United States Antimony Corporation (UAMY) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the United States Antimony Investor Call. [Operator Instructions] It is now my pleasure to turn the floor over to your host, Russell Lawrence. Sir, the floor is yours.

Great. Thanks a lot. Well, let's see. Welcome to our investor call. We wanted to supplement, updates and recent filings and the bimonthly operational update with this call. In anticipation of some of your questions, we'd like to the make following announcements by topic. And one parenthetical here is we originally have this call scheduled for 2 hours maximum. But if it should go less time, it was presented as 1 hour, but I -- no problem if we go 2 hours. So here are the topics. One, last week, we published 3 independent 8-K statements to the SEC. The first was regarding a Board agreement to allow the company to buy back stock. The second was regarding a Board agreement and the execution of the conversion of all of our Series D preferred stock. And the third was the announcement of Gary Evans to [indiscernible] okay? Topic number two, the Wadley mine. Starting in about Q2 of 2022, the owners of the Wadley did not sell us ore with an invoice anymore, or without prohibitively high price. So we went down during this period and met with them. There was a significant reduction in tonnage of purchased ore as a result of this, and that will show here. But this led to negotiations which resulted in a purchase option. Currently, we are purchasing ore -- more ore per month than we ever did before. We met with over 100 local miners and hired 2 managers who oversee the purchasing, assaying, packaging and shipping of ore to our smelter in Madero. Legal issues related to the pending purchase option are being reviewed. Okay. Topic 3, the Los Juarez property. Three parts of the study on the property have been completed, and reporting is in process. We have recently received data on soil sampling and rock chip sampling. Results of the geophysical study are being reviewed in conjunction with geologic data. Topic 4, the Soyatal property. Approximately 120 metric tons of ore have been processed at our flotation facility in Guanajuato, Mexico, and have yielded about 8 tons of antimony trisulfide concentrate with acceptable grade and acceptably low contaminant composition for synthesis into finished antimony trisulfide for use in primers for either military or the open market. Topic 5. The DLA and the DoD, the Department of Defense, and that -- okay. Today -- we are expect today, the 6th of September, we are expecting to receive some sort of verdict we were told. Regarding our third and hopefully final sample of antimony trisulfide for approval by the Department of Defense. If approved, we will be able to sell our trisulfide made from materials sourced from our mines to the U.S. military. Topic 6, Madero, that's our smelter. We have a record number of lots of ore from the Wadley on deck, and we're actually operating 2 long rotary furnaces right now. We have finally gotten much needed parts and supplies to the smelter in late Q4 to address aging and critical improvements. We also received 2 bids for construction of building alone and installation of concrete floors around and above our furnaces, ductwork, filter houses and associated machinery. Both bids are being evaluated and one will definitely be selected. The advantages of having a building and roof over our furnaces are manifold: Quality control, increased recovery, temperature control, lack of damage and downtime due to rain, dry storage of our product and reagents, safety and the ability to produce certifiably finished oxide. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity at Madero. Topic 7, Bear River Zeolite. In Q3, we purchased a new Caterpillar D8K to replace our aging A model and our D9 at the mine. We also purchased an excavator recently, which has been a great help for loading and cleaning of mined rock, along with our newer 740 Caterpillar haul truck and our newly acquired water truck for dust control in the summer months, the improvement to our mining capabilities and efficiency are substantial. Last week, we found and purchased a loader grader that will help a lot in the spring and fall for maintenance of the roads to the mine. We finally found and hired a great help and likely candidate to manage Bear River Zeolite, Richard Lyon. He has been instrumental in improving the entire facility, including testing and finding rolling stock but also in diagnosis and repair of the plant equipment and improvement to the plant generally. And with that, that concludes the introduction. With that, we would like to open it up to questions. This is a live call with no buffer. So is -- I don't know the moderators name.

[Operator Instructions] We do have a first participant on the line, [ Alwin Hoffman ], a private investor.

I've been a long-time holder of U.S. Antimony, and I was pleased to see that some of the activity in Central Idaho is starting up again. And I'd like to have a better understanding of the company's interest in that, specifically the Yellow Pine mine and related areas. For some reason, I don't never understood why the company let go of that property years ago and was totally out of the gold business, and now it looks as though some dealings with Perpetua or others may regenerate interest and perhaps even commercial mining in that. So what is the status and future of the Yellow Pine area?

Okay. Thanks for the question. We have, as you know, from previous filings, a collaboration agreement with Perpetua. And we -- about 2 years ago, and basically, the agreement is earmarking the idea that U.S. Antimony would process the concentrates that they generate at Perpetua in the Yellow Pine District at our facility in Mexico, which is permitted for sulfides. So their flotation concentrates would all be sulfides. And we presented 2 rolling agreements and had several discussions as late as Q3 with Perpetua about the potential for that. And so in addition to that, there's been some discussion that we may be able to, and they may be willing to process, if they can sequester enough ore that is not contaminated with arsenic or other contaminants, if they could make a concentrate that's acceptable grade for trisulfide, that an auxiliary source for U.S. Antimony to make trisulfide. Discussions are ongoing on that front. But yes, we are in -- we've talked with Perpetua. There's nothing firmed up in so far that they're talking about having a permit, but they're still working on it. They had -- Gus, you might remember, they had a couple of breakthroughs recently on their permitting struggle.

They had launched their air permit under protest from some group, and it was sent back to the courts for review. The courts okayed that permit and now it is in public comment period, I think, for 90 -- well, probably 60 more days.

Is that pretty well covered the answer to the question?

In part, Yes, that gives me a good rundown on the prospects for the Antimony. But what about the prospects for any gold? Restart of that operation?

Well, let's see, are we talking -- are you asking specifically regarding Perpetua, the gold in there?

Well, I'm asking specifically about the old Yellow Pine mine, and I forget the name of the other one that's with it. And I presume Perpetua owns the rights to those now, but I'm not really sure of that.

I think that's correct, that they own the lion's share of the mining claims in the Yellow Pine district, Hart Baitis our geologist knows a lot more about that. Is that your sense, Hart?

There may be some confusion here about Yellow Jacket versus Yellow Pine. Yellow Jacket, yes, that might explain that, Russ.

Okay. U.S. Antimony did have a mine, the Yellow Jacket years ago, and we operated a mill out of the Preacher's Cove area. I think that was the mid to early '80s. And basically, we -- at the end, we cleaned up the entire thing and got out of there. That was kind of before my time, but the -- my impression is that U.S. Antimony didn't really make any -- a lot of money because they got involved with a lawsuit regarding the recovery. And I think the deal was several people were stealing gold off of our gravity table on the swing shift and graveyard shifted. And so anyway, no, we're not opening the Yellow Jacket back up. Is it Bill Hossman. Is that correct?

Is what?

Sorry, I didn't get your first name.

Al.

Al. Sorry. So was that a confusion point? Did that answer your question sufficient?

Yes. I had always wondered why the company didn't at least keep the rights to the whole area there at Yellow Pine and have the Yellow Jacket possibly available for startup 10 or 20 years later. So I didn't know whether or not it had been depleted to the extent that it wasn't even likely to be viable with higher gold prices, or just so it was a cash flow problem that wouldn't permit retaining it.

My impression -- tell you what. Hart, you know about the -- a little bit more about the grades there than I do. Was it -- since this was before my time, did -- I don't think it was viable, but I don't know. Hart, is that your understanding?

All right. Let me just make it clear. Yellow Jacket, which was the U.S. Antimony property, which produced gold, is a long distance from Yellow Pine. U.S. Antimony never had an interest in Yellow Pine.

Okay. But you didn't keep Yellow Jacket, and that's completely off the books as far as any possible startup of that area.

Correct. In terms of U.S. Antimony's history there, they mined a near surface deposit that was bounded by a low annual fall at the base of the deposit. So once they mined out the surface expression of that deposit, they closed that operation.

Our next question comes from [ Dimitrius Manthis ], a private investor.

I missed a good portion of the call, but I do have a few questions here. And I hope -- I'm not sure if they were already asked or if you might have gone through it in your preliminary talk, Russ. So could you guys describe the relationship with Wadley in prior years with the exclusive lease arrangement and the overhead staff costs, the relationship as it is today, and the differences in costs associated with the buying or acquiring of ore from Wadley?

Okay. We just briefly touched on that. There's going to be some restriction in what I can tell you in so far that we haven't yet received all the legal information from the people that were negotiating the purchase option agreement with, Dimitrius. But basically, the overview is this. It's had 3 different stages: Pre-U.S. Antimony involvement, where they sold ore to the local miners, sold ore to a variety of people, including U.S. Antimony when we discovered them. And then when John Lawrence made a deal with them to lease the property. And he started out leasing it, Dimitrius, I just learned this a year ago, for $35,000 a month plus 16% value-added tax. And that was just a flat lease fee per month. Then he also assumed the cost and the responsibility and the liability of all of the miners, the mining, the equipment, of the drill steel, et cetera; and then he assume the cost of trucking and also purchasing of ore. And it was a nightmare because the overhead was incredible. And there was a big problem with theft. And so anyway, by the end, this would have been July of 2020. The end came when U.S. Antimony was essentially kicked off that property. And the reason offered was -- the reason for that they told us was that we couldn't arrest the theft. And so for a good 8 months, we were basically without ore from Wadley, and that's when we went into this period that I covered in the introduction, where we negotiated with them. And the net result of that was the option of -- the purchase option agreement. And we bartered that one. I can tell you that part of the purchase option agreement that we're currently in included an 8-month period for us to study and to extract as much ore as possible. And that's the period -- that's where we're at right now, Dimitrius. We're in the position of basically mining as much as we can. And we haven't seen it much yet because, frankly, we haven't received the legal information that was told we were going to have in 3 months. So in a sense, it's possible that the 8-month clock hasn't started ticking. But okay, bringing up to the nature of the current position with the Wadley. We're actually receiving more ore now than we ever have in the history from Wadley. And I went back yesterday, we went through our purchases. And whereas before, like, let's say 2021, when we restarted buying ore from them, we were getting -- I think it was -- when I average it out for pounds per day it was something like 860 pounds per day on average. We're now getting 2,400 in that department. These are approximate because I can tell you that -- we've got, I think, it's like 10 unprocessed lots ranging from 20 tons to 50 tons on deck at Madero. And we just got refractory down there to start up our second LRF, our long rotary furnace. And so in terms of cost, we were paying a little bit less back then, not during the period when John was buying. But after John died and we were buying ore, we were paying a little less than, but we were getting way less ore. And now we're paying a little more, but when I compare those, what we pay now includes all the trucking, it includes all of the materials for the guys' tires, gasoline, et cetera. And we don't have the liability because we're basically just purchasing the ore from the local miners. And my partner and I went down there and basically arrested several attempts at theft over the last couple of months. And if it was high stress deal, but we've got a guy there now that has arrested all of the theft. We're getting all of the ore, and I'm very excited about it. So the only thing to note is here in Q4, there's going to be a bottleneck because it takes us time to process the ore into a final sale. Now Dimitrius, I hope that wasn't too verbose, and I hope I answered your questions. Let me know.

So I take it then, is the price you pay for a truckload of ore, is that based on the percentage of Antimony content? Or how is it determined what your intend?

Okay. That's a good question. It's based on 3 or 4 factors. One is just what you said. And I'll tell you, that's been difficult to -- not difficult, but it's been a challenge lately. The ore grade -- of course, you may know this. Everybody that has ore thinks that their grade is higher, and it actually is bulk. And so they'll go out and grab a few real rich pieces of sample, we'll assay it. So we've gotten a deal now where it's very official. We get ore at the smelter, we crush it, we assay it. They claim that they assay it and the thing if there's any dispute, we take it to a referee. So it's as official as possible. And we paid based on grade, but we also pay based on what we call a tabula ore, it's a tabulator and it's based on the price of Antimony, the LNB price of ammonia. And it's a very technical process. And -- but anyway, that's basically how we do it.

Did I hear you say though, you're going 2,400 pound a day that's only about a pallet or so, right?

I've got to look at my sheet. But yes, what I wanted to impress upon you is that we're getting at least 3 or 4x as much ore now as we used to.

Okay. I mean I'm just hoping at some point, we're talking about processing tons of Antimony versus pounds or with a truckload is 40-some-odd thousand pounds.

I agree. I am totally on board. We're really excited about trying to get as much ore as we can. And remember this ore, it's all oxide. So none of it will work for trisulfide, but it's all very clean. In other words, it has very low mercury or arsenic or lead. It has a little bit of iron, but no problem. We've got that -- were kind of experts on processing the Wadley ore there at Madero. So as a matter of fact, we came up with the recipe for -- the LRS were designed for high-grade concentrates, but we've got a recipe now that we're running all the way down to 20% grade oxide out of the Wadley.

Okay. And say, if you were to purchase Wadley in the future, how are you guys going to implement a plan to stop future thefts and corruption from happening down there?

Okay. I'm going to be as careful on this answer as possible because there had been 4 people who have tried to arrest the theft and failed, and we've succeeded. And the word I'm avoiding saying is a synonym for courage. We had to go down and basically face the people that were stealing and threaten them. And there were only a few. Nobody had the courage to do it, and we did. And we've got a guy on the ground that knows all of them, and we've actually befriended those people now. And I like -- when we went down, I told them, we can actually offer you a better price per pound, but you've got to trust us and you've got to quit sending it to the other people. But the other one is one guy didn't believe us, had a truck roll out of there, and we arrested him.

Yes, the local police -- the federal police arrested him.

Yes. And so he's -- he knows that if he does it again, we've got -- we're not messing around. So I hope that is the answer to your question on how we're confident that we've got the theft under control.

Well, I hope you do because I mean if Wadley is going to become a primary place of feedstock for Madero, we're going to need to do something.

Absolutely. And I think we've got a system and personnel in place even if we do or do not buy the Wadley and it's open right now because, frankly, we haven't received the legal documentation we need to review it from them yet. So that's why we're concentrating on extraction and trying to ascertain the grade and the tonnages to see what's there and what we can get and the estimate is we think we can get around 120 tons a month of around 25% to 30%. If that answers it, Dimitrius.

And you said, are you guys mining or is it their miners that are actually because I've dealt with sort of survey and look for certain veins and maybe possibly go a little bit deeper? Maybe use technology to find maybe ore that they haven't over the years.

That's our hope if we purchase it. But until we purchase it, we're basically paying local miners to mine it. And we've got over 100. Yes.

Okay. You mentioned refractory on Madero on an LRF. Can you tell us and describe the operational condition of the LRF and the SRF in Madero? What's the capacity in pounds the company could process how many pounds of ore you could process into metal on a monthly basis at Madero right now?

Okay. A lot of questions there, let me hit them one by one, and these are approximate. First of all, the condition of the refractory on furnace, LRF number one, the belly is good, the end is good, but the nose has need to repair. On the 20th of this month, after we complete a truck, we've got 1/2 of the lot of refractory earmarked to repair that. And no problem. I mean, it takes a couple of days. And then we started up. When I was down there, we fixed the electronics for the natural gas for air mixture on LRF 2 and it's already operating and it's refractory is very good. The other furnaces we have, frankly, we have nozzles for 17. But operationally, several have died over the year due to wheels and I never mention this but we just have our local mechanic here, make -- was it 8 wheel, Gus?

10, right/?

Okay. 10. We've been reengineered the furnace SRF, the small rotary furnaces wheels because we had a problem that they would wear and then they would become unoperational. And we addressed that. And anyway, we've got 10 new engineered wheels with flanges on both sides, heat treated, heat pressed and very technical. But we've got the design down, and he's ready to do 10 more. But anyway, we're updating our wheel system on the SRF, I don't want to complicate it too much, but let's see, you asked the condition, and the only reason we don't have 17, we have more like 15 right now that could be easily brought up to speed. But we're only running, I think, it's 3 or 4 of the SRF right now. Why? To supplement the LRS, up until recently, we used 4 just to supplement the 1 LRF we were running. Now we're running 2 LRFs. The capacity to answer that question depends on your recovery. We're trying to maximize our recovery, which is the minimum throughput. But we've been working on that problem. And I'll tell you, and I mentioned this in the introduction. We are going to spend between MXN 500,000 and MXN 600,000 to erect a building and update the floors. Why? Every time in the afternoon, there it blows. And when we're recycling our oxide to make metal, Dimitrius, it blows -- a lot of it blows away in the damn wind. And we're basically operating all of our furnaces outside. We need to have a building. And John Lawrence and I had a dream of this happening, and we're going to do it. It's going to allow us to have better recoveries on metal. It's going to allow our furnaces not to get rained on. When it rains and they're hot, it's just a nightmare. It cracks the furnace shell and we get lower recovery for that reason. The charges get wet. You're burning off a lot of soaked charges. It's just a nightmare. So for years, we've been waiting for this moment. And it's really going to increase and it's going also to allow us to make finished oxide at Madero, which is a big deal. We can make finished metal there, all the finished oxide control equipment here in Montana. And so we supplement our fleet when our other supply is down here in Montana. But basically, if we can make finished oxide from both Montana and Madero, we can save a lot on shipping costs. So I kind of went off there. But to answer your question about capacity, each LRF, figure between 25% and 35% feed grade. Our recipe calls for between -- on the SRF between 1,000 and 1,200 pounds of feed per day. Multiply that by up to 15 or 17 SRFs. And then for the LRF, it's practically around 4,000 pounds per day, but we've gone as high as 6,000. The only reason I paused there is we can enjoy a greater throughput if we sacrifice recovery. But we're trying to minimize our losses, in other words, to get all of the plums out of the pudding type deal, Dimitrius. And I'm not sure that answered all the questions, but that's my first round. What did I leave out?

No, I think that's enough and I can do the math in terms of what you think your capacity is today. Regarding trisulfide, in the operational reports, I always see trisulfide noted as produced or shipped. For the 9 months ended September 30, what dollar contribution of total revenues came from the sale of trisulfide?

Just a moment, I don't -- I'm going to have to say right off hand, I don't have it in front of me, Dimitrius. Better allow me the time to look in our 10-Q on it. Look, I can tell you something that makes it...

I don't see in 10-Q either, though.

I'm sorry, say it again?

I don't really see any information about trisulfides broken out in the 10-Q whatsoever.

Okay. One of the things that makes this a little complicated is -- Gus, you might want to describe. Here, we had a change in what we were doing. Okay. Here, Dimitrius. When John Lawrence died on June 2020, he had been paid for a whole bunch of processing that he had not completed. Okay? We started in working to -- worked the bugs out, that were still existent at that time. And we've got them all worked out. But we processed a lot of Antimony powder and into what we call loan but we basically -- it wasn't on the books because John had already been reported that on a previous quarter. And it wasn't until sometime this year that we actually completed that and started getting other truckloads of Antimony powder.

I think that was actually early Q3. When we first -- when we started to process.

Yes. In other words, I think the reason you don't see it on the books, Dimitrius, is basically John had on have already been paid for, for a lot of material that we just processed in accordance with the agreement we had made.

And Dimitrius, that USAC had been paid for that processing from years ago.

Okay. No, I understand what's happening but as of today we are selling trisulfide, have we completed all 6 batches of trisulfide to the DLA?

We've got -- this is a night -- I'm going to be as nice as I can here. We have submitted, in fact, 3 samples to the DLA for review. One of them was lost?

Yes. But we resent.

But we resent it. 2 of them have been officially approved. The third one like I said in the introduction, we were told that on the 6th of December we were supposed to get a verdict on whether the third and possibly final sample was approved. Now there's one guy on the DLA that differs with the interpretation of the original verbiage on the contract, there are those that say 3 is enough. Once we get to 3, we're totally approved, and that's what we're hoping and that's what we think. But there's one guy there that says, no, you have to submit is up to as much as 6 batches. Well, we have all 3 more batches already made and ready to go if they should decide that 3 isn't enough.

So the other, Dimitrius, is we submitted that third sample almost 2 years -- well, 2 years ago. And it's just been delay after delay on the part of the Department of defense to get that tested. We call, we love them, we remind them and finally Russell had that communication a couple of weeks ago, where they said we might hear today on that third sample.

No, I understand. So it doesn't look like much progress has happened since June or July, the last time there was a public call. And just lastly, okay. The production of antimony has not ramped in years. In 2019, you guys did like 1.57 million pounds, this year, I don't -- you won't get up to that number. So why should investors have confidence that this is the management team that has the ability to ramp this in a meaningful way?

Well, there are 3 answers to that. One is we've been in this business for years, and we, kind of just looking around, I think we have the know-how to do it. The other one is there are a lot of competing Antimony people, and they claim that they have deposits here, there, everywhere. The fact of the matter is antimony deposits are ubiquitous, but good antimony deposits are not. We think that the geologic knowledge that we on our Board, in addition to the metallurgical knowledge we have in our company is the answer to that question. And in other words, when we hear that, okay, this guy's got a high-grade deposit, but it turns out its only be 1% or 2%. That's not a high-grade deposit, okay? We hear another person say we've got really good -- so we basically come to Mexico, we've looked at many, many different deposits, when we looked at a lot of deposits in the U.S., however, we're still looking. And we've got what we think are the experts on that, the geologic expertise to know what a good deposit is, what a feasible deposit is, whether it's contaminated, any of the metallurgical hiccups that are presented. And I think we've done our homework. And I think that's why the investor should look, if they're looking to invest in an antimony company, in us, rather than some of the other ones that are recently promoting themselves.

Okay. I'll take your answer. But again, we've really -- the investors really want to see this story ramp with execution. And that execution includes the volume of antimony production, and where we're talking in hundreds and thousands of tons versus pounds. That's just -- from a long-term investor, that's just something I'd offer out there. I appreciate the time. I'll open it up for someone else to ask some questions.

Sure. Dimitrius, let me just put a post script on that. When we took over and this was under criticism of some of the people, and I want to address it. When we took over, we were selling a lot more tons than we are, but we are losing $1.50 per pound of antimony at that time. This management team doesn't deem that a feasible or responsible use. And if you were to say, well, we'd rather have more tonnage," not at all cost. We think it's much better to have lower tonnage if necessary to sell at a profit.

Well, I agree with that, but we're in an elevated pricing environment for the last 2 years. We've had cash and capital for almost 2 years on the balance sheet. And we still can't seem to ramp volume. I mean, if we can't ramp volume with good pricing -- I mean, I understand you don't want to lose money, but if I -- if we can't ramp volume in a good pricing environment, I can only imagine, if pricing were to go back to that $6,000 level, where we're going to have to be hard-pressed to make any profit.

It's fair enough criticism. All commodities are very dependent on the commodity cycle, and that's a fair critique, Dimitrius.

We now have [ Marcus Johnson ] with [indiscernible].

Yes, I want to hear a little bit more about this theft situation. I think all of us are kind of interested in hearing a little bit more on that.

Well, basically, we -- the history of the Wadley was that there were some local bad guys. And we basically identified who they were, arrested a few, and the problem basically has been solved. But it was a problem. And one of the reasons it was a big problem, Marcus, was that there was nobody there -- that we -- the previous management entrusted some people that, quite frankly, they shouldn't have trusted.

Are they being prosecuted?

No. There -- like I say, they were -- we arrested one truck, and they basically recognize that they can't steal. And so now they're selling to us and they're getting a higher price. So we're actually -- there's a thing called aguinaldo, it's the Christmas bonus, and we're paying that. And it's basically a very good team of local miners that are working with us now. So the theft problem has basically been solved.

Are there any -- maybe private military actions being taken to maybe prevent this in the future?

No, we basically did it with the local state police and the municipal police. And I think that solved it. And as I say, I don't think it's a threat now because they're actually getting paid more and more timely than they were with the other people that they were selling to.

And I mean why are we still in business with these people if they're stealing from us?

I mean, well, basically, it's because there are -- it's a small town, and there's a bunch of people that know each other, and there are also rumors. But basically, we're in business because they have some very good miners that know where some good deposits are. And so we didn't want to lose that as an opportunity.

And they owned the trucks.

Yes. Okay. All right. The whole situation sounds a little fishy to me, to be honest.

Well, Marcus, I'll tell you, mining in Mexico is a little bit different proposition than mining in the United States. And if it were kind of -- if there were different -- if we were subject to different rules and regulations and penalties like we are in the United States, it would be a much different situation and a lot more easy for me to describe it. But Mexico is a little bit more -- how shall I say it?

Well, the Wadley area is almost like the old wild west.

It is, yes.

Yes, that's kind of why I was talking about the private military action. I mean, what about to reform some sort of antimony cartel per se?

Well, I look at the Wadley as a very important deposit. And that's why all of our attention has been on it or a lot of our attention. And I guess I'll put it this way. It's important that we went there. It's important that we have people that the locals trust, and that we have a relationship with the local miners, put it to you that way. It wasn't done before and it has been done now.

We now hear from Evan Tomkins , private investor.

I wanted to ask about the share buyback that you're doing. I was wondering if you have a time line on that and when it will go into effect?

Okay. what we voted on the Board was whether we wanted to do it, and whether we then could permit to do it. And is Tim Hasara on the line? I guess not. Okay. Basically, we voted to be able to buyback our stock. In terms of the timing, I don't know the answer to that.

Well, if you read the 8-K, it says that it's open. The timing is open, it will depend on the market price and the volumes.

So in regards to that as well with you doing the buyback, at the same time, there was a purchase from an insider for $0.20 a share. Is that the $5 million buyback price?

No. Not necessarily.

It will be market price, whatever it is.

Is there a reason why those shares were purchased at $0.20?

Because that's where the market was.

No. No, the market was at $0.43 when you purchased those shares for $0.20.

Let's see. Evan, I'm unaware of who bought shares at $0.20 -- I don't think the stock spend at $0.20 for....

5 days ago, Form 4 came out.

Okay. No, that's a different thing, that's a conversion. Okay, so that's a dividend. Evan, there were 2 8-Ks, one regarding the buyback of stock and the other regarding the conversion of the preferred Series D stock, and that was a separate Board of Directors vote, we voted in favor if the shareholders of the Series D agreed. We offered to pay their dividends for the conversion of their Series D stock into common stock. The dividend was $0.20 a share. So that's what we did there. In other words, we're trying to clean our balance sheet up by making the stock structure uniform and get rid of our preferred stock. So that's what we did there, Evan. I hope that answers the question.

Rightly.

See, what part are we confused about still?

So it was purchased way previously. It wasn't purchased recently.

It wasn't even purchased. It wasn't a dividend.

He might be talking about stuff that Joe bought back at $0.19.

But that had to have been over 2 years ago. We're unaware of any recent stock that could have possibly been purchased at $0.20.

It's on the Form 4. The Form 4 that was filed, it is on there as $0.20 a share.

You're certain that's not a dividend?

I'll pull up the Form 4 if you need me to.

No. I believe you, Evan, I guess, if you're aware of both and we're making sure because it just so happens that the dividend, I recall, was $0.20. I think this refers to the conversion rather than -- but I could be wrong, Evan. Let us look into it. It's a...

Yes. It's just -- there's a lot of -- like the last question of the last individual. He's asking a really good question as to we're hearing different things come about, and that's why they use the terminology fishy because it's 4 different things that are happening and answers can get answered -- questions can't get answered. And it was a little scary on the last individual asked about that, that happened and you're basically letting them steal from you and sell back to you for a higher price.

No, no, no. That's not correct. What I said, and I'll say it again, is there was a problem, past tense, with the theft. And there is no longer a theft problem. That was a peculiarity to the management that previously existed and the nature of the agreements that previously existed with the purchase of ore, bartering, we're basically buying all the ore. So there's no theft at Wadley. I want to make that clear because I'm not trying to be fishy, I want you guys have a very clear answer where I can provide them.

So to clarify everything. So the people that were stealing, you're actually letting them sell to you for a higher premium now?

They were stealing and when they sold, they sold it to a different buyer. And now that we have the legal right to enforce that we have the right to the mineral, we had one of the trucks halted and arrested by the municipal police. And after that, the person came to us and offered to sell us the ore. And we told them if they ever steal again, we'll never buy and we'll have them prosecuted. And that's the situation. And I hope that clarifies. In other words, he got his hands slapped.

What was stolen at that point, was you were able to retrieve everything that was stolen from his truck at that point. Correct?

Absolutely correct. We hold the truck to the mine and we took the ore.

Okay. That gives a little more clarification because it was sort of what we were hearing was you bought that back from him for a higher rate.

No, I'm sorry to make that a little unclear. That truck, we got the ore from was what he stole but we basically subsequent to that, have been buying or at as good a price that he was stealing it for, and getting from the other person or better. And that's why he is on our side now, one of the incentives.

So is he an internal in the company, has he been with the company for a long duration? Because we were asking about miners being a part of the company or if you're third-partying them. If the ore is going to become all yours. But as you're purchasing it, you still have other people that are completely involved that could possibly -- you have that one individual but is he the only one that was stealing?

Okay. Good question. It is third party right now, meaning, we are not liable for any accidents or anything that happens to the local miners. Why? We're purchasing their ore. Okay? That's the model. And that's the model we may continue with because there's a bunch of local miners that for years have established a history of mining, and this guy has a crew, a truck, equipment, et cetera. There were 3 people that we identified as people that were stealing. In other words, selling to a different mine. In each case, we've met with each of them, and we've basically availed ourselves of our power of attorney that we inherited on this 8-month contract to basically threaten them if they give their ore to anyone else. And in that way, we've dealt with the theft. The theft is no longer happening because they're selling all of their ore to us rather than the other smelters or whatever, to the Chinese, whoever the hell they were selling it to.

So knowledge is the only these 3 were the ones stealing.

That's correct. And they had a history of selling to whoever they wanted, et cetera. So we actually had a police file on all 3 of them that we enforced.

Okay. That enhances a lot more with the police filing because someone asked if they were not arrested but if they were detained then things were made, I feel that -- so you're saying that there's arrest records, meaning that they have -- all have files claim against them that they have done theft.

Yes. But the difference was no one in the previous management was willing to enforce it. In other words they...

I think that your top person, I apologize that he's deceased now, but he was acceptable of it or...

They didn't have the courage to stand up to the people that were stealing, basically. Or do anything actionable that threatened them.

Is that what cost the stock to go way down and him to be able with $0.20 a share, is that the reasoning of why it was getting stolen for the duration of time, was there...

Hold on. I think maybe we're confused here. I'm referring to specifically purchasing ore from the Wadley. I'm not -- the entire discussion I've been having is about the theft at the Wadley and not the purchase of stock. So I think...

No, no, no. During the Wadley when Antimony was being stolen, it would affect the price, correct?

No, because there wasn't really much -- that without -- I was in Mexico dealing with it. There wasn't any live internet releases or any news about that. I'm reporting that just as a thing that we've solved, past tense. So it wouldn't have effected any of the shares or any of that because basically...

So if something is being mined from Wadley, if it's being mined and it's being taken and it's been sold to another person and you guys aren't in possession of it, that takes out of your -- it reduces the income for the company, I would believe.

That's right. And that was a big problem even when John ran it. And like I said in the introduction here, we're enjoying 3 or 4x more basic antimony-containing content than we were because of the repair of this theft issue.

We do have Tim Hasara on the line, if you would like to hear from Tim.

Yes. Tim, welcome on -- I wonder if you could you speak about -- Evan Tomkins is on, and he's got a question regarding -- and I think there might be some confusion, though I'm not sure the Form 10-4 regarding -- he's claiming that someone recently bought U.S. Antimony stock for $0.20 a share.

No, Russ. That was your -- the conversion of your preferred stock into common stock.

That's what I thought.

That's what it was. No one bought stock at $0.20. The actual conversion. Technically, you converted at market. Technically, the liquidation value, you should have probably received what would have been the equivalent of all that amount, what would have been the redemption amount, which is almost $5 million at $0.20. But we've reduced that substantially. So -- and you -- the holders agree to that. So I believe the original indenture and Articles of Incorporation said it was technically at $0.20, you were entitled to receive much more than that. You were entitled to receive the entire liquidation value, but you did not. You just received essentially a steep discount in liquidation value, I mean, you received those shares. So that's what it was. No one bought stock, it was a conversion.

Evan, does that clarify it for you?

Evan, I moved Tim into Evan's question space. So Evan would have to rejoin the call Q&A. I do have Evan again, if you would like to hear his response, too.

And we have a couple of other questioners as well in the queue. So let's hear from Evan and then go back to the queue. Evan, you're live again.

Okay. So Tim, is that what you're referring to with all of that is you were calling on preferred stock. I was told on the phone right now that they were all dividends.

I may have misspoke. Tim, what I understand...

This is confusing. This is where I'm really confused at this point. I'm trying to get just feasible answers, and now it's saying its preferred stock and not dividends.

It was preferred stock, and I can tell you for a fact that what we did was convert it to common so that we wouldn't have to accrue dividends on our books. But Tim, you might...

Accrued dividends is not stating that you're buying dividends. That's why the $0.20 is very questionable at that price, when the actual stock is at $0.43.

The value of your stock, how do you -- the actual value was already $4 a share.

Yes. So...

Unless they were options, unless you purchased options 2 years ago that you could exercise last month for $0.20 a share. Is that what he is referring to?

No. Here's what I know. Tim, are you there? I guess he can't speak.

You can put me off again.

Tim would have to rejoin.

Okay. So hold on -- I'm sure Tim is hopping up and down, but I'll tell you my understanding of this. There were 2 holders of preferred Series D stock that had that stock for many years. In the many years that they had the preferred Series D stock, the preferred had the following features. One is, if there was a hostile or a takeover, that they would be paid out first. In other words, proprietary. And they would be paid the number of shares at the strike price at the time of the buyback or buyout. And what was offered to the 2 series holders was to convert their stock to common. And then the company would pay the accrued, and I'm calling them dividends. But I might be misspeaking. Accrued things that were written in as the preferred series. In other words, Evan, we -- the 2 holders of the Series D sacrificed, like Tim referred to, up to $5 million, for the $0.20 a share for the conversion. In that way, the U.S. Antimony doesn't have to pay a yearly, and I'm calling it a dividend. But we're going to put Evan back on to make it very clear.

I do have -- I do have Tim. So Tim has the line back live again. Once Tim gives his response, if Evan would like to join in, we can move Evan back to the open floor. But Tim is currently online.

Yes. So we filed an 8-K with the conversions agreement that gives the sentence that describe this conversion here. So technically, the shareholders were to receive a part in the 8-K, $4.97 million, that's $2.50 a share, for the conversion of this preferred into common. And the shares were to be done essentially. So we swapped it 1 for 1 instead of as at that price, and we pay the dividend out. So subsequently, the holders of -- Russ, had to file a Form 4 for his ownership to convert those shares of preferred into common stock.

There were actually 2 holders, but I was 90% of it. And Tim, as far as -- am I misspeaking when I say $0.20 a share is called a dividend? What do we call it?

Well, we had to accrue a dividend of $0.0235 per share annually, which was equivalent to $39,778 per year, which was an expense to earnings. So that has gone away now that we've converted the preferred into common stock.

Okay. And that was the main incentive here.

Correct.

And you've also given up you're right to preferred payout in case of bankruptcy or anything.

Right. Yes, the holders of the preferred gave up the right to get $2.50 a share in the event of a buyout or a liquidation. Technically -- yes.

Okay. So thanks, Tim. I guess we put, Evan's back on to see if that's satisfactory to him. Is the moderator there?

Evan Tomkins, your line is live.

Did that clarify it for you?

It's a little clarifying. But to my biggest question to all of that is you were the possessor of the preferred stock, correct?

There were 2 of us. I had a certain -- I had about 90% of it, yes. And another...

Okay. So was there a hostile takeover? Or was there something that went into effect for you to exercise these?

No. The incentive for us to do that was to clean up our book and get rid of the $39,778 hit to U.S. Antimony per year and make our stock structure more clear to investors.

So the 39,000 was paid to you yearly?

No. United States Antimony accrued a debt or had accrued -- how to say it. It appeared on our financials every year, $39,000 was accrued every year that U.S. Antimony was responsible for paying out. Now we no longer have to accrue that.

I'm just trying to get a round of all of this, both possession -- you were in possession of the stock. So the $39,000 I'm confused. That's where you were paying SEC?

The preferred stock came with a caveat that it would accrue and I'm calling it a dividend. That may be the wrong word, but accrue a certain amount that U.S. Antimony would be responsible for carrying forward on their books. So -- this is another one Tim can clarify. But in the interest of moving on with the call, I think maybe I'll put you in touch with Tim so that you can get an answer for the particulars on it.

Perfect. That sounds great. You can move on with the call. I appreciate your time today.

Your next question is coming from Mark Menzel.

First, let's just clean up the preferred thing. Russell isn't the owner, it's the estate of John Lawrence and then when it comes down to it, he'll have more stock, bottom line. I applaud this move, cleans up the balance sheet. And Russell could have been more greedy and converted it for more money than he actually got. So knock that out, good move. I applaud also the stock buyback. I think the security is undervalued. We need to let the marketplace know more about our company. Gary Evans, the appointment of Gary Evans. We have someone now on the Board that has successfully run a number of companies and I think his future advice will be invaluable. I would to ask that when there is a substantial announcement or a K, if you could coordinate with the public markets, through access Newswire like you do other news events, that all investors see the news that's come out in the K, besides those people that watch EDGAR like I do. It's just seems like you're not getting the full audience.

Mark, thank you. First of all for clarifying that. And I agree completely. Just to follow up in a general sense, one of the criticisms, and I think it's a valid criticism. Gus and I had been really focused on the nuts and bolts of this company and running the operations, And it's a full-time, very demanding job. And we basically think that Gary, just like you said, Mark, is going to do a very good job in getting the news out, whereas Gus and I are more focused on making the operation good. We really could use somebody to help us make it more clear to the public, what we're doing.

I would love that. Instead of focusing on the minutia, the big picture is much more important. I mean, I like bulldozers, too. But okay, we got a new bulldozer. It's minutia. We waste 20 minutes on theft that was history, and it's no longer occurring. So bada-bing, bada-boom, let's move on. Quick question about the DLA and the sample. I don't get our Department of Defense. I don't know where they're getting their trisulfide from. But should we assume that the sample that you sent is similar to the other samples that they have approved?

Gus, you better -- I think unquestionably, is yes, but you better address that.

Well, Mark, in regards to where the military is now getting their trisulfide. We sell the trisulfide of to another company. They grind it through the specification, the particle size and all that, that the ammunition market wants. For 15, 20 years, they ran their operation, and they ended up with a bunch of fine material, let's say the wrong particle size. They sent that to us we are remelting that, and that is what the military is using for their primers right now. The sample we have in, first examples were approved, as Russ said. The third sample was sent in a couple of years ago. And it's maddening, Mark. We've been on telephone conversations with as many as 30 participants from various branches of the military, from the DLA. I don't get it. This is a critical emergency. China is not selling trisulfide to the U.S. anymore. So we're equally as frustrated.

Okay. Switching to Los Juarez. You said you've got some samples coming. Have you had a sneak peek? And let's say, you look at the samples and we get a holy cow moment, like, wow, there's really something there. What's the next step? Would you look to third parties to develop it and you guys sit back and let them spend the money?

That's what we -- that's one of the things on our possibility list. But the answer to the question basically depends on just how much of a wow moment there is. Mark -- and I basically don't want to misspeak because I'm not a geologist, but the company's path forward is going to be highly dependent on just what we find. And to answer the question, we've gotten some data, but we want to compile all of that data before we really say anything. And that's basically, I think, all we can really say at this point about it.

Okay. So let's sort of have a bada-bing, bada-boom moment. Because the conference call so far I'm not getting a sense of where we are as far as feed and selling antimony. You guys feeling good? Not so good? Or we think we're in the best position we've ever been? Give us a sense.

Here you go. Okay. The price was at a high of $14,700 earlier this year. That was its peak. It's come off a little bit from there now. And so anybody that says they know the price, future price of any commodity is lying to you.

Where we are now? $13,000, $11,000? $12,000? Whereabouts are we?

Around $11,000.

Okay. So we've moved from $13,000, $14,000 to $11,000. We can still make money there. How about you need? Are you feeling comfortable now with cannabis starting up again, ore reproducing and where else you can beg, borrow or steal it. I saw some from Guatemala. I mean, really?

Yes, really. But there's a lot of reallys. And we've got a down payment on 40 tons and 50% ore from Guatemala. I've been working for over 2 years with another guy his name barriers getting it from the Guatemalan border over to Mexico. How do I feel about that source? Hopeful but uncertain. How do I feel about the Wadley and we covered this [indiscernible] bought a bank. We're getting all the ore. And frankly, I want to just see, I think, if we can get the grade up by maybe screening it or washing it. And I think we can. I feel we're getting very good, 4x better than I've ever felt before. However, the -- what was the other question, other sources of antimony?

Yes. I mean how are you feeling like, hey, if we got our furnaces stuffed? Or could we use 50% more today?

Okay. On our feed, while we've gotten 4x more very recently, there's going to be a lull in the production you see in Q4. And the reason for that is we were basically down -- our North American contributor has a Kivcet furnace that's down for all of December. And we've gotten...

That's old news. We get it that there's a lull between when you get the raw material to where you can sell it. And it's already out there in the marketplace that this quarter might be a little light. We get it. How are you feeling about your supply of feed moving forward?

Very good.

That's what I thought. I pulled it out of you, Russ.

And just to be clarified, you're right, Mark, to point out there's a lull between getting it and selling it. But what I'm referring to is actually a lull in the feed from both the North America in Q4. I mean, we're going to be kicking a** coming right up, but there is going to be a little drop because for a while there, we were negotiating, et cetera. So that's where we were -- we had a little bit of a lull in our feed because of the Wadley deal that we just covered in great detail, and because of some labor discussions that they thankfully are having in Canada.

Yes. Well, I think that we'll be thankful we had the lull because you guys negotiated super great terms, moving forward, to the company.

Well, thanks, Mark. I appreciate it. And I appreciate all of your input.

Okay. I care about the company. I just would like better communication to The Street. So everybody has some form of expectations. So my expectations moving forward into calendar '23, our numbers are going to ramp up, and we may have something to say about the DLA Department of Defense, God forbid. Good time to attack the United States. We don't know what we're doing.

I appreciate that, Mark. And I want you to know that I agree finally that we need to have more communication with The Street.

Yes, I love you, Russ.

Thanks, Mark.

Miss your dad, but you've accomplished more with Gus there -- in you've accomplished much more, and I thank you for that.

Well, thank you for the compliment.

All right. So hopefully, you don't get any more time-waster questions. Thank you for taking mine.

Your next question is coming from [ Tony Hartigan ].

Gus, I think there couldn't be a better -- and Russ, it couldn't be a better segue than Mark saying I hope there are no time wasters coming in because it's a good introduction for me. But in any case, I just wanted to say congratulations. And I wanted to offer just a bit of perspective. I know it's hard to believe, but I've actually known the company and been part of the company for over 40 years. And I wanted to meet up because I don't think -- there are people on the line who don't realize that this is a survival story. And that when I first got involved, it was an extremely profitable company. It was doing very well. John's expertise was great, and then all of a sudden, China came in, and other countries to dilute the sale of antimony. And also the commodity market just fell apart for 35 years, and it was through expertise that we were even alive. But 2 years ago, when John died and you and Gus went in to look at the books, it was pretty much a really, really tired company. And your improvement and financial management has been extraordinary. I just want to say that -- the other thing I wanted to say is that what is always intrigued me is the size of the assets. The assets are actually enormous. And if we get it going in the right direction and the demand is there, it could be a really exciting story. And finally, I wanted to say that, of all the mining companies that I remember from the late '70s and '80s, there are very few that have survived. And I will say that you're the only one I know of that has turned profits. And when an asset company gets profits, it opens up a lot of optionality. Final comment is Zeolite. I have always been intrigued by Zeolite. I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole on it. But I do want to mention that -- when it was brought to John by George Desbro, George was the most noted scientist that I know of in the field of Zeolite, and he said this was a unique deposit. The thing that I remember about it is, is that he said that there are hundreds of millions of tons in this deposit, that it's unique because it doesn't have any salt and it would fulfill a number of very major needs in the world, such as absorbing uranium deposits, cleaning up methane, water filtration for things like Flint, Michigan, et cetera. And I know that we don't have time to go into that. But I do realize and have recently talked to people who know of major university research, such as the University of Florida, that sampled a number of zeolites for cleaning up agricultural problems. And it's in their report that Bear River is #1. And I also have heard from someone who has worked at DuPont for 15 years, that our zeolite could easily deal with the problem that Flint, Michigan has on its water and things of that sort. So I guess my final comment is we don't have time to go and develop all those markets, but we do have time to look at the research that's already out there and maybe conduct some other research and get it out in the marketplace, because with an asset that enormous, if someone like Waste Management or Clean Harbors or any of these companies realize that this is a solution to some of the problems, we want to be ready if it happens. That's all I wanted to say.

I really appreciate it, Tony. I totally agree with you on the Zeolite. 1 or 2 comments there. What I mentioned in the introduction is all of -- and I know it can be considered minutia, but that plant needs to have and this is the goal. We're working to get to the point where if something breaks down, we have the minimal downtime. And that's -- this guy that we've hired, Richard Lyons, is doing incredible work in that regard. Same goes for the mine, the pit. The operation needs to be such that we've got multiple options at hand. We are pointing towards putting in another jaw crusher line. And if 1 goes down, we turn the other 1 on. Same with the cone. And basically, we want to get that thing running like a top, but it's got incredible potential for growth.

Yes. And I don't think the average person is aware of how big some of these problems that could perhaps be assuaged with Zeolite. For example, the Hanford site, where the nuclear testing went on for decades is the size of Rhode Island, something in Washington. And it's inexorably moving toward, I think, the Hood River. One of the thoughts is that I think Desmo and others talked about is a trench system between the river and the waste, filled with Zeolite is a possible solution. If one were to go into that, they would have to get through the entire subcontractor of the U.S. government. We have already been through that. In the Niagara River, when there was pollution to be cleaned up, a subcontractor tested zeolites, and we were the zeolite that was used. So I presume that we have already cleared governmental hurdles for nuclear cleanup. Is that true?

That's correct. We have a big site up in what are the -- Waterford, New York. Anyway, we did a cleanup there. Well, we didn't do it. We sold all the Zeolite to the contractor who did it. Because as a matter of interest here, that site is -- they're looking at redoing that zeolite wall, and we've been in contact with the contractor who's doing that.

So to be a that's already by subcontractors or setout 1 is the only port, Gus who knows the difference between Waterford and Waterton, New York. Waterford is near Albany, where I grew up, and Watertown is up near the Saint Lawrence River and running into the Niagara River and come of that. And yes, so we're already there. And I think that a form of marketing is what we call preselling, which is you get the research out, you get the certifications out, you get all of those things out in some sort of journals or on websites or whatever. And then eventually, it might actually titillate people who are in the business. So with the quality of the asset as validated by George Desmo is writing and then corroborated by someone who worked at DuPont, I think that, that's an asset that we all should be thinking about various ways of getting out in front of the users. And great job, guys. That's all for me.

Tony, thanks very much for all your help and support.

Your next question is coming from Tim Hasara.

Sorry, Tim is one of our presenters.

Your next question is coming from [ Richard Mott ].

You'll be glad to know this is a 15-second question. In your 10-Q, you had a selling price of antimony of $9.45, 80-some percent above market, good trick. How'd you do that?

Yes. Two things. We have a volume discount on our sales. And when the price is high and we don't have a lot of product left, we actually charge -- we've sold antimony here for just antimony oxide for as high as $11, $12 a pound. For example, if someone will at-once at 100 pounds of it, our algorithm that we use, and which is based on Rotterdam, has a volume parameter. But the second answer is our trisulfide is 2 to 3x that we sell -- 2 to 3x more than what we would just antimony metal or oxide. Richard, I hope that answers the question.

It does.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question is coming from [ Eric George ].

I have a question about the Inflation Reduction Act, which requires domestic sourcing of metals for electric vehicle batteries and other components in car sector. Are you aware of this? Have you been approached by any companies that would like to source from you?

Not to my knowledge. Gus, did you -- I mean we're aware of the act. But again, we have our fingers crossed as to whether it will actually equate to any immediate advantage. As far as the car sector, our main battery that we sell to is a molten battery that's not used in cars that's the Ambri deal. Gus, you might want to address this question.

To date, most of the solar powers -- panels used in the world have come from China. I believe that this Inflation Reduction Act is trying to bring some of that back home. The silica and the glass that's used in those panels uses antimony trioxide. So in fact, that business does come back to the U.S., I would think we'd be the prime candidate to supply that antimony oxide. All other antimony oxide sold in the United States comes from China. We're the only domestic source.

I understand. So is your antimony used in to hardened plastics for car bodies? Or is the antimony used for the casing of electric vehicle batteries?

It's used everywhere in cars as a fire retardant, in the upholstery, in the coating on wires, in the paint. It's a fire retardant, the antimony trioxide is.

What percentage of sales do you think goes to the car industry?

That's a tough one. We sell -- what percentage of sales do we go to the car industry? It's a tough question because we sell to a number of textile, paint, wire insulator people. And then I have to know how much of their wire sold for the car industry.

Eric, it used to be I've been in this business for many years. It used to be that the car manufacturers did everything. They made their own wire and cable, they made their own headlights, they did everything. Today, they buy components. So they don't buy -- we don't know if the antimony oxide we sell to a wire and cable company goes to an automobile or not. But likely it does, at least some of it. So I hope that answers the question. The core companies just don't buy direct anymore.

Okay. So somewhat but the -- some of these electric vehicle batteries have fire issues and heating issues. Have you been approached by anyone thinking that antimony would be a solution to that fire problem?

Not directly. Just for years and years, it's been an agency for plastics. And I understand it's a unique 1 chemically to be put in, like, say, plastics upholstery, carpet, et cetera, and all of those components, including the wire cable insulating plastic go into cars. So it's a real question of what percentage of -- down to what percentage, for example, of the wire insulator market goes into the automotive industry.

Yes. You haven't mentioned batteries.

Well, antimony, we sell -- we have sold antimony to battery companies. It's used as a hardener for lead. And it goes into the terminals and the actual plates and wheel weights, et cetera, for lead. So that's more of an old-fashioned use of it. But our main sales out of Montana here or oxide and mainly for fire retardants.

Okay. Good luck, gentlemen. We're being patient out here. It's a frustrating, but we're hanging in there.

Your next question is coming from Vincent Tibetnik.

Question I have is on Zeolite. Is there anything that we can do to lower the royalties we're paying where miners that there's a lot of a lot of the money and royalties.

You're right. And we did lower them. We tied it to -- we had a guy, Joe Barge, which when he came on Board and negotiated with one of main royalty recipients and he got some reduction, but not a lot. But the answer long term would have to be another round of negotiations with them. It's very difficult when somebody is enjoying a high royalty especially for years prior to this management.

I see. But is there any other area there lend open that we could filed claims on and move some of our operations to lower the royalties?

I don't think so. We basically have the claims for most of the area of interest there. And it's been suggested we could move the mill. But that's not an easy proposition. And I don't think we would -- I know we looked into this. It's a good question. We would still have to pay the royalty even if we move the off of the property of the main recipient. I don't see an easy way to lower the royalty unless we were to make a big offer in the future type deal. And at this point, we're not we're prepared to make anything like that. But I agree with you, the royalties are higher than we'd like them to be.

Okay. That's good. Now also on PPTA, they got money from a DoD to the reserves on trisulfide, the ammunition and stuff. Did you see that in the last press release?

Tell me again, I think -- I know what you're talking about, what does PPTA? Tell it for ...

Perpetua, that's the 1 that we're -- had to mining property that where we have under what we negotiated where they're working to.

Yes. As the matter of fact on the initial call that we received from Perpetua and when we're talking about the collaboration agreement we have with them. We were the 1 that mentioned to the trisulfide. Now they are -- they're a mining company, and they're looking for a permit. And we applaud them if they do trisulfide, that's great. We happen to feel that the logical choice would be for us to process that for them and to screen it because we know how to do it, and we've been doing it. And we've been in negotiations with them. They haven't said that they would do that, but they are entertaining the idea.

The question was they got money from the DoD to do research for making the product. Do we have any chance of getting won, we're making a product and we don't get money from the DoD.

Yes. Yes. We did get money from the DoD. We've got $185,000, I think it was, to prepare the samples that we have prepared for the DoD. We have 1 remaining payment left on that contract for $85,000, which we should receive if we get a good result on the third sample we sent to them. So we did receive much more money than Perpetua did.

Okay. I see. Now we've mentioned Los Juarez. Now you did give some assays. You processed, I think, 1,100 tons and you gave some assays on there. I think the antimony was higher, silver was higher, the gold was a little bit lower. Can you put a dollar figure on per tonnage based upon our current assays of the process stores?

We could and -- but I'm a little hesitant to do it, and I'll tell you why. We have an atomic absorption unit that we measure our assays with. And it's come to our attention that some of the reagents that we dilute to use that machine were old and suspect. So we actually sent these samples off to an SGS lab in Durango, and we're having them done officially. And that's why I didn't mention any specific result. The indication is that. But again, I would like to do 2 things. I'd like to have it from a certified lab before we report. And number two, I'd like to finish processing the 2,000 tons, so we can say this is what we actually have instead of this is what we have so far. But for example, we did get from the SGS lab some of the concentrated [indiscernible] and the silver that we initially had with our atomic absorption was lower than we thought, and it's -- that was erroneous. So we know that at least the silver assay that we got with our AA unit was wrong. And so I appreciate just hang on until we can get these results back from the lab on the head assay for that 1,100 tons.

So do we have any plans on -- moving forward on the property there? I mean, I know it's -- we have -- our attention is on the antimony, and we've taken over quite a few mines to build the basis of the company. And by the way, I forgot to say that I think you're doing a very good job of building the basis for the company. But the question is on your -- what's our plans now for Los Juarez? For processing the gold silver, antimony properties? I know we have a big leach pond that we built, which is huge.

Here we go. The answer is, it all depends on what we get from the results of the study that's going on. And I don't know -- I think I mentioned this in the intro, we have the 3 or 4 people working on it, we have currently a geologist on site. We have another geophysicist on site. The geophysical data, the physical work is all done. The rock chip sample on a grid has all been done, and the soil sample work has all been done, but we are compiling that data now in a separate report, but we also want to compile that data with all of the previous work done. And for example, in November of 2020, we did a limited drill work. We drilled 25 holes. And I -- we want to put all of that work together, along with the previous study so that we can generate more of a comprehensive model. And at that point, like I say, our plan to go forward is going to depend -- really depend on what we find out there. And the 3 general branches are -- we may want to do the exploration ourselves. We may want to only do a few holes. We may want to partner with someone to do more exploration work. But the plan going forward is going to depend highly on what we find out.

Your next question is coming from [ Randall Reed ].

Can you guys hear me?

Loud and clear, Randall.

Great. Thanks for taking the time to answer everybody's questions. Real quick on the Los Juarez geological results. When is it that we can expect those results, time frame?

Okay. Good question. We just -- in fact, I went over the airport this last week and got my partner, and we've been reviewing some of the preliminary results here, but they're incomplete. And I don't want to say anything about them because I don't -- we've got some restriction. The time frame is 1 of our geologists here, Hart Baitis, is going to get in touch with some contracts that are capable of generating a 3-dimensional model from the data. And Hart, what is your sense? Sometime after in Q1, I think, would be safe. Do you agree with that?

That's correct. Yes.

We should have something Randall in Q1. Okay.

And next question regarding the Zeolite. Is -- are you guys still operating in a sold-out capacity? Basically, is everything that you're providing in terms of sales already spoken for?

Yes, basically, we are. And what we've been focusing on is getting the mill capacity better. We've had a number of just hiccups with -- and I could get into it, but I -- just to keep it general, yes is the short answer to the question. It's somewhere between 1,200 and 1,400 tons per month. And -- but we're doing really well on sales. But it's our feeling that the bottleneck there is the throughput in the mill and everything I mentioned in the introduction. I want to get -- we want to get the mine where we don't have to wait if 1 of these pieces of rolling stock drops off or breaks down. So we're trying to clean up the operation in terms of its downtime. And that includes the rolling stock, the mine and also the plan. And once we do that, I think we're going to go ahead with increasing effort on our marketing and sales.

Excellent. So basically, I mean, assuming nothing goes wrong with equipment, we can assume another record year of Zeolite sales. Is that to say correct?

That's what we're hoping. Of course, we'll have to see, but that's what we're hoping.

Okay. And in terms of advertising for increased sales, I'm assuming Mr. Evans will be kind of heading up that department.

I think he's a good match there. There are some reasons why he might be more interested in Zeolite than antimony, but we want to use him for both. And he's new, and we want to bring him up here, meet them and really use him to the maximum effect.

I agree. I was assuming, given his background and the companies that he currently holds in the hemp industry, water cleanup and things of that nature, that have been mentioned through numerous callers. I would think that he would have a really good fit in terms of marketing that. So next question. I know you guys had mentioned the possibility of the Wadley purchase. Is there -- moving forward, is there any future -- maybe you can hint on any future collaboration, merger or acquisitions coming up in '23?

Well, the contract that we have for the purchase agreement had built into it at RBS, an 8-month trial period. And beneath that trial period was a 3-month period for us to respond on the fiscal, corporate and legal nature. In other words, they wanted a verdict from us whether we were willing to move forward on those 3 bases. Well, we haven't received the legal information that they were going to give us. So we have not started the 8-month clock. If that is the event that we continue on the 8-month period for longer than 8 months, then we intend to maximize the mining and extraction of ore in order to determine the tonnage and grades achievable. And however, if they do provide us the legal information in the 8 months, a verdict regarding whether we will purchase the Wadley or not. And if we purchase it, how we'll go about it or if we don't purchase it, how we continue the source of ore will be forthcoming in April of 2023.

Okay. Would there -- could you possibly hint at other possible mergers or acquisitions of any other mines? Or anything that you possibly could have in the back of your mind, something else?

We have investigated another mine, but I can't really -- I don't feel comfortable saying what it is. In terms of hinting at another merger as it was mentioned before, we may want to do a joint venture on exploration of the Los Juarez depending on the results. Of course, we prefer to own rather than merger. And as John Lawrence used to say, partners are for advancing. But that said, there are people, for example, in the exploration that are way better than us and may well merit us merging with on the Los Juarez.

Okay. The next question I have for you guys is, basically, given the increased demand for a lot of minerals right now with all the sanctions going on overseas, and China decreasing their output and the increased demand for domestic-sourced minerals and things of that nature. If the Department of Defense comes back and accepts the samples that you guys have submitted for antimony, do you think you're going to have enough be able to meet the demand?

It's a good question, Randall, and I'm glad you asked it because it just occurs to me, we didn't make clear, and I want to make clear. One of the big news items and we released this, I think, in Q2 or Q3, was that we actually successfully finally acquired the Sierra Guadalupe mine. And we're working on transferring the surface rights, but we actually own those claims now. And those claims were the exclusive claims and the ones that the Department of Defense approved the first 2 samples from. And the technical language of the contract for the DoD reads such that we have to source antimony through that source. And that's where our remaining backup samples that we produced are from. And we're very excited because it was a very, very tough road, especially for John Lawrence. He died basically not being able to get that mined for a variety of legal reasons, but we were able to do it. And as a matter of fact, we're making monthly payments. We're down to 47 out of 50 payments. But I'm very excited and actually been trying to source some miners from the Wadley area to go over and mine at the Sierra Guadalupe. That is a sulfide-rich deposit, and that was the material that we sourced all of the DoD trisulfide from. So the answer is yes.

Okay. Yes. And that was going to be my next question is, do you see yourself hiring multiple employees to meet the increased demand? I mean, we have numerous -- you have numerous deals with, what, we got the Ambri storage grid battery, that we have to meet their demand and then the possibility of the Department of Defense and everything else going on. I'm just wondering if you anticipate hiring more and more employees to meet these demands.

We're going to have to. And just to let you know, the narrative that we've been discussing to meet demand. Of course, we've got our fingers crossed for Perpetua and Ambri, and whether they're buying it or making it. But the other thing is we're thinking that the lion's share of the production of antimony is going to be in Mexico and not here at headquarters, especially when we convert the smelter at Madero over to where we can make oxide. So we can make finished metal there. We sold 3 truckloads of it in Q1 and Q2, but -- around that period. But really excited because we can get labor better there. It's more available, et cetera. And yes, that's where we're pointing.

Okay. Now in terms of simply processing, regarding, let's say, antimony from Perpetua when they -- when and if they finally do get up and running, and other suppliers to you guys. I mean, you guys can make a substantial amount of money simply from processing the antimony, correct? Just processing?

That's right. If -- provided the commodity price remains well, good.

Right. Okay. Okay. And I'm really excited for Mr. Evans. As one of your callers had mentioned earlier, I believe it was Mark, I believe I speak for a lot of the shareholders, and I'm sure you guys as well. I think if he could do some form of advertising with his media resources, whatever conferences, podcasts, things like that, and even a better source of Internet news as far as getting some of these news releases, like a press release kind of out, for this information, I think it would benefit all the shareholders and the company. I'm really looking forward to see what he can do for the company, and I'm glad you guys have been working pretty hard. I know it's like 1 of the callers mentioned earlier, it's kind of like a -- you guys have just been hanging in there and actually producing a profit, which is great. I'm really wanting to see what happens with the company in the near future with everything going on.

One of the reasons, and I think Mark Menzel, if he's listening, should hear this. One of the changes in my personal philosophy came after Q1 and Q2, where we posted profits that were in excess for each of those quarters than any of the yearly profits for U.S. Antimony as far back as 16 years, and I expected the stock to go up. It didn't. And I think the reason is exactly the criticism, which is we're just -- Gus and I have got our nose to the grindstone here, and we basically considered publicizing it as a secondary concern. So that was instrumental in changing our minds, or at least mine, as to trying to put the word out more.

The very, very -- I think that's going to be a big key issue, is getting the word out. We're kind of under the radar and a lot of people are unaware and uneducated. They just don't know the full potential for zeolite alone, let alone antimony, and providing what it provides for like military uses and everything else you guys have discussed. It's something that everyone listening on the call pretty much knows about, but not a lot of potential investors out there that do know about. They're just unaware.

Exactly.

Okay. Well, I'm -- if Mr. Evans is there, I'd like to personally, over the phone, welcome him to the company. But I thank you for answering all my questions. And can't wait to see what we do moving forward.

Really appreciate it, Randall.

Your next question is coming from Tyson Woods.

My question was answered.

Your next question is coming from John Noble.

I've been following the company a few months. I'm very impressed, what you guys have done and what you're doing. I understand you're basically -- you're reinventing yourselves. You're rising out of the ashes again. And I see the progress as far as updating the expansion in anticipation of more business. And in that -- in regards to the DoD, I live in the Washington, D.C. area, so I do understand how things move here. It's rather slow when it comes to government. But one of the things I have a question, and it's kind of it's off topic, but it's not off topic. Any business with the DoD, they're going to do -- they're going to require certain things as far as wages, I think it was the Smith Bacon Act. Are you all aware of this? Are you all going to have to meet any of those requirements if providing for anything of the government?

Yes. Well, I'm going to say what I know and then I'm going to hand it over to Gus. We're not at total liberty to say the details of what we've been discussing with the DoD, suffice to say that we have been. And I think that's as far as we can say. But we are -- we'll put it to you this way. We called the DoD and been starting on this thing over 10 years ago. The DoD now calls us, and they're very participatory. And that [indiscernible] is that we've been in recent multiple discussions with the DoD, if that answered -- or that's -- Gus, you want to add?

It does, but it does not only half. My question is as far as when you're providing for the government, the companies I'm aware, you'll be on a GSA schedule list if you've not already in the past -- or you'll have GSA approval with a number. But are you going to have to -- are they -- have you had any talks as far as if this comes to rotations that you're going to have to meet the earnings requirements, the overheads and stuff as some companies do working with or within the government realm? I don't know if you do. I'm just asking if you -- if that's something you've looked into. If I'm correct, it's a Smith Bacon Act, where you're required to meet certain earnings -- or wages to your employees. And if there is such a requirement, is that going to be a 2-tier system? 1 for the government and 1 from private -- the private sector. So this is probably something you all might not have looked into yet. Maybe you have a little bit, I don't know. And it may be not anything to even talk about at this point. But I'm just curious, have you all taken anything like that into account with what the government requires versus the private sector requires?

John, we have looked at that. This is Gus. And -- we are -- we will be supplying another company with the lump antimony trisulfide. And so far, it looks as though we do not fall under any of the GSA requirements for wages and we are aware of it. But so far, it looks like we are not under any obligation for wages or anything else.

I'm glad to hear that. I'm assuming the expansion that you all have been doing is anticipation of more business. I don't think you would be wasting on spending the money if you did not feel or had some kind of feeler that you would be getting that type of business, or that much. I think what you all did to the other mine as far as the thievery, I think that was a brilliant move. I've owned a business for decades -- or retired, but I think that was absolutely the right thing to do. Otherwise, you'll be chasing these people forever. So I think that was a brilliant move. They're going to either do it for you or against you. Better they do it for us. All I can do is say thanks. I mean, I don't -- I think that you guys are in a major niche. I think in time, the market will come around. It always does whether you advertise it or not. I understand that Mr. Evans as a director, I don't know what he will be doing for the company or how much because directors are not necessarily a full-time employee. So hopefully, it's just a good match. So I don't know what more I can say. I appreciate what you guys are doing. I appreciate what you guys have done. I really appreciate the convertibles. I know it's dilutive, but it could have been worse, and I appreciate somebody giving up that kind of money to throw back into the company and to the shareholders. That was very generous. I don't know if I would have been that generous, but I think that was pretty good.

And John, we know that a diluted the stock a bit, which is part of the reason why we announced the buyback.

Yes, I appreciate that. I really do. And I think everybody else would as well, too. So it's -- I think that will be taken care of in time. And it's just -- I think we're good. I think everything is looking forward. I think everything is going to be positive going forward. The market is going to take care of itself. And I know there's a lot of people that have been in this company way longer than I have. I got on the low end of it, which I'm very lucky to get that part, but I think in time, a little bit more time, things will come around, and I think the market will shine bright on the company itself. And it just takes time. And I don't think you need a lot of advertising to do that. The -- I would like to see more institutional investing -- or investors, and maybe there could be a reach out to some of them to look at the company. But that's kind of hard when you're at this level and you're flying underneath $5 or even $1. So it's just going to take time. But the market is going to take care of itself. So I just want to say thank you. Thank you for answering the question. That answers my question. And I really appreciate it.

John, thank you very much for the compliments, both on the conversion and also with me and my partner who actually are responsible for executing the policy that arrested the theft.

If I may add to this, if I may add 1 more thing. We do see the inside buying, and we're very, very pleased and very thankful of that. And one thing I've got to say, one thing with you guys is I've been in and out of the market for 20, 30 years -- 25, really. 25 years. I find for such a company, and I've had companies that I worked more, you all have been the most open. Most companies through the years have stopped taking calls from investors. The annual meeting was absolutely surprising, the fact that you all took every call, took every question as you are now. Most companies won't even allow the investors to even talk. So -- and it wasn't always that way. So I'm very appreciative of that. It just shows how open you are. And more than anything, I feel very comfortable as far as the integrity and the honesty of the people in this company. I like to invest in people, not so much of a building. So I really appreciate you guys. I appreciate the openness and the honesty. I see it. And right or wrong, as far as what happens down the road, if everything is great and grows gravy, and it's not always going to be that way, I really appreciate the openness. It says a lot.

Thanks very much for the compliment, John. We appreciate it. Let's see. One interjection, if I may. It's at the 2-hour mark, if you don't mind, I have to go to the bathroom. But Gus, can you handle the next one? If I look across the way to see just a second. Can we just adjourn for a couple of minutes, maybe a minute, and I'll be right back.

Certainly. There are no questions in the queue at this time.

There are none, okay. In that case, since we're at the 2-hour mark, maybe we'll wait another minute or 2 and see. And then if not, we'll adjourn.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question is coming from [ Ken Reid ].

Russ, are you there?

Ken, this is Gus. I'm here. Russell might...

Well, I actually wanted to just congratulate everybody on a good conference call and being forthright. My question to you is, you can see the great reception at Gary Evans has gotten by the comments of the investors. And the question I pose is perhaps adding another Director of Gary's caliber could really bring investor enthusiasm. And I understand the current group of directors is multitalented, but not all of them are as devoted to the company as others have been, nor do they always have the background necessary. So I'm just wondering whether you'd be receptive to an additional director that could bring what Gary Evans brings for us.

I can only speak for me. But yes, I'm open to it, Ken. And I only heard part of it. I heard are we receptive to bringing on an additional director for the purpose of publicizing what we're doing. Is that correct?

No. It's more for further contributions to managing a company that is basically -- what's the right way to put it? A company that basically got 2 operatives, yourselves and Russ, that are more or less working or [indiscernible] trying to hold this all together. And you're doing it successfully, but none of us are getting any younger, and we can't run on fumes forever. So -- and by the way, that's why I'm out of breath. I'm on my [indiscernible]. I'll stop that now. But what I'm saying is, having another director with the same caliber as Gary Evans could increase the bandwidth in the company, not just in marketing or advertising, but in reviewing financials connections with Wall Street, connections with other mining companies. I mean there could be much to gain depending on who the individual is.

Exactly. Okay. I was just making sure with Gus, this is Russ. Yes, it's a very well-taken point. We are working our tails off. And in addition to being open to putting another -- a financial expert and manager on the Board, we are open to the idea of an employee that would be officially a manager of sorts to help us -- help take some of the weight off. If that answers it, Ken.

Ken, as you said, none of us are getting younger. And we're very much aware that anything can happen anytime. And we really need another person here, we know that.

Yes. Okay. Well, that's good to know because I think there are people out there that are interested and experienced and that could be a benefit. And of course, it's much easier to introduce those types of people to a receptive company than one who isn't receptive. So I'm glad to hear that you're receptive.

Kenneth, up until now, we haven't been so receptive. And basically, it's been the argument of John Lawrence, which is there are very few junior mining companies that produce anything, let alone profit. And the reason for that is you have to maintain an incredible frugality and commitment to the company. And the argument there is, if we brought another manager on, we've got to pay him, et cetera. But basically, what I said there to the previous questioner is how we're more receptive than we have ever been, and both Gus and I are well aware that we could very much benefit from health care and not on operations specifically, but on all of the rest of it, the reporting, the financials, the -- some of the paperwork, frankly, some of the promotional stuff here.

Well, good. Well, thank you, and thank you for doing what you're doing.

Thank you, Ken, for all your support throughout the years.

[Operator Instructions] Your next question is coming from [ Dan Boyer ].

Good afternoon. I have 2 questions with regards to mostly Zeolite. The -- actually, I guess, there are 3 questions. On a trip that I made there many years ago, I remember being practically need deep in what could only be like very abrasive baby powder when I got out of the car. And I was wondering, do you have a -- do you use that product?

Yes. Okay. Good question, Dan. It's been an ongoing issue. We sell as much of that. And in terms of commitment of the company, I should mention that my sister, John's daughter, is basically heading up sales and doing a great job, Gretchen Lawrence. And that product you're referring to, we refer to as minus 40. It's a byproduct of our main selling size, which is 1440. And depending on our crush, anywhere from 40% to 60% of the actual 1440 product, we do sell it and we sell it at a discount in order to move it. But we have, up until fairly recently, an excess of that material. We have to clean it out daily. So what I've told Gretchen is we want to make an offer on that, but it's used for a variety of purposes, and she sells it for a variety of customers, including local farmers. So we still have that as a byproduct, but we actually sell it. And it's very useful for certain applications, but it isn't our biggest seller. We also have, in the conversion of the plant to more of a dust-free, we've installed a number of filter houses. And there, we collect even a finer, we call it ultrafine. And it's all detailed on our website, on the BRZ portion. But we do sell it and we do still make it, Dan.

Okay. All right. Well, it seemed at the time that it was like made by accident. I mean, it was certainly not the same core.

Exactly right. Yes.

Yes. Okay. So all right. So that gets me -- one of my questions. The second one had to do with something I read some time back in -- somewhere on your website, I believe, that talks about you actually have 2 sources of zeolite. One being the property owners that you currently work with, but you also had massive resources from BLM, I remember. And I was just wondering, would you be able to take 1 minute and talk about the -- let's say, the differences. And I guess if I could ask you, because they may all be completely related, I don't know. At one point, I also saw something about a rail siding in order to facilitate moving of material with tight trucking times and that type of thing.

Okay. Our plant is located on a person's property, that's one of the royalty recipients. Our primary pit that we're operating right now is on his property as well. But when -- and the future, we're going to have a mine plan coming up here filed. But basically, the zeolite is the same deposit on the 2 different -- on the BLM. We have a number of claims to move over to once we deplete the area we're in. But that figure, we've got 2 or 3 years left where we're at.

Right. Okay. But what I remembered was that the claim was -- I mean, it was owned by different people, but it was essentially exactly the same material. And so I guess -- with regards probably about 2 years ago, it may have been just a short while before John died, that I read something about some work being done on being able to ship by rail rather than by truck. I can only surmise why that might be, but I can't imagine that one of them wouldn't be priced. So I guess the question is, how close in proximity are you to having something like that actually work, let's say, from various prospects -- from various properties that you have rights to? Have you given a look at how that is on a map? And what kind of investment there would be in order to be able to take on something, like a very, very large reclamation project that would take literally trainloads of material in order to buffer the nuclear pollution or whatever?

Dan, this is Gus. We did look into, very thoroughly, shipping by rail. We had a customer -- we had a person call us -- a company call us and they wanted thousands and thousands of tons of fine zeolite to mix into Portland Cement as a pozzolan. And it's very feasible. The rail line is not -- it's within 10 miles, I guess, of the mills -- of the mill site. And we actually had some basic engineering drawings and whatnot of what we would have to do. Is not terribly expensive. Local trucking would be involved from the mine to the rail head. But it was very feasible. We just could not work it out against the price of fly ash, which is the typical pozzolan used in concrete.

Right. Okay. All right. Well, I didn't ever hear anything more from it. And I think the thing that brought it back to mind was the comment earlier with regards to the -- as I recall, there was quite a large difference in -- I don't know what the right word is. It's the premium or the loyalty that goes to the owner. And at one point in time, it seems to me like what was being paid currently was a multiple, maybe several multiples, of what it would be if it was direct through the BLM. So at any rate, it's not that, that's my business, it's that I'm curious about such things. And I just wondered if you've been through any of those numbers for guidance.

Okay. I really appreciate it, Dan. And a couple of things on rail. We looked at rail there at Estacio Madero very well. And I haven't run the numbers on it for a long time, but we're doing pretty good with trucking. And what he's referring to are these big, bulk deals. Now on the fly ash, I understand that some people will say that they're interested in 100,000 tons a year.

And that's what this was.

But basically, what they're doing is trying to barter the price with their fly ash producer, by going back to the fly ash producer and telling them that, well, they can get zeolite for this price. In other words, it was -- it's kind of over the years, we've learned that there are some people that barter the commodity price based on a competing quote.

Well, I guess that's what we all would like to celebrate as open market, right?

Exactly. Yes.

Okay. So -- so I have -- at the time that I visited while your dad was alive, he provided me with, I guess, maybe 5 probably close to 50-pound bags of material. And -- but I did not get any of that stuff that literally ate my shoes. And I was wondering what would it take to get something like a 5-gallon bucket or something like that? Of that particular material that I could evaluate the characteristics of.

Just call after the call, and we'll set you up with it.

All right.

You want to give him a phone number?

Yes. Tell you what, just call here and it will go to direction. No problem, Dan. Just let us know.

[Operator Instructions] There are no further questions in the queue at this time.

I think we probably better wrap it up. We've got to get back to work, and we were only earmarked for 2 hours, it's 2 hours 20 minutes. So I think we'll go ahead and adjourn at this time.

Certainly. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today's event. You may disconnect at this time and have a wonderful day. Thank you for your participation.