Arafura Rare Earths Limited (ARAFF) Q1 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Arafura Rare Earths Limited (OTCPK:ARAFF) Q1 2024 Results Earnings Conference Call October 31, 2023 1:00 AM ET

Company Participants

Mark Southey - Non-Executive Chairman

Gavin Lockyer - Managing Director

Peter Sherrington - Chief Financial Officer

Stewart Watkins - General Manager Projects

Amy Pepper - Corporate Affairs Manager

Conference Call Participants

Mark Southey

I'd like to welcome our shareholders to our quarterly investor call following our release of our quarterly report yesterday. My name is Mark Southey. I'm the Non-Executive Chairman of Arafura. And I'm joined today by Managing Director, Gavin Lockyer; Chief Financial Officer, Peter Sherrington; and our General Manager of Projects, Stewart Watkins.

We'll provide an overview of the update, and there will be an opportunity for shareholders to ask questions at the end of the presentations. We're on a Zoom Meeting, of course. So, if you do want to ask a question at the end of the presentation, if you can raise a hand on the Zoom, then we can activate the audio for you to put that question forward.

So, in the interest of time, I'll ask Gavin to start with an overview of the quarterly release.

Gavin Lockyer

Great. Thanks, Mark. And thanks, all those that are interested enough to dial in today. I'll just quickly run through the highlights of the quarterly and then perhaps we'll delve into some further detail with Peter and Stewart in terms of where we're at with our offtakes and project financing, and also the work that's been done onsite and where we're planning to go next year as we go into full construction.

I guess, first off, many shareholders would be familiar with this chart. It shows obviously the tracking of the NdPr price. And there's been a little bit of a divergence between NdPr price and Arafura share price over the last couple of months. And many of you, obviously, have noticed that there's a significant shorting position that's been going on, not just in our stock, but it's certainly going on in a number of similar industries. For instance, Pilbara Resources has been experiencing a large volume of shorting going on its stock. And there's a number of other rare earth players that are also undertaking the same thing.

Obviously, we we've got no control over that. It's a perfectly legitimate transaction that certain groups can enter into. We are obviously monitoring it. It does, I guess, concern us given that we do have a significant amount of capital to raise in the next six months and obviously anything driving the price down is not to our benefit. And we're certainly doing our best to try and rectify that situation through project development and the things that we can actually control.

The other thing to note, and why people often say why are people shorting Arafura stock and why are they shorting Pilbara, it's because there's no natural hedge against the commodity price that sits underneath it. So, there's no way that they can go to an LME and hedge gold or hedge silver for NdPr. And so, the natural way to do that is through shorting the stock.

So that's sort of where we're at. It's unfortunate, but I guess the best way to get rid of these short sellers is to actually get the share price up. And we can do that by delivering the project.

Domestically, the market in China has been weakening or softening a little bit, particularly in recent times as the subsidies on electric vehicles was removed in about the middle of this year. So, the weakness of domestic market has also been one of the causes of the of NdPr price heading down, together with, I guess, a push by China central in order to, I guess, keep other projects out of the industry and artificially keep that price suppressed.

We are hearing noises being made now within China that the major state owned enterprises are not happy about the pricing. They've faced significant losses in the first half of this year. And we would expect, as you can see on this chart, that the NdPr price slowly start to tick back up to where we all believe it should be.

I know most of you would be more interested in where we're at with our offtake and our project funding. So I'll hand you over to Peter Sherrington, who can provide you with an update on that.

Peter Sherrington

Thanks, Kevin. Thanks, everyone, for your time this afternoon. So, obviously, the offtake work is ongoing. We've, obviously, still got engagement running with Hyundai in Korea and Siemens Gamesa. Even though those contracts are in place, there's still steady update.

We're also working to continue to close out the arrangements with GE under the MOU and working to bring that into a secured offtake via our binding agreement.

Activity has probably been heightened more particularly in late September and October with the groups that we currently have contract negotiations with and also those with advanced offtake discussions. So we've met with customers in, obviously, Korea, Japan, and Europe and the US over early October and then September. So return of people from the northern hemisphere break has probably sort of enabled most of those arrangements to start to ramp up again.

And we have some good traction and continued good traction with offtakers and are looking to get the best possible deals we can as we move through to our project financing.

