-
Annual Statements
-
»
Companies
-
»
Intrepid Potash, Inc.
-
»
Quarter Report: 2011 June (Form 10-Q)
Intrepid Potash, Inc. - Quarter Report: 2011 June (Form 10-Q)
Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2011
Commission File Number: 001-34025
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) |
|
26-1501877
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.) |
707 17th Street, Suite 4200
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 296-3006
(Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code)
(Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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 ý No o
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 (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter
period that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files.) Yes ý No o
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 Exchange Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer ý |
|
Accelerated filer o |
|
Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a
smaller reporting company) |
|
Smaller reporting company o |
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No ý
As of July 31, 2011, 75,202,086 shares of the registrant's common stock, par value of $0.001 per share, were outstanding.
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Table of Contents
PART IFINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED)
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED)
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
71,250 |
|
$ |
76,133 |
|
Short-term investments |
|
|
52,105 |
|
|
45,557 |
|
Accounts receivable: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade, net |
|
|
35,718 |
|
|
23,767 |
|
|
Other receivables |
|
|
7,168 |
|
|
1,161 |
|
Refundable income taxes |
|
|
10,662 |
|
|
6,543 |
|
Inventory, net |
|
|
51,306 |
|
|
48,094 |
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets |
|
|
4,157 |
|
|
4,016 |
|
Current deferred tax asset |
|
|
4,040 |
|
|
3,551 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets |
|
|
236,406 |
|
|
208,822 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant, and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation of $81,982 and $66,615, respectively |
|
|
326,109 |
|
|
285,920 |
|
Mineral properties and development costs, net of accumulated depletion of $9,211 and $8,431, respectively |
|
|
33,598 |
|
|
34,372 |
|
Long-term parts inventory, net |
|
|
8,504 |
|
|
7,121 |
|
Long-term investments |
|
|
34,426 |
|
|
21,298 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
3,817 |
|
|
5,311 |
|
Non-current deferred tax asset |
|
|
235,534 |
|
|
266,040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
878,394 |
|
$ |
828,884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade |
|
$ |
14,151 |
|
$ |
17,951 |
|
|
Related parties |
|
|
181 |
|
|
126 |
|
Accrued liabilities |
|
|
19,136 |
|
|
17,153 |
|
Accrued employee compensation and benefits |
|
|
10,691 |
|
|
8,597 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
|
1,291 |
|
|
1,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities |
|
|
45,450 |
|
|
45,405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation |
|
|
9,860 |
|
|
9,478 |
|
Deferred insurance proceeds |
|
|
|
|
|
11,700 |
|
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
3,914 |
|
|
4,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
|
59,224 |
|
|
71,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and Contingencies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 100,000,000 shares authorized; and 75,202,086 and 75,110,875 shares outstanding at June 30, 2011, and December 31,
2010, respectively |
|
|
75 |
|
|
75 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
561,997 |
|
|
559,675 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(682 |
) |
|
(702 |
) |
Retained earnings |
|
|
257,780 |
|
|
198,793 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Stockholders' Equity |
|
|
819,170 |
|
|
757,841 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity |
|
$ |
878,394 |
|
$ |
828,884 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
accompanying notes to these condensed consolidated financial statements.
1
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Sales |
|
$ |
119,373 |
|
$ |
64,318 |
|
$ |
224,351 |
|
$ |
171,677 |
|
Less: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freight costs |
|
|
6,727 |
|
|
5,573 |
|
|
14,718 |
|
|
15,339 |
|
|
Warehousing and handling costs |
|
|
3,784 |
|
|
2,317 |
|
|
7,061 |
|
|
5,041 |
|
|
Cost of goods sold |
|
|
53,719 |
|
|
41,416 |
|
|
105,710 |
|
|
108,670 |
|
|
Costs associated with abnormal production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
470 |
|
|
Other |
|
|
5 |
|
|
271 |
|
|
507 |
|
|
540 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Margin |
|
|
55,138 |
|
|
14,741 |
|
|
96,355 |
|
|
41,617 |
|
Selling and administrative |
|
|
8,986 |
|
|
7,969 |
|
|
15,857 |
|
|
14,582 |
|
Accretion of asset retirement obligation |
|
|
191 |
|
|
176 |
|
|
382 |
|
|
352 |
|
Insurance settlements from property and business losses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,500 |
) |
|
|
|
Other operating (income) loss |
|
|
(4,730 |
) |
|
305 |
|
|
(4,689 |
) |
|
473 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Income |
|
|
50,691 |
|
|
6,291 |
|
|
97,305 |
|
|
26,210 |
|
Other Income (Expense) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense, including realized and unrealized derivative gains and losses |
|
|
(389 |
) |
|
(478 |
) |
|
(502 |
) |
|
(1,032 |
) |
Interest income |
|
|
415 |
|
|
177 |
|
|
785 |
|
|
273 |
|
Other income |
|
|
59 |
|
|
102 |
|
|
318 |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
50,776 |
|
|
6,092 |
|
|
97,906 |
|
|
25,599 |
|
Income Tax Expense |
|
|
(20,068 |
) |
|
(2,490 |
) |
|
(38,919 |
) |
|
(10,151 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income |
|
$ |
30,708 |
|
$ |
3,602 |
|
$ |
58,987 |
|
$ |
15,448 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
75,184,306 |
|
|
75,085,873 |
|
|
75,157,871 |
|
|
75,064,966 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
|
75,268,279 |
|
|
75,125,620 |
|
|
75,266,010 |
|
|
75,128,691 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings Per Share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
$ |
0.78 |
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
$ |
0.78 |
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
accompanying notes to these condensed consolidated financial statements.
2
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (UNAUDITED)
(In thousands, except share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
Paid-in
Capital |
|
Retained
Earnings |
|
Total
Stockholders'
Equity |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
Amount |
|
Balance, December 31, 2010 |
|
|
75,110,875 |
|
$ |
75 |
|
$ |
559,675 |
|
$ |
(702 |
) |
$ |
198,793 |
|
$ |
757,841 |
|
Comprehensive income, net of tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension liability adjustment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
Unrealized gain on investments held for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Net income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,987 |
|
|
58,987 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,672 |
|
Issuance of common stock upon exercise of stock options |
|
|
13,276 |
|
|
|
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
299 |
|
Excess income tax benefit from stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427 |
|
Vesting of restricted common stock, net of restricted common stock used to fund employee income tax withholding due upon vesting |
|
|
77,935 |
|
|
|
|
|
(1,076 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,076 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, June 30, 2011 |
|
|
75,202,086 |
|
$ |
75 |
|
$ |
561,997 |
|
$ |
(682 |
) |
$ |
257,780 |
|
$ |
819,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to these condensed consolidated financial statements.
3
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED)
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reconciliation of net income to net cash provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
58,987 |
|
$ |
15,448 |
|
Deferred income taxes |
|
|
30,017 |
|
|
7,164 |
|
Insurance settlements from property and business losses |
|
|
(12,500 |
) |
|
|
|
Items not affecting cash: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion, amortization, and accretion |
|
|
17,224 |
|
|
13,226 |
|
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
2,672 |
|
|
2,115 |
|
|
Unrealized derivative gain |
|
|
(545 |
) |
|
(117 |
) |
|
Other |
|
|
455 |
|
|
484 |
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade accounts receivable |
|
|
(11,951 |
) |
|
6,906 |
|
|
Other receivables |
|
|
(6,013 |
) |
|
(345 |
) |
|
Refundable income taxes |
|
|
(4,119 |
) |
|
6,914 |
|
|
Inventory |
|
|
(4,595 |
) |
|
11,255 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other assets |
|
|
1,247 |
|
|
594 |
|
|
Accounts payable, accrued liabilities and accrued employee compensation and benefits |
|
|
8,714 |
|
|
5,366 |
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
(1,115 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities |
|
|
79,285 |
|
|
67,895 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant, and equipment |
|
|
(63,816 |
) |
|
(37,683 |
) |
|
Additions to mineral properties and development costs |
|
|
(720 |
) |
|
(381 |
) |
|
Proceeds from insurance settlements from property and business losses |
|
|
806 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases of investments |
|
|
(52,459 |
) |
|
(23,638 |
) |
|
Proceeds from investments |
|
|
32,371 |
|
|
2,687 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(83,818 |
) |
|
(59,015 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows from Financing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee tax withholding paid for restricted stock upon vesting |
|
|
(1,076 |
) |
|
(727 |
) |
|
Excess income tax benefit from stock-based compensation |
|
|
427 |
|
|
64 |
|
|
Proceeds from exercise of stock options |
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(350 |
) |
|
(663 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
(4,883 |
) |
|
8,217 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, beginning of period |
|
|
76,133 |
|
|
89,792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents, end of period |
|
$ |
71,250 |
|
$ |
98,009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid (received) during the period for: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest, including settlements on derivatives |
|
$ |
759 |
|
$ |
1,095 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes |
|
$ |
12,605 |
|
$ |
(4,142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See
accompanying notes to these condensed consolidated financial statements.
4
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(UNAUDITED)
Note 1COMPANY BACKGROUND
Intrepid Potash, Inc. (individually or in any combination with its subsidiaries, "Intrepid") produces muriate of potash ("potassium chloride" or "potash"); langbeinite; and
by-products including salt, magnesium chloride and metal recovery salts. The processing of langbeinite ore results in sulfate of potash magnesia, which is marketed for sale as
Trio®. Intrepid owns five active potash production facilities, three in New Mexico, and two in Utah. Production comes from two underground mines in the
Carlsbad region of New Mexico; a solar evaporation solution mine near Moab, Utah; and a solar evaporation shallow brine mine in Wendover, Utah. Intrepid manages sales and marketing operations
centrally to evaluate the product needs of its customers and then determine which of its production facilities to utilize in order to fill customers' orders, in a manner designed to realize the
highest average net realized sales price to Intrepid. As such, product inventory levels and overall productions costs are monitored centrally. Intrepid has one reporting segment being the extraction,
production, and sale of potassium related products, and its extraction and production operations are conducted entirely in the continental United States.
Note 2BASIS OF PRESENTATION
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") for
interim financial information and Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For interim periods, GAAP and Regulation S-X do not require all
information and notes that are required for annual periods. Therefore, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with Intrepid's Consolidated Financial
Statements and Notes thereto included in Intrepid's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2011. The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments, which are normal and recurring in nature, and which, in the opinion of management, are
necessary for a fair presentation of Intrepid's financial position, results of operations and cash flows at June 30, 2011, and for all periods presented.
Note 3SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Principles of ConsolidationThe consolidated financial statements of Intrepid include the accounts of Intrepid and its wholly-owned subsidiaries.
All
intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Use of EstimatesThe preparation of financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of
assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.
Intrepid bases its estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, actual results may differ significantly
from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
Significant
estimates with regard to Intrepid's consolidated financial statements include the estimate of proven and probable mineral reserve volumes, the related present value of
estimated future net cash flows, useful lives of plant assets, asset retirement obligations, normal inventory production levels, inventory valuations, the valuation of equity awards, the valuation of
derivative financial instruments, and estimated statutory income tax rates utilized in the current and deferred income tax
5
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 3SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
calculations.
There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of proven and probable reserves, projecting future rates of production, and the timing of development expenditures.
Future mineral prices may vary significantly from the prices in effect at the time the estimates are made, as may estimates of future operating costs. The estimate of proven and probable mineral
reserve volumes, useful lives of plant assets, and the related present value of estimated future net cash flows can affect depletion, the net carrying value of Intrepid's mineral properties, and the
useful lives of related property, plant and equipment, as well as depreciation expenses.
Revenue RecognitionRevenue is recognized when evidence of an arrangement exists, risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to
customers,
which is generally when title passes, the selling price is fixed and determinable, and collection is reasonably assured. Title passes at the designated shipping point for the majority of sales, but,
in a few cases, title passes at the delivery destination. The shipping point may be the plant, a distribution warehouse, a customer warehouse, or a port. Title passes for some international shipments
upon payment by the purchaser; however, revenue is recognized for these transactions upon shipment because the risks and rewards of ownership have transferred pursuant to a contractual arrangement.
Prices are generally set at the time of, or prior to, shipment. In cases where the final price is determined upon resale of the product by the customer, revenue is deferred until the final sales price
is known.
Sales
are reported on a gross basis. Intrepid quotes prices to customers both on a delivered basis and on the basis of pick-up at Intrepid's plants and warehouses. When a
sale occurs on a delivered basis, Intrepid incurs and, in turn, bills the customer and records as gross revenue the product sales value, freight, packaging, and certain other distribution costs. Many
customers, however, arrange for and pay for these costs directly and in these situations, only the product sales value is included in gross revenues.
By-product CreditsWhen by-product inventories are sold, Intrepid records the sale of by-products as a credit to
cost of goods sold.
Inventory and Long-Term Parts InventoryInventory consists of product and by-product stocks which are ready for sale, mined
ore, potash in evaporation ponds, and parts and supplies inventory. Product and by-product inventory cost is determined using the lower of weighted average cost or estimated net realizable
value and includes direct costs, maintenance, operational overhead, depreciation, depletion, and equipment lease costs applicable to the production process. Direct costs, maintenance, and operational
overhead include labor and associated benefits.
Intrepid
evaluates its production levels and costs to determine if any should be deemed abnormal and therefore excluded from inventory costs and instead expensed during the applicable
period. The assessment of normal production levels is judgmental and is unique to each period. Intrepid models normal production levels and evaluates historical ranges of production by operating plant
in assessing what is deemed to be normal.
Parts
inventory, including critical spares, that is not expected to be utilized within a period of one year is classified as non-current. Parts and supply inventory cost is
determined using the lower of average acquisition cost or estimated replacement cost. Detailed reviews are performed related to the net realizable value of parts inventory, giving consideration to
quality, slow-moving items, obsolescence,
6
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 3SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
excessive
levels, and other factors. Parts inventories not having turned-over in more than a year, excluding parts classified as critical spares, are reviewed for obsolescence and if
deemed appropriate, are included in the determination of an allowance for obsolescence.
DerivativesIntrepid had entered into interest rate derivative instruments when it had outstanding debt in order to swap a portion of
floating-rate debt to fixed-rate when borrowings were probable and the significant characteristics and expected timing were identified. These instruments were entered into
prior to Intrepid's initial public offering in April 2008. These items have not been designated as an accounting hedge; accordingly, any change in fair value from period to period associated with
realized and unrealized gains or losses on interest rate derivative contracts is shown within interest expense.
Property, Plant, and EquipmentProperty, plant, and equipment are stated at historical cost. Expenditures for property, plant, and equipment
relating
to new assets or improvements are capitalized, provided the expenditure extends the useful life of an asset or extends the asset's functionality. Property, plant, and equipment are depreciated under
the straight-line method using estimated useful lives. No depreciation is taken on assets classified as construction in progress until the asset is placed into service. Gains and losses
are recorded upon retirement, sale, or disposal of assets. Maintenance and repair costs are recognized as period costs when incurred.
Recoverability of Long-Lived AssetsIntrepid evaluates its long-lived assets for impairment when events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the related carrying amount may not be recoverable. Impairment is considered to exist if an asset's total estimated future cash flows on an undiscounted basis are less than
the carrying amount of the related asset. An impairment loss is measured and recorded based on the discounted estimated future cash flows. Changes in significant assumptions underlying future cash
flow estimates or fair values of assets may have a material effect on our financial position and results of operations.
Mineral Properties and Development CostsMineral properties and development costs, which are referred to collectively as mineral properties,
include
acquisition costs, the cost of drilling wells, and the cost of other development work, all of which are capitalized. Depletion of mineral properties is calculated using the
units-of-production method over the estimated life of the relevant ore body. The lives of reserves used for accounting purposes are shorter than current reserve life
determinations due to uncertainties inherent in long-term estimates. These reserve life estimates have been prepared by us and reviewed and independently determined by mine consultants.
Reserve studies and mine plans are updated periodically, and the remaining net balance of the mineral properties is depleted over the updated estimated life, subject to a 25-year limit.
Possible impairment is also considered in conjunction with updated reserve studies and mine plans. The determination of Intrepid's proven and probable reserves is based on extensive drilling,
sampling, mine modeling, and mineral recovery, and the economic feasibility of accessing the reserves. The price sensitivity of reserves depends upon several factors including ore grade, ore
thickness, and ore mineral composition. The reserves are estimated based on information available at the time the reserves are calculated. Recovery rates vary depending on the mineral properties of
each deposit and the production process used. The reserve estimates utilize the average recovery rate for the deposit, which takes into account the processing methods scheduled to be used. The cutoff
grade, or lowest grade of mineralized material considered economic to process, varies with material type, mineral recoveries, operating costs, and expected selling price.
7
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 3SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
Proven
and probable reserves are based on estimates, and no assurance can be given that the indicated levels of recoveries of potash and langbeinite will be realized or that production costs and
estimated future development costs will not exceed the net realizable value of the products. Tons of potash and langbeinite in the proven and probable reserves are expressed in terms of expected
finished tons of product to be realized, net of estimated losses. Reserve estimates may require revision based on actual production experience. Market price fluctuations of potash or
Trio®, as well as increased production costs or reduced recovery rates, could render proven and probable reserves containing relatively lower grades of
mineralization uneconomic to exploit and might result in a reduction of reserves. In addition, the provisions of Intrepid's mineral leases, including royalties payable, are subject to periodic
readjustment by the state and/or federal government, which could affect the economics of its reserve estimates. Significant changes in the estimated reserves could have a material impact on Intrepid's
results of operations and financial position.
Exploration CostsExploration costs include geological and geophysical work performed on areas that do not yet have proven and probable reserves
declared. These costs are expensed as incurred.
