Good morning. My name is Kate, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Methanex Corporation First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, press the pound key. Thank you. I would now like to turn the conference call over to the Vice President of Investor Relations at Methanex Corporation, Robert Winslow. Please go ahead, Mr. Winslow.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Methanex Corporation’s First Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. Our 2026 first quarter news release, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, and financial statements can be accessed through our website at methanex.com. I would like to remind listeners that our comments today may contain forward-looking information, which by its nature is subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause the stated outcome to differ materially from actual results. We may also refer to non-GAAP financial measures and ratios that do not have any standardized meaning prescribed by GAAP and are therefore unlikely to be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. Any references made on today’s call reflect our 63.1% economic interest in the Atlas facility, our 50% economic interest in the Egypt facility, our 50% interest in the NatGasoline facility, and our 60% interest in Waterfront Shipping. To review the cautionary language regarding forward-looking statements, and to find definitions and reconciliations of the non-GAAP measures, please refer to our most recent news release, MD&A, annual report, and investor presentation, all of which are posted on our website under the Investor Relations tab. I will now turn the call over to Methanex Corporation’s President and CEO, Rich Sumner, for his comments, followed by a question-and-answer period.

Thank you, Robert, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate you joining us today to discuss our first quarter 2026 results. Our first quarter average realized price of $351 per tonne and produced methanol sales of approximately 2.2 million tonnes generated adjusted EBITDA of $220 million and adjusted net income of $23 million. Adjusted EBITDA increased versus 2025 primarily due to a higher average realized price, partially offset by slightly lower sales of Methanex-produced methanol. During the first quarter, cash flows from operations allowed us to repay $60 million of the Term Loan A facility, ending the period in a strong cash position with nearly $380 million on the balance sheet. Turning to our operations in the first quarter, our total equity methanol production of 2.4 million tonnes was slightly higher compared to the fourth quarter. Starting with our United States operations, we produced 934 thousand tonnes at our Geismar plants, and produced 707 thousand tonnes at the Beaumont plant in the first quarter. Our equity share of production at the NatGasoline joint venture was 203 thousand tonnes. Our U.S. assets operated at higher rates outside of a short period early in the quarter when production was reduced in response to a significant short-term spike in natural gas prices in late January. In Chile, we produced 398 thousand tonnes in the first quarter, utilizing gas supply from Chile and Argentina. A third-party pipeline failure that occurred late in the fourth quarter was rectified early in the first quarter, and our plants operated at full rates for the remainder of the period. We are expecting to idle one Chile plant during the middle part of the second quarter in line with gas availability during the Southern Hemisphere winter season. In Egypt, our first quarter production was similar to that of the fourth quarter, with the plant operating at full rates. The plant continues to operate well today, and we are closely monitoring the regional situation for any potential impact on its gas supply. In New Zealand, we produced 158 thousand tonnes in the first quarter, down moderately from the prior quarter. Despite the stable gas and production levels over the past few months, the structural gas outlook in New Zealand continues to be challenging. Our equity production for 2026 remains 9 million tonnes of methanol; actual production may vary by quarter based on the timing of turnarounds, gas availability, unplanned outages, and unanticipated events. Now turning to methanol industry fundamentals. The conflict in the Middle East, which began in late February, escalated into the second quarter. These events have significantly disrupted global markets for energy and petrochemical supply, including methanol, and we continue to monitor both short-term and longer-term impacts on global markets and our business. The Middle East supplies approximately 20 million tonnes of methanol per annum to global markets, and this has been significantly reduced since March. Thus far, overall methanol demand has remained relatively resilient with no significant signs of shutdowns or demand destruction. In Asia and China, which rely significantly more on Middle East imports that need to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, we have seen no trade flows from Middle East non-Iranian supply, and very modest supply from Iran into coastal markets in China since late February, and believe that downstream operations have been primarily sustained through the drawdown of inventories. We believe this situation will be unsustainable in the short term, and we are working closely with customers to understand their demand outlook. We are also trying to better understand the extent of damage to methanol plants and related supporting infrastructure in the conflict region, if any, and the length of time it might take to restore back to full operations, which is still unclear today. Given these unprecedented events, we have seen a rapid and significant escalation in methanol prices across all major regions through March and April, and we are well positioned in today’s market with our advantaged asset base that continues to operate safely and reliably. As a result, we are expecting to see significantly stronger earnings and cash flows in the second quarter compared with the first quarter. Based on April and May contract price postings, we estimate our average realized price for April and May is between approximately $500 and $525 per tonne. Assuming this pricing holds through June, and factoring in produced sales volumes similar to those of the first quarter, we would expect a significant increase in adjusted EBITDA in the second quarter consistent with the first quarter and adjusted for these higher methanol prices. It should also be noted that due to the timing of inventory flows, there will be delayed recognition into the third quarter of cost increases we are seeing now from higher natural gas prices linked to higher methanol, as well as higher ocean freight costs from higher bunker fuels. We believe the current market dynamics could be prolonged for some time, and we are monitoring the medium and longer-term impact and risk to the global economy. Our priorities for 2026 are unchanged: to safely and reliably operate our assets and supply chain, deliver on the OCI integration plan, and continue to progress our deleveraging goals. Based on our short-term financial outlook, we expect to repay the term loan of approximately $290 million in the quarter. After the term loan is repaid, we will remain focused on directing the majority of our free cash flow towards the repayment of the bond due in 2027 while evaluating share buybacks with a smaller portion of cash if they represent an attractive investment for shareholders. We will now open the call for questions.