Probably, as we get more certainty and more clarity around the funding structure, we've been able to share a little bit more information in the quarterly around the indicative funding structure, particularly on the debt side. So we've always been quite advanced with the discussions with Export Finance Australia and Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Combined, there's a US$225 million funding solution there.

In addition to those particular entities, we have the Export Development Canada letter of intent in relation to the US$300 million, which is tied to the GE offtake. arrangements, so that EDC offtake, NAIF and EFA are working with the commercial lenders and working to finalize the debt terms, which are very, very advanced at the moment.

We also have ECAs that we're working with, which is the German ECA, Euler Hermes. And also, we're looking to bring in a Korean ECA as part of the funding package. The total amount we are targeting for the commercial bank tranche is US$250 million. And we're working to try and have that totally covered by guarantees. So pretty unique funding solution, some really good quality export credit agencies in there from Australia and from Canada. And then bank guarantees sitting across the top of that with the commercial lenders sitting underneath.

Probably, the key thing we're working on at the moment is, obviously, in addition to rounding out the DD, negotiating the term sheets and assisting with the lenders to start to prepare their credit papers. And we're also working through the Euler Hermes process at the moment. So we've appointed PwC to prepare the papers for the Euler Hermes funding. But the key activity we're working on and working on it as we speak is identifying and attracting the right Korean ECA support into that funding stack.

Stewart Watkins

Okay. I'll jump in there, Peter, and start talking about the project delivery side of things. Obviously, this quarterly, we've updated our delivery schedule, but it is worth noting that everything that we're doing in the delivery schedule is really linked into that financing schedule and something that the management team here at Arafura are really focused on very carefully, is trying to match the activity we're doing with the funding schedule.

So in terms of basing our schedule on something, we had to choose a date. So we've assumed that we're achieving contractual close on that project funding solution in March. And from there, that really drives the whole schedule.

In terms of the activities we've done, we've been heavily involved in early contractor involvement and early contractor engagement around the process plant with Monadelphous and MACA Interquip. We've been pushing forward very hard with our detailed plant design with that, so that we can derisk the rest of the schedule. The further we can get the engineering design progressed, then the better off we're in a position to have certainty around our pricing.

All of our early works onsite, and I've got some photos in there that are largely completed now, but based fundamentally on that March next year date for getting our funding solution in place. We're really looking at a March 2026 process plant commissioning, and then first ore going into the plant right at the end of 2026.

First production will be a number of months after that as it takes a little while for the process plant to actually build up its in-circuit stocks and actually start producing product out the back end.

The other thing we've done, if we slip through to the next slide, please, Amy, is with – over the last year, we've been keeping a very, very close eye on our capital costs. It's been really important for us to make sure that we keep those costs under control. And so, we've been conducting a trending estimate or a trending process. And we believe that the capital costs, it has gone up a little bit over a year, up to about that AUD 16 million, AUD 18 million. That's about a 5.7% increase. And that's on a like-for-like basis.

So that trending includes all the adjustments we've had to the pricing of equipment, all the adjustments we've had to the design, all of the work that we've done with Monadelphous, particularly to look at how we optimize the execution strategy and the construction strategies, and then feed that back into the design. And I would say that the team here have done a really good job of running very, very fast to stand remarkably still with our costs. And I think that's a real credit to the team we've put in place here.

What this AUD 16 million, AUD 18 million doesn't include is, as per our project update estimate in November 2022, it doesn't include the pre-production costs, it doesn't include project overheads, escalation, working capital and financing costs.

But what it does include, because we believe it would have been misleading of us to just tell you what the costs were going to be from contractual clothes, it does include all the money that we've spent on the ground at Nolans to actually build things that we don't have to build again. And we've spent about AUD 100 million on that over the last approximately nine months. And we've made a lot of progress up there onsite.

If we flick through, I've got some photos of what we've got on site. So, this is our camp area. We've got all of the earthworks done for the village. We've got our flight camp installed, and up until recently that was fully occupied. And then we've got the central facilities and the first 200 rooms installed and fully commissioned and ready to be used for the construction camp. There's another 100 rooms already in place, but we haven't hooked those all up yet.

So we're ready to hit the ground running when we get the funding package locked away that we can immediately mobilize 250 people at site and really get on with some real work out there.

