Okay, we'll get rolling here, and hopefully everyone has a chance or has had a chance to join, and any of those that show up can be admitted in later. We'll make sure that we'll get things taken care of. A few housekeeping items before we get rolling. Just raise your hand if you have a question during the Q&A. Certainly happy to unmute your microphone and ask your question, and we'll get to the questions at the end of the presentation. It's a brief presentation. It's nothing too onerous or death by PowerPoint, so I want to make sure that everybody has a chance to have their questions answered as we go forward. Also, there will be a recording made available of the presentation afterwards, so looking forward to having you receive that through email after it's been prepared and that sort of thing. Without further ado, we will get going so we can get on with our days. This is a Project Nexus update, and what we want to make sure everyone's aware of with the usual housekeeping that goes on, the cautionary statement with everything, and I'm not going to read this to you because then it would take the full hour. As a public company, we have information that we provide that is forward-looking, and we want to make sure that everyone understands that. Getting back straight into what Cielo has become and who we are today, we are a waste solutions development company. Really, what that means is that we are a waste-to-fuel project developer that is focused on converting difficult waste streams or waste streams in general into a low-carbon, commercially viable fuel. We are technology neutral and select proven third-party technologies that match each project's feedstock economics and regulatory environment. I do not mean to read to you, but this is a very important part of what Cielo has become. We are not tied to a technology, and by therefore having that ability to source feedstocks, which then turns it into we source the technology that has been validated, that is commercially proven to produce the fuel. That is an important distinction. It frees us really to be very diverse in what we adjudicate from a project standpoint. We have been working on this since our April 1st PR that suggested that we were going to go to B.C. and pursue the market in British Columbia relative to the scrap feedstocks that we have. All of those things will become very clear very quickly. We do want to, as we move forward, emphasize that we take a very stage-gated approach with our project development, and that is making sure that we have just one moment here. Just wanted to make sure that we have audio. Is everyone having, can everyone hear the audio? Dennis had sent a message saying that there's no audio coming through. Audio is good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Across industries, we pair them with compatible technologies. Where we're going to be doing that is in Prince George, British Columbia. We're excited today to mention that we had mentioned B.C. and Northern B.C. for a while, and we have the ability now to and are working with a local group with respect to sourcing the appropriate facility in Prince George, B.C. Why Prince George? For those of you who haven't been there, and I have actually, first time went there a couple of months ago, Prince George is truly an industrial hub. The logistical advantages that are in Prince George alone have a significant impact on our ability to do what we want to do in our project with respect to Nexus. With that, there is, and you can see on the slide, a number of other benefits. Because essentially Prince George is an industrial hub, there's skilled labor that's accessible. There is a significant industry there that is beneficial to what Cielo is wanting to do there as it relates to our development. It also helps that there are existing biofuel facilities there as well. There is an ecosystem that's important for us to leverage as it relates to the skilled labor as well. The feedstock opportunities are abundant. There's no question that the amount of fiber, the fiber basket in the Prince George area is significant, and that there is an ability for us to leverage that feedstock opportunity beyond what we already have. That is going to be coming up in another slide. The stakeholders that we have, as we've mentioned before, we have a local group that we're working with with respect to the location specifically in Prince George. We're adjudicating a few, and we've identified some that will be, and of course, we'll release that information once we have secured a specific site, but there are a few that we're looking at. It's important for us to have access to rail and also to the appropriate amount of utilities that we're going to be required to take on the amount of waste that we have been sourcing locally. We'll speak to this a little bit more. I'll speak to it a little bit more. The Clean BC objectives are aligned with what it is that we're going to be doing as it relates to wood waste fuels. That, along with the fact that we are going to seek a major project status with respect to the B.C. government, Bill 15, and we've had those initial preliminary discussions and outreach with respect to that as well. All of this is lining up very, very well for us as we move forward. Again, we announced in April we were going to B.C. It's only been that period of time where we've started now to move forward with what we've been discussing so far. A little bit more about specifically British Columbia and how Canada allows us to bring forward a significant economic advantage. From a policy perspective, both B.C. and the federal government are signaling extremely strong support for any project of a renewable fuels basis, but specifically into the output that we're going to actually focus on that we'll discuss in a few minutes. At the federal level, there's the Clean Fuels Fund and the Clean Fuel Regulations, which directly support low-carbon fuel production and create a credit framework for renewable fuels. The Strategic Innovation Fund's Net Zero Accelerator program also targets large industrial decarbonization projects and is very relevant to what it is that we're going to be doing. Also, the initiatives for other technologies, etc., are designed to accelerate Canadian capacity. That's something I'll speak to once I share with you the product that we're going to be focusing on. What we want to make sure of that you also know is that on the financing side, groups like the Canada Infrastructure Bank have identified clean fuels as an area of strategic interest. They have already participated in several large clean energy investments across the country. With respect to Project Nexus, we will be moving forward with a sustainable aviation fuel output. What I just mentioned with respect to the policy perspective and specifically the initiative for sustainable aviation technology, it's exactly what the carbon tax was designed to prevent with emissions, and we're going to help the aviation fuel industry decarbonize in British Columbia. It's an established market. It has a significant supply shortage that needs to be able to meet compliance mandates with respect to the emissions reductions by 2030, which is continuing to increase the SAF interest in supply. The SAF production pathways make efficient use of our syngas carbon, which is going to improve credit generation under the LCFS network that I just mentioned in the B.C. with respect to the B.C. LCFS. The conversion efficiency and the global commitment to sustainable aviation fuel is well known, quite frankly, and current and existing contracts are already in place with other SAF providers, yet as a fraction of what the demand will require, even now in today's mandated environment, there are billions of liters of fuel that are burned, and a percentage of those billions of liters of fuel need to become sustainable in its makeup. There is a global commitment, but we are focusing on the Canadian fuel standards and regulations and want to make sure that everyone understands this is something that will be produced domestically and also sold domestically as well. Why did we use or go to sustainable aviation fuel? It's a fair question and one that I can get into in the Q&A a little bit more as well. What I want everyone to understand is that this is the strongest economics in B.C.'s LCFS credit environment, right? It's a priority pathway for both the federal and provincial governments. It has stated commitments, and it also continues to be mandated with respect to both the syngas, or, sorry, with respect to the credit generation under the LCFS framework. The downstream technologies that we assess are established and have commercially demonstrated performance. The fact that SAF uses more carbon from syngas provides us with a stronger credit revenue profile. In other words, we can, over a hydrogen, for an example, get three times the credit generation that we would using producing SAF than we would if we were to be producing hydrogen, which is still a future opportunity, but it's just not the right time for it. We can get into it as well in the Q&A, but there is a significant distribution bottleneck that exists with hydrogen, plus there's other factors as well as it relates to that. I just want everybody to understand what that looks like. With respect to our feedstock, and I know that's always been, and we've stated it publicly that this is a feedstock-driven business, and we do have a foundational feedstock MOU that we have with respect to the Prince George facility, Project Nexus. The long-term security of that will become evident once we execute a formal written agreement, but we have some additional work to do before we're able to release that and release the news around that. We do have a foundational understanding of what feedstock we have to move forward with Project Nexus. That long-term security of supply is critical to be located in the Prince George area. There is additional wood waste there that can be leveraged, and we're working with the local folks that we have engaged to make sure that we have more than enough feedstock to produce a significant commercial industrial scale facility to produce the sustainable aviation fuel I mentioned earlier. There is an opportunity for even landfill diversion as well, and it all aligns with respect to the circular story that Cielo has been telling for now for quite some time. The benefit of this is that we're building a company or a development and a project rather than creating a technology. We're going the other way. We're building a business. We're not building tech. Moving forward, we're going to advance sustainable aviation fuel as our primary output. It's our primary pathway with respect to everything that we know to be Project Nexus, and it positions Cielo to have a massive capital advantage as a result of the LCFS credit framework as well as the Clean Fuels Fund and other programs within the federal government, in addition to debt opportunities through Canada Infrastructure