UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

Commission File Number 1-10351

POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

306-933-8500

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Sections 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

YES þ                              NO o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer þ                              Accelerated filer o                              Non-accelerated filer o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).

YES o                              NO þ

      As at July 31, 2006, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. had 103,875,747 Common Shares outstanding.

PART I.       FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.       FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Position

(in millions of US dollars except share amounts)

(unaudited)

(See Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements)

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Retained Earnings

(in millions of US dollars except per-share amounts)

(unaudited)

(See Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements)

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow

(in millions of US dollars)

(unaudited)

(See Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements)

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.

Notes to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2006

(in millions of US dollars except share and per-share amounts)

(unaudited)

Basis of Presentation

      With its subsidiaries, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (“PCS”) — together known as “PotashCorp” or “the company” except to the extent the context otherwise requires — forms an integrated fertilizer and related industrial and feed products company. The company’s accounting policies are in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in Canada (“Canadian GAAP”). These policies are consistent with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“US GAAP”) in all material respects except as outlined in Note 13. The accounting policies used in preparing these interim condensed consolidated financial statements are consistent with those used in the preparation of the 2005 annual consolidated financial statements, except as described below.

      These interim condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of PCS and its subsidiaries; however, they do not include all disclosures normally provided in annual consolidated financial statements and should be read in conjunction with the 2005 annual consolidated financial statements. In management’s opinion, the unaudited financial statements include all adjustments (consisting solely of normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly such information. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of the results expected for the fiscal year.

Changes in Accounting Policies

Implicit Variable Interests

      In January 2006, the company adopted Emerging Issues Committee Abstract No. 157, “Implicit Variable Interests Under AcG-15” (“EIC-157”). EIC-157 addresses whether a company has an implicit variable interest in a variable interest entity (“VIE”) or potential VIE when specific conditions exist. An implicit variable interest acts the same as an explicit variable interest except that it involves the absorbing and/or receiving of variability indirectly from the entity (rather than directly). The identification of an implicit variable interest is a matter of judgment that depends on the relevant facts and circumstances. The implementation of EIC-157 did not have a material impact on the company’s consolidated financial statements.

Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations

      In April 2006, the company adopted Emerging Issues Committee Abstract No. 159, “Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations” (“EIC-159”). EIC-159 clarifies the accounting treatment for a legal obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the timing and/or method of settlement are conditional on a future event that may or may not be within the control of the entity. Under EIC-159, an entity is required to recognize a liability for the fair value of a conditional asset retirement obligation if the fair value of the liability can be reasonably estimated. The implementation of EIC-159 did not have a material impact on the company’s consolidated financial statements.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Comprehensive Income, Equity, Financial Instruments and Hedges

      In January 2005, the CICA issued Section 1530, “Comprehensive Income”, Section 3251, “Equity”, Section 3855, “Financial Instruments — Recognition and Measurement” and Section 3865, “Hedges”. The new standards increase harmonization with US GAAP and will require the following:

      The guidance will apply for interim and annual financial statements relating to fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 2006. The impact of implementing these new standards is not yet determinable as it is highly dependent on fair values, outstanding positions and hedging strategies at the time of adoption.

Stripping Costs Incurred in the Production Phase of a Mining Operation

      In March 2006, the Emerging Issues Committee issued Abstract No. 160, “Stripping Costs Incurred in the Production Phase of a Mining Operation” (“EIC-160”). EIC-160 discusses the treatment of costs associated with the activity of removing overburden and other mine waste minerals in the production phase of a mining operation. EIC-160 concludes that such stripping costs should be accounted for according to the benefit received by the entity and recorded as either a component of inventory or a betterment to the mineral property, depending on the benefit received. The implementation of EIC-160, which is effective in fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 2006, and may be applied retroactively, is not expected to have a material impact on the company’s consolidated financial statements.

Stock-Based Compensation for Employees Eligible to Retire Before the Vesting Date

      In July 2006, the Emerging Issues Committee issued Abstract No. 162, “Stock-Based Compensation for Employees Eligible to Retire Before the Vesting Date” (“EIC-162”). EIC-162 discusses how compensation cost attributable to a stock-based award for a compensation plan that contains provisions that allow an employee’s stock-based award to continue vesting after the employee has retired from the entity should be accounted for in the case of an employee who is eligible to retire at the grant date, or who will become eligible to retire during the vesting period. In the case of an employee who is eligible to retire at the grant date, EIC-162 concludes that compensation cost should be recognized on the grant date. In the case of an employee who will become eligible to retire during the vesting period, the compensation cost should be recognized over the period from the grant date to the date the employee becomes eligible to retire. The implementation of EIC-162 is effective January 1, 2007, with earlier adoption encouraged, and is not expected to have a material impact on the company’s consolidated financial statements.

2.   Inventories

3.   Other Assets

      In February 2006, the company acquired an additional 10.01-percent interest in the ordinary shares of Sinochem Hong Kong Holdings Limited (“Sinofert”) for cash consideration of $126.3. The purchase price was financed by short-term debt. The additional investment increased the company’s interest in Sinofert to 20 percent.

      In April 2006, the company purchased an additional 220,100 shares of Arab Potash Company Ltd. (“APC”) for cash consideration of $3.7. The company’s ownership interest in APC remains at approximately 28 percent.

4.   Income Taxes

      The company’s consolidated effective income tax rate for the three month period ended June 30, 2006 is approximately negative 1 percent (2005 — 33 percent) and for the six months ended June 30, 2006 is approximately 12 percent (2005 — 33 percent). The reduction in the consolidated effective income tax rates was due to the following:

5.   Net Income Per Share

      Basic net income per share for the quarter is calculated on the weighted average shares issued and outstanding for the three months ended June 30, 2006 of 103,794,000 (2005 — 109,636,000). Basic net income per share for the year to date is calculated on the weighted average shares issued and outstanding for the six months ended June 30, 2006 of 103,718,000 (2005 — 110,365,000).

      Diluted net income per share is calculated based on the weighted average number of shares issued and outstanding during the period. The denominator is: (i) increased by the total of the additional common shares that would have been issued assuming exercise of all stock options with exercise prices at or below the average market price for the period; and (ii) decreased by the number of shares that the company could have repurchased if it had used the assumed proceeds from the exercise of stock options to repurchase them on the open market at the average share price for the period. The weighted average number of shares outstanding for the diluted net income per share calculation for the three months ended June 30, 2006 was 105,920,000 (2005 — 112,436,000) and for the six months ended June 30, 2006 was 105,879,000 (2005 — 113,406,000).

6.   Segment Information

      The company has three reportable business segments: potash, nitrogen and phosphate. These business segments are differentiated by the chemical nutrient contained in the product that each produces. Inter-segment sales are made under terms that approximate market value. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in Note 1.

7.   Stock-Based Compensation

      On May 4, 2006, the company’s shareholders approved the 2006 Performance Option Plan under which the company may, after February 27, 2006 and before January 1, 2007, issue options to acquire up to 1,400,000 common shares. Under the plan, the exercise price is the quoted market closing price of the company’s common shares on the last trading day immediately preceding the date of grant and an option’s maximum term is 10 years. In general, options will vest, if at all, according to a schedule based on the three-year average excess of the company’s consolidated cash flow return on investment over weighted average cost of capital. As of June 30, 2006, options to purchase a total of 894,900 common shares have been granted under the plan. The weighted average fair value of options granted was $38.53 per share, estimated as of the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton option-pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

8.   Pension and Other Post-Retirement Expenses

      For the three months ended June 30, 2006, the company contributed $6.7 to its defined benefit pension plans, $2.9 to its defined contribution pension plans and $2.2 to its other post-retirement plans. Contributions for the six months ended June 30, 2006 were $13.5 to defined benefit pension plans, $8.9 to defined contribution pension plans and $4.3 to other post-retirement plans. Total 2006 contributions to these plans are not expected to differ significantly from the amounts previously disclosed in the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2005.

9.   Other Income

10. Seasonality

      The company’s sales of fertilizer can be seasonal. Typically, the second quarter of the year is when fertilizer sales will be highest, due to the North American spring planting season. However, planting conditions and the timing of customer purchases will vary each year and sales can be expected to shift from one quarter to another.

11. Contingencies

Canpotex

      PotashCorp is a shareholder in Canpotex Limited (“Canpotex”), which markets potash offshore. Should any operating losses or other liabilities be incurred by Canpotex, the shareholders have contractually agreed to reimburse Canpotex for such losses or liabilities in proportion to their productive capacity. There were no such operating losses or other liabilities during the first six months of 2006 or 2005.

Mining Risk

      In common with other companies in the industry, the company is unable to acquire insurance on its underground assets.

Investment in APC

      The company is party to a shareholders agreement with Jordan Investment Company (“JIC”) with respect to its investment in APC. The terms of the shareholders agreement provide that, from October 17, 2006 to October 16, 2009, JIC may seek to exercise a put option (the “Put”) to require the company to purchase JIC’s remaining common shares in APC. If the Put were exercised, the company’s purchase price would be calculated in accordance with a specified formula based, in part, on earnings of APC. The amount, if any, which the company may have to pay for JIC’s remaining common shares if there were to be a valid

exercise of the Put would be determinable at the time JIC provides appropriate notice to the company pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Legal and Other Matters

      In 1994, PCS Joint Venture Ltd. (“PCS Joint Venture”) responded to information requests from the US Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division (“GEPD”) regarding conditions at its Moultrie, Georgia location. PCS Joint Venture believes that the lead-contaminated soil and groundwater found at the site are attributable to former operations at the site prior to PCS Joint Venture’s ownership. In 2005, the GEPD approved a Corrective Action Plan to address environmental conditions at this location. As anticipated, the approved remedy requires some excavation and off-site disposal of impacted soil and installation of a groundwater recovery and treatment system. PCS Joint Venture began the remediation in November 2005 and completed soil excavation activities in March 2006. No significant change to management’s estimate of accrued costs was required as of June 30, 2006 as a result of approval of the remedial action plan.

      In 1998, the company, along with other parties, was notified by the USEPA of potential liability under the US Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”) with respect to certain soil and groundwater conditions at a PCS Joint Venture blending facility in Lakeland, Florida and certain adjoining property. In 1999, PCS Joint Venture signed an Administrative Order and Consent with the USEPA pursuant to which PCS Joint Venture agreed to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/ FS”) of these conditions. PCS Joint Venture and another party are sharing the costs of the RI/ FS. The draft feasibility study has been submitted for review and approval. In January 2006, the parties responded to comments of the USEPA and Florida Department of Environment on the draft feasibility study. No final determination has yet been made of the nature, timing or cost of remedial action that may be needed, nor to what extent costs incurred may be recoverable from third parties.

      In 2003, the USEPA notified PCS Nitrogen that it considers PCS Nitrogen to be a potentially responsible party with respect to a former fertilizer blending operation in Charleston, South Carolina, known as the Planters Property or Columbia Nitrogen site, formerly owned by a company from whom PCS Nitrogen acquired certain other assets. In March 2005, the USEPA released for public comment a range of remedial alternatives and a proposed remedy for this site. In September 2005, Ashley II of Charleston, L.L.C. (“Ashley II”), the current owner of the site, filed a petition in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina seeking a declaratory judgment that PCS Nitrogen is liable to pay environmental response costs at the site and reimbursement of environmental response and other costs incurred and to be incurred by Ashley II. In December 2005, PCS Nitrogen filed a motion to dismiss the petition filed by Ashley II, which was denied in March 2006. In February 2006, PCS Nitrogen and other potentially responsible parties received a notice from the USEPA requesting reimbursement of previously incurred response costs of approximately $3.0 plus interest, and the performance or financing of future site investigation and response. PCS Nitrogen will continue to monitor these and other developments with respect to the site. PCS Nitrogen intends to vigorously defend its interests in these actions. It will also continue to assert its position that it is not a responsible party and to work to identify former site owners and operators that would be responsible parties with respect to the site.

      The USEPA announced an initiative to evaluate implementation within the phosphate industry of a particular exemption for mineral processing wastes under the hazardous waste program. In connection with this industry-wide initiative, the USEPA conducted hazardous waste compliance evaluation inspections at numerous phosphate operations, including the company’s plants in Aurora, North Carolina, Geismar, Louisiana and White Springs, Florida. In September 2005 and December 2005, respectively, the USEPA notified the company of various alleged violations of the US Resource Conservation and Recovery Act at its Aurora and White Springs plants. The company is currently reviewing and responding to these notices. At this early stage, it is unable to evaluate the extent of any exposure that it may have in these matters.

      The company is also engaged in ongoing site assessment and/or remediation activities at a number of other facilities and sites. Based on current information, it believes that its future obligations with respect to

these facilities and sites are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

      Various other claims and lawsuits are pending against the company in the ordinary course of business. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome of such actions at this time, and there exist inherent uncertainties in predicting such outcomes, it is management’s belief that the ultimate resolution of such actions is not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.

      The breadth of the company’s operations and the global complexity of tax regulations require assessments of uncertainties and judgments in estimating the ultimate taxes the company will pay. The final taxes paid are dependent upon many factors, including negotiations with taxing authorities in various jurisdictions, outcomes of tax litigation and resolution of disputes arising from federal, provincial, state and local tax audits. The resolution of these uncertainties and the associated final taxes may result in adjustments to the company’s tax assets and tax liabilities.

      The company owns facilities which have been either permanently or indefinitely shut down. The company expects to incur nominal annual expenditures for site security and other maintenance costs at certain of these facilities. Should the facilities be dismantled, certain other shutdown-related costs may be incurred. Such costs would not be expected to have a material adverse effect on the company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations and would be recognized and recorded in the period in which they were incurred.

      Certain of the company’s facilities have asbestos-containing materials which the company will be obligated to remove and dispose in a special manner should the asbestos become friable (i.e., readily crumbled or powdered) or should the property be demolished. As of June 30, 2006, the company has not recognized this conditional asset retirement obligation in its interim condensed consolidated financial statements because it does not have sufficient information to estimate the fair value of the obligation. As a result of the longevity of the company’s facilities where asbestos exists, due in part to the company’s maintenance procedures, and the fact that the company does not have plans for major changes that would require the removal of asbestos, the timing of the removal of asbestos is indeterminable and the time over which the company may settle the obligation cannot be reasonably estimated as at June 30, 2006. The company would recognize a liability in the period in which sufficient information is available to reasonably estimate its fair value.

12. Guarantees

      In the normal course of operations, the company provides indemnifications that are often standard contractual terms to counterparties in transactions such as purchase and sale contracts, service agreements, director/officer contracts and leasing transactions. These indemnification agreements may require the company to compensate the counterparties for costs incurred as a result of various events, including environmental liabilities and changes in (or in the interpretation of) laws and regulations, or as a result of litigation claims or statutory sanctions that may be suffered by the counterparty as a consequence of the transaction. The terms of these indemnification agreements will vary based upon the contract, the nature of which prevents the company from making a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential amount that it could be required to pay to counterparties. Historically, the company has not made any significant payments under such indemnifications and no amounts have been accrued in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements with respect to these indemnification guarantees.

      The company enters into agreements in the normal course of business that may contain features which meet the definition of a guarantee. Various debt obligations (such as overdrafts, lines of credit with counterparties for derivatives, and back-to-back loan arrangements) and other commitments (such as railcar leases) related to certain subsidiaries have been directly guaranteed by the company under such agreements with third parties. The company would be required to perform on these guarantees in the event of default by the guaranteed parties. No material loss is anticipated by reason of such agreements and guarantees. At June 30, 2006, the maximum potential amount of future (undiscounted) payments under significant guarantees provided to third parties approximated $241.3. As many of these guarantees will not be drawn upon and the maximum potential amount of future payments does not consider the possibility of recovery under

recourse or collateral provisions, this amount is not indicative of future cash requirements or the company’s expected losses from these arrangements. At June 30, 2006, no subsidiary balances subject to guarantees were outstanding in connection with the company’s cash management facilities, and the company had no liabilities recorded for other obligations other than subsidiary bank borrowings of approximately $5.9, which are reflected in other long-term debt, and cash margins held of approximately $92.7 to maintain derivatives, which are included in accounts payable and accrued charges.

      The company has guaranteed the gypsum stack capping, closure and post-closure obligations of its phosphate operations in Florida and Louisiana, pursuant to the financial assurance regulatory requirements in those states. In February 2005, the Florida Environmental Regulation Commission approved certain modifications to the financial assurance requirements designed to ensure that responsible parties have sufficient resources to cover all closure and post-closure costs and liabilities associated with gypsum stacks in the state. The new requirements became effective in July 2005 and include financial strength tests that are more stringent than under previous law and a requirement that gypsum stack closure cost estimates include the cost of treating process water. The company has met its financial assurance responsibilities as of June 30, 2006. Costs associated with the retirement of long-lived tangible assets have been accrued in the accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements to the extent that a legal liability to retire such assets exists.

