Can Heavy Industry Be Decarbonized? | Grant Budge, CEO & Co-Founder @ PeroCycle

Oh, today on the show we have Grant Budge. Grant is a co-founder of a company called Parasycle. Parasycle has pioneered an innovative technology that has the potential to change the steel industry forever. We talk about other industries that their technology has the potential to change.

Uh but we're really talking about something that's very core to the grove, which is how do you fundamentally change for the better uh you know and more harmony uh with the world. How do you change for the better these really slowmoving and hard to abate industries?

So um I won't attempt to describe Grant's technology. I know that it has to do uh it's it's a it's a plug into uh the industrial chain of processing steel for example. Um but he will explain it much better than me is incredible.

Learning from people that are truly uh building and trying to go to markets in these spaces. Uh so always learning from these uh these experiences is educational. I know it will be for you as well. Thank you as always to our partners, Clean Techch Girls Lab. If you're looking to grow in clean tech,

they are the people to do it with. And as always, the producers of this podcast, Craz. And with that, I give you Grant. Hello, welcome to another episode of The Grove. Shout out to our sponsors mentioned just before this, but without them, it would not be possible to interview awesome people doing awesome

things like Grant. Welcome. >> Thank you very much. Good to be here, Blake. >> Yeah. Nothing more to say. We're talking about Parasycle, if I'm saying that correctly. And what we're talking about is steel, one of the hardest industries to do anything innovative in. So, before we get uh started, if you could give a

brief introduction of yourself and what you're building. >> Yeah, sure. Um, so yeah, Grant Budge. I'm CEO and co-founder of Parasite. Uh we're a interesting I'm going to say um and unique decarbonization technology for industrial sector and I say we're interesting unique because we're one of the very few ones that is an on-site

solution only. We create what we call a closed carbon loop and what truly makes us unique is we do not see the need for a carbon price to be able to deploy. So if you look at the landscape of decarbonization industry, people keep talking a lot about the need for a green premium,

you know, um and green premium anywhere between 20 to 35% on the cost of steel to decarbonize it. We don't see that. Uh we see an opportunity to produce steel clean, green without a premium. M well before we so I that that's a that's a beautiful foundation because obviously the question is how but to uh to to

elongate the suspension here if we could just take a detour to your personal path. Did you ever did you ever think uh you'd be a founder? Were you walking around as a kid thinking I can't wait to start you know parasycle or did something happen at some point?

>> Um I guess both things. I was actually quoting a a story to somebody the other day about when I was at university. We were talking interviewed by different companies. The one I was getting interviewed was by Anglo-American. The question was, "Are you the guy who wants your boss's job?" And my response to him

was as a 19year-old was, "Yeah, if I think you do it better." >> So if I look back on and reflect on that answer, then yes, I think I was looking to do something on my own in the future.

what's led me to this and what was a real transition point um when I graduated as an engineer I worked in the mining sector I worked in the steel industry um very much just doing you know the usual engineering tasks and going at the different levels and then I got an opportunity back in 2006

to lead the development of a utility scale power project here in the UK which was going to have carbon capture storage tacked onto it So it was going to be a leading um CCS demonstrator here in Europe and I decided that was interesting and went to do it. So I took that project fullfully from

prefeasibility through to signing off the information memorandum for an IPO. >> Wow. >> Um and that's what really got me the bug, you know, that's what really got me inspired and wanting to do do something more meaningful with my career. And since then, everything I've done has pretty much been focused on um energy

efficiency or decarbonization in some form. >> Is this is this technically cuz in in many ways that experience like you said is uh like growing a company um from pre-commercialization through IPO. But is Parcycle your uh your first company after that? Have you had others?

>> Oh, nice. Um after I did that project um I ended up during that I I got in contact with an Australian company. We started exploring the opportunity for a pre-combustion and capture technology. That led to a setting of a joint venture business. We secured government funding to take forward a couple of iterations

of engineering on that. Um and then I exited that back in 2019. Um I've been involved as a investor and non-exec director for another energy startup here in the UK. Not actually in equipment but using um using blockchain effectively to allow the trading of smaller volumes of electricity. So peer-to-peer peer trading um yeah and I've been involved either

supporting or re-engineering I'll say various other tech solutions. >> Okay. So then so then big question for you which I love asking uh people in your position is uh many time the the a reason that I do a lot of the work that I do is because I find that so many people that are on the cutting edge of

climate technology are so focused in and extremely intelligent on a particular vertical on a particular technology which is why they can develop it and don't know anything about uh the bringing it to the world the commercialization aspect all the the the business if you want to use that word the business side of

things. So coming from an engineer background and successfully navigating uh multiple um uh commercializations of really impactful technologies, what are two of the biggest misconceptions that engineers have about uh business in general that you've learned? >> Um I'm going to rephrase that if I may.

