Good day and welcome to the Olin Corporation First Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Larry Kromidas, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Nicole. Good morning, everyone. Before we begin this morning, I want to remind everyone that this presentation, along with the associated slides and the question-and-answer session following our prepared remarks, will include statements regarding estimates of future performance. Please note that these are forward-looking statements and that actual results could differ materially from those projected. Some of the factors that could cause actual results to differ from our projections are described, without limitations, in the Risk Factors section of our most recent Form 10-K and in yesterday's press release. Copy of today's transcript and slides will be available on our website in the Investors section under Calendar of Events. The earnings press release and other financial data and information are available under Press Releases. With me this morning are John Fischer, Olin's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer; Pat Dawson, Executive Vice President and President, Epoxy and International; John McIntosh, Executive Vice President, Synergies and Systems; Jim Varilek, Executive Vice President and President, Chlor Alkali Products and Vinyls and Services; and Todd Slater, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Now, I would like to turn the call over to John Fischer. John?

Thank you, Larry. Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. During this morning's call, I will begin by highlighting four key takeaways from Olin's first quarter, then I will describe our improving outlook for 2018, followed by a more detailed discussion of each of our business segments. Let's turn to slide 3. During the first quarter and into April, Olin successfully completed the most significant of our 2018 planned maintenance turnarounds. Our first quarter 2018 results included approximately $92 million of planned maintenance turnaround costs. The Chlor Alkali planned maintenance turnarounds at Freeport, Texas and Plaquemine, Louisiana that began in the first quarter were completed on schedule in April. In addition, the planned maintenance turnaround at McIntosh, Alabama that began a couple of weeks ago was also completed by the end of April. The Freeport, Texas Epoxy planned maintenance turnaround that began in February was also completed in April. This two-month Epoxy turnaround was last performed six years ago. Included in the slides in the appendix of this presentation are the details of our actual and forecasted maintenance turnaround costs by quarter and by business segment. Overall, we continue to forecast that full year turnaround costs will be approximately $30 million lower than full year 2017 costs. Also during the first quarter of 2018, we continued to experience a positive pricing environment for the majority of our chemical portfolio. Our first quarter 2018 caustic soda pricing improved approximately 40% year-over-year and approximately 10% sequentially. During the first quarter, the domestic caustic soda contract price indices increased $55 per ton, while caustic soda export price indices fully recovered from the January decline that we discussed in early February. The April domestic contract price indices increased an additional $35 per ton, while spot export prices decreased $40 per ton at…

Thanks, John. Let's turn to our 2018 cash flow forecast, which is on slide 10. We expect to generate $450 million of free cash flow before dividend payments. Our expectation is that by the end of 2018, the combination of debt reduction and EBITDA growth will reduce the net debt-to-EBITDA leverage ratio to the 2.5 times range. During the first quarter, we prepaid approximately $60 million of debt. Starting with the midpoint of our full year adjusted EBITDA forecast of $1.25 billion on the far left of the waterfall chart, we deduct $50 million of estimated tax payments, which primarily reflect income tax payments made to foreign jurisdictions in 2018. We are forecasting our cash tax rate to be in the 10% to 15% range for the year. Since 2015, Olin has not been a U.S. federal tax payer because of the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards, primarily arising out of cost associated with the acquisition in 2015. Because of tax credit carryforwards, we are not expected to be a U.S. federal taxpayer in 2018. While we are continuing to analyze the full impact of the Tax Cuts and Job Acts of 2017, the cash tax benefit to Olin for the changes in the tax law is minimal in 2018 due to tax credit carryforwards. We do expect the new tax law to provide cash tax benefit to Olin beginning in 2019. The new tax law is currently estimated to reduce our cash tax rate for 2019 and beyond to the 15% to 20% range. This translates into an estimated and a reduction in cash taxes of approximately $75 million. Column 3 reflects the midpoint of our current forecast of capital spending of $400 million, which includes annual maintenance capital spending of between $225 million and $275 million and…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Our first question comes from Frank Mitsch of Wells Fargo Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good morning. This is Jacob Hughes on for Frank. I just wanted to get your thoughts. There's been several disruptions over the past couple of months from Rusal and the Alunorte outage, which looks like it's coming offline for up to six months. Could you talk about your outlook for caustic and any impact that has to your full year EBITDA guidance?

I'll address both of those. The Alunorte, I think both of those, generally speaking – Alunorte has happened; Rusal hasn't happened yet – have had the effect of just causing trade flows to be adjusted, more than anything else. I think in the Alunorte case, we're talking about a very small quantity of caustic in an 80 million ton market. And I would characterize we expect that the Rusal event, if it occurs, is going to have less impact because of the delay than it would have had otherwise because it just occurred quickly. But again, the total volume there isn't big enough to upset an 80 million ton market. And it will adjust some trade flows – I think Rusal will – there will be more supply from Europe, and then Europe will import more, and I think at the end of the day it'll all wash out. So, I don't really – we don't really believe either of those are going to materially affect caustic pricing going forward.

Okay. And then on your current – given your current leverage profile, can you walk through your thinking on the buyback versus more opportunistic debt pay-down and your timeframe to – you envision to executing the program?

We believe that based on our outlook, we have – keeping in mind that debt reduction still remains our top priority, we believe that having a vehicle to opportunistically repurchase shares to offset dilution is important for the shareholders. And that was our thinking.

Okay. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Arun Viswanathan of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you. How you guys doing? First off, I guess, just wanted to understand the potential dynamics in your statement about more upside opportunities. How should we think about the $35 inc (00:22:33) on caustic and the $15 or so inc (00:22:39) on chlorine to your profitability for 2018 and 2019? Are you experiencing significant inflation that would offset those amounts, or should we just use the typical kind of $10 equals $30 million annual adjusted EBITDA uplift? Thanks.

I think you should use the typical $10 is $30 million of uplift, keeping in mind that on the caustic side it's anywhere from 30 to 90 days. In terms of implementation on the chlorine side, it's typically 90 days.

Okay. And I guess as a follow-up, are there any of your contracts that are significantly behind the index, and – or said a different way, we've seen couple hundred million dollars go into the index over the last couple years. So, if we take 50% of that, maybe there's a 150 (00:23:35) implied increase on your margins. Have you seen that kind of improvement in your ECU per ton margin or is there something else that is holding that back?

This is Jim Varilek. From a contractual standpoint, we continue to make improvements on that. You should assume that we now have improved the percentage of realization in the index movement. It's now in the 50% to 70% range. And so, we continue to improve contract, so we're seeing an acceleration of the impact on prices versus a year ago.

Arun, I would also just caution you, when you look at Q1, we talked about at one point during the quarter, 40% of our Chlor Alkali capacity was offline due to planned maintenance. So, from a volume perspective, this is going – Q1 will be the weakest quarter as will – as we've said earlier, the entire quarter will be the weakest of the year. This will be the weakest for Chlor Alkali.

Great. And just lastly on that point then, given that there were some outages in Q1 and you guys are ramping back up here in Q2 and typically, chlorine alkaline (24:50) rates will go up anyway. Do you expect prices to kind of moderate as we go through the year? And if not, what would be the drivers for continued support of higher pricing?

Arun, this is Jim again. I would say that the fundamentals of the market haven't changed. We still see very good industrial production; we still see GDPs that are looking good; we still see and anticipate as John said, record exports out of the U.S. Gulf Coast. So, what you're seeing through the first quarter and you see in the first month of the second quarter is the momentum stemming from those fundamentals. So, we continue to see that, and we would expect that to continue for the next, actually for the next several years with those trends being positive.

Okay. Thanks.

Our next question comes from Don Carson of Susquehanna. Please go ahead.