Bank, as I mentioned. It really does make the decision clear. The initiative agreement with the B.C. LCFS gives Cielo a massive capital advantage and puts us at the center of our push, Canada's push to decarbonize aviation. SAF is where the economics and policy tailwinds align, quite frankly. We are now preparing and detailed pre-FEED engineering and formal funding applications under the LCFS initiative agreement and the related programs, of which we have already applied for a Clean Fuels Fund grant. We will await to hear word on that coming sometime, we expect, before the end of this year. I said it was going to be short and sweet, and that is what you get. I am not sure if folks can raise your hands if you have any questions, but happy to take those as well. I will actually hop on camera here now too. Hopefully, I am not butchering your name there. Haleh, go ahead. Hi. Thanks for taking my call. My apologies. I am listening from work here, and I might have missed the last part. You might have answered it already. Can you say when you think you will have news about that feedstock that's going to be the base of the company? We've signed the non-binding MOU, but we are working on the supply service agreement as we go forward. That is part and parcel to the pre-FEED engineering work that we're doing. The one thing that we've done in the past is we went too far too quickly on the feedstock agreements without actually having the engineering and everything lining up with it at the same time. We are making sure that we're measuring twice and cutting once here, to use a construction parlance. That MOU that we have, though, gives us the appropriate amount of information at this time to be able to move forward with the next steps on the stage gate process I was mentioning earlier. Hopefully, that makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. Wait, the next steps would be to figure out if the technology works for this feedstock. Is that what you're saying? No, no, no. We're aware of technology that will work for this feedstock and the outputs and everything else. A lot of the next steps, yeah. We did that in the feasibility stage, which is what we've been doing the last few months while we've been talking or talking about Project Nexus. Yeah, it's now getting a lot more specific around the scoping scale size. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you very much. Good luck with everything. You bet. Thanks for the questions. Paul, go ahead. Yeah, just from Northern British Columbia and the downtown city of Prince George. Congratulations. Yeah, looking forward to seeing more and learning more about your project. Great job. You bet, Paul. Thanks for the comment. Appreciate you tuning in today. Anyone else want to have any questions? Feel free to just raise your hand. Jim. Go ahead, Jim. Yeah, my question's around the technology, I guess. Where are you standing there, I guess? Have you picked a partner or have a process, I guess, determined? We certainly have a process, and we have initially identified the technology provider, and we have a number of layers to that adjudication process that we're going through. We've done our first stage gate, which was to essentially determine the process itself, and now going into the technological aspect of it, which will certainly provide that information as we move forward. There are a number of commercial providers that we can source, and we want to make sure that we source the one that makes the most sense, both financially and operationally. Okay. Those processes have been proven to work, I guess, or commercially operational, I guess, at this point? There are a number of processes that use feedstocks similar to what we're looking at. Yeah, the technological risk has a TRL level. TRL level is technology readiness level. We're in that. One to nine is the scale, and we're identifying an eight to nine T RL level technology. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, you bet. Thanks for the call. All right. Michael Shaw. Hey, Mike. Oh, hang on. Got to disable your mic here. There we go. Go ahead, Mike. I think you're muted. There you go. All right. All right. Thank you. Hey, Ryan. Hey. I was just wondering, the switch from hydrogen to safe aviation fuel, will it still be easy, or will it be difficult to produce hydrogen in the future going this avenue? Will you be building any silos? With respect to why SAF and not hydrogen, or are we going to be doing hydrogen later on? Yes, hydrogen later on, but will it be difficult to produce it? No, we could produce anything within the technological kit that we've identified. As it relates to outputs, hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuel, renewable diesel, renewable natural gas, biomethanol are as an example of outputs. SAF is, quite frankly, the biggest bang for the buck. It's really what it boils down to. I'm just trying to understand, it'll be one machine that can produce all these products. The platform itself would be different on the back end. The gasification is consistent on the front end as it relates to the way we create the syngas. What happens with respect to the back end? I'm not an engineer. I'm not the technological guy, as you know, and we'll be providing that information as we move forward. The other thing we want to make sure is that when we are providing information around the technology, we're protecting that information to a certain amount because it is IP. We'll provide not necessarily much of the how other than to know that no different than how you make a sausage. Necessarily, you don't want to see it. There are conventional methods out there for all of those five outputs I just mentioned. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, you bet, John. We got Jim back here. Jim, I got your mic on now. Oh, you're muted, though. Go ahead. If you can unmute, go ahead. Yeah, I'm sorry. I need to put my hand down, I guess. Oh, you didn't. Okay. Very good. Problem. Yes. Go ahead. Oh, you're muted, though. No, we don't have one more time. Yes, I've got your mic open, but you're not unmuted on your end. You can unmute. Okay. Hopefully, we can figure that out. All right. Allan, did you have another question? Just need you to unmute. Hi. Can you hear me? Yep. Gotcha. Yeah. Thanks again. Yeah, two things. What about the rail tie agreement? Is that still the thing? We're still in communication with CPKC, if that's what you're referring to, the CPKC scrap tie agreement. Yeah. Didn't that expire this month or last month? In October the 31st, and we had a conversation with CPKC. That was, interestingly enough, the view that we took with respect to the hydrogen output. Interestingly enough, there just isn't enough supply that we would be able to provide. We could provide that doesn't have the hydrogen locomotives to consume it. We would have produced way more than they could have taken. We are continuing to have conversations with CPKC, and we have an open channel communication around future projects once we get through Project Nexus or even while we are doing Project Nexus. We want to go back to developing projects, not the technological focus. Very happy with the back and forth we are having with them though. Okay. Can you tell us what you think would be the next maybe couple milestones for us? What are we looking for? We are in pre-FEED now or just starting to go pre-FEED. That's very exciting for us. The initial feasibility that we ran over the last number of months was we needed a site, we needed feedstock, foundational feedstock, and we needed an output that we could confidently sell into the marketplace. Now with those three pillars, and honestly, we have had a number of discussions around the funding as well. The LCFS opportunity to essentially fund half the project through minting credits is a significant de-risking opportunity for us. Those four things really now drive the pre-FEED. The milestones that we expect over the next few weeks and months will certainly release as we go into the new year. The pre-FEED process takes a few months, and that allows us to properly, again, scope things out and also allow us to make those applications I mentioned in the presentation. Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. You bet. Yeah. Take care. Bye. Yeah. Bye. Okay. Michael, go ahead. I unmuted you there. We've got two Michaels. You're just muted there, Michael. Michael Shaw, you're next. Oh, got your hand up. I'll lower your hand and let me know if you can figure out how to disable your or deal with Mike. I just want to get to the chat. Alistair, does the railroad ties agreement still stand? We've talked about that. What would be the next project milestone? We talked about that. Will your process still be aimed toward municipal garbage elimination? Oh, that was the Mike. Okay. Michael, I got your question there. Michael Shaw, you're next. We do look at the landfill municipal waste as a potential feedstock opportunity. Certainly, we want to ensure it's biogenic content. Part of the municipal waste challenge that we have, Michael, is having to ensure that we're not throwing backpack garbage into the front end of a gas fire, even though we could. There is a significant carbon intensity calculation that needs to happen. Certainly, as we move forward, we're going to be having those conversations. We've already engaged with the city of Prince George politically and are looking to have those same conversations at the bureaucratic level around what their municipal waste streams look like. I know that they have a landfill challenge as it relates to the lifespan of their landfill coming up. We're happy to have that conversation with them. We're not aimed toward municipal garbage elimination, but we're certainly able to help. Hopefully, that answers your question. Mr. Shaw, you're back. What can I do for you? You're muted. Maybe you just didn't put your hand down. Michael, did you have another question? Oh, yes. I have one more question. You there? Okay. Yep. I was just wondering about the facility, if it's going to be near rail at all or how you plan to get the product to market. Yeah. I mentioned it briefly in my presentation. One of the locations that's in first place in my mind anyways, and it's going through a number of checks. That's part of the pre-FEED process that I just mentioned. But we would have access to rail, and we need rail for both product feedstock receiving and sending, if you will. Okay. Sorry, just one more question, Ryan. When the machine is functioning, all these products that you mentioned, it will be able to produce. Does it produce them all at once? Sorry. Can you ask that one again? I missed the last part. When the machine is operating and when it's producing the products you mentioned, does it produce all these products at once, simultaneously? The products I mentioned before? Yes. No, no. Depending on the back end, there could be a side stream. There could be a side stream of a few different things. That's more a question for