Andrew Reid, Managing Director of Brazilian Critical Minerals (ASX: BCM), says the company's Ema rare earth project in Brazil's Amazonas state needs about US$75 million to build, because it never digs a pit. By his numbers, the hard-rock projects behind most Western supply start at US$1–2 billion. In this episode, Dustin Olsen and Daniel O'Connor ask Andrew how in-situ recovery works on ionic clay, what BCM's June 2026 feasibility study shows, and what still stands between Ema and production.
How in-situ recovery works on Brazil's ionic clays
In-situ recovery injects a mild solution into ionic clay so the rare earths come back up in solution to a process plant, with no pit. Andrew says BCM found elevated rare earths in the clays around the town of Apuí in 2023 and reported a one-billion-ton mineral resource in early 2024, at a modest grade of around 700 to 800 parts per million.
- Same deposit type as Southeast Asia: ionic clays formed by intense tropical weathering, which Andrew says probably supply the vast majority of the world's heavy rare earths.
- No open pit: a low-strength solution is injected into the clay and the rare earths come back in solution to a process plant, with no dump trucks, haul roads, waste dumps or tailings dams.
- Epsom salts as reagent: in-situ recovery uses a very low-strength reagent, typically around pH 4, and BCM's is magnesium sulfate, which Andrew notes is the same compound as the Epsom salts you put in a bath.
- Rare in the West: Andrew says the vast majority of Western clay-hosted deposits cannot use in-situ recovery because they lack the right landscape and ionic minerals.
Why Ema's capex is so much lower
Ema skips the pit, flotation and the hydromet stage, so Andrew puts its capital need at about US$75 million. He puts the capex for clay projects that cannot use in-situ recovery at US$500 million to US$1 billion, and for hard-rock projects at "at least one billion and probably two billion." Those deposits host rare earths in minerals such as monazite and bastnäsite, which need intensive hydrometallurgical processing.
- Fewer steps: ionic clays bypass flotation and the hydromet stage and go straight to a mixed rare earth carbonate.
- Feasibility numbers: Andrew confirmed on air a post-tax NPV of almost US$1.5 billion and an operating cost of $8.84 per kilogram of TREO, from BCM's June 2026 study.
- Faster build: he says the work is mostly earthworks and civil construction, which can take months rather than years.
- Radioactivity: Andrew says uranium in Ema's ground averages about 3 ppm, and that standard techniques from the uranium industry remove radioactive elements before product goes to market.
Permits, offtake and financing
Andrew is direct that two hurdles remain. BCM does not yet have its final environmental permit, and it is still negotiating offtake.
- Permitting: he says BCM has sign-off from Brazil's federal mines agency on the use of in-situ recovery and magnesium sulfate, and held a public meeting in Apuí in September 2026, shortly before this recording.
- Offtake: "For a junior rare earth company, the holy grail is to get an offtake agreement with a major," he says, adding that very few are ever given out.
- Financing: because "you can't hedge rare earths," Andrew says large projects lean on banks and governments to underwrite risk, while he believes Ema's smaller capital need can be raised in the market.
- Timing: he argues most other new Western projects are looking at the 2030s, which gives near-term supply an edge with buyers.
Brazil's downstream ambitions
Andrew says Brazil wants to move further downstream but recognizes that will take time, which leaves room to export an intermediate product like the carbonate Ema plans to produce. Asked by Daniel whether Brazil will push projects toward separation, he describes an active debate in Brazil about getting the maximum benefit from its critical minerals.
Lessons from 30 years in mining
Andrew's biggest takeaway is that "less is more," especially when starting up complex hydrometallurgical projects. BCM plans to get its mixed rare earth carbonate running at commercial scale before looking further down the supply chain. On permitting, he says Brazilians typically don't like three things, deforestation, tailings dams and social unrest, and that Ema's site, already partly cleared cattle-farming land with no history of indigenous habitation, avoids all three.
Key Takeaways
- In-situ recovery: it only works on a narrow type of ionic clay deposit, which Andrew says is rare in the Western world.
- Capex: by Andrew's numbers, Ema needs about US$75 million versus US$500 million to US$2 billion for conventional projects.
- Reagent: BCM's reagent is magnesium sulfate, the compound in Epsom salts.
- What's left: the remaining hurdles are a final environmental permit and an offtake agreement.
