Prepared remarks
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Arq Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. This call is being recorded on Thursday, November 6, 2025. I will now turn the conference over to Anthony Nathan. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for our third quarter 2025 earnings results call. With me on the call today are Bob Rasmus, Arq's Chief Executive Officer; Jay Voncannon, Arq's Chief Financial Officer; and Stacia Hansen, Arq's Chief Accounting Officer. This conference call is being webcasted live within the Investors Section of our website, and a downloadable version of today's presentation is available there as well. A webcast replay will also be available on our site, and you can contact Arq's Investor Relations team at investors@arq.com. Let me remind you that the presentation and remarks made today include forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. These statements are based on information currently available to us and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual future results, performance and business prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by these statements.
These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors identified on Slide 2 of today's slide presentation, in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as expressly required by the securities laws, the company undertakes no obligation to update these factors or any forward-looking statements to reflect future events, developments or changed circumstances or for any other reason. In addition, it is especially important to review the presentation and today's remarks in conjunction with the GAAP references in the financial statements. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Bob.
Thank you, Anthony, and thanks to everyone for joining us this morning. Our PAC business delivered yet another strong quarter. The continued turnaround of our PAC operations yielded strong financial results, driven primarily by continued average selling price strength of 7% over the prior year as well as a further 43% reduction in SG&A expenses. We also made progress on the granular activated carbon front, achieving first commercial production, delivering initial product and generating our first GAC revenues. Third quarter financial performance was achieved despite operating GAC at well below capacity, which significantly reduced our financial results. Our third quarter adjusted EBITDA of $5.2 million included the negative impact of several million dollars of inefficiencies caused by nonrecurring items associated with handling and post-commissioning costs for our granular activated carbon ramp as well as impacts due to inefficiencies driven by low early ramp volumes.
We previously noted that early GAC production would carry elevated costs due to the high fixed expenses, meaning the first pounds produced would cost more than those made later. That proved true this quarter, but the impact of these dynamics was larger than expected. We expect profitability to improve as volumes ramp and production efficiencies are achieved. Turning back to our PAC business. Third quarter prices increased by approximately 7% versus the prior year period and 6% versus last quarter, reinforcing that our foundational PAC platform is not only sustainably profitable, but also capable of fully funding maintenance capital needs for the broader business. Driven by continued price improvements, higher volumes in 2025, broader end market diversification, and disciplined SG&A reductions, the company is generating $16.7 million of adjusted EBITDA on a trailing 12-month basis. This marks a significant achievement both in absolute terms and relative to our starting point at the end of September 2023 when trailing 12-month adjusted EBITDA was a negative $8.7 million at the outset of the turnaround.
This is more than a $25 million improvement in trailing 12-month adjusted EBITDA. I'm proud of what the team has accomplished and even more encouraged by the upside that still lies ahead. Turning now to our strategic investment in granular activated carbon. The operational ramp-up has been impacted by previously discussed design issues while processing the Corbin feedstock at scale. As a result, based on recent operational observations, we now expect to reach full GAC capacity sometime around mid-2026. While this timing adjustment is disappointing, we believe that this revised target is achievable. With that said, let me address head on the logical question of what has caused this extension. Our operation team is still working through certain design issues that have required refining and updating the process for handling the new Corbin waste-derived feedstock efficiently at scale. This feedstock differs from the traditional lignite coal that we have historically used to produce our PAC products.
Specifically, the Corbin feedstock has some greater-than-anticipated variability, which due to design flaws and constraints has required adaptations to processing methodology. You might be wondering how this differs from the Red River commissioning challenges we faced earlier. To clarify, those earlier delays were about getting the plant up and running for the first time. The current issues are about scaling, reaching full efficient production of tens of millions of pounds. The delay in achieving nameplate GAC capacity is extremely frustrating. As we previously noted, design issues and flaws have impacted our production capacity, which combined with the inherent variability of our Arq Wetcake has required additional process and methodology changes. While we've solved several issues, we're continuing to explore additional options to further enhance performance and reduce operating costs. One potential solution is to blend or replace Corbin feedstock with low moisture coal.
