Altius Renewable Royalties Q2 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

Quartr
Provided by Quartr
August 6, 2024

There are 7 speakers on the call.

Operator

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Altius Renewable Royalties Corp. Q2 2024 Conference Call and Webcast. This call is being recorded on Tuesday, August 6, 2024. I would now like to turn the conference over to Flora Wood. Please go ahead.

Speaker 1

Thank you, Luti, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to our Q2 call. Our press release and filings were released yesterday and are available on our website, both on the homepage and under Investors. This event is being webcast live, and you'll be able to access the replay of the call along with the presentation slides at ar.energy. Brian Dalton, CEO of ARR and Frank Gettman, CEO of Great Bay Renewables are both speakers on the call.

Speaker 1

In the Q and A, we'll also have Ben Lewis, CFO of ARR available for questions. The forward looking statement on Slide 2 applies to everything we say both in our formal remarks and during the Q and A session. And with that, I will turn over to Brian for his opening remarks.

Speaker 2

Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Flora. Thank you, everyone, for joining us. The team was very successful in the first half of the year in deploying additional capital, taking full advantage of the continuing weak market sentiment backdrop within the renewable sector. We are steadfast in our belief that this contrarian approach will reap major long term benefits, especially when we consider that the more important fundamental backdrop that for power demand and particularly renewable source power is strengthening at a pace that has not continued in the generation or more.

Speaker 2

We've recognized from the outset through the Still Young business that its comparatives are to generate scale and diversity. That is certainly being achieved now as we approach U. S. Dollars 500,000,000 deployed at the joint venture level and hold royalties on dozens of projects across most of the major power regions in the U. S.

Speaker 2

We also continue to find more and more ways that our royalty focused capital conserve the needs of the renewable sector. We still carry meaningful liquidity for additional investments that comes from a combination of cash on hand and our remaining access to debt based financing. While this is obviously depleting as we steadily execute on attractive opportunities, that is okay and is in fact the point. We want to put it all to work. We continue to view the current public equities markets for the company and indeed the sector has essentially closed, at least on terms that we can accretively grow the business under.

Speaker 2

That said, we remain busy in cultivating potential sources of new long term capital to avail of. And in the alternative, are actually quite willing to exhaust our liquidity to the full extent possible rather than incur 1st year based solution of the assets that we have already built and that will naturally flourish without any further capital requirements from us. So that's me on the high level. I'll gladly now turn it over to Frank to give you a little more detail on the quarter that was. Thank you.

Speaker 3

Thank you, Brian. Good morning, everyone. I'm excited to share with you today an update on what was a very busy Q2 and 1st 7 months of 20 24. Our royalty portfolio revenue and cash flow continues to ramp with GVR revenue for Q2 2024 coming in at $3,100,000 compared to $2,000,000 in Q2 2023, an increase of 55%. Operating cash flow at GVR was $900,000 for 20.24 compared to $1,000,000 for 2023 due to interest paid in Q2 related to our new credit facilities.

Speaker 3

We reiterate our $13,000,000 to $16,000,000 revenue guidance for all of 2024. So far in 2024, GVR has made new investment commitments of approximately $116,000,000 During Q2, we closed a $30,000,000 royalty investment in the Comas Energy, a top DG developer with a fantastic track record of success in the Midwest. This investment provides attractive diversification when coupled with our utility scale developer investments as DG community solar developers are not subject to the delays and higher costs of interconnection faced by utility scale projects. We expect the cycle time for GBR to receive cash flowing royalties from Nokomis to be significantly quicker than our utility scale development partners. Also during Q2, we closed a $6,100,000 interconnection deposit loan with Redstone for 2 of Redstone's projects in PJM.

Speaker 3

But not necessarily a large investment, the Redstone loan in PJM and the Hexagon loan in MISO last quarter serve as important test cases for GBR's ability to post interconnection deposits on behalf of 3rd party developers for fully refundable deposits in PJM and MISO, while maintaining agency over those deposits. We are now seeking to attract a part of the commitment to fund these interconnection deposits. Finally, we recently announced a $40,000,000 follow on investment with Nova Clean Energy. We were one of the founding shareholders of Nova a little over 2 years ago. It's been remarkable to watch Nova assemble a top flight team and develop an attractive 6.5 gigawatt portfolio of wind, solar and battery storage projects.

