LXU — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of LXU's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2026-07-30 vs the prior 10-Q · 2026-04-30
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +59 | −39 | ~18 | 38 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~3 | 1 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | +3 | −1 | ~2 | 41 |
| Legal proceedings | No paragraph-level changes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Risk factors | Some risk factors updated | +8 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Other information | Text added/removed | +3 | −6 | ~1 | 1 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-07-30
During the second quarter we successfully completed an extensive and complex Turnaround of our El Dorado ammonia plant on time, within budget and injury free.
In addition, we began Turnaround work at our Pryor Facility in the second quarter, accelerating the commencement date from its originally scheduled third quarter timeframe. The shift forward in the commencement of the Turnaround moved the majority of the costs and lost production from the Turnaround…
In May 2026, we reached an agreement to assume full ownership of our project to capture and sequester CO2 at our El Dorado Facility (the “Project”) from Lapis Carbon Solutions (“Lapis”). The milestone-based structure of the agreement aligns our capital deployment with Project advancement, while limi…
Once operational, the Project will initially capture and sequester approximately 400,000 to 500,000 metric tons of CO2 per year in underground saline aquifers. The sequestered CO2 is expected to reduce our overall scope 1 GHG emissions by approximately 25% from current levels. In addition, the Proje…
In April 2022, we entered into an agreement with Lapis to develop the Project.
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-04-30
we have completed and are advancing several capital improvement projects with the intention of increasing our sales volumes of higher value downstream products resulting in improvements in our overall profit margins.
In May 2024, we announced an agreement to supply, for a five-year period commencing January 1, 2025, up to 150,000 short tons per year of low carbon ammonium nitrate solution (“ANS”) to Freeport Minerals Corporation (“Freeport”). In early 2025 we began supplying conventional ANS to Freeport from our…
In April 2022, we entered into an agreement with Lapis Carbon Solutions (“Lapis”) to develop a project to capture and sequester CO2 at our El Dorado Facility. Lapis, backed by Cresta Fund Management, a Dallas-based middle-market infrastructure investment firm, will invest the majority of the capital…
The sequestered CO2 generated from the facility’s ammonia production is expected to qualify for federal tax credits under Internal Revenue Code Section 45Q, which are $85 per metric ton of CO2 captured and sequestered. Lapis, as the majority owner of the carbon capture and sequestration equipment, w…
Demand for our industrial products remains consistent, including demand for AN for use in mining applications, which is robust across all commodities, particularly with copper and gold miners as they maximize production to take advantage of strong supply and demand fundamentals. Supply of AN is cons…
Controls & procedures
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-07-30
the anticipated cost and timing of our capital projects, including the Project;
our ability to pass cost increases to our customers in the form of higher prices;
our ability to obtain required regulatory approvals and satisfy other requirements for our carbon capture and sequestration project at our El Dorado Facility;
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-04-30
our ability to pass to our customers cost increases in the form of higher prices;
Risk factors
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-07-30
If we are unable to obtain required regulatory approvals and satisfy other requirements for our carbon capture and sequestration project at our El Dorado Facility, we may not realize the anticipated benefits of the project, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows …
In May 2026, we acquired full ownership of the carbon capture and sequestration project at our El Dorado Facility (the “Project”) from Lapis Carbon Solutions. The Project is designed to capture and sequester CO2 generated from our El Dorado Facility ammonia production in underground saline aquifers,…
The EPA may not grant a Class VI permit for the Project, or may not do so on the timeline we currently anticipate. Unless necessary EPA approvals are obtained, we will be unable to complete construction of the Project or commence CO2 injections as planned, and
we may be unable to recover some or all of the capital we have invested or expect to invest in the Project. The total purchase price and remaining completion capital associated with the Project is currently estimated at approximately $95 million.
Even if the EPA ultimately approves the Class VI permit application, the approval process may take significantly longer than we currently anticipate. We currently expect the Project to be completed and operational in the first quarter of 2027, subject to EPA approval of our Class VI permit, at which…
Other information
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-07-30
Damien J. Renwick, Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer
On May 13, 2026, Damien J. Renwick, our Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer, entered into a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense of Rule 10b5-1(c) and provides that Mr. Renwick, acting through a broker, may sell up to an aggregate of 15,890 s…
Other than as described above, during the three months ended June 30, 2026, none of the Company’s directors or executive officers adopted or terminated a “Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement” or “non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement,” as each term is defined in Item 408(a) of Regulation S-K.
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-04-30
On March 9, 2026, Kristy D. Carver, our Senior Vice President and Treasurer, entered into a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense of Rule 10b5-1(c) and provides that Ms. Carver, acting through a broker, may sell up to an aggregate of 29,554 shares of our common…
Michael J. Foster, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
On March 11, 2026, Lynn F. White, a member of our board of directors, entered into Rule 10b5-1 trading plan that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense of Rule 10b5-1(c) and provides that Mr. White, acting through a broker, may sell up to an aggregate of 40,000 shares of our common stock, su…
Cheryl A. Maguire, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
On March 12, 2026, Cheryl A. Maguire, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, entered into a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense of Rule 10b5-1(c) and provides that Ms. Maguire, acting through a broker, may sell up to an aggregate of 20,000 …
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice