David Silver: Okay, thank you with that, and then maybe one more on the beryllium side, but I’m looking at the full year 2024 guidance. Sorry. Slide 15 and in particular, on the right hand column, the mine development dash, new pit opening $13 million. There’s always been a smaller, moderate amount in that column, but I was wondering, the new pit opening, is that designed to expand your capacity for the mineral that you require for your beryllium production, or is this really a replacement? In other words, are you investing to prepare for anticipated growth, or just, is this maybe just the normal transition from a played out portion of the mine to a new part of the mine?
Shelly Chadwick: Yeah. Thanks for that. I’ll start on that one. So, as you know, we’ve got a mine out in Utah that we have dug various pits at, really, to obtain our raw material. So, you’ve heard Jugal explain this process before, is basically, we have an open pit. We dig dirt and process it to get the beryllium products out of the ground. When we do that, we have to capitalize that, really, from an accounting treatment. So, I like to think of mine development as really raw material costs that are amortized over the period in which we use the raw material. So, I wouldn’t think of it as, this is a different capital investment, but really, it is the size and the amount of the dig and the cost of that, which may be amortized over a different period, or certainly a higher quantity.
We do see an uptick in our beryllium processing and our beryllium related sales and opportunities. So we’re making sure that we’re digging enough to have the product to support that demand, but really, what you see there is just something that goes on the balance sheet and amortizes off with production.
David Silver: Okay, very good. And last one from me, and I’ll apologize in advance if I misquote Jugal on this, but the topic would be your expansions on the electronic material side at Newton and Milwaukee. But one or two quarters ago, I believe Jugal, you talked about, I asked you about the timing of completion, has it changed or whatnot? And again, I’m paraphrasing, but I believe you said, well, the slowdown in electronic materials demand that was happening then you thought it would jibe very nicely with your planned expansions. In other words, you wouldn’t have to accelerate or anything. You could complete the expansions and upgrades at a desired pace. Based on your comments today about maybe a more drawn out recovery or rebound in the core electronic materials portfolio, how are you thinking about, completing that expansion and the timing of the start-up with customer demand? Any shift in that thinking?
Jugal Vijayvargiya: No, I would say in coal, there is no shift in our thinking on that. We are continuing to progress on those expansions. We want to make sure that we’re properly positioned from a capacity standpoint as the market recovery happens and I think we’ll just continue to work that, David, and make sure that all of our equipment is being installed, is being qualified with our various customers and that we’re fully prepared to support them as the recovery happens in the various types of the segments of the semi market. So I would say we’re on track and continuing down that path.
David Silver: Okay, great. That’s it for me. I appreciate all the color. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Your next question is coming from Dave Storms from Stonegate Capital Markets. Dave, your line is live. You may proceed.
Dave Storms: Just hoping to get a feel for pacing; last call, it was estimated that value added sales would be split roughly 45-55 between first half and second half. Does the anticipated step up in Q2 maintain that ratio, or should we adjust those expectations?
Shelly Chadwick: Yes, that’s a good question. We spend a lot of time thinking about that and really look more at, I guess, think, the cadence of our earnings. And we did talk last time about that being, kind of a 45-55 split as we move through the year. With our soft Q1, of course, we had to kind of take another look at what that might look like. We do see the significant step up in Q2, but it will affect the balance of earnings where, we’ll probably be a little better than 40% in the first half. When we think about Q2, we’ll probably do a little bit better than Q2 of last year, but we’re going to really see the meaningful, step up in Q3 and Q4 to kind of hit the midpoint of our guide. So if you think, 40-60, maybe, you know, 41-59, something like that, we’re kind of in that zip code right now, at least how we’re thinking about it.
Dave Storms: That’s very helpful. Thank you. And Jugal, you mentioned with shares coming down, excuse me, with volumes coming down, you’re not really seeing share losses. Has that been because you’ve had to compete on price? Is there any upside to competing on price to maybe get some share gains? Basically, just how do — how are you thinking about your pricing environment given the softer volumes?
Jugal Vijayvargiya: Yeah, well, when I talk about the share situation, there’s a number of different programs we spoke about, beryllium nickel was one of them, for example, in making sure that everyone understands that this is not a share issue, it’s just simply an inventory destocking issue. Right and I think that’s the case for a number of different things. Some of the declines that we have in Q1 in sales was simply due to operational excess. It wasn’t due to order rates. It was, you know, we just weren’t able to get the product out the door. So I think it’s a combination of things between those various items. Now, when you look at pricing in general, certainly there’s always pricing pressure. There’s no doubt, right. Customers are always looking for ways that we can do things more efficiently and then pass on those benefits to them.
