Gerry Sweeney: Second question. How are you going to communicate maybe some of these next steps? I think even in yesterday’s presentation, you had some ramps in production, you had the Leidos report that comes out. Will you be able to highlight maybe pound production per month? I think you had a progression in yesterday’s presentation that was in the 8-K? Or will that be in the Leidos report? Obviously, every month production goes up, things look better and better for PureCycle. So just curious if you’re going to communicate any of these steps in between quarterly results.
Dustin Olson: Yes. I think, that as we get into milestone closure, I think that that would likely be a public disclosure that we would announce to the market to show that we have reached specific milestones at Ironton. Certainly, as we get to mechanical completion and first pellets and first applications, we’re going to be celebrating that in the market. So you’ll see information there. And we referenced it a little bit in our presentation today, but it’s our intention to start publishing, let’s say, a series of videos to the market to give people a sense for what we see. I mean, Gerry, quite frankly, when you’re walking around the facility and you see it coming together, it gives you so much excitement in the field. And we have the benefit of that every day and we want to be able to share that with folks that are on the line, because you’ve been there on the journey with us but you haven’t had the benefit of being in the field with us.
So we’ll be doing quite a bit of specific comms stuff over the next one to two months that should help fill in all of you on what we’re doing.
Operator: Our next question is coming from Thomas Boyes of Cowen.
Thomas Boyes: Just a couple of quick ones. Obviously, appreciate the level of disclosure as it relates to Ironton plan economics. But I was just wondering for like the long term Ironton view of what that could look like, what is kind of a reasonable timeline to get to that point, is that something that you could conceivably see in 2024 or is this more of a kind of 2025 type of view?
Dustin Olson: I would say, there are aspects of that that we will begin working immediately. I mean, one of the key areas for us to reconcile is the utility requirements for this facility. We have estimates right now and as we look at them, it appears to us that we’re going to have some flexibility to beat our original design. So things like that that as we start running, I think, we’ll see the real impact of that, put some actuals next to the design numbers and I think you’ll see that immediately. With respect to some of the other line items, the short term support and the kinks or the short term — the increased fixed cost to the facility. Look, I think that with normal projects like this, typically, you see your problems early, you work through them and then that drops pretty quickly.
So I think there’s good optimism that we can see the long term Ironton economics in a shorter term versus a longer term. But this is the first technology plant. We’ve got a lot of, let’s say, wood to chop over the next few days or next few months and we’ll be able to update the market better in the coming quarters on where we stand with respect to the long term view.
Thomas Boyes: And do you have a sense maybe just to bucketize them or prescribe a proportion of just where you think that you have the most leverage in those three kind of long term aspirations to get to that long term model?
Dustin Olson: I think the variable that we are most interested in watching closely is variable costs. And as we start the facility and start consuming electricity and start running our boilers for steam, we’re going to know that very quickly. And I suspect that will be an area of significant discussion in the future.
Thomas Boyes: And then just looking back at the 3Q presentation, you had mentioned kind of the long lead time items. I believe it was in 90 weeks. Has that improved or is the monies that you’ve put out for Augusta in 4Q, has that secured those items? And then maybe as a read through what are kind of the expectations for Augusta to begin to ramp?
Dustin Olson: So we have purchased all of the critical long lead equipments and these are thing — not all, the first tier of long lead equipments we have purchased. So this includes things like our extruders, our vessels, things like this that are highly engineered and take time to build and deliver. And you’ve really got to be part of a pipeline of work. So getting in the queue to get that done is important. We’ve done that and actually equipment is starting to show up at our Beaumont facility and getting ready for build. We’re getting into, what I would call, tier two long lead items, which is we — once we have clarity and closure with the AEDA on the forbearance and we give the green light fully for this project to move forward, it will kick off the project in full steam, and the long pole in the tent at that point will be our utility plant.
And so we anticipate an 18 month, 18 to 20 month timeframe for our utility plant to be initiated and then finished. And so I think that we’re working on — I would say, that’s probably the outside date for our overall project is to get the full plant built inside of the utility plant and the utility plant will start once we have the AEDA closed.
Thomas Boyes: And maybe just one more, just a question around cash for an expectations given the potentially higher industry costs associated with the revolver withdraw, if you draw it down coupled with corporate , because I believe the Ironton economics that’s the corporate overhead associated with the plant specifically. So I’m just kind of looking for a general burn rate.
Larry Somma: So we’ve talked about burn in the past as being roughly 5 million to 6 million per month, which included all of the operating costs associated with Ironton. Once Ironton becomes operational, you would expect that our burn would be in the range of 3 million to 3.5 million at the corporate overhead level. Obviously, that will vary depending on initiatives that are going on that are strategic. So that’s your burn. And then we’re just being very careful about the commitments we make to continue to progress aspects of the Augusta project, as Dustin just mentioned, because we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. We want to make sure that we have the right financing long term in place. As I referenced before, we are not going to be drawing significant amounts in the Sylebra line to pay large amounts of equipment purchases for Augusta. It just doesn’t make sense and that’s not what that line is intended for.
Dustin Olson: I would also add to that, Thomas, that inside of the remaining, so remove the Ironton cost structure out of corporate burn, inside of the remaining burn, the 3% to 3.5% that Larry mentioned, that’s also the project staff required to move the Augusta project, okay? So as we finalize the project, we have funding in place for that project. Additional corporate overhead burn will move to that project as well and further reduce the number, okay? So right now, the corporate overhead is carrying the entire company, everything for Ironton, everything for Augusta and everything for the JVs. And as those projects become financed, the overall corporate overhead burn will continue to reduce.
Operator: Our next question is coming from Hassan Ahmed – Alembic Global.
