.32 | 5/12/2025 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Paul E. Dekok (9) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4,350 | $ | 66.26 | 5/8/2018 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
5,250 | $ | 32.01 | 5/7/2019 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3,600 | $ | 34.05 | 5/6/2020 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3,600 | $ | 52.31 | 5/12/2021 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4,200 | $ | 39.46 | 5/17/2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
7,100 | $ | 43.78 | 5/16/2023 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
23,800 | (7) | $ | 37.13 | 5/15/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
20,200 | (7) | $ | 35.07 | 12/12/2024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
59,500 | $ | 32.32 | 5/12/2025 |
(1) | As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate before tax value of unexercised stock options that are currently exercisable held by each Named Executive Officer was as follows: Mr. Tilk, $0; Mr. Brownlee, $203,681; Mr. Dowdle, $0; Mr. Podwika, $0, Mr. Sully, $0, Mr. Delaney, $0 and Mr. Dekok, $0. The aggregate value of unexercised stock options held by Mr. Brownlee was converted to United States dollars using the average Canadian to United States dollar exchange rate of 1.3256 for fiscal year 2016. |
(2) | The outstanding equity incentive plan awards reported in the Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable column represent unvested stock options granted under the LTIP. Such stock options generally vest, if at all, on the third anniversary of the grant date. |
(3) | The outstanding equity incentive plan awards reported in the Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options column represent unearned stock options pursuant to our 2015 POP and 2014 POP. Stock options granted pursuant to the 2014 POP vested at the end of the performance period ended December 31, 2016 and stock options granted pursuant to the 2015 POP vest at the end of the performance period ending December 31, 2017. The reported number of Shares underlying the stock options assumes achievement of the plans maximum performance levels. |
(4) | The outstanding equity incentive plan awards reported under Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights that Have Not Vested column represent outstanding PSU year 2 awards pursuant to our LTIP, which vest based on achievement of the applicable performance metrics for the Year 2 performance period beginning January 1, 2016 and ended December 31, 2017. The reported number of units is based on achievement of the LTIPs threshold performance level. |
(5) | The outstanding equity incentive plan awards reported under Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights that Have Not Vested column represent outstanding PSU year 3 awards pursuant to our LTIP, which vest based on achievement of the applicable performance metrics for the Year 3 performance period beginning January 1, 2016 and ended December 31, 2018. The reported number of units is based on achievement of the LTIPs threshold performance level. |
(6) | Based on the average closing price per Share on December 31, 2016, in accordance with the LTIP. Amounts valued in Canadian dollars have been converted into United States dollars using the average exchange rate for the month prior to valuation. |
(7) | Represents stock options granted under the 2014 POP that vested at the end of the performance period ended December 31, 2016. The before tax value of such vested stock options held by each Named Executive Officer, as of December 31, 2016, was $0. |
(8) | Mr. Delaney retired from his position as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company on January 31, 2016. Per the terms of the POPs, Mr. Delaneys outstanding options will expire thirty-six months after retirement. |
(9) | Mr. Dekok retired from his position as President of PCS Phosphate on January 31, 2016. Per the terms of the POPs, Mr. Dekoks outstanding options will expire thirty-six months after retirement. |
67 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
As of February 20, 2017, stock options to acquire 3,071,064 Shares were outstanding under the LTIP. In addition, stock options to acquire 3,411,500 Shares were outstanding under the 2015 POP, and stock options to acquire 3,082,900 Shares were outstanding under the 2014 POP. Stock options to acquire 1,830,600 Shares, 1,308,900 Shares, 922,200 Shares, 919,200 Shares, 1,281,000 Shares, 991,350 Shares and 2,590,800 Shares, which have vested, are outstanding under the 2013 POP, 2012 POP, 2011 POP, 2010 POP, 2009 POP, 2008 POP and 2007 POP, respectively. See Compensation Discussion and Analysis At-Risk Compensation Medium- and Long-Term Incentives beginning on page 54 for a description of our LTIP under which we granted stock options, as well as PSUs, to officers and employees in 2016.
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED
The following table provides information relating to amounts received upon the exercise of stock options and vesting of stock awards by each of the Named Executive Officers during 2016.
Option Awards | Stock Awards | |||||||||||||||||||
Name |
Number of Shares
Acquired on Exercise (#) |
Value Realized
Upon Exercise ($) |
Number of Shares
Acquired on Vesting (1) (#) |
Value Realized
Upon Vesting (2) ($) |
||||||||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
| | 46,078 | 812,291 | ||||||||||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
| | 26,876 | 377,287 | ||||||||||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
| | 10,701 | 192,511 | ||||||||||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
94,500 | 510,917.35 | 10,701 | 192,511 | ||||||||||||||||
Raef M. Sully |
| | 10,701 | 192,511 | ||||||||||||||||
G. David Delaney (3) |
| | | | ||||||||||||||||
Paul E. Dekok (4) |
| | | |
(1) | Reports the number of Year 1 PSUs under the LTIP that vested based on company performance metrics over the one-year performance period ended December 31, 2016. The PSUs were settled in shares of our common stock. |
(2) | Based on the average closing price per Share on December 30, 2016, in accordance with the LTIP. |
(3) | Mr. Delaney retired from his position as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company on January 31, 2016. |
(4) | Mr. Dekok retired from his position as President of PCS Phosphate on January 31, 2016. |
The table below sets forth, for each Named Executive Officer currently employed by the Company, the number and value of Shares held and whether such Named Executive Officer complies with the Share ownership requirements. For the purposes of calculating Mr. Tilks ownership, DSUs earned but unvested under Mr. Tilks multi-year incentive plan are included in the value of Shares held. As of February 20, 2017, each of the Named Executive Officers currently employed by the Company was in compliance with the applicable Share ownership requirements.
Named Executive Officer |
2016 Annual
Base Salary (1) ($) |
Required
Multiple |
Number of
Shares Held |
Value
of
Shares Held (3) ($) |
Complies with
Share Ownership Requirements (4) |
|||||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
Cdn$ 1,035,000 | 5x | 28,291 | Cdn$ | 3,266,904 | (2) | Yes | |||||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
625,674 | 3x | 680,635 | (5) | 12,741,487 | Yes | ||||||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
465,000 | 3x | 157,042 | 2,939,826 | Yes | |||||||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
465,000 | 3x | 68,943 | 1,290,613 | Yes | |||||||||||||
Raef M. Sully (6) |
465,000 | 3x | 9,766 | 182,820 | Yes |
(1) | Base salary reported in Canadian dollars for Mr. Tilk. Amount differs from that reported in the summary compensation table due to conversion into United States dollars for purposes of reporting on the summary compensation table. |
(2) | Based on the NYSE closing price per Share of $ 18.72 on February 17, 2017. For Mr. Tilk, based on the TSX closing price per Share of Cdn$ 24.50 on February 17, 2017. |
(3) | The cost base for the at-risk Shares (which for greater certainty does not include Mr. Tilks DSUs) of each Named Executive Officer currently employed with the Corporation is approximately as follows: Mr. Tilk Cdn$641,195; Mr. Brownlee $20,909,190; Mr. Dowdle $3,529,340; Mr. Podwika $2,537,222; and Mr. Sully $182,649. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 68 |
(4) | The value for Mr. Tilk includes Cdn$693,130 based on 28,291 shares held, and Cdn$2,573,774, the February 17, 2017 TSX-based market value of the 105,052 DSUs, which include dividend equivalents, that Mr. Tilk has earned under his multi-year incentive plan. These DSUs fully vest on July 1, 2017 assuming his continued employment with the Corporation through such date. Mr. Tilk has until July 1, 2019 to achieve his share ownership requirement. |
(5) | Includes 71,655 Shares held in the Brownlee Family Foundation Inc. |
(6) | Mr. Sully has until July 2019 to satisfy his minimum share ownership requirement. |
The following table provides information relating to the present value of each of the Named Executive Officers accumulated benefit under the New Canadian Supplemental Plan, the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, the U.S. Pension Plan and the U.S. Supplemental Plan, in each case at December 31, 2016.
Name | Plan Name |
Number of Years
Credited Service (#) |
Present Value of
Accumulated Benefit (1) ($) |
Payments During
Last Fiscal Year ($) |
||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
New Canadian Supplemental Plan | 2.50 | 304,139 | | ||||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan | 35.00 | (2) | 13,056,972 | | |||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
U.S. Pension Plan | 17.42 | 889,217 | | ||||||||||
U.S. Supplemental Plan | 27.50 | (3) | 2,818,607 | | ||||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
U.S. Pension Plan | 19.67 | 793,689 | | ||||||||||
U.S. Supplemental Plan | 19.67 | 1,451,822 | | |||||||||||
Raef M. Sully |
U.S. Pension Plan | 4.42 | 121,403 | | ||||||||||
U.S. Supplemental Plan | 4.42 | 106,109 | | |||||||||||
G. David Delaney (4) |
U.S. Pension Plan | 32.75 | 1,403,947 | 70,624 | ||||||||||
U.S. Supplemental Plan | 32.75 | | 4,166,791 | |||||||||||
Paul E. Dekok (5) |
U.S. Pension Plan | 23.83 | 939,732 | 48,197 | ||||||||||
U.S. Supplemental Plan | 23.83 | | 288,071 |
(1) | The present value of accumulated benefit assumes retirement at the earliest age that does not require a reduction in benefits. For the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, such age is 62. For the U.S. Pension Plan and U.S. Supplemental Plan, such age is 65 or age 62 with 20 years of service. |
(2) | Mr. Brownlees years of credited service includes 11.6 years of service, from May 1977 to December 1988, with the government of Saskatchewan prior to the privatization of PotashCorp in 1989 and 25.4 years of service, from December 1988 to the present, with PotashCorp and our predecessors. Under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, credited service is capped at 35.00 years. |
(3) | The difference in Mr. Dowdles years of credited service under the U.S. Pension Plan and the U.S. Supplemental Plan relates to 11.08 years of credited service with Canpotex in accordance with the terms of Mr. Dowdles Supplemental Retirement Agreement. |
(4) | Mr. Delaney retired from his position as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company on January 31, 2016. |
(5) | Mr. Dekok retired from his position as President of PCS Phosphate on January 31, 2016. |
The present values of the accumulated benefits reported in the above table are generally calculated in accordance with the assumptions used for financial reporting purposes. See Note 26 to our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The total present value of accumulated benefits in our financial statements is calculated in accordance with IFRS. The assumptions for Mr. Brownlee differ from the assumptions disclosed in Note 21 to our consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The key assumptions used in calculating the present value of accumulated benefits for Mr. Brownlee are as follows:
Interest Rate |
3.60% per annum | |||
Retirement Age |
Age 62 or current age if older | |||
Mortality Rates |
2014 Canadian Pensioners Mortality Table (with generational projection) |
69 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
The following table sets forth our accrued obligation at the beginning and end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 for each of the Named Executive Officers benefits under the Canadian Pension Plan, the New Canadian Supplemental Plan, the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, the U.S. Pension Plan and the U.S. Supplemental Plan and the accumulated value at the beginning and end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 for each of the Named Executive Officers company-provided benefits under the Savings Plan and the 401(k) Plans.
