Westwater Resources Inc (WWR) 2008 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Greetings and welcome to the Uranium Resources Inc. first-quarter 2008 earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. (OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS). As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Ms. Deborah Pawlowski, Investor Relations for Uranium Resources. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you, Diego and good morning, everyone. We certainly appreciate your time and your interest in Uranium Resources. On the call today, we have President and CEO, Dave Clark; Rick Van Horn, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Tom Ehrlich, Chief Financial Officer and April Wade, Vice President of Communications and Government Relations.

You should have the press release that went out last night and if you don't have it, you can find it at www.uraniumresources.com. As you are aware, we may make some forward-looking statements during the formal presentation and the Q&A portion of this teleconference. Statements apply to future events, which are subject to risks and uncertainties, as well as other factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from where we are today. These factors are outlined in our earnings release, as well as in documents filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You can find those at our website or the SEC's website, which is www.SEC.gov. So please review our forward-looking statements in conjunction with these precautionary factors.

With that, let me turn it over to Dave to begin the discussion. Dave?

Good morning, everyone. Thanks, again, for your interest in the Company and my apologies for the early hour. The primary shareholder interest is, these days, focused on our acquisition of Rio Algom as it should be since this is a company-transforming event, as well as a transforming event for the uranium industry in New Mexico as a whole. So I want to begin by discussing the RAML transaction and trying to speak as simply and succinctly as I can since I am constrained of what I can say about the negotiations that are ongoing with individual companies for obvious business reasons.

There is no doubt this has been a long and frustrating process for the Company and our shareholders. The main source of frustration for us has been the lack of visibility of closing dates as I am sure you all feel. The original expectations were to close this deal by the end of the first quarter, which obviously passed away several weeks ago.

The first major hurdle we faced was completing an audit of Rio Algom. The audit that was done for BHP had to be redone by our auditors. We worked closely with BHP Billiton on that process. It took three months for us to complete and that was finished by the end of February.

The last real major hurdle of significance, as we can't close without it, is getting the concurrence of the NRC. Our understanding is that that review has been completed and that they are in the step of filing a public notice in the Federal Register and that filing is forthcoming.

What we don't know at this point is whether it will be a short 25-day review or a second version that can be slightly longer. Based on our expectation that this NRC concurrence will be done fairly soon, we agreed with BHP Billiton last week to extend the closing date by 60 days. I think this is an appropriate date given what we are expecting from the NRC and that is the last remaining hurdle. I also think it is a timeframe we can get this thing done and given the premise that the process will always take the time that you give it, I think 60 days is an appropriate time.

Now obviously the delay in closing has carried us into a more volatile stock market environment, one in which all deals have been very difficult to finance. We are also seeing a lot of weakness in the uranium markets since the beginning of the year. The problem for us is it has been difficult to have any kind of ability with the lack of visibility and a closing date to figure out what the market environment is going to be that we're facing when we do move towards closing.

The fact is our ability to finance is dependent on the near-term outlook for uranium while the benefits of the RAML acquisition won't be realized until the mill is built four or five years down the line. And many of you heard me speak lately about my own views of where the market goes. I think in the timeframe that we will be building this mill, the market will be substantially better. It will be in next leg of a bull market. The reality is that the short-term weakness will impact the long-term fundamentals of our Company though. The reality is the price is -- the price we can finance now will impact long-term returns.

I know there is a perceived threat of a parabolic dilution if we are to finance this transaction at any cost. The question is will the dilution kill the long-term benefits that we receive. What I can tell you is we are engaged with every interested party in New Mexico who has the same need as we do and that is the access to a local mill. There is general agreement that the RAML mill is the best site because of the time saved in licensing and building a new mill. We are working together with others and will continue to work together to satisfy our mutual need. It is in all of our interests to close this RAML transaction and I'm confident that we can get this done because it is in everybody's interest to do so.

That said, we know that RAML is the best site, but it is not the only site in New Mexico and we will proceed in a manner that is beneficial to our shareholders and not at any price. We are aware that -- as we have been moving forward with the RAML transaction, we have also been trying to rebuild in Texas. That is the core of our business, has been the core of our business. It does come at a cost of human and financial resources that some may feel is better used in New Mexico.

