Midwest Energy Emissions' (MEEC) CEO Richard MacPherson on Q2 2016 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

| About: Midwest Energy (MEEC)
This article is now exclusive for PRO subscribers.

Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. (OTCQB:MEEC)

Q2 2016 Earnings Conference Call

July 12, 2016, 11:30 AM ET

Executives

Richard MacPherson - President and CEO, Director

Rich Gross - Chief Financial Officer

Analysts

John Heerdink - Vista Partners

Dallas Salazar - Atlas Consulting

Jim McIlree - Chardan Capital

Presentation

Operator

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. webinar and corporate update conference call. [Operator Instructions] This conference is being recorded today, July 12, 2016. Before we get started I will read a disclaimer about forward-looking statements.

This conference call may contain in addition to historical information, forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws regarding Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. Forward-looking statements include statements about plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events of performance and underlying assumptions and other statements that are different than historical facts. Forward-looking statements are generally identified by using words such as "anticipate," "believe," "plan," "expect," "intend," "will," and similar expressions, but these words are not the exclusive means of identifying forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Investors are cautioned that forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the statements made. Matters that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements include, among other factors, the gain or loss of a major customer, change in environmental regulations, disruption in supply of materials, capacity factor fluctuations of power plant operations and power demands, a significant change in general economic conditions in any of the regions where our customer utilities might experience significant changes in electric demand, a significant disruption in the supply of coal to our customer units, the loss of key management personnel, availability of capital and any major litigation regarding the company.

In addition, this release contains time-sensitive information that reflects management's best analysis only as of the date of this conference call. The company does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect future events, information or circumstances that arise after the date of this conference call. Further information concerning issues that could materially affect financial performance related to forward-looking statements contained in this presentation can be found in the company's periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Richard MacPherson, the company's President and CEO. The floor is yours.

Richard MacPherson

Thank you, very much. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you very much for joining us today and it's my pleasure to bring you up to date on what's happening with Midwest Energy Emissions, the growth we have had, and our performance to date, what we expect going forward. What I would like to do is start with a company overview to give you folks an idea of where we sit right now.

So with regards to the company itself, we have a company that’s growing rapidly. We provide mercury capture solutions for coal fired power plants through a sorbent technology which was developed by the EERC out of North Dakota called the SEA technology. We have an extremely strong patent portfolio, both across U.S., Canada, and throughout Europe and China, and we have a large multibillion-dollar market which commenced in April 2015 under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard or the MATS rule.

The technology that we apply in our day to day activities is based on over 20 years of development with over $65 million invested in the research and development on this technology. Looking forward on our history, basically what we have got is a Center for Air Toxic Metals out of the University of North Dakota having developed all of the technology and then we enhanced that as we commercialized it over the past six years. The partnership between our firm and EERC began in 2006, and we have been developing it ever since.

We have a broad patent portfolio, and we have been commercializing this technology suite and continue to add to it as we go forward. The EPA mandate on mercury removal is a law that's in place that requires basically every electric generating unit, both coal and oil, over 25 MW to reduce the mercury emissions by approximately 90%. The EPA issued a final rule on April 15, 2016 with zero compliance avoidance policy which includes substantial fines and penalties for a compliance failure.

The opportunity that we have is estimated according to your source at somewhere between 700 and 800 to 850 electric generating units, which is what we are focused on, particularly in North America between U.S. and Canada. And in the U.S., beginning in April 16, as was mentioned, each of the U.S. based coal-fired units are required to reduce their mercury by approximately 90%, whereas in Canada it fluctuates with regards to the amount per province that’s required.

So in Europe and China, no regulations are currently in place, but we see a large opportunity as we move forward in the coming years for that area. We have a proven commercial solution and the MATS compliant ability of our technology, we guarantee that we will get any of all and all of the units that we apply our technology, we will get them into compliance. We are significantly cheaper than competing solutions and we have proven to allow these electric generating units to operate at a higher capacity than some of our competing technologies.

We also have very little of any impact on the operations over the marketability of byproducts such as fly ash from the clients that we are now doing business with. At this time, we have over 19 units up and operating, several have been operating for over five years. We also have a very robust pipeline of perspective customers in '16 and beyond, given the mandate that the utilities are under and our success to date.

