Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Tronox Holdings plc Q4 2025 Earnings Call. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. If at any time during this call you require immediate assistance, please thank you, and welcome to our fourth quarter and full year 2025 conference call and webcast.

Turning to Slide 2. On our call today are John D. Romano, Chief Executive Officer, and D. John Srivisal, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. We will be using slides as we move through today's call. You can access the presentation on our website at investors.tronox.com. Moving to Slide 3. A friendly reminder that comments made on this call and the information provided in our presentation and on our website include certain statements that are forward-looking and subject to various risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to the specific factors summarized in our SEC filings. This information represents our best judgment based on what we know today; however, actual results may vary based on these risks and uncertainties. The company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. During the conference call, we will refer to certain non-U.S. GAAP financial terms that we use in the management of our business and believe are useful to investors in evaluating the company's performance. Reconciliations to their nearest U.S. GAAP terms are provided in our earnings release and in the appendix of the accompanying presentation. Additionally, please note that all financial comparisons made during the call are on a year-over-year basis unless otherwise noted. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to John D. Romano. John?

Thanks, Jennifer, and good morning, everyone. We will begin this morning on Slide 4 with some key messages from the quarter and the full year. Tronox Holdings plc delivered a stronger finish to 2025 than anticipated by remaining focused on the things we can control and influence. Safety continues to be one of our core values and remains our number one priority across the company. In a year marked by challenges, volatility, and inevitable distractions, maintaining that focus has never been more important. Despite that environment, I am pleased to report that in 2025 we delivered our best safety performance in more than a decade, achieving our lowest overall injury rate for the period. This is a reflection of our team's discipline, diligence, and unwavering commitment to keeping one another safe. From a financial perspective, we concluded the year with stronger volumes than anticipated and executed on actions to drive cash flow and improve our long-term cost position. TiO2 volumes in the fourth quarter reached their highest point of the year, a pattern that was previously only observed during the COVID period in 2020. This notable trend underscores how antidumping duties have positively influenced the relative market. Our gains in India and other protected regions show increased market share and suggest a structural change in the global TiO2 trade flows. As anticipated, TiO2 prices were lower in the quarter; mix was an incremental headwind due to higher sales in Asia. However, we are now implementing price increases that are beginning to show results in the first quarter. Early indications show positive momentum, and with a shift toward higher-price regions, market dynamics are gradually moving in a favorable direction. Zircon volumes concluded the year positively, supported by customers restocking and resuming normal buying patterns. Zircon pricing was a headwind in the quarter, compounded by unfavorable mix. That being said, we have announced price increases and are optimistic that they will be implemented in the second quarter. From an operational standpoint, we maintained a disciplined approach to cash preservation and inventory management. While certain measures impacted EBITDA for the quarter, they reinforced working capital discipline, resulting in $53 million of free cash flow, a notable achievement given the challenging environment. We also executed on an opportunistic $400 million senior secured note offering in September, proactively increasing liquidity. In addition, we took the necessary actions on our footprint to position the business for the long term, including announcing the closures of two of our pigment plants. The decision to close the Fuzhou plant in China, as announced last month, was driven by prolonged market downturn, weak domestic demand, overcapacity, and unsustainable pricing levels in China. Combined with the Botlek closure, which we announced in March, these actions streamline our footprint and improve our cost structure over the long term, while ensuring we can continue to reliably serve customers through a more efficient global network. We thank our Botlek and Fuzhou teams for their unwavering commitment to safety and their contributions to Tronox Holdings plc over the years. Transitioning to our sustainable cost improvement program, we continue to make significant progress. We exited 2025 with more than $90 million of run-rate savings, three times our original target, and we remain on pace for the high end of our $125 million to $175 million run-rate target at the exit of 2026. We are now tracking more than 2,000 initiatives; more than 500 of them are already delivering savings, and another 250 are moving to the planning and execution stage. The largest benefits came from fixed cost reductions, including the work we have actioned across labor, contractors, and outside services, along with SG&A reductions that came in ahead of plan. These savings are helping us offset a number of headwinds this year and continue to structurally lower our costs for the long term. We also raised key milestones on our mining projects in South Africa last year. We commenced mining at Fairbreeze and began the commissioning of East OFS. We also advanced our rare earth strategy with the announcement in December of the conditional nonbinding financing with EFA and Ex-Im Bank for the building out of a cracking and leaching facility in Australia. We are progressing our work on a definitive feasibility study and continue to evaluate adding refining capacity to the value chain. As we look ahead, we are cautiously optimistic, and that optimism is grounded in facts and execution. Market dynamics are starting to change. TiO2 prices are improving as a result of price increase announcements that are starting to take effect in the first quarter, and we expect favorable mix benefit from selling more into higher-price regions. At the same time, our actions on inventory, cost, and portfolio rationalization are designed to counterbalance near-term headwinds and support cash generation. As pricing and costs improve from actions already underway, I expect free cash flow to be positive in 2026. Taken together, these developments position us for a step change in earnings power as the market fundamentals continue to improve. I will speak to 2026 in more detail later in the call, but for now, I will turn the call over to John for a review of our financials from 2025 in more detail.

Thank you, John.