At this time, I would like to remind everyone in order to ask a question, press star then the number one on your telephone keypad. We request you limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. For additional questions, you can go back in the queue. Your first question comes from the line of Ben Isaacson with Scotiabank. Your line is open.

Thank you very much, and good morning. Rich, a supply-demand question for you. I know on the supply side it is very fluid in terms of intel, but based on your best understanding right now, what do you think has structurally changed when it comes to methanol in the Middle East? And assuming Hormuz opens, how likely is it that Iran will be able to go back to that run rate of about 9 million tonnes a year, give or take? And then on the demand side, we know macro is challenging. We are seeing weak housing and construction on methanol affordability. I believe there are a few small cracks in some of the smaller applications. Can you discuss what you are seeing in the cadence of demand or how you are feeling about demand destruction? Thank you.

Thanks, Ben. On the supply side, it is difficult to get a read on exactly what the longer-term impact could be. There are a number of things we are trying to get a better read on, starting with the infrastructure around methanol, including upstream natural gas feedstock and related infrastructure. If there is damage, what will happen to gas allocations and where will methanol fit in the pecking order? Has there been any structural damage to methanol plants or related logistics infrastructure? All of those things we need to better understand as things start to stabilize, and we are not anywhere close to that today. On the demand side, we have not seen significant signs of demand destruction. Affordability will be important. Particularly in coastal markets in China, the longer the blockade is in place and the less Iranian product flows into those markets, we think that will put pressure on MTO operating rates. We have seen methanol prices around the world outside of China in the $550 to $650 per tonne range, and it is really a supply issue. Demand remains the pull today, but what this means longer term in terms of inflationary implications and which downstream segments are hurt the most remains to be seen. We are working closely with our customers to understand their demand outlook and affordability levels, both in the short term and long term. It is difficult to provide a lot of guidance right now, but these are all things we are monitoring.

Your next question comes from the line of Hassan Ahmed with Olympic Global. Your line is open.

Good morning, Rich. Talking to various chemical executives, it seems that even if peace were declared tomorrow and the Strait of Hormuz were to open up again, it may take as long as nine months from that point for supply chains to normalize, given the pecking order of energy and chemicals and the need to reopen oil and gas fields. We also do not know the full extent of damage, particularly in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. As I compare that to consensus earnings estimates for you, they have you peaking in EBITDA in Q2 of this year and then a steep falloff thereafter, suggesting a V-shaped recovery of volumes from the Middle East. How do you think about that?