Good morning, this is Emily Wagner on for Don. I guess following up on the guidance aspect. Why only show an upside bias to guidance when caustic, chlorine and EDC and Epoxy price trends have been so much better than the initial guidance given in fourth quarter?

Emily, we would agree with what you said about the pricing trends. There is downside as we mentioned in Winchester, and we're always cautious about raw material costs, especially in the Epoxy business with benzene and propylene, which have been very volatile as you know over the last 24 to 30 months, as well as EDC pricing. And if you remember what happened last year in the second half of the year, EDC pricing essentially collapsed. So, at this moment, I would say we feel more comfortable saying we believe there is more upside than downside, rather than just raising our guidance.

Understood okay. And then on Epoxy, I know on the price chart you showed the $0.09 increase in the U.S. Did you realize that already and how should we think about pricing lags in the Epoxy space?

Yeah, Emily. This is Pat Dawson. I think the short answer to that is yes, we are seeing that increase, and we continue to get good momentum on that increase as we go into May here as well. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Aleksey Yefremov of Nomura. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you. Just to follow up on Epoxy, how should we think about your sensitivity to these changes in benchmark prices, maybe similar to the way you describe caustic? Is it 75% of the benchmark, 50%?

Aleksey, we have not given you specific guidance associated with that. But what we have now started to provide is the changes in those. The key to remember, though, is that over the last year, benzene and propylene have continued to increase. As a matter of fact, our costs for the first quarter compared to the first quarter of last year were up over $20 million in benzene and propylene costs. So, a lot of our pricing improvement as we said earlier has really been to offset increased raw material costs.

And maybe to follow up on that again, in the second quarter as you look at your increase in prices, are those larger than increases in raw materials, are your cash margins increasing in Q2 compared to Q1?

Based on the current prices for benzene and propylene, we would expand margins in the second quarter.

Thank you. And a follow up on EDC, there were recently – there was recently a spike in EDC prices in China. Does this give you hope that your forecast for lower EDC prices in the second quarter is maybe conservative or do you not see it as sustainable?

This is Jim. Obviously, we're pleased to see the movement in EDC prices. And EDC – it's kind of a – it's a global market, and a lot of those – the spike actually had to do with some other issues in terms of Latin America, Brazil and so forth that helped push the prices up. We are moving into a strong season in terms of replenishment and so forth, first quarter, second quarter. So, we're anticipating momentum in the second quarter. The third and fourth quarter, as John said, is always a challenging time in EDC, as you go to off season in monsoon. That's why we're cautious about EDC for the remainder of the year. I think the IHS projection has 2018 EDC prices to be slightly lower on an annual basis than 2017.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Neel Kumar of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hi. Good morning. You mentioned in your prepared remarks that $1.5 billion of adjusted EBITDA is more of a near-term target in the next one, two years rather than a mid-cycle target. Is your new estimate of mid-cycle EBITDA now higher than $1.5 billion?

We have not adjusted the mid-cycle target. We're just commenting on achieving – we believe $1.5 billion is achievable in the next one to two years.

Neel, this is Todd. I think there has been some confusion at times by investors or other folks. When we talk about mid-cycle, we are not remotely talking about peak, we're talking about sort of the middle of the cycle, where there's still plenty of room to run above that. And I think maybe it's a nomenclature item for how we're speaking versus how some other people may interpret that. So, yeah, I think we're – the number of $1.5 billion is by no means an end. It's just an item that we will continue to improve from. Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Great. That's very helpful. And then a question on how you're thinking about your current portfolio. Competitor of yours in epoxy has put up some assets for sale. Is that something that you would consider? And also, has there been any change in how you're thinking about Winchester in light of recent industry headwinds and changes in the competitive landscape?