I don't think it's engineers that have a misconception about what the needs are to take things forward. It's inventors. >> Yeah. >> The biggest ch the biggest challenge I have had >> um in everything when it's been working with um you know an early stage business as a particular technology >> um inventors are hugely protective of

what they've done. They always always believe it can be better and you can get into this rut of continuous development that never actually assesses commercial capability or commercial traction and you have to have somebody I think who has a rational mind that oversees that can understand and appreciate the engineering side of it can understand

and appreciate that it can keep evolving and improving but can also at the right time see the line and sight and say yeah no we have a commercial opportunity here and if we deliver that commercial opportunity then everything we want to do downstream continue to develop that gets easier but we have to get something

out there and we have to get it in the market we have to demonstrate it works if you really want to start building on it so that's the biggest challenge I I've I've ever you know seen I guess around this is that inventorship >> yeah so so so then so then one question

around that how do you know what the line is I mean we're talking about the things that you've you've worked on are very large scale very I mean you're talking about utility scale like big big machinery. So how do you know when to to bring it out?

>> I've kind of done both. Um you know so the large scale utility scale you know it was in reality there was nothing innovative in that. We were using commercial technologies but bolting them together to deliver the solution.

>> Okay. >> So it was innovative in that extent. It hadn't been done at that scale before but the key components could do what they said they would do. >> Okay. >> So it was more of like a market proposition. And if we do this, do we believe we can make money out of doing

it? >> Okay. >> Um, you know, from the engineering side of it, it's focus is focusing on the right key metrics and understanding, you know, really what what they are and being able to identify them sequentially as you move forward through the iterations of development. So, yeah, okay, I think at this point now, you

know, we've got something that can work. And that just means reality. You just need to have a very robust tea, a techno, economic assessment that you can keep refreshing and updating that gives you that line of sight. Um, and yeah, it will be when it will be.

>> You have to have a good idea what how much money you need to do. You have to get to that point. >> Yeah. >> Um, you have to do it at the right scale. >> Um, and it is different different technologies, you know, back to your point about you large scale being my

focus. I've also worked on you know smaller scale stuff you know there's um energy efficient burners looking at that which could be deployed in households >> interesting >> you know but then you have to look at the complexity that sits around that about hitting the um the regulations that sit around putting an appliance

into a domestic household and how that is substantially different if you want to do it on an industrial site. M >> so yeah there's a multitude of things to consider and understanding I think in what the best market is for the particular technology you're taking forward and essentially then going through and de-risking that

>> interesting so I I honestly um in in the theme of of reframing these questions I think one one thing you just said was interesting which is the the tea which I have heard of but I've actually not never gotten the chance to um to ask about so so this is flipping it where

coming from a a commercial like a go to market commercialization um background where I'm not too much of a of an engineer but uh have worked with people to commercialize technology what how how can teas supplement or catalyze or you know help bring clarity to the commercialization process of technology >> quick illustration being in the current

Imper cycle how we've used it so when I first joined we had a tea which takes into account all the operating capital expenditure costs associated to deployment of the tech >> yeah from various scenarios and you know there's a level of confidence in all the different costs and we started you know we were like a

level five cost estimate on capital which is very high level you know probably minus 25% through to plus 50%. Wow. >> Yeah, it's ballpark. We've refined that. We're about a level four cost estimate now, which is much more um secure um much more vendor cost driven.

>> Uhhuh. >> Um so we do the updates on that and it's the same on the operating cost side. We have our process model. We run that. we understand what the energy consumptions will be, whether they're sourced through, you know, um, green electricity, grid electricity, um, whether we're still having to include natural, you know, fossil fuels

in there in the mix at all. And it balances that. So every time we do something, we update it based on that and we have different scenarios. So how we use that then is so when I when I first joined we had a tea that said you know we needed a carbon price

of somewhere between $50 to $70 per ton and at that we had a marketable solution. >> Well great >> in 10 years time that's probably going to cover half the world and that'd be great. As of today, we have Europe that has a um carbon pricing structure that would get close to delivering that, but

we still have an industry that is holding back to see whether they actually need to do anything. So, in reality, I could say, "Yes, we could deploy in Europe." And some of you will say, "Yeah, but nobody's going to deploy." So, you don't have a market.