Turning to Slide 5. For the full year 2025, we generated revenue of $2.9 billion. The year-over-year decline was driven by unfavorable pricing and mix, and lower volumes in both TiO2 and zircon. Loss from operations was $253 million, and net loss attributable to Tronox Holdings plc was $470 million. These results include $233 million of restructuring and other charges, net of taxes, primarily related to the closures of Botlek and Fuzhou. While our loss before tax was $458 million, our tax expense was $15 million, primarily driven by not recognizing tax benefits in jurisdictions with losses. Adjusted diluted earnings per share was a loss of $1.50. Adjusted EBITDA was $336 million, and our adjusted EBITDA margin was 11.6%. Free cash flow for the year was a use of $281 million, including $341 million of capital expenditures. Since we covered our key fourth quarter figures in the January 26 pre-release, I will not spend time on the financial overview, but will instead move to the next slide to review the highlights on our commercial performance. As John mentioned, volumes were stronger than anticipated across both TiO2 and zircon, partially offset by continued pricing and mix headwinds. Sequentially, TiO2 revenues increased 5%, driven by a 9% increase in volumes partially offset by a 4% decline in price including mix. Volumes exceeded our guidance of up 3% to 5%, reflecting continued market share gains in India, Latin America, and the Middle East supported by antidumping measures. North America and Europe were lower, consistent with normal fourth quarter demand patterns. Pricing was in line with expectations, down 2%, and mix accounted for an additional 2% headwind, primarily due to stronger growth in regions with lower margins and seasonally lower demand in our higher-margin markets. Zircon revenues increased 32% sequentially, driven by a 42% increase in volumes. This exceeded our guidance of 15% to 20%. Zircon price was down 7% quarter to quarter, or 10% total including mix. Revenue from other products increased 10% compared to the prior year, mainly driven by higher pig iron volumes. Sequentially, revenue from other products decreased 17% due to higher sales of heavy mineral concentrate tailings in the third quarter.

Turning to the next slide, I will now review our operating performance for the quarter. Our adjusted EBITDA of $57 million represented a 56% decline year on year as a result of unfavorable pricing including mix, higher production costs, and higher freight costs, partially offset by the increase in sales volumes, exchange rate tailwinds, and SG&A savings. Year on year, production costs were higher by $39 million as a result of actions taken to improve cash generation. These actions were deliberate and temporary. Bringing forward maintenance, lower pigment and mining operating rates, idling assets, and additional downtime at Stallingborough and Bonneville drove unfavorable fixed cost absorption and higher idle and LCM charges. These were partially offset by savings from our cost improvement program as John outlined earlier. Sequentially, adjusted EBITDA declined 23%. Unfavorable pricing including mix was partially offset by improved production costs, favorable sales volumes, and lower freight costs. Turning to the next slide. We ended the year with total debt of $3.2 billion and net debt of $3.0 billion. Our weighted average interest rate in Q4 was approximately 6%, and we maintain swaps such that approximately 77% of our interest rates are fixed through 2028. Importantly, our next significant debt maturity is not until 2029. We do not have any financial covenants on our term loans or bonds. We have one springing financial covenant on our U.S. revolver that we do not expect to trigger. Liquidity as of December 31 increased to $674 million, including $199 million in cash and cash equivalents that are well distributed across the globe that we are able to move around with little to no frictional cost. Working capital was a use of approximately $26 million for the year excluding $76 million of restructuring payments related to the closure of our Botlek site. Fourth quarter working capital was a source of $133 million excluding $19 million of restructuring payments, exceeding our expectations. This was driven by targeted working capital initiatives including reducing inventory levels. This discipline around working capital will continue into 2026. Our capital expenditures totaled $341 million for the year, approximately 60% allocated to maintenance and safety and 40% almost exclusively dedicated to the mining extensions in South Africa to sustain our integrated cost advantage. We returned $48 million to shareholders in the form of dividends paid in 2025. And as a reminder, Q1 is typically a seasonal use of cash due to timing of payments and the seasonal build of working capital. However, I remain confident in our ability to generate positive free cash flow for the full year 2026.

With that,

I will hand it back to John to review our capital allocation priorities. John?