If you look at the slide which is up on your screen, you will get an idea of how our technology functions. Typical activated carbon injection systems would be reflected in the photo to the lower right of this slide. We incorporate those systems which are now established in most of the utilities across the country to deliver our proprietary materials, but we also add a very significant front-end piece of equipment which is shown in the lower left photo, and that allows us to put our sorbent enhancing additive into the boiler and generate a much better overall result than just using the backend technology that we compete against.

So moving on to the next Slide. What we have here is the technological advantages of our system versus the competition. First of all, we are MATS compliant, but we are also a very dynamic turnkey solution because we are able to operate with the [fuel gas] [ph] both at the front and backend of the boiler, we are able to generate much better results than the traditional backend solution or approach, and that yields better results and it also gives us a more effective approach overall. We have a low incremental cap-ex to adding to the system that’s already established, and that puts us in a situation where the operators are able to much more finely approach the capture challenge that they have.

We also maximized the plant output and we allow some EGU's to operate actually at a higher generating capacity while they maintain MATS compliance as compared to competing technologies. That’s very significant in allowing other utilities to not have to derate the boiler in order to meet the regulations. So we maximize the efficiency of the injected materials that we use, and we operate in a much more effective economical fashion. There are a couple of other side benefits with regards to being environmentally friendly. We have less effect on bottom ash and groundwater impacts, but the ability to not compromise quality of the fly-ash is very significant overall across the country.

The evolution of the mercury control market as we see it is basically a three-part discussion. The scrubber and SCR combination approach is utilized to achieve high SO3 and NOx reduction for earlier Clean Air Act regulations. It's large, complex, and capital intensive with extended plant disruptions for its installation and it’s hundreds of millions of dollars for a medium generating unit and does provide mercury capture, but what our experience is, is not what's necessary in a lot of cases across the country.

Then you would have what we would call the first generation technology, which would use a powdered activated carbon or brominated activated carbon. And this would be what's typically installed by the big chemical companies at this point in time. It's very effective at reductions of 70% or less but above 80% it runs into some very high injection rates and have some balance of plant issues that most of the plants would like to avoid. The costs do range considerably more than our approach and that’s our main focus point going forward, is to be able to optimize and enhance those systems that are installed across the country at this time.

Our technology, we would look at it as a third-generation that allows for greater than 90% mercury capture in most if not all situations. It's got the least balance of plant disruptions and we make the maximum efficiency in terms of the use of our materials. It's also the most economical and we typically generate results that are 40% or less of a typical BAC or brominated activated carbon system.

Moving on to the next slide. You will see some actual comparative data which comes from real world testing in the field on large units over extended periods of time. If you look at the ME2C results in the red as compared to the best brominated activated carbon of the day, you will see significant increases in cost and material used with the BAC approach. So we show tremendous efficiencies both in effectiveness and in the economics and that’s one of the reasons that we are continuing to grow.

On to the next slide. As we have talked, the fly-ash income stream advantage is big and in a lot of cases, fly-ash is sold of course to the cement manufacturers all over the world and our ability to generate a solution to MATS that guarantees fly-ash quality to the point where it can be sold as a by-product is very significant, because if you need to use too much activated carbon in the process to try to become MATS compliant, then you end up in a situation where you have got this by-product that you used to sell turn into a landfill product.

Moving on to the patent portfolio. We have a very robust patent portfolio. It comes out of many many years of development at the Energy Environment Research Center. We have added to it nicely over the last several years and what we have got now is a situation where we have 24 patents granted, 11 pending, covering a myriad of solutions for mercury emissions control and we have continuous innovation research as we go forward. These patents of the EERC in internationally recognized and approved. They have over 300 engineers and scientists working at the facility and huge expertise, industry-leading expertise in boiler configuration, fuels testing and measurement. So a very high pedigree of development that we have gotten from this portfolio.

We have an exclusive ongoing license agreement for all of this technology. The patent protection runs through 2025. A highly defensible portfolio and we also maintain the right to acquire this portfolio of patents in perpetuity as we go forward.

So the initiatives going forward are to continue to convert hundreds of competing systems to the ME2C SEA program. We have a very good situation here that the base infrastructure that’s required for us to install our system is in place in over 90% of the units across the country. Our ability to go in and optimize these units with a better system with better materials, better economics, better efficiencies is what we are aimed to do at this point. And so we will be expanding our experienced team of sales representatives and our technical ability in the field to be able to do that.

