Arq, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARQ) Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Arq, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARQ) Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript November 6, 2025

Operator: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Arq Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] This call is being recorded on Thursday, November 6, 2025. I will now turn the conference over to Anthony Nathan. Please go ahead.

Anthony Nathan: 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.

Robert Rasmus: Thank you, Anthony, and thanks to everyone for joining us this morning. Our PAC business delivered yet another strong quarter. The continued and ongoing 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.

Jay Voncannon: Thanks, Bob, and thanks, everyone, for joining us today. Notwithstanding the impact of the granular activated carbon ramp-up, Arq continued to deliver strong financial results during the third quarter. With revenue of $35.1 million, this continues to be driven largely by enhanced contract terms, including a 7% growth in average selling price year-on-year, in part the result of ongoing successful end market diversification. Our gross margin in the quarter was 28.8%, well below our steady-state margin of recent quarters, primarily due to the negative impact of GAC fixed production costs as we ramped up volumes. We continue to incur post-commissioning costs associated with preproduction feedstock used in our granular activated carbon line.

Additional negative impact to margin this quarter was related to low volumes versus higher fixed cost. We generated positive adjusted EBITDA of approximately $5.2 million compared to adjusted EBITDA of $9 million in the prior year period. I would note that the — consistent with many market participants beginning in Q1 2025, we have added back stock-based compensation as a part of our adjusted EBITDA calculation and revised corresponding 2024 adjusted EBITDA calculations for comparability. As Bob noted, this quarter saw a significant anticipated ramp-up costs associated with GAC. As we continue to work to get the GAC line to run rate capacity with only approximately 2 months of commercial production in Q3, margins were materially impacted by the high fixed production costs related to granular activated carbon.

While we do not intend to split our business lines in the future for competitive reasons, I think it is important to note today that we achieved an extremely strong quarter in regards to our PAC performance. As noted earlier, our third quarter adjusted EBITDA performance of $5.2 million included several million dollars of nonrecurring expenses associated with handling and post-commissioning costs for our GAC ramp as well as impacts due to inefficiencies driven by low early ramp volumes. Q3 is often a strong quarter for us, but this was an especially solid quarter for our PAC business, demonstrating not only the impact of our enhanced pricing, but also our cost reduction initiatives. We incurred a net loss of approximately $700,000 versus net income of $1.6 million in Q3 of 2024, primarily attributable to the high fixed production cost on initial volumes from our Phase 1 GAC line as we continue to ramp up to nameplate capacity.

Selling, general and administrative expenses totaled $4.6 million, reflecting a reduction of approximately 43% versus the prior year period. This reduction was primarily driven by payroll and benefits as well as general and administrative expenses. Research and development costs for the third quarter increased to $2.6 million, up from approximately $800,000 in the prior year quarter. This increase was primarily attributable to the ramp-up of the GAC line we discussed earlier. Overall, our performance in Q3 2025 demonstrates our ability to operate our PAC business efficiently such that it contributes very positively and sustainably to our economic position, while further enabling us to pursue and execute on anticipated high-growth and high-margin opportunities with our expanding GAC business.

As always, we remain focused on enhancing the profitability of our PAC business even further, and I believe that is how a business which can, on a medium-term basis, feasibly generate significantly greater than our previous target of simply covering maintenance CapEx. To discuss the impacts of the quarter on our balance sheet, let me turn it over to our Chief Accounting Officer, Stacia Hansen.

Stacia Hansen: 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.

Robert Rasmus: 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, is 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 to an attractive business generating attractive 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.

Q&A Session

Operator: [Operator Instructions] And the first question comes from Gerry Sweeney at ROTH Capital.

Gerard Sweeney: Bob, I’m just going to — I don’t know if you can answer this or would want to answer this. But what — how much GAC are you producing at spec? And I think what people want to know or what I would like to know is where you are today versus what nameplate capacity is?