Thanks, John. Turning to Slide 9. Our capital allocation priorities remain unchanged and focused on cash generation. We continue investing to maintain our assets, our vertical integration, and projects critical to furthering our strategy, including rare earths. With Fairbreeze and East OFS mining spend largely behind us, we are able to reduce our capital expenditures further in 2026. While we have some catch-up capital from delayed projects in 2025, we expect CapEx to be approximately $260 million in the year. We continue to focus on preserving liquidity, and we have plenty of liquidity to manage the business and endure market fluctuations. As the market recovers, we will resume debt paydown targeting long-term net leverage of less than 3x. We will do that the same way we navigated this downturn: by staying focused on what we can control and influence, reinforcing the business through cost reduction and cash improvement actions. While prioritizing cash has been a near-term trade-off to EBITDA, these actions strengthen the foundation of the company. With that, I would like to turn to our 2026 guidance and walk through the cash assumptions that will drive performance this year. Turning to Slide 10. For 2026, we expect TiO2 volumes to be relatively flat sequentially on the back of a very strong fourth quarter. We are experiencing growth in all regions with the exception of Asia, predominantly influenced by India, our second-largest market. This is due to customers shifting a portion of their volumes back to China following the temporary halt of the collection of duties in late December following a court ruling. We expect this to be a short-term event as we believe there will be favorable resolution on duties in the coming weeks, which would shift volumes back to local and Western suppliers, including Tronox Holdings plc. We also expect TiO2 pricing to be up approximately 2% to 4% sequentially, reflecting the price increases that went into effect at the beginning of the year and the continued shift in mix towards higher-value regions. We expect zircon volumes to mirror the solid performance we had in the fourth quarter. Zircon pricing has stabilized in Q1 and we are optimistic that the price increases we have announced for Q2 will be implemented. As we stated earlier, we are focused on generating cash while balancing the impact to EBITDA. We made decisions to keep the West mine down and one of our furnaces down longer than originally planned, and we also dialed back some production in Australia on the mining side of our business. These decisions reduced near-term EBITDA, but they are focused on our goal of improving working capital and generating positive free cash flow. We are also managing FX volatility on the Australian dollar and South African rand. At the current rates, this translates to a $10 million headwind in Q1 versus Q4 average rates, which has been factored into our guide. As we have done in the past, we are actively evaluating opportunities to utilize financial hedges to manage that volatility. Partially offsetting these pressures are the savings from our sustainable cost improvement plan, which continues to gain traction and will build through the year. Taking all this into consideration, we expect Q1 2026 EBITDA to be in the range of $55 million to $65 million. Incorporated in our positive free cash flow guide for the year are the following assumptions on cash: net cash interest of approximately $185 million, net cash taxes of less than $10 million, capital expenditures of approximately $260 million, and we expect working capital to be a source of cash in excess of $100 million. Turning to Slide 11. From a broader perspective, our first quarter guidance does not fully reflect the underlying earnings potential of our business. In recent quarters, we have implemented several initiatives to enhance our cost structure, streamline operations, optimize mix, and enable improved pricing. As these measures are realized in our P&L, we will generate significant benefits and establish a solid foundation for earnings growth as the recovery progresses. We believe we are at an inflection point for both TiO2 and zircon price. Additionally, we have outlined a number of actions we have taken over the last year to prioritize cash generation that are temporarily reducing EBITDA. One notable example is how reduced asset utilization affects absorption. As these headwinds subside and as the market continues to recover, we will realize an improvement in our cost structure. As the most geographically diverse TiO2 producer, Tronox Holdings plc is well positioned to capitalize on the opportunity created by the rebalancing of the market evidenced by the effective antidumping duties and supply rationalizations in the industry. These factors establish the foundation for a meaningful step change in earnings potential. Turning to the next slide, I will provide a brief update on our Rare Earths initiative. We continued to advance our rare earth strategy during the quarter, reflecting our objective to move further downstream into separated rare earth oxides over time, while maintaining capital discipline. We made meaningful progress toward a definitive feasibility study and are evaluating development pathways to prioritize returns and limit incremental leverage on our balance sheet. Concurrently, we are engaging widely with stakeholders, including potential customers, partners, and funding sources to identify the most viable and responsible path forward. Our approach remains dedicated to generating long-term shareholder value and balancing strategic opportunities with prudent financial management. We believe that our rare earths present a promising growth platform for Tronox Holdings plc, leveraging our existing mining footprint and expertise in hydrometallurgical and chemical operations. That will conclude the prepared remarks. I will now move to the Q&A portion of the call, so I hand the call back over to the operator to facilitate.

Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, if you do have any questions at this time, please press star followed by 1 on your touch-tone phone. You will then hear a prompt that your hand has been raised. To remove yourself from the question queue, please press star followed by 2. And if you speak at phone, you will need to lift the handset first before pressing any keys. Please go ahead and press star 1 now if you have any questions. Thank you. First question will be from Joshua David Spector at UBS. Please go ahead.

I wanted to ask if I go through your free cash flow guidance.

I guess to get to breakeven, you probably need about $350 million in EBITDA roughly. I guess one is that how you are thinking about it? And two, just given where you are starting in Q1, and some of the timing lags that it takes on some of the mining costs to flow through with the lower utilizations, how do you see yourself getting to that level from here?

Yes. So maybe, Josh, thanks for the question. I will start, and I will let John add some color. So again, we provided a guide for the year. We have not provided guidance for the full year. You can get to that math. So we are not providing a guide because there are still lots of variables with regards to how we are running the business. Our costs are going to be largely dependent upon how long we keep the assets down. On the last call, I made reference that we were going to keep our assets down and focus on cash until we got a couple of good quarters under our belt, and we felt confident that the recovery was underway. And we got another quarter, so we are still progressing in that direction. But we have made some decisions to pull back on one of our furnaces a little bit longer. We have made some other decisions on mining. But, again, we are targeting a $100 million free working capital improvement. And, John, you can add some more color on it.

Yes. No. I think, you know, obviously, we do see, I am sorry, EBITDA expanding to get to that positive free cash flow, if not more significant than that. Some of it will be driven by earnings. As John mentioned, we do see the sustainable cost improvement program which we have only seen, you know, about $10 million or so in 2025 hitting, but that was a run rate at the end of the year of $90 million. So we would expect to see that benefit flow throughout the year. Additionally, as you know, we did shut down Botlek and Fuzhou. And as we see our sites, with volumes even being flat, we will see that cost come through from a fixed cost leverage improvement throughout the year. And, you know, obviously, our focus on controlling our costs throughout the year as well. So we do see a path to higher earnings in the second half of the year. Obviously, a big driver of that is price. As John mentioned, we are seeing an inflection point in both TiO2 and zircon Q1 to Q2. So that will help us as we move across the year.