Name | Plan Name |
Accrued Obligation/ Accumulated Value at Start of Year ($) |
Compensatory Changes ($) |
Non- Compensatory Changes (1) ($) |
Accrued Obligation/ Accumulated Value at End of Year ($) |
|||||||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk |
Canadian Pension Plan New Canadian Supplemental Plan Savings Plan |
|
36,988
193,743 29,602 |
|
|
9,346
100,961 38,394 |
|
|
14,996
9,435 8,611 |
|
|
61,330
304,139 76,607 |
|
|||||
Wayne R. Brownlee |
Canadian Pension Plan Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan Savings Plan |
|
1,440,599
13,478,324 519,124 |
|
|
9,386
(427,915) 30,949 |
|
|
121,511
6,563 78,981 |
|
|
1,571,496
13,056,972 629,054 |
|
|||||
Stephen F. Dowdle |
U.S. Pension Plan U.S. Supplemental Plan 401(k) Plans |
|
821,204
2,722,131 627,691 |
|
|
64,000
83,175 13,060 |
|
|
4,013
13,301 61,173 |
|
|
889,217
2,818,607 701,924 |
|
|||||
Joseph A. Podwika |
U.S. Pension Plan U.S. Supplemental Plan 401(k) Plans |
|
681,571
1,276,095 366,874 |
|
|
52,458
64,028 12,169 |
|
|
59,659
111,699 61,902 |
|
|
793,689
1,451,822 440,946 |
|
|||||
Raef M. Sully |
U.S. Pension Plan U.S. Supplemental Plan 401(k) Plans |
|
85,280
61,806 66,116 |
|
|
28,211
38,569 13,095 |
|
|
7,912
5,735 24,303 |
|
|
121,403
106,109 103,514 |
|
|||||
G. David Delaney (2) |
U.S. Pension Plan U.S. Supplemental Plan 401(k) Plans |
|
1,232,099
3,746,888 1,013,782 |
|
|
3,593
18,162 6,043 |
|
|
168,254
(3,765,049 (1,014,188 |
) ) |
|
1,403,947
5,637 |
|
|||||
Paul E. Dekok (3) |
U.S. Pension Plan U.S. Supplemental Plan 401(k) Plans |
|
1,147,309
337,665 668,669 |
|
|
24,320
23,452 5,744 |
|
|
(231,898
(361,118 (674,413 |
)
) ) |
|
939,732
|
|
(1) | Non-compensatory changes include mandatory and voluntary employee contributions and market changes in account value. For 2016, employee contributions for each Named Executive Officer were as follows: Mr. Tilk, $13,005; Mr. Brownlee, $13,005; Mr. Dowdle, $24,000; Mr. Podwika, $18,000; Mr. Sully, $15,589; Mr. Delaney, $5,450; and Mr. Dekok,$1,173. |
(2) | Mr. Delaney retired from his position as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company on January 31, 2016. |
(3) | Mr. Dekok retired from his position as President of PCS Phosphate on January 31, 2016. |
In Canada, eligible employees, including senior executives, participate in the Canadian Pension Plan and the Canadian Supplemental Plans. The Canadian Pension Plan is a defined contribution plan that includes individual and company contributions. The Canadian Supplemental Plans include:
| The Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan is a defined benefit plan with benefits calculated based on the participants service and the plans benefit formula. The Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan was closed to new participants effective June 30, 2014. |
| The New Canadian Supplemental Plan is a defined contribution plan that includes only Company contributions. It was approved by the Board and became effective July 1, 2014. The New Canadian Supplemental Plan was originally designed to attract and retain executives by providing supplemental pension benefits slightly above the median comparable companies at the |
time of its adoption, allowing for the vesting of pension benefits after two years of service consistent with the Canadian Pension Plan and providing a reasonable rate of return without the volatility of the equity markets. |
In the United States, eligible employees, including senior executives, participate in the U.S. Pension Plan and the U.S. Supplemental Plan. Like the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, the U.S. Pension Plan and the U.S. Supplemental Plan are defined benefit plans with benefits calculated based on the participants service and the plans benefit formula.
In addition, U.S. employees are eligible to participate in the 401(k) Plans and certain Canadian employees participate in the Savings Plan. We make contributions to the 401(k) Plans and the Savings Plan for the benefit of participants in accordance with the terms of such plans.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 70 |
We maintain the Canadian Pension Plan, which generally requires all participating employees to contribute 5.5% of their earnings (or such lesser amount as is deductible for Canadian income tax purposes) while PotashCorp contributes an equal amount. When an individual retires, the full amount in the individuals account is used to provide the pension.
We also maintain the (1) New Canadian Supplemental Plan, that provides eligible executives a Company contribution of 10% of the participants earnings, reduced by Company contributions to the Canadian Pension Plan, and (2) the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, which provide a supplementary pension benefit for certain of our officers and other executives. Under the basic terms of the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, a pension benefit is provided in an amount equal to 1.5% of the average of the participants three highest consecutive years earnings multiplied by the participants years of pensionable service (to a maximum of 35 years), minus any annual retirement benefit payable due to employer contributions under the Canadian Pension Plan. For the purposes of both the New and Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, earnings are defined as the participants annual base pay plus 100% of all bonuses payable for such year pursuant to the STIP (subject to a maximum of 100% of base salary for such year).
The normal retirement age pursuant to the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan was 65, with a reduction in benefits for early retirement prior to age 62. No benefits pursuant to the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan are payable if termination occurs prior to age 55. Benefits payable to certain employees who have reached the minimum age (55) for retirement pursuant to the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan may be secured by letters of credit provided by us or may be otherwise secured by us, if appropriate. Depending on the employees election, benefits are generally paid in the form of a single lump sum payment equal to the actuarial present value of the annual benefits or, in certain circumstances, an annuity for life.
The benefit payable under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan to Mr. Brownlee is an amount equal to (1) 5% of the average of the senior officers three highest consecutive years earnings multiplied by his years of pensionable service (to a maximum of 10 years), plus (2) 1.5% of the average of his three highest consecutive years of earnings multiplied by his years of pensionable service in excess of 25 years to a maximum of 10 additional years, minus (3) any annual employer-provided retirement benefit payable under the Prior Canadian Pension Plan and certain other tax qualified plans.
Prior to January 1, 1999, PCS Phosphate Company Inc. and PCS Nitrogen, Inc. maintained separate defined benefit pension plans (respectively, the Phosphate Pension Plan and the Nitrogen Pension Plan) for their respective eligible U.S. employees, including Mr. Podwika, in the case of PCS Nitrogen. Effective January 1, 1999, we consolidated our pension plans for U.S.
employees and the Nitrogen Pension Plan was merged with and into the Phosphate Pension Plan to form the U.S. Pension Plan.
Under the U.S. Pension Plan, participants age 65 with 5 years of service (or age 62 or older with at least 20 years of service) receive a retirement benefit of 1.5% of the participants final average compensation (as defined below) multiplied by the participants years of service accrued after December 31, 1998 (to a maximum of 35 years) in the form of a life annuity. Participants with service accrued prior to January 1, 1999 under previous plans, including Mr. Podwika, Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok, will have a portion of their retirement benefit calculated under the formulas for such plans. Employees not meeting the minimum age or years of service requirement at termination will receive a reduced benefit.
Pursuant to the U.S. Pension Plan, final average compensation is defined as compensation for the highest paid 60 consecutive months of service out of the last 120 months of service. Compensation is defined as a participants base pay plus the annually paid bonus under our STIP (subject to a maximum of 100% of base salary for such year). The retirement benefits from the U.S. Pension Plan for Mr. Podwika, Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Sully, Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok are subject to certain limitations on the amount of retirement benefits that may be provided under U.S. tax qualified pension plans. The U.S. Supplemental Plan is intended to provide a participant with the same aggregate benefits that such participant would have received had there been no legal limitations on the benefits provided by the U.S. Pension Plan. No benefits pursuant to the U.S. Supplemental Plan are payable if termination occurs prior to age 55.
With respect to services provided prior to July 1, 2009, for the purpose of calculating a participants benefit under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, the U.S. Supplemental Plan and the individual agreements, the inclusion of awards paid pursuant to our STIP is not subject to a limit of 100% of base salary for the relevant calendar year. In addition, with respect to services provided prior to July 1, 2009, a participants benefit under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan and the individual agreements is calculated using such participants three highest years earnings rather than such participants three highest consecutive years earnings. Further, for service prior to January 1, 2011, a participants benefit under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan is calculated using a 2% accrual formula rather than the 1.5% formula. The employer provided account balance and the pre-January 1, 2011 employee account balance (plus investment earnings) from the PCS Inc. Pension Plan offset this Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan formula.
Pursuant to each of the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan, the New Canadian Supplemental Plan and the U.S. Supplemental Plan, benefits under each such plan vest fully and immediately upon a change-in-control. Upon a change-in-control, the U.S. Supplemental Plan is subject to the funding of the value of accrued benefit, in accordance with the terms of the Rabbi Trust funding agreement.
71 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
ESTIMATED TERMINATION PAYMENTS AND BENEFITS
The following table sets forth estimates of the amounts payable to each of our currently employed Named Executive Officers upon the specified termination events, assuming that each such event took place on the last business day of fiscal year 2016. The table does not include (1) benefits under plans that are generally available to salaried employees and that do not discriminate in favor of executive officers, including the Canadian Pension Plan, the U.S. Pension Plan, the Savings Plan and the 401(k) Plans or (2) the value of outstanding equity awards that have previously vested, such as stock options, which awards are set forth in Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End beginning on page 66. Previously vested equity awards would not have resulted in incremental value if the Named Executive Officer had been terminated on the last business day of fiscal year 2016. For descriptions of the compensation plans and agreements that provide for the payments set forth in the following table, including our severance policy and our change-in-control agreements, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis Elements of Executive Compensation: Overview beginning on page 47. Messrs. Delaney and Dekok are excluded from the following table because they were not employed by the Company as of the last business day of fiscal year 2016; rather, each of Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok received the following actual payments upon a qualifying termination (retirement) during 2016 of 2,260,331 and 1,138,956, respectively. For more information on the payments and benefits actually provided to Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis Severance Benefits beginning on page 57.
Jochen E. Tilk ($) |
Wayne R. Brownlee
($) |
Stephen F. Dowdle ($) |
Joseph A. Podwika ($) |
Raef M. Sully ($) |
||||||||||||||||
Involuntary Termination/Termination Without Cause |
$ | 5,776,186 | $ | 1,756,789 | $ | 1,067,945 | $ | 956,735 | $ | 688,936 | ||||||||||
Salary/Severance |
$ | 3,106,009 | $ | 625,674 | $ | 465,000 | $ | 351,790 | $ | 78,991 | ||||||||||
STIP |
$ | 648,763 | $ | 359,000 | $ | 209,000 | $ | 211,000 | $ | 216,000 | ||||||||||
LTIP Options |
| | | | | |||||||||||||||
LTIP PSUs (2) |
$ | 1,662,254 | $ | 772,115 | $ | 393,945 | $ | 393,945 | $ | 393,945 | ||||||||||
Supplemental Plan (3) |
$ | 338,970 | | | | | ||||||||||||||
Executive Healthcare Benefits |
$ | 20,190 | | | | | ||||||||||||||
Termination Following Change-in-Control |
$ | 9,291,392 | $ | 6,005,201 | $ | 3,104,875 | $ | 3,170,362 | $ | 3,008,324 | ||||||||||
Salary/Severance |
$ | 2,527,928 | $ | 3,137,022 | $ | 1,788,132 | $ | 1,851,619 | $ | 1,684,581 | ||||||||||
STIP |
$ | 648,763 | $ | 359,000 | $ | 209,000 | $ | 211,000 | $ | 216,000 | ||||||||||
Deferred Stock Units |
$ | 1,770,744 | | | | | ||||||||||||||
Stock Options (Accelerated) |
| | | | | |||||||||||||||
LTIP Options |
$ | 861,714 | $ | 537,452 | $ | 133,896 | $ | 133,896 | $ | 133,896 | ||||||||||
LTIP PSUs (2) |
$ | 3,123,083 | $ | 1,947,887 | $ | 973,847 | $ | 973,847 | $ | 973,847 | ||||||||||
Supplemental Plan (3) |
$ | 338,970 | $ | 23,840 | | | | |||||||||||||
Executive Healthcare Benefits |
$ | 20,190 | | | | | ||||||||||||||
Death/Disability |
$ | 2,311,017 | $ | 1,131,115 | $ | 602,945 | $ | 604,945 | $ | 609,945 | ||||||||||
STIP |
$ | 648,763 | $ | 359,000 | $ | 209,000 | $ | 211,000 | $ | 216,000 | ||||||||||
LTIP Options |
| | | | | |||||||||||||||
LTIP PSUs (2) |
$ | 1,662,254 | $ | 772,115 | $ | 393,945 | $ | 393,945 | $ | 393,945 | ||||||||||
Supplemental Plan (3) |
| | | | | |||||||||||||||
Retirement |
$ | 2,311,017 | $ | 1,131,115 | $ | 602,945 | $ | 604,945 | $ | 609,945 | ||||||||||
STIP |
$ | 648,763 | $ | 359,000 | $ | 209,000 | $ | 211,000 | $ | 216,000 | ||||||||||
LTIP Options |
| | | | | |||||||||||||||
LTIP PSUs |
$ | 1,662,254 | $ | 772,115 | $ | 393,945 | $ | 393,945 | $ | 393,945 | ||||||||||
Supplemental Plan (3) |
| | | | |
(1) | Amounts paid in Canadian dollars have been converted to United States dollars using the average exchange rate for the month prior to the assumed payment date. |
(2) | Calculations assume payout at target performance level. |
(3) | Supplemental Plan refers to the New Canadian Supplemental Plan for Mr. Tilk, the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan for Mr. Brownlee and the U.S. Supplemental Plan for Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully. The Supplemental Plan benefits set forth for each currently employed Named Executive Officer reflect the incremental value of benefits for each termination event that exceeds the present value of benefits set forth in the Pension Benefits table on page 69. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 72 |
Payments Made Upon Involuntary Termination or Termination Without Cause
As quantified in the table above, upon involuntary termination or termination without cause, a currently employed Named Executive Officer is generally entitled to receive (1) severance in an aggregate amount equal to two weeks of salary for each year of service (subject to a minimum of four weeks and a maximum of 52 weeks); (2) immediate vesting and payout of a pro rata portion of the current performance periods STIP awards in accordance with the STIP or Company Policy, as applicable; (3) benefits under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan or U.S. Supplemental Plan, as applicable, reduced in accordance with the relevant plans early retirement provisions; and (4) benefits under the New Canadian Supplemental Plan, if applicable. In addition, upon termination without cause, a currently employed Named Executive Officer is generally entitled to (1) exercise any unexercised stock options under the LTIP, to the extent exercisable at the date of termination, until the end of the third calendar month of the termination; and (2) a pro rata portion of any PSUs earned for the then-current performance period, based on achievement of the applicable performance period metrics for the full performance period.
In addition, under Mr. Tilks Employment Agreement, he is entitled to severance benefits equal to (1) two times his annual salary and target bonus (i.e. the average STIP bonus for two years prior to termination), plus (2) benefits for two years, plus (3) if terminated without cause, up to two years coverage under the Canadian Pension Plan and New Canadian Supplemental Plan.
Payments Made Upon Termination Following a Change-in-Control
As described in Compensation Discussion and Analysis Employment Agreements and Change-In-Control Agreements beginning on page 58, we have entered into change-in-control agreements with our currently employed Named Executive Officers. Under each of these change-in-control agreements, the consummation of the Proposed Transaction would constitute a change-in-control.
As quantified in the table above, upon a qualifying termination within two years of a change-in-control, Mr. Tilk is entitled to receive (1) a lump sum payment of two years of the then current base salary plus Mr. Tilks STIP, calculated by averaging the amount of short-term bonuses received by Mr. Tilk in the two years prior to the termination; (2) benefits for two years; (3) if terminated without just cause, up to two years of coverage under the Canadian Pension Plan and the New Canadian Supplemental Plan; and (4) if the change-in-control occurs before DSUs have been earned or vested, then the full amounts of the DSUs granted or earned will vest as of the date of the change-in-control.
As quantified in the table above, upon a termination of employment within two years of a change-in-control,
Mr. Brownlee would be entitled to receive (1) severance in an aggregate amount equal to three times his base salary and average bonus for the previous three years; (2) immediate vesting and payout of a pro rata portion of the current performance periods target STIP; (3) benefits under the Canadian Supplemental Plan, as supplemented by three additional years of service and as reduced in accordance with the plans early retirement provisions; (4) up to three years of continued medical, disability and group term life insurance, subject to certain limitations described in the change-in-control agreement; and (5) financial counseling to a maximum of Cdn$10,000. Mr. Brownlees change-in-control agreement further provides that all outstanding unvested stock options granted to him become exercisable upon the occurrence of a change-in-control.
As quantified in the table above, in the event of a qualifying termination of employment, Mr. Dowdles, Mr. Podwikas and Mr. Sullys changein-control agreements generally entitle each of Mr. Dowdle, Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully to (1) all earned but unpaid base salary; (2) a lump sum payment consisting of (a) an amount equal to two times the sum of (i) his base salary plus (ii) his target STIP opportunity as of the date of the termination, (b) an amount equal to his target STIP award for the year in which the termination occurs, pro-rated based on his period of employment during the applicable fiscal year, (c) an amount equivalent to his matching employer contributions and target performance-related contributions under the PCS U.S. Employees Savings Plan that would have been contributed during the 24 months following termination, (d) an amount reasonably equivalent to his additional periodic benefits that would have accrued in the 24 months following termination under the PCS U.S. Employees Pension Plan, the PCS Supplemental Retirement Plan for U.S. Executives, and (for Mr. Dowdle) an individual agreement that provides for SERP-like benefits, and (e) 24 months of certain health and welfare benefit premiums; (3) reimbursement of certain outplacement services; and (4) certain additional welfare benefits for a limited period following termination. Mr. Dowdles, Mr. Podwikas and Mr. Sullys change-in-control agreements do not provide for accelerated payments or vesting of stock options or PSUs, except in the circumstances set out in our incentive compensation plans.
Outstanding stock options granted under the LTIP, the 2015 POP and the 2014 POP and outstanding PSUs (at the greater of target or actual performance) under the LTIP become vested and exercisable (as applicable) if (1) a currently employed Named Executive Officer is terminated without Cause (as defined in the LTIP and each such POP, as applicable) or resigns for Good Reason (as defined in the LTIP and each such POP, as applicable) during the two years following a change-in-control or (2) our successor in the change-in-control fails to continue, assume, convert or replace the stock options.
73 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Payments Made Upon Death or Disability
Generally, death or disability does not result in incremental value under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan or the U.S. Supplemental Plan. If a currently employed Named Executive Officer becomes disabled, the individual may (1) go on long-term disability, which would result in the continued accrual of Supplemental Plan benefits or (2) retire immediately, which would result in the same benefits as retirement. Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan death benefits are generally payable at 60% of the amount of benefits if the participant had retired on the date of death. U.S. Supplemental Plan benefits are generally payable at the greater of (1) 50% of the amount of benefits if the participant had retired on the date of death, payable for the remainder of the spouses lifetime and (2) 100% of the amount of benefits if the participant had retired on the date of death, payable for a period of ten years. Under the New Canadian Supplemental Plan, benefits for a currently employed Named Executive Officer will continue to vest during the time of disability and thereafter will be entitled to the applicable retirement benefits. In the event of death, a currently employed Named Executive Officer will be entitled to the aggregate amount of the retirement benefit under the New Canadian Supplemental Plan as of the date of death. In addition, following termination due to death (or disability in the case of awards under the LTIP), a currently employed Named Executive Officer is generally entitled to (1) immediate vesting and payout of a pro rata portion of the current performance periods STIP awards; (2) exercise any vested performance options under the
POPs or stock options under the LTIP, including such options that would have vested in the 12 months after such death or permanent disability, for a period of one year following such termination; and (3) a pro rata portion of any PSUs earned for the then-current performance period, based on actual achievement with respect to the applicable performance metrics for the entire performance period.
As quantified in the table above, upon retirement, a currently employed Named Executive Officer is generally entitled to (1) exercise any vested performance options under the POPs or stock options under the LTIP, including such stock options that would have vested after retirement, for a period of three years; (2) a pro rata portion of any PSUs earned for the then-current performance period, based on actual achievement with respect to the applicable performance metrics for the entire performance period; (3) immediate vesting and payout of a pro rata portion of the current performance periods STIP awards; (4) benefits under the Prior Canadian Supplemental Plan or U.S. Supplemental Plan, as reduced in accordance with the plans early retirement provisions; and (5) with respect to Mr. Tilk, benefits under the New Canadian Supplemental Plan, which does not require two years of continuous service for payout in connection with retirement. For information regarding Mr. Delaneys and Mr. Dekoks severance payments, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis Severance Benefits on page 57.
