I would like to welcome to the annual general meeting of the holders of common stock of Cielo Waste Solutions Corp. My name is Larry Schafran. I am the Chairman of the board of Cielo, and I have asked Ryan Jackson, who is the company's CEO, to please chair this meeting. Ryan. Thank you, Larry. Welcome to our annual general meeting, everyone. As Mr. Schafran noted, my name is Ryan Jackson, and I am the CEO of Cielo. We are holding the meeting this year by teleconference. Per applicable laws, those that are on this call are deemed to be present in person. I would now like to call the meeting to order and appoint Anthony Nasaskevitch, legal counsel for the company, to act as the secretary of the meeting. Matthew Kelly from Olympia Trust Company, transfer agent for the company, to act as scrutineer of the meeting to report on the shareholders present in person and by proxy, and the number of shares represented in person and by proxy, and to compute the votes on any poll taken. I have a form of proxy for this meeting provided by Olympia Trust Company. I ask that the notice of meeting, form of proxy, and financial statements of the company be kept by or as directed by the secretary with the records of this meeting. I will now call upon the scrutineer to present his report to confirm whether quorum has been met in order to proceed with the meeting as regularly constituted. Mr. Chairman, there are five registered shareholders or appointed proxy holders representing a total of 71,765,103 shares or 8.95% of the issue outstanding. The scrutineer report shows a quorum to be present. I therefore declare this meeting to be regularly constituted, and I direct that the scrutineer's report be annexed to the minutes of this meeting. Before commencing the business of the meeting, I would like to comment on voting procedure. Since the meeting is being held by telephone only, those registered shareholders entitled to vote at this meeting will have an opportunity to show their intentions by selecting yay or nay when prompted, as an equivalent to a show of hands vote when done in person. Each resolution on every matter brought before the shareholders during this meeting will be voted upon this way. For each matter when prompted, you will have a few moments to press either star one on your phone keypad for yea or star two for nay. We have prepared a short presentation following the formal portion of the meeting. Actually, we will let you know about a date where we will have a presentation after the minutes of this meeting or after the meeting, and therefore go straight to the Q&A. With respect to the short question and answer period when prompted, those with questions may press star one to get in queue for this purpose. I will now ask for a motion that the reading of the minutes of the annual general meeting of the shareholders held on October 21st, 2021 be dispensed with and that the minutes be taken as written and approved. I move that the reading of the minutes of the previous meeting of the shareholders held on October 21st, 2021 be dispensed with and that such minutes be taken as written and approved. All those in favor press star one for yay, and all opposed press star two for nay. Motion carried. The next item of business is the presentation of the company's financial statements and the auditor's report thereon for the years ended April 30th, 2022 and 2021. I would suggest that matters arising related to such financial statements, copies of which have been made available to all shareholders via SEDAR, be held in advance for the question and answer period, which will occur later. May I now please have a motion to fix the board of directors at 4:00 PM? I move that the board of directors be set at 4:00 PM All those in favor, please press star one for yea, and all opposed, please press star two for nay. Motion carried. The terms of office for all six current directors are deemed to have expired today pursuant to the company's articles. The Management Information Circular dated September fifteenth, 2022, contains the names of four persons, each of whom are proposed for election at this meeting. The four proposed nominees are Ryan Jackson, Larry Schafran, Sheila Leggett, and the Honorable Peter MacKay. As no other nominations have been made pursuant to the articles of the company or the Business Corporations Act, that is the complete list of nominees. I move that the four directors proposed for election be so elected for the ensuing year. All those in favor, please press star one for yay, and all opposed, please press star two for nay. I declare that these nominated individuals have received the requisite number of votes cast at the meeting for their election for the ensuing year. They will hold office until the next annual meeting of the shareholders of the company, unless their office is earlier vacated in accordance with the articles of the company and the Business Corporations Act of British Columbia. The next item of business is the appointment of the company's auditor for the ensuing year, along with the remuneration to be paid to the auditor. I move that KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants be appointed as the auditor of the company and remuneration to be set by the directors until the company's next annual general meeting of shareholders or until such firm resigns or is removed from office as provided by law. All those in favor, please press star one for yay, and all opposed, please press star two for nay. Motion carried. The next item of business is to consider, and if deemed advisable, to pass, with or without variation, an