      The environmental regulations of the Province of Saskatchewan (“Province”) require each potash mine to have decommissioning and reclamation (“D&R”) plans. In 2001, agreement was reached with the provincial government on the financial assurances for the D&R plan to cover an interim period to July 1, 2005. In October 2004, this interim period was extended to July 1, 2006. A government/industry task force has been established to assess decommissioning options for all Saskatchewan potash producers and to produce mutually acceptable revisions to the plans. Industry participants provided the Province with revised D&R plans (including financial assurances) for review. In June 2006, the Province advised that it required additional time to review the plans. The Province also advised that it will continue to recognize the previously approved D&R plans as current and in compliance with the environmental regulations until the review is finalized and a response is provided. The Province advised that it would target a response date of September 30, 2006, or sooner. The company has posted an irrevocable Cdn $2.0 letter of credit as collateral.

      During the period, the company entered into various other commercial letters of credit in the normal course of operations.

      The company expects that it will be able to satisfy all applicable credit support requirements without disrupting normal business operations.

13. Reconciliation of Canadian and United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

      Canadian GAAP varies in certain significant respects from US GAAP. As required by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the effect of these principal differences on the company’s interim condensed consolidated financial statements is described and quantified below. For a complete discussion of US and Canadian GAAP differences, see Note 33 to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2005 in the company’s 2005 Annual Report — Financial Review.

      (a) Long-term investments: Investments for which the company is unable to exercise significant influence, control or joint control are stated at cost. US GAAP requires that these investments be classified as available-for-sale and be stated at market value with the difference between market value and cost reported as a component of other comprehensive income.

      Certain of the company’s investments in international entities are accounted for under the equity method. Accounting principles generally accepted in those foreign jurisdictions may vary in certain important respects from Canadian GAAP and in certain other respects from US GAAP. The company’s share of earnings of these equity investees under Canadian GAAP has been adjusted for the significant effects of conforming to US GAAP.

      (b) Property, plant and equipment and goodwill: The net book value of property, plant and equipment and goodwill under Canadian GAAP is higher than under US GAAP, as past provisions for asset impairment under Canadian GAAP were measured based on the undiscounted cash flow from use together with the residual value of the assets. Under US GAAP, they were measured based on fair value, which was lower than the undiscounted cash flow from use together with the residual value of the assets. Fair value for this purpose was determined based on discounted expected future net cash flows.

      (c) Depreciation and amortization: Depreciation and amortization under Canadian GAAP is higher than under US GAAP, as a result of differences in the carrying amounts of property, plant and equipment and goodwill under Canadian and US GAAP.

      (d) Exploration costs: Under Canadian GAAP, capitalized exploration costs are classified under property, plant and equipment. For US GAAP, these costs are generally expensed until such time as a final feasibility study has confirmed the existence of a commercially mineable deposit.

      (e) Pre-operating costs: Operating costs incurred during the start-up phase of new projects are deferred under Canadian GAAP until commercial production levels are reached, at which time they are amortized over the estimated life of the project. US GAAP requires that these costs be expensed as incurred. As at June 30, 2006 and 2005, the start-up costs deferred for Canadian GAAP were not material.

      (f) Pension and other post-retirement benefits: Under Canadian GAAP, when a defined benefit plan gives rise to an accrued benefit asset, a company must recognize a valuation allowance for the excess of the adjusted benefit asset over the expected future benefit to be realized from the plan asset. Changes in the pension valuation allowance are recognized in income. US GAAP does not specifically address pension valuation allowances and the US regulators have interpreted this to be a difference between Canadian and US GAAP. In light of these developments, a difference between Canadian and US GAAP has been recorded for the effects of recognizing a pension valuation allowance and the changes therein under Canadian GAAP.

      The company’s accumulated benefit obligation for its US pension plans exceeds the fair value of plan assets. US GAAP requires the recognition of an additional minimum pension liability in the amount of the excess of the unfunded accumulated benefit obligation over the recorded pension benefits liability. An offsetting intangible asset is recorded equal to the unrecognized prior service costs, with any difference recorded as a reduction of accumulated OCI. No similar requirement exists under Canadian GAAP.

      (g) Foreign currency translation adjustment: The company adopted the US dollar as its functional and reporting currency on January 1, 1995. At that time, the consolidated financial statements were translated into US dollars at the December 31, 1994 year-end exchange rate using the translation of convenience method under Canadian GAAP. This translation method was not permitted under US GAAP. US GAAP required the comparative Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow to be translated at applicable weighted-average exchange rates; whereas, the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position were permitted to be translated at the December 31, 1994 year-end exchange rate. The use of disparate exchange rates under US GAAP gave rise to a foreign currency translation adjustment. Under US GAAP, this adjustment is reported as a component of accumulated OCI.

      (h) Derivative instruments and hedging activities: Under Canadian GAAP, derivatives used for non-trading purposes that do not qualify for hedge accounting are carried at fair value on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position, with changes in fair value reflected in earnings. Derivatives embedded within instruments are generally not separately accounted for except for those related to equity-linked deposit contracts, which are not applicable to the company. Gains and losses on derivative instruments held within an effective hedge relationship are recognized in earnings on the same basis and in the same period as the underlying hedged items. There is no difference in accounting between Canadian and US GAAP in respect of derivatives that do not qualify for hedge accounting. Unlike Canadian GAAP, however, the company recognizes all of its derivative instruments (whether designated in hedging relationships or not, or embedded within hybrid instruments) at fair value on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Position for US GAAP purposes. Under US GAAP, the accounting for changes in the fair value (i.e., gains or losses) of a derivative instrument depends on whether it has been designated and qualifies as part of a hedging relationship. For

strategies designated as fair value hedges, the effective portion of the change in the fair value of the derivative is offset in income against the change in fair value, attributed to the risk being hedged, of the underlying hedged asset, liability or firm commitment. For cash flow hedges, the effective portion of the changes in the fair value of the derivative is accumulated in OCI until the variability in cash flows being hedged is recognized in earnings in future accounting periods. For both fair value and cash flow hedges, if a derivative instrument is designated as a hedge and meets the criteria for hedge effectiveness, earnings offset is available, but only to the extent that the hedge is effective. Ineffective portions of fair value or cash flow hedges are recorded in earnings in the current period.