The following table sets forth the estimated annual or aggregate amounts that each currently employed Named Executive Officer would have received upon retirement at December 31, 2016 and would receive upon retirement at age 65 pursuant to the retirement plans in which each such Named Executive Officer participates. The age 65 amounts in the below table assume annual salary increases of 3% and flat short-term incentive award targets (as a percentage of salary) for each of our currently employed Named Executive Officers and use the same interest rates as disclosed under Pension Benefits beginning on page 69. For the payments and benefits actually provided to Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok upon their respective retirements in January of 2016, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis Severance Benefits beginning on page 57. Voluntary contributions by each of our currently employed Named Executive Officers to the retirement plans have been excluded from the calculation of the amounts set forth below:
Jochen E. Tilk
($) |
Wayne R. Brownlee
($) |
Stephen F. Dowdle
($) |
Joseph A. Podwika
($) (1) |
Raef M. Sully
($) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Year End | Age 65 | Year End | Age 65 | Year End | Age 65 | Year End | Age 65 | Year End | Age 65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Canadian/ U.S. Pension Plan |
Annual
Aggregate |
|
15,448
334,804 |
|
|
207,657
3,526,024 |
|
|
794,243
13,841,435 |
|
|
788,838
13,394,468 |
|
|
282,142
3,707,823 |
|
|
282,142
3,707,823 |
|
|
75,725
652,098 |
|
|
424,066
5,732,310 |
|
|
17,106
120,048 |
|
|
325,111
4,394,694 |
|
|||||||||||
Savings/ 401(k) Plans |
Annual
Aggregate |
|
3,535
76,607 |
|
|
47,084
799,493 |
|
|
36,096
629,054 |
|
|
39,231
666,141 |
|
|
23,877
313,780 |
|
|
23,877
313,780 |
|
|
24,196
208,363 |
|
|
38,716
523,341 |
|
|
7,438
52,201 |
|
|
32,517
439,545 |
|
|||||||||||
Total |
Annual
Aggregate |
|
18,983
411,411 |
|
|
254,741
4,325,517 |
|
|
830,339
14,470,489 |
|
|
828,069
14,060,609 |
|
|
306,019
4,021,604 |
|
|
306,019
4,021,603 |
|
|
99,922
860,461 |
|
|
462,782
6,255,651 |
|
|
24,545
172,248 |
|
|
357,628
4,834,239 |
|
(1) | Since each of Mr. Podwika and Mr. Sully would have forfeited his respective U.S. Supplemental Plan benefit if either retired at December 31, 2016, the year end benefit shown is only each individuals respective U.S. Pension Plan benefit. The U.S. Supplemental Plan benefit is included in the Age 65 benefit. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 74 |
The following graph illustrates the Corporations cumulative shareholder return, assuming reinvestment of dividends, by comparing a $100 investment in the Shares at December 31, 2011 to the return on the Standard & Poors 500 Index ® , the DAX Ag Index and a self-selected peer group.
Dec-11 | Dec-12 | Dec-13 | Dec-14 | Dec-15 | Dec-16 | |||||||||||||||||||
PotashCorp - NYSE Listing |
100 | 99.85 | 83.50 | 93.19 | 47.57 | 53.46 | ||||||||||||||||||
S&P 500 ® |
100 | 116.00 | 153.58 | 174.60 | 177.01 | 198.18 | ||||||||||||||||||
Peer Group |
100 | 120.48 | 98.79 | 90.50 | 76.07 | 77.92 | ||||||||||||||||||
Dax Ag Index |
100 | 115.93 | 126.55 | 129.77 | 114.95 | 127.99 |
Copyright © | 2017 Standard & Poors, a division of S&P Global. All rights reserved. |
Self-selected peer group consists of: | Symbol | |
Agrium Inc.* |
AGU | |
CF Industries, Inc. |
CF | |
Intrepid Potash Inc. |
IPI | |
The Mosaic Company Inc. |
MOS | |
Yara International ASA |
YAR NO | |
Israel Chemicals Limited |
ICL | |
Sociedad Quimica Y Minera de Chile S.A. |
SQM/B CI | |
K + S AG |
SDF/GR | |
The Arab Potash Company PLC |
APOT JR | |
Uralkali OJSC |
URKA RU |
* | TSX Listing |
75 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
The following graph illustrates the Corporations cumulative shareholder return, assuming reinvestment of dividends, by comparing a Cdn$100 investment in the Shares at December 31, 2011 to the return on the S&P/TSX Composite Index.
Dec-11 | Dec-12 | Dec-13 | Dec-14 | Dec-15 | Dec-16 | |||||||||||||||||||
PotashCorp - TSX Listing |
100.00 | 97.38 | 86.89 | 105.77 | 63.58 | 68.22 | ||||||||||||||||||
S&P/TSX Composite Index |
100.00 | 107.19 | 121.11 | 133.90 | 122.76 | 148.64 |
Copyright © | 2017 Standard & Poors, a division of S&P Global. All rights reserved. |
The foregoing stock performance graphs and related disclosures do not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other filing by the Corporation under the United States Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent they are specifically incorporated by reference therein.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 76 |
The above chart compares the total annual compensation (which is comprised of fixed compensation described below, equity compensation and awards under the STIP) earned by the Corporations Named Executive Officers in each year from 2012 through 2016 to PotashCorps annual CFROI and WACC during the same period. CFROI-WACC is the performance metric used to determine vesting of performance stock options under the 2012 2015 POPs and is one of the performance metrics used to determine vesting of PSUs under the LTIP. CFROI-WACC is correlated with corporate TSR. During this five-year period, the general trend in total Named Executive Officer compensation was
consistent with the general trend in CFROI-WACC. The equity compensation level in 2012 reflects the payout of a multi-year award under the MTIP, reflecting performance in the prior three-year period.
For purposes of the above chart, fixed compensation includes base salary and other compensation, which includes perquisites and personal benefits. Equity compensation includes the grant-date fair value of awards under the Corporations medium- and long-term incentive plans in each applicable year.
77 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
SECURITIES AUTHORIZED FOR ISSUANCE UNDER EQUITY COMPENSATION PLANS
In addition to the LTIP, which was adopted at the 2016 Annual Meeting, the Corporation has nine other stock option plans as set forth in the table below, each of which received shareholder approval. No further awards may be made under any of these historical stock option plans, other than the LTIP.
Name of Plan |
Period of
Permitted Award Grants |
Maximum
Award Grants (1) |
Awards
Granted and Outstanding (as at 12/31/2016) (2) |
Outstanding
Awards as Percentage of Shares Outstanding (3) |
||||||||||||
2016 LTIP |
May 10, 2016 May 10, 2026 | 21,000,000 | 3,673,804 | 0.44% | ||||||||||||
2015 POP |
Feb. 20, 2015 Dec. 31, 2015 | 3,500,000 | 3,411,500 | 0.41% | ||||||||||||
2014 POP |
Feb. 20, 2014 Dec. 31, 2014 | 3,500,000 | 3,082,900 | 0.37% | ||||||||||||
2013 POP |
Feb. 19, 2013 Dec. 31, 2013 | 3,000,000 | 1,836,000 | 0.22% | ||||||||||||
2012 POP |
Feb. 21, 2012 Dec. 31, 2012 | 3,000,000 | 1,313,100 | 0.16% | ||||||||||||
2011 POP |
Feb. 22, 2011 Dec. 31, 2011 | 3,000,000 | 925,800 | 0.11% | ||||||||||||
2010 POP |
Feb. 21, 2010 Dec. 31, 2010 | 3,000,000 | 922,800 | 0.11% | ||||||||||||
2009 POP |
Feb. 21, 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 | 3,000,000 | 1,286,100 | 0.15% | ||||||||||||
2008 POP |
Feb. 21, 2008 Dec. 31, 2008 | 3,000,000 | 995,250 | 0.12% | ||||||||||||
2007 POP |
Feb. 21, 2007 Dec. 31, 2007 | 9,000,000 | 2,625,500 | 0.31% | ||||||||||||
TOTAL |
20,072,754 | 2.4% |
(1) | Generally, each POP terminates one year from its respective effective date. Options not granted are cancelled at the end of the calendar year in which the POP was approved by shareholders. The LTIP has a fixed maximum of 21,000,000 Shares issuable pursuant to the settlement of options and PSUs, as well as certain other types of equity awards, and terminates no later than May 10, 2026. |
(2) | Of this amount, 3,071,064 options and 602,740 share-settled PSUs (based on the projected outcome of applicable performance conditions in accordance with IFRS) were granted and outstanding pursuant to the LTIP. |
(3) | Based on 839,790,379 Shares of the Corporation outstanding as of December 31, 2016. |
The following table provides information about securities that may be issued under the Corporations existing equity compensation plans, as at December 31, 2016.
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
Plan Category |
(a) Number of Shares to
be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights |
(b) Weighted-average
exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights |
(c) Number of
Shares remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding Shares reflected in column (a)) |
|||||||||
December 31, 2016 |
||||||||||||
Equity compensation plans approved by shareholders |
20,072,754 | (1) | $ | 31.15 | (2) | 16,960,620 | ||||||
Equity compensation plans not approved by shareholders |
n/a | n/a | n/a |
(1) | Of this amount, 2,625,500 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2007 POP, 995,250 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2008 POP, 1,286,100 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2009 POP, 922,800 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2010 POP, 925,800 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2011 POP, 1,313,100 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2012 POP, 1,836,000 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2013 POP, 3,082,900 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2014 POP, 3,411,500 options were outstanding pursuant to the 2015 POP, and 3,071,064 options and 602,740 share-settled PSUs (based on the projected outcome of applicable performance conditions in accordance with IFRS) were outstanding pursuant to the LTIP. |
(2) | The weighted-average exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights is for stock options only as PSUs do not have an exercise price. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 78 |
Eligible participants under the LTIP are officers and employees of the Corporation and its subsidiaries if selected by the HR&C Committee. Non-employee directors, non-employee contractors and third party vendors are not eligible to participate in the LTIP. Currently, there are approximately 300 participants in the LTIP.
No participant will be granted stock options under the LTIP, in the aggregate, for more than 750,000 Shares during any calendar year and no awards will be granted to insiders (as defined in the LTIP) if such awards, together with any other security based compensation arrangements of the Corporation, could result in (1) the number of Shares issuable to insiders at any time under security based compensation arrangements of the Corporation exceeding 10% of the issued and outstanding Shares, or (2) the
issuance to insiders under the security based compensation arrangements of the Corporation, within any one year period, of a number of Shares exceeding 10% of the issued and outstanding Shares.