Speaker 3

As part of this new secured loan, Great Bay will receive up to 500 megawatts of additional royalties at Nova's pipeline of projects. This is in addition to the royalties on 1.5 gigawatts of Nova projects Great Bay received as part of its initial investment. As for the overall macro environment, I'll just say that market conditions remain highly attractive for alternative sources of capital and future deployment by GBR to new royalty investments. Demand for renewable energy and shovel ready projects remain strong. PPA prices continue to increase across all markets with Level 10 recently reporting a year on year Q2 2023 to Q2 2024, solar and wind blended PPA price increase of almost 12%.

Speaker 3

Finally, in closing, I want to thank the GVR team for all their incredible hard work. I'm so proud and appreciative of everyone's positive and supportive attitudes and all that we've accomplished thus far during what has been a busy and intense first half of the year. That's it for my update. I'll turn it back to you, Brad.

Speaker 2

Thank you, Frank. With that, we'll open the floor to questions.

Operator

Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. And your first question comes from the line of Nick Poychak with Cormark Securities. Please go ahead.

Speaker 3

Thanks. Good morning, guys.

Speaker 1

Hi Nick. Good morning.

Speaker 3

For the operating portfolio and outlook, can you guys kind of give us a little bit of update, Frank? I know you said it's still obviously a constructive environment. What are you guys seeing in terms of conversations right now? Or what are you hearing from operators who are looking for capital and potentially those larger types of tickets you could maybe deploy into operating The well, it's still the issues of people wanting to expand or extend or stretch their equity dollars, their project equity dollars into projects, that market continues unabated. And I think we have a number of conversations going both with a number of different counterparties on projects, different technologies, different areas of the country.

Speaker 3

I guess I don't really think it's appropriate to get into specifics other than just say that there is a still remains a significant number of folks looking for equity dollars into operating projects. The one thing I'll know is that if a project is a perfect project with a 30 year long term busbar PPA, they're probably going to even though that's more expensive, they're still going to take as much debt as they possibly can. And at some point, we need to look at how much debt are on these projects And those are perhaps less attractive to us than ones where there's less debt on it. But that would mean that there's something, maybe the PPA is shorter or there's maybe some merchant risk or some other component to it, which means that there's more room in the capital stack available for royalty financing, if that makes sense. It does.

Speaker 3

And should the read through then be that if there's any additional deployments throughout the year in an operating asset, it might have some of those dynamics? And what would that mean to your risk and return profile? I guess, if you are taking off that. Well, I think what we're looking at is we are the cost of capital across the board has gone up. So we're looking and days like yesterday only, I think, highlight the need for other attractive sources of capital to be available to folks.

Speaker 3

The equity markets don't seem like a great option for these renewable players right now. So I mean that's a little bit of our conundrum is that's could be where our capital come from, but on the other hand, that's what's creating the backdrop for attractive investment conditions. So we're looking to press the limit or press the return threshold. And I think it's fair to say that we've been doing that on all of our more recent investments. We're definitely at the top end, if not above the top end of the range that we've provided previously.

Speaker 3

Okay. And last on this, just before we move on to the next question. If you're going into a conversation where an operator has either a shorter PPA or more merchant risk, are they more likely to potentially accept or be able to accommodate that royalty? I'm assuming that if there is that 30 year plus bar, there's probably a dynamic where it would be harder for you to insert that capital. Are you finding it easier to do it in those other situations?

Speaker 3

Yes, correct. Yes. It's not like just it's less attractive for us, right? We don't want to be sitting behind a highly levered project that's less attractive for the rest of them to be higher in the capital stack. Okay, understood.

Speaker 3

Can you give us a little bit of an update on how the Hexagon Air Connection facility has gone so far, specifically any learnings that you guys have and how that might relate to the deployment of other interconnection key facilities and what we should be thinking about from a ramping standpoint? How much you'd actually be deployed in that and when we should be thinking really material and budget revenue from that? Our experience has been that this is proving out just as we had hoped it would that's allowing Hexagon to continue to advance their projects and distinguish themselves in the market from other folks who maybe have less access to capital. And I think that this is they have a number of conversations ongoing about their projects and sales of their projects. And I think that it's a real advantage for folks to be able to have access to capital that allows them to continue to advance projects where others are maybe having being forced to sell their projects early because your option when you come up against one of these deadlines is either I have the capital to post interconnection deposit to continue to advance the project or I'm going to have to sell it to someone in those conditions for selling the project are not ideal to get the highest best price.