Robert Rasmus: We’re producing less than we want to. That’s for sure. What we’re producing is on spec as it relates to that. You’re right that for competitive reasons, I’m not going to — and for other reasons, I’m not going to give you the specific answers. But it’s clear that the suboptimal production volumes are impacting our gross margin and our financial results.

Gerard Sweeney: 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?

Robert Rasmus: And so if you look at it, what is breakeven, we have an idea what that is on that. But as we start out — any time you start out a new production process, there are going to be costs associated with the ramp-up. The costs have clearly been greater than we had anticipated, and we’ve had some greater difficulty in ramping up the production volume as it relates to that. And progress isn’t linear. We believe that the best thing to do long term is to both evaluate blending of a feedstock, drier feedstock to overcome some of these design issues. That will help us get to profitability and commercial production even faster.

Gerard Sweeney: 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?

Robert Rasmus: 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.

Gerard Sweeney: 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?

Robert Rasmus: 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.

Gerard Sweeney: No. I mean, listen, 3Q — ASPs were up year-over-year and coal plants aren’t being shut down as fast. So, I mean there’s demand for PAC out there. So, I mean, it would have been a very strong for the PAC business. I get it.

Operator: The next question comes from George Gianarikas at Canaccord Genuity.

George Gianarikas: I’d like to dig in some more on the Corbin feedstock. I’m just curious what — can you go into a little bit more detail around what you mean about variability? And when did you figure out that this was an issue? And I’m assuming that there had been tests prior to starting production that indicated that this wouldn’t. So just a little bit more detail as to exactly what you discovered and when?

Robert Rasmus: Sure. This is really a design flaw issue. We always knew as part of our due diligence that there would be variability in the feedstock from Corbin. Regarding the design issues, we worked through many of those design flaws in the original engineering to just be able to complete commissioning and achieve commercial production. But those design flaws and some of those design flaws and constraints still impact our production on the granular Line 1 are essentially that the original engineering firm really failed to account for the moisture content and variability in the feedstock in the design of some of the openings and chutes and some of the — if you consider what you have extremely sharp angles, which led to inefficiencies and led to plugging and tarring on that. So, we knew there was going to be variability, but that the design did not account for that.

George Gianarikas: Right. So, this sort of begs the question if it’s a design issue as opposed to necessarily a feedstock issue because the feedstock is something that you knew about going in, wouldn’t — why are you exploring other alternatives to feedstock as opposed to just redesigning the facility?

Robert Rasmus: Redesigning the facility would cost more. We know that. And we think that — one of the issues relates to, as I say, if you think of a 90-degree angle and you’re trying to push product that has some moisture content or some sticky content through that 90-degree angle, it’s going to catch on that — the [ curbs ] and on the corners, et cetera. By blending it with drier coal and reducing that moisture content on the input, it makes it easier to make that it’s less likely to stick for lack of a more technical term as it relates to going around those corners. So, it would be easier to blend that feedstock and cheaper than it would be to redesign and put in place the additional equipment.

George Gianarikas: All right. And maybe just last question. In terms of — I think it was asked previously as well. How do we think about the long-term margin implications of some of the changes you’re making?

Robert Rasmus: 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.

Operator: The next question comes from Aaron Spychalla at Craig-Hallum.

Aaron Spychalla: Maybe just one on GAC. I mean, can you just — maybe at a high level, just what gives you confidence in hitting the mid-2026 targets? I mean, have you started to implement some of these design tweaks? Or are you seeing some benefit from the changes you’re making on the feedstock side? It doesn’t sound like there’s a lot of cost you’re expecting, but just again, trying to just understand the confidence in reaching these targets.

Robert Rasmus: Yes. Sure. Great question, Aaron. And I’m going to apologize in advance because it’s going to be — either depending on your point of view, long-winded or you ask what time it is, I’m going to tell you how to make a watch. But I think it’s important to provide that context. As everybody knows, the design flaws led to the delays in commissioning the granular activated carbon facility earlier this year. And while we successfully addressed those issues to complete commissioning, the same design flaws as we’ve mentioned, have continued to affect our ongoing granular activated carbon production and the ramp-up to full capacity. And in answer to your question, I think it’s important to provide context as to why and how we expect to achieve full run rate production around mid-2026.