      (i) Comprehensive income: Comprehensive income is recognized and measured under US GAAP pursuant to SFAS No. 130, “Reporting Comprehensive Income”. This standard defines comprehensive income as all changes in equity other than those resulting from investments by owners and distributions to owners. Comprehensive income is comprised of two components, net income and OCI. OCI refers to amounts that are recorded as an element of shareholders’ equity but are excluded from net income because these transactions or events were attributed to changes from non-owner sources. As described in Note 1, Canadian standards relating to comprehensive income are not effective until fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 2006.

      (j) Stock-based compensation: Under Canadian GAAP, the company’s stock-based compensation plan awards classified as liabilities are measured at intrinsic value at each reporting period. Effective January 1, 2006, US GAAP requires that these liability awards be measured at fair value at each reporting period. As at June 30, 2006, the difference between Canadian and US GAAP was not significant. The company uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the fair value of its liability awards for US GAAP purposes.

      Under Canadian GAAP, stock options are recognized over the service period, which for PotashCorp is established by the option performance period. Effective January 1, 2006, under US GAAP stock options are recognized over the requisite service period which does not commence until the option plan is approved by the company’s shareholders and options are granted thereunder. For options granted under the PotashCorp 2006 Performance Option Plan, the service period commenced January 1, 2006 under Canadian GAAP and May 4, 2006 under US GAAP. This difference impacts the stock-based compensation cost recorded and may impact diluted earnings per share.

      (k) Stripping costs: Under Canadian GAAP, the company capitalizes and amortizes costs associated with the activity of removing overburden and other mine waste minerals in the production phase. Effective January 1, 2006, US GAAP requires such stripping costs to be attributed to ore produced in that period as a component of inventory and recognized in cost of sales in the same period as related revenue. In accordance with US GAAP, the company has recorded the effect of initially applying this consensus as a cumulative-effect adjustment recognized in the opening balance of retained earnings as of January 1, 2006.

      (l) Income taxes related to the above adjustments: The income tax adjustment reflects the impact on income taxes of the US GAAP adjustments described above. Accounting for income taxes under Canadian and US GAAP is similar, except that income tax rates of enacted or substantively enacted tax law must be used to calculate future income tax assets and liabilities under Canadian GAAP; whereas only income tax rates of enacted tax law can be used under US GAAP.

      (m) Income tax consequences of stock-based employee compensation: Under Canadian GAAP, the income tax benefit attributable to stock-based compensation that is deductible in computing taxable income but is not recorded in the consolidated financial statements as an expense of any period (the “excess benefit”) is considered to be a permanent difference. Accordingly, such amount is treated as an item that reconciles the statutory income tax rate to the company’s effective income tax rate. Under US GAAP, the excess benefit is recognized as additional paid-in capital.

      (n) Cash flow statements: US GAAP does not permit the use of certain subtotals within the classification of cash provided by operating activities, nor does it permit the subtotal of cash before financing activities.

      The application of US GAAP, as described above, would have had the following effects on net income, net income per share, total assets, shareholders’ equity, comprehensive income and accumulated other comprehensive income.

      The balances related to each component of accumulated other comprehensive income, net of related income taxes, are as follows:

Supplemental US GAAP Disclosures

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

      In November 2004, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 151, “Inventory Costs”, to clarify that abnormal amounts of idle facility expense, freight, handling costs and wasted materials (spoilage) should be recognized as current-period charges, and to require the allocation of fixed production overheads to inventory based on the normal capacity of the production facilities. The guidance was effective for inventory costs incurred during 2006 and did not have a material impact on the company’s consolidated financial statements.

      In July 2006, the FASB issued FIN No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes”. FIN No. 48 prescribes a comprehensive model for how a company should recognize, measure, present, and disclose in its consolidated financial statements uncertain tax positions that it has taken or expects to take on a tax return (including a decision whether to file or not to file a return in a particular jurisdiction). Under the model, the consolidated financial statements will reflect expected future income tax consequences of such positions presuming the taxing authorities’ full knowledge of the position and all relevant facts, but without considering time values. The evaluation of tax positions under FIN No. 48 will be a two-step process, whereby (i) the company determines whether it is more likely than not that the tax positions will be sustained based on the technical merits of the position; and, (ii) for those tax positions that meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, the company would recognize the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement with the taxing authority. FIN No. 48 also revises disclosure requirements and introduces a prescriptive, annual, tabular roll-forward of the unrecognized tax benefits. The company is reviewing the guidance (which is effective for the first quarter of 2007) to determine the potential impact, if any, on its consolidated financial statements.

Available-for-Sale Securities

      The company’s investments in Israel Chemicals Ltd. and Sinofert are classified as available-for-sale. The fair market value of these investments at June 30, 2006 was $967.1 and the unrealized holding gain was $575.7.

Stock-based Compensation

      The company has six stock-based employee compensation plans, which are described below. The total compensation cost charged to income in respect of these plans was $21.0 for the three months ended June 30, 2006 (2005 — $25.1) and $23.5 for the six months ended June 30, 2006 (2005 — $30.2).

      Prior to January 1, 2006, the company had elected to expense employee stock-based compensation using the fair value method prospectively for all awards granted or modified on or after January 1, 2003. Accordingly, stock-based employee compensation cost has been recognized in the Consolidated Statements of Operations since that time. Effective January 1, 2006, the company adopted SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment” (“SFAS No. 123(R)”), using the modified-prospective application transition method. Results for prior periods have not been restated. Because the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, “Stock-Based Compensation”, and SFAS No. 123(R) were materially consistent under our equity plans, the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R) did not have a significant impact on our financial position or our results of operations. Prior to our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), benefits of tax deductions in excess of recognized compensation costs were reported as operating cash flows. SFAS No. 123(R) requires excess tax benefits to be reported as a financing cash inflow rather than as a reduction of taxes paid.