Asset Retirement ObligationReclamation costs are initially recorded as a liability associated with the asset to be reclaimed or abandoned, based
on
applicable inflation assumptions and
discount rates. The accretion of this discounted liability is recognized as expense over the life of the related assets, and the liability is periodically adjusted to reflect changes in the estimates
of either the timing or amount of the reclamation and abandonment costs.
Planned Turnaround MaintenanceEach operation typically shuts down periodically for planned maintenance. The costs of maintenance turnarounds are
considered part of production costs and are absorbed into inventory in the period incurred.
LeasesUpon entering into leases, Intrepid evaluates whether leases are operating or capital leases. Operating lease expense is recognized as
incurred. If lease payments change over the contractual term or involve contingent amounts, the total estimated cost over the term is recognized on a straight-line basis.
Income TaxesIntrepid is a subchapter C corporation and therefore is subject to U.S. federal and state income taxes. Intrepid recognizes
income
taxes under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the estimated future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement
carrying amounts of assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using the enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the
periods in which the deferred tax liability or asset is expected to be settled or realized. Intrepid records a valuation allowance if it is deemed more likely than not that its deferred income tax
assets will not be realized in full; such determinations are subject to ongoing assessment.
Cash and Cash EquivalentsCash and cash equivalents consist of cash and liquid investments with an original maturity of three months or less.
InvestmentsIntrepid's short-term and long-term investments consist of certificates of deposit with various banking
institutions, including financial instruments, U.S. government agency, municipal and
8
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 3SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)
corporate
taxable bonds, and corporate convertible debentures, which have been classified as either held-to-maturity or available-for-sale securities.
Short-term investments on the consolidated balance sheets have remaining maturities to Intrepid less than or equal to one year and investments classified as long-term on the
consolidated balance sheets have remaining maturities to Intrepid greater than one year. With regard to the financial instruments classified as held-to-maturity investments,
they are carried on the consolidated balance sheets at cost, net of amortized premiums or discounts paid. The available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value, with
changes in fair value recognized through Other Comprehensive Loss. Fair value is assessed using a market-based approach.
Fair Value of Financial InstrumentsIntrepid's financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, certificate of deposit investments,
short-term and long-term investments, restricted cash, accounts receivable, refundable income taxes, and accounts payable, all of which are carried at cost, except for
available-for-sale investments which are carried at fair value, and approximate fair value due to the short-term nature of these instruments, other than the
long-term certificate of deposit investments. Allowances for doubtful accounts are recorded against the accounts receivable balance to estimate net realizable value. Although there are no
amounts currently outstanding under Intrepid's senior credit facility, any borrowings that become outstanding are expected to be recorded at amounts that approximate their fair value as borrowings
bear interest at a floating rate. Intrepid's interest rate swaps are recorded at fair value with adjustments to this fair value recognized currently in the statements of operations using established
counterparty evaluations that are subjected to management's review. Since considerable judgment is required to develop estimates of fair value, the estimates provided are not necessarily indicative of
the precise amounts that could be realized upon the sale, settlement, or refinancing of such instruments.
Earnings per ShareBasic net income per common share of stock is calculated by dividing net income available to common stockholders by the
weighted
average basic common shares outstanding for the respective period.
Diluted
net income per common share of stock is calculated by dividing net income by the weighted average diluted common shares outstanding, which includes the effect of potentially
dilutive securities.
Potentially dilutive securities for the diluted earnings per share calculation consist of awards of non-vested restricted shares of common stock and outstanding non-qualified
stock option awards. The dilutive effect of stock based compensation arrangements are computed using the treasury stock method. Following the lapse of the vesting period of restricted common stock
awards, the shares are issued and therefore are included in the number of issued and outstanding shares.
Stock-Based CompensationIntrepid accounts for stock based compensation by recording expense using the fair value of the awards at the time of
grant.
Intrepid has recorded compensation expense associated with the issuance of non-vested restricted common stock awards and non-qualified stock option awards, both of which are
subject to service conditions. The expense associated with such awards is recognized over the service period associated with each issuance. There are no performance or market conditions associated
with these awards.
9
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 4EARNINGS PER SHARE
The treasury stock method is used to measure the dilutive impact of non-vested restricted shares of common stock and outstanding stock options. For the three months ended
June 30, 2011, and 2010, a weighted average of 42,028 and 138,512 non-vested shares of restricted common stock and 174,343 and 233,291 stock options, respectively, were
anti-dilutive and therefore were not included in the diluted weighted average share calculation. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, a weighted average of 27,995 and
129,253 non-vested shares of restricted common stock and 144,794 and 174,013 stock options, respectively, were anti-dilutive and therefore were not included in the diluted
weighted average share calculation.
The
following table sets forth the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per share (in thousands, except per share amounts).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Net income |
|
$ |
30,708 |
|
$ |
3,602 |
|
$ |
58,987 |
|
$ |
15,448 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
75,184 |
|
|
75,086 |
|
|
75,158 |
|
|
75,065 |
|
|
Add: Dilutive effect of non-vested restricted common stock |
|
|
39 |
|
|
31 |
|
|
59 |
|
|
51 |
|
|
Add: Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding |
|
|
45 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
49 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding |
|
|
75,268 |
|
|
75,126 |
|
|
75,266 |
|
|
75,129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
$ |
0.78 |
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
$ |
0.78 |
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 5CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, AND INVESTMENTS
The following table summarizes the fair value of the Company's cash and
available-for-sale securities held in its marketable securities investment portfolio, recorded as cash and cash equivalents or short-term or long-term
marketable securities as of June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Cash |
|
$ |
783 |
|
$ |
72 |
|
Commerical paper |
|
|
23,880 |
|
|
54,655 |
|
Money market and money market funds |
|
|
46,587 |
|
|
21,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
71,250 |
|
$ |
76,133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate bonds |
|
$ |
47,737 |
|
$ |
31,494 |
|
Convertible corporate bonds |
|
|
1,997 |
|
|
4,346 |
|
Certificates of deposit and time deposits |
|
|
2,371 |
|
|
9,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total short-term investments |
|
$ |
52,105 |
|
$ |
45,557 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate bonds |
|
$ |
34,426 |
|
$ |
20,578 |
|
Certificates of deposit and time deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term investments |
|
$ |
34,426 |
|
$ |
21,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash, cash equivalents and investments |
|
$ |
157,781 |
|
$ |
142,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As
of June 30, 2011, the Company held $2.0 million of convertible corporate bonds which are classified as available-for-sale. As of June 30,
2011, and 2010, Intrepid's available-for-sale investments had gross unrealized gains of approximately $33,000 and zero. The fair value of Intrepid's
held-to-maturity investments at June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, approximated their carrying amounts.
Note 6INVENTORY AND LONG-TERM PARTS INVENTORY
The following summarizes Intrepid's inventory, recorded at the lower of weighted average cost or estimated net realizable value as of June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010,
respectively (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Finished goods product inventory |
|
$ |
29,866 |
|
$ |
24,398 |
|
In-process mineral inventory |
|
|
8,229 |
|
|
11,160 |
|
Current parts inventory |
|
|
13,211 |
|
|
12,536 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current inventory |
|
|
51,306 |
|
|
48,094 |
|
Long-term parts inventory |
|
|
8,504 |
|
|
7,121 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total inventory |
|
$ |
59,810 |
|
$ |
55,215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parts
inventories are shown net of any required reserves. No obsolescence or other reserves were deemed necessary for product or in-process mineral inventory. In conjunction
with a lower of weighted average cost or estimated net realizable value assessment of our product inventory of standard-sized
11
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 6INVENTORY AND LONG-TERM PARTS INVENTORY (Continued)
Trio®,
Intrepid recorded impairment charges of approximately zero and $0.2 million in the three months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010,
respectively. Intrepid recorded impairment charges of approximately $0.5 million in both the six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010. In the three and six months ended June 30,
2011, Intrepid had no charges related to abnormal production; in the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, Intrepid recorded a charge of zero and $0.5 million related to abnormal
production.
Note 7PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT AND MINERAL PROPERTIES
 "Property, plant, and equipment" and "Mineral properties and development costs" were comprised of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Buildings and plant |
|
$ |
63,668 |
|
$ |
55,462 |
|
Machinery and equipment |
|
|
214,191 |
|
|
190,662 |
|
Vehicles |
|
|
8,124 |
|
|
8,015 |
|
Office equipment and improvements |
|
|
13,520 |
|
|
13,333 |
|
Ponds and land improvements |
|
|
7,763 |
|
|
6,802 |
|
Construction in progress |
|
|
100,562 |
|
|
77,998 |
|
Land |
|
|
263 |
|
|
263 |
|
Accumulated depreciation |
|
|
(81,982 |
) |
|
(66,615 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
326,109 |
|
$ |
285,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral properties and development costs |
|
$ |
42,129 |
|
$ |
42,288 |
|
Construction in progress |
|
|
680 |
|
|
515 |
|
Accumulated depletion |
|
|
(9,211 |
) |
|
(8,431 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
33,598 |
|
$ |
34,372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 "Mineral
properties and development costs" include accumulated costs of approximately $1.4 million as of June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, associated with the
presently idled HB Solar Solution Mine which is being converted to a solar solution mine. Intrepid is actively seeking the required permits and approvals from the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and
the state of New Mexico to resume production from this mine through the use of solution mining techniques and the application of solar evaporation, similar to the operations in Moab, Utah.
"Construction in progress" related to property, plant, and equipment associated with the HB Solar Solution Mine also includes approximately $28.3 million and $26.7 million as of
June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, respectively. No depletion or depreciation is currently being recognized on this property or its related assets, as the mine has not yet been placed
in service and there is no basis over which to amortize the historical costs.
12
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 7PROPERTY, PLANT, AND EQUIPMENT AND MINERAL PROPERTIES (Continued)
Intrepid
recorded the following cost for depreciation, depletion, amortization, and accretion ("DD&A"), including DD&A capitalized into inventory, for the following periods (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Depreciation |
|
$ |
8,147 |
|
$ |
6,196 |
|
$ |
15,954 |
|
$ |
12,078 |
|
Depletion |
|
|
353 |
|
|
260 |
|
|
795 |
|
|
685 |
|
Amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
93 |
|
|
111 |
|
Accretion |
|
|
191 |
|
|
176 |
|
|
382 |
|
|
352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
8,691 |
|
$ |
6,687 |
|
$ |
17,224 |
|
$ |
13,226 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 8DEBT
Intrepid recently replaced its senior credit facility (the "Former Credit Facility") with a new unsecured credit facility. The Former Credit Facility, which was still in place as of
June 30, 2011, was a syndicated facility led by U.S. Bank as the administrative agent and provided a revolving credit facility of $125 million. Under the terms of the Former Credit
Facility, the administrative agent for the benefit of the lenders had a security interest in substantially all of the assets of Intrepid and certain of its subsidiaries. Intrepid and certain of its
subsidiaries were co-borrowers under the Former Credit Facility and were jointly liable for all obligations under the Former Credit Facility. There were no amounts outstanding under the
Former Credit Facility as of June 30, 2011, or December 31, 2010.
In
August 2011, Intrepid entered into a new unsecured credit facility, led by U.S. Bank, as administrative agent, and Wells Fargo Bank, as syndication agent. This new credit facility,
which replaced the Former Credit Facility in its entirety, provides a total revolving credit facility of $250 million with a five-year term through August 2016. The facility is
unsecured and is guaranteed by certain material subsidiaries of Intrepid, as defined in the agreement.
Outstanding
balances under the new revolving senior credit facility bear interest at a floating rate, which, at our option, is either (1) the London Interbank Offered Rate
(LIBOR), plus a margin of between 1.25 percent and 2.0 percent, depending upon our leverage ratio, which is equal to the ratio of our total funded indebtedness to our adjusted earnings
for the prior four fiscal quarters before interest, income taxes, depreciation, amortization and certain other expenses; or (2) an alternative base rate, plus a margin between
0.25 percent and 1.0 percent, depending upon our leverage ratio. We must pay a quarterly commitment fee on the outstanding portion of the unused revolving credit facility amount of
between 0.20 percent and 0.35 percent, depending on our leverage ratio.
Note 9ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATION
Intrepid recognizes a liability for future estimated costs associated with the abandonment and reclamation of its mining properties. A liability for the estimated fair value of an asset
retirement obligation and a corresponding increase to the carrying value of the related long-lived asset are recorded as the mining operations occur or as the assets are acquired.
13
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 9ASSET RETIREMENT OBLIGATION (Continued)
Intrepid's
asset retirement obligation is based on the estimated cost to abandon and reclaim the mining operations, the economic life of the properties, and federal and state regulatory
requirements. The liability is discounted using credit adjusted risk-free rate estimates at the time the liability is incurred or when there are revisions to estimated costs. The credit
adjusted risk-free rates used to discount Intrepid's abandonment liabilities range from 6.9 percent to 8.5 percent. Revisions to the liability occur due to changes in
estimated abandonment costs or economic lives, or if federal or state regulators enact new requirements regarding the abandonment of mines.
Following
is a table of the changes to Intrepid's asset retirement obligations for the following periods (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Asset retirement obligationbeginning of period |
|
$ |
9,669 |
|
$ |
8,805 |
|
$ |
9,478 |
|
$ |
8,619 |
|
Changes in estimated obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Accretion of discount |
|
|
191 |
|
|
176 |
|
|
382 |
|
|
352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total asset retirement obligationend of period |
|
$ |
9,860 |
|
$ |
8,981 |
|
$ |
9,860 |
|
$ |
8,981 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
undiscounted amount of asset retirement obligation is $32.7 million as of June 30, 2011, and there are no significant payments expected in the next five years.
Note 10COMPENSATION PLANS
Cash Bonus PlanIntrepid has cash bonus plans that allow participants to receive varying percentages of their aggregate base salary. Any awards under
the cash bonus plans are based on a variety of elements related to Intrepid's performance in certain production, operational, financial, and other areas, as well as the participants' individual
performance. Intrepid accrues cash bonus expense related to the current year's performance.
Equity Incentive Compensation PlanIntrepid has issued common stock awards, awards of non-vested restricted shares of common stock, and
non-qualified stock option awards under its 2008 Equity Incentive Plan (the "2008 Plan"). As of June 30, 2011, there were a total of 178,051 shares of non-vested
restricted common stock outstanding and 360,876 outstanding stock options. As of June 30, 2011, there were approximately 4.1 million shares of common stock available for issuance under
the 2008 Plan.
Under the 2008 Plan, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved the award of 9,616 shares of common stock during the
six months ended June 30, 2011, to the non-employee members of the Board of Directors as compensation for service for the period ending on the date of Intrepid's 2011 annual
stockholders' meeting. These shares of common stock were granted without restrictions and vested immediately.
14
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 10COMPENSATION PLANS (Continued)
Under the 2008 Plan, grants of non-vested restricted shares of common stock have been awarded to executive officers, other
key employees, and consultants. The awards contain service conditions associated with continued employment or service. There are no performance or market conditions associated with these awards. The
terms of the non-vested restricted common stock awards provide voting rights and, upon vesting, the right to receive ordinary dividends otherwise payable during the vesting period to the
holders of such awards. Upon vesting of the restricted shares of common stock, the restrictions on such shares of common stock lapse, the shares are no longer subject to forfeiture, all ordinary
dividends otherwise payable during the vesting period are remitted to the award holder, and the shares are considered issued and outstanding.
Awards
have been made from time to time to existing and newly hired employees and are approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. Awards made in connection with the
initial public offering ("IPO") and upon hiring of selected individuals have had vesting schedules that vary between a two to four-year vesting schedule. The Compensation Committee of
Intrepid's Board of Directors has also approved awards of restricted common stock to Intrepid's executive management and other selected employees under an annual awards program. These awards vest
one-third on each of the first three anniversary dates of the grant.
In
measuring compensation expense associated with the grant of shares of non-vested restricted common stock, Intrepid uses the fair value of the award, determined as the
closing stock price for Intrepid's common stock on the grant date. Compensation expense is recorded monthly over the vesting period of the award. Total compensation expense related to the awards of
restricted common stock awards was $1.2 million and $0.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2011,
and 2010, total compensation expense related to the awards of restricted common stock awards was $2.0 million and $1.4 million, respectively. Such amounts were net of estimated
forfeiture adjustments. As of June 30, 2011, there was $4.5 million of total remaining unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested restricted common stock awards
that will be expensed through 2014.
A
summary of Intrepid's restricted common stock activity for awards that have not yet vested for the period from December 31, 2010, to June 30, 2011, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
Weighted Average
Grant-Date
Fair Value |
|
Non-vested restricted common stock, at beginning of period |
|
|
217,794 |
|
$ |
27.96 |
|
Granted |
|
|
61,585 |
|
|
35.80 |
|
Vested |
|
|
(98,596 |
) |
|
28.10 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(2,732 |
) |
|
31.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-vested restricted common stock, at end of period |
|
|
178,051 |
|
$ |
30.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 10COMPENSATION PLANS (Continued)
Under the 2008 Plan, the Compensation Committee of Intrepid's Board of Directors approves the award of non-qualified stock
options to Intrepid's executive management and other selected employees under an annual awards program. One-third of each stock option award vests on each of the three anniversary dates of
the grant. In measuring compensation expense for these grants of options, Intrepid estimated the fair value of the awards on the grant date using the Black-Scholes option valuation model. Option
valuation models require the input of highly subjective assumptions, including the expected volatility of the price of the underlying stock. The following assumptions were used to compute the weighted
average fair value of options granted in the periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
2.6 |
% |
|
2.7 |
% |
Dividend yield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated volatility |
|
|
56.6 |
% |
|
56.7 |
% |
Expected option life |
|
|
6 years |
|
|
6 years |
|
Intrepid's
computation of the estimated volatility above is based on the historical volatility of its own common stock since the IPO as well as the volatility of three peer companies'
common stock over the expected option life. The peer companies selected had volatility that was correlated to Intrepid's common stock from the date of the IPO to the dates of grant. These proxies were
utilized because Intrepid has insufficient trading history to calculate a meaningful long-term volatility factor. The computation of expected option life was determined based on a
reasonable expectation of the average life prior to exercise or expiration, giving consideration to the overall vesting period and contractual terms of the awards. The risk-free interest
rates for periods that matched the option award's expected life were based on the U.S. Treasury constant maturity yield at the time of grant over the expected option life.