Thanks, Hassan. As I mentioned in the opening comments, we think this could be prolonged for some time. We do not think it gets fixed in short order. Gas infrastructure is really important, and methanol probably fits lower in the pecking order when you think about energy products for power, transportation fuels, and fertilizers for food. The pace of restoring both downstream and upstream infrastructure matters, and inventories throughout the supply chain have been significantly lowered globally, not just in Asia Pacific. That is why pricing has run up globally. Supply chains have to be restored, infrastructure has to come back, and it is a 25- to 30-day transit time out of the Gulf. Many things have to happen, and it is unlikely to be a light switch. The big unknown is how quickly demand-side shutdowns occur and whether supply gets ahead of demand restarting, creating whipsaws on the other side. We do think the disruption will be prolonged.

As a follow-up, in this new pricing regime, can you discuss China’s role, particularly coal-based methanol on the cost curve, and how downstream products like acetic acid seeing downward pricing pressure in China might affect methanol pricing globally?

In China, pricing is demand-driven more than cost-driven, anchored by roughly 11 million tonnes of coastal MTO capacity that is a ready and willing market. Methanol in China has been around $400 to $450 per tonne, consistent with affordability back to C2/C3 pricing, much of which is linked to naphtha. Outside China, we are seeing $550 to $650 per tonne. Some downstream petrochemicals like acetic acid have been overbuilt and are weaker given macro conditions. We are watching whether lower operating rates there release more methanol back into the market, but we have not seen a significant impact yet. We view methanol as increasingly demand-driven. We are forecasting a supply gap over the next five years of 9 to 10 million tonnes, relying on Iranian production and potentially new projects. We believe we are in a structurally tight market, which supports a demand-driven cost curve.

Your next question comes from the line of Joel Jackson with BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. A couple of questions on marginal assets, one by one. First, Trinidad. You have a gas deal up for renegotiation later this year. Some nitrogen peers in Trinidad have signed very short-term gas deals, and a third has not been able to do so. Would you consider signing a short-term gas deal to keep the plant running, assuming this very strong environment? Can you describe the Trinidad environment?

Thanks, Joel. Our gas contract is up in September, and we are in discussions with the NGC. We are considering a full range of outcomes, including a short-term deal as well as the potential to idle the plants. In the short term, Trinidad is an extremely tight gas market, with LNG, ammonia, and methanol all operating below nameplate capacity. A lot will come down to commercial discussions. We are also looking longer term at optionality, but we think any new gas from Venezuela is quite a ways out and carries risk as to whether it can ever flow to methanol economically. If a short-term arrangement makes sense, we would look at it, but we also have to consider other outcomes.

Turning to New Zealand, you are running one plant at low rates and gas has been a problem. It looks like the Maui gas field might be closing into this year, making the situation worse. What is the end game in New Zealand?

I will remind you that New Zealand and Trinidad together represent over 10% of production but less than 5% of our run-rate earnings. Both assets have performed well over our history. In New Zealand, gas issues are not new. OMV announced it would cease production on the Maui field by the end of the year. If that happens, we would no longer be capable of running our plant. We are working with gas suppliers and looking at all options to monetize our gas position, including producing methanol or selling gas, while operating safely and reliably. The outlook is tough and structurally challenging there.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Thanks very much. In the event that your earnings fly up this year, what will happen to your cash taxes? What would be the cash tax rate in a much more profitable environment? Also, what would happen to working capital—would receivables, inventories, and payables go up at the same rate as sales, or faster or slower?

I will turn that over to Dean Richardson, our CFO.

Thanks, Jeff. Our tax rate guidance of 25% holds even in a higher-price environment. From a cash tax perspective, we have been guiding that the majority of our taxes are cash; however, in a higher-price environment, the majority of our earnings would be in the U.S., and the percentage of cash taxes would actually go down because of significant assets and loss carryforwards in the U.S. given the acquisition and build-out. So the percentage of our 25% that is cash tax would move toward the midrange, roughly a 50/50 split between cash and deferred. On working capital, higher methanol prices significantly impact receivables. We saw some of that in Q1, and we would expect that in Q2 as well. Inventories are largely based on our plant cost structure, with limited purchases, so we would not expect inventory balances to move materially; there would be some offset in payables. Net-net, we would expect a higher working capital balance due to higher prices.