And Josh, we referenced that, I think even on the last call, on the zircon side of the business. We had a lot of customers that were starting to get back to normal buying patterns, and we saw that actually reflected in our sales in the fourth quarter. We are seeing that in the first quarter of this year. We talked about a price increase that we have some confidence in. But both on zircon and on TiO2, to get a price increase in the first quarter is, I would say, not normal. So we are cautiously optimistic that the momentum we are seeing on price is going to continue to translate into additional momentum next year. The price increases on TiO2, we have announced everywhere. So globally, there have been announcements made. And, again, the implementation on those increases will be different in every region, but we feel pretty confident right now, with cautious optimism, that we are starting to see that recovery that we talked about last quarter.

Great. And if I could just follow up quickly on the cost side. So sequentially in fourth quarter, your production costs were actually a slight positive. I think in your answer then, you talked about taking down some additional furnaces. I guess if we look at your production cost bridge into first quarter, is that a positive because of some of the cost actions? Or is that a negative because of some of the mining actions? What should we expect there?

Let me make one quick comment, and then I will let John answer that. So we did not take down an additional furnace. We have made a decision to keep one of the furnaces down longer than what we had originally planned. So now we are planning to keep that furnace down until midyear. And again, we have taken some other actions on the mining side of the business. We pulled back on our mining production in Australia. The West mine in South Africa is now down. So I just want to be clear. It is more mining, not necessarily on the smelting side. John?

Yes. No. But we do expect improvement in our operations from Q4 to Q1, a pretty significant improvement. As we mentioned, Stallingborough was down in Q4. It is up and running pretty well in Q1, so we will see some benefit. And just overall, see more efficiencies and improvements throughout our portfolio. I think the one thing if you are looking at the Q4 to Q1 bridge item, we have, and we direct you to currency. So if you look at the average rates that were in Q4 versus Q1, as we mentioned, looking at spot rates, that is about a $10 million hurt for us Q4 to Q1.

Okay. Got it. Thank you both.

Thank you.

Next question is from David L. Begleiter at Deutsche Bank. Thank you. Good morning.

John, just to go back to the prior question. Looking at the two of the key bridge elements for this year, sustainable cost improvement and the mining costs. What are the tailwinds, the actual tailwinds you are expecting now in 2026 versus 2025 for those two bridge items for this year? Yes. So I will start on the continuous cost improvement program. Again, John kind of gave some indication on how much of that continuous cost improvement actually resulted in EBITDA. Again, we have got very good visibility into the projects that we are working on to continue that work. A lot of it has been fixed cost, but there is a lot of work going on across the entire company, and we feel confident that this $125 million to $175 million target will be at the high end of that range. There are things that are continuing, FX issues. Right? So we will be looking at hedging. But right now, that is a headwind in the first quarter. There is also, again, the cost associated with running the assets at lower rates that is a headwind. John, you want to add to that?

Yes. No. I think if, David, if you recall, we did shut down Botlek in the first part of the year, first quarter, as well as Fuzhou, which we have announced early this year. But, you know, by bringing down those plants, obviously, you know our chain is pretty leverageable and integrated, and so we were able to ramp up our other facilities, and so that is providing a good cost improvement year over year from that fixed cost leverage.

And I would say we made this comment last time, I think, on the call: when we start thinking about when does the industry typically start to get pricing leverage, those two plants that are down, we have actually kept a lot of the customers from where we were selling them. So, you know, we are north of 85% capacity utilization now. And normally, when the industry gets there—I cannot speak to the industry, I can speak to where we are—you start to get leverage on price. So running our pigment business at lower rates has—we have talked about what that impact is on EBITDA. It is not as significant on the mining side. And the pigment business is running at much higher rates.

Understood. And just on rare earth, I know there have been some meetings over the last few weeks establishing maybe a framework for some pricing support in the U.S. for these minerals, which would be what you need to move forward with the refinery. What has happened from your perspective, and what is the potential for this pricing support going forward? Thank you.

Yes. Look, that was, I think, a very positive result. Right? It is not only the pricing support, but it is the vault that was announced. So the strategic stockpiling. There is still some work to be done on getting finalized on what that actually will look like, and that will come with time. But we are also—I think to be clear—we are working in multiple jurisdictions on our rare earth opportunity. We have got assets in Australia and the U.S. So we are working across a lot of jurisdictions to try to come up with what is the best opportunity for Tronox Holdings plc. We are engaging with partners. We have talked about Ex-Im and EFA around the potential financing network we could have to fund the acid leaching cracking facility in Australia, but we are making very good progress. I am not at liberty to talk about who those partners are at this particular stage because we have got nondisclosure agreements. We are making good progress. We are staffing up that group. And we do feel that this is an opportunity that we are going to turn into another, I would say, pillar of our strategy in the long term. Thank you.

Next question will be from Duffy Fischer at Goldman Sachs.

Yes. Good morning. You mentioned that at the pigment level your operating rates are north of 85%. What is the plan on the mining operations this year? What operating rate do you think you will run at there?

And then relative to the benefit that you get from purchasing, you have always kind of talked about a couple hundred dollars there. How much lower will that be this year because of that lower operating rate in mining?