This should reduce feedstock variability as well as improve production rates and operating costs. We are working to resolve these challenges and are applying the same rigor and discipline utilized to successfully turn around the PAC business. Importantly, despite the challenges noted, we successfully produced initial on-specification commercial granular activated carbon volumes in Q3 and completed our first sales into a supply-constrained market. As news of our production start-up spread, we received numerous inbound requests for spot purchases. These purchase requests were at pricing levels above our existing contract rates. This is further evidence of the supply constraint and favorable long-term market dynamics. While our strategy remains centered on long-term contracts, these spot inquiries are priced above our initial agreements and could offer attractive diversification opportunities alongside our contracted sales.
In addition, we have extended numerous GAC contracts to account for the updated timelines. We're also seeing positive results from ongoing renewable natural gas field testing and remain confident in our ability to capture value in that market once testing concludes. At the same time, the broader GAC water market provides a reliable outlet, and we expect both markets to grow significantly in the years ahead. Our operational focus is now on rapidly increasing volumes to leverage our fixed cost base and achieve consistent granular activated carbon profitability. As we previously discussed, we are also evaluating adjacent revenue opportunities that could further improve overall returns. This includes determining whether our Corbin feedstock can be used in profitable alternative applications creating diversified end use cases for the feedstock to maximize shareholder value. As such, I would like to provide an update on those efforts.
We've previously indicated that there are 4 key product avenues of interest, including asphalt, purified coal, rare earth materials, and synthetic graphite. Starting with asphalt, we're continuing our testing with a major asphalt company. Early indications show it could make asphalt last longer and perform better in cold weather. Second, purified coal. We have signed a nonbinding MOU to test using our material as a coal substitute for making silicon wafers used in semiconductors, with our partner covering all the initial cost if we elect to proceed. Next, rare earth minerals. With growing demand for U.S.-sourced materials, we're working with the DOE to explore potential government funding to help us test this at our Corbin facility with research starting in 2026. And finally, synthetic graphite. This potential product would benefit from the high purity of our Arq Wetcake, and we are currently pursuing government funding opportunities to evaluate its commercial potential.
Importantly, these opportunities aren't mutually exclusive, meaning we could theoretically produce Arq Wetcake for asphalt blending while generating byproducts for rare earth markets from the same source material. Success with these alternative products could create a stand-alone business line in new markets by turning these products into revenue contributors and thereby further improving profitability and margins. Looking ahead, fundamentals for granular activated carbon remain very strong. With Phase 2 already essentially permitted, we continue to carefully evaluate future GAC facility expansions. Specifically, FID timing is now anticipated to coincide with reaching GAC Phase 1 nameplate capacity around mid-2026. We believe that the experiences gained from Phase 1, along with the ongoing improvements will provide a strong foundation for any future granular activated carbon expansion projects. With that, I'll now turn it over to Jay for a detailed financial review.
Thank you, Bob, and thank you everyone for being here today. Despite the challenges of ramping up our granular activated carbon production, Arq achieved impressive financial results in the third quarter. We reported revenue of $35.1 million, largely fueled by better contract terms, including a 7% year-on-year increase in average selling price, partially due to our successful diversification into end markets. This quarter, our gross margin was 28.8%, which is lower than our recent steady-state margins primarily due to the fixed production costs associated with GAC as we increased our output. We are still facing post-commissioning costs linked to the preproduction feedstock used in our GAC line. The margin was also negatively impacted by lower volumes against higher fixed costs. We recorded positive adjusted EBITDA of approximately $5.2 million, compared to $9 million from the same quarter last year.
I want to mention that starting in Q1 2025, we have included stock-based compensation in our adjusted EBITDA calculations and adjusted our 2024 figures accordingly for better comparability. As Bob pointed out, this quarter included significant expected ramp-up costs related to GAC, and with only around two months of commercial production in Q3, our margins were significantly affected by high fixed costs from GAC. While we won't be separating our business lines for competitive reasons, it's worth mentioning that we had an exceptionally strong quarter with our PAC performance. Our Q3 adjusted EBITDA of $5.2 million included several million dollars in one-time expenses related to handling and post-commissioning costs for our GAC ramp-up and inefficiencies due to low initial volumes. Typically, Q3 is a robust quarter for us, but this quarter was particularly strong for our PAC business, highlighting the effects of our improved pricing and cost-cutting efforts.