For my follow-up, given what you have seen in April and normal seasonal considerations, as a base case, would you expect to sell more produced methanol in the second quarter than in the first, all else equal?

It will be highly dependent on our overall sales, which we are monitoring carefully for any demand deterioration. We are also being careful about purchases. If we have flexibility not to sell in this environment, we may exercise that if it means covering with produced tonnes given the risk of change. To the extent we hold sales levels the same, you would probably see more produced tonnes coming through; if sales are reduced, you may see about the same. The majority of inventory we are bringing through now is produced product, a big change since we added 4 million tonnes of North American supply with Geismar 3 and the OCI acquisition.

Your next question comes from the line of Josh Spector with UBS. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. On realized pricing, you seem to be implying a discount rate in the high 40s versus realized in the low 40s this quarter. Can you confirm that? I thought when pricing goes up, the discount rate comes down and vice versa, so this seems backwards. Can you help me understand?

Sure. In the second quarter, we expect to sell a lower proportion in China, which is mainly where we have purchases and where we can reduce purchases. That results in a higher discount because pricing outside of China has higher discounts, yet a higher realized price. We actually have stronger average realized pricing when our discounts are higher in this configuration. It is counterintuitive, which is why I tend to focus on average realized price rather than discounts.

You also commented about lags in cost-sharing agreements into Q3. Is that correct that you would over-earn a bit in Q2 because you are paying less on the equivalent gas basis, and then it catches up? How long are those lags?

It is really about inventory flows. We have about 45 days of inventory, so you will see some of those costs coming through, but not all, and Q2 will not be fully reflective of today’s market structurally. There is roughly 30 to 40 days of that 45-day lag that will come in during the third quarter and be more structural in today’s higher pricing environment. That includes both shipping and gas.

Your next question comes from the line of Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Great, thanks. First, a follow-up on Trinidad. You mentioned you are considering a number of options. For the Titan facility, is it due for another turnaround after September 2026? Does a new contract need to be long enough so that you can fund a major turnaround?

There is no turnaround coming then. The economics of the existing contracts mean the lion’s share of the rents go back to Trinidad, and any increase in pricing makes it very difficult for us to support running there. A lot of this comes down to negotiations with the NGC, which are progressing, but indications look challenging.

You also mentioned New Zealand and Trinidad make up less than 5% of your run-rate earnings. Got it. And on the OCI assets, you initially provided an estimate of about $30 million of synergies. Can you give an update and what is left to implement over the next several quarters?

Those synergies come from insurance, logistics and terminal optimizations, IT costs, and site optimizations. Progress is going well. We are through some synergies; in other areas, like IT, we are carrying double costs this year. We have a plan to be through that by year-end. We do have a higher fixed cost carry in 2026 to then achieve the synergies beginning in January 2027.

Your next question comes from the line of Hamir Patel with CIBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. Are you able to quantify the non-gas cost increases you are seeing and how much on a per-tonne basis that might be once fully apparent in Q3?

The key areas are fixed costs and ocean freight. On fixed costs, as noted, we are progressing integration to bring our fixed cost structure down through the year. On ocean freight, we had a longer supply chain through Q4, with some lag into Q1. We have seen a weaker backhaul market over the past year. In today’s environment, things have changed quite a bit. Our focus is on avoiding spot vessel requirements. There are about 2,000 ships locked in the Gulf right now, and supply chains have lengthened because product must move longer distances outside the Gulf to meet demand. Spot vessel rates have increased significantly, and the backhaul market has disappeared. Our goal is to keep our ships tied to produced product and avoid spot exposure. Having our own fleet is a competitive advantage. Our cost per tonne might be higher than in more normal times, but far lower than competitors facing today’s spot market rates. Our attention around shipping has shifted accordingly.