Sure. So I will start that one, Duffy. We have typically said $200 to $400 a ton advantage of vertical integration on feedstock, and I would say we are on the lower end of that range right now. We have four furnaces in South Africa. We are running three. The SR kiln that we have in Australia, we are continuing to run that at capacity. We pulled back on our mining operations. Again, we do not need as much ilmenite to feed four furnaces when we are only running three. So we will make the decision to start the West mine back up, increase our capacity in Australia again when we feel confident that the positive momentum that we are seeing now turns into more of a solid recovery. And I would say that from the standpoint of where we are as far as vertical integration, I think the power of the vertical integration is still something that we believe in. But our objective this year is to generate free cash flow. And all the actions that we are taking right now are to bring our working capital down. The closer we get to capacity on the TiO2 side, we are going to need some of that feedstock. But right now, what we are doing with the slag that we are producing is drawing down the inventory. We are drawing down the ilmenite. We are drawing down zircon inventory. Quite frankly, on the zircon side of the equation, our inventory is getting to the point where it is tight. So, as we start to think about how we are allocating volumes and we talk a little bit about price increase opportunities in zircon, a lot of that is being driven by the market, from our perspective, starting to tighten up. That is going to give us an opportunity to have more confidence in those price increases in Q2.

Great. Thanks. And then maybe just two quick ones on cash flow. If you get to your positive free cash flow this year, how would that look first half versus second half? I am assuming you will eat working capital in the first half and be free cash flow negative and then release it in the second half. But roughly how big a delta will that be Q1 to Q2? And then what is the run-rate spend on the rare earths project currently?

Yes. So if you look at our working capital and free cash flow progression across the quarters, we expect this year Q1 to be roughly the size and scope of, you know, what we would have done in the past several years. So a pretty significant use of it. And then we do claw back, you know, going across the year. And so, you know, significant use—most of the use, if not all of the use—in Q1, and then free cash flow positive for the rest of the year.

And then on the rare earths, I mean, again, you look at our capital projection for this year, $260 million, which is significantly lower than it was last year. There is not a lot of CapEx at this particular stage that is in that forecast. So, again, we are looking at a variety of funding sources for that. Working on the definitive feasibility study. We have added some people into that group to continue to progress that work forward. But as of right now, there is not a significant amount of capital on that rare earths piece yet.

Great. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Next question is from Jeff Zekauskas at JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. Can you remind us what the volume change was in TiO2 for the year for Tronox Holdings plc? Were you down about a couple of percent? And in that context, did the global TiO2 industry contract a little bit in 2025, and if it did, by how much, in your opinion?

Yes. Thanks, Jeff. Your estimates on volumes in Q3 2024 to 2025 are pretty close. And I would say probably the market was somewhat similar to that. Again, it was, I would say, maybe a little bit more of a tale of what happened in the first and second quarter versus what happened in the third and fourth quarter. And, again, the fourth quarter, we saw a significant increase. I think we were targeting a 3% to 5% increase in volumes. We were up 9%. A significant amount of that was actually coming from volumes that came in Asia, predominantly in India. And a lot of that came from a shift in market share as a result of the antidumping duties. So we picked up volume in the Middle East, specifically in Saudi Arabia. We picked up volume in Brazil. And we picked up volume in India. And I made reference on the call about the shift in the first quarter. So in the fourth quarter, the duties were stayed, but they were still being collected. In December, a court ruling came which eliminated the requirement for those duties to be collected. So now you have got a shift of customers in India that are starting to buy more from China. We are still selling in India, but the volume between Q4 and Q1 is down. But we would expect that the antidumping duties are going to be reinstated, once that happens, we will see that shift back to, you know, local producers, Western producers, including Tronox Holdings plc.

Okay.

You have spoken of TiO2 prices as being at an inflection point. And when you look at the global coatings industry in Europe, China, and the United States, it does not seem as though there is much volume growth. You know, maybe it is up a tiny bit or down a tiny bit or flat. So what is it that makes us at an inflection point in TiO2 given a soft demand background?

Well, I think one thing you have got to reference is that since 2023, you have had 1.1 million tons of capacity go away. So any movement towards a regular buying pattern, where people were driving down inventories, created a significant shift. And then you have got the antidumping duties, which are also helping that. So I would not disagree with you that there has not been a move in demand. A lot of this has been structural shifts based on a lot of the proactive work that we have been doing as an industry to try to get the business in a profitable place. That being said, when we look into the first quarter, we are seeing volume growth in every region except Asia—specifically India, as I just mentioned. And we are starting to see, you know, coating season, which is normalized. Again, I made this point on the last call. If you think about the duty-affected areas at the peak of export from China into those areas—so Europe, Brazil, India, and Saudi Arabia—that is about 800,000 tons of exports from China. And, again, I made this comment last time. Use the U.S. as a proxy when the Trump 301 tariffs went into place back in 2018. In a 900,000-ton-per-year market where only 20,000 tons of TiO2 is being exported from China. So I am not assuming it is going to go to that. But if you think about—let us just say that there is half of that volume, half of that 800,000 tons gets distributed to other suppliers. Reasonable to assume that we would get at least 25% of that? That is 100,000 tons. And at that rate, we are sold out. We are selling more than we are making with our new footprint. And we have redistributed our products so that we can continue to service the customers that came out of Botlek, probably not so much in China, because we exited that market because it just was not profitable.

Okay. Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next question will be from John McNulty at BMO Capital Markets.

This is Caleb Bonnellien on for John. So I have a couple of quick follow-ups. So to, I think it was Josh's question earlier on the production cost quarter over quarter. Do you expect that benefit to grow sequentially throughout the year, or did I kind of, like, misconstrue what you were saying earlier?