>> Yeah. >> So, what do we do? We go back and we focus on the tech. We improve the performance of the catalyst. We improve our process design. We build that back into our tea. We run it again. And now we're sat here saying no, okay, under these scenarios um with this these key commodity

criteria, we're now looking at a cost for carbon abatement which is negative. So you know Mr. Steel Company, if you want to deploy us, you actually now save money operating >> which covers your capital cost which gives you a 1 to three year payback if you actually deploy our tech. Now most companies will be looking at a minus

five year payback to say yes that's a good capital decision. We're saying one to three years plus we hit all your ESG criteria you know because we're driving down your carbon. So you can then say right well now I have a robust platform to go out to somebody say yeah I have a marketable

product here and I can identify that market. I can size that market and I can tell you how we'll access it. >> So okay so two follow-up questions for um because well done transition was good. I was going to uh I wanted to get into the the story of parascle. So, so the two questions are first ju just to

ground in um in reality like what are the time scales of these of these iterative cycles where you're going from we have a technology we bring it to market we test these assumptions uh we have information and we and we improve it and you know are these days are these weeks are these months uh you know how

long does it take to go from one version of of your technology to a better one. So that iteration I just talked through, that's the outcome of 12 months worth of work. >> 12 months. Okay, good. Good. >> It is. But now we have a very strong, I believe, commercial value proposition.

>> And now we're locking in on that >> on a deployment strategy. >> That doesn't mean we won't continue to do tech development. We will. >> Sure. >> But it won't be leading the business. It will be run alongside. So we're now taking the basis of our process design um the basis of our catalyst composition

and its performance >> and we're now putting that into effectively a pilot plant which will be operational next year which will lead to a commercial demonstration unit around about 2029 2030 which will lead to a first full scale plant around about 2032 2033.

>> Nice. And at that point we have a commercial solution. As long as it delivers everything we say it's delivering at each of those stages, >> we can now go out and sell that you know um as a commercial contract to somebody.

>> Great. How have you approached uh leading a team of people? So how how have you approached the human side of of all this uh of all this tech business? >> It's been exceptionally easy so far. And I say that because as a startup we have no money whatsoever. So we have been a

we have been a team of creativity and commercialization of two >> supported by supported by some third parties um in different areas. >> So it's yeah we're very I say lean and mean >> but um we're just about to close out our first initial funding round.

>> Um and in doing that we're taking on two more people so the team will start to expand. We have a follow on round we're looking to complete by the end of the year and when we do that it'll be the other three people coming in. So we're gradually building the team >> and in terms how it's managed.

>> I don't believe with you know an early stage startup there is any other way than being completely open. >> Mhm. >> You know by the end of this year we could at the most will be a team of about seven to eight people. Um, and we'll do the majority of things together

so everybody understands and everybody knows the risks of different compon components whether they're directly involved in it or not. >> Yeah. >> You know, because I'm a firm believer that there is no such thing as a stupid question. So, the more people you're kind of exposed, >> the more questions and challenges you

get and the more robust your outcomes. >> Good. Well, that that that sets me up for I appreciate that. Now I can ask anything. I >> Yeah, >> I don't need to think about it twice. >> Well, I spend a life doing it, so don't worry about it, Blake.

That's great. All right. So, so then uh uh transitioning into the into the life of Parasycle, what you guys are are working on right now. You spoke to uh the core value propositions, the technology, things like this. Um you mentioned that cycle of 12 months. Was there work that you were doing beforehand or was that really when you'd

started working on the company? Was those 12 months you just spoke to? >> Yeah, I mean I literally started 12 months ago. Harrier started three months after me. >> Okay. >> That that is the 12 months. Um the only things that had happened prior to that um Harriet did the original um test work

um during a PhD. So we effectively when the business got formed um picked up from there. >> All right. So then so then take us back to the beginning. What what was the decision to uh to commit to this technology full-time for you?