One of the things that we are constantly doing because we have been able to acquire three of the top people from EERC that were in the mercury development program over the last decade and more, is that we have some of the best, if not the best, technical minds in the business and we continue to develop new approaches as we go on a month to month basis. And not only develop them but move them forward into commercial solutions for the challenges that the plant operators are facing.

With regards to our revenue model, we have a very diversified revenue model but it's mainly the product sale. So it's a typical razor, razorblade revenue model. 95% of the revenue that we get is generated from product sales through a proprietary suite of products and then we add the equipment sales to that. That’s a onetime item, not a significant revenue area for us but a necessary one for us to generate the product sales.

We also, however, are developing and expanding our consulting services because of the knowhow that we have. We are being called upon not only to optimize and improve systems but to be able to also better integrate the mercury capture system in the overall operations of the plant. So we estimate with our technology that each of the units provide about two to three million a year in revenue. That depends of course on the capacity of the units and also the size of the unit and type of coal and those sorts of things.

We have attractive margins and with this diversified revenue model, we have multi-year contracts to date of approximately $110 million worth of business that we are now operating under.

So moving on to the next slide with regards to the -- so with the preliminary Q2 2016 guidance. What we have got is a, as you have seen in the press release today, the second quarter we had revenues of $9.2 million. The year-over-year increase is 241% as compared to the $2.7 million of Q2 of last year and the sequential increase quarter-over-quarter of 173% as compared to our $3.4 million in the first quarter. So we feel very confident at this point to project that we are expecting to do $30 million in revenue in 2016 and that would give us a year-over-year increase of 137% compared to the revenue of $12.6 million in 2015. And this speaks directly to the improving efforts in the field, the contracts that we have under contract now, and the expertise that we are bringing to the market.

We feel very confident with these numbers based on the results that we are having. The 19 units that we have up and running now are running flawlessly as expected. And the opportunity for us to be able to deal with what we are seeing as challenged units that are coming to light since the law went permanently into effect on April of this year, is that there are situations there that we feel our technology is going to work extremely well on that we are now working on in our pipeline that we expect to be able to move forward as we go forward into '16 and '17.

The management team and power plant mercury expertise that we have at this time is we think second to none. As I mentioned earlier, we were able to hire the key personnel from the EERC that helped develop this technology and have been working in the field for years. As a technology company compared in a field where we compete with major chemical companies primarily, we have a distinct advantage in the area of knowhow and being able to figure out tough to solve situations. So our sweet spot right now in the industry is to take the challenged unit from [core] [ph] unit as we discover them from units and from fleets across the country and be able to bring them into compliance. And our strategy at that point is to want to establish in that fleet of units to be able to then broaden out and optimize the rest of the fleet once we have established ourselves in our criteria. And we find that we are in a very very good position to do that going forward.

So the key takeaways for the group today basically is that we have a solution to achieve and maintain MATS compliance more effectively with a lower cost than any of our competition. We have a large multi-billion dollar market that commenced in '15 and we are working into that market as we speak. We have a diversified multiyear recurring revenue model with attractive margins and see that remaining that way going forward. We have 19 electric generating units under contract and a robust pipeline of opportunity with an average of $3 million per unit value expectation going forward. We are expecting to be able to report the $30 million of revenue this year and significant free cash flow in the latter half of 2016 which is a partial MATS year given that we have got $110 million over time in contracted business to date.

This combined with a strong patent portfolio gives us the assurance of our future and we also have a very experienced and proven management team and a high insider ownership of over 38%. And that pretty much concludes the presentation for today. Our contact information is available. You are free to contact us at any time. And so I would like to open this back up for questions. So I will turn it back over to the moderator.

Question-and-Answer Session

Operator

[Operator Instructions] And we will take our first question comes from [Anthony Marcase] [ph].

Unidentified Analyst

Can you walk us through the capital structure? It looks like, what, you have somewhere in excess of 100 million shares, fully diluted. If you can just take us through the cap table and sort of the conversion prices, it would help us better understand the total valuation of the company.

Richard MacPherson

Sure. I think what I will do is hand you over to our CFO, Rich Gross, and let him deal with that.