For
the three months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, Intrepid recognized stock based compensation related to stock options of approximately $0.4 million and
$0.2 million, respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, total compensation expense was $0.7 million and $0.5 million, respectively. As of
June 30, 2011, there was $2.9 million of total remaining unrecognized compensation expense related to unvested non-qualified stock options that will be expensed through
16
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 10COMPENSATION PLANS (Continued)
2014.
A summary of Intrepid's stock option activity for the six months ended June 30, 2011, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
Weighted Average
Exercise
Price |
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value(1) |
|
Weighted Average
Remaining
Contractual Life |
|
Weighted Average
Grant-Date
Fair Value |
|
Outstanding non-qualified stock options, at beginning of period |
|
|
273,851 |
|
$ |
22.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
10.69 |
|
Granted |
|
|
102,196 |
|
|
35.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19.59 |
|
Exercised |
|
|
(13,276 |
) |
|
22.43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.15 |
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(1,895 |
) |
|
31.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding non-qualified stock options, at end of period |
|
|
360,876 |
|
$ |
26.33 |
|
$ |
2,547,110 |
|
|
8.5 |
|
$ |
13.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested or expected to vest, end of period |
|
|
354,780 |
|
$ |
26.22 |
|
$ |
2,535,485 |
|
|
8.5 |
|
$ |
13.11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable non-qualified stock options, at end of period |
|
|
131,741 |
|
$ |
21.95 |
|
$ |
1,390,291 |
|
|
7.9 |
|
$ |
9.81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- (1)
- The
intrinsic value of a stock option is the amount by which the market value exceeds the exercise price as of the end of the period presented.
Note 11INCOME TAXES
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, our total tax expense was $20.1 million and $38.9 million, respectively, and the effective tax rate was
39.5 percent and 39.8 percent, respectively. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, income tax expense was $2.5 million and $10.2 million and the
effective tax rate was 40.9 percent and 39.7 percent, respectively. Intrepid's effective income tax rate is impacted primarily by the amount of taxable income associated with each
jurisdiction in which Intrepid's income is subject to tax, permanent differences between the financial statement carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities, and the benefit associated
with the estimated effect of the domestic production activities deduction. Income tax expense for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, differ from the amounts that would be
provided by applying the statutory U.S. federal income tax rate to income before income taxes primarily as a result of the
17
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 11INCOME TAXES (Continued)
estimated
effects of the domestic production activities deduction and state income taxes. Intrepid's income tax provision is comprised of the elements below (in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Current portion of income tax expense (benefit) |
|
$ |
5,430 |
|
$ |
(141 |
) |
$ |
8,915 |
|
$ |
2,987 |
|
Deferred portion of income tax expense |
|
|
14,638 |
|
|
2,631 |
|
|
30,004 |
|
|
7,164 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income tax expense |
|
$ |
20,068 |
|
$ |
2,490 |
|
$ |
38,919 |
|
$ |
10,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At
June 30, 2011, there were no material uncertain tax positions that would impact Intrepid's effective tax rate. Therefore, no liabilities have been recognized, and no provisions
have been made for interest or penalties related to uncertain tax positions.
Note 12COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Marketing AgreementsIntrepid has a marketing agreement appointing PCS Sales (USA), Inc. ("PCS Sales") its exclusive sales representative for
export potash sales, with the exception of sales to Canada and Mexico, and appointing PCS Sales as non-exclusive sales representative for potash sales into Mexico.
Trio® is also marketed under this arrangement. This agreement is cancelable with thirty days written notice.
Intrepid
also has a sales agreement with Envirotech Services, Inc. ("ESI") appointing ESI its exclusive distributor, subject to certain conditions, for magnesium chloride produced
by Wendover, with the exception of up to 15,000 tons per year sold for applications other than dust control, de-icing, and soil stabilization. This agreement is cancelable with two years'
written notice, unless a breach or other specified special event has occurred. Sales prices were specified to ESI in the agreement subject to cost-based escalators. Intrepidis also
entitled to certain adjustments in the sale price to ESI based on the final sales price ESI receives from its customers, as defined by the agreement. Such adjustments in sales price are settled after
ESI's fiscal year end in September; however, Intrepid estimates and recognizes earned excess profits each quarter as the amounts are earned and reasonably determinable.
Reclamation Deposits and Surety BondsAs of June 30, 2011, Intrepid had $8.7 million of security placed principally with the State of
Utah and the BLM for eventual reclamation of its various facilities. Of this total requirement, $1.3 million consisted of long-term restricted cash deposits reflected in "Other"
long-term assets on the consolidated balance sheets, and $7.4 million was secured by surety bonds issued by an insurer. The surety bonds are held in place by the payment of
1.2 percent fee paid to the surety bond issuer.
Intrepid
may be required to post additional security to fund future reclamation obligations as reclamation plans are updated or if governmental entities change requirements.
Health Care CostsIntrepid is self-insured, subject to a stop-loss policy, for its employees' health care costs. The estimated
liability for outstanding medical costs has been based on the historical pattern of claim settlements. The medical claims liability included in accrued liabilities was approximately
$1.0 million as of June 30, 2011, and $1.2 million as of December 31, 2010.
18
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 12COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Continued)
LegalIntrepid is subject to litigation. Intrepid has determined that there are no material claims outstanding as of June 30, 2011. Intrepid
has established a general legal reserve for loss contingencies that are considered probable and reasonably estimable.
Future Operating Lease CommitmentsIntrepid has certain operating leases for land, mining and other operating equipment, an airplane, offices,
railcars, and vehicles, with original terms ranging up to twenty years.
Rental
and lease expenses follow for the indicated periods (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
$ |
1,319 |
|
For the six months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
$ |
2,580 |
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
1,749 |
|
For the six months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
3,484 |
|
Refundable CreditIn June 2011, Intrepid received notice that its application for a refundable employment-related credit, related to wages earned
for
the years 2004 to January 2010, of approximately $4.7 million was approved by the State of New Mexico. Accordingly, during the second quarter of 2011, Intrepid recorded
$4.7 million of income which is reflected in the line item titled "Other operating (income) loss." The cash collection associated with this credit is expected to occur during the second half of
2011, and is recorded in "Other receivables" as of June 30, 2011.
Note 13DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
Intrepid is exposed to global market risks, including the effect of changes in commodity prices and interest rates, and uses derivatives to manage financial exposures that occur in the
normal course of business. Intrepid does not enter into or hold derivatives for trading purposes. While all derivatives
are used for risk management purposes and were originally entered into as economic hedges, they have not been designated as hedging instruments.
Intrepid's predecessor historically managed a portion of its floating interest rate exposure through the use of interest rate
derivative contracts. Forward LIBOR-based contracts reduced the predecessor's risk from interest rate movements as gains and losses on such contracts partially offset the impact of changes in its
variable-rate debt. Although Intrepid repaid its assumed debt obligations immediately subsequent to the closing of its IPO in April 2008, it has not yet closed its positions in the
derivative financial instruments that were also assumed from the predecessor.
19
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 13DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS (Continued)
A
tabular presentation of the outstanding interest rate derivatives as of June 30, 2011, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination Date
|
|
Notional Amount |
|
Weighted Average
Fixed Rate |
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
29,400 |
|
|
5.2 |
% |
December 31, 2012 |
|
$ |
22,800 |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
The
following table presents the fair values of the derivative instruments included within the consolidated balance sheets as of (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
|
|
Balance Sheet Location |
|
Fair Value |
|
Balance Sheet Location |
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
$ |
1,260 |
|
Other current liabilities |
|
$ |
1,399 |
|
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
533 |
|
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments |
|
Net liability |
|
$ |
1,793 |
|
Net liability |
|
$ |
2,338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table presents the amounts of gain or (loss) recognized in income on derivatives affecting the consolidated statements of operations
for the periods presented (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
|
|
Location of gain (loss)
recognized in income on
derivative |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Interest rate contracts: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized loss |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(365 |
) |
$ |
(412 |
) |
$ |
(712 |
) |
$ |
(958 |
) |
|
Unrealized gain |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
224 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
545 |
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loss |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(141 |
) |
$ |
(384 |
) |
$ |
(167 |
) |
$ |
(841 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please
see footnote titled Fair Value Measurements for a description of how the above financial instruments are valued.
Intrepid can be exposed to credit-related losses in the event of non-performance by counterparties to derivative contracts.
Intrepid believes the counterparties to the contracts to be credit-worthy trading entities, and therefore credit risk of counterparty non-performance is unlikely. U.S. Bank is the
counterparty to the interest rate derivative contracts, but, as Intrepid is in a liability position at June 30, 2011, with respect to these interest rate derivative contracts, counterparty risk
is not applicable. There were no derivative instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features at June 30, 2011.
Note 14FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS
Intrepid applies the provisions of the FASB's Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures, for all financial assets and liabilities measured at fair
20
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 14FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS (Continued)
value
on a recurring basis. The topic establishes a framework for measuring fair value and requires disclosures about fair value measurements. ASC Topic 820 defines fair value as the price that would
be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The topic establishes market or observable
inputs as the preferred sources of values, followed by assumptions based on hypothetical transactions in the absence of market inputs. The topic also establishes a hierarchy for grouping these assets
and liabilities, based on the significance level of the following inputs:
-
- Level 1Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities.
-
- Level 2Quoted prices in active markets for similar assets and liabilities, quoted prices for identical
or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-derived valuations whose inputs are observable or whose significant value drivers are observable.
-
- Level 3Significant inputs to the valuation model are unobservable.
The
following is a listing of Intrepid's assets and liabilities required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis and where they are classified within the hierarchy as of
June 30, 2011 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value at Reporting Date Using |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
Quoted Prices in
Active Markets for
Identical Assets or
Liabilities
(Level 1) |
|
Significant
Observable Inputs
(Level 2) |
|
Significant
Unobservable
Inputs
(Level 3) |
|
Derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate contracts |
|
$ |
(1,793 |
) |
$ |
|
|
$ |
(1,793 |
) |
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale securities |
|
$ |
1,997 |
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
1,997 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial
assets or liabilities are categorized within the hierarchy based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Below is a general
description of Intrepid's valuation methodologies for financial assets and liabilities, which are measured at fair value and are included in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.
Intrepid's
available-for-sale investments consist of convertible corporate bonds that are valued using Level 2 inputs. Market pricing for these investments
is obtained from
Reuters, an established financial markets data provider. The convertible corporate bonds have maturity dates in 2011.
Intrepid
uses Level 2 inputs to measure the fair value of interest rate swaps. This valuation is performed using a pricing model that calculates the fair value on the basis of the
net present value of the estimated future cash flows receivable or payable. These instruments are allocated to Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy because the critical inputs to this model,
including the relevant market values, yields, forward prices, and the known contractual terms of the instrument, are readily observable. The considered factors result in an estimated exit price for
each asset or liability under a marketplace participant's view. Management believes that this approach provides a reasonable, non-biased, verifiable, and consistent methodology for valuing
derivative instruments.
21
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 14FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS (Continued)
Credit
valuation adjustments may be necessary when the market price of an instrument is not indicative of the fair value due to the credit quality of the counterparty or Intrepid,
depending on which entity is in the liability position of a given contract. Generally, market quotes assume that all counterparties have near zero, or low, default rates and have equal credit quality.
Therefore, an adjustment for counterparty credit risk may be necessary to reflect the credit quality of a specific counterparty to determine the fair value of the instrument. A similar adjustment may
be necessary with respect to Intrepid to reflect its credit quality. Intrepid monitors the counterparties' credit ratings and may ask counterparties to post collateral if their ratings deteriorate.
Although Intrepid has determined that the inputs used to value its derivatives fall within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, any credit valuation adjustment associated with the derivatives
would utilize Level 3 inputs. These Level 3 inputs include estimates of current credit spreads to evaluate the likelihood of default by both Intrepid and the counterparties to the
derivatives. As of June 30, 2011, Intrepid has assessed the significance of the impact of a credit valuation adjustment on the overall valuation of its derivatives and has determined that the
credit valuation adjustment is not significant to the overall valuation of the derivatives. Accordingly, management determined that the derivative valuations should be classified in Level 2 of
the fair value hierarchy, and no adjustment has been recorded to the value of the derivatives.
The
methods described above may result in a fair value estimate that may not be indicative of net realizable value or may not be reflective of future fair values and cash flows. While
Intrepid believes that the valuation methods utilized are appropriate and consistent with the requirements of ASC Topic 820 and with other marketplace participants, Intrepid recognizes that third
parties may use different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments that could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.
Note 15FUTURE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Defined Benefit Pension PlanIn accordance with the terms of the purchase agreement associated with the acquisition of the Moab assets in 2000
(the
"Moab Purchase Agreement"), the Moab subsidiary established the Moab Salt, L.L.C. Employees' Pension Plan ("Pension Plan"), a defined benefit pension plan. Pursuant to the terms of the Moab Purchase
Agreement, employees transferring from the seller were granted credit under the Pension Plan for their prior service and for the benefits they had accrued under the seller's pension plan.
Approximately $1.5 million was transferred from the seller's pension plan to the Pension Plan to accommodate the recognition of such prior service and benefits. In February 2002, the Pension
Plan was "frozen" by limiting participation in the Pension Plan solely to employees hired before February 22, 2002, and by including only pay and service through February 22, 2002, in
the calculation of benefits. The Pension Plan is required to be maintained for the existing participants and for the benefits they had accrued as of that date. Intrepid expects to contribute $156,000
to the Pension Plan in 2011, $69,000 of which has been paid through June 30, 2011.
22
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 15FUTURE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (Continued)
The
components of the net periodic pension expense are set forth below (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Components of net periodic benefit cost: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Interest cost |
|
|
49 |
|
|
51 |
|
|
98 |
|
|
101 |
|
|
Expected return on assets |
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
(42 |
) |
|
(98 |
) |
|
(84 |
) |
|
Amortization of transition obligation/(asset) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of actuarial loss |
|
|
25 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
50 |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost |
|
$ |
25 |
|
$ |
30 |
|
$ |
50 |
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note 16RECOGNITION OF INCOME ASSOCIATED WITH DEFERRED INSURANCE PROCEEDS
In the first quarter of 2011, Intrepid completed the reconstruction and commissioning for its product warehouses at its East facility and finalized insurance settlement amounts related
to the associated product inventory warehouse insurance claim that resulted from a wind event that occurred in 2006. As a result, the $11.7 million of deferred insurance proceeds that were
recorded as of December 31, 2010, plus approximately $0.8 million of additional insurance proceeds, were recognized as income in the six months ended June 30, 2011. The total of
approximately $12.5 million has been recorded as "Insurance settlements from property and business losses" on the consolidated statement of operations in the six months ended June 30,
2011. There was no cash impact associated with this event in the six months ended June 30, 2011, as the previously deferred insurance proceeds were paid to Intrepid prior to December 31,
2010, with the exception of the final insurance payment of approximately $0.8 million, which was paid to Intrepid in April 2011.
Note 17RELATED PARTIES
Intrepid has entered into the transactions described below with Robert P. Jornayvaz III ("Mr. Jornayvaz"), Intrepid Production Corp. ("IPC"), which is owned and controlled by
Mr. Jornayvaz, Hugh E. Harvey, Jr. ("Mr. Harvey"), Harvey Operating and Production Company ("HOPCO"), which is owned and controlled by Mr. Harvey, and other entities affiliated
with Messrs. Jornayvaz and Harvey identified below. Messrs. Jornayvaz and Harvey are employees, directors and significant stockholders of Intrepid.
Airplane Use PolicyUnder Intrepid's aircraft use policy, Mr. Jornayvaz, Mr. Harvey, and approved executive officers are allowed
personal use of Intrepid's plane. Any personal use of aircraft may be taxable to the executive officer as a "fringe benefit" under Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") regulations. Additionally,
Mr. Jornayvaz and Mr. Harvey may use the plane under dry-leases and reimburse Intrepid the lesser of the actual cost or the maximum amount chargeable under Federal Aviation
Regulation 91-501(d). The value of personal use of the airplane was calculated based on the requirements provided by IRS regulations.
23
Table of Contents
INTREPID POTASH, INC.
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
(UNAUDITED)
Note 17RELATED PARTIES (Continued)
BH
Holdings LLC ("BH"), which is owned by entities controlled by Mr. Jornayvaz and Mr. Harvey, entered into a dry-lease arrangement with Intrepid to
allow Intrepid use of an aircraft owned by BH for Intrepid business purposes. Additionally, in January 2009, a dry-lease arrangement by and between Intrepid and Intrepid Production
Holdings LLC ("IPH"), which is indirectly owned by Mr. Jornayvaz, became effective to allow Intrepid use of an aircraft owned by IPH for Intrepid business purposes. Both
dry-lease rates and dry-lease arrangements were approved by Intrepid's Audit Committee.