ordinary resolution of the disinterested shareholders of the company approving the adoption of the 2022 rolling stock option plan as amended. I move that A, the amended 2022 rolling stock option plan, as described in the circular of the company dated September 15th, 2022, B, and is hereby adopted, ratified, confirmed, and approved, and B, any director or officer of the corporation is authorized and directed to do all things and to execute and deliver or to cause to be executed and delivered any documents considered to be necessary or desirable in such directors' or officers' sole discretion to give effect to these resolutions. All those in favor, please press star one for yay, and all opposed, please press star two for nay. Motion carried. As there is no further business, I declare the meeting to be terminated for the formal portion. I move. No, don't do that. Sorry. Ladies and gentlemen, that completes the business of the annual general meeting. We will be proceeding with a formal presentation on November the ninth with respect to the operations of the company, and leading that discussion will be myself, the CFO, Jasdeep K. Dhaliwal, and our EVP of Operations, Ryan Carruthers. We'll now prompt you, if you wish to ask a question, to please press star one, and we will do our best to address all questions. Our first question comes from Gary Defore. Your line is open. Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, Larry and Ryan. I've actually got a number of questions, but I'll limit it to two right off the outset, one for Larry and one for Ryan. Ryan, the first question I have for you, subsequent to the last update in October of last year, so just a little over a year ago, it was indicated through a press release that there was 25,000 liters of diesel was desulfurized. I assume it's sitting in some sort of tank at less than 15 parts per million. In August, the company indicated that from March to mid-August, about 80,000 liters of distillate has been produced. Sort of a two-part question. First of all, you had indicated that product was going to be attempted to be sold. First part, has that occurred, first of all? Hi, Gary. Thanks for the call. No, that has not yet occurred. We haven't sold the distillate. We're working through making sure that we have the product in the quality state that we wanna have so we can maximize the amount that we sell it for. Okay. As a follow-up then on that specifically, when it was indicated that there was diesel that was desulfurized for 25,000 L last October at less than 15 parts per million, can you indicate or explain why you could not put forth a video showing that diesel is being taken out of a storage tank, put into a lawnmower, a tractor, whatever, and actually works. All we're going on as shareholders right at this point in time is that you've produced a certain quantity, and we'll take it at face value that quantity has been produced. But whether it actually works in a vehicle or not, that has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of shareholders being able to actually see it work. Okay. Your question then, Gary, is whether or not we have a video or we are able to show someone using the diesel? Are you prepared to Yes. Are you prepared today to commit to providing visual evidence to all shareholders through your website of taking distillate and/or diesel out of the tanks and running it through some form of an engine to show that you can actually power a vehicle. It doesn't have to be anything fancy using this product? To clarify, the desulfurized diesel was sold, so we still are sitting on 80,000 L of distillate. Distillate that has not been through the distillation process, so it is distillate. It hasn't been refined into a diesel naphtha residue component. Gary, that's our. Just to be clear, the 25,000 was sold? It was sold? The 25,000 was sold. Yes. The 25,000 was removed. Now we reached less than 15 PPM on a portion of that, but that was the large portion of that product was generated during the commissioning for the one week that desulfurization was operated. It was commissioned, proven successful, proven that we could reach the target, the design of the original desulfurization unit. That product was sold. Fair enough. Then I guess the question is, are you able to provide or would the third party that you sold it to, the diesel, be willing to provide a testimonial saying that, yes, it was desulfurized and it works? Well, Gary, I guess we could check with them and see what there would be in the way of, I mean, privacy notwithstanding with respect to who we sold it to and respecting that. I guess, you know, your inference, I guess, is to suggest that we didn't do that and that we haven't sold it and that it doesn't work. Not sure we're having a conversation that's productive at this point in time, but we can certainly provide whatever evidence we want or that you're looking for, the shareholders are looking for that provides the proof, if you will, that you're looking for. I understand what you're inferring. We don't have any problem in providing whatever evidence anyone looks for that is skeptical that this occurred. Yeah. Well, fair enough, Ryan, appreciate you've only come into the situation recently as the CEO, but you can appreciate that going back 15 months, there's been communications from the company, maybe with former leaders that have not exactly materialized as was originally communicated. That's why there is some skepticism and inferences. I'm not suggesting you're lying by any stretch, but I think it would be prudent for the corporation to be able