We're aware of assets that are for sale in the Epoxy business. And I would say, as a general comment, we would always be interested. I think as a practical matter, the assets that are for sale are not going to be available to us because of anti-trust issues. I would answer the Winchester question the same way we always have answered it, which is it really represents a value question, and is there a methodology for Olin to separate the Winchester business from the Olin portfolio and create value. We are always faced with the fact that we've owned the business since 1892. It has an extremely low tax basis, essentially equal to its working capital. So, any straight sale for cash would have to have a pretty generous multiple on it. And if you look at similar properties to that today in the marketplace, you're not going to get that. That also impacts your ability to do any kind of tax-free spin. And I would say, again, if you looked at comparables today, you would spin it off. It would trade worse than it's trading in Olin today. So, we're aware of the issue. We've been focused on it. I've been looking at it for 15 years, and it really just becomes a value question. That said, even with its weaker results, it's a significant cash generator for Olin, and I would say, it is a business we understand. It is a business that we can continue to work hard at improving. Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. Great. And then I guess, just one last follow-up on the buyback. When you say that you're going to be opportunistic to offset dilution, are you speaking about the 2018 long-term incentive plan, shares issued from that? And then, do you also see yourself being more aggressive with buybacks at levels these shares are undervalued at?

We were not addressing specifically the 2018 plan. Those shares actually haven't been issued yet. We were just addressing the normal dilution that occurs from existing compensation plans, whether they be for management, employees or directors; and I think we would just say we would look at the opportunities opportunistically. Neel Kumar - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay. All right. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Jeff Zekauskas of JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. In your slides, you present a favorable supply/demand balance for caustic soda over a longer period of time, and you talk about positive pricing. In epoxies, what you do is you simply have a price chart. Do you have a view of the supply/demand balance in epoxies over the next two or three years or a view as to whether supply/demand balances will tighten or loosen or are you agnostic, and you don't have a view?

Yeah. Jeff, this is Pat. Listen, first of all, you got to remember that the market contracted for epoxy resin in 2016 versus 2015, and that was fairly sluggish into 2017. We've just started to see positive growth again in this 3% to 5% range that we talked about in our remarks, and I think that's very positive. Also, I think from a supply/demand standpoint, the fundamentals are improving. No question about it, while the overcapacity that was built in this industry was built in China as most of you know. And so, that capacity has been working itself off. There's also been some environmental regulations that I think has constrained some of that capacity. Although we don't have a clear vision of that, it definitely has been impacting supply/demand fundamentals that are much more favorable here. And we see those supply/demand fundamentals continuing to be favorable and that we don't see anyone who's gone out and announced any new meaningful capacity here going forward. So, that's our view of it right now.

Just for my follow-up, were 2017 and 2018 years of unusually high turnaround activity, in your opinion?

For Olin, yes. There was a – we have two large integrated Epoxy plants, one in Europe, one in the United States. In the third and fourth quarters of 2017, the European operations underwent their once every six year turnaround. And then, in the first quarter or into the second quarter of this year, the U.S. assets underwent that. So, we would expect if you look forward one year, Jeff, that 2019 will be a much lower turnaround year in terms of dollar spent and volumes, production lost for the Epoxy business.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Our next question comes from Steve Byrne of Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Yes. Thank you. What is the outlook for the Shintech contract that you have via your tolling agreement with Dow? And could this change post the start-up of their new ethylene cracker?

We would not expect – this is Jim. We wouldn't expect anything to change. We have a long-term relationship with Shintech, and we expect to have that well into the next decade.

Okay. Thank you. And what would you say is structurally driving the weakness in ethylene dichloride? Is there a shrinking merchant market that leads to that weakness, or is it ethylene-related? How do you look at that?

Well, if you look at the slide, you see that EDC is very volatile. It moves up and down. Has a number of factors. Supply/demand obviously drives it. Right now, it's – I would say that the weakness has been driven by the success that's been achieved on the caustic side of things, where you have incremental players that have the ability to move EDC or chlorine into EDC, in order to liberate the caustic has been a factor. Having said that, there's only a certain amount of that incremental EDC that's going to be able to come online. And so, we do expect that over the period of the next two years that we do anticipate improving fundamentals on EDC.