Moving on, please, Amy. We've got our site intersection done and all of our road coming into the site. That, in parts, is more fully developed. In other parts, it's just a cleared road that is suitable for bringing things into site. But that will be one of the first things we get into when we get back to site once we have a funding package in place.

We have got the water supply pipeline in. And as you can see there, we've got a Turkey's nest dam which is our final rural water supply dam that is full of water and very much got a standpipe there and ready to actually start providing water for the bulk earthworks that we need to do primarily initially around the process plant and then also the site access road.

In terms of the indicative timeline, we believe, as we said in that first quarter, I think, the quarterly said, we should have the finalization of our funding package, and then that'll allow us to move into the construction period.

We have had a slight increase in our construction period of around three months as we work through the construction timeline with Monadelphous. And that leads into the schedule that we presented earlier. That six months before our first ore going into the plant, we'll start our mining. And we're working on that at the moment.

Thank you, everybody, for coming along. I'm going to hand you back to Gavin and Mark now.

Gavin Lockyer

Thanks, Stewart. Thanks, Peter. Look, I think it's pretty important to sort of gauge – we started the early works on the back of significant capital raising at the end of last year. We're firmly of the view that we would be able to get that funding package aligned and in place by third quarter of this year. And that's obviously hit some speed humps.

And I guess one thing that I mentioned at the AGM which I'll repeat here is that we're juggling many balls in this funding package. You've got the Australian government in through EFA and NAIF. We've got Export Development Canada. We've got the Koreans. We have the Germans. All of these organizations have not necessarily aligned due diligence processes. We've had to appoint independent technical experts, which have taken a lot longer to get through their independent technical reports than anticipated. And then, you've had queries from the lenders themselves back to the independent technical expert, which then required follow up from our team. So that whole process has taken a lot longer than we anticipated.

What's pleasing to hear, though, is that we've spent that money that we raised last year quite wisely. As Stewart said, we've probably spent about $100 million worth of capital in terms of infrastructure that we don't now have to spend, again. And to the point where – when that funding is available, then we'll be ready to go straight into construction as soon as we possibly can.

So it was very important for us in those early stages of construction to focus on the roads, on the water and on the camp. That's what we've done. That's now completed. And whilst we had a significant spend in our quarterly this quarter, we will see that going-forward quarterly spent rates should significantly decrease compared to previous quarter.

Unless there's anything that others would like to add, perhaps, Amy, we could – is there any questions that you might want to put out?

Question-and-Answer Session

A - Amy Pepper

I can see here that Al Harvey [ph], your hand is raised. If anybody else would like to ask a question, please raise your hand by the raise hand function at the bottom of the screen. And I will moderate the questions as they come through.

Unidentified Participant

Just wanted to get a sense on the funding negotiation delays. Obviously, as you mentioned there, Gavin, is a lot of complexity in the project. But I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of what parts in particular you're needing to step all those parties through. Is it is it mainly around the market outlook? How comfortable are they with the pricing outlook and pricing assumptions in the study and those kind of things? Can you maybe just reflect a bit on that kind of part of the story at the moment?

Gavin Lockyer

Peter, did you want to go?

Peter Sherrington

Look, you're right, all of those things – the commodity is unique. So there's quite a bit of interrogation of the independent market consultants' report, not just the reports completed, and then there's an engagement directly between the lenders and the independent market consultant to discuss the key assumptions and the views around the market. There's probably been a lot of interaction between the lenders and the independent technical expert.

The other thing that's been quite significant is there's a lot of concern within the financing industry because, at the moment, they're currently dealing with projects where there is a cost overrun and how those costs are managed. For projects that are already up and running and being committed to is influencing their thinking around financing for new projects.

I suppose one thing that's becoming apparent to us is that the significant work we'd already done around FEED before we did that last estimate and the continuing work we're doing around engineering is giving us a lot of comfort around the CapEx number that we're working with. And that's sort of – they're slowly becoming comfortable with the work that we've done there and seeing that there's been a lot of quality work as a precursor to that.

So, probably the other thing is that the lenders, particularly the ECAs, do like to appoint their own consultants, sometimes we'll use a consultant for some technical work. They, in some instances, will want a separate consultant. We also have a law firm engaged to represent the lenders. In some instances, there'll be small pieces of work where some ECAs want to appoint a separate legal adviser for a particular aspect where they have some particular interest that they need covered off on. So there's a lot of work there.