>> Yeah. So I gave you a bit of my background. Yeah. um things I've done and as I articulated to everybody you know in the 20 25 years I've now been involved in looking at decarbonization technologies or product projects um I probably seen 95% of the ways you shouldn't be doing something or reasons

why technologies won't work or get deployed today and when I got approached with parasite I I saw a lot of those issues didn't exist I see an elegant solution that has potential for a robust market fit now. Um, and I think it could be a worldass leading solution.

Uh, and that's what inspired me. Could you could could could we uh could you go over what the uh the core product is what it is you sure >> so I use the term I think elegant solution and so all what we have is um a thermmochemical reactor um which operates at reasonably high

temperature and it has a solid catalyst inside it from a chemistry perspective it does what's known as a redux reaction so a reduction and oxidation So we reduce the catalyst stripping the oxygen out of it. We then pass CO2 through the reactor and it draws the oxygen back into the catalyst out of the

CO2 and produces carbon monoxide. >> So it's that our process is that simple. Why that becomes elegant is carbon monoxide is the reducing agent that a blast furnace or DRRi furnace needs to reduce ion. It does it at the moment by using fossil fuels and it does it within um the furnace itself.

>> So what we do by taking carbon dioxide out of the top and converting it into carbon dioxide is we create this closed carbon loop that then puts that carbon monoxide back in. So they don't actually need um you know continuous fossil fuels as a feed stock.

So it becomes a nice simple solution and because of how it's done and how we engineer our integration we reduce I mentioned we can reduce the costs we do that primarily because we reduce the energy required to convert iron or into pig iron >> and we reduce the emissions alongside it.

>> Nice. >> So I call it the trinity of decarbonization. So, so how so how has the hypothesis about where this fits in the world uh how has it changed over the last year? Was it always the steel industry? Was it always clear it was going to be this closed loop cycle or you know how did 12

the last 12 months unfold? >> Um it was clear that it was um foundation industries. What I mean by that is from the very early stages we could see um user cases in steel in other or reduction processes like nickel um but also in glass, cement, chemicals, ceramics um and yeah we've we've led with the

steel piece because it's uh the scale of it and the need to decarbonize it is very high on the global agenda. there's a lot of um lot of exposure and visibility of it in the same way there is for the transport industry globally.

>> So it's a good one that compete people can accept can buy into and they can see and we can quantify that market and how it would work very well and yet the closed carbon loop solution works exceptionally well in a steel context.

>> Okay. >> But we have >> yes I was going but we have since that over the past 12 months also now validated a user case in the nickel industry. And we have done the same in the glass industry and we're in the process of doing it in the cement industry.

>> Right. That's awesome. So so so for for um for other people that are taking deep technologies like this with uh a lot of upside and looking to uh scale it in in a in a similar way looking to find uh market viability.

How have you gone about the last 12 months in uh reaching out to first identifying you know what who to reach out to uh once you reached out to them? How did you speak to them? Was it in your personal network? Was did you find mentorship? Did you join programs? Was it just cold outreach? Um you know what

what what was the process like to establish those those conversations for the use case? >> Yeah, I mean it's been a bit of everything. I think I mentioned I worked in the steel industry. I mean, one of my jobs there was um working globally for a business as president of asset management. So, I had interactions with

over 160 steel mills at one point in 36 countries. So, I already had a a robust network, but it's also finding people you can work with. So, we've identified some key contacts who had similar networks who have helped us, you know, engage >> um and some limited cold outreach, but these days that is the hardest one to

make work or stick. referral is the best or if you know somebody directly is the best. >> But with that, you know, we've got discussions ongoing >> with somewhere between 12 to 15 steel companies which represents somewhere between 10 to 20% of global steel production, you know, and I think within a 12 month, you know, startup period

with where we're currently at, >> right? >> Um, already been awarded a feasibility assessment by one of those companies. >> Yeah. which I think is pretty rare for a company by early stage, but they really wanted to understand what it would look like if we deployed on their asset.

>> Um, so I think yeah, we're we've got good traction, good conversations ongoing. U, we've got three companies that want to host our pilot plant. >> Nice. >> Uh, it's going it's going well and positive. >> That's great.

>> But always looking for more. >> Yeah. Right. Right. Right. What um so then what I guess back to this question. So um 12 months ago what was the the core hypothesis about where this would fit in the world and then 12 months later how how has that hypothesis changed or refined?