- Risk: Andrew says rare earths can't currently be hedged, so an offtake deal makes financing fairly straightforward for a junior.
FAQs
What is in-situ recovery for rare earths?
In-situ recovery injects a low-strength solution into ionic clay so that rare earths detach from the clay and go into solution, which is then pumped to a process plant. Andrew Reid says it requires no open pit, no tailings dams and no waste dumps, and that hundreds of such operations run in Southeast Asia.
Why can't most Western rare earth deposits use in-situ recovery?
Andrew says the method depends on specific physical and chemical characteristics of the clay and landscape. Most Western clay-hosted deposits lack them, and most Western supply comes from hard-rock minerals such as monazite and bastnäsite, which need intensive hydrometallurgical processing.
What reagent does Brazilian Critical Minerals use at Ema?
BCM uses magnesium sulfate, the same compound as Epsom salts. Andrew describes it as a benign, non-toxic reagent and says very few commercial ionic clay projects use it.
How much does the Ema project cost to build?
Andrew says Ema requires about US$75 million of capital. He compares that with US$500 million to US$1 billion for clay projects that cannot use in-situ recovery, and US$1 to 2 billion for hard-rock projects.
What does Ema still need before production?
Andrew says BCM still needs its final environmental permit and an offtake agreement. He calls an offtake deal with a major "the holy grail" for a junior rare earth company, because it makes financing fairly straightforward.
Transcript
Expand to see full transcript...
Dustin Olsen (00:01)
Hi Andrew, welcome to the Rare Earth Exchanges Podcast. How are you doing?
Andrew Reid (00:05)
Yeah, I'm very well, Dustin. Thank you for the invitation.
Dustin Olsen (00:09)
Andrew, we're excited to have you here, as we are with everyone who comes on the show. But you particularly have a 30-year run in this industry and you're still going strong. So I can't wait to unpack some of your experiences, but more importantly the work you're doing with your company, Brazilian Critical Minerals. One of the main things I hope we can get across in our discussion today is the mine you have in the Amazon in Brazil and the process you're using to extract the minerals, a process called in-situ recovery, which is also what China uses. I'd love to start there: what you're finding, and how you envision scaling up your project to commercial scale.
Andrew Reid (01:12)
Thanks, Dustin. Just a bit of background. We discovered in 2023 that the clays covering the tenements we hold in Amazonas, around the town of Apuí, contained elevated quantities of rare earths. Now, the average grade of our resource is not anything particularly special. It's sitting around 700 to 800 parts per million. So we spent really the first year, 2023, trying to understand the size and scale of the deposit, and we came out in early 2024 with a one-billion-ton mineral resource. Then we set about trying to unpack the best way to economically extract the rare earths out of these clays. We looked at a number of different opportunities and at what some of our peers were doing.
But ultimately we were really quite excited and attracted to in-situ recovery. For those who don't know, in-situ recovery is probably, right now as we speak, the most common method for extracting rare earths in the sector. There are literally hundreds of these types of projects scattered throughout Southeast Asia, in countries like China, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Malaysia. The reason is that they occur in these tropical zones. There's been intense weathering and a concentration of rare earths in the clay. But they also have other physical and chemical characteristics that allow for this quite easy and unique method of extracting the rare earths, which doesn't involve any open-pit mining.
We don't disturb the land, we don't cut down any trees, we don't need dump trucks and haul roads and waste dumps and tailings dams, and we're able to extract the products very, very cheaply, with immensely low capex requirements, somewhere in the order of five to ten times lower than most other projects in the Western world. That's the uniqueness of this.
Over the last two years we've been working through the metallurgy, doing a lot of test work to define the in-situ recovery application. That all culminated last year in a field trial that we spent three months working on in the field, in Apuí, in the area of the Ema project. That was very successful, and the result was that we put out a feasibility study in June 2026 with some quite extraordinary financial numbers attached to it, which really mirrored the PEA, or scoping study, we'd done previously, and which, when you calibrate it against the information you can get out of Southeast Asia, looked pretty similar. So all we're doing, we think, is applying a technique with some changes in the reagent space: essentially doing in-situ recovery, removing the rare earths, and then trying to sell our product into the Western market.
Daniel O'Connor (05:04)
Dustin, I'll chime in here. I think it's important, and we should get into Ema and the project further so everyone viewing understands. Can we take a step back? There are light rare earths and there are heavy rare earths. In the West we see quite a few light rare earth mining projects, so it looks like we're going to have quite a bit of that material in the next few years. The heavy rare earth material is quite different. We don't have a lot of assets. We have some in Southeast Asia, as you mentioned, actually the majority in South China and Southeast Asia, and some in Brazil. Could we talk about what ionic clays are, why they're key for heavy rare earth extraction, and what makes your asset in Brazil similar to these Southeast Asian assets?
Andrew Reid (06:12)
Thanks, Daniel. Like I said, the ability to use in-situ recovery is really contingent on, A, the physical characteristics and, B, the chemical characteristics of your area and the clay setup. Not all clay-hosted deposits can do in-situ recovery. In fact, the vast majority in the Western world cannot, because they just don't have the right landscape and the right type of ionic minerals to be able to use what really is a very low-strength reagent, typically around pH 4, which is about the same strength as beer.
So what we've done over the last 18 months is design an operation and a project where we're able to get reasonably good recoveries of rare earths using a reagent called magnesium sulfate. That's quite unique in the ionic clay space. As far as I know there are very few to no commercial projects using magnesium sulfate. Now, your listeners will know magnesium sulfate in its other form, called Epsom salts. Epsom salts you put in your bath to relax your muscles. It's a very benign, non-toxic reagent.
But when we inject the magnesium ions into the clay structure, they attach themselves to the clay particles and remove the rare earth particles that were attached to the clay. The rare earths essentially go into solution in the ground, and we're then able to extract and pump those solutions back to the process plant. So it's a very, very simple and very interesting technique. And like I said, last time I looked there were three or four hundred of these projects in Southeast Asia that are almost identical to what we're doing in Brazil.
Daniel O'Connor (08:48)
Right. And I think the important thing with in-situ leaching, and this type of geology and chemistry, is that the cost, to your point, is substantially less. In your feasibility study, I believe the stage-one initial capex was relatively low, like seventy million or something like that, if I remember correctly.
Andrew Reid (09:22)
Yeah, that's right.
Daniel O'Connor (09:23)
So how would that compare to a bigger, more traditional rare earth mining project, without saying names, some of the big majors? What would their initial phase-one capex be? Yours is seventy million. What's theirs?
Andrew Reid (09:45)
I guess the right way to think about it is this. If you look at other clay-hosted projects that cannot do in-situ recovery, then typically the capex starts at US$500 million and goes up to a billion. If we look at hard-rock projects, which supply most of the current Western world supply, your starting numbers are at least one billion and probably two billion. Whether that's in US dollars or Australian dollars doesn't really matter. These are big, complicated projects, because most of the rare earths in the Western world are hosted as either monazite or bastnäsite, which require quite intense hydrometallurgical processing and extraction.
The beauty of ionic clays is that we don't need that. We extract from the clays, we bypass flotation, we bypass the hydromet stage, and we can go straight to the final product, the mixed rare earth carbonate or mixed rare earth oxide, whatever you want to produce, very quickly and very easily in just a few steps. That's the key advantage of this technique and process, and hence why these deposits predominate in Southeast Asia. They probably produce the vast majority of the heavy rare earths, Daniel, that you're alluding to. They all come out of these ionic clay deposits.
Daniel O'Connor (11:30)
That's right. If you look at our ranking system, the Myanmar rebel groups, where we aggregate about 520 mines, are the number one producer. That assemblage makes its way to southern China, which is the number one source of heavy rare earth separation in the world. So it's compelling. With BCM, your company, which is publicly traded and based in Perth, I believe, Perth, Australia, the mining capital of the world, you're looking at a post-tax net present value, based on the feasibility study, that's substantial. I think it was a billion and a half or up there?
Andrew Reid (12:32)
Yeah, that's right. It was almost US$1.5 billion. Like I said, when you don't have any open-pit mining, you don't have hundreds of pieces of yellow equipment, dump trucks, excavators and bulldozers running around, and you don't need all the people to operate them. You don't have waste dumps to create, and you don't create tailings dams. All this infrastructure costs millions of dollars. We're able to capture all that value and return it as direct profit in the project.
That's why these things are so attractive, and also so unique in the Western world. There are just not many projects, guys, where your capital hurdle is five to ten times lower than your peers and you're also able to operate at the lowest end of the cost curve. Projects like this just don't exist. And on top of that, look at the ESG credentials of what I've just talked about: no deforestation, no issues with toxic chemicals or reagents. This is a project with extreme environmental credentials on top of all of that, and I think it should be something a lot of other companies look to in the future as a way to produce friendly, sustainable, green products, which the Western market now has an insatiable appetite for.
Daniel O'Connor (14:15)
A hundred percent. I want to get into a question about some of the environmental topics. But looking at the cost another way, I think the cost based on your report was around eight dollars per kilogram or something like that. Is that correct?
Andrew Reid (14:38)
Yeah, it was $8.84 per kilo of TREO that we extract. That's correct.
Daniel O'Connor (14:42)
$8.84 per kilogram, that's the operating cost of TREO. But goodness, I'm just going to put it out there: look at the Serra Verde deal with the government. You understand the minimum floor they set up for terbium?
Andrew Reid (15:06)
Yeah, that's correct.
Daniel O'Connor (15:07)
$2,050 per kilogram.
Andrew Reid (15:13)
That's just the floor, Daniel. The actual spot price and spot market for terbium at the moment is significantly higher than that.
Daniel O'Connor (15:21)
Well, we argue there is no spot market. You have all these so-called pricing agencies that tell you what the price is today. We would argue, first of all, that you're not supposed to know what the price is, because it's all confidential and it's all bespoke. But there are ranges you can get from traders and from people off the record, and you could see terbium for $7,000 a kilogram.
What about radioactive material? How does this asset fare with that? Because that still can be an issue, can it not?
Andrew Reid (16:03)
I think the first thing to say is that just about every rare earth project on the planet has radioactive elements to it, and that's no different for ionic clays. If your pH gets too low, you can start to leach uranium and thorium into the solutions that go back to your process plant. That's not unusual. It's quite common, and for hard-rock projects it's a particularly big issue, because monazite contains a lot of thorium and uranium. But there are very well-known engineering solutions and techniques, adopted from the uranium industry, that allow all of these projects to remove the radioactive portion before the final product is sent to market.
Daniel O'Connor (17:10)
Right, understood. So we look at — sorry, go ahead.
Andrew Reid (17:13)
Just to finish that off: for our particular project, if you look at the grades of uranium in the ground, I think it averages 3 ppm for uranium. So it's already starting from a very low base.
Daniel O'Connor (17:35)
Right. One of the things we're trying to do with Rare Earth Exchanges, Andrew, and I think we've been fairly successful, and we'll formally be a couple of years old in January, is educate investors about this sector. Other than maybe investors in Perth, some in Canada and a few in London, very few investors in North America understand this space at all. So it's important. If you look at the timeline and the de-risking milestones, could you delineate at a high level where you are in the process today and the approximate timeline, so potential investors can better understand the process?
Andrew Reid (18:37)
Yes. We put out our feasibility study just several months ago, at the end of June, where we came out with those quite extraordinary financial numbers we've talked about, for a project that only requires about US$75 million of capital. The important next steps are that we start what we call the front-end engineering design work, the detailed design work; that we get the final costings coming out of Brazil; and that we start to work up the plan for what development of this project really looks like.
In parallel, a couple of things are obviously quite critical. We don't have our final environmental permit at this stage. We're working very closely with the regulators in the state we operate in. We get tremendous local municipality and council support in the town where we operate. We've been there, we've lived there, and we've had office representation in that town for twelve years. We're getting good political support in the state. And I think there's a lot of interest in a project like this, with its green credentials, being able to put Brazil on the map as the second rare earth project to get up and running.
What's even more important, and probably what interests all your viewers, is offtake arrangements. Where is this product going to go? How many opportunities are there for us to sell our product into a Western market? Most of your viewers would know there's really only a handful of what I'd call tier-one processing opportunities in the Western world. These are companies with the knowledge, expertise and know-how, which have been up and running with parts of the downstream supply chain for many years. It's really important for near-term projects like mine that we're engaged with these offtakers, and we're having in-depth discussions about where our product can go and which markets it fits into.
For a junior rare earth company, the holy grail is to get an offtake agreement with a major. Very few of them are ever given out. Once you're able to secure one, I think it makes the financing of these projects fairly straightforward and vanilla, because you're able to underwrite a lot of the risk against the offtaker. Because let's face it, with banks and governments: you can't trade, you can't hedge rare earths at the moment. There's no way of offsetting a lot of the risk, and that's why these much larger projects typically need the banks and the governments to underwrite a lot of their capital requirements.
That's not our game. That's not where this project sits, and that makes us really unique from a financial perspective. We think we can raise the money in the market. There are lots of PE funds, and we're getting a lot of interest from other parties, so we believe we can raise the capital quite quickly and in a straightforward manner. And because we don't have a lot of capex, the build time for these projects is severely shortened. It doesn't take years to build these things. It can take a matter of just months, because they're not complex. They're largely big earthworks and civil construction activities, which are generally the lowest-risk portion of any new mine build. That's where most of our activities and most of our spend are, and that puts us at a distinct advantage compared to all of our peers.
Daniel O'Connor (23:28)
Look, there's no question. When I read that feasibility study and the financials, if that model comes out anywhere near accurate, that's a very profitable asset. That's helpful for investors so they understand the timeline. Now, a question for you. You've got some permitting. I would imagine you still have to deal with both the federal and the state level. Brazil has two things going on, is that not the case?
Andrew Reid (24:01)
That's correct.
Daniel O'Connor (24:03)
So when do you get your permits done? Just ballpark, what's your target?
Andrew Reid (24:06)
Well, in any mining project, getting a permit involves a lot of unknowns. Right at the moment there's no definitive timeline that regulators give you. They need to assess the application, they need to do it in a thorough manner, and that's what we want them to do. We have had sign-off from the Federal Mines Agency on the use of ISR and the use of magnesium sulfate. We had a public open meeting in the town of Apuí just a week or so ago, with a question-and-answer session that went very well. That's a key milestone in being able to deliver the project. We believe we're getting much closer, and that there aren't a lot of hurdles left in front of us for the authorities and regulators to issue a permit. Once that happens, we can lock away the financing and determine the schedule and the pathway to development.
Daniel O'Connor (25:26)
Right, agreed. I did have a couple of other questions. Sorry, Dustin, I'm hogging all the time. On offtake: for the audience, typically you need to get the permitting done before you get an offtake deal. Can that happen before? How open is the market to entering into at least a non-binding MOU earlier rather than later?
Andrew Reid (26:06)
I would classify my conversations this way: the permits are important, but they're not an impediment to moving forward with an agreement. They'll obviously be a condition precedent on the execution of any contract. But right now the reality is there are just about no mines, or very few opportunities, for new product to come into the market in the Western world. And there's keen interest from a lot of suppliers to make sure they're able to get access to products that can come online quickly, because most of the other projects are talking about maybe getting up and running only in the 2030s. There's nothing over the next five years.
Daniel O'Connor (27:01)
Exactly, a hundred percent. Andrew, you don't have to sell us on that. We agree with you. Now, we call it Great Powers Era 2.0, and we're going to get a little theoretical for a minute. We're in a time of great change, Andrew, which is an opportunity for different countries to move up the value chain, and we're seeing countries that want to do this. Countries like Vietnam, Malaysia and Brazil want to pass laws or implement policy, one way or another, to do more of the separation, the midstream at least. Are they open to you exporting just the carbonate, or do they want you to work with processors? To the extent you can share. If not, don't worry about it. But we're tracking this topic, and I think you know what I'm referring to.
Andrew Reid (28:19)
Yeah, I think, Daniel, there is a debate going on inside Brazil right now about critical minerals and making sure the government can extract the maximum benefit from those materials, which is a debate that should occur. Obviously with rare earths, the strength of the Chinese products and the processing they've built up over decades now is something that will, unfortunately, just take time for Western markets to achieve, as we start to reimport the technology we lost and essentially gave away over those last decades. I think Brazil definitely has ambitions to go further downstream, and that's a good objective to have, but they also recognize that it's going to take time, and that there's certainly an opportunity for projects to get up and running and export an intermediate or semi-processed material like a carbonate, like the one we plan to produce at the Ema project.
Daniel O'Connor (29:41)
That totally makes sense. It's a very interesting, strategically placed asset. We've learned a great deal about this space, and exactly what you're mentioning about how it's somewhat unique. There aren't a lot of these, especially in the Western Hemisphere. Dustin, do you want to layer on a few questions? I'll step back for a minute, because I could keep going with Andrew, but I want to be respectful of your time too.
Dustin Olsen (30:22)
I think this has been a great conversation. We've been talking about the project and how great it is, but Andrew, I'd love to hear from you. Your career has spanned the globe. What have you learned over the last thirty years that you're applying to the Ema project in Brazil? You've done hard rock, and you've gone from Arctic Finland to the Amazon. I'm sure you've learned a few things, so I'm curious how that's all being applied today.
Andrew Reid (30:57)
I'm quite thankful for the career I've had. I've been very lucky to live and work in many different countries and to be involved in an industry that's at the forefront of technology, so you learn a lot. For me, the biggest takeaway from having been in the rare earth sector for quite a while is that, everybody says it, but less is more, particularly when you're starting up quite complex hydrometallurgical projects, which rare earths often involve.
For us at BCM, we've always said we're going to produce this mixed rare earth carbonate. We're going to get that up and running and optimized to a commercial state before we start to look at any further downstream processing or advancement into other parts of the supply chain. Unfortunately, there are a lot of companies that want to go straight into the supply chain. They don't have the background, the skills or the knowledge, and they don't really understand the risks, because they haven't worked for twenty or thirty years at the coal face.
My experience, and the experience of the other directors of BCM, places us in a unique position to understand those risks very acutely. So we're executing a plan, and we've stuck to this plan now for twelve months. We have a few big hurdles around permits and offtakes that we're working through, but ultimately our goal is to get this project up and running as soon as possible, producing a carbonate into the Western world.
Dustin Olsen (32:58)
I think that's awesome, and I think that knowledge will help de-risk the project and make it more enticing. On that note, permitting is a big hurdle for everyone in this part of the supply chain. How are you approaching that hurdle, with everything you've seen and been through?
Andrew Reid (33:24)
We have a great team in Brazil. We've got a couple of key people who have built multiple mines in Brazil, so their knowledge of the system and their relationships with key stakeholders are quite amazing. That's allowing us to move in an orderly fashion through the assessment of our application for a final permit. I think the regulators are taking that very seriously at the moment, and once they finish their assessment they'll make a decision. We're hoping it's in the affirmative for us getting a permit, but ultimately it's at the discretion of the regulators.
The thing going for us, though, guys, is this. There are three things Brazilians typically don't like. They don't like deforestation, they don't like tailings dams, and they don't like social unrest. We're in an area that's predominantly cattle farming. It's already been semi-cleared, so we're not planning on doing any further clearing of the land. There's never been any indigenous habitation of the land, so we don't even have to consider that. And we get tremendous support for the project. So we've ticked all those boxes, and a lot of our peers are still struggling to get through some of those. All in all, it places us in a very unique position. The environmental strength of this project should really be considered, and is being considered very strongly by the regulators, and ultimately I believe that will result in us getting a permit.
Dustin Olsen (35:28)
That's great. We're at the end of our time for the show, but before we go, if anyone is interested in learning more or getting more involved with what Brazilian Critical Minerals is doing, where's a great place for them to start?
Andrew Reid (35:52)
We obviously have a website. That's probably the first port of call, and there's a lot of good information there. We've been very transparent over the years, with a lot of information about the Ema project and about in-situ recovery. There's an info@braziliancriticalminerals.com email address there, so you can always drop an email or a note into that, and it will come through to my inbox. I'm happy to chat with any and every viewer who has questions.
Dustin Olsen (36:29)
Perfect. We'd love to send them there and give you the extra support you need. Andrew, thank you so much for your time, your experience, and most of all the work you're doing to help this industry move forward.
Andrew Reid (36:48)
Thank you very much.
Daniel O'Connor (36:48)
Andrew, I'd just say that we're honored to have you. You're a deep subject-matter expert, with your background in mineral economics and mining engineering, and it's great to connect with people like you. The asset you're developing is extremely important for national security. I'll say, as an American, for US national security and for the West. So we support your efforts.
Andrew Reid (37:18)
Thanks, Daniel. Thank you very much. Much appreciated.
Dustin Olsen (37:22)
Andrew, hopefully we'll get you back on the show sometime in the future for an update on how the Ema project is going and where things stand with Brazilian Critical Minerals.
Andrew Reid (37:33)
That would be awesome. Thanks very much, guys.
Dustin Olsen (37:36)
Thank you. We'll talk to you soon, Andrew.