Additional information regarding the LTIP and the Companys historical POPs, including with respect to the effect of a participants termination of employment, the assignability of awards and the ability to make amendments to each plan, can be found in the Corporations Management Proxy Circulars for the annual meeting of shareholders held in the applicable year of adoption and elsewhere under the caption Human Resources and Compensation.
79 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
The following table sets forth information as at February 20, 2017, with respect to the beneficial ownership of Shares held by the Named Executive Officers of the Corporation listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 63 and by all directors and executive officers of the Corporation as a group.
Name |
Number of Shares Held |
Number of
Shares Beneficially Owned (1)(2)(3) |
Percentage of Outstanding Shares |
|||||||||
Jochen E. Tilk Director, President and Chief Executive Officer |
28,291 | 28,291 | < | 0.01% | ||||||||
Wayne R. Brownlee, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (4) |
680,635 | 1,495,804 | 0.18% | |||||||||
G. David Delaney, Former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (5) |
134,977 | 571,027 | 0.07% | |||||||||
Paul E. Dekok, Former President, PCS Phosphate |
3,002 | 24,002 | < | 0.01% | ||||||||
Stephen F. Dowdle President, PCS Sales |
157,042 | 421,189 | 0.05% | |||||||||
Joseph A. Podwika Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary |
68,943 | 393,840 | 0.05% | |||||||||
Raef M. Sully President, PCS Nitrogen & Phosphate |
9,766 | 70,391 | 0.01% | |||||||||
All directors and executive officers as a group, including the above-named individuals (25 persons) (6) |
2,041,765 | 4,093,828 | 0.49% |
(1) | The number of Shares beneficially owned is reported on the basis of regulations of the SEC, and includes Shares that the individual has the right to acquire at any time within 60 days after February 20, 2017 and Shares directly or indirectly held by the individual or by certain family members or others over which the individual has sole or shared voting or investment power. |
(2) | Includes Shares purchasable within 60 days after February 20, 2017 through the exercise of options granted by the Corporation, as follows: Mr. Brownlee 815,169 Shares; Mr. Delaney 436,050 Shares; Mr. Dekok 21,000 Shares; Mr. Dowdle 264,147 Shares; Mr. Podwika 324,897 Shares; Mr. Sully 60,625 Shares; and all directors and executive officers as a group, including the foregoing individuals (but excluding Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok), 2,052,063 Shares. For |
Mr. Tilk, does not include the 105,052 DSUs, which include dividend equivalents, that Mr. Tilk has earned under his multi-year incentive plan, but will not fully vest until July 1, 2017. Please see Human Resources and Compensation Executive Compensation Executive Share Ownership on page 68. |
(3) | No Shares beneficially owned by any of the directors or Named Executive Officers are pledged as security. |
(4) | Includes 71,655 Shares held in the Brownlee Family Foundation Inc. |
(5) | Each of Mr. Delaneys and Mr. Dekoks ownership is as of January 31, 2016, their last day of employment with the Corporation before their retirement. |
(6) | Does not include Mr. Delaney and Mr. Dekok, each of whom retired from their respective positions with the Corporation on January 31, 2016. |
As at February 20, 2017, based on records and reports filed with the SEC on Schedule 13D or 13G, no shareholder owned more than 5% of the Corporations Shares.
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE
The Corporation has acquired and maintains liability insurance for its directors and officers as well as those of its subsidiaries as a group. The coverage limit of such insurance is $250 million per claim and $250 million annually in the aggregate. The Corporation has entered into a one-year contract ending June 30, 2017. Premiums of $1.9 million were paid by the Corporation for the last fiscal year. Claims for which the Corporation grants indemnification to the insured persons are subject to a $5 million deductible for any one loss.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | 80 |
Proposals of shareholders intended to be presented at the Corporations annual meeting of shareholders in 2018 and which such shareholders are entitled to request be included in the Management Proxy Circular for that meeting must be received at the Corporations principal executive offices not later than November 22, 2017.
ADVANCE NOTICE FOR DIRECTOR NOMINATIONS
The Corporations by-laws require advance notice for nominating directors at an annual meeting so there is a clear and transparent process and all shareholders can be made aware of the nomination prior to a shareholder meeting in the event of a potential proxy contest, regardless of whether shareholders are planning to vote by proxy or attend the meeting in person. The notice must include the name, age, address, citizenship and certain other information about the nominee or nominees. See Section 7.A of the Corporations by-laws on the Corporations website at www.potashcorp.com. Any nominations and accompanying notes must be sent to the Corporations secretary not later than the close of business on the thirtieth (30 th ) day before the date of the annual meeting of shareholders and it must comply with the by-law requirements to be eligible for presentation at the meeting. Nominations and accompanying notes may be sent to Corporate Secretary, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., Suite 500, 122 1st Avenue South, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7K 7G3.
The contents and the distribution of this Management Proxy Circular have been unanimously approved by the Board.
JOSEPH A. PODWIKA
Secretary
February 20, 2017
81 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
BOARD OF DIRECTORS CHARTER
1. Purpose and Role
The Board of Directors (the Board) of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Corporation) is responsible for the stewardship and oversight of the management of the Corporation and its global business. It has the statutory authority and obligation to protect and enhance the assets of the Corporation in the interest of all shareholders.
Although Directors may be elected by the shareholders to bring special expertise or a point of view to Board deliberations, they are not chosen to represent a particular constituency. The best interests of the Corporation and its shareholders must be paramount at all times.
The involvement and commitment of Directors is evidenced by regular Board and Committee meeting attendance, preparation, and active participation in setting goals and requiring performance in the interest of shareholders.
2. Composition
The Board shall be comprised of that number of Directors as shall be determined from time to time by the Board, in accordance with the Corporations articles, bylaws and applicable laws.
3. Meetings
The time at which and place where the meetings of the Board shall be held and the calling of the meetings and procedure in all things at such meetings shall be determined by the Board in accordance with the Corporations articles, bylaws and applicable laws.
The agenda for each Board meeting shall be established by the CEO and the Board Chair, taking into account suggestions from other members of the Board. Meeting materials and information shall be distributed in advance of each meeting so as to provide adequate time for review. The Board has a policy of holding one meeting each year at one of the Corporations operating facilities. Site visits by the Board and meetings with senior management of the facility are incorporated into the itinerary.
Directors are expected to attend, in person or via tele- or video-conference, all meetings of the Board and the Committees upon which they serve, to come to such meetings fully prepared, and to remain in attendance for the duration of the meeting. Where a Directors absence from a meeting is unavoidable, the Director should, as soon as practicable after the meeting, contact the Board Chair, the CEO, or the Corporate Secretary for a briefing on the substantive elements of the meeting.
4. Chair
The Chair of the Board shall have the duties and responsibilities set forth in the Chair of the Board of Directors Position Description.
5. Responsibilities
The Board operates by delegating certain of its responsibilities to management and reserving certain powers to itself. Its principal duties fall into six categories:
| Overseeing and approving on an ongoing basis the Corporations business strategy and strategic planning process; |
| Selection of the management; |
| Setting goals and standards for management, monitoring their performance and taking corrective action where necessary; |
| Approving policies, procedures and systems for implementing strategy, managing risk, and ensuring the integrity of the Corporations internal control and management information systems; |
| Adopting a communications policy and reporting to shareholders on the performance of the business; |
| Approval and completion of routine legal requirements. |
5.1 Strategy Determination
(a) | The Board has the responsibility to participate, as a whole and through its Committees, in identifying the objectives and goals of the business as well as the associated risks, and the strategy by which it proposes to reach those goals and mitigate such risks. The Board shall adopt a strategic planning process and shall approve, on an annual basis, a strategic plan which takes into account, among other things, the opportunities and risks of the business. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | A-1 |
(b) | The Board has the responsibility to ensure congruence between shareholder expectations, company plans and management performance. |
5.2 Selection of the Management
(a) | The Board retains the responsibility for managing its own affairs, including planning its composition, selecting its Chair, nominating candidates for election to the Board, appointing Committees and determining Director compensation. |
(b) | The Board has the responsibility for the appointment and replacement of a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Corporation, for monitoring CEO performance, determining CEO compensation, and providing advice and counsel in the execution of the CEOs duties. |
(c) | The Board has the responsibility for approving the appointment and remuneration of all corporate officers, acting upon the advice of the CEO. |
(d) | The Board has the responsibility for, to the extent feasible, satisfying itself as to the integrity of the CEO and the other executive officers and that the CEO and other executive officers create a culture of integrity throughout the Corporation. |
(e) | The Board has the responsibility for ensuring that adequate provision has been made for management succession (including appointing, training and monitoring senior management). |
5.3 Monitoring and Acting
(a) | The Board has the responsibility for monitoring the Corporations progress towards its goals, and revising and altering its direction in light of changing circumstances. |
(b) | The Board has the responsibility for taking action when performance falls short of its goals or when other special circumstances (for example mergers and acquisitions or changes in control) warrant it. |
5.4 Policies and Procedures
(a) | The Board has the responsibility for developing the Corporations approach to corporate governance, including developing a set of corporate governance principles and guidelines that are specifically applicable to the Corporation. |
(b) | The Board has the responsibility for approving and monitoring compliance with all significant policies, procedures and internal control and management systems by which the Corporation is operated. |
(c) | The Board has responsibility for ensuring that the Corporation operates at all times within applicable laws and regulations, and to high ethical and moral standards. |
5.5 Reporting to Shareholders
(a) | The Board has the responsibility for adopting a communications policy for the Corporation, including adopting measures for receiving feedback from stakeholders. |
(b) | The Board has the responsibility for ensuring that the financial performance of the Corporation is reported to shareholders on a timely, regular and non-selective basis. |
(c) | The Board has the responsibility for ensuring that the financial results are reported fairly, and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. |
(d) | The Board has the responsibility for timely and non-selective reporting of any other developments that have a significant and material impact on the value of the shareholders assets. |
(e) | The Board has the responsibility for reporting annually to shareholders on its stewardship for the preceding year. |
(f) | The Board has the responsibility for approving any payment of dividends to shareholders. |
5.6 Legal Requirements
(a) | The Board is responsible for ensuring that legal requirements, documents and records have been properly prepared, approved and maintained. |
5.7 Other
(a) | On an annual basis, this Board Charter shall be reviewed and assessed, and any proposed changes shall be submitted to the Board for consideration. |
(b) | Any security holder may contact the Board by email or by writing to the Board c/o the Corporate Secretary. Matters relating to the Corporations accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters will be referred to the Audit Committee. Other matters will be referred to the Board Chair. |
A-2 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER
1. Purpose
1.1 | The Audit Committee (the Committee) is a standing committee of the Board of Directors of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Corporation). Its purpose is to assist the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities for (i) the integrity of the Corporations financial statements, (ii) the Corporations compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, (iii) the qualifications and independence of the auditors of the Corporation (the external auditors), and (iv) the performance of the Corporations internal audit function and external auditors. The Committee will also prepare the report that is, under applicable legislation and regulation, required to be included in the Corporations annual proxy statement and circular. |
2. Authority
2.1 | The Committee has authority to conduct or authorize investigations into any matter within its scope of responsibility. It is empowered to: |
(a) | Determine the public accounting firm to be recommended to the Corporations shareholders for appointment as external auditors, and, subject to applicable law, be directly responsible for the compensation and oversight of the work of the external auditors. The external auditors will report directly to the Committee. |
(b) | Resolve any disagreements between management and the external auditors regarding financial reporting. |
(c) | Pre-approve all auditing and permitted non-audit services performed by the Corporations external auditors. |
(d) | Retain independent counsel, accountants, or others to advise the Committee or assist in its duties. |
(e) | Seek any information it requires from employees all of whom are directed to cooperate with the Committees requests or external parties. |