In
the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, Intrepid incurred dry-lease charges of approximately $258,000 and $393,000, respectively, for BH and $130,000 and
$209,000, respectively, for IPH. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, Intrepid incurred dry-lease charges of approximately $28,000 and $68,000, respectively, for BH and
$154,000 and $331,000, respectively, for IPH. As of June 30, 2011, and December 31, 2010, accounts payable balances due to BH were $115,000 and 27,000, respectively, and due to IPH were
$26,000 and $17,000, respectively.
Transition Services Agreement and Surface Use Easement and Water Purchase Agreements On April 25, 2008, Intrepid, Intrepid Oil &
Gas, LLC ("IOG"), and Intrepid PotashMoab, LLC ("Moab") executed a Transition Services Agreement, which has been extended until April 24, 2013. Pursuant to the
Transition Services Agreement, IOG may request specified employees of Intrepid or its subsidiaries (other than Mr. Jornayvaz and Mr. Harvey) to provide a limited amount of geology, land
title, and engineering services in connection with IOG's oil and gas ventures.
Note 18RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued new guidance to achieve common fair value measurement and disclosure requirements between GAAP and International
Financial Reporting Standards. This new guidance amends current fair value measurement and disclosure guidance to include increased transparency around valuation inputs and investment categorization.
This new guidance is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011. Intrepid does not believe the adoption of the new guidance will have an impact on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In
June 2011, the FASB issued new guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income. Specifically, the new guidance allows an entity to present components of net income and other
comprehensive income in one continuous statement, referred to as the statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate, but consecutive statements. The new guidance eliminates the current
option to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of changes in equity. While the new guidance changes the presentation of comprehensive income, there are no changes to
the components that are recognized in net income or other comprehensive income under current accounting guidance. This new guidance is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after
December 15, 2011. Intrepid does not believe the adoption of the new guidance will have an impact on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
24
Table of Contents
Item 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), which are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions that
are difficult to predict. All statements in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking
statements are made pursuant to safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements include statements, among other things, concerning our
business strategy, including anticipated trends and developments in and management plans for our business and the markets in which we operate; future financial results, operating results, revenues,
gross margin, cost of goods sold, operating expenses, products, projected costs, and capital expenditures; sales; and competition. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking
words, such as "estimate," "expect," "anticipate," "project," "plan," "intend," "believe," "forecast," "foresee," "likely," "may," "should," "goal," "target," "might," "will," "could," "predict," and
"continue," the negative or plural of these words and other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and our projections about future
events. All forward-looking statements included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are based upon information available to us
as of the filing date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update any of
these forward-looking statements for any reason.
These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity,
performance, or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these statements. These risks and uncertainties include changes in the price of potash or
Trio®; operational difficulties at our facilities that limit production of our products; interruptions in railcar or truck transportation services; the
ability to hire and retain qualified employees; changes in demand and/or supply for potash or Trio®; changes in our reserve estimates; the costs and our
ability to successfully execute the projects that are essential to our business strategy, including, but not limited to, the development of the HB Solar Solution Mine as a solution mine and the
further development of our langbeinite recovery assets; weather risks affecting net evaporation rates at our solar solution mining operations; changes in the prices of raw materials, including, but
not limited to, the price of chemicals, natural gas and power; fluctuations in the costs of transporting our products to customers; changes in labor costs and availability of labor with mining
expertise; the impact of federal, state or local government regulations, including, but not limited to, environmental and mining regulations, and the enforcement of such regulations; obtaining
permitting from applicable federal and state agencies related to the construction and operation of assets; competition in the fertilizer industry; declines in U.S. or world agricultural production;
declines in use by the oil and gas industry of potash products in drilling operations; changes in economic conditions; adverse weather events at our facilities; our ability to comply with covenants
inherent in our current and future debt obligations to avoid defaulting under those agreements; disruptions in credit markets; our ability to secure additional federal and state potash leases to
expand our existing mining operations; and governmental policy changes that may adversely affect our business. These factors also include the matters discussed and referenced in the section entitled
"Risk Factors" described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, and elsewhere in this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q.
Unless expressly stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, the terms "we," "our," "us," and "Intrepid" refer to Intrepid Potash, Inc. and its
subsidiaries. Unless expressly stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to "tons" in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q refer to short tons. One short ton
equals 2,000 pounds. One metric tonne, which many of our international competitors use, equals 1,000 kilograms or 2,205 pounds.
25
Table of Contents
Our Company
We are the largest producer of muriate of potash ("potassium chloride" or "potash") in the United States and are dedicated to the
production and marketing of potash and langbeinite ("sulfate of potash magnesia"), another mineral containing potassium that is produced from langbeinite ore and which we will generally describe as
langbeinite when we refer to production and as Trio® when we refer to sales and marketing. Our revenues are generated exclusively from the sale of potash
and Trio®. Potassium is one of the three primary nutrients essential to plant formation and growth. Since 2005, we have supplied, on average, approximately
1.6 percent of annual world potassium consumption, and 9.4 percent of annual U.S. consumption. We are one of two producers of sulfate of potash magnesia, a low-chloride fertilizer
with the additional benefits of sulfate and magnesium, providing a multi-nutrient product. We also produce salt, magnesium chloride, and metal recovery salts from our potash mining processes, the
sales of which are accounted for as by-product credits to our cost of sales.
Our
potash is marketed for sale into three primary markets: the agricultural market as a fertilizer, the industrial market as a component in drilling and fracturing fluids for oil and
gas wells, and the animal feed market as a nutrient. Our sales are focused on the agricultural areas and feed manufacturers west of the Mississippi River, as well as oil and gas drilling areas in the
Rocky Mountains and the greater Permian Basin area. We also have domestic sales, primarily of Trio®, across the United States, with a focus on areas with
specific nutrient requirements. Our potash production has a geographic concentration in the western United States and is therefore affected by weather and other conditions in this region. We manage
our sales and marketing operations centrally, which allows us to evaluate the product needs of our customers and then determine which of our production facilities can be utilized to fill customer
orders, all of which is designed to realize the highest net realized sales price to Intrepid. We calculate our average net realized sales price by subtracting freight costs from gross sales revenue
and then dividing this result by sales tons.
We
own five active potash production facilitiesthree in New Mexico (referenced collectively below as "Carlsbad" or individually as "West," "East," and "North") and two in
Utah ("Moab" and "Wendover")and we have a current estimated productive capacity to produce approximately 870,000 tons of potash and approximately 200,000 tons of langbeinite annually.
Productive capacity is affected by operating rates, recoveries, mining rates and the amount of development work that we do and, therefore, our production results tend to be lower than our productive
capacity. We have an active capital investment program that includes investment in process recovery projects such as our Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project, as well as several projects to
increase market flexibility via increased granulation capacity, including our recently completed compaction project in Moab and our planned expansions of compaction capacity in Wendover and at our
North facility. In addition, we are actively developing the HB Solar Solution Mine, which is an idled potash mine that we are in the process of permitting to reopen as a solution mine that will
utilize solar evaporation techniques in the production of potash. We have additional opportunities to develop mineralized deposits of potash in New Mexico which could include the reopening of the
North Mine, which was operated as a traditional underground mine until the early 1980s, as well as the acceleration
of production from our reserves and mineralized deposits of potash through new access points in the area and the potential construction of additional production facilities in the region.
We
routinely post important information about Intrepid and our business on our website under the Investor Relations tab. Our website address is www.intrepidpotash.com.
Recent Events and Market Trends
Our business and financial results are driven by sales activity including volumes and prices, costs per ton of product produced and
sold, and the execution on our capital projects. Accordingly, the following discussion and analysis will largely focus on these three items.
26
Table of Contents
The majority of our revenues and gross margin are derived from the production and sales of potash and virtually all of our potash is
sold in the United States. The percentages of our net sales, which we calculate as gross sales less freight costs, and gross margin, excluding costs associated with abnormal production and inventory
impairments, derived from potash sales were approximately as follows for the indicated periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contribution from
Potash Sales |
|
|
|
Net Sales |
|
Gross Margin |
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
|
92 |
% |
|
99 |
% |
For the six months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
|
91 |
% |
|
99 |
% |
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
83 |
% |
|
99 |
% |
For the six months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
86 |
% |
|
97 |
% |
Our
net income in the second quarter of 2011 was $30.7 million, or $0.41 per share with cash flows from operations of $79.3 million. We had capital investments of
$29.3 million and $56.2 million in the second quarter of 2011 and the first half of 2011, respectively. We ended the quarter with $157.8 million of cash and investments with no
debt outstanding. Our production volumes of potash and Trio® increased to a combined 518,000 tons in the first six months of 2011 from 433,000 in the first
six months of 2010 as we were at full operating levels, including the seasonal production from our Moab, Utah facility, in the first quarter of 2011 and into the second quarter, approximately one
month longer than we have been on a historical basis because of favorable brine levels and harvest conditions.
In
the second quarter of 2011, we experienced stronger sales volumes of potash relative to the same period in the prior year. The sales levels in the second quarter of 2011 were 225,000
tons of potash and 39,000 tons of Trio® as compared to 129,000 tons of potash and 63,000 tons of Trio® in the
second quarter of 2010. We were successful in selling all of our second quarter production into active potash markets, despite the weather disruptions that occurred in certain markets during the
quarter. While demand for potash in the first quarter of 2011 was improved from the first quarter of 2010, certain areas in our primary markets experienced delays in field work due to poor weather
conditions. In response to these market
conditions, we were able to adjust our marketing strategy to maintain adequate product availability for spot sales into the truck market and to take strategic rail orders into the Midwest. The current
drought is having a significant negative effect on the southern region of the U.S. with all sectors of agriculture from crop production to cattle operations being impacted by this prolonged weather
event. The geographic advantage afforded to us by the locations of our assets in the U.S. helped us to maximize sales and serve our customers this quarter, which is a significant advantage over our
North American competitors. The addition of the compaction facility at our Moab operation has continued to exceed our expectations in terms of productivity, quality and flexibility. It has allowed us
to expand our marketing reach from this facility as evidenced by our first ever unit train shipment from Moab in April 2011.
Current
farmer economics are driving strong demand for potash and, thus far, we have not seen other producers offering summer fill programs at reduced prices to stimulate demand in past
years. To the contrary, potash prices strengthened through the quarter. We expect this demand trend to continue into the fall. This trend has made many dealers more comfortable taking inventory
positions earlier in the summer.
We
have experienced an improvement in potash pricing beginning in the fall of 2010 and continuing into the summer of 2011, as crop economics for U.S. farmers remain strong. Crop prices
27
Table of Contents
moved
up significantly during the second half of 2010 and have remained relatively stable in the first six months of 2011 due to continued strong demand for grains worldwide. Further, downward
revisions in crop yields by the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") have resulted in predictions of decreased world grain stocks from 487.3 million metric tons for 2010 to
443.5 million metric tons for 2011. Current crop economics suggest that farmers are motivated to not only maximize production on their current acreage, but potentially to add incremental
production through marginal acres, which will likely require the application of additional nutrients.
The
near-term outlook at the potash producer level appears to be constructive based on several factors, including the following:
-
- declines in stock-to-use ratios of grains in the U.S. and the world with continued tightness in
supply, which has driven an increase in grain commodity prices. Estimated global ending stock-to-use ratios for corn are at levels not seen in 37 years while estimated
ending stock-to-use ratios for soybeans in the United States are at levels not seen since the mid-1960's;
-
- the profitability outlook for farmers across different commodity types;
-
- the relatively flat natural gas forward curve is having a minimal effect on the price of nitrogen;
-
- the strong demand from China for grain imports; and
-
- dealers and distributors focusing on maintaining adequate product levels to satisfy farmer demand and their willingness to
exit the spring planting season with some inventory.
Industrial
demand for our standard-sized potash increased in the first six months of 2011 over the same period in 2010, as we sold 32 percent more in industrial sales volumes
compared to the same period in 2010. We expect that industrial demand for our standard-sized product will correlate over the long term with oil and gas pricing, drilling, and well completion activity.
We believe that potash is the most effective clay-swelling inhibitor available, and we are promoting potash as the drilling fluid additive of choice in our traditional industrial markets
and are working with our key customers to find ways to stimulate demand. Our Carlsbad and Wendover facilities experienced increased sales volumes of industrial standard-sized potash in comparison to
the sales volumes from the first six months of 2010. This increase in sales volumes has resulted from an increase in the rig count of approximately 21 percent, in the geographic regions
primarily served by our facilities from June 2010. We are benefiting from the flexibility of our production stream in Moab. We are continuing to sell and granulate the accumulation of standard-sized
potash inventory at our Moab facility that occurred in prior periods. Our additional compaction capacity in Moab enables us to adapt to changing market needs and to right-size our product
mix between granular and standard-sized product in response to demand.
As
a result of the items noted above, we are investing in additional granulation capacity beyond what we have done in Moab; this includes upgrades in our compaction capacity in Wendover
and in Carlsbad. We are focused on balancing the supply of standard production with the industrial sales opportunities between our Utah and New Mexico operations. We anticipate further enhancing our
marketing flexibility through the construction of a new compactor at our Wendover facility, which will provide us the capacity to granulate all of the production, as dictated by market demand, from
this facility beginning in 2012.
On
a year-to-date basis, the overall mix of our sales into the different markets we serve stayed relatively consistent, with some slight increase in our
industrial volumes, as noted. The feed component of our sales also stayed relatively consistent from year to year in terms of total volumes.
28
Table of Contents
The
percentages of our potash sales volumes for each of the markets we serve were approximately as follows for the indicated periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural |
|
Industrial |
|
Feed |
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
|
80 |
% |
|
14 |
% |
|
6 |
% |
For the six months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
|
80 |
% |
|
14 |
% |
|
6 |
% |
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
72 |
% |
|
18 |
% |
|
10 |
% |
For the six months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
81 |
% |
|
12 |
% |
|
7 |
% |
As
a result of both supply and demand trends in the general market for potash, together with crop prices trending upwards, including prices for corn, soy beans, rice, potatoes, hay,
cotton, barley, sugar beets and virtually all agricultural commodities, potash prices increased during the first six months of 2011 on a trend basis from the last two quarters of 2010. Over the
long-term, we believe that domestic consumption of fertilizers will remain consistent with historical averages, as the replacement of potassium in the soils is critical to continued
high-yield agricultural production. This view is supported by data generated by Fertecon Limited, a fertilizer industry consultant, showing that over the past 25 years the domestic
consumption for potash has averaged approximately 9.2 million tons with annual volatility of approximately 9 percent. These results have occurred through historical periods of low and
high agricultural commodity prices, variability in oil and gas drilling, negative farmer margins, and a variety of other macro-economic factors.
Our Trio® product is marketed both domestically and internationally. The mix of our
Trio® sales volumes change as we selectively sell into the domestic and international markets. As pricing in these markets has converged, we are becoming
increasingly selective in selling our products in order to achieve the highest average net realized sales price. During the first six months of 2011, 11 percent of our gross sales dollars were
related to Trio®, and, of that 11 percent, 35 percent were export sales, resulting in less than five percent of our overall gross sales being
outside the United States. The percentages of our Trio® sales volumes shipped to destinations in the United States and exported were as follows for the
indicated periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States |
|
Export |
|
Trio® only |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
|
53 |
% |
|
47 |
% |
For the six months ended June 30, 2011 |
|
|
59 |
% |
|
41 |
% |
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
55 |
% |
|
45 |
% |
For the six months ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
70 |
% |
|
30 |
% |
We
began producing and selling langbeinite in late 2005 and have been marketing it as Trio® since 2007.
Trio® is marketed into two primary markets, the agricultural market as a fertilizer and the animal feed market as a nutrient. We market
Trio® internationally through an exclusive marketing agreement with PCS Sales (USA), Inc. for sales outside the United States and Canada and via a
non-exclusive agreement for sales into Mexico. We are focusing our marketing efforts on increasing the awareness of the agronomic benefits of
Trio® and working to grow the overall Trio® market. Sales of
Trio® on an international basis tend to be larger bulk shipments and vary as to when such shipments take place; therefore, we see greater variability in
our international sales volumes from period-to-period when
29
Table of Contents
compared
to our domestic sales. Despite lower available tons of granular-sized Trio®, the sales of our granular-sized
Trio® product continued to be solid during the first and second quarter of 2011 as we sold through our available inventory. We placed an emphasis on
restoring the recovery rate associated with the production of Trio® from the levels experienced late in 2010 and early in 2011 by reviewing operating
practices against original design specifications, reviewing process equipment selection and operating parameters, improving maintenance and monitoring, and, specifically, improving the grinding and
cyclone configurations. Because of these activities, recoveries of Trio® began to increase beginning in March 2011, and the improved recoveries have
continued to date.
As
noted, demand for Trio® continues to exceed supply and even with the recent improvement in our recoveries of granular
Trio®, we expect that granular-sized Trio® sales demand will meet or exceed our production capabilities for
the next few quarters. Because of the fact we had fewer Trio® tons available for sale than we had the same period a year ago, we sold fewer tons of
standard-sized Trio® during the first and second quarters of 2011, with a greater proportion of our Trio® tons
sold into the export market. These export sales of standard-sized Trio® have resulted in lower average net realized sales prices than what we earn for
granular sales of Trio®. The Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project is expected to not only increase our overall
Trio® production but will also allow us the capability to produce all of our Trio® in the higher value
granular form. This will provide us with the opportunity to sell more granular Trio®, which currently commands a higher sales price than standard
Trio®. The average net realized sales price for our granular-sized Trio® sold in the United States is
approximately $55 to $70 higher than the average net realized sales price of our standard product sold in the export markets. This difference has narrowed in the last two months as the overall
international market for potash and langbeinite has improved. During the second quarter of 2011, we saw improvement in our average net realized price for
Trio® from $204 in the first three months of 2011 to $222 as we began to realize the benefits of the price increases implemented in February 2011, as well
as improvements in pricing in the export markets for standard-sized Trio®. As our current finishing process for
Trio® does not allow us to selectively produce granular or standard-sized product, we expect to continue to manage inventory levels so that we can continue
to supply the higher-value granular-sized Trio® product to the premium market.