Speaker 3

So it's been a real advantage to them in the market. And I think we're looking not only with them, but with others looking to expand the program. As I mentioned in my comments, I think that I think what we're trying to do is find another larger pool of capital. I'll just highlight to folks that right now we're focused on the fully refundable portions of these deposits. So this really truly is a very, very low risk capital.

Speaker 3

And I think the return that we're able to get is on a risk adjusted basis is highly attractive. And then we're going to add in the future, we're looking to add and we did this with Redstone, add the option to acquire a royalty along with providing that loan to fund the interconnection deposit. So the size of the opportunity, if we're able to secure that larger pool of capital is it's in the 100 of 100 of millions, if not 1,000,000,000 of dollars of folks looking for capital. So the size of the opportunity is not the issue. Okay.

Speaker 3

Got it. Thank you.

Operator

And your next question comes from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank. Please go ahead.

Speaker 4

Hi. Good morning, everyone. We're seeing this great momentum in the power markets in the U. S. Today.

Speaker 4

I'm just wondering how is that translating to visibility on moving some of your developers into construction? When do you anticipate seeing a few more of these projects starting to move to construction?

Speaker 3

It was it's largely the interconnection backlogs. That's the number one factor holding our projects moving forward. But PJM is they're behind, but there's moving forward. MISO is behind, but it's moving forward. So and ERCOT is still is probably the one of the most attractive places to be able to advance projects forward.

Speaker 3

So we're seeing those projects because you're able to continue to move those forward. They are not as backlog variable to still continue to move projects forward. They don't do it on a cluster basis, so less things to through more readily. And I think we have a couple of projects in construction right now. We'll have a number of projects going to construction next year.

Speaker 3

And then if you look out beyond that, it's just a every year for the next number of years, we have a number of projects in construction, if everything goes as planned. So the pipeline continues to move through. It's just a process that you can't it's pushing on the string when it comes to trying to accelerate projects through the interconnection process.

Speaker 4

So looking at those various markets and the dynamics that we're witnessing, has your view changed at all on where you'd like to deploy capital? It does seem like the Texas market growth could accelerate to be faster than some of the other markets, but maybe you have some concentration there. Any color you can give on how your view has changed on where you'd like to deploy capital?

Speaker 3

I think view hasn't changed. We're going to be led by the market, right? The market is going to show us where the best and most attractive places to do business are in the market in the U. S. And I think right now, if you look at our portfolio, Hexagon has a large PJM portfolio.

Speaker 3

Hodgson has a large PJM portfolio. TGE has, as you know, Panther Grove is the large Phase 1 and Phase 2 are very large 400 Megawatt wind products. So we have a lot of PJM exposure. So while it looks to everybody, I think, oh, look at their ERCOT Heavy right now, if you actually look, step back, you see we're actually pretty broadly diversified. So I'm not concerned about ERCOT exposure, ERCOT concentration.

Speaker 3

And I think if you look at the load growth in ERCOT, it's just it's exceptional Great. I'll get back in the queue. Thank you. Thank you.

Speaker 4

Great. I'll get back in the queue. Thank you.

Operator

And your next question comes from the line of John Mould with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.

Speaker 5

Hey, good morning, everybody. Maybe just going back to the Redstone deal and interconnection loan facilities more broadly, I guess like what at this point is driving a developer like Redstone to come to you just given your relative cost of capital of a larger lender? And then I guess secondly, I think this is your first interconnection facility in PJM, I guess. Was that a pretty similar process to MISO just in terms of getting smart on that or did that require some additional effort on your part? And how are you thinking about the barriers to entry for this product more broadly?

Speaker 3

Yes. Good question. I think the devil is in the details and the larger financial money center banks, it's really difficult for them to underwrite someone like Redstone and understand that project and understand underwrite that developer and look at that, understand the process. And the processes at MISO and PJM are not the same. And it took months, we've been at this for over a year now of sitting in their offices literally in some cases saying, would this language work, would this language work, trying to figure out exactly how you can post a deposit on behalf of a 3rd party.