And just lastly, any capacity expansion or efficiency improvements with this latest round of turnarounds?

One always expects to get operating improvements when you spend this kind of money to do a turnaround that's done once every six years. I mean, coming out of the turnaround that we had in Europe on the Epoxy, we had best production we've had in many years. We expect to see the same thing in Freeport.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Jim Sheehan of SunTrust. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking my question. Could you discuss the various puts and takes that you see for the second quarter EBITDA bridge?

Well, I think the biggest single bridge point is that we're going to have significantly less turnaround cost and significantly lower loss volumes from production in both Chlor Alkali and Epoxy. The other big bridge going – is the positive pricing trend moving forward. As we've said in both discussions about Chlor Alkali and Epoxy, we expect pricing to be better second quarter versus first quarter.

And what are your current views on the Epoxy business for 2019?

Yeah. I think – this is Pat. I think, again, back to the fundamentals, I think the fundamentals bode well from a demand standpoint with what we're seeing, especially with oil and gas improving in North America. Europe continued to consume 3%, 4% more epoxy resin over the past few years, and we really don't see that changing with a lot of the infrastructure building in that part of the world. I think one of the unknowns is China, and whether or not some of these environmental crackdowns will put limitations on some of the demand in the epoxy market from that standpoint. It's really hard to tell at this point in time. But basically, the fundamentals should continue to improve.

Yeah. The other thing we answered in a prior question was maintenance outage costs in Epoxy in 2019 should be significantly lower than they were in 2018.

And related to that, how much lower will your total planned maintenance costs be in 2019? Can you give some more color on that?

I would tell you, qualitatively, we expect them to be lower. We have not, at this juncture, given out anything specific on that or any other element of 2019 other than the broad comment that we think $1.5 billion is achievable in the next one to two years.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from John Roberts of UBS. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. And, Todd and Larry, looking forward to seeing you on May 21. Thanks for the new Epoxy slide in the appendix with the propylene and benzene costs. Would you be able to add an ethylene slide as well, or does your price from Dow vary too much from the IHS benchmark for you to disclose that?

I would say that the price from Dow makes a slide somewhat unnecessary and competitively very sensitive.

John, this is Todd. You should think of – we now have virtually ethylene at producer economics. So, really you're thinking about changes in ethane. Because – the changes in spot ethylene or those type of things are no longer meaningful after the end of September of 2017 when we basically went to cost-based ethylene.

Okay. And then secondly on Winchester, you've got one competitor in bankruptcy and you've got a second competitor that just announced separating its gun business from its ammo operations. Do we have to wait for the post-bankruptcy and – or the separation at the other competitor kind of happen until normalized competitive behavior comes back to the marketplace?

I'm not sure we're the right people to answer that question, John. I think that the Remington bankruptcy appears to be proceeding very quickly. So, I would hope that gets resolved very shortly. I think if you look at what Vista is trying to do and the comments they made around ammo, I would hope their behavior gets normal quick. I mean, they sort of said that.

All right. Thanks very much.

Our next question comes from Kevin McCarthy of Vertical Research Partners. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good morning. As you look across the businesses where you compete, do you anticipate the need to expand capacity in any of those markets over the next couple of years? Just trying to get a feel for whether organic reinvestment will be any sort of meaningful call on cash as we think about your capital deployment priorities and the new repurchase plan.

I think, Kevin, in the near term, which I would call one to two years, we will have a greater focus on investing for reliability and investing to optimize the output of – or the use of our chlorine to ensure the highest operating rates that we can generate.

Okay. And then, a second question, if I may, just to come back to epoxies, I appreciate the additional slides. Why in your judgment have prices increased or inflected over the past several months? Is it related to operating rates? And if so, what is your assessment of global operating rate for base liquid resin? How do you expect that to trend? And can you also comment on your typical geographic mix within the Epoxy business? So, it's a few different questions, apologies, but just would like to understand better the outlook there.