Selected Operations Data
The following table presents selected operations data for the three-month periods presented below. Analysis of the details of this
information is presented throughout this discussion. We present this table as a summary of information relating to key indicators of financial condition and operating performance that we believe are
important. Average net realized sales prices below are derived from
30
Table of Contents
the
elements in the table presented below. Costs associated with abnormal production are excluded from the following analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Change
between
Periods |
|
% Change |
|
Production volume (in thousands of tons): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
209 |
|
|
165 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
27 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Langbeinite |
|
|
44 |
|
|
39 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
13 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales volume (in thousands of tons): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
225 |
|
|
129 |
|
|
96 |
|
|
74 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trio® |
|
|
39 |
|
|
63 |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
(38 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross sales (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
$ |
108,504 |
|
$ |
50,900 |
|
$ |
57,604 |
|
|
113 |
% |
|
Trio® |
|
|
10,869 |
|
|
13,418 |
|
|
(2,549 |
) |
|
(19 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
119,373 |
|
|
64,318 |
|
|
55,055 |
|
|
86 |
% |
Freight costs (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
4,486 |
|
|
2,334 |
|
|
2,152 |
|
|
92 |
% |
|
Trio® |
|
|
2,241 |
|
|
3,239 |
|
|
(998 |
) |
|
(31 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
6,727 |
|
|
5,573 |
|
|
1,154 |
|
|
21 |
% |
Net sales (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
104,018 |
|
|
48,566 |
|
|
55,452 |
|
|
114 |
% |
|
Trio® |
|
|
8,628 |
|
|
10,179 |
|
|
(1,551 |
) |
|
(15 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
112,646 |
|
$ |
58,745 |
|
$ |
53,901 |
|
|
92 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash statistics (per ton): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average net realized sales price |
|
$ |
462 |
|
$ |
376 |
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
23 |
% |
|
Cash operating cost of goods sold, net of by-product credits* (exclusive of items shown separately below) |
|
|
160 |
|
|
206 |
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
(22 |
)% |
|
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization |
|
|
30 |
|
|
29 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
3 |
% |
|
Royalties |
|
|
16 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
14 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total potash cost of goods sold |
|
|
206 |
|
|
249 |
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
(17 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warehousing and handling costs |
|
|
14 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average potash gross margin (exclusive of costs associated with abnormal production) |
|
$ |
242 |
|
$ |
114 |
|
$ |
128 |
|
|
112 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trio® statistics (per ton): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average net realized sales price |
|
$ |
222 |
|
$ |
162 |
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
37 |
% |
|
Cash operating cost of goods sold, net of by-product credits* (exclusive of items shown separately below) |
|
|
160 |
|
|
125 |
|
|
35 |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization |
|
|
19 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
19 |
% |
|
Royalties |
|
|
11 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
38 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Trio® cost of goods sold |
|
|
190 |
|
|
149 |
|
|
41 |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warehousing and handling costs |
|
|
15 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Trio® gross margin (exclusive of costs associated with abnormal production) |
|
$ |
17 |
|
$ |
3 |
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
467 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *
- On
a per ton basis, by-product credits were $6 and $11 for the second quarter of 2011, and 2010, respectively. By-product credits were
$1.3 million and $1.4 million for the second quarter of 2011, and 2010, respectively. There were no costs associated with abnormal production for the second quarter of 2011 or 2010.
31
Table of Contents
Operating Highlights Three Months Ended June 30, 2011
Income before income taxes for the second quarter of 2011 and 2010 was $50.8 million and $6.1 million, respectively. The
increase in the comparable periods resulted from a higher average net realized sales price per ton of both potash and Trio®, an improvement in gross
margin, and an increase in potash sales volumes. We sold 225,000 tons and 39,000 tons of potash and Trio®, respectively, in the second quarter of 2011, as
compared to 129,000 and 63,000 tons in the second quarter of 2010. We experienced solid potash sales levels at the higher prices and overall lower per unit costs of goods sold. On a comparable basis,
the levels of potash sales in the second quarter of 2011 were robust and above normal historical demand levels for the second quarter of a year. As farmers continue to be incentivized to maximize
yields, the demand for our product continues to be strong. As such, we have not experienced pricing pressure due to summer fill programs offered by producers in prior years.
Our
average net realized sales price of potash was $462 per ton in the second quarter of 2011, as compared to $376 per ton in the second quarter of 2010. We realized a $20 per ton
increase in our average net realized sales price for potash in the second quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2011. The increase in our average net realized sales price resulted from
previously announced price increases, in which we gradually increased the price of red granular potash from $500 per ton effective
April 1, 2011, to $530 per ton effective June 1, 2011. We were able to realize the benefit of these price increases immediately in our truck market sales, and continue to focus on
progressively improving sales prices by opportunistically layering in sales where we can maximize our net realizable sales price. Further, as crop prices across a spectrum of commodities remain strong
resulting in strong demand for our product, we announced a price increase of our red granular potash to $560 per ton, effective July 8, 2011. Our average potash gross margin as a percentage of
net sales increased to 52 percent for the second quarter of 2011, as compared to 30 percent in the second quarter of 2010, and was largely attributable to the increased average net
realized sales price and lower per unit cost of goods sold. In the second quarter of 2011 and 2010, we had no abnormal production costs, and our cash operating cost of goods sold, which we define as
total cost of goods sold excluding depreciation, depletion, amortization and royalties, net of by-product credits, for potash was $160 per ton. This result compares to cash operating cost
of goods sold, net of by-product credits, for potash of $206 per ton in the second quarter of 2010.
Our
production volume of potash in the second quarter of 2011 was 209,000 tons, or 44,000 tons more than in the same period of 2010. Comparable production was higher in 2011 primarily
due to the return to full production levels during the second half of 2010, as we returned to full staffing levels at our facilities at that time following the market-driven production reductions that
occurred in 2009 through the first half of 2010. In addition, the benefit of capital invested in 2010 was evident as higher production was available from additional mining panels in Carlsbad.
Additionally, the new compactor at Moab, which was placed into service in December 2010, was fully operational during the first six months of 2011 allowing us maximum flexibility to adjust our
production mix of granular-sized and standard-sized potash, as needed, based on market demand. The benefit of producing at higher rates is evident in our cash operating costs of goods sold per ton of
$160 per ton for the second quarter. The cash operating cost of goods sold per ton does fluctuate from period to period, depending on the timing and location of turnaround maintenance work and the
location from which sales are sourced. As such, we believe it is important to monitor these results on a longer-term average trend basis to better observe the trends associated with the
productivity of the operations as a whole.
We
increased our average net realized sales price per ton of Trio® from $162 per ton in the second quarter of 2010 to $222 per ton in the
same period of 2011, primarily due to the overall increase in potash prices, which similarly affect our Trio® pricing. We realized an $18 per ton increase
in our average net realized sales price for Trio® in the second quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2011. In February 2011, we increased the
posted price of granular-sized Trio® to $256 per ton and in July 2011 increased the posted price of granular-sized
Trio® to $291 per ton effective August 1, 2011.
32
Table of Contents
We
expect to begin realizing the benefit of this price increase for our granular-sized Trio® product almost immediately. Our average net realized sales
price for Trio® is affected by competitive pricing and the sales of standard product into the export market. Our cash operating cost of goods sold for
Trio®
increased $35 per ton in the second quarter of 2011 compared to the comparable period in 2010. The lower per ton cost in 2010 resulted primarily from a lower average carrying cost of inventory in 2010
as a result of higher production rates during the first quarter of 2010 compared to the overall production rates for the first half of 2011. Therefore, costs were spread over more tons in 2010,
lowering the cost of goods sold per ton of Trio® as those tons were sold.
In
June 2011, we received notice that our application for a refundable employment-related credit, related to wages earned for the years 2004 to January 2010, of approximately
$4.7 million was approved by the State of New Mexico. Accordingly, we recorded $4.7 million of income on the consolidated statement of operations in the line titled "Other operating
(income) loss" during the second quarter of 2011. The cash collection of this credit is expected to be received during the second half of 2011, and the amount is recorded in "Other receivables" as of
June 30, 2011.
33
Table of Contents
Selected Operations Data
The following table presents selected operations data for the six-month periods presented below. Analysis of the details of
this information is presented throughout this discussion. We present this table as a summary of information relating to key indicators of financial condition and operating performance that we believe
are important. Average net realized sales prices below are derived from the elements in the table presented below. Costs associated with abnormal production are excluded from the following analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Change
between
Periods |
|
% Change |
|
Production volume (in thousands of tons): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
443 |
|
|
337 |
|
|
106 |
|
|
31 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Langbeinite |
|
|
75 |
|
|
96 |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
(22 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales volume (in thousands of tons): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
421 |
|
|
372 |
|
|
49 |
|
|
13 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trio® |
|
|
91 |
|
|
132 |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
(31 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross sales (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
$ |
199,855 |
|
$ |
142,275 |
|
$ |
57,580 |
|
|
40 |
% |
|
Trio® |
|
|
24,496 |
|
|
29,402 |
|
|
(4,906 |
) |
|
(17 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
224,351 |
|
|
171,677 |
|
|
52,674 |
|
|
31 |
% |
Freight costs (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
9,369 |
|
|
7,714 |
|
|
1,655 |
|
|
21 |
% |
|
Trio® |
|
|
5,349 |
|
|
7,625 |
|
|
(2,276 |
) |
|
(30 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
14,718 |
|
|
15,339 |
|
|
(621 |
) |
|
(4 |
)% |
Net sales (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash |
|
|
190,486 |
|
|
134,561 |
|
|
55,925 |
|
|
42 |
% |
|
Trio® |
|
|
19,147 |
|
|
21,777 |
|
|
(2,630 |
) |
|
(12 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
209,633 |
|
$ |
156,338 |
|
$ |
53,295 |
|
|
34 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potash statistics (per ton): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average net realized sales price |
|
$ |
453 |
|
$ |
361 |
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
25 |
% |
|
Cash operating cost of goods sold, net of by-product credits* (exclusive of items shown separately below) |
|
|
163 |
|
|
201 |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
(19 |
)% |
|
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization |
|
|
30 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
15 |
% |
|
Royalties |
|
|
16 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
23 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total potash cost of goods sold |
|
|
209 |
|
|
240 |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
(13 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warehousing and handling costs |
|
|
14 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
40 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average potash gross margin (exclusive of costs associated with abnormal production) |
|
$ |
230 |
|
$ |
111 |
|
$ |
119 |
|
|
107 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trio® statistics (per ton): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average net realized sales price |
|
$ |
212 |
|
$ |
165 |
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
28 |
% |
|
Cash operating cost of goods sold, net of by-product credits* (exclusive of items shown separately below) |
|
|
160 |
|
|
122 |
|
|
38 |
|
|
31 |
% |
|
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization |
|
|
21 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
31 |
% |
|
Royalties |
|
|
11 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
38 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Trio® cost of goods sold |
|
|
192 |
|
|
146 |
|
|
46 |
|
|
32 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warehousing and handling costs |
|
|
14 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
56 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Trio® gross margin (exclusive of costs associated with abnormal production) |
|
$ |
6 |
|
$ |
10 |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
(40 |
)% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *
- On
a per ton basis, by-product credits were $6 and $9 for the six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, respectively.
By-product credits were $2.5 million and $3.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, respectively. Costs associated with abnormal production were
zero and $0.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, respectively.
34
Table of Contents
Operating Highlights Six Months Ended June 30, 2011
Income before income taxes for the first six months of 2011 and 2010 was $97.9 million and $25.6 million, respectively.
The increase in the comparable periods resulted from a higher average net realized sales price per ton of both potash and Trio®, an improvement in gross
margin, and an increase in potash sales volumes. We sold 421,000 tons and 91,000 tons of potash and Trio®, respectively, in the first six months of 2011,
as compared to 372,000 and 132,000 tons in the first six months of 2010. We experienced solid sales levels at the higher prices and overall lower per unit costs of goods sold. On a comparable basis,
the levels of potash sales in the first six months of 2011 were stronger than the same period of 2010 mainly due to improved commodity markets resulting in improved farmer economics, as discussed
above.
Our
average net realized sales price of potash was $453 per ton in the first six months of 2011, as compared to $361 per ton in the first six months of 2010. The increase in our average
net realized sales price resulted from the realization of previously announced price increases, as well as trends described above. Our average potash gross margin as a percentage of net sales
increased to 51 percent for the first six months of 2011, as compared to 31 percent in the first six months of 2010, and was attributable to both the increased average net realized sales
price and to lower per unit cost of goods sold. In the first six months of 2011, we had no abnormal production costs, and our cash operating cost of goods sold, net of by-product credits,
for potash was $163 per ton. This result compares to cash operating cost of goods sold, net of by-product credits, for potash of $201 per ton in the first six months of 2010, which
excludes $0.5 million of abnormal production costs.
Our
production volume of potash in the first six months of 2011 was 443,000 tons, or 106,000 tons more than in the same period of 2010. Our production was higher in 2011 primarily due to
the return to full production levels beginning in the second half of 2010, as we returned to full staffing levels at our facilities at that time following the market driven production reductions that
occurred in 2009 through the first half of 2010. In addition, the benefit of capital invested in 2010 was evident as higher production was available from additional mining panels in Carlsbad. We
increased production through the first six months of 2011 in response to increases in market demand from the reduced levels in 2009. Additionally, the new compactor at Moab, which was placed into
service in December 2010, was fully operational during the first six months of 2011 allowing us maximum flexibility to adjust our production mix of granular-sized and standard-sized potash, as needed,
based on market demand. We do expect higher cash operating cost of goods sold per ton in the third and fourth quarter as we take downtime to perform scheduled annual maintenance and to
tie-in new plant and equipment, and considering that the Moab mine does not harvest during the summer months to maximize evaporation productivity. These operating necessities have an
impact of curtailing production from time to time, while we continue to incur costs, thereby raising the per unit costs. As noted before, management evaluates the longer-term trends
affecting per ton operating costs with these quarterly and periodic variances in mind.
We
increased our average net realized sales price per ton of Trio® from $165 per ton in the first six months of 2010 to $212 per ton in the
same period of 2011, primarily due to the overall increase in potash prices, which similarly affect our Trio® pricing. Our cash operating cost of goods
sold for Trio® increased $38 per ton in the first six months of 2011 compared to the comparable period in 2010. The lower per ton cost in 2010 resulted
primarily from a lower average carrying cost of inventory in 2010 as a result of higher production rates during the first quarter of 2010. Therefore, costs were spread over more tons in 2010, lowering
the cost of goods sold per ton of Trio® as those tons were sold.
35
Table of Contents
Specific Factors Affecting our Results
Our gross sales are derived from the sales of potash and Trio® and are determined by the
quantities of product we sell and the sales prices we realize. We quote prices to customers both on a delivered basis and on the basis of pick-up at our plants and warehouses. Freight
costs are incurred on only a portion of our sales as many of our customers arrange and pay for their own freight directly. When we arrange and pay for freight, our quotes and billings are based on
expected freight costs to the points of delivery. Our gross sales include the freight that we bill, but we do not believe that gross sales provide a representative measurement of our performance in
the market due to variations caused by ongoing changes in the proportion of customers paying for their own freight, in the geographic distribution of our products, and in freight rates. We view net
sales, which are gross sales less freight costs, as the key performance indicator of our revenue as it conveys the sales price of the product that we realize. We manage our sales and marketing
operations centrally and we work to achieve the highest average net realized sales price we can by evaluating the product needs of our customers and then determine which of our production facilities
can be utilized to fill these needs by considering which facility can produce and deliver the required product to the customer.
We
continue to focus on the granulation of our potash as the demand for granular-sized product has remained strong into 2011, and we have also seen a strengthening of the industrial
market which has improved the balance of sales between agriculture and industrial, which strengthens our ability to sell product at the highest achievable per ton margin. The variability of pricing in
the forward commodity markets for grains and oil seeds has been quite high in recent weeks; however, we do expect strength at least through the next crop cycle, which should support a continuation of
strong potash demand in the summer of 2011. In order to service this strength in the granular-sized agricultural market, we placed a new compactor in service at our Moab facility in December 2010,
which has allowed us to compact excess standard inventory and will provide us additional compaction capacity in 2011 and beyond. Part of our operating strategy is to have flexibility in our product
mix in response to changing market demands. We have also begun construction to increase our compaction capacity at Wendover, and are continuing our engineering studies to increase compaction capacity
at our North facility. We expect the increase in compaction capability at our Wendover facility to begin in 2012 and the increase in compaction capability at our North facility to match production
increases associated with the expansion of our mining rates and anticipated production from the HB solar solution mine. The strengthening of the industrial market has allowed our Wendover facility to
return to full productive capacity and we anticipate being able to operate at full rates going forward providing industrial demand remains at or above current levels.
The
volume of product we sell is determined by demand for our products and by our production capabilities. We manage our production levels, as needed, in response to market demand with a
view toward steady and reliable production levels to obtain the benefit of full production and being mindful of inventory levels in the near term, while ensuring that our balance sheet remains strong.
We recognize that the operations of our facilities are much more efficient with steady to increasing operating rates rather than constantly adjusting rates. Accordingly, the completion of our
warehouse project at our East facility in the first quarter of 2011 and the expansion of our Wendover warehousing capabilities, which is expected to be operational in 2012, are important to our
business. By having adequate warehouse capacity we can maintain production levels during periods of fluctuating product demand. At the current time, we are working to produce at maximum rates relative
to staffing levels, plant capacities, and regularly scheduled maintenance.