The other thing is that, with the ECAs, they have a pretty significant threshold of understanding around the environmental and social aspects of the project. There's also a lot more work goes into the environmental and social DD than you would see with just a standard lender. So, it's a matter of pulling all those things together and having them happen all at the same time.

And there'd probably been some challenges that we perhaps some – perhaps as we've got further into the financing and realize the complex structure that we put in place requires this extra effort to get it over the line.

Amy Pepper

York Nate [ph], you had a hand raised?

Unidentified Participant

Could you comment on Tesla's statement about the batteries and the materials they would use in the future for batteries?

Gavin Lockyer

I think you'd might be referring to the magnets and the fact that they made some statements around removing NdPr from magnets going forward.

Unidentified Participant

Correct.

Gavin Lockyer

Look, the original Tesla design doesn't use rare earth magnets. In the engines, they use copper cage technology, which was developed by Tesla. The issue they have with that is the battery that's needed to drive that car, it uses a lot more power and so you don't get the range from it.

Interesting if they do engineer out rare earth magnets from their engines, they will still need to use rare earth magnets in every other application of the car, such as electric seats, windscreen wipers, brakes, power steering, et cetera. So I don't think they'll engineer out completely, but if they did go down that path, then you may see it in the engines only.

One interesting side play here regarding the Tesla comments was that Elon made those comments at the same time that his procurement team were in China trying to renegotiate the magnet prices for their cars. So I think there may have been a bit of byplay going on there in the public media sector.

Stewart Watkins

I think it's fair to say too, Gav, they also walked back those comments and made it back to not using rare earths from unsustainable supply sources about two weeks later.

Amy Pepper

Bennett?

Unidentified Participant

This is York again. So there's no concern from your side in regard to Tesla's comment?

Mark Southey

I think, Peter, maybe you can talk a bit in terms of – I think the answer to that is probably where our offtakers are headed with this. That's the kind of target market for us also.

Peter Sherrington

The customers we're engaged with have not changed or altered their plans. There's still a strong interest in the NdPr. I think most of them attribute the comments to be more around sustainability of those materials. And most of them are of the view, yes, if you can't acquire sustainably produced NdPr and also the terbium and dysprosium, the heavies that are required, then you will be forced to look at another technology. But that's not their preference because, as you switch to another technology, you increase the size of the battery of the car. And the cost you save by switching does not make sense because the battery costs start so far outweigh the additional cost savings that you may have made by switching. So, really, it comes down to a question of sourcing sustainable material and being comfortable that you've got NdPr product and heavies that are sustainable. And it is a big issue. And that's what the automakers are focused on. And I suspect that might be the sort of the genesis of perhaps Tesla's comments, to be honest, because it was reflected in their follow up comments after the announcement.

It's hard for us to say what Tesla are thinking, but it's not consistent with our engagement with the rest of the market.

Amy Pepper

David Harrison?

Unidentified Participant

Look, my question is, why didn't we have a seat at the table over in Washington the other day with the extra funding available? If we could have got US$300 million or US$400 million out of that, we would have been laughing. But we weren't even invited. Or I don't know. Can you please explain why we weren't there?

Gavin Lockyer

It's a good question, David. I've asked [indiscernible] myself as to why we weren't invited. However, having said that, it doesn't change the fact around the funding. The extra US$2 billion is on top of the US$2 billion that sits in the critical minerals facility already, of which we're already tapping into the $US200 million through EFA. So I don't think it would increase the funding available to us. However, yes, it was disappointing that we didn't get invited to that.

Peter Sherrington

One possible reason for that would be that most of our offtakers are in Europe and Korea. So our engagement with the US has been more challenging because there's less interesting take or pay agreements. So we've really focused our efforts in markets where those take or pays are more achievable to underwrite the financing. And I suspect that may have had some something to do with the group's they're being more aligned with US markets as well.

Amy Pepper

Roberto, please go ahead.

Unidentified Participant

Just to follow up on the debt facility, taking consideration Peter's comments on the different due diligence, to what extent, if any, is the current share price and the current NdPr share price impacting those negotiations?