We reported a net loss of about $700,000 compared to a net income of $1.6 million from Q3 2024, primarily due to high fixed costs from initial volumes of our Phase 1 GAC line as we work towards nameplate capacity. Selling, general, and administrative expenses reached $4.6 million, down about 43% from the previous year, largely due to reductions in payroll, benefits, and general expenses. Our research and development expenditures for Q3 rose to $2.6 million from approximately $800,000 in the same quarter last year, mainly driven by the GAC line ramp-up we talked about earlier. Overall, our Q3 2025 performance illustrates our capability to operate our PAC business efficiently, positively affecting our financial position while enabling us to pursue high-growth and high-margin opportunities in our expanding GAC business. We remain committed to further enhancing the profitability of our PAC business, and I believe we have the potential to significantly surpass our previous maintenance CapEx coverage targets in the medium term. Now, I will turn it over to our Chief Accounting Officer, Stacia Hansen, to discuss how this quarter impacted our balance sheet.
Thanks, Jay. Turning to the balance sheet. We ended the third quarter with total cash of $15.5 million, of which approximately $7 million is unrestricted. This is compared to total cash of $22.2 million as of year-end 2024. This change was driven primarily by trailing CapEx spend at Red River relating to the GAC line and buildup of Arq Wetcake delivery and critical spare parts. Today, we are also reiterating our full year 2025 CapEx forecast of between $8 million and $12 million. This is particularly relevant given Bob's comments about potential work at Red River, which we do not believe will add materially to our budgeted CapEx for the year as we continue to expect to fund our operating and CapEx needs via our existing cash, cash generation, debt facilities, and ongoing cost reduction initiatives. With that, I will turn things back to Bob.
Thanks, Jay and Stacia. Before we turn to questions, I'd like to leave you with 4 key takeaways. First, our PAC business continues to perform extremely well. As mentioned earlier, the $5.2 million of adjusted EBITDA we reported this quarter included the negative effect of several million dollars of nonrecurring items associated with activated carbon. This reflects the underlying strength of our foundational PAC business. Our PAC turnaround has exceeded expectations. And while we view PAC's long-term growth potential as more limited than that of granular activated carbon or our potential emerging product lines, it's now clear that this foundational business delivers meaningful and sustained value. I remain confident there is still room to further improve our PAC business. My goal has always been for PAC profitability to fully cover maintenance CapEx across the business, and I now believe that it can do even more than that.
As a major shareholder, I see this, combined with our substantial asset base, which has a replacement value well in excess of $500 million, as a strong foundation for the company's long-term valuation. Second, while costs related to granular activated carbon ramp-up weighed on our financial results this quarter, it's important to recognize that we have now produced and sold commercial quantities of granular activated carbon from Red River, a major milestone for our company. My primary focus remains on driving profitability as we scale production. It is also important to highlight that we've overcome business challenges before. As I discussed earlier, we successfully transformed a loss-making PAC business into an attractive business generating profit and cash flow. We are confident our best-in-class team will be able to work through the GAC production challenges. We will get this resolved.
Third, granular activated carbon's underlying market fundamentals remain exceptionally strong, which makes the delays in scaling production even more frustrating. The market opportunity is there for us to capture. And fourth, I believe our ongoing review of potential feedstock alternatives will ensure we are scaling this business as efficiently and profitably as possible. Separately, our assessment of potential alternative product opportunities creates additional diversification and upside for the long term. With that, I'll hand it back to our moderator to open for questions.
Questions and answers
And the first question comes from Gerry Sweeney at ROTH Capital.
Bob, I'm not sure if you can answer this or if you want to, but how much GAC are you producing at spec? I believe what people want to know, or what I would like to know, is your current production level compared to your nameplate capacity.
We're producing less than we would like. What we are producing meets specifications. However, for competitive and other reasons, I'm not going to provide specific details. It's evident that the below-target production volumes are affecting our gross margin and overall financial performance.
Can you produce GAC level that we'll just say, breakeven while you test alternatives? Or is this going to be a drag until we get the problem solved?
If you look at breakeven, we have an understanding of what that means. However, starting a new production process comes with costs related to the ramp-up phase. These costs have been higher than we expected, and we've faced more challenges in increasing production volume. Progress is not always straightforward. We believe the best long-term approach is to assess the blending of a feedstock, specifically a drier feedstock, to address some of these design challenges. This will aid us in reaching profitability and achieving commercial production more quickly.