Our
profitability is directly linked to the sales price of our product, our production rates, and the resulting production costs of our products. The production costs are impacted by
production rates and, to a lesser extent, the price of natural gas and other commodities used in the production of potash that
36
Table of Contents
affect
our variable costs. Our current operating strategy is to run our mining operations and plants at normal operating rates and therefore maintain the lower per unit production costs while at the
same time focusing attention on granular-sized capacity. Our sales strategy is to seek to maximize our price by selling tonnage into markets near our facilities in New Mexico and Utah, while at the
same time selling selected amounts of product into markets further from our facilities. Because of the location of our assets and the regional markets we serve, we see different market prices
throughout the United States and actively manage our sales to take advantage of the pricing available in different regions.
Domestic
pricing of our products is influenced principally by the pricing established by the Canadian producers and other large world producers, as well as the interaction of global
supply and demand of potash, ocean, land and barge freight rates, and currency fluctuations. Any of these factors could have a positive or negative impact on the price of our products. With the
strengthening of the commodity prices and the overall health of the agricultural sector, we increased our posted pricing of granular-sized potash to $500 per ton effective April 1, 2011, with
additional $15 per ton increases which took effect May 1, 2011, and June 1, 2011, resulting in a list price of $530 per ton effective June 1, 2011, and, effective July 8,
2011, we increased the posted pricing of granular-sized potash to $560 per ton. We expect the full impact of potash price increases to be realized approximately three months after the effective date
as we typically have amounts of product already ordered at the time we announce a price increase. In the first six months of 2011, we experienced an increase in our
just-in-time truck sales which allowed us to realize the increased net sales price earlier than on our rail shipments. However, as the drought conditions continue in the
geographic area around our New Mexico facilities, we have begun to experience a slowdown in the truck market, particularly into Texas. As the truck market is expected to be slow over the next several
months, we have been accepting sales orders from rail customers for the third quarter of 2011, at prices in effect at the date the orders were taken. Our average net realized sales price per ton
historically has been approximately between 85 and 90 percent of our posted price driven by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the different competitive markets in which we
sell our products, associated customer discounts, and the mix of standard-sized and granular-sized product sold into the market.
To
some degree, we consider international prices in determining the prices at which we sell our products. Generally, we benefit from a weakening U.S. dollar. In addition, due to the fact
that our sales and costs are denominated in U.S. dollars, changes in the value of the U.S. dollar against other currencies have less of an effect on us compared to our competitors. The strengthening
we are seeing in pricing more recently, however, is believed to be much more directly linked to the supply and demand fundamentals of the grain markets and the associated profitability to farmers at
today's commodity prices. The table below demonstrates the progression of our average net realized sales price for potash and Trio® in 2011 and 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average net realized sales price for the three months ended
|
|
Potash |
|
Trio® |
|
|
|
(Per ton)
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
$ |
462 |
|
$ |
222 |
|
March 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
442 |
|
$ |
204 |
|
December 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
386 |
|
$ |
222 |
|
September 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
343 |
|
$ |
173 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
$ |
376 |
|
$ |
162 |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
354 |
|
$ |
167 |
|
We periodically evaluate our production levels and costs to determine if any such items should be deemed abnormal under accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America ("GAAP") with respect to inventory costing. In the first three months of 2010, we determined that approximately $0.5 million of
production costs would have been allocated to additional tons produced,
37
Table of Contents
assuming
we had been operating at normal production rates. There was no such adjustment made in 2011, as we believe we were producing within our normal ranges of production. When such adjustments are
recorded, the result is an acceleration of the recognition of this expense and the exclusion of these costs from the accumulated inventory costs and the resulting cost of goods sold elements. The
assessment of normal production levels requires significant management estimates and is unique to each quarter.
Our cost of goods sold reflects the costs to produce our potash and Trio® products, less
credits generated from the sale of our by-products. Many of our production costs are largely fixed and, consequently, our costs of sales per ton move inversely with the number of tons we
produce, within the context of normal production levels. Our principal production costs include labor and employee benefits, maintenance materials, contract labor and materials for operating or
maintenance projects, natural gas, electricity, operating supplies, chemicals, depreciation and depletion, royalties, and leasing costs. There are elements of our cost structure associated with
contract labor, consumable operating supplies, and reagents and royalties that are variable, which make up a smaller component of our cost base. Our periodic production costs and costs of goods sold
will not necessarily match one another from period to period based on the fluctuation of inventory and production levels. Inventory levels are a function of previous period ending inventories,
production volumes, and sales levels. From a total dollar perspective in the six months ended June 30, 2011, we have seen an increase in our overall production costs as we have mined and
produced more tons than the comparable period in 2010. Because of the higher volume of sales in 2011, we have seen an increase in our cost of goods sold compared to the same period in 2010. As the
production volumes from our mines returned to higher levels in the six months ended June 30, 2011, as compared to 2010, our per unit costs decreased. The dollar value increase in production
costs were driven principally by the increased volumes and the operating rates of our mines and mills in the six months ended June 30, 2011, as compared to the same period in 2010. Increased
production volumes resulted in higher labor costs, operating supply and reagent costs.
Our
production costs per ton are also impacted when our production levels change, such as changes in mine development and downtime for annual maintenance turnarounds, or voluntary
shutdowns to manage inventory levels. Our labor and contract labor costs in Carlsbad may continue to be influenced by the demand for labor in the local potash, oil and gas, and nuclear waste storage
industries. We incurred normal scheduled maintenance turnarounds at our West plant in June of 2011 and anticipate normal scheduled maintenance turnarounds at our East plant in the third quarter of
2011, together with scheduled downtime to tie in plant and equipment being constructed. Additionally, the East mine contains a mixed ore body comprised of potash and langbeinite. The mix of ore will
impact the amount of product tons of potash and langbeinite ultimately produced from the facility, impact our production costs per ton for each product and impact our
quarter-to-quarter results.
Our
cash operating cost of goods sold per ton of potash, net of $6 per ton of by-product credits, was $160 per ton in the three months ended June 30, 2011, compared to
$206 per ton, net of $11 per ton of by-product credits, in the same period of 2010. Our cash operating cost of goods sold per ton of potash, net of $6 per ton of by-product
credits, was $163 per ton in the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to $201 per ton, net of $9 per ton of by-product credits, in the same period of 2010. Our lower per unit
cash operating cost of goods sold per ton during 2011 resulted primarily from higher production rates in the six months ended June 30, 2011.
We
pay royalties to federal, state and private lessors under our mineral leases, and such payments are typically a percentage of net sales of minerals extracted and sold under the
applicable lease. In some cases, federal royalties for potash are paid on a sliding scale basis that varies with the grade of ore extracted. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2011,
our royalty rate was 3.5 percent and
38
Table of Contents
3.7 percent,
respectively. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, our royalty rate was 3.9 percent and 3.8 percent, respectively. We expect that future average
rates will be relatively consistent with these rates.
We are a subchapter C corporation and, therefore, are subject to federal and state income taxes on our taxable income. For the
three and six months ending June 30, 2011, our effective income tax rate was 39.5 percent and 39.8 percent, respectively. For the three and six month periods ending June 30, 2010,
our effective income tax rate was 40.9 percent and 39.7 percent, respectively. Our effective income tax rate is impacted primarily by the amount of taxable income associated with each
state jurisdiction in which our income is subject to tax, permanent differences
between the financial statement carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities, and the benefit associated with the estimated effect of the domestic production activities deduction.
For
the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, our total tax expense was $20.1 million and $38.9 million, respectively. The total tax expense for the three months
ended June 30, 2011, was comprised of $5.4 million of current income tax expense and $14.6 million of deferred income tax expense. There was $8.9 million of current income
tax expense and $30.0 million of deferred income tax expense for the six months ended June 30, 2011. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, our total tax expense was
$2.5 million and $10.2 million, respectively. For these periods, total tax expense was comprised of $0.1 million and $3.0 million, respectively, of current income tax
benefit and expense, and $2.6 million and $7.2 million, respectively, of deferred income tax expense.
The
mix of our current and deferred taxes is subject to changes in future periods. The current and deferred tax mix may change as a result of tax planning, and various elections provided
within the tax code or changes in tax laws within the jurisdictions where we are subject to taxation.
Outlook for the Remainder of 2011
We continue to believe that farmers should have the economic resources and motivation to replace the nutrients drawn from the soil, and
in some cases, increase the nutrient levels in the soil in order to achieve better yields for their crops. Corn prices have increased significantly for front month delivery contracts since November
2010, and corn prices remain significantly higher than a year ago. In addition, the overall commodity prices for grains, sugar, cotton and other commodities remain strong. Cattle and hog prices remain
significantly above those from a year ago due to strong demand for protein, especially from China. This overall strengthening of commodity prices continues to afford an opportunity for farmer
economics to improve significantly which should benefit potash producers in the form of solid demand and prices.
The
stronger potash market that emerged in 2010 allowed producers to bring back production capacity that was idled in 2008 and 2009 and this has continued into the first six months of
2011. We expect the remainder of 2011 to continue with this higher capacity as we expect higher sales volumes as we enter the fall season. We expect 2011 potash demand to be in line with historical
norms for the fall season as the economics to the farmer are expected to remain favorable and many dealers appear to be willing to take larger positions of inventory. We believe the timing of fall
harvest, and ultimately the size of the fall weather window, will be key determinates of fall demand. We anticipate being able to realize our previously announced price increases as we move into the
fall application season. We believe that our strong balance sheet and the strong market conditions for potash will enable us to develop our strategic capital projects designed to increase production
and to execute our marketing strategy to maximize margin on the potash and Trio® that we sell.
39
Table of Contents
Potash Prices
The price for potash has been and will continue to be the most significant driver of profitability for our business. Our average net
realized sales price of $462 per ton in the second quarter of 2011 was affected by overall market demand, the increase in our just-in-time truck sales and our response to
competitive pricing by our competitors. Our average net realized sales price increased in the second quarter of 2011 sequentially from the first quarter of 2011 and fourth quarter of 2010 in response
to strong demand and favorable commodity prices for corn and other crops. We announced several price increases for red granular-sized potash during the second quarter of 2011, with our current price
quoted at $560 per ton effective July 8, 2011. We expect the July 2011 price increase to be fully realized beginning in the fourth quarter of 2011.
Other
factors that may influence pricing for 2011 include fertilizer subsidy policy developments in India, how much demand will be satisfied at current prices, and whether increases in
crop prices and other crop nutrients can be sustained. China recently set pricing levels for potash purchases, which appear to have provided additional stability in the market. The current increase in
demand in the United States has allowed us to sell down our granular-sized inventories to historically normal levels for this time of year, and we anticipate sales of granular-sized potash will
correspond more closely with our production levels.
We
continue to have demand for our granular-sized Trio® in excess of our productive capacity as the demand for this product remains strong.
Trio® prices tend to move in relationship to potash. We expect that the continued demand for this product and the improving agronomic understanding of the
benefits of the magnesium and sulfur will provide an opportunity to continue to price this product based on the value to the farmer.
Capital Investment
We operate in a capital-intensive industry that requires consistent capital expenditures to replace assets necessary to sustain safe
and reliable production. We believe that, in the long-term, demand for potash will remain at, or exceed, historical levels; therefore, we have developed an investment plan at each of our
facilities to maintain safe and reliable production, ensure environmental and regulatory compliance, improve and modernize equipment, increase reliability of the facilities, increase productivity and
recoveries, all in order to decrease per ton production costs and increase market flexibility. In 2011, we plan to continue executing and accelerating, when appropriate, our capital strategy that is
focused on additional granulation capacity, additional mining capacity, and recovery improvement projects. Our strategy to increase granulation capacity is being undertaken for both potash and
Trio®. We successfully completed the construction of a new compactor at Moab in 2010. We have plans for additional compaction capacity at our North
facility and have already completed engineering work on a new compactor at our Wendover facility. Our Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project also includes granulation capacity for all of our
Trio® production.
As
we continue to invest in our facilities, we proactively manage our projects in order to manage cash investment with the need to maintain an appropriate cash level on our balance sheet
that will allow us to react strategically to market conditions. In the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, we invested approximately $29.3 and $56.2 million in capital projects,
respectively. Based on our expected pace of capital expenditures in 2011 and our current sales forecast, we believe we will have adequate cash to execute our capital plans for the remainder of 2011.
Our
Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project is designed to increase our recoveries of Trio® from the langbeinite ore using dense media
processing and, as part of this project, we are building a plant that is expected to provide us the flexibility and capacity to granulate all of our standard-sized product, if market conditions
warrant, and have it available for sale into the granular-sized market. In addition, this project is designed to reduce our water usage as it relates to our langbeinite production
40
Table of Contents
facility
and therefore reduce the need to invest additional capital in water management equipment and storage capacity. The overall project is designed to increase our recoveries of langbeinite from
the current design recovery rates of approximately 25-30 percent to approximately 50 percent.
We
continue to prepare for construction of the HB Solar Solution Mine, a project to develop and build a solution mine combined with solar evaporation ponds. The current schedule for
receiving the Record of Decision on the project remains in the first quarter of 2012. As we move closer to the expected Record of Decision date, we continue to update project cost estimates to
incorporate changes in scope,
cost escalations related to commodity and inflationary effects and consideration of the items described as alternatives within the published draft environmental impact statement ("EIS"). Due to these
factors and considerations which will continue to develop over time, we believe that the total capital investment for the HB Solar Solution Mine will be higher, possibly significantly higher, than the
previously disclosed range of $120 and $130 million, of which $28.3 million has been invested to date. We believe that the project continues to be an important and financially attractive
capital investment that fits within our overall capital strategy in terms of increased productivity and decreased cash operating cost per ton. We expect to invest the bulk of this capital after we
receive all of the necessary approvals and permits from the state and federal regulatory agencies. To date we have received the ground water discharge permit for the HB Solar Solution Mine that was
approved by the New Mexico Environment Department ("NMED") in July 2010 and, in July 2011, we received the air quality permit for the mill. Once all of the necessary regulatory permits and approvals
are obtained, construction will begin promptly, and first production is expected to result approximately 18 months later, with ramp up to full production expected in the succeeding year,
assuming the benefit of an average annual evaporation cycle applied to full evaporation ponds.
Total
capital investment in 2011 is estimated to be between $140 and $165 million and given the fact that the construction permit for the granulation plant was obtained in June
and construction has begun, we expect to be nearer the top of this range. A breakdown of our capital investment plan includes approximately $40 to $44 million to replace assets needed to
maintain production and complete compliance projects, $99 to $119 million to increase productive capacity as described more fully below, and $1 to $2 million to perform certain upgrades
to our East facility warehouse. We expect our 2011 capital program to be funded out of cash flow and existing cash and investments.
The
following are a few of the projects that are slated for investment and/or completion in 2011 to improve the overall reliability of the operations and to increase productive capacity
and compaction capacity:
-
- The total capital investment for the Langbeinite Recovery Improvement Project is expected to be between $85 and
$90 million, of which approximately $43.1 million has been invested to date and the balance is expected to be invested throughout the remainder of 2011. The necessary construction
permits for both the dense media separation plant and the granulation plant were obtained and construction is on schedule. We expect completion and commissioning of the dense media separation plant to
occur during the fourth quarter of 2011 and the granulation plant near the end of 2011 or early in 2012.
-
- We started construction of the new compaction facility in Wendover, which will allow us to granulate more of our potash
production. The project investment is approximately $15 to $19 million and we expect to be able to increase granular production beginning in 2012. We have begun construction of a new product
warehouse at our Wendover facility, which will provide additional storage capacity for finished product. We expect to invest approximately $3 to $4 million on this project during 2011 and
expect the additional storage capacity to be in place to coincide with the completion of the new compaction facility.
-
- We continue to engineer the expansion of our North compaction plant. We are currently evaluating different expansion
options considering the best utilization of capital and optimizing
41
Table of Contents
the
operational design. We anticipate finalizing our plans for the project by the end of 2011, and assuming timely receipt of all necessary government permits and approvals, we expect to be able to
increase granular production beginning in 2013.
-
- We are adding new equipment, including miners, shuttle cars and conveyor systems, in order to develop new mine panels at
each of our East and West mines for a total investment of approximately $14 to $16 million in 2011. The West Mine panel is scheduled to be fully operational in the third quarter of 2011 and the
East Mine panel is scheduled to be operational in the fourth quarter of 2011.
-
- We continue to implement distributed control systems and increased instrumentation at our production facilities,
particularly in Carlsbad. A combined capital investment of approximately $3 to $5 million is expected for these projects in 2011 and we will be commencing the distributed control work in the
East underground following project completion of the West underground and East surface projects. The West surface project has been completed and successfully commissioned.
-
- We completed engineering for an additional solution mining cavern at our Moab facility. We expect to drill additional
wells in support of the expanded designs, which will increase the potassium content of the extracted brines, resulting in an increase of our average annual potash production. We expect drilling to
commence during the second half of this year assuming timely receipt of permits and project benefits to be realized in 2012 and 2013. The total investment for this project is expected to be
approximately $12 to $15 million of which approximately $6 to $9 million is expected to be invested in 2011.
All
dollar amounts and timing of future capital investments are estimates that are subject to change as projects are further developed, modified, deferred, or canceled.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
As of June 30, 2011, we had cash, cash equivalents, and investments of $157.8 million, we had no debt, and we had
availability of $125.0 million under our former senior credit facility. Included in cash and cash equivalents were $0.8 million in cash and $70.5 million in cash equivalent
investments, consisting of money market accounts or certificates of deposit with banking institutions for $46.6 million and U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") commercial paper of
approximately $23.9 million. We had no losses on our cash and cash equivalents during the first six months of 2011, and all cash equivalents are invested with institutions that we believe to be
financially sound. Additionally, as of June 30, 2011, we had $52.1 million and $34.4 million invested in short-term and long-term investments,
respectively, comprised of certificates of deposit investments of $2.4 million, and corporate debt securities of $84.1 million.
