Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Arq Q3 2026 earnings conference call. At this time, all lines are in listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. If at any time during this call you require immediate assistance, please press star zero for the operator. This is being recorded on Thursday, November 5, 2026. I would now like to turn the conference over to Anthony Nathan, Head of Investor Relations. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today for our third quarter 2026 earnings results call. With me on the call today are Bob Rasmus, Arq's Chief Executive Officer, Shimon Steinmetz, Arq's Chief Financial Officer. This conference call is being webcasted live within the investor section of our website, and a downloadable version of today's presentation is available there as well. A webcast replay will also be available on our site, and you can contact Arq's investor relations team at investors@arq.com. Let me remind you that the presentation and remarks made today include forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. These statements are based on information currently available to us and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual future results, performance, and business prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed in or implied by these statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors identified on slide two of today's slide presentation in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2026, and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as expressly required by securities laws, the company undertakes no obligation to update those factors or any forward-looking statements to reflect future events, developments, or changed circumstances, or for any other reason. In addition, it is especially important to review the presentation and today's remarks in conjunction with the GAAP references in the financial statements. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Bob. Thank you, Anthony, and thanks to everyone for joining us this morning. During my remarks, I will cover the entire business, but there are three points I want to emphasize. First, our foundational PAC business is performing very well. Volumes and margins are growing organically, and we achieved record quarterly revenue. Importantly, this has been a strong year, not just a great quarter. As a result, we are raising the bottom end of our 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance, with the range converging toward the top end of original guidance. Second, the PFAS remediation market is robust. Customers are proactively seeking remediation solutions, and market prices are rising. That is the ideal backdrop for our PAC for PFAS products. Customer testing is advancing. Third, we believe there is a clear path to meaningfully grow profits in 2027. This is driven by the organic growth just mentioned, the addition of our PAC for PFAS products, our cost and efficiency initiatives, and a simpler balance sheet. Turning to our third quarter results, this was a strong quarter driven by our foundational PAC business. We had record revenues of $38.2 million, up approximately 9% from the prior year. Gross margin for the third quarter was 39.7%, compared to 28.8% in the prior year period, and adjusted EBITDA was $8.8 million versus $5.2 million in the prior year period. That is our 10th consecutive quarter of positive adjusted EBITDA. We generated net income of approximately $2.5 million in the quarter, compared to a net loss of approximately $900,000 in the prior year period. I want to highlight two important points. First, we delivered on what we told you we would do. Rebuilding credibility with investors is my priority, and the way we rebuild credibility is simple: communicate our target to investors and then meet or beat them. Second, these results come before any expected contribution from PAC for PFAS. To put our progress in context, through the first three quarters of 2026, our adjusted EBITDA of $17.4 million has already exceeded the $13 million of adjusted EBITDA we reported for the whole of 2025, as well as the low end of our full-year 2026 guidance. We have had a strong year- to- date, not just a great quarter. That brings me to guidance. We are tightening our full-year 2026 adjusted EBITDA guidance to $19 million-$20 million from $17 million-$20 million previously. At the same time, we are reiterating our revenue guidance of $120 million-$125 million. Turning now to one of the biggest drivers of our future growth, PFAS remediation. With the April 2027 monitoring and reporting deadline approaching, PFAS is front of mind for most of our water customers. Many municipalities tell us they want to get into compliance as soon as possible, irrespective of the regulatory timetable. This is entirely rational, particularly given the reputational risk of being seen to accept PFAS contamination above mandated levels. That demand, together with anecdotal price increases reported across the activated carbon industry, confirms that PFAS remediation remains an attractive market, a market that will likely continue to grow in both size and pricing as we approach both the EPA's PFAS contaminant threshold reporting and compliance effective dates. With this in mind, we believe our targeted portfolio approach to being able to provide multiple PFAS solutions offers the best range of strategies for our customers. While PAC for PFAS will likely be the first off the line for next year, we have the option to start advancing additional product lines such as granular activated carbon and other solutions as the 2029 to 2031 compliance deadline gets closer. Our focus remains on capturing near-term opportunities, maintaining optionality, and maximizing shareholder returns. Turning to the more immediate opportunity, we are continuing to make progress with PAC for PFAS, a key component of our PFAS remediation strategy. Testing is ongoing with major customers, and I would note that these test volumes have been sold, not given away. Initial customer testing results have been successful in demonstrating that these products remove lower-level PFAS contamination while simultaneously addressing taste and odor requirements. Importantly, I would note that PAC for PFAS is an outgrowth of our long history of researching, developing, and producing powdered activated carbons. We have been adapting and customizing our PAC products going all the way back to 2010. PAC for PFAS is a product line extension similar to our previous developments, created by our technology team and driven by customer feedback. This is known and proven technology development, adding new functionalities to one of our existing product family. PAC for PFAS utilizes existing operational equipment and systems, entirely avoiding the specific challenges we encountered with granular activated carbon production. We now have the opportunity to pull the PAC for PFAS product forward commercially and are quickly moving to do so. All of this is being accomplished with little to no CapEx. On the point of customer feedback and benefits, there is also a clear economic case beyond just early compliance. Placing PAC for PFAS at the front of a water system, including ahead of an existing GAC system, can reduce how often that granular activated carbon needs to be changed out. This is a potential material cost savings and operational improvement for the customer. Importantly, it also demonstrates that the potential for these PAC for PFAS products is significant, as they can work both as alternatives to granular activated carbon in certain situations or in combination with GAC and others. Some of our advanced PAC for PFAS water carbons have outperformed standard market products, and the test volumes we have sold to date of this premium product were priced materially above our traditional PAC average selling price. In light of this improved performance, we have pending patent protection for this line of products. To give you a sense of the opportunity, we believe the addressable market for PAC for PFAS could be substantial, conservatively estimated around 160 million pounds per year by 2029. We will further refine these numbers as customer testing continues. It is early, so I want to be measured about volumes. What I can say is that we believe meaningful orders are feasible in 2027. I expect PAC for PFAS to be a contributor to our growth next year. As we build our sales record and better define the customer base over the next few months, we expect to share more detail on market size, volumes, and pricing as part of the formal 2027 guidance we plan to provide early in the new year. We expect our foundational PAC business to continue growing through organic volume and pricing gains. We also expect PFAS remediation to be an additional driver of Arq's near-term growth. PAC for PFAS is our first step into that market. GAC remains a potential longer-term addition, but it is no longer essential to meaningful near-term growth in revenue, margin, and profitability. The strategic optimization review relating to the company's granular activated carbon facility is now effectively complete. We now know the preferred design as well as estimated cost and construction duration, which remain unchanged from the amounts disclosed during our earnings call in August. As I also said in August, PFAS remediation is our strategy, and GAC remains an option, and one which we expect to exercise, but in the future. For now, we are focused on PAC for PFAS as one component to maximize the profitability of our core activated carbon business. PAC for PFAS is currently our PFAS remediation priority for one simple reason: we believe it can currently deliver similar or better cash margins than granular activated carbon with little or no CapEx. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. Now let me turn to 2027. Budgeting is still underway, and we expect to provide formal 2027 guidance early in the new year. I don't want to get ahead of that, but we do want to share how we're thinking about the building blocks. First, PAC for PFAS. As I just described, this is an attractive near and long-term opportunity. I expect it to be a meaningful contributor to growth next year. Second, cost efficiencies. Shimon's arrival as Chief Financial Officer, coupled with our new Chief Accounting Officer, Peter Owino, is already improving our financial efficiency. This will include freeing up excess cash and working capital, better matching of receivables and payables, shortening our monthly close, and renegotiating longstanding contracts that have not been aggressively renewed in years. I expect sustainable reductions in our SG&A expense and efficiency savings in 2027 from these ongoing actions. Third, credit refinancing. We are exploring a refinancing of our MidCap Financial credit facility. When we signed that facility, we were generating around $7 million of adjusted EBITDA annually. Today, the top end of our guidance is $20 million. A lower cost of capital may be possible, but more importantly, believe we can secure a much simpler facility that removes the reporting burden of the current structure, effectively lowering cost and providing increased liquidity against our assets. Our target is to complete the refinancing within six months. Fourth, operational efficiencies. Our focus is on improving efficiency and margins across our existing operations, thereby increasing profitability with higher throughput as a secondary opportunity. Fifth, Corbin monetization. Corbin is a unique asset. In terms of sale, the universe of potential buyers is specialized. Asphalt remains the leading opportunity, and testing continues to progress well. But because a commercial solution will take time, we are maintaining optionality across all the opportunities previously discussed. These opportunities include rare earths, synthetic graphite, silicon wafers, and potentially as a feedstock source for energy storage applications. I won't speculate on what Corbin is worth or how quickly we can monetize it, but it is probably worth clarifying what it costs us today so you can better understand the thought process. The site carries around $8 million of debt through our loan with Community Trust Bank, which requires approximately $1.9 million of cash held in escrow. It also carries about $1.2 million a year in operating costs and around $1.4 million a year in SG&A. Relative to our size, monetizing Corbin would meaningfully benefit both our balance sheet and our operating results. We are working to expedite the process, and I hope it might happen within 12 months, but it would be premature to build it into our 2027 expectations. Taken together, these are largely independent levers that we believe can collectively deliver material value, and we will provide more precise guidance once we close out the year. Meanwhile, I remain comfortable with my previous statement of exiting 2027 at an adjusted EBITDA run rate of around $30 million without granular activated carbon or any of its associated CapEx, but crucially, while still retaining the granular activated carbon optionality with a substantially completed plant that offers a rapid route to production once we determine an acceptable funding solution. Finally, a word on how the markets see Arq. We continue to believe that our story is misunderstood and undervalued, and that there are four elements that will rectify this. First, we are now delivering on guidance and beating expectations. Second, we have multiple avenues to increase profitability in 2027 and beyond. Third, PFAS remediation is a major growth opportunity via both PAC for PFAS and GAC optionality. Fourth, our balance sheet is robust, strengthened through increased profitability and a growing cash position. The potential refinancing process, which we are now exploring, could strengthen it further. Beyond that, the board and management remain significantly aligned with all shareholders, and our existing NOLs put us in a strong position to convert operating profit into net income. Importantly, I believe we can deliver material near-term growth without significant additional CapEx. We are well-positioned to grow cash from here and potentially, in combination with a more straightforward credit facility, further strengthen our balance sheet. With that, I'll turn it over to Shimon for the financial review. Thank you, Bob, and thank you everyone for joining today. As reported overnight, Arq delivered a very strong third quarter, with revenues of $38.2 million compared to $35.1 million in the prior year period. This was driven primarily by higher seasonal PAC volume throughout the quarter. Gross margin was approximately 39.7% compared to 28.8% in the third quarter of 2025. This improvement reflects management's focus on our foundational PAC business. Adjusted EBITDA was approximately $8.8 million compared with $5.2 million in the prior year period. This was primarily driven by continued strength and improving profitability in our core PAC business. Net income was $2.5 million compared with net loss of approximately $900,000 in the third quarter of 2025. SG&A expenses totaled $7.2 million compared with $4.6 million in the prior year period. The increase was primarily driven by increased incentive compensation as well as legal and other professional fees. R&D costs for the third quarter were approximately $800,000 compared to $2.6 million in the prior year period. The decrease reflects GAC's ramp-up expense in the prior year period that did not and will not reoccur in 2026. Overall, our third quarter was very strong and ahead of expectations. It points to a strong second half and gives us confidence that we can deliver full-year results at the top end of our original range. We remain focused on further improving the profitability and cash generation of our PAC business. Turning to the balance sheet, we ended the third quarter with a total cash of $19.1 million, of which approximately $7.8 million was unrestricted. Our unrestricted position increased by nearly $7 million over the prior quarter. This was a result of strong quarterly revenue and disciplined cash management. Total debt at the end of the quarter was $28.2 million, a $2.5 million reduction from prior quarter, and includes $19.2 million drawn under the MidCap facility. Today, we are reiterating our 2026 CapEx guidance of $8 million-$10 million. As Bob noted, we are tightening our full-year adjusted EBITDA guidance to $19 million-$20 million, reflecting the high end of our previous range. We are also reiterating our full-year revenue guidance of $120 million-$125 million. Finally, an update on the cost and efficiency program we outlined in August. The work is ongoing, but we have already identified over 15 opportunities to improve efficiency, reduce cost, and unlock liquidity across eight departments. As we go through the 2027 budget process, we are interrogating each opportunity to validate or disprove its feasibility. As you would expect, we will remove some of the identified opportunities while also adding other levers of value creation during budget planning. With that, I'll turn it back to you, Bob. Thanks, Shimon. As you can see, the roadmap we laid out in August is on track and in some areas ahead of our expectations. New products are progressing to market, cost reduction initiatives are advancing, and the balance sheet simplification is underway. We expect to provide detailed 2027 guidance early in the new year. Our focus is on steady, consistent execution. Our strong year-to-date results show that approach is working. Before we turn to questions, let me leave you with two key takeaways. First, our foundational PAC business is thriving. Volumes, revenue, and adjusted EBITDA are up, margins are improving, and we still see significant room to grow into even higher value, higher margin products. Second, the PFAS remediation opportunity is as strong as it has ever been. Prices for remediation solutions are rising ahead of the April 2027 monitoring and reporting deadline. PAC for PFAS gives customers an immediate solution with minimal CapEx and the potential for operating cost savings. We expect this market to deliver material value to Arq in 2027, while GAC remains a potential part of our PFAS remediation portfolio further into the future. With that, I'll hand it back to our moderator to open for questions. Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. Should you have a question, please press star followed by the one on your telephone keypad. You will hear a three-tone prompt acknowledging your request. Should you wish to cancel your request, please press star followed by the two. If you are using a speakerphone, please lift the handset before pressing any keys. One moment, please, for your first question. Thank you. Your first question comes from the line of Gerry Sweeney from Roth Capital. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thanks for taking my call. Happy to do so, Gerry. How are you doing, Rasmus? Just on the PAC for PFAS strategy, just wanted to understand maybe next steps in terms of testing, certification, and then sales. I am not sure if you have already sort of gone through a couple of those steps, but just wanted to understand where we are today versus getting product into customers' hands. Sure. On the customer trial and contracting, between existing and scheduled testing, we have more than a dozen opportunities that we have identified. We expect that number to continue to grow. Testing typically takes one to three months to complete, and contract discussions are occurring simultaneously with the testing. We would expect the PAC for PFAS revenue to contribute in 2027 and to be back-end loaded. Got it. I mean, you've been involved in the water industry, I mean, in different capacities with PAC, and you do have relationships with water systems. How does this sort of help jumpstart maybe the PAC for PFAS strategy? Is that a fair assumption? It is a fair assumption, Gerry. We have outstanding relationships with a large number of municipal water authorities and private utilities, and you combine that with our outstanding technical and R&D capabilities, and that certainly gives us a leg up in terms of getting into the companies and discussing PAC for PFAS and getting momentum on that product. Okay, one more question, then I'll jump back in line. I think the regulations are four parts per trillion. I think we've discussed that PAC has remedial capacity up to a certain level. Actually, it can go to probably any level, it just becomes an economic question. I was just curious if you've gotten any data back on sort of what the sweet spot for MCLs for PAC for PFAS remediation, where they may fall into place. Sure. Our testing to date, Gerry, confirms that PAC for PFAS removes lower-level PFAS contamination and can also address taste and odor at the same time. That is an important component. Product can serve as an alternative to granular activated carbon in some situations and in combination with GAC and others. Using PAC for PFAS in lieu of GAC really offers the utilities an immediate path to compliance, as well as saving the customer time and money and CapEx. Using PAC for PFAS in combination with GAC has the potential to reduce how often the GAC needs to be changed out as well. We are still at work determining the technical sweet spot for the PAC for PFAS product, but it is up to a reasonably high level. Got it. I appreciate it. Thanks, Bob. Thanks, Gerry. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Aaron Spychalla from Craig-Hallum. Please go ahead. Yeah, good morning, Bob and Shimon. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe first for us, can you just talk a little bit about the strength in the quarter and maybe some of the end market drivers of that? Then just on the guide and kind of implications for the fourth quarter, can you talk about maybe the mix of kind of conservatism there, or if there was some pull-forward strength in the third quarter? Just help unpack that a little bit for us. Sure. So, the revenue growth in the quarter was driven predominantly by volume. Excuse me. We expect our core business to continue to grow through volume and pricing gains, including as contracts renew. We did sell some small PAC for PFAS volumes. Those that we have sold to date were priced materially above our traditional PAC average selling price. So as that product grows, it should lift the overall average. As far as 2027 guidance, we will give that early in the new year. In terms of guidance for the fourth quarter, as we say, we have upgraded our EBITDA to the higher end of the range. In terms of revenue, we have kept that flat. As part of the optimization review, we assessed how we could optimize the returns from the core PAC business, and raising adjusted EBITDA, but not revenue, is really a direct result of us being able to capture some of those initial efficiencies identified in the review. It is also evidence of the underlying strength of the business. In terms of why we have not adjusted the EBITDA, again, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, our goal is to restore investor credibility. We have had a strong year- to- date, but our focus has been and remains meet or beat, and we want to maintain those trends. Understood. Thanks. Then maybe second, just on gross margin, obviously sounds like you are still expecting good volume growth, some of these cost reductions and efficiency initiatives, and then PAC for PFAS can be additional. But it just seems like, I know it was a seasonally really strong quarter for you in the third quarter, but still optimistic of margin expansion as we look to move forward. Yeah, absolutely, and thanks for the question. Gross margin was 39.7%, up 1,100 basis points from 28.8% a year ago. Revenue rose 9%, while costs really fell about 8%. It is important to note that I should say that that was largely driven by higher volume, but it is important to note that third quarter is typically our strongest quarter. We intend to continue to strengthen our margin through a combination of our cost mitigation strategies that Bob alluded to, as well as the growth in our core PAC business and the launch of our PAC for PFAS product. Understood. Then maybe just one last one, you had some commentary in the release on the replacement versus book value of Red River and kind of the substantial undervaluation there. Could you just kind of unpack that a little bit, talk a little more about how you see that disconnect? That is it for me. I think it is a dual disconnect. One is the value in terms of replacement value of our assets are a significant multiple of the book value or carrying value on our balance sheet right now. I think that is one. The second is, if you look at our performance and where we have been trading as a multiple of enterprise value, I think we are severely undervalued. All right. Thanks. I will turn it over. Thanks. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Jason Tilchen from Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead. Morning, everyone. Thanks for taking my questions. I guess to start, just curious, the comments you made around the strategic optimization review being completed, and obviously PAC for PFAS being the immediate priority for PFAS remediation. Wondering how we should think about some of the gating factors to eventually proceeding there, given it's going to take some time to ramp PAC for PFAS. You're not going to really see that operating momentum start to build through until the sort of back half of 2027. Just thinking if it's possible we could have to wait until after you see some of that evidence about how that's working in the marketplace before making a formal decision. If Corbin, a resolution there plays into that timeline as well, any commentary there would be very helpful. Thank you. Sure. We're very confident in the PAC for PFAS product and its market attractiveness. That's based on conversations with customers and initial testing results. As it relates to granular activated carbon, the review is effectively complete, as we mentioned, but there's really no open date to commit to in terms of timing. It's not dependent upon PAC for PFAS adoption. As we mentioned, our business is PFAS remediation, and PAC for PFAS, as well as granular activated carbon, are two components of that product. What remains as it relates for granular activated carbon is a decision on timing and funding, and the decision depends on the return profile and the funding solution we find acceptable, not really on any calendar, excuse me, or dependent upon PAC for PFAS. As I say, right now, we're focused on PAC for PFAS as a component to maximize the profitability of our core business, and PAC for PFAS is the immediate priority in that respect, and one for the simple reasons that we could believe it can deliver similar or better cash margins than granular activated carbon with little to no CapEx on our part. Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Just one additional follow-up. In the deck, you talk about the 2027 growth drivers. You also mentioned those in your prepared remarks. As it relates to the volume, I believe you mentioned 15%-20% upside. The guide for this year was about in the mid-120s range for pounds. I'm just curious, you're bumping up against the capacity there, then you talk about a potential market size in a few years for PAC for PFAS that even exceeds your current capacity. Wondering what some of the puts and takes are there. It implies a meaningful upside given the higher prices from a revenue and margin standpoint for the core PAC business over time, over the next few years. Just wondering how you're thinking about that and some of those moving parts. Thanks. Sure. As we stated, we expect our profitability improvement in 2027, excuse me, to come from a variety of different factors, lower operating costs, higher pricing, cost efficiencies, increased revenue and volumes. As such, we would expect to see the effects of those initiatives to occur gradually throughout the year. As I mentioned before, the PAC for PFAS results to be more backend weighted. As far as pricing and volume and capacity, if we were to be bumping up against our capacity constraints, that would be a very pleasant problem to have. We know that the PAC for PFAS is going to be priced significantly higher than our current average selling price. If we did start running up against capacity constraints, we would do what we would do is carve out or eliminate the lower end and lower margin segment of the volumes. Thank you very much, and congrats on the strong results. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Once again, should you have a question, please press star followed by the one on your telephone keypad. Thank you, and your next question comes from the line of Peter Gastreich from Water Tower Research. Please go ahead. Thank you. Yes, good morning, and congratulations on the results and execution, and thanks for taking my questions. Just the first one about the PAC for PFAS addressable market. I appreciate the data on the size of market by 2029. Are you able to talk about how that 160 million pounds was estimated? Also, any comments on what share Arq could reasonably be able to capture by that year? Thank you. Sure. The addressable target market is growing, and we expect it to continue to grow. The growth has really come from two areas, conversations with customers and prospective customers, as well as additional in-depth market research. As the compliance deadline nears, both in 2029 to 2031, as well as the monitoring and reporting deadlines in April of 2027, we anticipate that the total addressable market will continue to get even larger. Excuse me, sorry. We would expect even modest amounts in the PFAS remediation market overall are going to mean very attractive returns to Arq. Okay, thank you. My next question, you recently appointed a new Senior Vice President of Operations. Could you talk about his hire, what he brings to the table, and what his first priorities look like? Sure. Thad Ratliff is the person, and he replaced Eric Robinson. Eric joined us about a year ago to stabilize operations and really to build the next layer of operating leadership, and he has achieved both well ahead of our original estimate and his original estimate and timeline of two to three years. We identified Thad Ratliff fairly early on as his successor. Thad has extensive experience in activated carbon black, and specialty chemical operations. As we have focused near term on PAC for PFAS and our existing operations ahead of any granular activated carbon construction, the scope of the role, the operational role change, and the timing of the transition was right. Eric remains a consultant for Arq and will advise us if we proceed with granular activated carbon. We did not announce the appointment separately because it occurred during the quarter, and the role is not part of the C-suite. Okay, thank you. Just one more question. With your customers, you are moving from monitoring to compliance for your utilities customers. How will that start to kind of change Arq's relationship with them? For example, should we expect longer-term contracts? Are we going to have more customized products or added services or other things that your team has been evaluating? It is going to definitely be a relationship enhancement for us because we are solving a significant problem for the utilities as it relates to PFAS contamination, and we would expect it to lead to additional contract volumes, including single-year and multi-year contract volumes as well. Okay, great. Thanks, Bob, and again, congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I will now hand the call back to Mr. Bob Rasmus for closing remarks. Thanks, operator. We are very pleased with the progress we have made executing in our strategic optimization review. It is not just the strong quarter and year-to-date results, how we are positioned to grow in 2027. We are also proud of our ability to achieve this growth with the level of capital efficiency we have now. I thank you for your interest in Arq and your ongoing interest, and we look forward to providing additional updates in the future. This concludes today's call. Thank you for participating. You may all disconnect.