Speaker 3

Michael has a recognized they have a longer history of recognizing these agents here, For PGA, materials are good news. So we had to figure out the structure, which I don't want to get into because I think it is a competitive advantage of how we went about doing that. So I think there is an advantage. And I would say that we are the ideal partner for some larger financial institution for will be the front end basically doing the underwriting, bringing the deal flow to them and then using their capital we'll get some share of the return plus a royalty out of it. That's a really great opportunity for us.

Speaker 3

And it's something that I don't think that they can necessarily do on their own, because these clusters and these rules are very complicated and they're the devil is in the details and understanding exactly what has to happen as that project approaches the next phase where it goes from fully refundable to partially refundable because you actually start to build the interconnection start like how do you protect yourself from that because the cost of capital for a fully refundable deposit is and should be very different from that of something that's partially or fully non refundable. So there is a lot of work behind this. I'm not saying someone else couldn't figure it out, but I think a lot of banks and financial institutions are not set up to 1, understand the detailed rules of these RTOs and then also at the same time have the relationships with the developers because think about developers historically have not been going to large financial institutions for their capital. They're more akin going to like the Great Bays into developer loans, into equity, into other types of earlier stage capital. So it's a good fit if we can pull it off.

Speaker 5

Okay. Thanks for all that detail. Maybe just one clarification on Hudson. I think maybe you had about $10,600,000 of capital contributions reclassified to loans now due in January 2025. Can you provide some context on that change and how you're thinking about the Hudson investment more broadly?

Speaker 3

Sure. What's happened there is, as Hudson along with everyone else has faced delays in getting projects through interconnection. So when we set up the tranches and we set up the criteria to unlock the next tranche, those projects like everyone's were not moving along and they were we were faced with a situation where they were not going to achieve project sales for example or get interconnection agreements approved, which is one of the criteria that we have in a timeframe before they needed capital. So we looked at the situation and said, okay, we could just waive that, but or what we did instead is we said how do we structure this in a way that provides us additional protection from a structure perspective and then also provides us a slightly better return, which is appropriate given the delays. I don't we still feel great about their portfolio, their PJM assets or number of them are fast lane projects, which I think are going to have a very strong interest in the market.

Speaker 3

And they're right now in the process of going to market with a basket of projects, which we think will be well received. So it's really a case of looking at the tranche unlocks criteria that we set up when we made the investment, no longer really worked when you looked at how the market dynamics have unfolded. So we were, I think, protected in that we did we weren't forced to provide them capital before they were ready. So we just looked at how we structured it and put it in as a member loan, which gives us greater protection.

Speaker 5

Okay, got it. Thanks. And just maybe one last one on just bigger picture, capital allocation. I guess, how are you when you look at the opportunity set out there on the developer side versus operating projects, how are you thinking about I know you think about returns and not a rigorous split, but like what's or sorry, a rigid split, I should say, but just how are you thinking about operating versus development investments right now? I guess just given, A, we have seen kind of continued delays as you

Speaker 3

just referenced on the interconnection side.

Speaker 5

And then I'm connection side? And then I'm mindful of the delayed dry facility is your, I think, prime source of capital at this point. So how does that all feed into the projects, the royalty investments you're looking at right now?

Speaker 3

I would say that by and large, we're looking at largely operating investments now that the Nokomis opportunity came along on a timeframe and Nova and timeframes that you can't necessarily control how these opportunities present themselves and in what exact order. But I would say that we're still very much focused on deploying the remaining capital into cash flowing operating royalties.

Speaker 5

Okay, great. I'll get back in the queue. Thank you.

Operator

Your next question comes from the line of Devin Schilling with Vantum Financial. Please go ahead.

Speaker 3

Hi, good morning all. Just on the Elswa Wind project, I see it's now expected to reach COD in Q3 versus Q2 previously. Maybe if you can provide just some updates or additional color on the status of this project and is there much left to be done to get this operational? Thank you. Yes.

Speaker 3

I wish I had more information with what we've been told is that the project is built and constructed, has to do with the interface between ERCOT and the project and some of the, that connectivity and that the output, I don't think it has to do with the operation of the project necessarily, but with that interface between ERCOT accepting the megawatts and those megawatts being calculated and tracked in accordance with how ERCOT wants it done. So I think there was some issues on that interface and they're working on that and it's just taken way longer than anybody hoped to get that done. But the project is up and is up and constructed. So it's not a question of like, oh, there was big construction delays. It has to do with this interface with ERCOT.