Stock Option Plans

      The company has four stock option plans.

      Under the Officers and Employees Plan, the company may, after February 3, 1998, issue options to acquire up to 13,852,250 common shares. Under the Directors Plan, the company may, after January 24, 1995, issue options to acquire up to 912,000 common shares. No stock options have been granted under the Directors Plan since November 2002, and the PCS Board of Directors determined in 2003 to discontinue granting stock options to directors. Under both plans, the exercise price is the quoted market closing price of the company’s common shares on the last trading day immediately preceding the date of the grant and an option’s maximum term is 10 years. All options granted to date have provided that one-half of the options granted in a year will vest one year from the date of the grant, with the other half vesting the following year.

      Under the 2005 Performance Option Plan the company may, after February 28, 2005 and before January 1, 2006, issue options to acquire up to 1,200,000 common shares. Under the 2006 Performance Option Plan the company may, after February 27, 2006 and before January 1, 2007, issue options to acquire up to 1,400,000 common shares. Under the performance plans, the exercise price is the quoted market closing price

of the company’s common shares on the last trading day immediately preceding the date of the grant and an option’s maximum term is 10 years. The key design difference between the 2005 and 2006 Performance Option Plans and the company’s other stock option plans is the performance-based vesting feature. In general, options will vest, if at all, according to a schedule based on the three-year average excess of the company’s consolidated cash flow return on investment over weighted average cost of capital.

      The company issues new common shares to satisfy stock option exercises.

      A summary of option activity under the plans for the six months ended June 30, 2006, and changes during the period then ended, is presented below:

      The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised was $14.1 during the six months ended June 30, 2006. No stock options vested during this period. During the six months ended June 30, 2006 the company granted a total of 894,900 options to purchase common shares under the 2006 Performance Option Plan, as discussed in Note 7. The company estimates the fair value of each option grant as of the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton option-pricing model. The following weighted-average assumptions were used in arriving at the grant date fair values associated with stock options for which compensation cost was recognized during 2005 and 2006:

      The expected dividend on the company’s stock was based on the current annualized dividend rate as at the date of grant. Expected volatility was based on historical volatility of the company’s stock over a period commensurate with the expected term of the stock option. The risk-free interest rate for the expected life of the option was based on, as applicable, the implied yield available on zero-coupon government issues with an equivalent remaining term at the time of the grant. Historical data was used to estimate the expected life of the option.

      A summary of the status of the company’s nonvested shares as of June 30, 2006, and changes during the six month period then ended, is presented below:

      As of June 30, 2006, 2,069,400 options remained unvested and there was $16.7 of total unrecognized compensation cost related to the company’s stock option plans. This cost is expected to be recognized over the period through December 31, 2008.

      Cash received from stock option exercises for the six months ended June 30, 2006 was $9.9 (2005 — $63.2), and the excess tax benefit recognized as additional paid in capital was $4.4 for the first six months of 2006 (2005 — $12.3).

Deferred Share Unit and Other Plans

      The company offers a deferred share unit plan to non-employee directors, which entitles those directors to receive discretionary grants of deferred share units (“DSUs”), each of which has a value equal to the market value of a common share at the time of its grant. The plan also allows each director to choose to receive, in the form of DSUs, all or a percentage of the director’s fee, which would otherwise be payable in cash. Each DSU fully vests upon award, but is distributed only when the director has ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors of the company. Vested units are settled in cash based on the common share price at that time. As of June 30, 2006, the total DSUs held by participating directors was 65,162 (2005 — 52,825). Compensation cost recognized in respect of DSUs for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2006 was not significant.

      The company offers a performance unit incentive plan to senior executives and other key employees. The performance objectives under the plan are designed to further align the interests of executives and key employees with those of shareholders by linking the vesting of awards to the total return to shareholders over the three-year performance period ending December 31, 2008. Total shareholder return measures the capital appreciation in the company’s common shares, including dividends paid over the performance period. Vesting of one-half of the awards is based on increases in the total shareholder return over the three-year performance period. Vesting of the remaining one-half of the awards is based on the extent to which the total shareholder return matches or exceeds the total shareholder return of the common shares of a pre-defined peer group. Vested units are settled in cash based on the common share price generally at the end of the performance period. Compensation expense for this program is recorded and remeasured at fair value over the three-year performance cycle of the program. The company uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the fair value of these awards for US GAAP purposes.

      During the six months ended June 30, 2006, the company issued 152,592 performance units (2005 — nil) under the performance unit incentive plan at a weighted-average grant-date fair value of $78.08 per unit. As at June 30, 2006, 149,883 units remained unvested and outstanding. Total unrecognized compensation cost approximated $9.5, which is expected to be recognized over the period through December 31, 2008. However, such amount will be subject to change, as these liability awards are remeasured at fair value at each reporting period.

      During the six months ended June 30, 2006, cash of $34.5 was used to settle the company’s liability in respect of its performance unit incentive plan for the performance period January 1, 2003 to December 31,

2005. No other cash payments were made in respect of the company’s stock-based compensation plans during the first six months of 2006.

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Cash Flow Hedges

      The company has designated its natural gas derivative instruments as cash flow hedges. The portion of gain or loss on derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges that are effective at offsetting changes in the hedged item is reported as a component of accumulated OCI and then is reclassified into cost of goods sold when the product containing the hedged item is sold. Any hedge ineffectiveness is recorded in cost of goods sold in the current period. During the second quarter of 2006, a gain of $19.2 (2005 — $14.2) was recognized in cost of goods sold. For the first six months of 2006, the gain was $40.1 (2005 — $22.9). Of the deferred gains at quarter-end, approximately $70.9 will be reclassified to cost of goods sold within the next 12 months. The fair value of the company’s gas hedging contracts at June 30, 2006 was $187.1 (2005 — $168.5).