But what we have seen over the last year when we first did a drill-out program, we discovered we had enough reserves to continue to produce at 450,000 pounds through 2009. We then moved to acquire properties last year. We acquired Mosser and Marshall. We began exploration on those properties and expect to complete that by the end of this year.

As we said on the last call, we are seeing a lot of increased opportunities to acquire not only known reserves in South Texas, but properties that have a lot of potential as exploration targets. We are moving -- as these opportunities become available, we are moving to acquire these and it is -- we do face a lot of competition in Texas. When they become available, we needed to move quickly, not only because we had the risk of losing them, but because of the development, exploration, licensing and permitting leadtimes.

Given all the above, we think it is prudent to rebuild Texas as we continue to move towards production in New Mexico. And we will continue to do so. Our near-term goal is to be able to increase and extend our production past 2009. Our long-term goal is to rebuild this business back to a level, which can produce one million to two million pounds a year. Given all the opportunities we have been seeing and the actions we have been taking, I am confident we can get to that level.

As for production outlook, as we said on the last call, as our volume is -- our business is volume-sensitive. As volumes dropped off in the fourth quarter and first quarter, the cost increased. We are seeing increased production levels in the second quarter. We do have Rosita coming on in a week's time. That is who we will help and we are now seeing production that we expect to rise to 95,000 to 105,000 pounds this year and we still are on track to produce that 400,000 to 450,000 pounds this year.

Moving on to New Mexico, there are two basic areas I would like to discuss or we would like to discuss. First is an overview of project development and the second is community development. After I discuss project development, I am going to have April Wade speak for a few minutes on our efforts to address the political and social issues we are facing in New Mexico. I think you'll find that very helpful.

As far as our projects in New Mexico, our objective has been to look at projects that we can get online as quickly as possible and there are three areas we believe we can get in production within three years. The first one is the Church Rock/Crown Point project. As many of you may know, there was a hearing in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver yesterday. This is a case I know a lot of our shareholders have followed in the past. I was briefed briefly last night by our lawyers. They said there was basically no surprises in the hearing. It went as they expected.

A part of our argument was to point out to the 10th Circuit that there has been several decisions that have been written since they said that the [Benetod] case would not include the community of reference as far as applied to HRI and there has been several other cases that have discussed just that in deference to what the 10th Circuit Court has said.

We expect to hear a decision or get a decision out of the Courts within three to 12 months. There is no timeframe for appeals court decisions, but that is generally the timeframe that it takes. It is an important issue because once we get this resolved, these are in Court with a settlement. We can be producing one million pounds a year at Church Rock within 18 months of getting the permits.

We also announced on the last call and the 10-K that we were looking at developing ISR capability in the Ambrosia Lake district. We will be filing today a permit -- for permits to drill up to 10 holes in the Ambrosia Lake district on properties that we have that have about 2.5 million pounds on them. Our objective is to collect ore samples so we can perform bench tests to see if the properties are ISR-amenable. The permits should take a few months to get and we plan on doing the drilling and coring in the fall.

We are also looking at old stope leaching and the process there is to evaluate reopening of shafts and vent holes on company-owned properties and other properties in the Ambrosia Lake district. And then evaluating the technical and economic feasibility of moving forward with this. And all these three projects have the potential to be in production within three years and therefore, would come online before any conventional mill could come on.

Now looking at the bigger picture in New Mexico, I don't think it is any secret to anybody that our near and long-term value as a company is largely based on our ability to resolve Indian country issues, principally with the Navajo. Their primary concern has been about the safety of uranium mining in the future, that it can be done safely in an environmentally sound way. There is also sovereignty issues with the Navajo, which we are sensitive to and support.

I think what we need to do as a company is prove that uranium mining can be done safely and that it will not lead to future legacy problems that came with the uranium mining in the past. The company approach has always been a legal one and personally, I don't think that is the best way to build trust with the people who oppose us.

I believe we have made great strides over the past year, but particular over the last seven months and that has really been with the help of April Wade versus an outside consultant and then recently she joined the Company as VP of Communications and Government Affairs.