(f) | Meet with the Corporations officers, external auditors or outside counsel, as necessary. |
(g) | Delegate authority, to the extent permitted by applicable legislation and regulation, to one or more designated members of the Committee, including the authority to pre-approve all auditing and permitted non-audit services, providing that such decisions are presented to the full Committee at its next scheduled meeting. |
3. Composition
3.1 | The Committee shall consist of at least three and no more than six members of the Board of Directors. |
3.2. | The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will recommend to the Board of Directors members for appointment to the Committee and the Chair of the Committee. Only independent Directors shall be entitled to vote on any Board resolution approving such recommendations. |
3.3. | If and whenever a vacancy shall exist on the Committee, the remaining members may exercise all its powers so long as a quorum remains in office. |
3.4. | Each Committee member shall be independent according to the independence standards established by the Board of Directors, and all applicable corporate and securities laws and stock exchange listing standards. |
3.5. | Each Committee member will also be financially literate. At least one member shall be designated as the financial expert, as defined by applicable legislation and regulation. No Committee member shall simultaneously serve on the audit committees of more than two other public companies. |
4. Meetings
4.1 | A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. All determinations of the Committee shall be made by a majority of its members present at a meeting duly called and held. All Committee members are expected to attend each meeting, in person or via tele- or video-conference. Any decision or determination of the Committee reduced to writing and signed by all of the members of the Committee shall be fully as effective as if it had been made at a meeting duly called and held. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | B-1 |
4.2. | The Committee will meet at least once each fiscal quarter, with authority to convene additional meetings, as circumstances require. The Committee will invite other members of the Board of Directors, members of management, internal auditors or others to attend meetings and provide pertinent information, as necessary. External auditors shall be entitled to receive notice of every meeting of the Committee and to attend and be heard thereat. The Committee will meet separately, periodically, with management, with internal audit and with external auditors. The Committee will also meet periodically in camera. Meeting agendas will be prepared and provided in advance to members, along with appropriate briefing materials. |
4.3. | The time at which and place where the meetings of the Committee shall be held and the calling of meetings and the procedure in all things at such meetings shall be determined by the Committee; provided that meetings of the Committee shall be convened whenever requested by the external auditors or any member of the Committee in accordance with the Canada Business Corporations Act (the CBCA). Following a Committee meeting, the Committee Chair shall report on the Committees activities to the Board of Directors at the next Board of Directors meeting. The Committee shall keep and approve minutes of its meetings in which shall be recorded all action taken by it, which minutes shall be available as soon as practicable to the Board of Directors. |
5. Chair
5.1 | The Chair of the Committee shall have the duties and responsibilities set forth in Appendix A. |
6. Responsibilities
There is hereby delegated to the Committee the duties and powers specified in section 171 of the CBCA and, without limiting these duties and powers, the Committee will carry out the following responsibilities.
6.1 Financial Statements
(a) | Review significant accounting and reporting issues and understand their impact on the financial statements. These issues include: |
(i) | complex or unusual transactions and highly judgmental areas; |
(ii) | major issues regarding accounting principles and financial statement presentations, including any significant changes in the Corporations selection or application of accounting principles; and |
(iii) | the effect of regulatory and accounting initiatives, as well as off-balance sheet structures, on the financial statements of the Corporation. |
(b) | Review analyses prepared by management and/or the external auditors, setting forth significant financial reporting issues and judgments made in connection with the preparation of the financial statements, including analyses of the effects of new or revised IFRS methods on the financial statements. |
(c) | Review both U.S. GAAP (where applicable) and IFRS issues and any reconciliation issues from IFRS to U.S. GAAP. |
(d) | Review with management and the external auditors the results of the audit, including any difficulties encountered. This review will include any restrictions on the scope of the external auditors activities or on access to requested information, and the resolution of any significant disagreements with management. |
(e) | Review and discuss the annual audited financial statements and quarterly financial statements with management and the external auditors, including the Corporations disclosures under Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A), including the discussion of critical accounting estimates included therein. |
(f) | Review and discuss the unaudited annual financial statements prior to the Corporations year-end earnings release. |
(g) | Review the annual financial statements and MD&A and make a determination whether to recommend their approval by the Board of Directors. |
(h) | Approve the quarterly financial statements and MD&A prior to their release. |
(i) | Review disclosures made by the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer during the Forms 10-K and 10-Q certification process about significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls or any fraud that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Corporations internal controls. |
(j) | Review and discuss earnings press releases prior to their release (particularly use of pro forma information or other non-IFRS financial measures), as well as financial information and earnings guidance provided externally, including to analysts and rating agencies. |
B-2 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
(k) | Review managements internal control report and the related attestation by the external auditors of the Corporations internal controls over financial reporting. |
(l) | Review as applicable matters designated to the Committee as part of the Corporations risk management processes. |
6.2. Internal Control
(a) | Consider the effectiveness of the Corporations internal control system, including information technology security and control. |
(b) | Understand the scope of internal audits and external auditors review of internal control over financial reporting, and obtain reports on significant findings and recommendations, together with managements responses. |
(c) | As requested by the Board of Directors, discuss with management, internal audit and the external auditors the Corporations major risk exposures (whether financial, operational or otherwise), the adequacy and effectiveness of the accounting and financial controls, and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures. |
(d) | Annually review the Corporations disclosure controls and procedures, including any significant deficiencies in, or material non-compliance with, such controls and procedures. |
(e) | Discuss with the Chief Financial Officer and, as is in the Committees opinion appropriate, the Chief Executive Officer, all elements of the certification required pursuant to Sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. |
6.3. Internal Audit
(a) | Review with management, the external auditors and internal audit the charter, plans, activities, staffing and organizational structure of the internal audit function. |
(b) | Ensure there are no unjustified restrictions or limitations on the functioning of the internal audit department, and review and concur in the appointment, replacement, or dismissal of the Vice President, Internal Audit. |
(c) | Review the effectiveness of the internal audit function, including conformance with The Institute of Internal Auditors International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, the Definition of Internal Auditing and the Code of Ethics. |
(d) | On a regular basis, meet separately with the Vice President, Internal Audit to discuss any matters that the Committee or the Vice President, Internal Audit believes should be discussed privately. |
6.4. External Audit
(a) | Review the external auditors proposed audit scope and approach, (including coordination of audit effort with internal audit) and budget. |
(b) | Oversee the work and review the performance of the external auditors, and make recommendations to the Board regarding the appointment or discharge of the external auditors. In performing this oversight and review, the Committee will: |
(i) | At least annually, obtain and review a report by the external auditors describing (A) the external auditors internal quality control procedures; (B) any material issues raised by the most recent internal quality control review, or peer review, of the external auditors, or by any inquiry or investigation by governmental or professional authorities, within the preceding five years, respecting one or more independent audits carried out by the external auditors, and any steps taken to deal with any such issues; and (C) (to assess the auditors independence) all relationships between the external auditors and the Corporation. |
(ii) | Take into account the opinions of management and internal audit. |
(iii) | Review and evaluate the lead partner of the external auditors. |
(c) | On an annual basis receive and review from the external auditors a report on items required to be communicated to the Committee by applicable rules and regulations. |
(d) | Ensure the rotation of the lead audit partner every five years and other audit partners every seven years, and consider whether there should be regular rotation of the audit firm itself. |
(e) | Present its conclusions with respect to the external auditors to the full Board of Directors. |
(f) | Set clear hiring policies for employees or former employees of the present or former external auditors. |
(g) | On a regular basis, meet separately with the external auditors to discuss any matters that the Committee or external auditors believe should be discussed privately. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | B-3 |
6.5. Compliance
(a) | Review the effectiveness of the system for monitoring compliance with laws and regulations and the results of managements investigation and follow-up (including disciplinary action) of any instances of non-compliance. |
(b) | Establish procedures for: (i) the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by the Corporation regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters; and (ii) the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the Corporation of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters. |
(c) | Review the findings of any examinations by regulatory agencies, and any external auditors observations made regarding those findings. |
(d) | Review the process for communicating the Core Values and Code of Conduct to Corporation personnel, and for monitoring compliance therewith. |
(e) | Obtain regular updates from management and the Corporations legal counsel regarding compliance matters. |
6.6. Reporting Responsibilities
(a) | Regularly report to the Board of Directors about Committee activities and issues that arise with respect to the quality or integrity of the Corporations financial statements, the Corporations compliance with legal or regulatory requirements, the performance and independence of the Corporations external auditors, and the performance of the internal audit function. |
(b) | Provide an open avenue of communication between internal audit, the external auditors, and the Board of Directors. |
(c) | Report annually to shareholders, describing the Committees composition, responsibilities and how they were discharged, and any other information required by applicable legislation or regulation, including approval of non-audit services. |
(d) | Review any other reports the Corporation issues that relate to Committee responsibilities. |
6.7. Other Responsibilities
(a) | Discuss with management the Corporations major policies with respect to risk assessment and risk management. |
(b) | Perform other activities related to this Committee Charter as requested by the Board of Directors. |
(c) | Institute and oversee special investigations as needed. |
(d) | Ensure appropriate disclosure of this Committee Charter as may be required by applicable legislation or regulation. |
(e) | Confirm annually that all responsibilities outlined in this Committee Charter have been carried out. |
(f) | Receive and review, at least quarterly, a report prepared by the Corporations Natural Gas Hedging Committee and, if the Corporations hedged position is outside approved guidelines, determine the reasons for the deviation and any action which will be taken as a result. |
(g) | Annually review the Corporations natural gas hedging policy statement, currency conversion policy and external borrowing policy with respect to the use of derivatives and swaps. |
(h) | Receive and review, at least annually and in conjunction with the HR&C Committee, a report on pension plan governance including a fund review and retirement plan accruals. |
7. Funding
7.1 | The Corporation shall provide for appropriate funding, as determined by the Committee, for (i) compensation to the external auditors for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit report or performing other audit review or attest services as pre-approved by the Committee; (ii) compensation to any outside experts employed by the Committee; and (iii) ordinary administrative expenses of the Committee that are necessary or appropriate in carrying out its duties. |
8. Other
8.1 | The Committee shall conduct an evaluation of the Committees performance and this Audit Committee Charter, including Appendix A attached hereto, at least annually, and recommend to the Board of Directors such Committee Charter changes as the Committee deems appropriate. |
8.2. | Authority to make minor technical amendments to this Committee Charter is hereby delegated to the Secretary of the Corporation who will report any amendments to the Board of Directors at its next meeting. |
B-4 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
APPENDIX A
POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
Audit Committee Chair Position Description
In addition to the duties and responsibilities set out in the Board of Directors Charter and any other applicable charter, mandate or position description, the chair (the Chair) of the Audit Committee (the Committee) of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Corporation) has the duties and responsibilities described below.