Fair Value Hedges

      At June 30, 2006, the company had receive-fixed, pay-variable interest rate swap agreements outstanding with total notional amounts of $300.0 (2005 — $nil). The fair value of the swaps outstanding at June 30, 2006 was a liability of $2.3 (2005 — $nil).

14. Comparative Figures

      Certain of the prior periods’ figures have been reclassified to conform with the current periods’ presentation.

      The following discussion and analysis is the responsibility of management and is as of August 4, 2006. The Board of Directors carries out its responsibility for review of this disclosure principally through its audit committee, comprised exclusively of independent directors. The audit committee reviews and prior to its publication, approves, pursuant to the authority delegated to it by the Board of Directors, this disclosure. The term “PCS” refers to Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and the terms “we”, “us”, “our”, “PotashCorp” and the “company” refer to PCS and, as applicable, PCS and its direct and indirect subsidiaries as a group. Additional information relating to the company, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, can be found on SEDAR at www.sedar.com and on EDGAR at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.

POTASHCORP AND OUR BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

      PotashCorp has built a global business on the natural nutrients potash, phosphate and nitrogen. Our products serve three different markets: fertilizer, feed and industrial. We sell fertilizer to North American retailers, cooperatives and distributors that provide storage and application services to farmers, the end users. Our offshore customers are government agencies and private importers that tend to buy under contract, while spot sales are more prevalent in North America. Fertilizers are sold primarily for spring and fall application in both northern and southern hemispheres.

      Transportation is an important part of the final purchase price for fertilizer so producers usually sell to the closest customers. In North America, we sell mainly on a delivered basis via rail, barge, truck and pipeline. Offshore customers purchase product either at the port where it is loaded or with freight included.

      Potash, phosphate and nitrogen are also used as inputs for the production of animal feed and industrial products. Most feed and industrial sales are by contract and are more evenly distributed throughout the year than fertilizer sales.

POTASHCORP VISION

      We envision PotashCorp as the partner of choice, providing superior value to all our stakeholders. We strive to be the highest-quality low-cost producer and sustainable gross margin leader in the products we sell and the markets we serve. Through our strategy, we attempt to minimize the natural volatility of our business. We strive for increased earnings and to outperform our peer group and other basic materials companies in total shareholder return, a key measure of any company’s value.

      We link our financial performance with areas of extended responsibility: the environment and our social and economic stakeholders. We focus on increased transparency to improve our relationships with all our stakeholders, believing this gives us a competitive advantage.

POTASHCORP STRATEGY

      To provide our stakeholders with superior value, our strategy focuses on generating long-term growth while striving to minimize the natural volatility of our business by reducing fluctuations in our upward earnings trend line. Applying our strategy daily to maximize gross margin, we concentrate on our highest-margin products, which dictates our Potash First strategy. We complement that by focusing on Trinidad nitrogen and purified phosphoric acid.

      Our goal is to be the low-cost global potash supplier on a delivered basis into all key world markets. We supplement this potash strategy by leveraging our strengths in nitrogen with our lower-cost gas in Trinidad and our specialty phosphate products, particularly the industrial product, purified phosphoric acid, produced in North Carolina.

      In our day-to-day actions, we seek to maximize gross margin by focusing on the right blend of price, volumes and asset utilization. Our highest-margin products — potash, Trinidad nitrogen products and purified phosphoric acid — drive our strategy, and we strive to grow the business by enhancing our position as supplier of choice. We aim to build on our strengths by acquiring and maintaining low-cost, high-quality capacity that complements our existing assets and adds strategic value. Our sales, operating and investment decisions are based on our cash flow return materially exceeding cost of capital.

KEY PERFORMANCE DRIVERS — PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO GOALS

      Each year we set targets to advance our long-term goals and drive results. In 2005, we further developed key performance indicators to monitor our progress and measure success. As we drill down into the organization with these metrics, we believe:

      Our long-term goals and 2006 targets are set out on pages 9 to 14 of our 2005 Annual Report — Business Review. A summary of our progress against selected goals and representative annual targets is set out below.

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

      This discussion and analysis is based on the company’s unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements reported under generally accepted accounting principles in Canada (“Canadian GAAP”). These principles differ in certain significant respects from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. These differences are described and quantified in Note 13 to the unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. All references to per-share amounts pertain to diluted net income per share. All amounts in dollars are expressed as US dollars unless otherwise indicated. Certain of the prior periods’ figures have been reclassified to conform with the current periods’ presentation.

      For an understanding of trends, events, uncertainties and the effect of critical accounting estimates on our results and financial condition, the entire document should be read carefully together with our 2005 Annual Report — Financial Review.

Earnings Guidance

      The company’s guidance for the second quarter of 2006 was earnings per share in the range of $1.25 to $1.50 per share, assuming a period end exchange rate of 1.15 Canadian dollars per US dollar. The final result was net income of $175.1 million, or $1.65 per share, negatively impacted by approximately $9 million ($0.09 per share) due to an actual exchange rate of 1.1150 Canadian dollars per US dollar at June 30, 2006.

Overview of Actual Results

Operations

      Strong performance in our nitrogen and phosphate segments, significant contributions from offshore investments and favorable changes to federal and provincial income tax rates contributed to our record second-quarter earnings of $175.1 million or $1.65 per share. This compares to $164.2 million ($1.46 per share) in the second quarter of 2005, and raised earnings for the first six months of 2006 to $300.6 million ($2.84 per share) versus $295.5 million ($2.61 per share) in the same period last year. Canadian federal and provincial income tax rate reductions and income tax recoveries contributed $48.3 million to earnings during the second quarter of 2006 and $60.6 million for the first six months of the year. Further, a reduction in our 2006 annual consolidated effective income tax rate from 33 percent to 30 percent during the quarter added $10.3 million.