I can tell you changing public opinion does take a concerted effort. It doesn't happen overnight. The initiatives we are now making, principally led by April, are ones that the Company and the industry has a whole have not taken in the past in New Mexico and I think we are moving in the right direction and I think a lot of great strides have been made and the best person to describe those for you far more articulately than I can is April. So I would like to turn it over to April for a few minutes to describe the initiatives we have been making and progress we have been making in New Mexico. April?

Thank you, Dave. I just want to talk about what we have been doing in our grassroots campaign as a company and as an industry and what we have been doing that was government relations. We have been actively communicating with the local media and residents of McKinley and Cibola County in New Mexico and we have held a variety of meetings with local economic development groups, community leaders, rotary, chambers of commerce and we found that we have had a lot of support in those organizations and we have also found that they are willing to come out and support us publicly more and more so as we've progressed the last few months.

We also have conducted a statewide poll to get a perception of what the state -- the community has for the mining industry and what we found is two-thirds of the state believe that uranium mining is now safer and can be done in an environmentally responsive manner compared with the past. And that uranium mining will bring better paying jobs and improve the overall economic economy for the state. Those that oppose uranium industry, it sites the health and safety concerns. But what we found there is that we do have a lot of support, but what we found is that education will even gain us more support.

As with the industry, we have been leading up a group of other companies to develop an education campaign plus develop public meetings. One of the things we're working on together is an economic impact study to the region -- well, once the mining industry is up and running. We have done that as a company and as an industry group. We hope to have that done in the next couple of weeks and we will start presenting it to leaders, local leaders, the Governor and to the community.

We also are working with -- the state has put together a study on abandoned mines in the area and to get an idea of what the legacy issue really is out there, that study will not be done -- it was supposed to be done by the end of this month, but it won't be done until sometime in June, but that is to also help us with the legacy issue and working with the Governor's office on the legacy bill, which we did this past session. And the Governor has encouraged us to work with him again and the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, also the Lieutenant Governor, they have all encouraged us to work together and to develop another piece of legislation that they can get through next session.

We have also continued working with Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman's office, our Congressman, Heather Wilson and Congressman Pearce's office in keeping them up to date on the projects and our education efforts in the communities. They just ask that we continue it and keep it going. They found that it has been pretty successful the last few months. We did a letter-writing campaign for a Senate Energy Committee meeting about a month ago. Cibola County came up with 800 letters of support of the industry, which was huge. Dave, I believe that is all I have.

Okay, thank you, April. Now I will turn it over to Tom Ehrlich to discuss the financials for the first quarter.

Thank you, Dave. I will be going over the financial highlights for the first quarter of 2008, including items such as our production, our revenues and our costs for the quarter. Starting with production, we had just over 83,000 pounds produced in the first quarter. The vast majority of that, or 79,000 of those pounds, were produced from our Kingsville Dome project with the balance sourced from Vasquez. This quarter's production compares to the 68,000 pounds that we produced in the fourth quarter of last year.

Because our -- again, as Dave said, the production rates that we saw are less than our optimum production. Our production costs for the quarter rose to just under $50 a pound. Our operating costs making up $23 a pound of that and depreciation and depletion contributing just under $27 a pound. These compare to our production costs in the fourth quarter, which were in the $45 to $46 a pound range with operating costs being in the $34 and change and our depreciation depletion in the low $11 to $12 a pound range.

The production increases that we saw again this quarter compared to last resulted from the new production we saw from well fields that were brought on at Kingsville Dome in December of last year, also from a new well field brought on at Vasquez in mid-quarter, February of '08 and another well field was brought on at Kingsville late in March of this quarter.

We are also projecting start up of production at Rosita in the next week or two. As Dave said, we are expecting our second-quarter production to range in the 95,000 to 105,000 pound range. Again, with these increases coming from the new well fields at Kingsville, Vasquez and Rosita.

At the end of the quarter, we had just over 23,000 pounds of inventory and we are carrying that inventory at an average cost of $34 -- sorry -- $36.41. Our sales for the quarter, we had $5.7 million of revenue on 81,100 pounds with an average sales price we received of $70.66. This compares to last quarter where we had 113,000 pounds of sales at an average price of $72.72, which again contributed $8.2 million in revenue. So far in the second quarter of '08, our sales basically in April, we have averaged just under $70 a pound for what we sold this quarter.