Our
operations are primarily funded from cash on hand and cash generated by operations, and, if necessary, we have the ability to borrow under our senior credit facility. For the
foreseeable future, we believe that our cash and investment balances, cash flow from operations, and available borrowings under our senior credit facility will be sufficient to fund our operations,
our working capital requirements, and our presently planned capital investments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Cash Flows from Operating Activities |
|
$ |
79,285 |
|
$ |
67,895 |
|
Cash Flows from Investing Activities |
|
$ |
(83,818 |
) |
$ |
(59,015 |
) |
Cash Flows from Financing Activities |
|
$ |
(350 |
) |
$ |
(663 |
) |
42
Table of Contents
Operating Activities
Total cash provided by operating activities was $79.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to
$67.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010. The $11.4 million increase in cash provided by operating activities in the six months ended June 30, 2011, was due
primarily to the higher net income when comparing the six months ended June 30, 2011, to the same period in 2010. The increase in cash was offset by an increase in inventory as product sales
largely matched production levels, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2010, in which our product sales were in excess of production levels. Additionally, we experienced an increase in
accounts receivable as of June 30, 2011, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2010, as sales during the second quarter of 2011 were significantly higher than sales during the second
quarter of 2010.
For
the six months ended June 30, 2011, product inventories increased $2.5 million compared to a decrease of $13.3 million in the comparable period in 2010. This
decrease from 2010 was due to the increased demand for our products reflected in sales tons after the declines in application rates for much of 2009. Spare parts inventory increased
$2.1 million for both the six months ended June 30, 2011, and the same period in 2010. During 2010 and 2011, we brought additional spare parts inventory into our system to support the
new equipment at our operating facilities.
Investing Activities
Total cash used in investing activities was $83.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to
$59.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010. The amount of cash invested in property, plant, and equipment as well as mineral properties and development costs was
$64.5 million in the six months June 30, 2011, compared to $38.1 million in the same period in 2010. For the six months ended June 30, 2011, we invested excess cash in
higher yielding corporate and government agency securities by purchasing $52.5 million of investments and received $32.4 million in proceeds from maturing investments.
Senior Credit Facility
In August 2011, we entered into a new unsecured credit facility, led by U.S. Bank, as administrative agent, and Wells Fargo Bank, as
syndication agent. This new credit facility, which replaced the previous credit facility in its entirety, provides a total revolving credit facility of $250 million. The facility is unsecured
and is guaranteed by certain material subsidiaries of the Company as defined in the agreement. Intrepid's $250 million revolving credit facility has a five-year term through August
2016.
Outstanding
balances under the new revolving senior credit facility bear interest at a floating rate, which, at our option, is either (1) the London Interbank Offered Rate
(LIBOR), plus a margin of between 1.25 percent and 2.0 percent, depending upon our leverage ratio, which is equal to the ratio of our total funded indebtedness to our adjusted earnings
for the prior four fiscal quarters before interest, income taxes, depreciation, amortization and certain other expenses; or (2) an alternative base rate, plus a margin of between
0.25 percent and 1.0 percent, depending upon our leverage ratio. We must pay a quarterly commitment fee on the outstanding portion of the unused revolving credit facility amount of
between 0.20 percent and 0.35 percent, depending on our leverage ratio.
Intrepid's
senior credit facility that was in place as of June 30, 2011, (the "Former Credit Facility") was a syndicated facility led by U.S. Bank as administrative agent, which
provided a total revolving credit facility of $125 million. Under the Former Credit Facility, the administrative agent, for the benefit of the lenders, had a security interest in substantially
all of the assets of Intrepid and certain of its subsidiaries. Intrepid and certain of its subsidiaries were co-borrowers under the Former Credit Facility and were jointly liable for all
obligations under the Former Credit Facility. The entire amount of the Former Credit Facility was available for use as of June 30, 2011. The Former Credit Facility had
43
Table of Contents
a
term through March 9, 2012; however, it was replaced in August 2011 with the new unsecured facility discussed above.
Outstanding
balances under our previous revolving senior credit facility bore interest at a floating rate, which, at our option, was either (1) the London Interbank Offered Rate
(LIBOR), plus a margin of between 1.25 percent and 2.5 percent, depending upon our leverage ratio, which was equal to the ratio of our total funded debt to our adjusted earnings for the
prior four fiscal quarters before interest, income taxes, depreciation, amortization and certain other expenses; or (2) an alternative base rate, plus a margin of between 0.00 percent
and 0.75 percent, depending on our leverage ratio. We were required to pay a quarterly commitment fee on the outstanding portion of the unused revolving credit facility amount of between
0.25 percent and 0.50 percent, depending on our leverage ratio.
Our
previous senior credit facility required us to maintain interest rate derivative agreements to fix the interest rate for at least 75 percent of the projected outstanding
balance of our term loan, when we had debt outstanding. Historically, we maintained derivative hedging agreements that were swaps of variable rate interest for fixed rate payments. Despite repaying
the amounts outstanding under the senior credit facility at the time of the initial public offering, we left the interest rate swap agreements in place taking the view that interest rates would rise
and that the cost of settling the derivatives would be relatively beneficial as compared to closing out the contracts at that time. Interest rates, however, decreased following the initial public
offering, and the liability that we have under these derivative agreements has increased since the date of the initial public offering. Given the current interest rate environment, we anticipate
allowing these instruments to mature based on their original scheduled settlement dates. We review our derivative positions from the perspective of counterparty risk when we are in an asset position
and believe that we continue to transact with strong, creditworthy institutions. Notional amounts for which the rate has been fixed as of June 30, 2011, are displayed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Termination Date
|
|
Notional Amount |
|
Weighted Average
Fixed Rate |
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
29,400 |
|
|
5.2 |
% |
December 31, 2012 |
|
$ |
22,800 |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
The
weighted average notional amount outstanding for these derivatives as of June 30, 2011, and the weighted average 3-month LIBOR rate locked-in via these
derivatives, are $25.0 million and 5.2 percent, respectively. The interest rate paid under our previous senior credit facility on any debt varied both with the change in the
3-month LIBOR rate and with our leverage ratio.
44
Table of Contents
Contractual Obligations
As of June 30, 2011, we had contractual obligations totaling $76.4 million on an undiscounted basis, as indicated below.
Contractual commitments shown are for the full calendar year indicated unless otherwise indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments due by period |
|
|
|
Total |
|
Q3-Q4
2011 |
|
2012 |
|
2013 |
|
2014 |
|
2015 |
|
2016 |
|
More than
5 years |
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Operating lease obligations(1) |
|
$ |
17,338 |
|
$ |
2,125 |
|
$ |
3,281 |
|
$ |
3,070 |
|
$ |
2,705 |
|
$ |
1,427 |
|
$ |
1,385 |
|
$ |
3,345 |
|
Purchase commitments(2) |
|
|
11,892 |
|
|
11,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas purchase commitments(3) |
|
|
2,070 |
|
|
2,070 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension obligations(4) |
|
|
942 |
|
|
87 |
|
|
171 |
|
|
171 |
|
|
171 |
|
|
171 |
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation(5) |
|
|
32,694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,694 |
|
Minimum royalty payments(6) |
|
|
11,434 |
|
|
229 |
|
|
457 |
|
|
457 |
|
|
457 |
|
|
457 |
|
|
457 |
|
|
8,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
76,370 |
|
$ |
16,403 |
|
$ |
3,909 |
|
$ |
3,698 |
|
$ |
3,333 |
|
$ |
2,055 |
|
$ |
2,013 |
|
$ |
44,959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- (1)
- Includes
all operating lease payments, inclusive of sales tax, for leases for office space, an airplane, railcars and other equipment.
- (2)
- Purchase
contractual commitments include the approximate amount due vendors for non-cancelable purchase commitments for materials and services.
- (3)
- We
have committed to purchase a minimum quantity of natural gas, which is priced at floating index-dependent rates plus $0.02, estimated based on forward
rates. Amounts are inclusive of estimated transportation costs and sales tax.
- (4)
- Minimum
required pension contributions as estimated by our actuaries. Estimated contributions represent additional funds Intrepid expects to pay into the
pension plan and excludes amounts Intrepid has placed in trust as plan assets to fund the pension obligation, as well as the future direct payments by the pension plan to participants.
- (5)
- We
are obligated to reclaim and remediate lands which our operations have disturbed, but, because of the long-term nature of our reserves and
facilities, we estimate that none of those expenditures will be required until after 2016. Commitments shown are in today's dollars and are undiscounted.
- (6)
- Estimated
annual minimum royalties due under mineral leases, assuming approximately a 25-year life, consistent with estimated useful lives of
plant assets.
Payments related to derivative contracts cannot be reasonably estimated due to variable market conditions and are not included in the above
tables.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
As of June 30, 2011, we had no off-balance sheet arrangements aside from the operating leases described under the
section titled Contractual Obligations above and bonding obligations described in the Notes to the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
More Detailed Discussion of Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended June 30, 2011, and 2010
Net Sales and Freight Costs
Net sales of potash increased $55.4 million, or 114 percent, from $48.6 million for the three months ended
June 30, 2010, to $104.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011. This change was the result of an increase in sales volume of 74 percent in addition to an
increase in the average net realized sales price of $86 per ton, or 23 percent. The increase in sales volume was driven by robust and above normal historical demand levels for the second
quarter of a year. In the first quarter of
45
Table of Contents
2011,
certain areas in our primary markets experienced poor weather conditions and, as such, the spring application season was delayed in those areas relative to 2010.
Net
sales of Trio® decreased $1.6 million, or 15 percent, from $10.2 million for the three months ended June 30,
2010, to $8.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2011, due to a 38 percent decrease in the volume of sales offset by a 37 percent increase in the average net
realized sales price. Sales of Trio® on an international basis tend to be larger bulk shipments and vary as to when such shipments take place; therefore,
we see greater variability in our international sales volumes from period-to-period when compared to our domestic sales. Sales volumes of
Trio® into the export market were 18,000 tons during the three months ended June 30, 2011, compared to 28,000 tons during the three months ended
June 30, 2010.
Freight
costs increased $1.2 million, or 21 percent, for the three months ended June 30, 2011, compared to the three months ended June 30, 2010, due primarily
to the increase in sales volume slightly offset by a decrease in movement of inventory to distribution warehouses. The mix of customers paying for their own freight is highly variable and affects the
freight costs incurred by Intrepid and our gross sales. Fluctuations in freight costs are not a key indicator of any business trends or our operating performance, as freight costs are largely borne by
our customers, either as part of the cost of the product delivered or as arranged directly by the customer.
Cost of Goods Sold
The following table presents our cost of goods sold for potash and Trio® for the subject
periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Change
between
Periods |
|
% Change |
|
Cost of goods sold (in millions) |
|
$ |
53.7 |
|
$ |
41.4 |
|
$ |
12.3 |
|
|
30 |
% |
Cost per ton of potash sold(1) |
|
$ |
206 |
|
$ |
249 |
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
(17 |
)% |
Cost per ton of Trio® sold(2) |
|
$ |
190 |
|
$ |
149 |
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
28 |
% |
- (1)
- Per
ton potash costs include $30 and $29 of depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense in the three months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010,
respectively.
- (2)
- Per
ton Trio® costs include $19 and $16 of depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense in the three
months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, respectively.
Total
cost of goods sold per ton, which includes royalties and depreciation, depletion and amortization, of potash decreased $43 per ton, or 17 percent from $249 per ton for the
three months ended June 30, 2010, to $206 per ton for the three months ended June 30, 2011. The per ton improvement in 2011 reflects the fact that the higher operating rates of our
facilities result in lower per ton costs as the fixed cost structure of the operations is spread over more produced tons. The cost of goods sold numbers reflect only those costs that have been first
absorbed into inventory and then subsequently recognized as the product tons are sold. Higher production rates in 2011 resulted in a decline in cost of goods sold per ton relative to the comparable
period in 2010.
Total
cost of goods sold of our Trio® increased $41 per ton, or 28 percent, from $149 per ton for the three months ended
June 30, 2010, to $190 per ton for the three months ended June 30, 2011. This increase in cost of goods sold on a per ton basis is due to a lower per ton cost in 2010 resulting primarily
from a lower average carrying cost of inventory in 2010 as a result of higher production rates during the first quarter of 2010. Therefore, costs were spread over more tons in 2010, lowering the cost
of goods sold per ton of Trio® as those tons were sold.
Cost
of goods sold increased $12.3 million, or 30 percent, from $41.4 million in the three months ended June 30, 2010, to $53.7 million in the three
months ended June 30, 2011. The increase in the
46
Table of Contents
total
expense was driven primarily by the higher volumes of potash sold and an increase in spending primarily to support higher production and sales volumes, prior to absorption of costs into
inventory. Production cost elements that changed materially during the three months ended June 30, 2011, compared to the three months ended June 30, 2010, included increases in labor,
operating supplies, depreciation, and royalties.
On
a comparative basis and within our production costs, labor and contract labor costs increased $1.7 million, or 11 percent, in the three months ended June 30,
2011, due to the ramp-up of the Carlsbad operations from the downturn in 2009. Operating supplies increased $2.1 million, or 75 percent, in the three months ended
June 30, 2011, due principally to increased usage related to
returning to full production by 2011 in addition to price increases on major mine-operating supplies.
Depreciation,
depletion, and amortization increased $2.0 million, or 35 percent, in the three months ended June 30, 2011, as a result of the significant capital
investment during 2010 and the first half of 2011. We expect depreciation expense to continue to increase on both an actual dollar basis and on a per ton basis as we continue to invest capital into
our operations. We manage capital investments on a basis of evaluating maintenance capital that we believe is necessary to maintain the productivity of our mines and investment capital that is
designed to generate a return on invested capital.
Royalty
expense increased $1.7 million, or 73 percent, from the three months ended June 30, 2010, which relates to the increase in net sales. Other changes in cost
of goods sold followed from decreased maintenance spending and rental costs, partially offset by increased benefits and employment taxes.
Selling and Administrative Expense
Selling and administrative expenses increased by $1.0 million in the three months ended June 30, 2011, as compared to the
same period in 2010. The change represents a 13 percent increase from $8.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2010, to $9.0 million for the three months ended
June 30, 2011. The increase largely related to higher cash bonus expense than in the comparable period of 2010 based on the performance against the established metrics. Additionally, we have
slightly higher stock compensation expense due to an increase in the number of stock options and restricted common stock outstanding. In addition, we experienced an increase in aviation expense based
on hiring additional Denver-based engineering and accounting staff that regularly travel to our mines. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in professional services relative to the
prior period.
Income Taxes
Income tax expense increased by $17.6 million in the three months ended June 30, 2011, as compared to the same period in
2010 driven by the overall increase in our pre-tax income. Income tax expense of $20.1 million was recognized in the three months ended June 30, 2011, at an effective tax
rate of 39.5 percent. Income tax expense of $2.5 million was recognized in the three months ended June 30, 2010, at an effective tax rate of 40.9 percent.
More Detailed Discussion of Results of Operations for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2011, and 2010
Net Sales and Freight Costs
Net sales of potash increased $55.9 million, or 42 percent, from $134.6 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2010, to $190.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010. This change was the result of an increase in the average net realized sales price of $92 per ton, or
25 percent, in addition to an increase in sales volume of 13 percent. On a comparable basis, the levels of potash sales in the first six months of 2011 were stronger than the same period
of 2010 mainly due to improved commodity markets resulting in improved farmer economics that drive strong demand for our products. Our
47
Table of Contents
production
volume of potash in the six months ended June 30, 2011, was 443,000 tons, or 106,000 tons more than in the first six months of 2010. Our production was higher in 2011 primarily due
to the return to full production levels beginning in November of 2010 as we returned to full staffing levels at our facilities at that time following the market driven production reductions that
occurred in 2009 through the first half of 2010. In addition, the benefit of capital invested in 2010 was evident as higher production was available from additional mining panels in Carlsbad. Further,
the new compactor at Moab was fully operational during the first six months of 2011, which allowed us maximum flexibility to adjust our production mix of granular-sized and standard-sized potash, as
needed, based on market demand.
Net
sales of Trio® decreased $2.6 million, or 12 percent, from $21.8 million for the six months ended June 30,
2010, to $19.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2011, due to a 31 percent decrease in the volume of sales offset by a 28 percent increase in the average net
realized sales price. The volume decrease was driven by the lower recoveries and ore grade of product experienced throughout the first six months of 2011.
Freight
costs decreased $0.6 million, or 4 percent, for the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2010, due primarily to a
decrease in movement of inventory to distribution warehouses as well as a decrease in Trio® sales volumes.
Cost of Goods Sold
The following table presents our cost of goods sold for potash and Trio® for the subject
periods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six months ended |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2011 |
|
June 30, 2010 |
|
Change
between
Periods |
|
% Change |
|
Cost of goods sold (in millions) |
|
$ |
105.7 |
|
$ |
108.7 |
|
$ |
(3.0 |
) |
|
(3 |
)% |
Costs associated with abnormal production (in millions) |
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
0.5 |
|
$ |
(0.5 |
) |
|
(100 |
)% |
Cost per ton of potash sold(1) |
|
$ |
209 |
|
$ |
240 |
|
$ |
(31 |
) |
|
(13 |
)% |
Cost per ton of Trio® sold(2) |
|
$ |
192 |
|
$ |
146 |
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
32 |
% |
- (1)
- Per
ton potash costs include $30 and $26 of depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense in the six months ended June 30, 2011, and 2010,
respectively.