So going into that detail, and also this is some additional detail for George’s question as well. The initial design and construction included a 320-foot off-gas line from the [indiscernible]. The design was not only inefficient but unworkable. And part of the original commissioning delay stemmed from addressing design defects in the system that led to the cooling of the line and subsequent tar and plugging and particulate plugging really. So, in collaboration with a new engineering firm, we determined that installing a thermal oxidizer and shortening that off-gas line from 320 feet to 28 feet was the best solution. Locating a suitable unit, a suitable thermal oxidizer was difficult as really only one with the required specifications existed in the U.S. We have secured that on a rental basis.

And once installed, it enabled us to have successful plant commissioning and to start commercial production. And after getting that thermal oxidizer successfully in place and beginning production, we determined that the current rental thermal oxidizer could really only support production of about 15 million pounds of granular activated carbon per year. As a result, in working with that new design firm, we now plan to purchase and install a purpose-built thermal oxidizer, which is designed to support 25 million pounds of granular activated carbon production a year. The lead time for construction and installation of this new purpose-built 25-million-pound capable thermal oxidizer is why we have moved our expectations of full run rate production to around mid-2026.

That is when we expect to receive and install that purpose-built thermal oxidizer. And once on site, installation will take about 6 days — 1 day to cool the existing unit, 1 day for removal and 4 days for replacement and connections. The GAC production will have to pause for roughly 1 week during this process, but operations should quickly get to full run rate capacity once installation is complete because all we’re changing then at that point is working through the full capacity of the — having a thermal oxidizer, which allows us to get to 25 million pounds, and we’re confident we’ll be able to have solved the input issues prior to that time. Logical question is, what’s it going to cost? The new thermal oxidizer will require an estimated total investment of $8 million to $10 million.

That includes roughly $3 million for the equipment and the remainder is for installation. The vast majority of the spending will occur at the time of final shipment and installation. This will be funded as 2026 CapEx, and based on our conversations with current and potential lenders, along with our available cash and operating cash flow, we believe that this can be readily funded in a capital-efficient manner. And to minimize disruption, we plan to complete our biannual TAR during that same period, that way we avoid any additional planned downtime in ’26 or ’27. So, I apologize for being so long-winded, but I think it’s important to show that — the detail behind why we have changed our prognosis.

Aaron Spychalla: No, I appreciate that color. That’s helpful. And then you kind of talked to — I mean, on the PAC business, if you back out a few million dollars, obviously, really good margin performance. It seems like the outlook still remains strong there. Can you just kind of talk about that and potential further diversification and kind of ASPs and just with the outlook on the PAC side?

Robert Rasmus: Sure. We had, again, another strong quarter of average selling price increase. We were up 7% year-over-year, 6% quarter-to-quarter. That pace has abated somewhat from our previous quarters of 9% or better double-digit — or excuse me, average selling price increases. And it was natural. We couldn’t continue that cadence forever. We still expect to see continued improvement from the PAC business and the PAC-related results from a combination of increased volumes. We are still seeing increased average selling prices and also the additional fixed cost absorption related to additional volumes. As it relates to new markets, our sales force has done an outstanding job of looking to develop and penetrate additional markets. And those additional markets also have higher average selling prices than some of our additional outlets. So, we’re optimistic about the future for PAC as our foundational business.

Operator: The next question comes from Peter Gastreich at Water Tower Research.

Peter Gastreich: 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?

Robert Rasmus: Our customers have been great with this. We work closely with all of our contracted customers to provide visibility on production outlet — output, excuse me, 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.

