I think now for us, that is now taking the M&M portfolio and applying that same mindset to that. So I don’t really have a number yet what that means in terms of capacity that we would take out. Again, I don’t really see any time in the near to medium future any need for Greenfield because we have sufficient capacity even with some of the strategic shutdowns in our existing network, and we have a team that is exceptionally good at finding low and no cost debottlenecks to our existing assets to add very efficiently and inexpensively additional capacity.
Operator: Our next question today is coming from Salvador Tiano from Bank of America. Your line is now live.
Salvador Tiano: Yes. Firstly, I want to ask a little bit, as you said, the shutdowns in Engineered Materials are a big part of the $150 million synergies. So I’m just wondering where do these actions in your original plans when you acquired the upon assets or were they more, I guess in response to recent market conditions. And I guess if the latter, why will the synergy target increase given that this will be incremental actions?
Lori Ryerkerk: Yes, great question. Look, we knew at the time of the acquisition or we believed at the time of the acquisition that DuPont had more than sufficient capacity to meet normal demand conditions and requirements. And we assume that some would be more efficient or less efficient than others, we just didn’t know which assets those would be. So we have needed this time we have had since the acquisition to really look at how all of these plants are operating what their cost structures look like and where the most opportunities are to really fine-tune our footprint to build in the most flexibility, the most synergy, the lowest cost footprint, like I said, much as we have done with Celanese over the last 10-years. So the actions you are seeing us taking now is really addressing that overcapacity now that we have been able to identify where that is.
Some of the temporary shutdowns and line shutdowns and things were taken are more in response to the near-term demand environment, leaving the flexibility for the future. But the things like [indiscernible] Nitro and Argentina and those that we have announced, they are more permanent in nature.
Salvador Tiano: Okay. Perfect. And I also would like to ask a little bit about your Q4 guidance and assessments. I think there is a lot of the questions regarding what the demand destruction in the stock installing, et cetera. But I think the what makes, I guess, your outlook a little bit different than most of the companies that have reported so far is that you made the comment, if I understood correctly, you expect a more muted destocking in Q4 than normal, whereas I would say the vast majority of your competitors expect the same, if not a more intense stocking quarter? Why do you differ versus, I guess, most of the other chemical companies here?
Lori Ryerkerk: Yes. I mean I can’t really comment on what anybody else believe is going to happen. As I called out earlier, we based our views on what we are hearing from our customers, what we are hearing from our distributors, big customer order patterns that we are seeing in our experience with those order patterns. Certainly, it helps that half of our volume in engineered material is going into automotive, and we expect automotive to be quite solid across Q3 to Q4. So we are really just dealing with the other portions of our demand when we are looking at what is the impact for the fourth quarter. So again, I can’t really say why it would be different. But certainly, our share of auto may be one of those impacts.
Operator: Next question today is coming from Andrew Keches from Barclays. Your line is now live.
Andrew Keches: Just to clarify the comment earlier on the debt repayment. So it sounds like you said cash flow will be used to handle the maturities now that you have reprofiled. But that excess cash you are running, can you just remind us where your operating needs are? And can you get all the way down there in 2024?
Scott Richardson: Yes. Thanks, Andrew. Cash balance is a little north of $1.3 billion right now, and we will be repatriating that cash now in the coming months. And then once we get integrated on 1 system, which we expect to happen in the early part of next year, then we will be able to start moving that cash balance down to where we think we can – minimum needs would be right around $500 million. So we definitely are confident that we will be able to get to that $500 million level during 2024.
Andrew Keches: Okay. Great. And then I just didn’t catch the answer on the leverage metric. I know you said three times in the past. Are you putting a horizon or a time line on that at this point?
Scott Richardson: No. I mean, look, we had originally targeted the end of 2024, and we are going to do everything we can to get close to that. And last quarter, we said may bleed into the early part of 2025, a lot just depends upon what happens with our cost reduction plans, which is another reason why we continue to take aggressive action on getting controllable earnings improvement from cost reduction and then where the macro and the demand plans that we have. The other things that teams are doing, largely in Engineered Materials is really working the revenue synergy side. And the revenue synergy side of bringing M&M into our project pipeline model, will start to yield opportunities and close wins as we get further into 2024. So the pace and speed at which we are able to execute on those plans will certainly help us accelerate that deleveraging plan.
Operator: Next question is coming from Patrick Cunningham from Citi. Your line is now live.
Patrick Cunningham: How are you thinking about potential portfolio actions, let’s say, if demand does not get better from here? Is there anything that maybe stands out as separable or where you can structure a similar deal as the Food Ingredients JV?
Lori Ryerkerk: Yes. I think as we have called out in past calls, we are going to continue to be opportunistic and disciplined in our approach to divestment. We continue to look at a number of assets from both the heritage Celanese as well as the M&M portfolio as possible divestiture target. But we really need to understand what the future potential of those assets are and what the value to us is and then identify other parties that will value them more than we value them. So I would say we continue to look for opportunities, but we will be selective about what we do, so it doesn’t impact long-term growth as well as making sure we get fair value for it.
Patrick Cunningham: Got it. And then just on the Eco [indiscernible] CC brand with products containing recycled CO2. What sort of relative premiums do you expect to achieve? And would you be fulfilling incremental demand there, or is that more of just optionality with the rest of the portfolio?