Yeah. As it relates to the geography, I think if you look at the 10-Q, which will be filed later today, there will actually be segment information by geography. And what you'll see is that the larger portion of our sales actually are in Europe, in the Epoxy business, North America second and then others being third, which is either Asia or South America. I'll let Pat talk about the inflection points.

Yeah, Kevin. This is Pat. I think the graph that we included here, you'll see the big inflection in Asia, liquid epoxy resin. And that's where all the overcapacity was really built in that 2006 through 2012 type timeframe. So, one factor I've already mentioned before that I think caused that inflection point was around what happened in China. And we don't have full transparency there on the environmental regulations that have definitely constricted restrain epichlorohydrin capacity and liquid epoxy resin capacity. And so, I think China was a big inflection point. Of course, when you see the price, the way it shot up from September 2017 until beginning of this year, it did create an arbitrage where people moved for liquid epoxy resin into China, which was a pretty major event. And I think the ongoing fundamentals is if you look outside of China, supply/demand fundamentals are very good there on liquid epoxy resin. And there hasn't been any meaningful capacity build because the reinvestment economics weren't there. So, I think you're seeing a fairly typical commodity cycle of supply working its way off, combined with some environmental issues in China, and that has really propelled the liquid epoxy resin prices.

And lastly if I may, just coming back to the $1.5 billion EBITDA level that you've put forth over the near to medium term, let's say, what sort of level of profitability in Epoxy might we expect to be embedded in that sort of level? Can you provide some sort of notion of what you view as a mid-cycle or normal level of profitability here, coming off of five, or six red quarters?

If you went back to the February 20, 2016 Investor Meeting, where we talked about what our long-term goal was, which was $1.5 billion, we had a chart that showed Epoxy on the upswing over a period of years. I think if you actually try to map out the chart, it suggested that Epoxy would be something in the $250 million a year of EBITDA range.

And that's still valid.

We believe so, yes.

Thank you so much.

Our next question comes from Eric Petrie of Citi. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

Could you give us an update on Asia or China demand specifically for caustic soda following the 2+26 alumina winter production curtailments? And I think it's been a little softer demand recovery as prices kind of slipped below the $600 per ton mark.

Sure. This is Jim. What you saw in China is, prior to the curtailments, the winter curtailments and so forth that took place. You actually saw a run up in prices, and the prices went well into the $600 range and peaked at that point in time. And so, what you've seen since then is really just a kind of a return or a calibration back to the norm. So there has been some movement in pricing downward. But we don't see that as a long-term trend. It's a peak prior to the curtailment. And then following up with the curtailment, you saw some settling out of the prices. Nonetheless, we don't see the dynamics in China changing. We're still seeing exports of caustic soda out of China continuing to decline, and they've been on a four to five year decline. So, I wouldn't read too much into it other than just some normal movement around what is actually a very high number.

Okay. And then, what's typically a healthy level of gap between China prices and U.S. Gulf Coast, the $795 million mark in April?

I guess that – I don't know that there's a healthy gap. There's gaps that occurred, that are just the normal movements of the market and those dynamics will drive that. So, I don't know that there's a – what you consider, a healthy gap. It's a global market and product moves to wherever the highest prices are. So, I don't have a good answer for you on a gap number.

Okay. Lastly, has the mix of your trade flows changed in either EDC or caustic soda based on the proposed China tariffs?

No, not at all.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Matthew Blair of Tudor, Pickering and Holt. Please go ahead. Matthew Blair - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: Hey. Good morning. Want to come back to Epoxy here, a few comments on strong demand. And in terms of geographies, I think you mentioned that the China looked pretty good. What about specific end markets, can you call out any particular areas where you're seeing a significant improvement?