Peter Gastreich: Okay. Great. So, my second question, just following on from the previous question about the PAC prices. Yes, congratulations. It’s great to see. Even though the momentum has slowed year-on-year, you’re still able to raise, which is really commendable. I just wanted to ask though, is that — for that 7% increase, are we talking purely about the PAC there? Or are we seeing any kind of a net measurable impact from the GAC spot volumes that you mentioned?

Robert Rasmus: 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.

Peter Gastreich: 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?

Jay Voncannon: Peter, this is Jay. Yes, the SG&A reductions are coming from prior year to this current year. And yes, those are definitely sustainable. We actually think that the — we’ll see as a percentage of revenue as the granular line comes up and starts coming up in ’26, you’ll start seeing SG&A as a percentage of revenue decline because we don’t anticipate needing to increase the SG&A cost as we ramp up the GAC line. With regard to, I think, your second question there, which is on the reclassification into R&D, most of that — we won’t have that going forward. We did that reclass also in Q2 as it relates to preproduction volumes as we were commissioning — bringing the granular activated line to a commissioning point.

So, most of that cost that was reclassed in Q3 was the July and really like 1 week of August cost for preproduction volumes. Once we commissioned the facility, all of that cost has been running through the cost of goods sold line. And that’s why we’re seeing an impact, the negative — or the margin in Q3 was negatively impacted by those fixed costs being spread across fewer pounds as we are not up to really a breakeven point yet for granular.

Operator: The next question comes from Tim Moore at Clear Street.

Tim Moore: 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?

Jay Voncannon: I mean what I would say is as we’re producing volumes at this suboptimal point level, there’s a lot of fixed cost at the plant that’s getting — as I said, getting spread across fewer volumes, which are dragging the gross margin. I would — what I would say is that it’s not the fixed cost is going to go up. So, the fixed cost is pretty stable. So, what we’ll continue to see is probably in Q4 and in Q1 of next year, margins similar to what we produced in Q3. And it’s until we’re able to get the volume up and actually have more pounds to sell and spreading those costs across that greater pounds, then we’ll see the margin improve. So, I would expect probably for the next 2 quarters and probably even some even into Q3 when we — once we get the new oxidizer installed — I mean Q2 of next year, get the new oxidizer installed that we’ll probably see a fairly consistent gross margin.

Now we’re also expecting — hopefully, we’ll see a continued improvement in PAC as we have demonstrated over the last 12 months. And so that may offset some of that as we continue to grow and improve PAC performance going into next year as well.

Tim Moore: That’s really helpful color on the cadence of — and the other question I had was — I understand right now with GAC revenue not that much, it will be pretty sizable by the June quarter. And for competitive reasons, you might not want to disclose it. [ Cal Carbon ] is owned by another firm. It’s a small sliver of their conglomerate. Do you think though at some point, I mean, given that it’s 25 million pounds, we had another more lines that you think you would break out maybe a year or 2 from now or GAC revenue, just to have the difference and especially when maybe it starts cannibalizing PAC a little bit on the feedstock later on?

Robert Rasmus: 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.

Jay Voncannon: What I would say also add to Bob’s comments is once we get to the 25 million nameplate and then we add another line 2, and we’re then at $50 million of capacity. I mean, we’re probably — we’re at about 100 million pounds capacity on the PAC. There, you’ll be able to — again to see, you can do correlations and kind of — it wouldn’t take — wouldn’t be very difficult to back into what the ultimate margin is between the 2. So that will — and as we continue to grow and we start seeing PAC get cannibalized, as you mentioned, yes, there probably will become a point where we’ll be — the bulk of our discussion in the MD&A and the Q will be around the granular business and the PAC will be just kind of a base level that we know and talk.

Tim Moore: 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 increase when you start year-over-year on the GAC.

Operator: We have no further questions. I will turn the call back over to Bob Rasmus for closing comments.

Robert Rasmus: 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.

Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes your conference call for today. We thank you for participating, and we ask that you please disconnect your lines.