Yes. I think it is—so some of it related to, you know, some improvements in our operating sites, which were challenged in Q4, as we have mentioned, from a Stallingborough perspective. So we do see our sites operating at a decent clip in Q1. So you should not see a huge increase from operating well or at higher rates. We are ramping up some plants a bit more, so you will see some of that. But a big driver is the sustainable cost improvement program that we will see get larger throughout the year.

Yes. So from Q4 to Q1, it had a lot to do with the higher costs rolling into, you know, our balance sheet from the outages that we had. But when you think about, on the TiO2 basis—I will not share a budget with you—but our costs were relatively flat throughout the year. With the forecast that we currently have, with running our mining operation at lower rates in the first half of the year than we are in the second half of the year, if we start to ramp up in the second half of the year, costs will go down on the mining side of the business.

Gotcha. Okay. That is helpful. And then what exactly are you thinking for, like, the base case for U.S. and China and the Chinese housing markets for this year that is embedded in kind of your free cash flow guide for the year?

Yes. Look. It is a great question. And I know a lot of the customers that we sell to are companies that you follow. I think a lot of it in the U.S. is going to depend on interest rates. So what I can say is that our volumes that we are forecasting right now for the year do not assume a significant swing up on the construction side of the business. Volumes are being driven a lot by the activities that were put in place for the shift on antidumping. There is some growth. We are seeing, you know, a seasonal improvement in Europe and in North America this year, similar to what we saw last year in the first quarter. And last year in the first quarter, we had a pretty good bump up on our sales. The reason it is not bumping up this quarter is because we are coming off of a very strong fourth quarter. So, you know, there has been a lot of investment in Germany. Germany is spending a lot of time trying to figure out how they can reengage that economy. So we are hopeful that the economy is going to pick up, we will see a swing in the construction market. But we are not planning on that being a crutch to lean on all year long.

Okay. That is helpful. Thank you. I will turn it over.

Thank you.

Next question will be for Peter Osterland at Truist Securities. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. For TiO2, what are the dynamics around mix that you are expecting in the first quarter? On a year-over-year basis, is mix expected to be a headwind? And what are the major drivers there? Well, Q4 to Q1, mix will be a tailwind on price. So as I mentioned, Asia—we sold a lot more in Asia, and there are some lower-margin sales in Asia in the fourth quarter. India sales in the first quarter are down for reasons that I explained. And we are seeing a seasonal build in Europe and in the U.S., which typically yields higher margins. So when I referenced first quarter, we are implementing price increases. We estimate those price increases to be 2% to 4%. That is a mix between actual price increases and the positive mix that we are getting from selling into higher-priced markets.

Very helpful. Thank you. And then just as a follow-up, on the potential for higher zircon pricing beginning in the second quarter, could you just size approximately the price increase that you are targeting? And are you seeing market dynamics that are favorable enough to potentially support continued price recovery beyond the second quarter?

So we are negotiating with a lot of different customers. I cannot provide you with specifics on price, but I can say that I have got a high level of confidence based on what we are seeing right now that the increases that we are working on for Q2 will start to be implemented. And if the market continues to be tight—and, again, I made reference that our inventory is getting lower. We had a strong fourth quarter. Again, first quarter is going to be a mirror image of that. So I would expect that the industry is going to continue to get tight. We are also starting to see buying patterns from customers where they had destocked; they are restocking, getting back to normal buying patterns. We have seen—I think on the last call, I said we have started to see some positives on the zircon side of the business everywhere except China. Now we are starting to see some positive moves on the Chinese consumption. So it is a bit early for me to give you an annual guide, but I have confidence that, for lots of reasons, price momentum will continue beyond Q2. But it is still a bit early to call that definitively.

Great. Thanks a lot.

Thank you.

Next question will be from Frank Mitsch at Fermium Research. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good morning, John. Listen. I mean, when I see something like 13% volume growth at the same time that price is down 8%, macro 101 suggests that there is a price war breaking out, and people are using price to grab volumes. You know, you have been outlining why that is not the case, but what are you seeing on behalf of the industry as a whole? You are announcing price increases. It takes two to tango. Is there some resolve in the industry, you believe, and some price discipline, given that we are at pretty low profitability levels? Any color there would be very helpful. Yes. It is a great question, Frank. Thanks. Again, I cannot speak to everybody. What I can tell you is what I hear in the industry, and that is everybody is announcing price increases. So we are not on an island. And, again, for us to be getting traction on prices, others need to be pushing. China has made some announcements. The question is, will they implement those price increases? There are other things that are going on as well. I mean, we talk a lot about antidumping. I mean, there is some activity going on to try to increase those duties in Europe. But the reality is profitability in the industry—you look at fourth quarter EBITDA announcements by the publicly traded companies—there was not a lot of EBITDA there. And I do not—I cannot presuppose what is going to happen when other announcements happen, but I think the industry needs to get back to a profitable place. So part of it has to do with profitability, but at the end of the day, there has to be—to your point, it does take two to tango, and you cannot be on an island. I do believe that the industry is moving towards price increases. I cannot speak to exactly what that will look like, but I do think that, based on what we are hearing, we are not the only one announcing increases.

And I would say, you know, one contributing factor with our Chinese competitors is sulfur prices have gone up significantly. If you take a look at where they were since mid-2025, they are up 70%. So they are facing a big headwind on raw material costs.