      Second-quarter gross margin was $253.4 million, down from $344.8 million in the same quarter last year, with the decline driven by a $90.5-million drop in potash gross margin. First-half 2006 gross margin was $456.9 million, down from $603.3 million in the first half of 2005 largely due to a $175.9-million reduction in potash gross margin. Potash shipments continued to be constrained through the second quarter as pricing in China and India was unresolved. These negotiations had a far-reaching impact, as several markets in Southeast Asia and Latin America (including Brazil) pulled product from internal inventories, delaying

purchases while they monitored potash pricing. Sales in the North American market were also weakened through the spring season due to low crop commodity prices and fewer corn acres planted. As a result, it is estimated that North American consumption was off 10-15 percent for the 2005/2006 fertilizer year ending June 30. Compounding this was the efforts of fertilizer dealers to finish the season without inventories, which further reduced potash shipments. Despite the decline in potash gross margin quarter over quarter and year over year, potash was still the highest contributor to second-quarter and first-half gross margin at $132.8 million and $223.6 million, respectively.

      In nitrogen and phosphate, the desire to end the fertilizer year with empty bins also had an impact on North American sales volumes, as direct-application demand for ammonia, urea and DAP/ MAP was below average. The North American price for natural gas, a key input, continued its expected seasonal decline throughout the quarter. As well, natural gas storage in the US is at a historical high. Tight supply/demand fundamentals in Eastern and Western Europe — driven by continuing high gas prices and producer curtailments in those markets — set a floor for nitrogen prices in North America. Quarterly nitrogen gross margin of $91.7 million was the second highest in our history, trailing only the $99.4 million in last year’s second quarter. Year over year, nitrogen gross margin was $171.1 million, up 4 percent from last year’s first-half nitrogen gross margin of $164.7 million.

      Phosphate prices continued to climb for all products in response to continuing high input costs and reasonably tight supply/demand fundamentals. Consequently, phosphate gross margins grew quarter over quarter to $28.9 million and year over year to $62.2 million. This compares to $22.1 million and $39.1 million in the same periods of 2005.

      The strengthening of the Canadian dollar at June 30, 2006 compared to year-end 2005 and March 31, 2006 had a negative impact on earnings as it created a primarily non-cash foreign-exchange loss of $16.3 million for the second quarter and $13.9 million for the first six months of 2006, and raised potash production costs by approximately $8 million quarter over quarter and approximately $10 million year over year. Our investments in Arab Potash Company Ltd. (“APC”) in Jordan, Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile (“SQM”) in Chile, Sinochem Hong Kong Holdings Limited (“Sinofert”) in China and Israel Chemicals Ltd. (“ICL”) in Israel contributed $19.0 million during the three-month period ended June 30, 2006 and $40.5 million during the first half of the year, up 42 percent over second-quarter 2005 and 37 percent over first-half 2005. Provincial mining and other taxes were 67 percent and 65 percent lower than in the second quarter and first half of 2005, respectively, due to the benefit associated with the deductibility of capital expenditures related to our potash expansions and the decrease in potash gross margin.

Balance Sheet

      Total assets were $5,627.4 million at June 30, 2006, up $269.5 million or 5 percent over December 31, 2005. Total liabilities declined $34.6 million from December 31, 2005 to $3,190.8 million at June 30, 2006, and total shareholders’ equity increased $304.1 million during the same period to $2,436.6 million.

      The largest contributors to the increase in assets during the first six months of 2006 were intercorporate investments and property, plant and equipment. During the first half of the year, we acquired an additional 10-percent of the ordinary shares of Sinofert for $126.3 million and an additional 220,100 shares in APC for $3.7 million, and made additions to property, plant and equipment of $251.1 million ($104.8 million of which was spent to bring back idled potash capacity at Allan and Lanigan). These increases were partially offset by a reduction in accounts receivable which declined 11 percent (or $51.5 million) compared to December 31, 2005, primarily due to a 20-percent (or $70.3-million) drop in sales in the month of June 2006 compared to the month of December 2005.

      The decrease in liabilities was largely attributable to a $352.8-million decline in accounts payable and accrued charges at June 30, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005. Current income taxes payable declined $183.7 million as a result of the timing of payments during the six month period, lower profits in the potash segment and lower income tax rates enacted during the second quarter of 2006. Hedging margin deposits were down $81.0 million due to lower natural gas prices. Reductions in our performance based compensation accruals and timing of payments on our trade payables contributed the majority of the remaining decrease.

These reductions were partially offset by a $304.3-million increase in short-term debt at June 30, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005. There was a change in mix between current and long-term debt as $400.0 million of the company’s notes payable were classified to current during the second quarter of 2006. The notes, having an interest rate of 7.125%, are payable on June 15, 2007.

      Share capital, retained earnings and contributed surplus all increased at June 30, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005. Share capital was $11.6 million higher at June 30, 2006 than at December 31, 2005 due to the issuance of common shares arising from stock option exercises and our dividend reinvestment plan. Net earnings of $300.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2006 increased retained earnings while dividends declared of $30.9 million reduced the balance, for a net increase in retained earnings of $269.7 million at June 30, 2006 compared to December 31, 2005.

Business Segment Review

      Note 6 to the unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements provides information pertaining to our business segments. Management includes net sales in segment disclosures in the consolidated financial statements pursuant to Canadian GAAP, which requires segmentation based upon our internal organization and reporting of revenue and profit measures derived from internal accounting methods. Net sales (and the related per-tonne amounts) are the primary revenue measures we use and review in making decisions about operating matters on a business segment basis. These decisions include assessments about potash, nitrogen and phosphate performance and the resources to be allocated to these segments. We also use net sales (and the related per-tonne amounts) for business planning and monthly forecasting. Net sales are calculated as sales revenues less freight, transportation and distribution expenses.

      Our discussion of segment operating performance is set out below and includes nutrient product and/or market performance where applicable to give further insight into these results.

Potash

Highlights

Potash gross margin variance attributable to: