Lsb Industries (LXU) Risk Factors

Both the U.S. and many other countries are experiencing inflation, which, in turn, is leading to increase costs in multiple industry segments, including agriculture and related industries. The persistence of inflation has led central bankers to increase interest rates within their regions. There is no guarantee that these measures will arrest the inflationary trend. Further, these factors, taken together with reduced productivity and constraints on the labor supply could lead to recessionary periods in the regions in which the Company does business. While we will take measures within our control to manage the effects of inflation, higher interest rates and other factors, ultimately, they are outside of our control. Further, the persistence and/or severity of one or more of them could adversely affect our financial performance and/or operations.

Over the course of the past several years, global climate conditions have become increasingly inconsistent, volatile and unpredictable. Many of the regions in which we do business have variously experienced excessive moisture, cold, drought and/or heat of an unprecedented nature at various times of the year. In some cases, these conditions have either reduced or obviated the need for our products, particularly in the agriculture space, whether pre-plant, at-plant, post-emergent or at harvest. Due to the unpredictable nature of these conditions, we have observed growers and distributors becoming increasingly conservative in procurement practices and the accumulation of inventory. Further, the unpredictable nature of climactic change has made it increasingly difficult to forecast market demand and, consequently, financial performance, from year-to-year. There is no guarantee that climate change or its impacts will abate in the near future, and it is possible that such change will continue to hinder, or significantly further hinder, our ability to forecast sales performance with accuracy and otherwise adversely affect our financial performance.

Our business is comprised of operating units of various ages and levels of automated control. While we have continued to make significant annual capital improvements, potential age or control related issues have occurred in the past and may occur in the future, which could cause damage to the equipment and ancillary facilities. As a result, we have experienced and may continue to experience additional downtime at our chemical facilities in the future. The equipment required for the manufacture of our products is specialized, and the time for replacement of such equipment can be lengthy, resulting in extended downtime in the affected unit. In addition, the cost for such equipment could be influenced by changes in regulatory policies (including tariffs) of foreign governments, as well as the U.S. laws and policies affecting foreign trade and investment. Although we use various reliability and inspection programs and maintain a significant inventory of spare equipment, which are intended to mitigate the extent of production losses, unplanned outages may still occur. As a result, these planned and unplanned downtime events at our chemical facilities have in the past and could in the future adversely affect our liquidity, operating results and financial condition.

Our performance has been and will continue to be dependent upon the efforts of our principal executive officers. We cannot ensure that our principal executive officers will continue to be available. Although we have employment agreements with certain of our principal executive officers, including Mark T. Behrman and Cheryl A. Maguire, we do not have employment agreements with all of our key personnel. The loss of any of our principal executive officers could have a material adverse effect on us. We believe that our future success will depend in large part on our continued ability to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified personnel. In recent years, as competition for employees in our industry has increased, we may experience higher than anticipated levels of employee attrition. Employee turnover and associated costs of rehiring, the loss of human capital and expertise through attrition and the reduced ability to attract talent could impair our ability to operate our business.

Russia, Ukraine and Trinidad have substantial capacity to produce and export fertilizers. Producers in these countries also benefit from below-market prices for natural gas, due to government regulation and other factors. In addition, producers in China have substantial capacity to produce and export urea. Depending on various factors, including prevailing prices from other exporters, the price of coal and regulatory policies, including the price of China's export tariff, higher volumes of urea from China could be imported into the U.S. at prices that could have an adverse effect on the selling prices of other nitrogen products, including the nitrogen products we manufacture and sell.

While we maintain liability, property and business interruption insurance, including certain coverage for environmental contamination, it is subject to coverage limits and policies that may exclude coverage for some types of damages. Although there may currently be sources from which such coverage may be obtained, the coverage may not continue to be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or the possible types of liabilities that may be incurred by us may not be covered by our insurance. In addition, our insurance carriers may not be able to meet their obligations under the policies, or the dollar amount of the liabilities may exceed our policy limits. Even a partially uninsured claim, if successful and of significant magnitude, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity. Furthermore, we are subject to litigation for which we could be obligated to bear legal, settlement and other costs, which may be in excess of any available insurance coverage. If we are required to incur all or a portion of the costs arising out of any litigation or investigation as a result of inadequate insurance proceeds, if any, our business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity could be materially adversely affected. For further discussion of our litigation, please see "Other Pending, Threatened or Settled Litigation" in Note 7 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report.

A major factor underlying the solid level of demand for our nitrogen-based fertilizer products is the production of ethanol in the United States and the use of corn in ethanol production. Ethanol production in the United States is highly dependent upon a myriad of federal statutes and regulations and is made significantly more competitive by various federal and state incentives and mandated usage of renewable fuels pursuant to the federal renewable fuel standards ("RFS"). To date, the RFS has been satisfied primarily with fuel ethanol blended into gasoline. However, a number of factors, including the continuing "food versus fuel" debate and studies showing that expanded ethanol usage may increase the level of greenhouse gases in the environment as well as be unsuitable for small engine use, have resulted in calls to reduce subsidies for ethanol, allow increased ethanol imports and to repeal or waive (in whole or in part) the current RFS, any of which could have an adverse effect on corn-based ethanol production, planted corn acreage and fertilizer demand. Therefore, ethanol incentive programs may not be renewed, or if renewed, they may be renewed on terms significantly less favorable to ethanol producers when compared with current incentive programs. Consequently, a decrease in ethanol production or an increase in ethanol imports could have a material adverse effect on our overall business, results of operations, financial condition and liquidity.

The chemical industry in general, and producers and distributors of ammonia and AN specifically, are scrutinized by the government, industry and public on security issues. Under current and proposed regulations, we may be required to incur substantial additional costs relating to security at our chemical facilities and distribution centers, as well as in the transportation of our products. These costs could have a material effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and liquidity. The cost of such regulatory changes, if significant, could lead some of our customers to choose other products over ammonia and AN, which may have a significant adverse effect on our business. The "Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007" was enacted by the U.S. Congress, and subsequently the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2011. This regulation proposes to require sellers, buyers, their agents and transporters of solid AN and certain solid mixtures containing AN to possess a valid registration issued by DHS, keep certain records, report the theft or unexplained loss of regulated materials, and comply with certain other new requirements. We and others affected by this proposal have submitted appropriate comments to DHS regarding the proposed regulation. It is possible that DHS could significantly revise the requirements currently being proposed. Depending on the provisions of the final regulation to be promulgated by DHS and on our ability to pass these costs to our customers, these requirements may have a negative effect on the profitability of our AN business and may result in fewer distributors who are willing to handle the product. DHS has not finalized this rule, and has indicated that its next action, and the timing of such an action, is undetermined. On August 1, 2013, U.S. President Obama issued an executive order addressing the safety and security of chemical facilities in response to recent incidents involving chemicals such as the explosion at West, Texas. The President directed federal agencies to enhance existing regulations and make recommendations to the U.S. Congress to develop new laws that may affect our business. In January 2016, the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board ("CSB") released its final report on the West, Texas incident. The CSB report identifies several federal and state regulations and standards that could be strengthened to reduce the risk of a similar incident occurring in the future. While the CSB does not have authority to directly regulate our business, the findings in this report, and other activities taken in response to the West, Texas incident by federal, state, and local regulators may result in additional regulation of our processes and products. In January 2017, the U.S. EPA finalized revisions to its Risk Management Program ("RMP"). The revisions include new requirements for certain facilities to perform hazard analyses, third-party auditing, incident investigations and root cause analyses, emergency response exercises, and to publicly share chemical and process information. Compliance with many of the rule's new requirements became required beginning in 2021. The EPA temporarily delayed the rule's effective date however, the delay was subsequently vacated with an immediate effective date. On December 3, 2018, the EPA published a final rule that incorporates amendments to the RMP under 40 CFR Part 68. However, on November 21, 2019, EPA finalized its Risk Management Program Reconsideration Rule which rescinded third-party auditing, incident investigation and root cause analysis, and the public sharing of specific chemical and process information. The passage of the Reconsideration Rule has reduced the potential negative effect on the profitability of our AN business compared to the January 2017 RMP amendments. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is likewise considering changes to its Process Safety Management standards. In addition, DHS, the EPA, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives updated a joint chemical advisory on the safe storage, handling, and management of AN. While these actions may result in additional regulatory requirements or changes to our operators, it is difficult to predict at this time how these and any other possible regulations, if and when adopted, will affect our business, operations, liquidity or financial results.

Our chemical manufacturing facilities use significant amounts of electricity, natural gas and other raw materials necessary for the production of their chemical products that result, or could result, in certain greenhouse gas emissions into the environment. Federal and state legislatures and administrative agencies, including the EPA, are considering the scope and scale of greenhouse gas or other air emission regulation. Legislation and administrative actions have been considered that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions at some point in the future for our facilities, and existing and possible actions have already affected certain of our customers, leading to closure or rate reductions of certain facilities. In response to findings that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases present an endangerment to public health and the environment, the EPA adopted regulations pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from various sources. For example, the EPA requires certain large stationary sources to obtain preconstruction and operating permits for pollutants regulated under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V programs of the Clean Air Act. Facilities required to obtain preconstruction permits for such pollutants are also required to meet "best available control technology" standards that are being established by the states. These regulatory requirements could adversely affect our operations and restrict or delay our ability to obtain air permits for new or modified sources. Although greenhouse gas regulation could: increase the price of the electricity and other energy sources purchased by our chemical facilities; increase costs for natural gas and other raw materials (such as ammonia); potentially restrict access to or the use of certain raw materials necessary to produce our chemical products; and require us to incur substantial expenditures to retrofit our chemical facilities to comply with the proposed new laws and regulations regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Federal, state and local governments may also pass laws mandating the use of alternative energy sources, such as wind power and solar energy, which may increase the cost of energy use in certain of our chemical and other manufacturing operations. For instance, the EPA published a rule, known as the "Clean Power Plan," to limit greenhouse gases from electric power plants. The EPA is currently reviewing the Clean Power Plan however, it could result in increased electricity costs due to increased requirements for use of alternative energy sources, and a decreased demand for coal-generated electricity.