Jim Stark: I would say to answer Sal’s question, when you look at historically, we spend somewhere between $30 million to $35 million in CapEx maintenance CapEx and another $30 million to $35 million on other growth initiatives outside the big MSC or dextrose or sugar projects that we have. So if you take those two together in the $60 million to $70 million range of kind of normal capital that we would spend, so the monetization, the upgrades we will spend on will be within contain within that on an annual basis. So it’s not going to – there might be a little bit more in maintenance CapEx and a little less in growth initiatives. But I would tell you when you look at next year, we’re still dialed in to be probably plus or minus around $150 million of capital next year, including one of the big MSEs to really get built during the year.
But when you look historically that’s way down from certainly what we spent over the last few years. So feel very good about where we are from managing the capital side. But also tell remind you once the partnership is completed, there’s an additional $25 million plus of free cash flow that stays home that can help us fund these projects going forward.
Salvator Tiano: Perfect. And I also want to clarify a little bit on the 60 Pro side. Firstly, you’re getting the renewals. So as we think about Q4, is it going to comprise perhaps 5%, 10%, 15% of your high protein sales, as I think there were some targets regarding that. And secondly, can you clarify a little bit the comments that $80 million to $120 million will be the HiPro contribution next year, but there’s upside from HiPro – from 60% Pro. So what does that mean, essentially, in terms of what’s assumed in your base case, $80 million to $120 million, what’s – how can we quantify the upside and what will define whether you do get that upside or not?
Todd Becker: Yes, so much like 50 Pro, it takes time to get full uplift. And so that’s where while that we can make 60 Pro in commercial quantities, we’ve proven that to the market. The market now starts to adapt to that. I think when we look at 60 Pro for 2024 and the goal of 20% to 30% of our platform shipping, it’s probably – well, not probably, it increases during the year as a percentage. So we have identified and outlined enough demand for all of our 50 Pro, and all of our 60 Pro we produce. It’s really about getting that executed into the market. And that’ll just grow during 2024 fiscal year. When we gave you the outline guidance, it’s 560 million gallons converted today, half of Tharaldson earnings, which is about 85 million gallons, gets us to about 650 million gallons, at $0.15 mid range margin, that’s about $100 million a year, roughly of guidance for 50 Pro.
Now, if we do better because of the, if you look at the spread between meal or protein and corn, that’s wide right now, so possibly that gives us the higher end of the range, and if it narrows in, it gives us the lower end of the range. And then on top of that, we see and I’m watching the meal base, obviously watching Argentina, what’s going on there. And then on top of that, depending on how much and how fast the 60 Pro uptake happens, as we said, it probably grows during the year, accelerates towards the last half, and then into 2025. That’s where the upside is.
Salvator Tiano: Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.
Todd Becker: Thank you.
Operator: The next question is from Andrew Strelzik with BMO. Your line is open.
Andrew Strelzik: Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions.
Todd Becker: Thank you. Sorry for the wait.
Andrew Strelzik: Not a problem. I know there’s a lot to ask. So I guess the first question is on the corn oil side and the decision to lock some of the prices in at the higher levels, how much of that and how far out did you go? And has anything changed in your thinking with respect to your willingness to do that on an ongoing basis?
Todd Becker: I think corn oil is a different animal, for sure. Right? I mean, we saw veg oil prices starting the weekend. We noticed that there are some downtimes. We’re able to, I mean let I wish we locked it in higher, but we didn’t. But, I mean, we locked it in above market, and we just put it on for the quarter. A little bit of Q1, but not very much. And so I mean, that the market doesn’t extend coverage much further than that anyway, so we were able to get most of our sales on. I think we’re fortunate to be able to do that. But, I mean, maybe $0.05 to $0.07 upon above market today. It’s nothing dramatic. It doesn’t change our view at all. Our view in 2024 is steady and our view in 2025 is strong because of the conversion to the IRA and 45Z’s and all the credits available and the advantage for corn oil.
Once that starts to happen. It’s overall, we’re focused on quarter-to-quarter, and we’ll have to deal with some of that volatility. But I think generally, we stabilized oil against the oil meal unwind.
Andrew Strelzik: Got it. Okay, that makes sense. And then obviously, there’s been a lot of headlines and news around carbon sequestration away from what you guys are doing and the optimism that you have around the Nebraska plants. So, I guess my question, is there anything with those Nebraska plants that could get in the way of that optimism? Or I guess, are there any hurdles left? Or how are you thinking about the line of sight to the EBITDA potential from those plants, specifically within the carbon sequestration? Thanks.
Todd Becker: Yes, I think our line of sight is very strong there. The project’s on track. Most of what is needed, it’s funded. There’s no funding needed for that project. So and then we’ve been able to secure what we need from a compression standpoint as well. So every day we evaluate it, it’s not a lot of right away that has to happen. And overall, lot of it’s that part’s kind of de-risked already. And it’s really about converting what’s happening there into transportable assets and then going into a state like Wyoming, which has primacy. So you don’t have an EPA permitting process. I think that’s key. I think that’s a key to the Summit project as well, which is going to North Dakota with primacy. It’s a great choice to make relative to having to go to the EPA for permitting, which there’s like 70 or 80 or 90 permits that are still in backlog today, where I think when you’re in those couple of states, it’s advantaged Summit, which is why they’re still persevering.
It’s advantaged Nebraska, which is why they’re still in a strong position. So, look, at the end of the day, if none of it happens, it’s a different discussion. But we’re confident, at least from the standpoint of what we outlined and then those numbers that we previously outlined in Nebraska, advantaged Nebraska, and our assets there, it’s really advantage Green Plains shareholders, quite frankly, as we’re one of the biggest oil producers in the state.
Andrew Strelzik: Got it. Okay. And then if I could just squeeze in one more clarification. You mentioned where basis was relative to the five year average in the third quarter. Obviously, it’s gotten much better. Did you quantify or how can we think about the delta or the contribution there as we roll forward in the change in the corn basis? Thank you.
Todd Becker: I’ll let Grant talk just a little bit about maybe Nebraska and Iowa corn basis, what we’ve seen here recently, from the highs to the lows, and kind of where we’re starting to stabilizing, but I think what key is that we’re getting a little more towards traditional levels, but I don’t think we’re fully there yet. But go ahead, Grant.