Peter Sherrington

The NdPr price is really – the lenders are actually quite reliant on the independent market consultants' report. So there is a little bit of a look back to where the spot price is. But the lenders, I believe, are relatively comfortable around the demand/supply thematic that sits underneath the price forecast. So, it's not really impacting the – obviously, the pricing is reflected in the independent marketing consultants' report. So current spot price is not a big driver. It's obviously impacting the current share price. And I suppose the challenge for us is demonstrating with the lenders that we are bringing in some strategic investors, who will assist us being a cornerstone to the funding when we do go to the market. So they're probably focused more on what are the investors that we're bringing through as part of the funding before we go to market rather than what the share price is.

Certainly, that said, there's probably much more focus from us at Arafura on share price and the things we're trying to do to correct it and make the stock less attractive for shorting.

Gavin Lockyer

Peter, there was a couple of couple of questions online around the strategic equity and the sort of the plan for that? Maybe, it could be a good segue following those comments into that.

Peter Sherrington

Obviously, we've got a heads of agreement with Hyundai for strategic investment. There's a process underway – very professional process being run by Hyundai on the DD, on technical and also financial and legal review. This is their first significant investment this part of the value chain. And so, they've been very detailed in their approach. But I think we're very comfortable with the work that's been done there.

We also have engagement with a number of other automotive OEMs, who were trying to close out offtake. We won't get all of those with offtake and equity, but we would like to bring through at least one of those as part of the final funding and offtake solution.

In addition to that, we've engaged with a number of groups who are strategic investors in the resources space. We also have Hancock as a substantial shareholder. So, if we can deliver a project and a funding solution that makes sense to those groups, our plan would be to create a significant cornerstone with that group before we go to the market and the shareholders for the final funding solution.

The solution would be that we would get to credit approved term sheets with the lenders for the project and then we would look to go to the market once we're able to communicate to the market what the final funding solution is for a fully funded project.

Gavin Lockyer

And you touched on Hancock, Peter, and we've had a couple of questions come through on them. Yes, they submitted a while back a substantial interest notice, which meant that they were over 10% of the stock. They would have to submit – no longer a substantial interest holder if they had sold down their stock. So, no, they have not sold their stock, and they remain at the levels they were previously.

And just for those that have been contacting the office here, too, we're not in a position to provide private shareholder details around their holdings or their names and addresses, just as we wouldn't give out yours. So, please, if you know of people that are contacting the office trying to find out who's holding what stock in which names, then we're not at liberty to be able to disclose that information.

Amy Pepper

Mark Shouters [ph].

Unidentified Participant

Apologies if you've already answered. I've just come on recently. Can you just talk through the increase in CapEx around 5.7% basically the last 12 months and how confident you are in that thing so low compared to other mining projects around Australia, more specifically Linus, who have incurred quite a substantial increase? And also around what sort of debt to equity split percentage you expect on the Nolans project for financing?

Stewart Watkins

Do you want me to take the first part of it, Gav?

Gavin Lockyer

Go for it.

Stewart Watkins

I think where a lot of people get caught out by CapEx increases, particularly in the sort of environment that we've had, is they end up – they complete their study or their pricing in one environment and then they move forward into a new environment. And when prices are a lot higher and they get caught out by that move or they substantially change what they're actually planning on building. And I could point to any number of examples with both or – one or both of those outcomes that have caused significant blowouts in capital.

I think where we've tried to keep this right and what gives us a lot of confidence in the numbers that we're putting forward is we are a long way down the design track. We have got actual steel and tanks and concrete drawings actually being short detailed [ph] at the moment. So we have a lot of confidence in our engineering. We have a lot of confidence in what we're actually going to be building. There is a link on our website to the 3D model. And that's actually – that's not an artist's rendition. That is actually our 3D design model that is so highly detailed that we've got that. So, by having confidence in our pricing, we've been out and priced all our equipment. And whilst some of those, we might get a little bit of movement in them, we've built that into our trending. We know what we're going to build. We've priced it with our constructors we're going to work with. And that's what gives us a lot of confidence in that and how we've been able to manage to keep that that capital cost under control.

Don't think for a second there hasn't been hard work and the team is working overtime and continues to work overtime to find ways, better ways of doing things, to question everything we're putting into the project, to understand if there are opportunities to save money, to defer capital, and things like that. And so, we're very confident in the numbers we've got, and that we will be able to maintain them there, or certainly, very, very close to that.

I might pass over to Peter for the second part around the debt to equity.

Peter Sherrington

The debt will be less than 50%. Just below 50% of the total debt funding package. That's the target that we're trying to achieve based on the current funding structure that we've shared in the presentation.