Rich Gross

This is Rich Gross. Hello. Yes, you are correct. We have approximately 47.5 million shares currently outstanding as of our last filing. A little over $12 million of convertible debt most of which is convertible at $0.50, so that could become $24 million in common shares. We have 6.5 million of issued stock options and most of those are priced -- almost all of them are priced between $0.37 and $1.50, most of them between $0.50 and $0.75, I believe. There is 29.7 million issued warrants. 28 million of those have a cashless exercise option, and the cashless warrants are priced between $0.35 and $0.87. So fully diluted from these securities is $110 million -- or 110 million shares. We expect, as we continue to grow and prove out our operations, that when everything is said and done and exercised from what's above it, it would be approximately 100 million shares outstanding.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay. I appreciate that. And if everything were to be converted, you would have a debt free company and can you estimate how much cash that would bring in. I know part of these are cashless but part obviously are not. Any idea as you to how much cash that would bring into the company?

Rich Gross

If we -- it will be, $15 million to $18 million would come in from both saving on not having to make principal payments on any of the debt as well as the options being exercised.

Unidentified Analyst

But right now your debt is [thick] [ph]. Is that correct? I noticed there were several 13D as well. So right now you are not paying cash interest. You are paying interest in more shares. Correct?

Rich Gross

That’s correct. We are paying interest in either more shares or it's being added to principal.

Unidentified Analyst

At what point do you have any -- obviously shareholders don’t want to see more dilution, at what point do you anticipate starting to pay this in cash so that we don’t have any further dilution?

Rich Gross

The agreement with our senior lender calls for principal and interest payments to begin in the third quarter. And we...

Unidentified Analyst

In cash?

Rich Gross

In cash. And we are preparing within our forecast to be able to do that and we don’t anticipate any issues.

Unidentified Analyst

Okay, fine. And just a brief second question, if you will. Can you walk us through the dynamics of how you get paid, how quickly you get paid and so on?

Richard MacPherson

Sure. We make our deliveries to our customers in bulk. Most of them are on bulk trailers over the road trailers. We invoice our customers when the product hits the customers' sites. And we have got very well established, stable utilities as clients and all of the payment terms are contracted. Everybody pays in terms, 30 to 45 days, depending on what their individual are. And most of the payments come via electronic transfers. So it works seamlessly.

Operator

We will take our next question from John Heerdink with Vista Partners.

John Heerdink

I wanted to ask you just a couple questions here and, sorry, I kind of got disconnected and so I am not sure if this got covered on the call. One is, can you speak to overall, regarding the coal-fired power plants and if you believe that they kind of keep getting shut down. Will they eventually all be shutdown? I would venture a guess that the answer is no, but could you speak to that one. And then the second question I will give you is, is there -- actually, please just answer that one to start, if you will.

Richard MacPherson

Sure, John. Thanks. That’s a good question. I am sure it's on the minds of a lot of people in the industry. Since the coal industry has declined significantly in the last number of years. The power plant total, when we looked at this about six years ago, was roughly in the 1200 plant range. And then when we looked at it again about a year ago, it was down to about 800 to 850. The most recent, EAI, the energy institute numbers give it anywhere from 650 to 800 units at this time in North America, which is our market, our immediate market. But they also state that the coal-fired plants as of about a month ago comprised about 33% of the total amount of power generated in North America and particularly in the United States. And they expected that that could decline by as much as 3% over the next decade.

So we see a very significant position for coal-fired utilities over the next ten years. We are focused on bringing a valuable service to the industry over the next ten years and we expect that there will be a very sound significant market thrust to do that based on the projections and the folks that are telling us what's going to be available. There has been significant decline but we do not expect a huge amount of decline further from this at any sort of a rapid pace.

John Heerdink

Okay. Thank you. I look forward to learning more about this space but it seems like you have a great opportunity here. One last question. Is there, do you see any risk of possibly MATS being reversed in any way or anytime or ever?

Richard MacPherson

Nothing overt at this time. However, any and all EPA law is up for review, I would suggest, even though they would like to state otherwise. But this has been a hugely challenged law. Has gone through a huge whetting process both at the DC court level and at the Supreme Court level. And at this point, given all of the challenges and all of the results, it is an effective law that is in place. That has been whetted considerably at both those levels of law and all of the utilities in the country are abiding by the law. There are no significant outstanding challenges to the law and all of the utilities that we speak to in the industry are confident that it is going to stay in place. At this point we don’t see anything significant on the horizon but we can't guarantee that. But the EPA made its final response to the DC court April of this year and since then the Supreme Court also turned down a request to disrupt the law. So we feel confident at this point that it is a law that utilities will need to meet and that we will be able to provide solution for it.

Operator

And we will take our next question from Dallas Salazar with Atlas Consulting.