>> I I think the big one so we we're still focusing very much on steel at the moment. We I think um >> okay >> there's I think geographically originally when we kicked off 12 months ago because of the regulatory environment policy environment here in Europe there was an expectation that this would be the best

place to deploy and that this is where we should focus a lot of our time securing strategic partnerships. Um I think what's evolved over that time is um there are probably partners in south southern Asia or Southeast Asia that in respect of having the policy and regulation just because of our market value proposition that we don't need a

carbon price are much more engaged and interested to understand how that can work because they need to sell into Europe. So yes, it is still Europe that's driving it, but geographically where we're I guess expecting now to deploy potentially it could be outside of Europe as much as it could be inside.

>> Fascinating. >> So that's one thing. >> Yeah. But the other thing is we've also changed from seeing a technology that needed to be delivered at scale and by that mean I mean our first of a kind type scale you know so millions of tons of CO2 to deliver a an economic or

viable project through to something that now at our demonstrator scale which should be about 20,000 tons peranom CO2 commercially works on its own anyway >> right >> so now we have a potential for a smaller deployment and that's why We started to look in the glass sector. That's why we started to look at nickel because they

are smaller applications which means we can get revenue generation coming quicker post demonstrator >> when when okay you're this is this is all awesome stuff. This is uh we go in like a thousand different directions. So I I I do have a question that I'm going to hold off for because what you just

said is very important where uh a lot of times so first of all you're talking about the relationship with regulation and the viability to go to market which is a huge topic on this podcast and and I'm going to ask you about but the idea of looking at a market saying this is where

we are going to be this is where we're going this is a 5 10 year plan because these industries move very slowly and this is where we need to go recognizing the reality that money is what's going to get you there. And whether you're raising or making money yourself, you need to make

money. And so even if there's this long-term plan where you're saying we know we can make uh you know a foundational impact in the steel industry, though we have these smaller markets that we can uh that we can access more quickly, the sales cycles are potentially the deployment cycles are potentially smaller. uh we can

learn, we can prepare ourselves to to get to steel. Uh at what point was that something that you brought was that perspective something that you brought from previous experiences or was that something that came of just the market research >> and that came out of the market research and developing the tech and then just

continually I guess re-evaluating and sitting back and say okay with what we know today with the landscape of the market how do we see this working where are our key challenges and what do we need to do to keep this moving forward?

Great. >> So, one of the biggest ones that we get challenged on is the scaled capital requirement to deliver in a steel industry because of how big it is, because of the volumes of gas that you need to handle. That's what led us to focus on, okay, well, how do we make a

demonstrator scale unit >> commercially economical? How do we make it have a payback of one to three years? And if we can do that, well, where is the market for that, >> right? >> Where can we deploy that? And if we can demonstrate that and demonstrate the market and the economics, well, fine.

When I talk to an investor now, I'm not talking um exit post 2033. You know, you know, when I've built a 2 million ton pan and CO2 plant, I'm talking now potential exit post demonstrate in 2029 2030 and the value proposition changed.

>> Yeah. Fascinating. Okay. So then so then back to uh back to the regul uh the regulation question where a lot of times um uh climate tech companies when they want to go to market they are they are relying heavily on regulatory environments to propel uh their themselves into a market and these

regulatory environments shift uh frequently relative to the time scales that it takes to grow a company. So at what point did did it become uh clear that you could sell on a value proposition that wasn't strictly tied to regulation? Obviously that is there but the fact that you've decoupled yourself from that I think you know makes it a

totally different story as far as scale the company. So was that from the beginning as well or or did that come out of the last? Uh that was um probably about January this year where we updated everything, reassessed where we were with terms of the um process design, catalyst performance.