Yes. I think that is a good point because it is not just Chinese. It is anybody that makes TiO2 on the sulfate base. So it is all the European sulfate producers. And John made that point: it is up 70% since July. Since 2025, it is up 160%. And that is not sustainable. It has a lot to do with the Ukraine-Russia war, but there are lots of reasons why prices need to move. But the point you made is the most valid one, Frank, and that is it all depends on how the competition works, and I cannot speak exactly to that other than we are not the only one announcing increases.

That is very helpful color. And I appreciate the breakouts on Slide 6 and 7 in terms of what drove sales and what drove EBITDA. What jumped out at me was volumes sequentially increasing $56 million on the top line but $2 million on the bottom line sequentially. I was wondering if you could speak to the incremental margins on volume growth and what your expectations are there?

Great question. And, again, a lot of that has to do with a lot of the sales that we had, or a lot of sales growth we had in the fourth quarter. I would say the variance between the 3% to 5% guide that we had and the 9% that we actually achieved had a lot to do with where we sold it, and a lot of that in Asia. The significant portion of it was in India. Again, we are still competing with the Chinese over there. So it had a lot to do with where we are selling. So when we think about the volume shifting in the first quarter, it is shifting away from those markets. And that is why part of our margin improvement in the first quarter is being driven by mix. And that is regional mix, in addition to price increases.

Terrific. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Frank.

Next question will be from Vincent Andrews at Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Was just hoping you could describe the next process and kind of the antidumping duty story here. What is the approach to take share from other Western suppliers for share that had originally been ceded to the Chinese? And then are there any other markets that you are watching for potential antidumping duty measures in the future? Thank you.

Yes. I will start with the last question, and I would say anywhere where there is TiO2 production, there is probably work underway to look at antidumping. I cannot go into any specifics, but this is a shifting tide. And as I have mentioned before, in Asia, China has largely saturated that market. But there are other areas where TiO2 is produced, and, you know, there is work underway in every one of those regions on antidumping. Could you restate your first part of the question again so I make sure I answered it?

The next step? Absolutely. I was just kind of curious, you know, as we have seen these antidumping duties put in place, now that they are largely in place, what is the approach to take share from other Western suppliers—was originally share that was ceded to the Chinese? Is it largely a price dynamic? Or are there other competitive actions that you can take to gain share?

From other Western suppliers, I would say the majority of what we are doing with antidumping is actually taking share from China. So, again, when we think about our marketing plan, there are areas that are strategic for us, and we will continue to grow in those markets. But antidumping is largely going to be a structural shift where we are taking share that we basically lost to China as they were dumping. Not to say that we do not compete with all the other Western suppliers—we do—but antidumping is not really driving an opportunity for us to go out and do anything other than recapture share that the Chinese actually had taken based off of very low dumping prices.

OK. Thank you.

Next question will be from Roger Neil Spitz at Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thank you very much, and good morning. And maybe you said it and I missed it, but if you exclude for TiO2 price for Q4 on a year-over-year basis, or sequential basis, if you exclude the regional mix, which was an adverse mix, what was TiO2 pricing? Was it essentially flat, was down 2%. And that was what we forecasted.

Got it. And lastly for me, have you or can you say what is the total fixed cost savings of having shed Botlek and Fuzhou on an annual basis?

So, you know, as we have—from a Botlek perspective—we have mentioned that longer term, the fixed cost leverage would be about $30 million of savings. And then Fuzhou would be about a $15 million savings.

And just to be clear, maybe on that Stallingborough comment, that outage is behind us.

Yes. Got it. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Next question will be from John Roberts at Mizuho. Please go ahead.

Sorry. I was on mute. Should we think about normal, seasonal, sequential volumes after the March quarter? It has obviously been pretty volatile and unusual seasonality in the last couple of quarters. But is that, in your mind, kind of when we normalize again? Yes. I would say even in the first quarter when we think about seasonal volumes—I made a reference that if you look at Europe and North America, the Q4 to Q1 growth is pretty similar to what we saw last year, and that was an uptick. And we are forecasting normal seasonal growth. To the extent we see more of a pickup in demand, and it is not just a structural shift, then you could get a bit of a higher bump on that. But I think a lot of that is going to depend on the housing market and what happens with interest rates. But short answer is yes. We would see more of a normal shift in seasonal demand. And could you share any updated thoughts on the proposed China acquisition of the idled U.K. TiO2 plant? Yes. I can tell you that there is a lot of work going on there. There was an article that came out earlier this week. CMA is obviously investigating that. I think on the last call, we said that it is not a slam dunk. That is still a work in progress. And I cannot give you clear visibility on what is going to happen there, but there is a lot of, I would say, activity going on around that acquisition, and there has been no decision on how that is going to be concluded yet.

Next question comes from Aaron Rosenthal at JPMorgan Chase. Please go ahead.

Hey. Good morning. Thanks for the call. Is your definition of cash flow that is being referenced both on the call and in the slides defined as cash from ops plus CapEx? Or is there an adjusted cash flow definition that we should think about?

Yes. No, that is correct. It is free cash flow after—basically before the dividend and other debt movements. Then from a restructuring charge perspective, the vast majority of the restructuring charges were hit in 2025. So we do see a significant reduction—just about $6 million left there. And then China, we expect about $15 million or so restructuring charges related to that. So overall, a $50 million improvement on a cash basis year over year. Okay. Great.