1. | Provide overall leadership to facilitate the effective functioning of the Committee, including: |
(a) | overseeing the structure, composition, membership and activities delegated to the Committee; |
(b) | chairing every meeting of the Committee and encouraging free and open discussion at meetings of the Committee; |
(c) | scheduling and setting the agenda for Committee meetings with input from other Committee members, the Chair of the Board of Directors and management as appropriate; |
(d) | facilitating the timely, accurate and proper flow of information to and from the Committee; |
(e) | arranging for management, internal and external auditors and others to attend and present at Committee meetings as appropriate; |
(f) | arranging sufficient time during Committee meetings to fully discuss agenda items; |
(g) | encouraging Committee members to ask questions and express viewpoints during meetings; and |
(h) | taking all other reasonable steps to ensure that the responsibilities and duties of the Committee, as outlined in its Charter, are well understood by the Committee members and executed as effectively as possible. |
2. | Foster ethical and responsible decision making by the Committee and its individual members. |
3. | Encourage the Committee to meet in separate, regularly scheduled, non-management, closed sessions with the internal auditor and the independent auditors. |
4. | Following each meeting of the Committee, report to the Board of Directors on the activities, findings and any recommendations of the Committee. |
5. | Carry out such other duties as may reasonably be requested by the Board of Directors. |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | B-5 |
HR&C COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURES
As described in the HR&C Committees charter, the HR&C Committee has the responsibility to:
| review and approve on an annual basis the corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of our CEO. The HR&C Committee evaluates at least once a year the CEOs performance in light of established goals and objectives and, based on such evaluation, together with all other independent members of the Board, determines and approves the CEOs annual compensation, including, as appropriate, salary, bonus, incentive and equity compensation; |
| review and approve on an annual basis the evaluation process and compensation structure for our executive officers, including an annual Executive Salary Administration Program under which the parameters for salary adjustments for officers are established; |
| review and make recommendations to the Board with respect to the adoption, amendment and termination of our management incentive-compensation and equity-compensation plans, oversee their administration and discharge any duties imposed on the HR&C Committee by any of those plans; |
| assess the competitiveness and appropriateness of our policies relating to the compensation of the executive officers; |
| participate in the long-range planning for executive development and succession, and develop a CEO succession plan; |
| develop the HR&C Committees annual report on executive compensation for inclusion in our Management Proxy Circular, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and review and approve, prior to publication, the compensation sections of the Management Proxy Circular; |
| review the general design and make-up of our broadly applicable benefit programs as to their general adequacy, competitiveness, internal equity and cost effectiveness; |
| annually review the performance of our pension and other retirement benefit plans; |
| review periodically executive officer transactions in our securities and approve such transactions as appropriate for their exemption from short-swing profit liability under Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act; |
| consider and review the independence of its compensation advisors in accordance with applicable NYSE rules; |
| annually review and recommend to the Board a compensation package for our directors; |
| oversee and periodically review the Corporations diversity and inclusion initiatives; and |
| perform other review functions relating to management compensation and human resources policies as the HR&C Committee deems appropriate. |
As the chief human resources officer, the Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration is the Corporations representative to the HR&C Committee and provides the HR&C Committee with information and input on corporate compensation and benefits philosophy and plan design, succession planning, program administration and the financial impact of director, executive and broad-based employee compensation and benefit programs. In addition, the Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Administration provides information to and works with the HR&C Committees executive compensation consultant as directed by the HR&C Committee.
C-1 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
COMPENSATION APPROVAL PROCESS
The following chart summarizes the approval process for the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer and our Named Executive Officers.
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | C-2 |
HR&C COMMITTEE 2016 ANNUAL WORK PLAN
The HR&C Committees 2016 Annual Work Plan, which summarizes actions taken and matters reviewed by the HR&C Committee during 2016, is as follows:
Committee Action | Jan | Feb | May | Jul | Oct | Nov | Board Action | |||||||
Review CEO succession plan, management structure, and executive development. | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review CEOs recommendation of NEOs compensation, and recommend adjustments | ● | Approve | ||||||||||||
Evaluate CEOs performance in light of goals, base pay and total compensation determined | ● | Approve | ||||||||||||
Recommend CEOs goals relevant to compensation for the next year | ● | Approve | ||||||||||||
Review Short-term incentive plans awards and costing for the upcoming year, based upon approved budget targets | ● | Approve | ||||||||||||
Recommend Short-term incentive plan payouts for NEOs, and in total | ● | Approve | ||||||||||||
Recommend Short-term incentive plan payouts for CEO | ● | Approve | ||||||||||||
Recommend Estimate of total annual projected LTIP grant requirements (PSUs and stock options) | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Draft of Human Resources & Compensation Committee Report for annual Proxy Circular | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Compensation program risk assessment | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Compensation consultant independence | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Executive Compensation Philosophy to support the business objectives | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Execution of stock sales and ownership levels: CEO, NEOs and Board; review dilution |
● | ● | ● | ● | Information Only | |||||||||
Review Emerging Issues in executive compensation | ● | ● | ● | ● | Information Only | |||||||||
Review Diversity and Inclusion Strategy | ● | ● | ● | ● | Information Only | |||||||||
Review Board Risk Monitor | ● | ● | ● | ● | Information Only | |||||||||
Approve Report on Human Resources and executive compensation for the annual proxy circular | ● |
Approve as part of
proxy circular |
||||||||||||
Recommend LTIP grants (PSUs and stock options) for CEO, NEOs and in total; reserve analysis and dilution | ● | Approve | ||||||||||||
Review Executive Committee (EC) Tally Sheet | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Peer group/comparator analysis |
●
(every
|
Information Only | ||||||||||||
Recommend Board Compensation Annual Review | ● | Approve |
C-3 | PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular |
Committee Action | Jan | Feb | May | Jul | Oct | Nov | Board Action | |||||||
Review Labour relations environment | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review (with Audit Committee) Retirement benefits, including fund review, retirement plan accruals, and other | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Pay for Performance Analysis | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Interim update on CEO goals | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Status report on short-term performance measures and projected incentive payments | ● | ● | Information Only | |||||||||||
Recommend Other risk categories assigned to the Human Resources & Compensation Committee (may be with the Audit Committee) |
●
(every
|
Approve | ||||||||||||
Approve Peer group/comparator analysis |
●
(every
|
Approve | ||||||||||||
Recommend Salary Administration: Merit and range adjustments and budget for next year | ● |
Approve as part of
final budget |
||||||||||||
Review of EC total compensation structure (including competitiveness) | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Staff succession planning, leadership development and performance management | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Report on sustainability performance | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Review Human Resources & Compensation Committee self-evaluation and charter review | ● | Information Only | ||||||||||||
Recommend EC changes (as occur) | Approve | |||||||||||||
Recommend any significant plan changes (as needed) Incentive and equity plans; Other plans (may be in conjunction with Audit Committee) |
Approve as
Necessary |
PotashCorp 2017 Management Proxy Circular | C-4 |
|
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. |
Proxy |
For use at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders
to be held on May 9, 2017. THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF MANAGEMENT OF THE CORPORATION |
The undersigned holder of common shares (Shares) of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Corporation) hereby appoints John W. Estey, Board Chair, or failing him, Jochen E. Tilk, President and Chief Executive Officer, or failing him, Wayne R. Brownlee, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, or failing him, Joseph A. Podwika, Secretary, or instead of any of the foregoing,
as proxy for the undersigned, with full power of substitution to attend, vote and act for and on behalf of the undersigned at the annual meeting of shareholders of the Corporation to be held:
Tuesday, the 9 th day of May, 2017 (the Meeting)
3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time)
Radisson Hotel, Salon A
405 20 th Street East
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
and at any adjournments or postponements thereof, and hereby revokes any proxy previously given by the undersigned.