to show that, yes, this stuff actually works. Yeah, we appreciate the fact that you're refining, you gotta go through the R&D process and all that. That's great. You know, we wanna make sure that this stuff is actually saleable once it does get desulfurized or if distillate is usable now to convert it to naphtha or diesel. Yeah. No, I know, and that's fair, Gary. Just so we're clear though too, when we say something publicly and we disclose it, that in and of itself, if that's false, obviously that's that. We're not gonna say something publicly that isn't true, or at least to the point where anyone beyond that not taking, I guess, a public statement in the public forum would question it. Happy to have anytime a conversation and provide whatever level of proof within reason. I mean, you know, we can't do certain things that our customers, for example, don't want to do, such as releasing something that they wouldn't be comfortable releasing. We can only control what we can control. Appreciate you understanding that. Certainly we're not here to try and say that what we've got and what we are doing isn't happening. Okay. Well, I'll leave that last comment aside then. Thank you then for your. Maybe some other shareholders have some other follow-ups on that. Larry, I have a question for you specifically as the chair. In your letter to the shareholders, you talked about the best board composition at this time and to improve corporate governance, et cetera. I'm all for that. As a former CFO in a publicly traded company as well as private companies, I get it. I get what you're stating here. My question really is, when I look at the composition of the board, the four that are sitting there right now, their actual skin in the game, and I'm not talking about getting stock options and DSU or RSU, but the actual amount of money they've invested. You yourself have 50,000 shares, which at CAD 0.05 is roughly CAD 2,500. I hardly construe that as the Chair of this corporation to be a lot of skin in the game. I could go through all the other directors, even Ryan. Ryan's got a, you know, a little bit more. When are we gonna start seeing the management of this company actually believing in this company and willing to put their own wealth on the line to say, "We believe in what Ryan and the team are doing, and we're backing that up by showing conviction and showing to the other outside shareholders that this thing has got legs, and we believe in it, and we're willing to put our own money on the line. Gary, your concern is well noted, and it is a topic of some concern which will be responded to. All right. Thank you. If I could just ask one quick follow-up. It was indicated that Don Allan, the former CEO and the founder of this corporation, had retired or resigned. I'm a little perplexed then why somebody who resigned receives 27 months of salary continuance unless indicating it was resigned was just a polite way of indicating that the board had decided to separate themselves from Mr. Allan and the negotiations were that he was being paid 27 months severance. Is that correct or not? The severance arrangement was further to an existing contract. Mr. Allan was severed by the board. Is that correct? Mr. Allan resigned. Okay. Usually when people resign from a corporation, they don't get remuneration beyond their resignation. The remuneration was in recognition of Mr. Allan being founder and leader of the company for 17 or 18 years. The company, the board decided at that point to pay him roughly, based on his base salary of CAD 420 000, about CAD 1 million exit package. I just wanna make sure we're all clear and all the shareholders are hearing exactly what has transpired. Am I correct on that? The board respected the existing contract and agreed to implement it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Point of clarification, Gary. Gary, hold on. Yeah? Point of clarification. It was CAD 324 000 over the term, with respect to the per year. That's what it was. Sorry. Base salary was CAD 324 000 a year? 324 per year. That's correct. Per the, I believe the annual information form says he got paid for 27 months. Yep, that's correct. I just wanted to make sure we had the right numbers right. Okay, fair enough. I might be off by a little. Let's call it 3/4 of a million CAD 750 000 then. Is that fair enough? Close enough? Yep. Okay. Yep. All right. Operator, I'll turn it over to some other- Our next question comes from Ben D. Your line is open. I thank you. Oh, can you hear me? Yep. Hello. Yeah. I've just got a question about your production. I'm the CEO of Power Forest Products, primarily timber and Pacific Northern Pro-Forest Products in BC. Two-part questions with a little bit of backup. You guys have mentioned the use of railway ties and wood waste as feedstock. Brings me to my question, is there something significant about the railway ties that make them good for the production? Or is any wood good to be used like wood waste for the production that you're looking for? Really, wood feedstock in general will suffice for our process to be able to generate a usable distillate. The railroad ties essentially are a feedstock that we do not need to pay for on the front end. Paying for a feedstock in this, with this process is not, it's not economically feasible to operate. Got it. The wood feedstock that Cielo commenced or started this process on has now become a very competitive market. Wood waste Right. Is now predominantly being purchased by pelletizing facilities. We needed a feedstock that wasn't having a rising cost. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Secondly, to follow up my question is that if any wood is usable and cheap wood is preferable, of course, then is there any possibility of looking at hog fuel from sawmill production? Because on the coast currently with the pulp mill closures and curtailments, on the coast with pulp mills in BC, we're seeing an abundance of hog fuel. I'm wondering if there's a possibility that the company could look at using that or possibly bringing some of the operation down to where this material could be used relatively cheaply and could be a good fit for using this material. It is a possibility. It's something we could look at in the future. Right now we're focused on leveraging our experience with wood biomass as a feedstock and nailing down the process and having a commercial facility. It's likely that we'll continue with an R&D division at that point where we assess alternative feedstocks. Okay, that's great. Thanks for taking my question. Thanks, Ben. Our next question comes from Sergei O. Your line is open. Good afternoon. I mean, I'm gonna ask, like, there's a couple of questions been already asked prior to me, but kind of coming back to the feedstock. Like, the thing is, I'm not sure, like, why Cielo buys feedstock. Like, isn't the whole idea of the company pretty much cleaning up this planet from, like, actual garbage? Wouldn't Cielo be more likely to charge taking. If the whole idea when I started investing into this company, the idea is like Canada and North America sending out garbage and paying China to take their crap out pretty much and bury in their landfills. Idea is, wouldn't we rather pay Cielo to take our, you know, stuff, our garbage, and we process it and turning it into renewable fuel. Another thing too. What about plastics? Because I think, I mean, that's great, like railroad ties and all that. That's excellent that Cielo is focusing on that. I think the key selling point is the plastics that they have to focus on because that's what, that doesn't get decomposed in the ground, right? When I spoke to Don Allan prior to that, like a year back, they're saying that Cielo are able to process all seven types of plastics, and that's the only company in the world that has the technology to do so. Like, what's going on with the plastic part of it? Okay. Sergei, a couple of things to unpack there. With respect to the first question, comment around the feedstock. You're 100% correct. We are looking for feedstock. We have two sources of revenue in this model. We have the ability to charge for the product that we process and get to an endpoint and then sell as a commodity such as a fuel of some sort, diesel, naphtha, kerosene, as we've stated publicly. The other revenues source is a tipping fee, bringing in the waste product into the company and into processing. You're absolutely right. There isn't a model. Ryan Carruthers, our EVP, who answered the previous question, previous caller's question from Ben, is correct in we are sourcing feedstocks, specific feedstocks that are going to derive an income stream into Cielo beyond, of course, us having to pay for waste feedstocks. I think a common problem that some biorefineries face is they're going to have to reconcile the cost that they have to pay for crops such as corn or soy or other feedstocks that cost them money on the front end to be able to process as well. Our thesis certainly isn't that. Our thesis is that we want to source and have sourced specific feedstocks that are going to be paying Cielo for the processing of that feedstock as well. To your second question with respect to plastics, we certainly have full intentions on in our R&D process, understanding the as our CFO has so eloquently put it many times, input, reaction, output with respect to what is it that we're putting in, what kind of a reaction do we get and what is the output or what is the outcome of the processing that we're doing in our process. Plastics 100% is on the list, and we've stated that publicly. The fact that we don't have them at the front of the line is purely a business decision that we made around the existing feedstock agreement we have with CP Rail and the fact that we have a business model around an understanding of wood waste feedstock. Railroad ties, of course, is a form of wood waste. We wanna make sure that we're able to be quick about this and not take any more time to commercialization. Plastics is certainly 100% on the list. We're not trying to not do it, but we have to. There's a business aspect of this with respect to the feedstock that we currently have and that we're currently using and being able to be nimble and not take any more time to commercialization than we absolutely have to. Does that make sense? Yeah. I mean, so pretty much it's on the list. It's just, I feel like that'd be like a real ace in the deck if Cielo can figure that out because that's what makes them kinda like stand out from any other companies. Another little follow-up question too, and again, it's all of you, the board of directors because you're obviously communicating to a lot of like government agencies and bodies. I talked to Don prior to that a bit, and it's amazing. Like you think we have probably the greenest government. Well, as they say, because, you know, like we have these NDPs and Liberals who say climate, climate. It's amazing why it's like there's no support from the government side of things towards Cielo. Like I know Cielo raised money by, you know, diluting shares and doing all the private, I guess, privately, right? How come there's no support? Like, for example, there's