Unidentified Participant

You guys have done extremely well to keep it to 5.7%, considering what we're seeing in markets. So you've got a AUD 1.7 billion CapEx with slightly less equity to debt. So you're looking at about AUD 100 million of equity and AUD 900 million of debt. Is that sort of what you're thinking, Peter?

Peter Sherrington

It's hard for me to nail it down on a number because we still need to work through the financing cost for the lenders. There'll be a need for a cost overrun facility. But I think they're probably a reasonable stab at the numbers and you're referring to Aussie dollars there, I suspect.

Unidentified Participant

Yeah, yeah. Just what you guys are reporting. So, is the AUD 1.7 billion all in? Or is it financing cost extras on top of that or…?

Peter Sherrington

I prefer to leave it until we can come back with a really detailed source and use of funds because there's always a chance that the lenders – they'll have a view on whether they want – what contingency they want us to have, those sorts of things. And so, there will be some fluidity until the final figures are nailed down. But I think the figures you sort of talking there are reasonable, but I would prefer to not give a definitive answer until we've got a good source and use of funds, which we'll have as we get closer to the funding.

Amy Pepper

Bennettt, we'll try again with you now, if you're able to unmute.

I'm sorry, we're not able to hear you again, Bennett.

I'll move to Brett [ph] and try you again in a moment.

Unidentified Participant

Thanks very much for the production today. And as a shareholder, I remain confident that this project is going to be an absolute winner in the end. And that's all I've got to say.

Gavin Lockyer

We believe that too. That's why we're all here.

Amy Pepper

Bennett, if you'd like to try and unmute and ask your question.

No, I'm sorry. We're still not able to hear you. I'm not sure what's happening there. York, I can see you have another question for the group.

Unidentified Participant

You have a contract with Siemens in Germany, Siemens Gamesa. Siemens, as you can hear from my deep southern accent in America, I'm German, actually, and living in the States and bought the first shares already in Germany, I don't know, 10 years ago or so. So Siemens Energy is in a kind of trouble. Would that have an impact on your contract?

Peter Sherrington

We obviously talk with Siemens Gamesa. We also talk with the lenders who were in within the group. And there's a European lender who is part of the MLA group. So the issues for Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy are in particular around some issues they've had with procurement that have required some rectification works. They've also been concerned about forward guarantees that are required from future construction contracts and how that will be a liquidity issue for them going forward in terms of providing those guarantees when they enter into their large construction contracts for the windmills.

So, I think there's a view that there is some challenges there. But I think the key thing is that we actually have a guarantee for our agreements where if the agreement is not with the parent entity, there's actually a guarantee in place. And those arrangements are settled and agreed with the lenders before we actually finalize the contract. As we come to completion of just about every material contract that is shared with the lenders and offtakes are a part of that, and so when we negotiate them, the lenders are part of those offtake agreements. And I think we try to mitigate those particular risks you're talking about by having a guarantee within the group that provides us with a bit more comfort.

Gavin Lockyer

Peter, Bennett typed his question through and it sits around the offtake. And the question is really, is there a problem getting some of the balance of offtakers across the line? The short answer is, no, there's not. But I don't know if you wanted to discuss where we're at with some of those advanced negotiations.

Peter Sherrington

Look, I think the key thing is, Gavin, you're right, no, there's not. I think with the last offtakers, there are a couple of very large groups, in particular, automotive OEMs, who are a little bit – they have a much larger business and there's more work to bring them through. We're allowing ourselves time to get the best possible outcome with the best offtakers we can get. And so, that's really – not so much a lack of lack of interest. It's more around maximizing what arrangements we get with the remaining offtakers.

Amy Pepper

Mark, just before I hand it back over to you, there is one additional question here that I thought I'd address about whether these calls will be on a more regular basis. And, yes, they will follow the release of each quarterly report in the same format going forward.

Mark Southey

I think that brings us to the end of the allotted time. There were some really good questions there. And I think it's good to do this. Obviously, it is a complex project with complex financing. And there's only a limit to the amount of information that we can obviously make publicly available. But there is, as always, a lot going on. There's a great deal happening. I'd like to thank Gavin, Peter and Stewart and also for the shareholders for your continued support and interest. And I think that bring us to the end of our allotted time. So, thank you, and until the next quarterly.