Moving down to our cost of uranium sales, our direct cost of uranium that were sold in the first quarter, these costs are comprised of operating expenses and depreciation and depletion and they totaled to just over $50 a pound. $26 which, were operating and $23.80, which were depreciation and depletion. These per-pound costs compare to the roughly $39 a pound we saw in the fourth quarter. Royalties and commissions for the quarter were $560,000, roughly 9.8% of our sales and it clocked in at $6.91 a pound.

Our general and administrative costs for the first quarter were about $2.7 million compared to $3.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2007. The major categories of BG&A expenses we had during the quarter were our personnel costs of about $840,000, our stock compensation expense, which is again a non-cash item of $654,000, consulting and professional services of just over $500,000 and legal, accounting, and other public company expenses of $283,000.

Our cash flow, we had a cash balance of just over $5 million at the end of March. During the quarter, we generated cash positive cash flow from operations of $808,000 and we had capital expenditures for basically uranium property plant and equipment of $4.8 million. The majority of those being Kingsville Dome of $2.2 million for well field development evaluation drilling, plant and dryer upgrades and we also had costs to resume production activities at our Rosita project of about $1.8 million, well field development at Vasquez again to bring on that new well field of $200,000 and then other costs related to our New Mexico and Texas projects.

In addition, as part of our investing activities, we contributed $300,000 to additional financial surety requirements related for posting with our Texas agencies -- our Texas state regulators. Dave?

I think we are ready for questions.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS). David Snow, Energy Equities.

Yes, hi. Dave, first of all, I have some potential sources for financing if you do decide to go forward with the mill and I would love to catch up with you off-line to go over those and see if they fit with your -- if they would fit with the Company's profile. Could I catch you afterwards for that or sometime in the near term?

You can do that. The best way obviously to get a hold of me is through Debbie as I think you've found in the past, but thank you for your comment.

And then I am trying to just look at the annual report. Apparently, the water rights are [contestable] by the Navajos. Is that going to be jeopardizing the Company's long ballyhooed strength of having water rights? It sounds like it will come under their purview if I am reading the page 15 of the annual report correctly.

Are you talking about the water rights for the RAML acquisition?

No, in general, it appears that they can contest the state engineer's granting of water rights and jurisdiction over the water rights becomes an issue in New Mexico when an Indian nation objects to the state engineer's authority and claims tribal jurisdiction. Does that potentially put all of your water rights in play with the Navajo issue?

I am not well-versed in that issue. I do know that there is negotiation going on between the state and the Navajo nation over water rights and primarily refers to the reservation itself. We know that that is ongoing. We monitor that. We don't, at this point, think there is any risk to the water rights we have.

Okay and I am wondering also the expansive definition that the EPA has adopted is potentially affecting up to 84% of your properties. I guess which ones aren't affected would be the easiest way to ask that question.

Well, that 84% really refers to if you take the strictest definition of Indian country as proposed and all our properties have varying shades of gray, so it is the worst-case scenario. The same standards do not apply to everything we have, so it is a worst-case scenario. The properties we have in Ambrosia Lake, the Roca Honda, the Ambrosia Lake ISR properties and again, the other projects we have different issues versus what we are dealing with at Church Rock.

Okay. So Church Rock would be the main one.

Church Rock is what is being determined in the Courts because the section of that land has never been owned by the Navajo nation and it is a question of -- it is private property, we on the surface and the mineral and it really is a constitutional issue -- do we have the right to mine on something we own.

Okay. And then I am wondering with the Chinese coming into this BHP/Rio deal could put this whole mill off the market again as has happened in their Wyoming mill in the past?

I'm not sure I quite followed that one.

Well, it looks like BHP is looking any day to wake up to having 10% owned by the Chinese, which would block the merger, which might block the need to dump the US assets by Rio.

Well, Rio -- Well, that -- Rio made the decision, again I can't speak for them, but that they were non-core assets to [RTZed], so they made the decision to put both Sweetwater and Kintyre on the market. That was being discussed before BHP moved, so I am not sure if it affects that at all.

Okay. And then I am just trying to get an idea as to whether -- two new well fields in Vasquez is a departure from a previous idea of letting that property run down until it went out of uranium. Are you now trying to revive it as an ongoing project?