Speaker 3

Okay. And I guess just how does that relate to the guidance range for this year? Like how does this project fit into that range? It's delayed, but we also had Canyon come on a little bit earlier, so net net will be fine. Okay.

Speaker 3

No, that's great. I guess my last question here would be on the Nova follow on transaction. Maybe you can just touch on expected project timelines here and how this additional capital could potentially speed up this process for when royalties come online? Yes. So a couple of things I just want to highlight about this investment.

Speaker 3

The royalties we get from the Nova investment, both the 1.5 gigawatts as well as the up to 500 additional megawatts of royalties that we get. These are really highly attractive royalties as they're not counted towards an IRR return like our other developer deals. It's done on a megawatt basis. So these dramatic increases you've seen in PPA prices over the last couple of years, all of that upside because we're top line revenue royalty, all of that benefit is flowing through to us. Obviously, they're not operating yet, but ultimately based on a higher price PPA, when the project comes online, our revenue will be materially higher than we had forecast we made the original investment.

Speaker 3

And unlike in our other developer deals where there's a higher PPA price sign, that just provides that royalty with a higher NPV value at the time that we give them credit towards the IRR. So we don't necessarily it doesn't increase our returns because the PPA prices have moved up. So that's one thing I just wanted to point like why we really like this investment so much. The second thing is that this was really view this is a bridge financing until a larger financing that Nova is currently undertaking. They're in the market with that.

Speaker 3

This is giving them the firepower they need to get through that process. And if there was any delays in that process, not have their backs up against the wall with their finalizing that new financing, which will be a much larger facility. We're completely aligned with BlueStar as owners of the business and maximizing the outcome on that financing as well as being able to continue to advance the projects and a good chunk of this capital is going to be used for interconnection deposits, which will allow them to continue advance the projects and to your point, bring them online quicker. They have, I think, 3 or 4 projects that are, I guess, we would call mid to late stage. They're not late stage yet, but they are when you look at the progress they've made from where they were 2 years ago, it's really remarkable.

Speaker 3

So it's being a good partner and continue to support them and basically being able to deploy additional capital with our winners. Okay. Yes. No, that's great. Yes, thanks for the additional color there.

Speaker 3

I'll jump back in the queue. Thank you.

Operator

Thank you. And your next question comes from the line of David Quezada with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Speaker 6

Thanks. Good morning, everyone. Maybe just a question for me on your comments around return thresholds and how you're sort of pushing the top end of the range there. Just wondering, if you're able to sort of parse out, does that comment also refer to operational stage royalties that you're looking at? And maybe just some comments around like what kind of legs do you think that dynamic has?

Speaker 6

Does it accelerate given uncertainty around the election? Did declining rates offset that? Curious what how you're expecting this trend there?

Speaker 3

I think you just said it. It's the pushes and pulls. You got things rates are coming down again. But on the other hand, there is this and I'm certain around the election, there's still interconnection delays. So you got different forces pushing different directions.

Speaker 3

There's not a post good price for royalty financing on Bloomberg. So we kind of market test every single day out in the market. I would say overall, we're looking at about a 200 basis point increase is what we're currently seeing in the market from where we were a couple of years ago on both the operating and both ends are pushing both on the offering stage and also on the developer stage. So there's still it's not a magic formula. It's just and to be honest, each project is different.

Speaker 3

Project depending on the PPA, depending on basis risk, depending on congestion in the area, depending on the length of the PPA, depending on the counterparty. Those things all affect the that return threshold that we're seeking to

Speaker 6

achieve. Well, for me, just given the market dynamic with challenge for grid interconnection, I'm curious if any of your operational stage royalties or any of those underlying projects are looking at expansions or adding storage at this point? Like have you heard any rumblings of that across your footprint?

Speaker 3

Not adding storage that wasn't already planned. I haven't heard that. But I think an interesting dynamic in the market is look what NextEra is doing. Obviously, they have a lot of greenfield projects, but look what they're doing with their NEP division. And that they've said we're not doing any more greenfield or money in new projects, we're looking at repower.

Speaker 3

Well, this is way sooner than I think anybody, at least way sooner than I expected to see a major player in the market, say we see that as a real opportunity to go back in because interconnection is so hard, because developing new projects and getting interconnected and doing everything it takes to get new aligned is so hard right now. It's economic for us to go back and look at our existing portfolio, which isn't terribly old and start repowering projects. I think that's and think about from our perspective, that's in every royalty we have has an upside potential. So I think that's an exciting development in the market. I guess that's one indicator I've seen of how different people are reacting to these delays.