Then just looking at liquidity and thinking about the cash flow bridge. So Q1 cash burn, I think, Q2 maybe flattish, and then an implied second-half cash generation. But as you think about effective liquidity, you know, pro forma at either 3/31 or into the second quarter, it seems like it is going to be very light and with very little margin of error. Are you entertaining any additional sources of liquidity in the near term? Equity is up a lot. Secured bonds are par. The market loves chemicals. It seems like right now it would be a very opportunistic time.

Yes. So we ended the year with $674 million of liquidity. So we believe that is a strong and sufficient amount of liquidity to manage through any cycle. We have said in the past that, you know, we can operate as low as $200 million or so of liquidity. We like to go into Q1 with over $300 million as that is the biggest use for us. So we are more than double the position of even being comfortable at a reasonable range. And so we are just focused on running the business, managing, you know, pulling levers that we can. But, you know, as we expect to generate a significant amount of free cash flow in the rest of the year after Q1, we think we are in a solid position.

Great. And if I could just sneak maybe one more in. I think beyond the primary cash flow revolver, there is a handful of other smaller facilities. I think there is one that was up for renewal. I think it was maybe $50 million or $60 million in 2026. Is the expectation that you are going to renew and extend that?

Yes. We normally get those renewed every year. We have a couple facilities in the U.K. and Saudi that we get renewed.

Morning, John. John, obviously, a lot of comments made about volume growth in 2026 year on year. And then obviously, expecting a positive titanium dioxide sort of pricing inflection. So just wanted to sort of bring all of those factors together and seek some clarification. Look, I mean, my understanding is, and correct me if I am wrong, that you guys obviously had a very strong Q4 volume-wise. Right? So even if the market does not, demand-wise, grow that much this year, just, you know, for Tronox Holdings plc in particular, the sort of market share gains from antidumping and the like should put you in a very decent position to show meaningful volume growth year on year. So first part of that question is, is that fair to assume? And then, you know, obviously restocking and maybe growth in the market would just be gravy from a volume perspective. And then, you know, alongside that, on the pricing side of things, it just seems that towards the end of last year, pricing got a bit sloppy. You know, you had a bankruptcy out in England. You know, there was this chatter about, you know, inventory being sold at below market pricing and the like. So a combination of maybe the absence of that and a lot of folks not making EBITDA, you know, is that really what is driving your confidence in terms of getting pricing in Q1 and beyond?

Thanks, Hassan. I think I will start with your first part of your question, and you are exactly right. We are not forecasting a tremendous amount of demand growth. It has a lot to do with the restructuring of the business. And again, I made that reference if, you know, we only get—if China keeps half the exports that they were exporting at the peak, and we get 25% of that 400,000, 100,000 tons for us, and, you know, very quickly, we are sold out. To the extent market demand improves, then that is going to be additional volume for us. So we are not banking on a significant recovery. Although, as I mentioned last quarter, the market will recover. I cannot specify exactly, but we are starting to see seasonal trends that would lend themselves towards supporting that. So agree with everything you said from a demand perspective. On the pricing side of the equation, I would agree with you as well. You know, there were a lot of reasons why pricing should not have gone down in this fourth quarter. It did. We are starting to not only announce increases, we are implementing them in the first quarter. And, you know, kind of going back off the question Frank had earlier, you cannot do that if you are on an island. I tell you that, you know, if we are the only one raising pricing and there is a supply-demand that is out of balance, then it is hard to do that. So I would agree with that. And again, you start to think about the recovery. The recovery is going to be an inflection that will be a bit different because there is a lot of Western supply that is just not there anymore because it is permanently closed. Every single Western supplier has closed plants. We have closed two. One supplier does not even exist anymore. And it was not like, you know, they were not a good supplier. So I would agree with everything that you said. And if the market picks up, and interest rates start to move and housing moves in the right direction, that will only be a catalyst for higher pricing.

Very helpful. And as a follow-up, obviously, everything pointing towards 2026 certainly being a better year than 2025. And, you know, hopefully, you know, things cycling up thereafter. I mean, you know, with that said, where do we stand in terms of rationalization? I know you talked about it in prior calls, even on this call—that 1.1 million ton figure of capacity shutdown since 2023. Are you—I mean, with this sort of improving backdrop—what are your thoughts about further rationalizations? Particularly as they pertain to China? I keep sort of thinking through, you know, at least 20 facilities in China being less than 50,000 tons. So how does the whole sort of anti-involution thing play in? And does further rationalization happen if indeed the environment is getting a bit better?

Yes. It is another good question. The closure of our Fuzhou plant was not an easy decision, and it was not as if it was low on the profitability wheel in China. We do not get subsidized. But, you know, it is a great question. I would have thought capacity would have closed already. And to the extent these antidumping initiatives continue to expand as we believe they will outside the regions they are already implemented in, you are going to have to see some kind of rationalization. And, again, is it going to be in China? Will it be outside of China? I think there could be a mixture of both. I cannot tell you how long sulfur prices are going to be up. But that is a significant headwind in the industry right now. Prices up in twelve months almost 160%. That is not sustainable. It takes about 1.3 tons of sulfur to make a ton of pigment. So you do the math. It is a lot of money. So I would expect if the market continues to recover quickly, maybe you will not see as much. If it takes a bit longer to recover, you might see more rationalization. And China is still kind of an unknown. I would have expected more capacity to come out already.

Very helpful, John. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the question-and-answer portion as well as our conference call for today.