like solar farms, you know, in Medicine Hat that probably what they've lost like CAD 5 million just a pile of garbage and government throwing money at them like crazy. Like how come there's no support to Cielo, any kind of? I believe Cielo received one grant of CAD 50 thousand dollars sometime in the past, if I'm correct. Besides that, there's just, like, no support towards this company, and this company is pretty much trying to clean up this country, right? From all this overflowing garbage. Like, what's going on in terms of that part of the business? Well, you know what? Great question. We have through a number of years that I've been around or Cielo adjacent for more than just the time that I've been in the chair currently that I occupy. We have a number of government conversations that have been had in the past. There's been a number of grant applications that have been done. Like you had mentioned, the Alberta Innovates grant that had been approved for CAD 500,000. A lot of this comes down to a commercialization question around non-dilutive financing that we would receive from government agencies such as SDTC or someone from WED or from WD. A lot of it is around the commercialization as opposed to R&D. There's a number of things that we get in the way of tax credits, for example, with SR&ED, with science, research, and development and things of that nature that we are able to apply for. It is a very broad space, and we would be more sustainable than renewable currently. You know, to meet certain bars, certain criteria within certain granting agencies is a bit of a moving target, quite frankly. We're doing everything we can to attract that non-dilutive aspect of grant money. There's all sorts of that type of thing as well. It has to be. Some of it's matching, some of it's straight up grants. Yeah, I mean, it's a challenge. I think the solar and the wind and some of those other, we'll say, mature technologies that get some form of assistance. I'd question what how much they get, 'cause certainly I know and there's, you know, these are for profit businesses, so they have to be making them somewhere. That's, yeah, it's something that certainly when you talk to your local MLA or MP, would certainly encourage you to voice those very same concerns. Because quite frankly, we've been saying them for a long time. It's nice when we have some evangelists out there actually saying the same thing. Yeah. Like, yeah, it just is simply strange. I mean, you look at some numbers flowing out of the country towards, you know, climate, whatever, climate. Like, there are billions of Canadian dollars flooding out and, like, nobody can throw CAD 1 million at the company that's. Maybe, I guess to follow up, are there all these, like, bodies waiting for that R&D facility to be functioning and tested? Is that, like, is that pilot, like, pilot plant or R&D facilities, like, a bit of a, like. Is everybody kind of waiting, including, like, third party investors for it to be done and proven? Is that how it's kind of almost looking like down the road? Yeah, it's very much we have the cart, all we need is the horse. We know what our process is able to achieve. We know it works. We've proven that concept. It really is about quantifying the data, the economic data, that we need to be able to articulate specifically to the funders, investors, and the partners that we have waiting for us to do that very thing. Sergei, you're dead on there. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for answering all that. My pleasure. Carolyn, I'm not sure if we have anyone else. There are no other questions in the queue at this time. I'm sorry. I stand corrected. Andy R., your line is open. Thank you. With regards to the railroad ties and you not paying for them, having worked around some excavating companies this past summer, I'm told that they're paying an awful lot to dispose of railroad ties. Are you guys receiving them free delivered to your location? Like, how do they get to you? Do you have no cost of acquiring them? Are these companies that are disposing of them? I know you have a contract with CP. Is that the only source of these ties, or have you approached other markets? So I'm understanding every excavation that runs into railroad ties that some of them go through CP to somewhere in Ontario. Is that to Cielo or is that old news? Thanks for the question. To answer your first question, we don't incur any cost. It's FOB to the site that we've selected with in conjunction with CP Rail. In fact, we did publicly state that we'll be receiving a tipping fee from CP Rail based on the quantities that they're going to provide. Currently, we have that agreement with CP Rail, and we have had, let's say, high-level discussions with other rail companies to be able to get us the product in the same manner and way. Whether we locate near or at the source as well is also possibly one of those things. The contract we have with CP, we're not able to disclose as to the specifics around the amounts and how much they're paying, that's confidential. We're very confident in the other conversations we're having that we will be procuring the same amount, if not more, from other companies, other rail companies, some rail tie even manufacturers that are also producing some that don't meet their quality standards, so they have to dispose of those as well. There's a significant amount out there, and if you've driven around, at least on the western side of this country, you'll see them stacked everywhere along the side of the railroad tracks. It's a problem that we're solving for not just