No, we brought on only one well field at Vasquez. It was an extension of well field 6, which had very good recovery on it, the best we had over Vasquez. So it was an extension of that, so we made the decision in the fall to bring that on. It is a small well field.

Okay. And after that, that one will run down?

Correct.

Okay. And then the GE/UNC demand for you to be held liable if Navajos come after you on this Church Rock past contamination, is this -- where does that stand? Can you give us some color on that one?

This is on section 17 at Church Rock. It used to be an underground mine. The only contamination was ore coming to the surface. It was never a processing facility other than that. Maybe Rick can elaborate on that, but you are talking about 0.1% grade uranium that was on the surface. It is something we have been working with the Navajo and with GE to resolve. It is not -- they came out and tested the site with the Navajo EPA, did not find anything that we had not stated in the licensing process. Is there more you can add to that, Rick?

The material on site had been -- we have tested it before. The NRC knew of it and it was considered as background as far as the NRC was concerned. This is material that is -- it is an ore material. It is a mine -- low grade material from the mines. There are several ways to handle it and we are talking with the EPA, the Navajo EPA now on potential ways to handle it and we are, for the first time in a long time, having a dialogue with them. So I think it is going well.

How about the GE engagement in that issue? Are they going to put some more pressure on you?

GE is working with us in the discussions with the Navajo and like I say, I think they are going well and right now, there is no pressure being put on us by GE.

Okay. Well, I will get out of queue for the moment and thank you very much.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS). [Steven Hart], Heather Capital Partners.

Dave, can you just go over once again the expected timeline of the BHP as far as what has to happen in what order, the NRC transfer and things like that and then finally raising the capital?

Okay. Obviously, we need the NRC concurrence before we close. That is a condition of closing. And we are not acquiring the NRC license; we are acquiring the company that has an NRC license. So they have to concur on that. We already have an NRC license, so we had already gone through the vetting process for that.

We have been working with BHP and meeting with the NRC to get that done and what we have been told is they are basically at the end of that review process, that the next step is to issue a public notice in the Federal Register and we expect that -- maybe Rick can elaborate on this as well. One procedure is simply a 25-day comment period and once that comes back, we don't think there is going to be much more to completing that process. So once we get that in hand or have the ability to identify when that is going to be complete, then we will have an idea of when we can close.

So issuing the public notice, that is when it is complete?

That is part of their requirement.

Okay. So that could be anywhere from, what, 25 days to, what, 100 days?

Rick, can you elaborate more on that?

This is for change in in-direct control of RAML. The license doesn't change. It remains in RAML and they have a 25-day public notice period where they publish in the Federal Register, give the public a chance to comment and then at the end of the comment period, they typically issue, unless there people with standing, they will issue the concurrence letter, which basically says that as soon as we post bond, then they will transfer the control of the company or they will allow the transfer of the control of the company. This can happen anytime during the 25-day period or for some period after that. I don't, as far as can it be under, yes, but we are not anticipating that. They want to get it published in the Federal Register so the clock could get ticking.

Okay and you expect then to issue that public notice when? What would be the range of when they would issue that?

Well, we were told a couple weeks ago that it would be this past week. It did not happen. We had another conversation with the NRC and they said it would happen within two weeks, no longer than two weeks from now.

Okay. And then they have that roughly 25-day period. Then they would issue it once you post bond. Is that at the point you would have to close financing?

Yes, that would be concurrent with the closing of financing. But what they are going to do is they are going to issue a concurrence letter. The letter will state in it that they are in agreement with the transfer of the control of RAML and they will issue a license amendment to that effect when the appropriate bond is posted and we anticipate that that would be in or around the closing date. But they will not -- they will not actually transfer the control -- allow the transfer of control until there is adequate financial surety posted.

Okay. And the financing -- well, first up on the financing, with this whole process taking much longer than you expected and the price of uranium dropping significantly, is there an opportunity to renegotiate the price at this point or the price is set in stone?

We are not going to talk about any of our negotiations with any of the companies involved. Obviously, we're talking to all those in the district who have need for a mill and working transactions on that side and an ongoing discussion with BHP, but I am not going to talk about anything specifically.