Dallas Salazar

Just had two really quick questions here. The first one is, how quickly can you build and install equipment per customer? What's the total turn time on that?

Richard MacPherson

Good question, Dallas. Typically it takes us anywhere from 8 to 16 weeks to install a long-term utility grade system and add to, as necessary, the backend system that’s already there. But what we are experiencing is with the results that we are generating on the plants that are now running into difficulties meeting MATS, they are actually requesting and we are able to keep our demonstration equipment in place and operating until we fabricate and get the long-term system in place that they are going to need. So it's a [seamless] [ph] changeover when the equipment is ready but at this point we have enough temporary gear that once we get in place and we are providing the numbers they want, we continue running until that system is fully installed two to three months down the road.

Dallas Salazar

Right. Nice. Thank you for that. And then just the last question here is, and if you could outline this almost in bullet point fashion, but how do you penetrate a customer's fleet once you are contracted with one of the EGUs. So maybe just, you know, if that conversation starts, when you are having that initial conversation, we could start from there or it starts a little bit further down the road. You can start from there but just maybe short bullet points how that’s structured and how that takes place and I will hop back in the queue here. Thank you, guys.

Richard MacPherson

Sure. Good question. So here is typically what's happening and I will speak about how we are finding things today and going forward. Typically at this point, you will find somebody who is operating in compliance with difficulties and one of the reasons they have called us is because the solution that they put in place by one of the big chemical companies, that the expected was going to work flawlessly, is having some challenges. They are either putting too much material in, it's costing them too much, or they have actually having to derate the boiler because they are not able to operate the boiler at full capacity, they still need to match requirements.

So in that case, we go in with our technological approach as a technology company versus a chemical sales company and we do the work that’s necessary to bring them in compliance and allow them to operate at full boiler plate capacity. At that point we have established ourselves as an integral part of the fleet, we then solidify that position over several months of operation and then as a necessary or an expected course of activity, we than offer to optimize the rest of the fleet and begin demonstrations on the rest of the fleet to show what we can do unit by unit. Typically that would take anywhere from three month to a year to be able to get through that process and they may elect to bring one of those units on as we bring them up to speed and show what we can do or they may wait to do a collective change on the whole fleet, say a year later.

But in any regard, once we establish ourselves in the fleet as a premier technology with the manpower to operate it, then the doors open for us to optimize the rest of the fleet. Typically, we can provide at least a 30% improvement over the major chemical company standard approach which is installed in most of the units across the country.

Operator

And we will take our next question from Jim McIlree with Chardan Capital.

Jim McIlree

Can you tell us how many EGUs contributed to Q2 revenue and how many you expect to contribute to the full year $30 million revenue?

Richard MacPherson

Sure, Jim. We have had a total of 19 units contribute to the second quarter revenue, albeit not completely for that quarter. We expect to add to our business base over the rest of the year but we have yet to give any guidance as to how many more units we expect to close or when they will come on line. So at this point the answer is 19 but we have a very robust pipeline and expect to be moving forward on that successfully as the year goes on.

Jim McIlree

And the math would suggest that if each unit does $2 million to $3 million in annual revenues that you had very small contributions from those 19 in Q2. Am I reading that correctly or maybe these initial units are less than that $2 million to $3 million annual or is there something else that I am just not aware of going on there.

Richard MacPherson

Sure. Good question. Some of the legacy contracts, especially in a significant fleet that we have, are less than our projected average going forward. However, there also was some equipment involved in the first half of the years, significant number of revenues in the equipment side which are not going to be as prevalent going forward in the second half. So the second half projections that would take us to the $30 million are predominantly product based sales and we look forward to getting more specific on that as we go forward.

Rich Gross

And to add a little color to that, just add a little color to that. Only in the month of June were all 19 units in operation. Some of them were in their spring outages and were only coming online at the back half of the quarter.

Jim McIlree

Great. That’s very helpful. And as far as the EIA projections go for coal-fired generation, are you aware if that assumes a technology like yours does not exist and if that’s the case, doesn’t it suggest that maybe the EIA projections are too pessimistic because plants, if they can buy technology like yours could then meet the MATS requirements and they won't go into retirement like EIA is projecting.