And for 2026 methanol production, what percent of that would be spot?

Very little of our sales portfolio is spot. We have some flexibility to place product in the market, but our primary commitment is to term contract customers and ensuring reliable supply. If some customers are unable to produce, we may have more product available for the market, but our focus is on contract customers.

Your next question comes from the line of Matthew Blair with TPH. Your line is open.

Thanks, and good morning. Rich, where do MTO operating rates stand in China today, and how does that compare to a Q1 average?

In Q4, MTO operating rates were about 85% to 90%. Iranian supply stayed on the market in Q4 until around December. We then saw a gradual lowering through Q1, with Q1 averaging around 70% to 75%. Through March and April, some limited Iranian volumes—around 200 thousand tonnes per month—were able to move. MTO has been holding around 70% operating rates, but we are now seeing a dramatic shift in coastal inventories in China. Assuming the blockade stays in place and there is no product available behind what came in over the last few months, inventories will draw, and it will be difficult for MTO to maintain those rates.

Circling back to the guide for Q2, the $500 to $525 realized price for April and May—your realized price tends to be above a 100% capture on the spot average, but in Q2 it looks closer to 92%. Is the guidance conservative, or are you factoring in potential price decreases in June?

In an upward market, there is some catch-up due to timing. For example, we set our European quarterly price back in March, when spot was around the low $500s, and it is now above $600. There are similar monthly lags depending on when you trend spot. It takes time to adjust to the then-prevailing market, so the difference you see largely reflects steady, significant increases and timing effects.

Your next question comes from the line of Laurence Alexander with Jefferies. Your line is open.

Two quick questions. First, on ammonia—can you clarify ASPs or margins and your baseline outlook for Q2, how much is contracted versus spot? Secondly, given how stark the disruptions could be if the war continues, what are you hearing from customers about what it would take for the industry to undertake capacity additions elsewhere?

On ammonia, we produce and sell around 80 thousand tonnes a quarter. Our estimate at acquisition was about $50 million of EBITDA per year, based on a Tampa price of around $450 per tonne. It is now about $775 per tonne and climbed through April and May, so we are achieving significantly higher earnings—an uplift of $20 million plus per quarter at these prices. We are mostly contracted there. On capacity additions, we are not seeing the market actively discussing new builds yet. When things resolve, people will want a read on where long-term conditions rest: pricing that supports reinvestment, long-term energy prices, demand, supply, and the ability to raise capital. Many factors would need to align before you would see big capital commitments. We are in wait-and-see mode and will monitor closely.

Your last question comes from the line of Steve Hansen with Raymond James. Your line is open.

Thanks. On Iran and restarts in recent weeks, we have been reading about restarts but without a clear path to get product to market. Is there any indication they are trying to recreate supply chains around the Gulf or Strait, like trucking to tidewater, that would allow meaningful volume to get out? Or are the restarts just testing facilities?

We are not hearing about alternate supply chains to avoid the Strait. We think the U.S. blockade is a very significant derailer to moving product out. We have not seen evidence of meaningful product movement, and everything has to ultimately move to China as well. None of that has come to our attention.

One follow-up: Are you altering operational cadence versus plans from three or four months ago to run harder in this tight environment—maintenance timing, short-term gas contracts, or other levers?

Across our portfolio, in North America we aim to run at 100%, and in Egypt and Chile as well—safely, reliably, and at the highest sustainable rates. New Zealand is different: the gas contracts are attractive, but we are running suboptimally well below capacity in a mature, declining basin. If we were able to run as a more flexible asset, maybe we would, but the basin is structurally challenged. Trinidad is more of a cost issue and depends on NGC negotiations; if something short-term makes sense, we will look at it, but it has to make sense in both the short and medium term. We are evaluating all outcomes in those discussions.

There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call over to Rich Sumner.

Thank you for your questions and interest in Methanex Corporation.

This concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.