Speaking of alternatives, I'm assuming that's a drier feedstock that would be met coal, which is traditionally used as GAC and would that have an impact on margins?
First of all, we're going to do what's in the best economic interest for our shareholders. And we're evaluating blending drier coal as really one way to help overcome the design issues that have been affecting our ability to deal with the variable feedstock. And while we're evaluating that because the logical question is, we're also evaluating whether it makes sense to switch to drier coal. Why would we switch to drier coal? Well, if 1 of the 4 ultimate uses for carbon feedstock develop, it would account for all of the Corbin capacity and then some. So, it behooves us to evaluate alternative feedstock to maintain full optionality. And keep in mind, from an economic standpoint as well, as you mentioned in your question, Gerry, that the Corbin feedstock is essentially 50% water. We're paying to ship 50% water that we then take out of the product as it relates to that. So, we believe it's a distinct possibility that blending drier coal with the feedstock could also have positive CapEx implications.
Got it. One more for me. Just want to understand the numbers, $5.2 million in EBITDA in the quarter, that does not include some of the extraneous costs that were incurred with this ramp-up, correct? So, in other words, that $5.2 million in EBITDA would have been higher by a couple of million dollars if these issues didn't arise, all things being equal, right?
Yes. So, the $5.2 million includes the negative impact of several million dollars of costs associated with the GAC. Now again, what's several million dollars, it's more than a couple as it relates to that. I'm not going to be specific, but I can try and provide an analogy. If you look at the gross margin of the last 4 quarters prior to this, so third quarter of '24 to second quarter of '25, and you added back those several million dollars in costs, our gross margin would have been several percentage points above the average for those 4 quarters.
No, listen, third quarter average selling prices were up year-over-year, and coal plants aren't being shut down as quickly. So, there's demand for PAC out there. It would have been a very strong quarter for the PAC business. I understand that.
The next question comes from George Gianarikas at Canaccord Genuity.
I'd like to explore further the Corbin feedstock. Can you provide more details about the variability? When did you realize this was an issue? I assume there were tests conducted before starting production that indicated this wouldn't be a problem. Could you share more about what you discovered and when?
This is primarily an issue related to design flaws. We were aware from our due diligence that there would be variability in the feedstock from Corbin. Although we addressed many design flaws during the original engineering phase to complete commissioning and achieve commercial production, some of these flaws still affect our production on the granular Line 1. The original engineering firm did not adequately consider the moisture content and variability in the feedstock when designing some of the openings and chutes. There were extremely sharp angles, which caused inefficiencies and resulted in plugging and tarring. We anticipated some variability, but the design did not account for it effectively.
This raises the question of whether the issue is related to design rather than the feedstock itself. Since the feedstock was known beforehand, why are you looking into alternative feedstock options instead of just redesigning the facility?
Redesigning the facility would incur higher costs, which we understand. One of the challenges is that when you consider a 90-degree angle, moving products with moisture or stickiness through that angle can cause issues as it gets caught on the curbs and corners. By mixing in drier coal and lowering the moisture content of the input, it becomes easier and less likely for the product to stick, making the process smoother around those corners. Therefore, blending the feedstock is a more cost-effective solution than redesigning and installing new equipment.
All right. I have one last question. Considering the changes you're implementing, how should we think about the long-term margin implications?
Yes. No, a couple of things. One, short term, there's clearly a negative impact from their ability or an inability to reach full run rate production on granular activated carbon. Long term, the granular activated carbon margins, we expect to be extremely strong for all the market fundamentals that I discussed in the prepared remarks and pricing continues to be even stronger than it was in terms of even a year ago as it relates to that. And if you look at one benefit of blending some drier coal, as I mentioned in my earlier question, is that we won't be shipping as much water that we're taking out of the system. So that in and of itself should lead to lower operating costs and improved margins.
The next question comes from Aaron Spychalla at Craig-Hallum.
Can you provide a high-level overview of what gives you confidence in meeting the mid-2026 targets? Have you started implementing some of the design adjustments, or are you witnessing benefits from the changes made regarding feedstock? It seems you aren't anticipating significant costs, but I'm trying to understand your confidence in achieving these targets.
