Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Darryl, and I’m your conference facilitator today. I would like to welcome everyone to Cleveland-Cliffs' Third Quarter 2024 Earnings Conference Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. The company reminds you that certain comments made on today's call will include predictive statements that are intended to be made as forward-looking within the safe harbor protections of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although the company believes that its forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that can cause actual results to differ materially. Important factors that can cause results to differ materially are set forth in reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q and the news releases filed with the SEC, which are available on the company's website. Today's conference call is also available and being broadcast at clevelandcliffs.com. At the conclusion of the call, it will be archived on the website and available for replay. The company will also discuss results, excluding certain special items. Reconciliation for Regulation G purposes can be found in the earnings release, which was published yesterday. At this time, I would like to introduce Lourenco Goncalves, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Darryl. Good morning, and Happy Election Day to the Americans listening in on the call today. Throughout my 10 years with Cliffs, we have worked very consistently to position the company to benefit no matter what candidate or political party is in power. This year is no different. At this point, it's clear to us that with either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris as President of the United States, our executive branch will work to improve conditions and support a domestic steel industry owned and operated by American producers. American steel companies are way ahead of all others in the entire world, both in steelmaking technology and access to capital markets. We have a domestic market for steel that's the envy of other nations, and we have the American people willing to work for us and benefit from these favorable conditions. Steel touches several important areas: national security, infrastructure, manufacturing, supply chains, middle-class union and non-union jobs, just to name a few. It's exciting that both presidential candidates are concerned about all these areas, and also that both have similar pro-steel views. We have had a thorough dialogue with surrogates from each campaign, and we definitely believe that critical points we have made about our American steel industry have been heard, accepted, and understood. Our number one topic of conversation with these officials is trade. While steel imports are a fact of life in the United States, not all imports are created equal. A country like Canada, for example, follows the rules and does things the right way. This is a large part of the rationale behind Cleveland-Cliffs acquiring Stelco, the steel company of Canada. We received all approvals within the time frame we expected we would and closed the deal in three months; that's how M&A is done. When we have two honest counterparties working collaboratively, the deal closes, bankers and lawyers get paid, and shareholders are rewarded. In our release yesterday evening, we provided Stelco's financial results. While operating on a smaller scale, Stelco provides amazing resilience in a not-so-good steel market, as well as substantial upside in a strong market, all driven by the best-in-class cost structure and emphasis on spot sales versus the primarily contractual book of business that standalone Cliffs relies upon. Based on these current market conditions, the acquisition of Stelco will allow us to average up the overall EBITDA margin of Cleveland-Cliffs. The standalone Cliffs is primarily a company centered on serving the automotive industry. Our specialized equipment capabilities, our material flows, and our robust customer and technical service efforts are distinct from any other steelmaker. When automotive is flourishing, our footprint performs correspondingly. Conversely, in an environment like we had in Q3, where the automotive industry slowed down well below expectations, the fixed costs associated with our configuration become more difficult to overcome. With Stelco as part of our company, our overall cost structure is significantly improved, making us better suited to serve the non-automotive markets. As a supplier to primarily non-automotive end users and service centers, Stelco runs a much lower fixed cost and nimble operation. They are geared to thrive selling to these end markets at mid-cycle, peak, and trough spot pricing levels because of their cost advantages. These advantages are well documented: currency, iron ore cost, plant layout, healthcare, and power costs. With these advantages, Lake Erie Works became the benchmark in low cost of our new operating footprint from day one. Our Lake Erie cost structure for hot-rolled is lower than anyone else's in North America, including EAF mini mills, and the numbers are unquestionable. Unlike the acquisitions of AK Steel and ArcelorMittal USA, which were either underperforming or underinvested when we acquired them, Stelco is both well-invested and a standout performer in the industry. Based on our experience from the previous acquisitions mentioned above, we are convinced that we have the opportunity to generate $120 million of cost synergies within the first year. Stelco will keep its name, structure, and most of its leadership, and the Canadian flag will continue to fly proudly at each operational facility. I will now pass it to Celso for his remarks.

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Our Q3 results were impacted by weaker steel demand and pricing throughout the quarter, which were partially offset by great cost performance by our team. These factors drove an adjusted EBITDA of $124 million on 3.8 million tons of shipments during the third quarter. North American automotive build rates in Q3 were the lowest since the depths of the semiconductor shortage a few years ago, with only 3.75 million units built during the quarter. The latest expectation for automotive builds this year is around 15.5 million units, which is about 1 million units less than what was expected at this time last year. With our position as a large automotive supplier, this drove our shipments, average selling prices, and unit margins down quarter-over-quarter. Compounding this, our non-automotive business also saw continued weakness in demand and pricing, both in flat rolled and plate. Overall, the average selling price fell $80 per ton and shipments fell 150,000 tons compared to the prior quarter. Given the ongoing demand weakness, we temporarily idled one of our blast furnaces in Cleveland to better align production with our order book, as both automotive and service center customers reduced their order activity during the third quarter. The idle temporarily takes offline about 1.5 million net tons of annual capacity, and we don't plan to resume operations until market conditions improve. From a cost standpoint, we reduced unit costs by over $40 per ton during the quarter, exceeding our previous guidance on both an absolute and mix-adjusted basis. This came ahead of expectations despite running our mills at reduced operating rates. The belt-tightening at the operational level was reflected in both capital spending and SG&A costs as well. Our quarterly SG&A of $112 million and capital spending of $151 million remained substantially below our averages for the past four years. Along these same lines, we are taking a similarly lean approach to our capital expenditures budget for next year. We have guided to a capital spend of $600 million for 2025 on an ex-Stelco basis, which would be our lowest standalone CapEx since our transformation in 2020. This is a function of reduced needs across the footprint and updated spend estimates on our three strategic growth projects at Middletown, Butler, and Weirton. In 2025, we also see the favorable impact of improved coal supply contracts to the tune of a $70 million cost improvement year-over-year. That said, our most critical recent accomplishment on the finance front was completing the necessary steps to close the Stelco acquisition. As you may recall, we originally intended to fund the acquisition with a combination of financing instruments, including a term loan, secured and unsecured high-yield notes, and our ABL. But as we began to market the deal to investors, we noticed strong receptivity to the story and group conviction we could raise what we needed without tapping either the secured bonds or the term loan markets. The resulting financing structure leaves us in an ideal and flexible position to weather any economic downturn and to deleverage quickly when cash flow starts to increase. Now that we have Stelco closed, we'll be reprioritizing debt repayment over share repurchases with future cash flow generation. Looking ahead, the Stelco acquisition adds assets to the footprint that are exactly what we need at this time: a nimble operation that thrives even in down markets. The North American flat rolled market has long been in need of consolidation, and we continue to do our part to make that a reality. The deal is EPS accretive, credit positive, and we maintain ample liquidity to navigate the current cycle. Based on what we're seeing in the marketplace, we expect the tide to turn soon, and regardless of who wins the election today, it's easy to get bullish on the expectations for 2025, and our upside for that is further amplified with the Stelco assets. With that, I'll pass it back to Lourenco.

Thank you, Celso. In other news, each one of our three key strategic projects continues to progress well. We have received Phase 1 funding approvals from the Department of Energy for our efficiency projects at Middletown and Butler, allowing us to proceed. As for our transformer plant at Weirton, we are pleased to report that we have all of the necessary equipment ordered to begin making transformers in late 2025 or early 2026. We have secured a joint venture partner whom we feel can complement our capabilities, a partner with technical expertise and customer relationships in this space. We will report more news with respect to the joint venture partner in the near term. From the Cliffs side, we are bringing a lot to the table: a large and skilled workforce, a plant site with all of the essentials already built and in place, and most importantly, the internal supply of grain-oriented electrical steels from our Butler, Pennsylvania plant. Our actual third quarter results were certainly not a reflection of what we think a mid-cycle environment in our industry should be. Demand was the weakest it has been since COVID, and achieving our 4 million ton sales target would have forced us to change prices even lower. As we have done historically in similar markets, we acted with discipline and reduced production by idling our blast furnaces. Going forward, based on the trend of falling interest rates, election certainty, import economics, and manufacturing onshoring, we are becoming more and more comfortable forecasting a rather strong 2025 for both our automotive and non-automotive businesses. I'll end my remarks with a note of recognition for our workforce. Our safety metrics in 2024 are the best I have ever seen in my entire career in the steel industry. Specifically, for our union partners, we thank you for your support this year. We have now officially added another 1,800 USW members in Canada. Welcome to the team, each one of you. With that, I will turn to Darryl for Q&A.

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Our first questions come from Lucas Pipes with B. Riley Securities. Please go ahead with your questions.

Thank you very much, operator, and good morning, everyone. Congratulations on the timely close of the Stelco acquisition. Lourenco, given that the deal closed mid-quarter, I wonder if you could maybe speak to Q4 volume, price, and cost expectations? Thank you very much.

Yeah. I'll talk about volume and market expectations. Let Celso talk about the cost portion. As far as volume, we believe that our clients, as soon as we have a little more clarity, which should happen in the next few days on the election, customers will start placing orders and things will start to pick up quickly. I’m anticipating a very strong Q1. I believe that we will have volumes back to normal by the first half of next year. I also believe that the automotive clients, at least two of the big four that decided to go for lower prices, are starting to feel the pain of their decisions, and that this business is already coming back to Cliffs. So the automotive side of business should be much better as well, because we will have the business that was taken away for absurdly low prices coming back to us. I'll let Celso answer the cost portion of the question.

Yeah, sure. Hey, Lucas, and thanks for your comments. From an average selling price standpoint, we expect Q4 to be similar to Q3 on a standalone basis. We'll have a little bit less HRC and a similar level of automotive, with not a big impact from the October auto contracts. From a shipment standpoint, our standalone shipments will obviously be a little bit lower in Q4, but Stelco will kind of bring us up. So what we lose on a standalone basis kind of gets backfilled from what we bring from Stelco. So you can expect similar shipment levels in Q4 relative to Q3. From a mix standpoint, it will likely be more weighted toward HRC, obviously, from having the Stelco footprint as well. We'll get two months of contribution from Stelco, given where we closed the deal. Other things like working capital, we should see a build of about $50 million to $75 million as inventory could be impacted from the C6 outage but will be partially offset from a release in receivables. Acquisition costs and things like that will be pretty minimal in Q4.

Thank you very much for all that detail. Bigger picture question on the CapEx guidance for 2025, a very meaningful reduction versus prior commentary. So I wondered if you could maybe walk through the changes. And then, you're still going ahead with your strategic projects that you outlined could add $600 million of EBITDA. Could you remind us how quickly that EBITDA could flow through and attribute that $600 million to the various projects? Thank you very much for that color.

Yeah, Lucas. Lourenco here. We are basically bearing the CapEx needs with what we expect in terms of automotive demand next year. Remember, we spent a lot of money in the last couple of years bringing in the equipment, particularly the one that we acquired from ArcelorMittal USA. ArcelorMittal is running the assets to the structure. We had to really catch up on maintenance to bring the equipment back in shape, and now they are. So we don't need to spend as much as we thought we would need going forward. Things are in good shape as far as the equipment goes. The other thing is that it's clear that our clients are not transitioning to electric vehicles as fast as they said they would. Actually, some are really doing a complete 180 on their strategies and going back to ICE and some are starting hybrids. So we are taking the automotive clients' words with a grain of salt going forward. This makes us less eager to spend money to change things here to upgrade for what they say they would be. As far as the new plant, Stelco, we believe that we are going to spend between $80 million and $100 million in CapEx as maintenance CapEx. The equipment is in good shape. Like I said in my prepared remarks, different from previous acquisitions, we don't believe we have anything meaningful to do there other than the normal course. So, the number is pretty realistic. With a higher price environment, we expect the overall impact to be very positive. I don't know if Celso has anything else to add to what I just said.

Yeah, sure. So just to put some numbers to it, the cadence of the capital spend, Lucas, for 2024, we will end the year around $625 million standalone. Looking forward to next year, we've reduced the sustaining level down to $500 million. When you add in the strategic investments, the Middletown spend for 2025 is about $50 million. That's the Cliffs portion, but you have an offset in terms of other CapEx savings in Middletown about the same level, so they net out. For Weirton, the Cliffs portion is about $30 million and the Butler spend, the Cliffs portion is about $35 million. So all-in for next year before Stelco is around $565 million, and then you add another $100 million to $110 million for Stelco, bringing you to about $675 million total for 2025.

Thank you very much. And on the timing of the positive contributions from the growth projects?

I'm sorry, say one more time, Lucas. Timing of contribution of what?

In terms of Middletown, Weirton, and Butler and the EBITDA contribution from these growth projects, could you speak to...

Yeah. Middletown is a long-term project that will be operational by 2027. It’s a lengthy project. But it should be a little earlier, likely late '26 or early '27. For Weirton, we are working hard to start up our plant in the fourth quarter of 2026. However, the official timeframe we have right now is still first quarter of 2026. These are all big projects, and we need to receive equipment that has long lead times. But assuming everything goes well, Weirton should be operational by the end of next year; we're actually targeting late 2025 or early 2026 time frames.

Gentlemen, I appreciate all the detail. I wish you and the team all the best of luck. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Lucas. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Lucas.

Thank you. Our next questions come from the line of Lawson Winder with Bank of America. Please proceed with your questions.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, Lourenco and Celso. Nice to hear from you both. Celso, maybe for you, just on costs heading into Q4. Pretty remarkable cost savings of $40 per ton in Q3. Is something of that magnitude potentially achievable heading into Q4?

Thank you for the comments, Lawson. Yes, we've been tightening the belt a lot on costs. So the quarter-over-quarter performance is remarkable. I'm very proud of the team here for what we accomplished from a cost standpoint. We were down $40 a ton versus our guidance of $30, and that's really difficult to do. So that should be commended. This comes from improved operational efficiencies and just continuing to be disciplined. These Q3 costs are the lowest level since, I think, 2021. We're going to continue to bring costs down. Stelco is obviously going to benefit us a lot on the cost side, but we also have the Cleveland 6 idled, which brings costs up. I wouldn't expect to see the same magnitude of cost reduction going into Q4, but we'll continue to bring costs down as you've seen.

Okay. Well, that would be great. Thank you for your comments on the auto contracts. Can I maybe just follow up on that and ask a follow-up question regarding how the current contracting cycle, so the October 1 contracts, compared to the prior year's contracts in terms of pricing? Are we looking at fairly stable pricing there?

Yeah. Look, the October clients were part of the ones that did not move much in terms of tonnage. One of them didn't move at all. So we only agreed on new models, so that's normal. But make no mistake, I had to be a lot more flexible in taking lower prices, not to undercut the prices that the competition was throwing in the marketplace, fomented by foreign-owned companies operating within the United States. We have one, and we almost had a second that we had to block. I believe we did; let's see what's going to happen, but we can't allow foreigners to dump from inside. They are very good at dumping from the outside. But dumping from the inside is a new development that I learned in 2024, and we acted upon. So our prices of the contracts for the next year are lower, but the tonnage is preserved, except for two of the clients that really decided to go for lower prices. Coincidentally, these are the two car manufacturers that are really underperforming the competition. So there's a lot of work to be done going into next year. We are good with prices. We acquired Stelco, which gives us a significant barrier compared to the situation we had to suffer through in Q3. Let's see what unfolds in 2025.

All right. Thanks very much for those comments, Lourenco. Thank you both for your responses.

Thank you, Lawson.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next questions come from the line of Carlos De Alba with Morgan Stanley. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning, everyone, and congratulations on the acquisition of Stelco. Celso, considering the higher spot prices for HRC in the fourth quarter due to Stelco, do you anticipate that prices will be down at least slightly compared to the previous quarter?

Yeah, probably slightly, just given all the dynamics we have going on at the moment, Carlos.

Right. That makes sense. Lourenco, if I understood you correctly, auto prices in 2025 would likely decline a bit compared to what you expect to average in 2024. Additionally, you have other industries with fixed annual prices. Can you discuss how those are changing for 2025?

Yeah. Look, you're correct about the automotive contracts. So far, we agreed to slightly lower prices in our renewals. Nothing really changing meaningfully from a cost-per-ton standpoint. It's all about the tonnage now. Let's see how many cars the car manufacturers will project. They underperformed themselves by a lot in 2024. We've been the most automotive-driven supplier, and I insist that we are not in the business of dumping from inside the domestic market. We suffered more than anyone else in Q3, and that's a fact. For the other contracts, it’s more of the same. It's CRU minus number, low single-digit. Let's see where CRU will go. We don't import. I believe that price will go up. What do you think, Carlos?

Yeah. That's for sure, without less supply, prices tend to be stronger. Now on the cost side, I wanted to just explore the $70 million lower cost overall next year because of lower coal contracts. Are you expecting anything else on the coal side or that is it for 2025? And what else on cost, any big initiatives that maybe you can highlight and what the expectations will be in terms of cost reduction for next year?

That's a big component that we will have for next year. We found a significant spare capacity in coal making in Canada in our new footprint at Stelco. With that, we will definitely be buying less outside the company, significantly affecting our costs. We haven't quantified exactly how much that will be, but it will be a significant number going forward. The impact will be more in 2026 because we need to go through the tail of the existing contracts. However, in the next negotiation, we will be negotiating much less with external sources. Anything else, Celso?

Thank you very much.

Yeah. No, maybe just to round that out, Carlos, if you allow me, on both the average selling prices and costs, right? Stelco will bring an impact on both sides. The ASPs will be impacted from Q3 to Q4 just given their less rich mix and spot exposure. This will also come with cost benefits. As we think about costs going into 2025, the reduction in coal costs that you mentioned are very meaningful. There are also other levers that will offset the increases we’ll see in areas like labor, alloys, and other costs. You have to think of it all together.

Okay. Make sense. Thank you for the color, Celso. Thank you, Lourenco.

Thanks, Carlos.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next questions come from the line of Bill Peterson with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your question.

Yeah. Hi. Good morning, Lourenco and Celso, and thanks for all the color. Wanted to come back to the market environment. You touched on weak demand. You talked about weak auto demand. I guess have you seen any other pockets of weakness, especially heading into the election, delays going on, or things that could unlock that you expect? I'm just trying to get a sense through also where customer inventories are, just to get a sense of when this snapback could occur?

Yeah, Bill. The weakness in demand is primarily driven by high interest rates. It’s very interesting to see day after day the Fed officials going, giving speeches and talking about how great things are and how fixated they are on the economy doing well. Yet they keep raising interest rates by 25 basis points. Let me tell you what happens in real life. A consumer that has a Suburban, let’s say five years old, wants to replace it with a new one, goes to the dealer, and the price tag is higher— not because of steel, because the car prices doubled in five years. And almost nobody pays cash, they finance. So he goes from a payment plan of 1.52% to a new one of 7.5% or 8% interest, and the dealer says, 'Are you sure you don't want to increase your payment plan?' So he decides to keep the old car instead of buying a new one. That’s why cars aren’t moving at the dealerships. It's all about money, not an EV versus ICE debate. The situation is more complicated than it looks on television. High interest rates need to come down. What I've explained about automotive also applies to houses. People aren't selling their houses with low-rate mortgages. If they do try to sell, nobody will buy because of high-rate mortgages. Think about your own situation; you'd want to get a better house but are concerned about affording the new mortgage. That’s what high interest rates do. We are in good shape. It's time to lower the rates and get consumers moving again. Once that happens, the demand weakness will vanish quickly.

Yeah. Thanks for that color. I drive a 10-year-old car for those reasons. My next question is actually on infrastructure. We've discussed this before, and it feels like the infrastructure-related projects still seem to face delays. But I won't make this less interest-rate sensitive, are you seeing any signs there? More broadly, can you speak to what you're seeing in the plate market?

Infrastructure projects face two challenges: red tape, particularly between federal and local jurisdictions, and the inability to secure financing due to high interest rates. This is also impacting big-ticket items. I was using the consumer scenario because that’s what we deal with most, being more life-rolled than in plate. However, flat through the big-ticket items, we see projects being delayed due to expensive money. We expect that to be corrected next year as well.

Yeah. Thanks for that. Thanks for the additional context. Good luck.

Thanks.

Thanks, Bill.

Thank you. Our next questions come from the line of Alex Hacking with Citi. Please proceed with your question.

Yeah. Thanks. I just have one follow-up question for Celso. On your commentary on Q4 volume, if I heard correctly, maybe I misunderstood. You said that shipments should be flattish, including Stelco, but two-thirds of a quarter Stelco should be around 400,000 tons. That seems awfully low. I just wanted to double-check that. Thank you.

No, that's right, Alex. The Stelco benefit we’re getting from a volume standpoint kind of makes up for the volume loss from having C6 down. So quarter-over-quarter, Q3 into Q4, volume should be around the same level.

Alex, this year, Thanksgiving is in November, and the holiday season falls between December 25 and December 31. It’s a low time, Q4. Last year, Q2 was 4.1 million tons, Q3 was 4.1 million tons, and Q4 was 4. So Q4 is always lower. So when we say it will be around the same, it suggests it could be higher.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

There are no further questions at this time. I'd now like to hand the call back over to Lourenco Goncalves for closing comments.

Very good. Thank you very much for everyone that’s here in the call. Darryl, I’m seeing here on my screen there is one more analyst in the queue asking...

Yeah. We can get the request. It’s Chris LaFemina from Jefferies.

Hey, guys. Sorry to dial in so late. Thanks for taking my question at the end here. Lourenco, I just wanted to ask about the number 6 blast furnace. If we have a strong demand recovery, let's say, in 2025, how long does it take to bring that back online? What are the costs to bring it back online? And what sort of pricing environment do you need to see before you would make that decision? Thank you.

Chris, we will bring number 6 back as soon as possible. Demand will return when prices recover, so it's interconnected. I believe that will happen early in 2025 in terms of price recovery. I fully expect that we'll bring it back online sometime early next year.

If you think about it, Chris, there are a lot of potential catalysts brewing in the market that could benefit us in the short term. We’ve started to see interest rates come down. We'll get clarity on the U.S. elections hopefully today, if not this week. Manufacturing onshoring will lead to increased demand. Imports are currently unattractive. There's potential for increased trade protection. We also anticipate significant demand from the CHIPS Act and IRA. The auto industry will eventually recover. These are all factors we're watching closely. As soon as we see more green shoots, we'll reconsider our footprint and bring it back.

One point about the demand recovery is this: depending on who becomes the President of the United States, I anticipate more actions aimed at protecting the domestic market against those that make concerted efforts to undermine it. I'm very excited and bullish about 2025, Chris.

That sounds good. Thanks a lot for that. I appreciate it. Good luck. Thank you.

Yeah, maybe one more point on that. As soon as things start to pick up, we're going to see a more immediate impact now that we have Stelco. We can navigate these changes much faster.

Yes, that’s a good point. Now that we have a smaller boat to maneuver instead of the carrier, that’s Cleveland-Cliffs, we’re going to see impacts flowing through the numbers much quicker. So that’s a very important point.

Thank you. Our next questions come from the line of Phil Gibbs with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Yeah. Good morning.

Good morning, Phil. I wanted to add something, but actually, why don't I answer your question? I saw your name popping up on the screen. So go ahead, please.

Thank you. Regarding the synergies with the Stelco acquisition, how should we think about those building up over the next few quarters?

We have full conviction on the $120 million in year one that we just gave you because we are starting to identify real opportunities now that we're inside. To let you know, because of ethical considerations, we didn’t address anything related to commercial until after closing, different from other companies that blur the line and don’t close anything. We aim to follow the rules of M&A. So we're beginning to see real opportunities over there. I would say that the $120 million of synergies is pretty conservative; it’s year one, and we will start to see right away.

Thank you. And then…

Go ahead. Sorry.

I was going to say, yeah, we'll probably update the synergy number on the next call. We didn't want to do it here just since we just closed the deal on Friday, but we feel really good about the $120 million. We'll look to provide an updated number on the next call, which will likely be higher from a cost synergy standpoint. As Lourenco mentioned, that doesn't even consider any sort of commercial opportunities that we're starting to identify. We're heading to Canada tomorrow, and we're excited to get going.

Thank you. And then on the larger scale projects you have over the next few years, particularly in Middletown and to a lesser extent, Butler, I know that there's some grant money associated with those projects. Have you received any of that? And what are the expectations in terms of the flow to you for those funds?

We already received the first installments related to the Butler and Middletown projects, and it’s ongoing; it's only scheduled. I don't have the details in front of me right now, Phil, but we’re absolutely on track with that.

And then lastly for me, just on the macro side. You certainly mentioned some auto headwinds in the quarter from two specific customers at a high level. But can you frame up how much your auto business was either impacted versus the second quarter or the third quarter of last year? I know the third quarter seemingly last year was pretty strong ahead of the work stoppage.

We are not going to provide specific data per client because that would not be appropriate. However, the good news is that the customers we've maintained have kept our volumes or slightly increased because of new models, and they are performing far better than those taking fewer tons from us. We believe the future will be better for us compared to what you saw in Q3. Our Q3 automotive performance was not good, and we fully understand that. We're slated to get better. That’s what I can tell you without giving specific numbers, but directionally you have the picture. I'm sure they'll be able to model it into your work.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Thanks, Phil.

This does conclude today's teleconference. We appreciate your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Enjoy the rest of your day.