1. | A shareholder has the right to appoint a person who need not be a shareholder, to represent him or her and to attend and act on his or her behalf at the Meeting, other than the nominees designated above, and may exercise such right by crossing out the names of the designated persons above and inserting the name of his or her nominee in the space provided above for that purpose. |
2. | The Shares represented by this proxy will be voted in accordance with any choice specified in this proxy. If no specification is made, the persons named above will vote such Shares FOR the election of each of the directors named in this proxy, FOR the appointment of Deloitte LLP as auditors of the Corporation until the close of the next annual meeting and, FOR the advisory resolution |
accepting the Corporations approach to executive compensation disclosed in the accompanying Management Proxy Circular. This proxy confers authority to vote in the proxyholders discretion with respect to amendments or variations to matters identified in the accompanying Notice of Meeting and with respect to other matters that may properly come before the Meeting. |
3. | If this proxy is not dated, it shall be deemed to be dated on the date on which this proxy was mailed by the Corporation. |
4. | This proxy must be received at the Toronto office of CST Trust Company no later than 3:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time) on Friday, May 5, 2017 or, if the Meeting is adjourned or postponed, at least 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) before the Meeting resumes. |
5. | Reference is made to the accompanying Management Proxy Circular of the Corporation for further information regarding the completion and use of this proxy and other information pertaining to the Meeting. |
Without limiting the general powers hereby conferred, the Shares represented by this proxy are to be:
Dated the | day of | 2017. | ||||||||||
Name of Shareholder | Signature of Shareholder | |||||||
Exhibit 99(b)
Schedule of Participants
Additional Survey Participants
A.O. Smith |
AbbVie |
Accenture |
ACH |
Adecco |
ADT Security Services |
Agilent Technologies |
Agrium |
Agrium |
Aimia |
Air Products and Chemicals |
AkzoNobel |
Alcoa |
Alexander & Baldwin |
Alexion Pharmaceuticals |
Altria Group |
Amadeus North America |
American Express Global Business Travel |
American Sugar Refining |
Americas Styrenics |
AmerisourceBergen |
AMETEK |
Amgen |
AMSTED Industries |
Amway |
Andersons |
Ansell |
Arbys Restaurant Group |
Archer Daniels Midland |
Arkema |
ARM |
Armstrong World Industries |
Arrow Electronics |
Asbury Automotive Group |
Ashland |
AstraZeneca |
AT&T |
Automatic Data Processing |
Avnet |
Axiall Corporation |
BAE Systems |
Baker Hughes |
Ball |
Barrick Gold |
Barrick Gold of North America |
Beam Suntory |
Bechtel Nuclear, Security & Environmental |
Beckman Coulter |
Becton Dickinson |
Bell Canada |
Bemis |
Berry Plastics |
Best Buy |
Big Lots |
Biogen Inc. |
Blount International |
BMC Software |
Bob Evans Farms |
Bombardier Transportation |
BorgWarner |
Boston Scientific |
BP Canada Energy Company |
Brembo |
Bridgestone Americas |
Bristol-Myers Squibb |
British American Tobacco |
Broadridge Financial Solutions |
Brown-Forman |
Brunswick |
Bunge |
Burlington Northern Santa Fe |
Bush Brothers & Company |
CA Technologies |
Cablevision Systems |
Cabot |
Calgon Carbon |
Canada Post Corporation |
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce |
Canadian National Railway Company |
Canadian Natural Resources Limited |
Canadian Pacific Railway |
Canadian Tire Corporation Limited |
Capsugel |
Cardinal Health |
Cargill |
Cargill |
Carlson |
Carnival |
Caseys General Stores |
Catalent Pharma Solutions |
Catalyst Paper Corporation |
CDI |
CDK Global |
CDW |
Celanese |
Celestica |
Celestica |
Cenovus Energy |
CenturyLink |
Cepheid |
Ceridian |
CEVA Logistics |
CGI Conseillers en Gestion et Informatique |
CGI Technologies and Solutions |
CH2M HILL |
Charter Communications |
Chemours Company |
Chemtura |
Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I) |
CHS |
Cimpress |
Cintas |
Clearwater Paper Corporation |
Coca-Cola |
Coca-Cola Enterprises |
Colgate-Palmolive |
Compass |
ConAgra Foods |
Continental Automotive Systems |
Convergys |
Cooper Standard Automotive |
Corning |
Cott Corporation |
Covestro |
Cox Enterprises |
Crown Castle |
Crown Holdings |
CSC |
CSX |
Cubic |
Cumberland Gulf Group |
Curtiss-Wright |
Cushman & Wakefield |
CVR Energy |
D&B |
Danaher |
Dean Foods |
Deckers Brands |
Delhaize America |
Dell |
Delta Air Lines |
Deluxe |
Dematic Group |
Dentsply Sirona |
DHL Supply Chain |
Diageo North America |
Diebold |
DJO Global |
Domtar |
Donaldson |
Dot Foods |
Dow Chemical |
DuPont |
E.W. Scripps |
Eastman Chemical |
Eastman Kodak eBay |
Ecolab |
Edwards Lifesciences |
Eisai |
Elementis |
Eli Lilly |
Enbridge |
Encana |
Encana Services Company |
Endo |
EnPro Industries |
Epson America |
Equifax |
Ericsson |
ESCO |
Estée Lauder |
Esterline Technologies |
Experian Americas |
Express Scripts |
FCA Canada Inc. |
Federal-Mogul |
Ferrovial |
Finning International |
FIS |
Flowers Foods |
Flowserve |
Fluor |
FOCUS Brands |
Ford |
Forsythe Technology |
Frontier Communications |
Fujitsu |
G&K Services |
GAF Materials |
Gap |
Garmin |
Gates |
GE Energy |
General Atomics |
General Cable |
General Dynamics |
General Electric |
General Electric |
General Mills |
General Motors |
Gilead Sciences |
Glatfelter |
GlaxoSmithKline |
GLOBALFOUNDRIES |
Goldcorp |
Goodyear Tire & Rubber |
Graco |
Great-West Life Insurance Company |
Greene, Tweed and Co. |
H.B. Fuller |
Hallmark Cards |
Halozyme Therapeutics |
Hanesbrands |
Haribo |
Harley-Davidson |
Harman International Industries |
Harsco |
Hasbro |
HAVI Group |
HD Supply |
Hearthside Food Solutions |
Henry Schein |
HERC |
Herman Miller |
Hershey |
Hertz |
Hexion |
Hilton Worldwide |
Hiscox |
Hitachi Data Systems |
HNI |
HNTB |
Hoffmann-La Roche |
Hormel Foods |
Host Hotels & Resorts |
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing |
HP Inc. |
Hunt Consolidated |
Husky Energy |
Husky Injection Molding Systems |
IBM |
IBM |
IDEX Corporation |
IDEXX Laboratories |
iHeartMedia |
Imperial Oil |
IMS Health |
INEOS Olefins & Polymers USA |
Ingenico |
Ingevity |
Ingredion |
Intact Financial Corp. |
Intel |
Intelsat |
International Flavors & Fragrances |
International Game Technology |
International Paper |
Irvine |
Itron |
ITV |
J. Crew |
Jabil Circuit |
Jack in the Box |
Jacobs Engineering |
JetBlue Airways |
Johns Manville |
Johnson & Johnson |
K. Hovnanian Companies |
KB Home |
KBR |
Kellogg |
Kelly Services |
Kennametal |
Kerry Group |
Keurig Green Mountain |
Keysight Technologies |
Keystone Foods |
Kimberly-Clark |
Kinross Gold |
Koch Industries |
Kodak Alaris |
Kohler |
L-3 Communications |
Lafarge North America |
Land OLakes |
Lear |
Ledcor Group of Companies |
Leggett and Platt |
Lehigh Hanson |
Leidos |
Lend Lease |
Lenovo |
Leprino Foods |
Levi Strauss |
Lexmark |
LG Electronics |
Liberty Global |
Lifetouch |
Lincoln Electric |
Loblaws Inc. |
Lockheed Martin |
Lonza |
LOréal |
Lubrizol |
Lutron Electronics |
LyondellBasell |
Magellan Midstream Partners |
Makino |
Manulife Financial |
Marriott International |
Mars Incorporated |
Martin Marietta Materials |
Mary Kay |
Masco |
Materion Corporation |
Mattel |
Matthews International |
McCain Foods |
McCain Foods USA |
McKesson |
McLane Company |
Medtronic |
Merck & Co |
Meredith |
Meritor |
Merrill |
Metrie |
Mettler-Toledo |
Micron Technology |
Microsoft |
MillerCoors |
Molex |
Molson Coors Brewing |
Monsanto |
Mosaic |
Motorsport Aftermarket Group |
MTS Systems |
Multi-Color |
Mylan |
Navigant Consulting |
Navistar International |
NBTY |
NCR |
Neoris |
New York Times |
Newell Rubbermaid |
Newmont Mining |
Nike |
Nissan North America |
Norfolk Southern |
Nortek |
Northrop Grumman |
Novartis |
Novelis |
Nu Skin Enterprises |
Nuance Communications |
Occidental Petroleum |
Ontario Power Generation |
Orbital ATK |
Oshkosh |
Osram Sylvania |
Outerwall |
Owens Corning |
Oxford Instruments America |
Panasonic of North America |
PAREXEL |
Parker Hannifin |
Parmalat |
Parsons Corporation |
PayPal |
PepsiCo |
Pfizer |
Philip Morris |
Pitney Bowes |
Polaris Industries |
PolyOne |
Potash |
Power Corporation of Canada |
Praxair |
PulteGroup |
Puratos |
Purdue Pharma |
Quaker Chemical |
Qualcomm |
Quest Diagnostics |
Quintiles |
R.R. Donnelley |
Rackspace |
Ralph Lauren |
Rayonier Advanced Materials |
RBC Financial Group |
Regency Centers |
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals |
Resolute Forest Products |
Revlon |
Reynolds Packaging |
Ricoh Americas |
Rio Tinto |
Rio Tinto |
Ritchie Brothers Auctioneers |
Rockwell Automation |
Rockwell Collins |
Rogers Communications |
Royal Caribbean Cruises |
Ryder System |
S.C. Johnson & Son |
Sabre Corporation |
Sage Software |
SAIC |
Saint-Gobain |
Samsung |
Sanofi |
Saputo Produits laitiers Canada s.e.n.c. |
SAS Institute |
Sasol USA |
Scholastic |
Schreiber Foods |
Schwan Food Company |
Scotiabank |
Scotts Miracle-Gro |
Scripps Networks Interactive |
Sealed Air |
Sensient Technologies |
ServiceMaster Company |
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance |
Shell Oil |
Sherwin-Williams |
Siemens |
Smith & Nephew |
Snap-on |
Snyders Lance |
Sodexo |
Sonic Corp |
Sonoco Products |
Sony |
Sony Electronics |
Southwest Airlines |
Spirit AeroSystems |
SPX Corporation |
SPX FLOW |
St. Jude Medical |
Stanley Black & Decker |
Stantec |
Starbucks |
Steelcase |
Stolt-Nielsen |
Stryker |
Sucampo Pharmaceuticals |
Sun Life Financial |
SunCoke Energy |
Suncor Energy |
SunOpta |
SuperValu Stores |
SWM International (Schweizer-Mauduit) |
Sysco Corporation |
Takeda Pharmaceuticals |
Target |
Taubman Centers |
TD Bank Financial Group |
Teck Resources |
TeleTech |
Telus |
Tempur Sealy |
Teradata |
Terex |
Textron |
Thermo Fisher Scientific |
Thyssenkrupp |
Tiffany & Co. |
Time Warner |
Time Warner Cable |
Timken |
TimkenSteel |
T-Mobile USA |
Tobii Dynavox |
Toro |
Total System Service (TSYS) |
TransCanada |
TransUnion |
Travel Leaders Group |
Travelport |
Tribune Media |
TripAdvisor |
TRW Automotive |
Tupperware Brands |
Tyson Foods |
Underwriters Laboratories |
Unilever United States |
Unisys |
United States Cellular |
United States Steel |
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) |
UPS |
USG Corporation |
Valero Energy |
Vantiv |
Vectrus |
Ventura Foods |
Verizon |
Vertex Pharmaceuticals |
Viacom |
Viad |
Vista Outdoor |
Visteon |
Viterra |
Vizient |
Vulcan Materials |
VWR International |
W.R. Grace |
Walmart |
Walt Disney |
Waste Management |
Watts Water Technologies |
Welltower |
Wendys Group |
West Pharmaceutical Services |
Westar Energy |
Westinghouse Electric |
WestRock |
Weyerhaeuser |
Whirlpool |
Wilsonart |
Wood Mackenzie |
Worthington Industries |
Xilinx |
Xylem |
YP |
Zebra Technologies |
Zimmer Biomet |