CP, but for other rail companies as well. Okay. Thank you for your response. You bet. The next question comes from Carmen Caldero. Your line is open. Good afternoon, everybody. Just a quick question, a little update on what's happening with the R&D. Like, what stage are we at, or are we getting close? Permits, are they coming along, or have you guys submitted anything else besides the railway ties and the other feedstock you were looking at, like plastic or anything? Are you getting that ball moving so that it's ready when you are ready to try testing it? Hey, Carmen. Thanks for the question. Yeah, we are, and that's why we had announced the update on November ninth that we're gonna have that's specific to the operations of the company, that being primarily the R&D facility and where we're at, where we're going, et cetera, et cetera. We felt it better to be able to present something in a webinar format online as opposed to on the phone and just tell you. That's why we announced that early this morning. We PR'd that event, so certainly encourage you to tune in. So far so good, on time, on budget, short of the short version. We'll have a lot more specifics. We'll have some pictures, drawings, whatnot, to be able to display. With respect to AEP, yeah, we're proceeding favorably with that. We're back and forth with them on the amendment that we provide or that we applied to with respect to our permit that we currently have. With respect to the next round of feedstocks, we will be making sure that there's no operational pause and that we're able to apply for the next set of feedstocks that we're trying or want to test and get an understanding of what that input reaction output looks like. Everything so far, we're running in parallel tracks to the R&D facility. Okay, good, 'cause it seems like everybody's just getting anxious in terms of having to wait around. We wanna make sure that, you know, once you get this railway, the railway ties going and generate some sort of some money coming in, that other permit will be ready to go and we can just, you know, keep this train moving instead of having to wait and stall in between, right? Get everybody frustrated and, you know, investors start popping out, and everybody starts getting negative about the thing, and everything starts to plummet again. Yeah. No, Listen, Carmen, from your lips to God's ears, we have, if we had access to a DeLorean and Doc Brown driving it, we'd be in it and going into the future. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Our next question comes from Gary Defore. Your line is open. Probably this question goes to either one of the Ryans. Just my understanding is there's two catalysts involved in the process, one for the reactor and one for the desulfurization. I know we had a hiccup, a year or so ago where there was something wrong with the catalyst, had to be sent down to Texas and caused delays, et cetera. Just a couple of sort of questions related to that is where are these catalysts sourced from, like which country? Are these proprietary catalysts to Cielo, or can other companies, you know, use the same catalyst for maybe some other purpose or for a competitive purpose? The last and probably the most germane when you're looking at trying to figure out what the economics are of the R&D through the R&D facility, are we on a fixed price contract or a variable price contract for these two catalysts? Can you shed some light on that, please? Hey, Gary. Thanks for your question. Really, it is their proprietary catalyst used by Cielo. As far as where we purchase this from or purchase those from, that's somewhat confidential. That's about all I can share on that aspect. With respect to the R&D facility, it's a cost plus. Essentially we had a contract price and as we make significant changes, there are adjustments to the overall contract price. Thus far, we've still been within the boundaries of what the original scope and cost estimate was. Okay. Thank you. Maybe if I could, I'll probably just ask one little follow-up question. With respect to the Fort Saskatchewan property, I guess the question is, I mean, we're gonna go through this R&D process, we're gonna test multiple feedstocks. It's gonna take some time, et cetera, et cetera. Obviously we do have a bit of a financing issue overhanging this company as it's always been. Why not, now that we've got a tenant in there, why not sell off the Fort Saskatchewan property and pay off the debt and at least take some of the debt pressure off the balance sheet? Yeah. Gary, you've got out of my head. It's one of those things where we have to max the lease that we have. We do currently have a tenant, you're right, in Fort Saskatchewan, and that is for the building and real estate surrounding it to the tune of 15 acres. We're currently in the process of looking for a tenant for the remainder of the 25 that is there that can be used as lay down and everything else. To really maximize a decent cap rate calculation around the sale of the real estate, to that utilized as well from a lease standpoint. There's, and it's publicly up for lease. It's not something that we haven't publicly stated we are doing. We do need to lease up the balance of that developed space before we really maximize off the sale of the real estate. Otherwise, we're kinda cutting our nose off to spite our face if we go too prematurely. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Okay, I think, given the fact that we don't have any other questions, Carolyn, I think we can end the call. Thank you. Conference is now concluded. You may disconnect.