Yes, that's a great question, Aaron. I apologize in advance for my lengthy response, but I think it's important to give some context. As you know, design flaws previously caused delays in the commissioning of the granular activated carbon facility earlier this year. Although we resolved those issues to complete commissioning, the same design flaws have continued to impact our ongoing production and the ramp-up to full capacity. To address your question, it's crucial to understand the reasons why we anticipate reaching full production by mid-2026. The initial design and construction included a 320-foot off-gas line, which turned out to be both inefficient and unworkable. The original commissioning delays were partly due to addressing these design defects, which led to cooling issues in the line and subsequent tar and particulate plugging. Working with a new engineering firm, we determined that the best solution was to install a thermal oxidizer and reduce the off-gas line length from 320 feet to 28 feet.
Finding a suitable thermal oxidizer was challenging, as only one with the required specifications was available in the U.S., but we have secured it on a rental basis. After installing that thermal oxidizer and starting production, we realized that the current rented unit could only support production of about 15 million pounds of granular activated carbon annually. Hence, in collaboration with the new design firm, we've decided to purchase and install a purpose-built thermal oxidizer, designed to support 25 million pounds of production per year. The construction and installation lead time for this new thermal oxidizer is why we have adjusted our expectations for full production to around mid-2026, when we expect to receive and install it. Once it’s on site, the installation will take about six days, including one day to cool the existing unit, one day for removal, and four days for replacement and connections.
GAC production will need to pause for about a week during this period, but operations should quickly ramp up to full production capacity after installation because we will simply be working through the capacity of the new thermal oxidizer. We are confident that any input issues will be resolved by that time. A logical question is about the cost. The investment in the new thermal oxidizer is expected to range from $8 million to $10 million, which includes around $3 million for the equipment and the rest for installation. Most of this spending will occur at the time of final shipment and installation, and it will be funded as part of our 2026 capital expenditures. Based on discussions with current and potential lenders, along with our available cash and operating cash flow, we believe this can be funded efficiently. To minimize disruption, we also plan to conduct our biannual turnaround during this period to avoid any additional planned downtime in 2026 or 2027. I apologize for the lengthy explanation, but I felt it was important to clarify the reasons behind our revised projections.
No, I appreciate that insight, it's useful. Regarding the PAC business, if you exclude a few million dollars, the margin performance has been quite strong. The outlook there still appears positive. Can you discuss that further, including potential diversification, average selling prices, and the outlook for the PAC segment?
Sure. We had another strong quarter with a 7% increase in average selling price year-over-year and a 6% increase quarter-to-quarter. This growth has moderated somewhat from previous quarters where we experienced 9% or better increases. It was expected that this pace wouldn't continue indefinitely. We still anticipate further improvements from the PAC business, driven by increased volumes, ongoing rises in average selling prices, and better absorption of fixed costs linked to these higher volumes. Regarding new markets, our sales team has excelled in developing and entering additional markets, which tend to have higher average selling prices compared to some of our existing channels. Therefore, we remain optimistic about the future of PAC as our core business.
The next question comes from Peter Gastreich at Water Tower Research.
Just a few, if I may. The first one is regarding the delay for the GAC, is there any risk or penalties that could be associated with the contracted customers for the delay?
Our customers have been great with this. We work closely with all of our contracted customers to provide visibility on production output, as it relates to their needs. All of our customers have worked with us to amend their orders or ordering cadence and all of our GAC contracts that were 1 year or less have been extended. So, I think that's a testament both to the strength of our relationships and the undersupplied nature of the market. But everything is going as well as it should be.
Okay, great. My second question follows up on the previous one regarding the PAC prices. Congratulations on the progress. Even though the momentum has slowed year-on-year, it's impressive that you’re still able to achieve a raise. I wanted to clarify, for the 7% increase, are we only talking about the PAC, or is there any measurable impact from the GAC spot volumes you mentioned?
So we didn't sell anything on the spot market. We're concentrated on meeting our customer contracted orders on that, which is the right thing to do from a relationship standpoint. So, all of the price increases that we referred to, that 7% are coming from the PAC business.
Okay. Got it. Okay. And just a final question on the SG&A. So regarding the reduction in SG&A, how much of that can be sustained? And also for that, I understand that was allocated to cost of goods sold, why was that decision made?