>> That's when we started to getting numbers that indicated you know we were delin policy and regulation as um yeah and this requirement for a carbon price to exist. >> But that doesn't mean it's not still an enabling thing. Like I said earlier on, we're getting a lot of interest in Asia, but that's because they're selling into

Europe, >> of course, >> and they're already exposed to that policy and regulation. >> So, they're more interested in moving it quicker, >> right? So, so, so it, so in in your model now, from the perspective, it acts as an accelerant rather than one of the core things, which is >> beautiful. I love that. Um so so then so

then uh coming coming to a few of my uh favorite questions is when it comes to growing your company uh what is the biggest hurdle that you're facing and how is it also an opportunity? the biggest hurdle is raising capital, >> you know. So, it's doing industrial decarbonization. You know, we're one of um I'm going to guess

probably about a thousand different technology developers all think they have a solution that can have a good market and a robust fit. And we're all vying for capital >> um you know and we're vying for it against a multitude of fintech solutions, you know, which are easier to do, easier to visualize and deliver

revenues a lot quicker. you know, that is the greatest challenge. Um, I don't think the opportunity comes until we've secured probably the the full funding for the pilot and we have a mobile plant we can take around and and demonstrate to people because that's a point at which we really demonstrated and derised that the technology works in

a real world environment. >> Sure. >> You know, at that point, I think the capital conversations will be very different. The partnership structures will be very different. >> Yeah. So from so um uh building on that another major theme uh of of late has been uh capital structures for uh deep technologies like yourselves. So uh uh

again VC gets a lot of attention relative to the the slice of available capital that it that it actually represents. Uh but but for from your perspective when you're thinking about um providing capital to Parascle, how are you thinking about it? Is VC the way you're going? Are there other vehicles that you're uh interested in?

>> Um, so in these early stages, I guess we've got four pathways I've been looking at. So there's there's some angel investment that we've got coming in. >> There's additional investment from our founding shareholders um coming in. We do talk and are talking to VCs, but then there's also industry strategic partners, you know, who have

their own CVCs who could be interested in in getting involved and we keep a dialogue going there. Um, and open to all of them. It's it's but it's not just about the cash, it's also about what else can that particular party bring.

>> Definitely. >> Um, so we don't lose sign of line of sight on that. >> Yeah. Is there is there any uh is there any attention to grants uh from >> um yeah we're no different to any other startup. We're continually assessing grant opportunities and making applications. I mean in the past 12

months Harriet um you know my co-founder and CTO I think we've probably done 12 or 12 or 14 different grant applications >> we're about to put one in. We're putting one in this week. We're already talking about two others that could go in in September.

you just you keep looking and you keep applying. >> Yeah. Um one one one thing that you just reminded me of ju just to just to pull into context um all all of what we've been speaking to in while you've been doing a lot of this this research and bringing it back to your uh to your

co-founder and all these things. Uh the technology is being uh continually developed uh along alongside is that correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. So I mean we have a we have a a research team that has been con initially developing the lab work and scaling it on at a bench scale. We've now commissioned our prototype which is

a containerized prototype and Harriet and I are now very much focused on the first engineering design for the pilot plant. >> Um and you ask about grants. We we've been awarded um an innovate UK grant. That project just kicked up seven days ago >> and we're in we're in the process of uh

finalizing design details and placing orders for the components for our pilot plant. >> Wonderful. Awesome. Well, with all this work left to be done and all the work that has been done, I'm curious what inspires you. >> Um, it just sounds cheesy. I'm and I mentioned earlier on you know what got me into this and it's about making a

difference doing something more meaningful with my career and it is that I see a real opportunity here real opportunity that could you decarbonize the world a lot quicker and have a significant impact if we can get the right traction this isn't a difficult technology to deploy you know if you can say within the next 20 years we could

potentially support the reduction of 2.8 8 billion tons of CO2, you know, from being emitted, which is, you know, 8 to 9% of glo current global CO2 emissions. That would be meteoric in my opinion. And that would be just the start, you know, because on top of that, that excludes all the supply chain CO2

emissions associated to it. So when the coal's getting shipped for the co-production or for the pulverized coal injection, it excludes all of that and excludes the CO2 footprint for the mining operation they come from. You know, the impact can be huge. And I, you know, I know both Harro and I would love

to be the ones who actually deliver it. >> Nice. Well, that doesn't sound cheesy to me. That sounds great. Oh, Grant, appreciate this uh this conversation. Like I said, uh uh I the openness of questions is fun. I got a lot more for you, but I guess we'll just have to do another one.

So, if anyone else was uh inspired to follow along or get in touch, what's the best way to do so? Um, I guess drop in our our website which is parascle.com. Um, and then you know follow the links and uh drop us a note and we'll get back to you.

>> All right. It is a beautiful website so I recommend everybody check it out. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, Grant. Appreciate the time. Look forward to the next one. >> Great. Thanks for your time, Blake.