Bryan Shinn: So I think it’s a very interesting question. It could perhaps enable that. But what we’ve seen so far is that, as I mentioned in prepared remarks, the bigger the customer, the bigger supplier they want to deal with. And I think there are a lot of other knock-on effects of that as well. I feel like we’ll see service intensity continue to increase. We think we all know as consolidation happens and there’s more contiguous acres out there, lateral lengths will increase over time. And all that is, I think, beneficial for larger sand providers and logistics providers like us, because at the end of the day, a lot of the smaller guys just can’t support the huge simul fracs that are out there today. So it may well necessitate consolidation, John, so we’ll see. Hasn’t really happened yet, but I think that could be on the horizon at some point here.
John Daniel: Fair enough. And I know it hasn’t happened, but I’m curious if you would be willing to answer this question. Some of the smaller competitors that may have supplied primarily the smaller E&P companies that are victims, if you will, of the consolidation. I would suspect some of them might be nervous. And I’m curious if any of them have had gentle outreaches to larger players like you to have discussions.
Bryan Shinn: So we really can’t comment on anything specific, but we’ve talked in the past about us being a potential logical consolidator. And so you can imagine over the past few years, there’s been all kinds of conversations in and amongst some of the smaller players and folks like ourselves. I think that the challenge pretty consistently has been finding a point in time where both buyers and sellers feel like they’re getting a fair deal. And here we’ve had a really strong year in 2024 for a lot of the sand companies. And some people are probably a bit too bullish on what their outlook will be. Sorry, a strong year in 2023. They’re a bit too bullish on what their outlook might be in 2024. So you can imagine that people still have stars in their eyes in terms of valuation. So I think there has to be some kind of expectation resetting and that’ll just take a bit of time to get into the industry.
John Daniel: That makes sense. I wasn’t sure if you’d maybe seen an acceleration of interest in the last month or two. So it doesn’t sound like it.
Bryan Shinn: No, not particularly. If it’s been an ongoing theme for the industry for the last couple of years, as you know.
John Daniel: Yes, okay.
Bryan Shinn: Thanks, John.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question is a follow-up from the line of Stephen Gengaro. Please proceed with your question.
Stephen Gengaro: Thank you. So two things I wanted to follow up on. One, just following up on John’s question. When you think about the balance sheet and you’ve been reducing debt, if you were going to enter into some consolidation, what level of leverage are you ultimately comfortable with?
Bryan Shinn: So it’s a great question and I would sort of distance or separate those two questions. So I think overall, we like the kind of leverage level that we’ve gotten to right now. We’re at 1.4 times net. I think that’s a good place for us to be, but think about that on a sort of through the cycle basis. So I feel very comfortable with that level of leverage. Levering up to do oil field consolidation, we’d have to really look hard at that. I think it’s one of the reasons that we haven’t seen consolidation yet because companies like us who would be a logical consolidator, we don’t really have a good currency to do that. Being a sort of a blended stock valuation here at U.S. Silica between ISP and our oil field business, our multiple is probably higher than where oil field multiples are today.