Yes, the reductions in selling, general, and administrative expenses are a result of comparisons between last year and this year, and they are definitely sustainable. We believe that as the granular line begins to ramp up in 2026, SG&A as a percentage of revenue will decrease because we do not foresee the need to raise SG&A costs as we expand the granular activated carbon line. Regarding your second question about the reclassification into research and development, that will not continue moving forward. We also made a similar reclassification in the second quarter related to preproduction volumes as we were preparing the granular activated line for commissioning. Most of the costs that were reclassified in the third quarter pertained to expenses from July and a week into August for preproduction volumes. After we commission the facility, those costs will be reflected in the cost of goods sold line. This is the reason behind the negative impact on margin in the third quarter; those fixed costs were allocated over a smaller number of units since we have not yet reached a breakeven point for the granular products.
The next question comes from Tim Moore at Clear Street.
I just want to follow up on an important thread. I mean it's great the GAC is going under way. That's a really important milestone. And you've got a lot of things to optimize before you add additional lines over the coming years. But I just want to really dig into one other thing. I get the SG&A reconciliation and Jay just went through that. But how should we think about really gross margin in the next 2 quarters until you get enough utilization underway on GAC? I was kind of under the impression that the really big drag was the June quarter and it won't be as bad in September, but you can expect a big step up? I mean, there should be a step-up in the December quarter for gross margin, right?
As we're producing at suboptimal volume levels, a significant amount of fixed costs at the plant is being spread over fewer units, which is impacting our gross margin. The fixed costs themselves are stable, so we can expect margins in Q4 and Q1 of next year to be similar to what we saw in Q3. Until we can increase our volume and effectively distribute those costs over a larger quantity, we won't see an improvement in margins. Therefore, I anticipate that for the next two quarters, and possibly extending into Q3 once we install the new oxidizer in Q2 next year, our gross margin will remain fairly consistent. We're also hopeful to see continued improvements in PAC performance, as we've demonstrated over the past year, which may help offset some of the challenges as we grow and enhance PAC effectiveness in the coming year.
That's really helpful information on the timing. I also have another question. I understand that GAC revenue is currently limited, but it is expected to become significant by the June quarter. For competitive reasons, you may not want to share specifics. Cal Carbon is part of another company and is a small part of their overall business. Do you think that, given the 25 million pounds, there might be a time, maybe a year or two from now, when you would consider breaking out GAC revenue just to highlight the difference, especially if it starts to impact PAC on the feedstock later on?
A couple of things on that. I think that, one, given the long-term favorable market dynamics, I think it's highly probable that we will build a line 2 and further increase capacity. You mentioned competitive reasons. I'll refer to it more as competitive tension. There's always competitive tension between the IR side of things and the sales side of things as to what we break out. As you know, I'm a big believer in providing detail, an informed investor is a good investor and is a long-term investor. The flip side of that is that we are the only public company. So, we're handing competitive information to our competitors on a platinum platter on that. And so, the long-winded answer is maybe.
What I would add to Bob's comments is that once we reach the 25 million nameplate and then add another line 2, we'll be at a $50 million capacity. Currently, we have about 100 million pounds capacity on the PAC. At that point, you'll be able to see correlations and it wouldn’t be very difficult to estimate the ultimate margin between the two. As we continue to grow and start to see the PAC being cannibalized, there may come a time when the majority of our discussions in the MD&A and the Q will focus on the granular business, while the PAC will just represent a baseline that we acknowledge and discuss.
No, that's fine because I'll be off the back into the GAC revenue pretty closely when you lap a full year, just if you keep announcing average price increases when you start year-over-year on the GAC.
We have no further questions. I will turn the call back over to Bob Rasmus for closing comments.
Thank you very much. Both short-term and long-term, the outlook for the powdered activated carbon business is strong. We also continue to expect even better performance from the PAC side, and this is a dramatic improvement from 2 years ago when the PAC business was a significant money loser. Short-term there clearly remains some challenges to getting the granular activated carbon business up to full run rate. We're applying the same rigor, discipline, focus, and resolve we successfully applied to the PAC business to solving these challenges. The long-term market dynamics for granular activated carbon remain extremely strong. And as a reminder, I'm fully aligned with shareholders with my minimum salary and my large stock ownership. I want this fixed as badly, if not more so than you all do, and we will get this resolved. So, thank you all for your interest, and we look forward to continued communication.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your conference call for today. We thank you for participating, and we ask that you please disconnect your lines.