Earnings Call: Q3 2025

Nov 11, 2025

Hey, everyone. Welcome to another results call with Verde AgriTech. My name is Cristiano Veloso. I am the founder and CEO of Verde AgriTech. Today, we have here Felipe Paolucci, our Chief Financial Officer, who's also gonna be presenting. If you're watching this on YouTube, please do not forget to subscribe to our channel. If you know anyone who might like this presentation, information and discussion, please make sure you share it as well. You help us reaching out to more people who might be interested in the work we are doing. Felipe, if you could please share your screen. I would like to thank all of you who have taken your time to watch this presentation live, and we look forward, as usual, to answering all of your questions at the end of this presentation. Likewise, if you ever have any questions, recommendations, suggestions, criticism, do not hesitate to contact us at your most convenient time, and we will be looking forward to communicating with you. As we start today's presentation, I would like to remind you that today's presentation contains forward-looking statements. You should be looking at the next slide now, where it contains our cautionary statements, our risk factors as well on our appropriate filed documents. Next slide, Felipe. Starting our presentation today with a little bit of the horrible macroeconomic and market overview, which unfortunately has been our reality now since the end of 2022 when it all begun. Hopefully, we're coming to the end of it. Hopefully, the fact we've been able to have the very first positive EBITDA quarter in over two years, I think hopefully this is the end of this atrocious Brazilian great agricultural crisis, and we will see now a movement towards normality. In the next slide, we can see a little bit about the disastrous Brazilian interest rate, currently sitting at 15%. The expectation in terms of reduction, you can see on this slide, comes from the Focus Survey, which is an average of expectations from market analysts in Brazil. However, there are other banks such as JP Morgan that have a much more bullish expectation on the reduction of the Brazilian interest rate. We think there are good reasons why they have an expectation for a faster reduction. Those reasons include the fact inflation seems to be under control, but also the fact we are seeing we're approaching election year in Brazil and there's no doubt that a reduction on interest rates will be a big boost and a big expectation. This is something to look very carefully because it has a massive impact in farmers. It has a big impact on our operations, and it's something to keep an eye on, and it looks like it's moving in the right direction. Next slide. We go to markets. Terrible, as we've discussed. I think I don't know if you can see on your own, on your screen. Should be able to. There's a little icon here. Yeah, it's gone now. You can see the increase in judicial recovery filings, which is essentially when someone either can't or doesn't wanna pay debt and then they submit filing to the courts and gets to benefit from the very favorable Brazilian regulatory system towards debtors. So you can see a material increase in Q3, which we don't have the data yet published, but the situation just remains really negative. The government, though, has been trying to help, so there has been a few initiatives to try to bring more credit, but nothing that has been able to materially benefit the sector. Next slide, please. Just more information about prices on the different commodities, on projections. I think the overall feeling among farmers, among industry commentators, is that there is a good level of optimism for the next cycle, for the next year. We hope everyone is right because, quite honestly, I think we had enough of this great Brazilian agricultural crisis. Hopefully next year we go back to recovery and normality. Next slide. I would like to leave it now, take you through the numbers for the quarter. This is the very first time we're having a shareholders call after we put out our results on rare earths. I will be commenting on that as well, but I didn't wanna have dedicated slides at this stage because as I said on the press release, I think we have to look at those numbers from the results from the fertilizer operations, and I think we need to really focus on that and not allow those other shiny things distract us from the responsibility we have in running our fertilizer business and making sure we are making everything possible to take the company where it should be and where we believe it will get to. Felipe, please go ahead with Q3 2025 results. Thank you, Cristiano. Thanks everyone for joining the conference. On Q3, the first point here says that we had a positive EBITDA of CAD 100,000, and this is the first time that we deliver a positive EBITDA since Q2 2023. You can see the right side here of the chart also the EBITDA in each quarter since then. We expect this improvement keeps going on and then just better year-on-year comparison from now onwards. On sales volume in Q3 2025, we had 85,000 tons, a 16% reduction compared to Q3 2024. In terms of revenue, the company had CAD 5.9 million in revenue. It was an 18% decrease compared to the same periods. In terms of gross margin, excluding freight, we can see in another chart that we have both gross margin with freight and without freight. You can see that we were in line with 2024. It's good news. Freight is something that really impacts our results since it's accounted in the revenue but not in the cost since it is SG&A. For this reason, it's good to always analyze with and without freight the gross margin. Like I said, in this situation here, we had a flat number of 60% on GM compared to last year. In terms of net loss, we had an improvement, reduction in our loss from BRL 2.3 million last year to BRL 2.1 million this year. This reason, one of the key reasons we see in the coming charts as well that it's due to our bad debt provision reduction. In terms of cash, we had on hand a bit more than last year, CAD 3.6 million. However, it was mitigated by our receivables in the quarter from CAD 11.3 million to CAD 7.9 million delivered in Q3 2025. Also another good news that we have already disclosed that during the period we were granted with a new patent related to microorganisms. Then now Page has 5 patents and another 3 applications pending. So this was also an achievement in the period. In terms of financial operating results, one of the key points that I need to highlight here is the allowance of expected credit losses, which is the bad debt provision. We had a significant improvement from the prior period of close to 80% from $785,000 to $163,000. This is mainly driven by a rigorous credit approval policy that we've implemented since the beginning of the crisis, which was like mid of 2023. Now that we are able to see that these results, on the one hand, it reduces this bad debt provision, but on the other hand, of course, we lose also sales and this impacts our company in the top line in the short term. I believe we believe that in the long term, that's the correct decision and strategy to avoid late receivables and avoid new bad debt provisions in the coming periods. As I've mentioned before, we had a net loss improvement from -BRL 2.3 million in the period to -BRL 2 million in the current quarter. In terms of operational summary, in terms of the first chart here, the first table, we can see the numbers including freight, as I've mentioned, and we can see the key numbers per ton. We delivered a slight improvement here in terms of costs. On the other hand, we lost a bit on the revenue per ton, and this was mainly driven by Brazilian real devaluation in the period. As I said, we had a gross margin of 75%, including freight. When we exclude freight in the last line of the chart, we can see an average gross margin of 6%, which is a quite good gross margin. It's a sign that we do have a very large capacity compared to what we are currently selling. Expectations when we are able to leverage our volumes is that we deliver a lower cost per ton. We do have some costs to be diluted. Of course, as you can see here in SG&A, most of those costs here are fixed except for the fee paid to sales agents, among some others. Most of the costs here are fixed. Once we grow in volume, this will be very good news for our bottom line results. On this line here, we can say that in sales and marketing expenses, we had a slight improvement, but it was offset by the fees paid to sales agents. This is part of our strategy, which we did last year from some full-time employees to other type of sales agents in the field. These people and the sales force, they work normally with higher level of commissions, but at the end of the day, they have lower fixed costs. For the company, we believe that's a correct strategy for the coming periods as well. In terms of general expenses, we had a 9% improvement from $1,054,000 last year to $955,000 this year. We can see here that most of it was driven by a legal professional consultancy. We had some achievements made in terms of accountant firms, for example, and among other consultants that we used to have from the U.K., from the prior period when the company used to be based in the U.K. or Singapore. Some important reports and analysis we are doing internally in Brazil at this point. This also helped us to reduce SG&A expenses, which is one of our focus at this point and since 2023. These were the key points that I would like to share. Now we can move forward for the Q&A section, and we'll ask Cristiano to verify and handle the key points. I'm also here to support if anything is needed. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Felipe. Starting here with the first question. The first question is about a Brazilian ethanol producer, a fantastic company called FS. It's in Mato Grosso. It's one of the world's largest ethanol producers out of corn. We've talked to them in the past, and we have some discussions going on with them. I will use this question here to remind everyone about the carbon footprint of conventional potash. Carbon footprint of conventional potash is significantly higher than ours. Every time a farmer switches from conventional potash to our product, he is immediately saving a lot of carbon. We're working on something, hopefully for next week in line with a very big announcement from some scientists that should come out showing that the carbon footprint for potassium chloride, which is conventionally adopted, relied upon by producers, by the industry, grossly under quantifies the real carbon footprint in a more eloquent way. They should be accounting about 2x of the carbon footprint of KCl as they're currently accounting for in their models. We are hoping for this to be released next week. We are preparing something alongside where we highlight our significantly lower carbon footprint. This might sound a little bit snowflake kind of conversation, but there's some concrete business implications of carbon footprint in Brazil. It's no longer just a marketing, and I would say even globally, it's no longer just a marketing ESG type of conversation. The European Union has demanded that I think from two years from now, that every. Felipe, we can't see you anymore, the screen. I don't know if this thing has changed. Yes, it's better now. We can see, so from I think the next couple of years, every clothing item bought in the European Union will come with a label where the carbon footprint will have to be stated. If you're buying a top, whatever it is, it's gonna say, you know, this has a 50 kilograms carbon footprint. We think there will be a stronger pressure for people to quantify. We're seeing that from talking to growers, especially of cotton in Brazil. Brazil is the biggest exporter of cotton, I believe, by quantity, and this is an industry that's being impacted. Of course, there are the two industries, Felipe, the question you just mentioned is ethanol production, be it from sugarcane or ethanol synthesis. Big sectors where carbon footprint already matters, and hopefully we will be able to provide an even greater edge. I love those calls because those questions, like, there's so much stuff we're working on and so I have my teams on the other screen and my phone. So everything, there's an insight here. I fire a message here to our chief revenue officer, Mark, reminding him and chasing and doing follow-up. This is good for me as well. The next question is when is Verde AgriTech going to approach the banks again to discuss renegotiating the debt due to the grace period expiration? Yes, it will expire soon and we're getting ready to speak softly, but carry a very big stick. We're working on it and we're very confident that the banks have every reason to, you know, continue supporting us. There's no doubt about that. The other question here, given the proximity to Ouro's concession and peers like Aclara and Meteoric, what early indicators suggest Verde is placed to achieve similar or better as gold efficiencies or operating costs? It's a good question. I think the press release we put out with the quality of our concentrate already demonstrates how much potential our deposit has. It's very exciting, and you can compare effectively our grades, our initial results versus what Aclara and Meteoric have reported, and you will get your own conclusions by doing that. One problem you might face is that those other companies, at least we couldn't find in their material, as much disclosure as we are offering to shareholders. We're going, you know, down to the detail on amounts of thorium, on amounts of uranium, which because we're lucky, you know, it's the low detection thanks to mother nature. Those other companies, from to best of our knowledge, they only seem to present a relative statement saying that it's a low contaminant concentrate, a low contaminant recovery. This is the crux of rare earths. If you have radioactive elements in your concentrate, you're really restricted to whom you can sell if you're selling outside of China. For example, Norway, where there is a big separator under construction, it's probably gonna be one of the very first ones to be commissioned. They literally cannot buy a concentrate, an MREC, if it has any amount of radioactive element, because that's the legislation in Norway. That's the same thing in a lot of parts of the U.S., and even where there's a certain level of tolerance to radioactive elements. Even where there is a certain element of tolerance to radioactive elements, it has a massive impact on the company operating in the United States. Being able to cut down to zero is a massive edge we hope we will be able to build on. Just so you understand from a geological perspective, where Meteoric is literally next door to a decommissioned uranium mine in Brazil. It's literally next door to a decommissioned uranium mine. And it sounds like that explains why their CapEx was so much greater because there was so much engineering and CapEx that was required to look at removing as much of that uranium from their concentrate. It is a very exciting rare earths project we're developing. It's something we put in a lot of energy on. As I said in the beginning of the presentation, I don't want to take away by you know expressing how excited about rare earths. We don't want to divert the focus here, which is really the numbers, operating profitability, cost reduction where necessary, correct strategies to accelerate growth, relationship with farmers. We're taking all of that very, very serious. The other question about the recovery of doubtful debts. Has that changed this quarter? What are we seeing? I will allow Felipe to give more color about one, our efforts recovering cash from farmers who owe us, as well as an overall view on our balance sheet, on our results as a result of farmers who aren't paying us back. Yes. We have since 2022 or 2023 sales that we were not able to collect due to the crisis that was mentioned before. What we're doing, we sometimes renegotiated with farmers although, and it's maybe sometimes longer terms, but some of them they went to this recovery protection. The only way that we have is two alternatives: to wait. Also on the other hand, we have a specialist consultant and a law firm that works in this sector that support us with each client that do not pay us, and we are not able to negotiate directly. We do expect, like we already had this year, one or two that we were able to collect after we went to the court, etc. We do expect maybe in the coming years that even the bad debt provision could be positive, because we had already booked a relevant value since 2022. Once we stop to have new interest in this line in the accounts, we could start to reverse provisions made earlier in case we do collect or do have new agreements, etc. My expectation is that the worst in terms of that provision is already behind. Of course it's mainly driven by our policy and restriction on asking for more guarantees for some collaterals in terms of when you have long-term sales. Sometimes we had a hard time discussing with the commercial area that they really wanna push to sell. Of course, it's their job. On the other hand, we have the financial analysts and credit team here that works really hard to try to mitigate as much as we can and reduce the leverage on that debt provision. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you, Felipe. The next question here is about ERW. For some of you who haven't been following the company for as long as others, I will talk a little bit about ERW. ERW stands for Enhanced Rock Weathering, which is one of the most promising carbon capture technologies out there. The reason it's one of the most promising carbon capture technologies out there is because once carbon is removed via ERW, it's locked for, I won't say forever, but for hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of years. It's one of the ways to capture carbon which by the industry is called a permanent carbon sequestration technology, alongside something else called direct air capture, where you're removing carbon directly from the air and storing it. The reason the industry is so excited about ERW is because it can be truly scalable, and the costs for developing it aren't as high as the technology just mentioned, direct air capture. The reason permanent carbon capture is so much superior than the other ways to capture carbon, like planting trees and/or preserving trees or soil carbon, is because with those ways or those technologies, there is a risk of reversion. There's a risk that forest might get fired. There is a risk the farmer might change the way it farms soils, and then automatically as a result, a lot of that carbon gets released back to the atmosphere. We started working on this technology a long time ago now, and we've done a tremendous amount of tests and developments, scientific developments, because our rock is different to the other rocks which are commonly used to capture carbon, which is mainly basalt. However, we have some massive advantages because our rock is much softer than basalt. We have a very strong control of the quality, mineralogical and chemical composition of the rock which is essential for MRV, Measuring, Reporting and Verification, which is at the heart of proving to the industry how much carbon you're truly being able to capture. We've been working on that, and we're very close to making a very substantial announcement. Repeatedly people would ask me, "When are you gonna say something?" We kept answering them consistently that until a point in time there was something material to be disclosed, we wouldn't do so. What we are looking for in terms of a something we call material is something that is potentially much bigger than a small carbon credit sale. What we're calling material is not saying we've sold $1 million or whatever small amount of carbon credits is. What we're looking for is a potential partnership with a leading partner that could open the door for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of carbon credits out of ERW. It might sound crazy when I talk about hundreds of millions of dollars out of revenue from ERW, but I was as surprised as you probably are throughout those conversations, throughout this development. What seems to be happening with this space is that the hyperscalers, driven by all the investment on AI, driven by how carbon intensive it is every time you chat with your Grok or with your ChatGPT, those hyperscalers, they've identified they have this massive liability to this technology. They have this massive issue. So they are throwing money, which relatively is less than what they're throwing money at their $500 billion CapEx announced for next year. They're equally throwing money to address their carbon footprint. What I've been told is that from all of the different technologies they have looked at to mitigate emissions, ERW probably ranks as the most promising one. Don't take my word for that. Elon, by his foundation, organized a big prize last year to look at the most promising technologies to capture carbon. The winner, but not just the winner, but the companies that came one, two, three and four, I think three out of four companies were working on ERW. The big winner was working on a software application. They've just got a $40 million check out of it. ERW is big and is getting bigger and bigger out of the carbon emissions by AI. We see that on prices. ERW carbon credit prices are at the moment around $400 per ton. $400-$450 per ton. In the very best case scenario, those hyperscalers expected to come down to $250 per ton in a dream scenario. It is an enormous business. It is an enormous business that no doubt is materially bigger than fertilizer business. One could hear that and say, "Hey, let's stop doing fertilizers, then let's just focus on doing ERW," which is a fair proposition. However, what I love about ERW, which we're very close now to making some significant announcements, what I feel really excited is about something some of you investors are very familiar with, which are uncorrelated investments. I'm sure all of you will look forward to look at different ways to have uncorrelated investments in your portfolio. As a company, we equally are looking to have uncorrelated source of revenues to the company to make the company resilient. Not to be as exposed as we've been in the last few years to the agricultural cycle. We love the fact that we could potentially be adding a revenue stream, which is potentially far bigger than fertilizers and driven by a completely different dynamic, i.e. artificial intelligence. I might sound excited, but I'm actually way more excited than you might think I'm excited about all of that, because I've seen how hard our team has worked on this for a very long period of time, how difficult it has been, how complex it has been, and I feel excited that we're now coming to a massive milestone that will address that on a holistic way, on a 360-degree approach that will open a whole range of different possibilities and opportunities from this. We're extraordinarily excited about what is potentially to come. Let's go on to the next question. You've confirmed dynamic absorption in strong leaching results. How many holes are planned and what total meters of targets do you support a maiden resource by Q1 2026? Will those results cover multiple zones or just the most advanced block? It's a very, very important question. The problem with a district scale discovery is that it puts you in a hard position to make choices and to focus. There's of course one strategy which would be, let's go out and try to drill the biggest resource we can as soon as possible. We come out with potentially 1 billion tons. It's exciting. It's great to be waving your hands saying you have 1 billion tons of rare earths, but we're not sure that this is necessarily the best strategy to start with. Given time and given the results we've shown, and given the fact you're familiar with Obi Critical Minerals, I don't think it's too hard for you to see the really district-scale, the sort of size you have there. What excites us the most is the possibility of outlining a very high-grade resource capable of producing a highly valuable and extremely pure concentrate. This is what we're targeting. It's not the hand-waving hundreds of millions of tons. It's a very high-quality resource. Drilling is targeted for that. That's what we hope to deliver. We hope that with Q1 resource calculation, we will be able to point investors to a resource capable of potentially supporting a very profitable operation. That will be the object of the preliminary economic assessment should be developed on top of it. You've indicated ANSTO will conduct metallurgical work. Can you share what specific recovery metrics would be considered commercially viable and whether VEYC aims for a mixed carbonate product or fully separated oxides?" There's a couple of questions here, Jay, and I will address them. ANSTO is a research lab in Sydney, Australia, which is probably the best and most reputed lab, led by two phenomenal engineers. Jim and I have been talking for a long time now in working on flow sheets for the recovery of ionic clays, for the recovery of rare earths. The answer to your question isn't very simple because it will really depend on the results we achieve and what sort of quality of concentrate and CapEx you want. For example, you can get to a concentrate that is extremely free of cerium, for instance. You can have a specific dedicated flow sheet to remove all the cerium or lanthanum, which a lot of the separators don't want. That will add CapEx, that will also allow you to increase how much neodymium, praseodymium, which is what really matters, dysprosium and terbium you're recovering from a concentrate. However, there might be a situation which is more economic, which is to reduce how much praseodymium, neodymium, dysprosium, and terbium, how much of the magnetic rare earth oxides you're extracting from the total rock. You work with a smaller recovery, overall recovery. By doing that as a phase one, you're also not leaching a lot of cerium or lanthanum. That way, you have a concentrate that's a premium one, which is way more desirable. I'm really looking forward to this stage of work. I think we're very well advised and well equipped to deal with that stage of the development. I think what is different from our approach to how a lot of other folks have been approaching this situation is that we think there is a real potential for building a smaller plant to start with and to get to production very quick, rather than engineering a massive plant that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and getting delayed by a longer term of financing and permitting. My dream scenario, we would have a phase one, which is a highly economic, small, profitable plant, followed by a stage two, which would be this bigger plant, and then you could have an overall combined stage one, stage two NPV in this order of magnitude you might expect. However, you can truly get to production with a very modest CapEx, very modest operational risk, but very importantly, very fast. Because I need to remind you that we're lucky that a lot of those rare earths were discovered in concessions where we are currently producing potash. We already have the mining permits. We have the environmental impact assessment done. It's not the same rock, it's next to it, but areas that we have already done an environmental impact assessment and have already approved from a regulatory perspective that allows us to get to production very, very quickly. There is a-- we're not approaching it like all of the other, you know, companies. "I have 200 million, 500 million tons. I'm gonna do, you know, 50 million tons. I'm gonna have a CapEx of $1 billion, $500 million." No, we're looking to be fast, smaller CapEx, get to production phase one, and then show phase two and then de-risk. We're lucky because from the results we've reported, it looks like Mother Nature was very nice to us and gave us the opportunity to think about that. Because if we were, for example, right next to a uranium mine, like Meteoric is, and we have to invest $hundreds of millions to remove uranium and thorium from that concentrate, we wouldn't have this choice. Or if we were someone like Savan or Aclara that are dealing with very low grade resources, you can see the quotes, then again, you need to go for scale, otherwise it doesn't work as a business. Very thankful to Mother Nature so far. Let's hope we carry on as lucky as we've been up to this point. We're excited. We're excited about the potential and also excited about how cheap the development of it can be. For those of you who aren't very familiar with ionic clay, for those of you who aren't very familiar with rare earths, I also think, Salisha, maybe we should do a call just to talk about rare earths. You have essentially two different types of rare earths. One is hard rock, primary, which is very expensive to mine. It is nasty from the environmental perspective. It takes a long time. Ultimately, you end up with radioactive elements. That's hard rock. You have the holy grail, what everyone's looking for, which is your ionic clay type of resource. Ionic clay, essentially, you have nature over millions and millions of years via weathering, extracting those rare earths from hard rock deposits and migrating them to be absorbed by a clay mineral deposit. When you have ionic clay, you have the opportunity to extract that commercially very cheaply and simply. All you need to do is to go to. You can probably do it at your home. You go to your garden, you get a bag of ammonium sulfate, which you use as a fertilizer. You get a can of Coca-Cola, which has a low pH. You wash your clay with Coca-Cola, so the pH goes down to about 4. You wash it with ammonium sulfate, which is a fertilizer on a garden. You get that juice, and that juice is gonna have the rare earths absorbed to it. It's as simple as that. Of course, we're not gonna be using Coca-Cola. We're gonna be using cheaper sources of lowering the pH to 4. Coca-Cola would probably. It's too acidic, in all honesty. I think the pH of Coca-Cola is less than that, so it's probably not the best reagent. It allows you to be doing something potentially scalable. I had promised I was gonna focus exclusively on fertilizers, but you guys are asking the questions and it's not my fault if I'm getting excited because there's a lot to be excited about rare earths and ERW. Where's the other question? "Verde has patented and marketed several specialty products lately. Due to the sector crisis, the market has mostly sought cheap entrants. When do you expect those specialty products to pay off? What you see from the patents or applications we made several months ago takes 2, 3, sometimes 5 years for them to get published. We're very pleased that the ideas we had and we tested are now being recognized with patents on those specialty fertilizers. Second part to answer your question is that when you think about specialty fertilizers, if you're in the industry, you think about fertilizers that are more expensive to farmers than what they currently spend but deliver better yields. What we do doesn't increase costs for farmers. For example, if you look at Usu or if you look at Aya or Caapi, the range of specialty products, all of those are the products we're replacing other products farmers are already using, but it's doing that in a more effective way, in a more profitable way. I also think perhaps we should have a whole call just talking about some of the agronomic results, because there are so many. We've received so many phenomenal agronomic results of our products in this last couple of months, and there's so much exciting stuff that you know, this Usu, we increased the amount of phosphate available for crops. It's a whole presentation just on those benefits, and I think it's something we should look to organize it as well. The other question here, "With regard to your ERW that you were just commenting on and are excited about, how much annual capacity from your current 3 billion tons of glauconite could that use if a deal were to happen? Do you have enough capacity with your current infrastructure?" Let's put it this way. If those big buyers, those hyperscalers, if they're right, if it's true that they have this unlimited thirsty demand they are telling people they do, and they want it to be developed, if they're right, the carbon footprint is massive. I don't think that if we were to produce 50 million tons a year of our rock and apply it all to capture carbon, I don't think we would be able to fully offset what their carbon emissions are and how much they want. This is even $3.5 trillion invested in data centers for AI. It's something that I was talking the other day to a very senior analyst in the fertilizer space, and we had some interesting conversations, or he had some interesting opinions about what might happen to potash producers in face of ERW and in face of the need from hyperscalers to be able to deliver a more society-friendly answer to data centers in climate change. It is big, and if you want to extrapolate it even more, you can even start thinking about potash, conventional potash producers becoming roadkill in the fight against climate change. I would say a little bit more, becoming roadkill, perhaps not in the fight against climate change, but becoming roadkill in the narrative construction to society about how AI can be sustainable. I think it's we need to be much more pragmatic than just thinking about climate change. I think we need to be much more pragmatic. We need to think about the hyperscalers. We need to think about the amount of money they're investing in data centers with AI. We need to think about what that means in terms of a carbon footprint, and we need to think about how they can build a narrative that is consistent with the future most of society expects and what most of society expects from companies. It's something that has taken a long time to happen and hopefully we're very close to announcing and yes, and I think it might be the beginning of something truly amazing for all of us. Thank you very much. I would like to thank all of you who have joined us today for this results call for Verde AgriTech. I was hoping to be talking way more about fertilizers, but your questions led me to talk about ERW and rare earths, and it's hard not to be excited, as I hope you all understand. If any of you can think or have any other questions, contributions about the fertilizer space or even ERW or rare earths, please do not hesitate to contact us. If you're watching this on YouTube, likewise, thank you for your interest. Please share it among other people who might be interested in what we are doing. Thanks a lot. I look forward to seeing you very soon, talking to you again, and maybe, who knows, we can have something or a few of those events before the year ends, hopefully talking about ERW and why those potential users are so significant, so transformative, so potentially transformative for the company and the overall potash space. Equally important, how our early results on rare earths from drilling results, which we, as announced, expect to be disclosing in the coming weeks as well, how those announcements will help shaping our strategy and what the potential for near-term monetization and by pursuing a smart, I would call it a smart approach to developing those assets which we potentially could only do thanks to mother nature. Thank you, everyone. Bye-bye.