Richard MacPherson

Interesting question. Probably a bit too complex for me to be affirmative on. Our technology could possibly be the tipping point of keeping a plant open or not. However, there are many other different factors that would play a bigger role in the decision. I think their projection is reasonable given the most recent information that we have. But, again, I would reaffirm that a 30% generates a huge market and allows us to project very considerable future revenues in order to take a slice of it. So I think the 33% dropping down to 30% over the next decade is reasonable, given all parameters of what the coal utility industry is facing. And that provides us with a very sound base of growth opportunity.

Jim McIlree

Great. And one more, if I might. The operating expenses, not the cost of sales but the operating expenses in order to get to that $30 million in annual revenues. Does that have to increase substantially over the Q1 levels or are we talking about relatively modest increases in order to achieve that $30 million revenue.

Richard MacPherson

Yes. Because we are set up as a technology company and outsource the majority of the operating cost that we incur, we are able to generate the additional revenues with very modest increases going forward.

Operator

We will take our next question from [Steven Austin with Fex] [ph].

Unidentified Analyst

Congratulations on delivering on your strategic plan and obviously the impact on the stock price which is up over 200% last month and a half. Could you discuss the tenure of the enquires that you are getting from these challenged units. Are you marketing, going out on market calls? Are these customers that you had demonstrations with before or are these panicking challenged units that are looking for a solution immediately.

Richard MacPherson

Actually that’s interesting. It seems to be a cross-section of all three. We have carried out over 50 head to head tests in the field against our major competitors and we have 100% wins in that category. So we are circling back and actively re-engaged with a lot of those folks today. What's happened since the rule came into full compliance in April of this year, is that the folks who installed systems from the major chemical companies are finding that they have, in a lot of cases, some challenges that they didn’t expect. So we are circling back on the people that we did the demonstrating testing with over the last few years and we are also talking to people who are approaching us because they have challenges that they didn’t expect. Either price challenges or balance of plant issues or in some cases, as you have suggested, the third reason is they are actually having to de-rate their boilers in order to maintain MATS compliance.

So the combination of those factors has placed our technology in very high stay and very much in demand because this is a law that they have to comply with. It's a non-avoidance law. So if you are a utility operator and you have got some problems with the system that you installed that you expected was going to do the job, then you have to find an alternative or you either have to derate or shut down. So we are extremely busy at this time which what we feel is the only solution to correct a lot of these challenged units out there and we expect to be very busy dealing with this over the next few years and it makes for a perfect entrance into a fleet situation where they may have a dozen boilers and having problems with one or two. As I mentioned earlier in the call, we are then able to establish our credentials and our expertise and our technology, and then offer the 30% plus efficiency that we have seen on average in all of those 50 demonstrations that we did over the years.

Unidentified Analyst

Thank you. Your business model plans on about 95% of revenues being generated by product sales and about 5% on equipment sales and demonstrations. But working through, at least what I perceive the demand to be, it seems like you won't really get to that point until several years from now. It seems like the first quarter had equipment sales and it looks like the second quarter did too. And if the pipeline is as robust as you say and it seems to be relatively short lead time, I think you said 8 to 16 weeks to install a system. Product sales will be less than 95% for quite a while until you broaden your base quite a bit. Is that -- am I reading that correctly?

Richard MacPherson

I don’t think so. I think really what we need to restate here is that going forward when we acquire a new client, there is a very small CapEx as most of the infrastructure required to install our system is now in place in most of the units across the country. So we have a small, on average say $250,000 cost to install our front-end system. From that point onward, 100% of the revenue or at least 95% of it, is product based revenue with significant margins. What we did in the initial stages prior to the ramp up to this year, was we took on the installation of most, if not all, of the equipment at the majority of the plants that we now have up and operating. Which is why the heavy skew towards equipment in the initial, in the 2015 numbers in particular.

Going forward, however, especially from this date forward, we would expecting that in fact 95% revenue model for material sales, which is where our biggest margin is, is what will take place.

Operator

[Operator Instructions] I will now like to turn the conference back over to management for any additional or closing remarks.

Richard MacPherson

Folks, nothing to add other than a sincere thank you for joining and taking interest in our company. We are one of those typical eight year overnight successes. We have not gone to market with a lot of information about who we are, what we are doing until recently. But we are very pleased to be able to tell our story at this time now that we are moving forward with the kind of news that you have seen this morning. We very much look forward to updating you on a continual basis as we continue to grow. Thank you very much for taking the time and we look forward to entertaining you folks with any information you might have anytime you would like. Take care.

Operator

And this does conclude today's conference call. Thank you all for your participation. You may now disconnect.