Okay. So your ongoing discussions also though relate to lining up the capital to be able to do this, right? So you are running the parallel process of lining up the capital to be ready for closing?

Right. And given our ability to do that obviously, but that is where the visibility comes in. We need to know when closing can take place and seeing what is happening in the equity and uranium market at that point in time. The outlook has changed almost on a weekly basis sometimes. Until we get that visibility, it is hard to set that tone. As we said back in the beginning, we are trying to work all things against the middle to make the best deal for URI shareholders. So as far as what we do with all parties involved, it depends on what is available at that point in time. That what's makes it complex and frustrating and the stretch on the time did not help for sure.

All right. Thanks, guys.

(OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS). [Jimmy Gibbert], [Rice Voelker].

Hey, Dave. It's [Jimmy Gibert].

I thought you would correct that pronunciation.

I find myself doing that a lot. Can you talk to us a little more about the possible acquisitions in Texas and just looking for maybe some more specifics, some more general specifics if you could?

I appreciate the question because I think I have fumbled through my notes on that one. We have just seen a lot of opportunity come in the last -- principally in the last six months. Our initial hope was to get RAML closed so that we could get to work on rebuilding Texas. It was a matter of I think decreased competition we were seeing in Texas from other uranium companies, didn't have the wherewithal to compete there anymore and the drop in price frankly that helped open up opportunities to people that were not leasing all of a sudden turned around and started to look to lease.

And there is the two categories of areas that had known reserves on them and areas that really hadn't been explored before, but have great potential for having uranium on them because of the oil and gas below the fault structure and the whole nine yards. We are aggressively moving on both fronts. We are seeing a lot of movement there. There is a lot of activity and potential for us to acquire properties.

As we said on the last call, as we pick these things up, we will make a decision at that point in time how to work the deals. But it is still a competitive environment. I can't get into specifics on properties because once you have set a marker, it is possible to lose properties.

And also could you tell us -- I think last time we might have talked about the cataloging and digitizing of the database that covers the New Mexico region. Can you talk a little bit about where you are in that process?

We have digitized over 17,000 logs and we are now going through the process of doing the well reserve maps and the mine maps and everything else. The main objective for this is obviously getting information in a way we can use it better, but it is also security of the information itself. It is all on paper and we we're worried about loss of that due to fire or anything else, but that is -- let me turn it over to Rick and have him elaborate more on what is going on there since he is in charge of that.

It says we have digitized most all the logs we have. In the process of cataloging these logs, if you remember, we originally said we had 16,000. We have now somewhere north of 18,000 logs covering the whole Grants mineral belt and while this is winding down, we are ramping up the digitizing of paper maps, of mylar and of various reports that have been done on the property. Again, so we can access them electronically, we can transfer them office to office, but mostly, as Dave said, more disaster recovery. These files have stayed out there for 10 years. We have had a good caretaker out there making sure that nothing happened to them, but as we get a bigger and bigger profile here, we are also the target for mischief and that is one of the things that concerns me and that is why we are pressing forward with this endeavor.

Okay, I appreciate that. Thanks a lot, fellows. We will see you soon.

Thanks, Jimmy.

David Snow, Energy Equities.

Yes, the Texas acquisition was right there on the top of -- so it has been answered. Thanks.

There are no further questions at this time. I will turn the conference back over to Mr. Clark for closing comments.

Thank you. In closing, I would just like to talk about what we mentioned earlier. We are obviously moving towards a close with RAML. That depends on the NRC concurrence and that is something that we think we are moving forward with and finally, we can get in on this long frustrating process of getting approvals and things in place we need to be able to close, but we are confident we are going to be able to do that. The 60-day extension gives us the time to do that.

We are also working on projects in New Mexico that can come over the next three years, mainly the Church Rock Court decision and whether we can negotiate a settlement and as well as the Olympic or Ambrosia Lake ISR project, NOSL.

As these go on, we are also rebuilding our core business in Texas by aggressively going after exploration targets and known reserves so that we can increase and extend our production beyond 2009. That too we think is valuable to do and that we will be able to do.

With that said, that is where we stand for now. We thank you for your time and interest in URI. Thank you.

Thank you. This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you all for your participation.