- (2)
- Per
ton Trio® costs include $21 and $16 of depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense in the six months
ended June 30, 2011, and 2010, respectively.
Total
cost of goods sold per ton, which includes royalties and depreciation, depletion and amortization, of potash decreased $31 per ton, or 13 percent, from $240 per ton for the
six months ended June 30, 2010, to $209 per ton for the six months ended June 30, 2011. Higher production rates in the first six months of 2011 are the primary reason that cost of sales
per ton declined relative to the comparable period in 2010, as fixed production costs are spread over more tons produced.
The
2010 per ton results are exclusive of approximately $0.5 million of production costs for potash that were not absorbed into inventory in 2010, due to the determination that
our production rates were abnormally low for this period. The cost of sales numbers reflect only those costs that have been first absorbed into inventory and then subsequently recognized as the
product tons are sold.
Total
cost of goods sold of our Trio® increased $46 per ton, or 32 percent, from $146 per ton for the six months ended June 30,
2010, to $192 per ton for the six months ended June 30, 2011. This increase in cost of goods sold on a per ton basis is due to the lower per ton cost in 2010 resulting primarily from a lower
average carrying cost of inventory in 2010 as a result of higher production rates during the first quarter of 2010. Therefore, costs were spread over more tons in 2010, lowering the cost of goods sold
per ton of Trio® as those tons were sold.
48
Table of Contents
Cost
of goods sold decreased $3.0 million, or 3 percent, from $108.7 million in the six months ended June 30, 2010, to $105.7 million in the six months
ended June 30, 2011. Prior to absorption of costs into inventory causing the decrease in total expense, spending increased primarily to support higher production. Costs that changed materially
during the six months ended June 30, 2011, compared to the six months ended June 30, 2010, included increases in labor, operating supplies, depreciation and royalties.
On
a comparative basis and within our production costs, labor and contract costs increased $3.1 million, or 11 percent, in the first six months of 2011 due to the
ramp-up of the Carlsbad operations from the downturn in 2009. Operating supplies increased $3.5 million, or 63 percent, in the six months ended June 30, 2011, due
principally to increased usage related to returning to full production by 2011 in addition to price increases on major mine-operating supplies.
Depreciation,
depletion, and amortization increased $3.9 million, or 35 percent, in the six months ended June 30, 2011, as a result of the significant capital
investment during 2010 and the first half of 2011. We expect depreciation expense to continue to increase on both an actual dollar basis and on a per ton basis as we continue to invest capital into
our operations. We manage capital investments on a basis of evaluating maintenance capital that we believe is necessary to maintain the productivity of our mines and investment capital that is
designed to generate a return on invested capital.
Royalty
expense increased $1.8 million, or 30 percent, from the six months ended June 30, 2010, which relates to the increase in net sales. Other changes in cost of
goods sold followed from increased usage of chemicals and reagents resulting from higher operating rates and increased benefits and employment taxes, as well as a reduction in by-product
credits, partially offset by decreased maintenance spending and rental costs.
Selling and Administrative Expense
Selling and administrative expenses increased by $1.3 million in the six months ended June 30, 2011, as compared to the
same period in 2010. The change represents a 9 percent increase from $14.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2010, to $15.9 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2011. The increase largely related to higher cash bonus expense than in the comparable period of 2010 based on our performance against established metrics. Additionally, we have
slightly higher stock compensation expense due to an increase in the number of stock options and
restricted common stock outstanding. In addition, we experienced an increase in aviation expense based on hiring of additional Denver-based engineering and accounting staff that regularly travel to
our mines. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in professional services relative to the prior period.
Recognition of Income Associated With Deferred Insurance Proceeds
In the first quarter of 2011, we completed the reconstruction and commissioning of our product warehouses at our East facility and
finalized insurance settlement amounts related to the associated product inventory warehouse insurance claim that resulted from a wind event that occurred in 2006. As a result, the
$11.7 million of deferred insurance proceeds that were recorded as of December 31, 2010, plus approximately $0.8 million of additional insurance proceeds, were recognized as
income in the three months ended March 31, 2011. The total of approximately $12.5 million has been recorded as "Insurance settlements from property and business losses" on the
consolidated statement of operations in the six months ended June 30, 2011. There was no cash impact associated with this event in the six months ended June 30, 2011, as the previously
deferred insurance proceeds were paid to us prior to December 31, 2010, with the exception of the final insurance payment of approximately $0.8 million, which was paid to us in April
2011.
49
Table of Contents
Income Taxes
Income tax expense increased by $28.7 million in the six months ended June 30, 2011, as compared to the same period in
2010 driven by higher pretax income in the current six-month period. Income tax expense of $38.9 million was recognized in the six months ended June 30, 2011, at an effective
tax rate of 39.8 percent. Income tax expense of $10.2 million was recognized in the six months ended June 30, 2010, at an effective tax rate of 39.7 percent.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
For a description of the critical accounting policies that affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation
of our consolidated financial statements, refer to our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010. There have been no significant changes to
our critical accounting policies since December 31, 2010.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued new guidance to achieve common fair value measurement and
disclosure requirements between GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. This new guidance amends current fair value measurement and disclosure guidance to include increased transparency
around valuation inputs and investment categorization. This new guidance is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011. We do not believe our adoption of
the new guidance will have an impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
In
June 2011, the FASB issued new guidance on the presentation of comprehensive income. Specifically, the new guidance allows an entity to present components of net income and other
comprehensive income in one continuous statement, referred to as the statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate, but consecutive statements. The new guidance eliminates the current option
to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of changes in equity. While the new guidance changes the presentation of comprehensive income, there are no changes to the
components that are recognized in net income or other comprehensive income under current accounting guidance. This new guidance is effective for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after
December 15, 2011. We do not believe our adoption of the new guidance will have an impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Item 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
There have been no significant changes to our market risk, related to this topic, since December 31, 2010. For a discussion of
our exposure to market risk, refer to Part II, Item 7A., "Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk," contained in our Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
Item 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
(a) Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain "disclosure controls and procedures," as such term is defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act,
that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time
periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Executive Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer, as
appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Based on their evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on
50
Table of Contents
Form 10-Q,
our Executive Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance
level.
(b) Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management, including our Executive Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer, conducted an evaluation of our "internal control over financial
reporting" as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act to determine whether any changes in our internal control over financial reporting occurred during the three months ended
June 30, 2011, that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. Based on that evaluation, there have been no changes in
our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the three months ended June 30, 2011, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our
internal control over financial reporting.
(c) Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls
Our management, including our Executive Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer, do not expect that our disclosure controls or our internal control over
financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the
control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs.
Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within Intrepid have been
detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls
can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls also is based in part
upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Over
time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a
cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.
51
Table of Contents
PART IIOTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Protests of Pending Applications for Permits to Drill ("APDs"). As of June 30, 2011, Intrepid maintains protests against five APDs
in the
Potash Area, most located on or near its Bureau of Land Management and State of New Mexico potash leases that have been submitted by various oil and gas operators. These protests, filed since 2010, do
not currently involve any claims against us. Certain of these APDs are near certain of our potash leases or pending lease modifications. There can be no
assurance that our protests will result in the denial of the APDs, and, if these APDs are granted and we are not successful in any appeal thereof, certain of these wells could interfere with our
ability to mine potash deposits under lease to Intrepid or that Intrepid seeks to lease within a reasonable safety buffer around the wells.
In
particular, we have intervened in a proceeding before the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division ("OCD") in support of the Division's denial of the APD for the Laguna State "16" Well
No. 2, proposed by Fasken Oil & Ranch Ltd. ("Fasken"), Case No. 14116, which would be located on state lands approximately half a mile from the workings of our North mine.
A hearing before a Division examiner occurred in June 2008. On March 27, 2009, the OCD issued an Order in which it approved Fasken's APD. The OCD further ordered that Fasken may not commence
drilling the proposed well for 30 days from the date of the Order to enable us, if we elect to file a request for de novo hearing to the
New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission ("OCC") and to petition the OCC for a stay of the OCD's Order. On April 24, 2009, we filed a request for de
novo hearing to the OCC and applied for a stay of the OCD's Order. The de novo hearing before the OCC occurred in April 2010. On
October 7, 2010, the OCC entered an Order granting Fasken authority to drill its proposed well. On November 2, 2010, Intrepid appealed this Order to the First Judicial District Court for
the State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe, where the appeal remains pending. By Order of the First Judicial District Court, dated November 8, 2010, the OCC's Order granting Fasken authority
to drill its proposed wells has been stayed pending the appeal of that Order.
We
are subject to claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business. While there are uncertainties in predicting the outcome of any claim or legal action, we believe
that the ultimate resolution of such claims or actions is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or the results of our operations. We maintain
liability insurance that will apply to some claims and actions and believe that our coverage is reasonable in view of the insurable legal risks to which our business ordinarily is subject.
Item 1A. RISK FACTORS
In addition to the other information set forth in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, you should carefully consider
the factors discussed in Part I, "Item 1A: Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as supplemented by
Part II, "Item 1A: Risk Factors" in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, which could materially affect our business,
financial condition or future results. The risks described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, are not the only risks facing our company.
Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, or future results. Other
than the changes disclosed in our Quarterly Report filed on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2011, there have been no material changes in the risk factors
contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.
52
Table of Contents
Item 2. UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Period
|
|
(a)
Total Number
of Shares
Purchased(1) |
|
(b)
Average
Price Paid
Per Share |
|
(c)
Total Number of
Shares Purchased
as Part of Publicly
Announced Plans
or Programs |
|
(d)
Maximum Number (or
Approximate Dollar
Value) of Shares that
May Yet Be Purchased
Under the Plan or
Programs |
April 1, 2011, through April 30, 2011 |
|
|
16,031 |
|
$ |
34.14 |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
May 1, 2011, through May 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
June 1, 2011, through June 30, 2011 |
|
|
1,357 |
|
$ |
31.05 |
|
|
|
|
N/A |
- (1)
- Represents
shares of common stock delivered to Intrepid as payment of withholding taxes due upon the vesting of awards of restricted common stock held by
Intrepid employees.
Item 3. DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES
None.
Item 4. [REMOVED AND RESERVED]
Item 5. OTHER INFORMATION
Mine Safety and Health Administration Safety Data
We are committed to providing a safe and healthy work environment. Our goal is to provide a workplace that is
incident-free. We seek to achieve this goal by training employees in safe work practices; establishing, following and improving safety standards; involving employees in safety processes;
openly communicating with employees about safety matters; and recording, reporting and investigating accidents, incidents and losses to avoid reoccurrence. As part of our ongoing safety programs, we
collaborate with the Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") and the New Mexico Bureau of Mine Safety to identify and implement promising new accident prevention techniques and practices. The
objectives of our safety programs are to eliminate workplace accidents and incidents, to preserve employee health and to comply with all mining-related regulations.
Our
mining operations in New Mexico are subject to regulation by MSHA under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the "Mine Act") and the New Mexico Bureau of Mine Safety. MSHA
inspects our mines in New Mexico on a regular basis and issues various citations and orders when it believes a violation has occurred under the Mine Act. The following disclosures are provided
pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"), which requires certain disclosures by companies required to file periodic
reports under the Exchange Act that operate coal or other mines regulated under the Mine Act. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC is authorized to issue rules and regulations to carry out
the purposes of these provisions. At this time, the SEC has issued proposed rules but has not issued final rules as of the date of the filing of this report. While we believe the following disclosures
meet the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is possible that rule making by the SEC will require disclosures in the future to be presented in a form that differs from the following
disclosures.
We
present information below regarding certain mine safety and health citations which MSHA has issued with respect to each mine for which Intrepid or a subsidiary is an operator in New
Mexico. In evaluating this information, consideration should be given to factors such as: (1) the number of citations and orders will vary depending on the size of the mine, (2) the
number of citations issued will vary from inspector to inspector and mine to mine, and (3) citations and orders can be contested and appealed, and in that process, are often reduced in severity
and amount, and are sometimes vacated.
53
Table of Contents
During
the three months ended June 30, 2011, none of Intrepid's mines: (1) were assessed any Mine Act section 110(b)(2) penalties for flagrant violations
(i.e., a reckless or repeated failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation that substantially and proximately caused, or reasonably could have been expected to cause, death
or serious bodily injury); (2) received any MSHA written notices under Mine Act section 104(e) of a pattern of violation of mandatory health or safety standards or of the potential to
have such a pattern; or (3) received any Mine Act Section 107(a) imminent danger orders to immediately remove miners. In addition, there were no mining-related fatalities at Intrepid's
mines during the three months ended June 30, 2011.
As
required by section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the table below sets forth by mine the total number of citations and/or orders issued by MSHA to Intrepid and its
subsidiaries under the indicated provisions of the Mine Act, together with the total dollar value of proposed MSHA assessments, during the three months ended June 30, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Mine(1)
|
|
Mine Act
Section 104
Significant &
Substantial
Citations(2) |
|
Mine Act
Section 104(b)
Orders(3) |
|
Mine Act
Section 104(d)
Citations &
Orders(4) |
|
Total Dollar
Value of
Proposed
MSHA
Assessments(5) |
|
Intrepid Potash East (29-00170) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
9,671 |
|
Intrepid Potash West (29-00175) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,302 |
|
Intrepid Potash North (29-02028) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
HB Potash (29-00173) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
- (1)
- MSHA
assigns an identification number to each mine and may or may not assign separate identification numbers to related facilities. We are providing the
information in the table by MSHA identification number.
- (2)
- Mine
Act section 104 significant and substantial citations are for alleged violations of a mining safety standard or regulation where there exists a
reasonable likelihood that the hazard contributed to or will result in an injury or illness of a reasonably serious nature.
- (3)
- Mine
Act section 104(b) orders are for alleged failure to totally abate the subject matter of a Mine Act section 104(a) citation within the
period specified in the citation.
- (4)
- Mine
Act section 104(d) citations and orders are for an alleged unwarrantable failure (i.e. aggravated conduct constituting more than ordinary
negligence) to comply with a mining safety standard or regulation.
- (5)
- The
MSHA proposed assessments issued during the reporting period covered by this report do not necessarily relate to the citations or orders issued by MSHA
during the reporting period or to the pending legal actions reported below.
The
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the "Commission") is an independent adjudicative agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review of legal disputes
arising under the Mine Act. These cases may involve, among other questions, challenges by operators to citations, orders and penalties they have received from MSHA, or complaints of discrimination by
miners under Mine Act section 105. The following is a brief description of the types of legal actions that may be brought before the Commission.
-
- Contests of Citations and OrdersA contest proceeding may be
filed with the Commission by operators, miners or miners' representatives to challenge the issuance of a citation or order issued by MSHA.
54
Table of Contents
-
- Contests of Proposed Penalties (Petitions for Assessment of
Penalties)A contest of a proposed penalty is an administrative proceeding before the Commission challenging a civil penalty that MSHA has proposed for the
violation contained in a citation or order.
-
- Complaints for CompensationA complaint for compensation may
be filed with the Commission by miners entitled to compensation when a mine is closed by certain withdrawal orders issued by MSHA. The purpose of the proceeding is to determine the amount of
compensation, if any, due miners idled by the orders.
-
- Complaints of Discharge, Discrimination or InterferenceA
discrimination proceeding is a case that involves a miner's allegation that he or she has suffered a wrong by the operator because he or she engaged in some type of activity protected under the Mine
Act, such as making a safety complaint.
-
- Temporary Reinstatement ProceedingsTemporary reinstatement
proceedings involve cases in which a miner has filed a complaint with MSHA stating he or she has suffered discrimination and the miner has lost his or her position.
The
table that follows presents information regarding pending legal actions before the Commission as of June 30, 2011. Each legal action is assigned a docket number by the
Commission and may have as its subject matter one or more citations, orders, penalties or complaints.
|
|
|
|
|
Mine
|
|
Pending
Legal Actions |
|
Intrepid Potash East (29-00170) |
|
|
5 |
|
Intrepid Potash West (29-00175) |
|
|
6 |
|
Intrepid Potash North (29-02028) |
|
|
1 |
|
HB Potash (29-00173) |
|
|
|
|
The
foregoing pending legal actions includes legal actions that were initiated prior to the current reporting period and do not necessarily relate to the citations, orders or proposed
assessments issued by MSHA during the current reporting period.
55
Table of Contents
Item 6. EXHIBITS
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Description |
|
31.1 |
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as amended.* |
|
31.2 |
|
Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as amended.* |
|
32.1 |
|
Certification of Executive Chairman of the Board pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.** |
|
32.2 |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.** |
|
101.INS |
|
XBRL Instance Document.*** |
|
101.SCH |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema.*** |
|
101.CAL |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase.*** |
|
101.LAB |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase.*** |
|
101.PRE |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase.*** |
|
101.DEF |
|
XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase.*** |
- *
- Filed
herewith.
- **
- Furnished
herewith.
- ***
- Pursuant
to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, the Interactive Data Files on Exhibit 101 hereto are deemed not filed or part of a
registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, are deemed not filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and otherwise are not subject to liability under those sections.
- +
- Management
contract.
56
Table of Contents
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements 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.
|
|
|
|
|
INTREPID POTASH, INC. (REGISTRANT) |
Dated: August 3, 2011 |
|
/s/ ROBERT P. JORNAYVAZ III
Robert P. Jornayvaz III Executive Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer) |
Dated: August 3, 2011 |
|
/s/ DAVID W. HONEYFIELD
David W. Honeyfield President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
Dated: August 3, 2011 |
|
/s/ BRIAN D. FRANTZ
Brian D. Frantz Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
57