Matthew, this is Pat again. In Epoxy, the biggest markets, of course, are your performance coating market. So, if you follow the PPGs, the Sherwin-Williams, the Akzos, you get a pretty good idea about their demand. There's no question with both in Europe and North America, there's been a little bit of a slow start to the season with the wet cold weather, but those performance coatings are by far the biggest part of the Epoxy market. You get into electronic – electrical laminates, which we participate in over in China. So, that's a major market. It continues to be very good for us and grows more than GDP. You get into the wind energy market and the windmill blades and adhesives is also a major market, and then, of course, automotive. So, across most of those markets as I said earlier, the demand is between 3% and 5%. And much better than where it was in 2016 versus 2015 in the first half of 2017. Matthew Blair - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: Sounds good. And then there's a couple of comments on just overcapacity in the industry. After you get done with the turnarounds, what kind of utilization rates are you running both your Europe and U.S. assets at?

We have not provided operating rate information for any of our assets, so we're not prepared to do that. Matthew Blair - Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc.: Okay. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Dmitry Silversteyn of Longbow Research. Please go ahead.

Hey. Actually, Casey in for Dmitry. When you look to the $1.5 billion of EBITDA potential, you mentioned a Winchester improvement. Just wondering where you think that could come from whether pickup in demand, raws or maybe some pricing?

I don't think we actually mentioned Winchester improvement as a major thing. I think it's last on the list of six or seven things. Fundamentally, what we think is ultimately going to happen, and it was an earlier question about the competition, is that you're going to get balance between the commodity costs and the pricing environment. And that will be the biggest single thing in the short run and our ability to continue to improve our operations.

Okay. And just one more on the chlor alkali side. You mentioned that there's not likely to be any capacity additions, I think you said over the next three years. Is there any production or fulfillment concerns that you have on that business just with all the production rationalizations?

Well, I think that goes to the conversation we had about a multiyear up cycle on caustic soda. If you get a global economy that grows at 2%, that suggests 2% caustic soda growth annually and no new capacity being added over time. And I would remind you that to add capacity, you actually have to have increasing chlorine demand. That suggests that the market's going to remain tight or potentially get tighter and prices are going to continue to move positively.

Excellent. Thanks, guys.

Our next question comes from Karl Blunden of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Karl Blunden - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Hi, guys. Just a quick question on the pricing dynamic in Epoxy. Prices are up quite nicely, but a lot of the different input costs for the coatings players are up, too. TiO2 is up year-over-year, oil looking to move up. Does that affect demand going forward or Epoxy price is still low enough that it's not really a driver there?

I don't think those other factors are really a driver. I do think it adds to the overall momentum. You have a basket of raw materials that goes into the major coating houses going up right now. But there's really no adjacent impact here from any of those other raw materials on Epoxy. Karl Blunden - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: Got it. And then, just a quick one on the balance sheet here. You've made progress. You're progressing with the agencies on the ratings front. What are the gating factors to moving further up in terms of ratings and edging up towards IG (00:55:33)? And then, just for the overall debt target, should we think about the term loan coming out over time, or do you feel like the amount of debt you have now is appropriate? And deleveraging will be somewhat from debt reduction, but primarily from EBITDA growth. How should we think about that?

I think you should think about it is that the metrics will continue to improve and they will continue to reflect both improvement in EBITDA and repayment of debt. We've commented in the past that when we target our debt-to-EBITDA ratio, we do it based on where we are in the cycle. We are obviously in and hopefully will continue to be in a good part of the cycle. And we need to get – based on the historic volatility and cyclicality, we need to get that ratio down well to something in the 1.5 to 2 range. We believe to give us the cushion, when and if, the cycle turns that we stay in a good place. We have always said that our objective is to run the company with investment grade credit metrics. Whether we get investment grade ratings or not is another element. That is not and has not been a strategy per se. Karl Blunden - Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC: That's helpful. Thanks, guys.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to John Fischer for any closing remarks.

Thank you for joining us today and we look forward to speaking to you about our second quarter results.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect your line.