Speaker 6

Thanks for that color. I will turn it over.

Operator

Thank you. And your next question comes from the line of Rupert Merer with National Bank. Please go ahead.

Speaker 4

Hi, thanks. So, Nokomis, wondering, talk to us about how you think about the diversification you're getting through Nokomis, you're talking about counterparty risk. How different will that risk profile be? Who will be the counter parties for Nokomis?

Speaker 3

It's largely programmatic like there's programs in Minnesota and Wisconsin where you're accepted into the program and there's a set PPA prices as part of the program, the utility commission in that region has set. So many many of the community solar programs are set. So that you're actually quite secure on the counterparty side and the price is generally significantly higher than what you might get on a bilateral PPA, but they're just much smaller. These are 5 10 Megawatt projects. So they tend to be juicier.

Speaker 3

They tend to have higher profit margins, the PPA prices tend to be higher, but they and the cycle times, as I mentioned in my opening comments, are much quicker. You're talking 12 months to 24 months to get a project through the process and into construction versus 3, 4, 5 years for utility scale. I would say 3 is not even reasonable, I'd say it's 4 or 5 years. So we would expect to see more smaller, higher priced royalties coming through this investment.

Speaker 4

Do you think you could put more capital to work in that market in the future?

Speaker 3

It's those we're looking at that. I think those are really, really local. You have to be really understand the details of that particular, the Minnesota program, the Wisconsin program. They're very regional. And so there isn't like I'm trying to think if I know of maybe like a nationwide community solar operator that's it.

Speaker 3

So stepping out from your regional market is something that it's not necessarily easy and requires these projects still require a fair amount of boots on the ground. So the people required and the local knowledge required, I think to do that is a challenge. But you may be able to find and we've talked to some other regional players in different regions of the country. But I think we're going to look at it kind of region by region rather than saying, oh, we'll support Nokomis to they're going to do look at some step outs. In fact, Wisconsin is a little bit of a step out for them.

Speaker 3

They had some success there. There's lots of good reasons why they'll have success there. But to say they're going to come to New England, for example, or something, I'm not sure that's really how that market works.

Speaker 4

All right. Very good. I'll leave it there. Thank you very Yes.

Operator

And your next question and a follow-up question from Nick Boychuck with Cormark Securities. Please go ahead.

Speaker 3

Thanks. Last one here guys. Angelo Solar, you've got that in the updated MD and A starting potentially in October 2024. Can you just kind of run through again what the expectations are for record derecognition for this calendar year? Sure.

Speaker 3

For this calendar year, I don't have I know it's annualized. I think we're looking at $4,700,000 a year for the 1st 5 years. I don't know. I don't have I don't know Ben if we provided that information about what it would be for this calendar year. But I know that the we're still on track to for the 1st 5 years of $4,700,000 approximately $4,700,000 a year for the 1st 5 years.

Speaker 3

But And just I would say that that delay to October, Nick, just I don't mean to cut you off, but just that was purposeful, okay. So it's not like, oh, like we purposely put in a bit of a cushion from when we expected to COD to when our royalty kicks in. Because if there was delays, say you got delayed 1 or 2 months and we had our royalty we had forecasted for that royalty to come online then. That's lost revenue that actually does affect our return. This way it gives us a cushion so that gets any startup issues get handled before our royalty actually kicks in.

Speaker 3

So we think it's a smart way to structure these things and that's why there's a delay between COD and when the actual royalty cash flow starts to kick in. Right, right. That makes sense. But I guess what I was trying to figure out was if kind of like Titan Solar, there could be a potential delay where there's like an interconnection hold back or anything like you're not expecting a scenario like that where you won't be able to recognize revenue as soon as it turns on? No.

Speaker 3

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Operator

All right. Thank you. And there are further questions at this time. I would like to turn it back to Flora Wood for closing remarks.

Speaker 1

Thank you, Luti, and thank you everybody on the call. It was really a great set of questions and we'll look forward to talking to you for our Q3 reporting.

Operator

Thank you, presenters. And ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.

Powered by Quartr
Earnings Conference Call
Altius Renewable Royalties Q2 2024
00:00 / 00:00