our engineering group to answer as to the specifics once we get there. But when we are focused on sustainable aviation fuel, that will be our primary output. I said there might be a side stream of a certain amount of naphtha or some other byproducts that we can still sell, but that will become a little more evident as we move forward. Okay. Excellent. All right. Thank you. Yes. You bet. Okay. Shane, just looking at the chat now. Where do you see Cielo by the end of 2026? ICS and FID, Shane, final investment decision from the front-end engineering and design, the full scoping and design of the project, which is something that we've been working towards since we started the feasibility review a couple of months ago. Very excited, and we're looking at some significant movement. That's the nice thing is that we're developing a project that doesn't encumber us by trying to reverse engineer technology. We're moving forward with those things already with us. It's important to understand that we're developing now, not creating. I can't emphasize that enough. What is a realistic timeline when you'll be? You know what, Michael? Good question. We'll certainly let you know. That would be some, we have some dates in mind, but we're going to be providing that information once we get through our pre-FEED work, which is important work in the next stage gate in our process. I don't want to promise you a date that I blow by, but the pre-FEED work will be, in the next few months, will be completed. Mads, for how far in the future are you going to secure feedstock? I mean, are you confident you can get consistent feedstock income for five years, for instance? Mads, not sure if I'm going to capture the question correctly. For how far into the future will you be able to secure your feedstock income? I mean, are you confident that you can get constant feedstock? I'm assuming you mean feedstock income as far as feedstock supply. The MOU contemplates for us a 10-year time period, and that's what we're looking at as a foundational agreement. The other feedstock agreements that we're going to be sourcing will be supplemental to that. Yes, supply. Okay. Yes, what we're looking to is a 10-year commitment, and we're pretty excited about that. It also has to do with the kind of investment that we're looking at, we need that certainty with respect to feedstock supply. Any other question? Okay. You're welcome. We'll leave it open for a few more minutes. Jim asks, is biomass the only feedstock required? Yes. Short answer, yes. Biomass is a catch-all, right? Biomass can be anything, but what we're sourcing is biogenic biomass, Jim, just to be specific. William's asking, ballpark, how much money will you need to raise to get to production? This is the nice thing about this, William, and thanks for asking that. The slide that I shared earlier, this one, allows us—and I should mention BC Hydro, and I skipped over that, and I should mention that too. I'll get to your question first, William. The money that is going to be required to not only do the pre-FEED and FEED work, a lot of that is covered through a number of different stackable grant opportunities and funding opportunities that are non-dilutive. That is important for everyone to realize, and thanks for that. We will have additional financing needs that will be outside of the grant opportunities, but a fraction of what it would be if we were raising money and capital for this on our own. That is exactly why we went to B.C. Speaking of B.C. and BC Hydro, I want to make sure that everyone understands the BC Hydro circle that I have on the slide here now is meant to understand that the power that we're going to be using with respect to the gasification process and the production at the facility is considered a renewable power. It's a hydro power. That's something that just wasn't available in Alberta. As it relates to our carbon intensity scores, it's a big part of the reason also why we went and chose B.C. The LCFS agreements, obviously, was the biggest one, but the BC Hydro piece was also significant because the power is considered green. It's renewable power because it's hydro power. Not dissimilar to Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec. They have hydro as well. Unfortunately, in Alberta, all of our power is—or almost all of our power is fossil-derived. Just wanted to make that distinction before we got too far down that road. I'll get you back to Q&A tab. All right. Project economics—whoop. Biomass, ballpark, how much money will you need to raise? We talked about that. Some project economics, revenue profitability. Troy, thanks for the question. That is something we'll be providing when we work through our pre-FEED. We already have done some feasibility economics. Can't speak to those yet. What it has allowed us to do is move forward with the next stage gate in our process. That's exciting for us. Expected CapEx to build plant. Again, further to what Troy was saying on the economics, we have a very—as far as a stage five, we'll say estimate, and we'll share those numbers with you when we get through our pre-FEED and get into the specifics around all of that. We see preliminary numbers that are quite compelling. That is through both the SAF credits, but also if we happen to be able to add in some additional opportunities like carbon capture. Have you been able to apply for government credit subsidies already? Yes, we have. I mentioned the Clean Fuels Fund grant. Interestingly enough, the Clean Fuels Fund has, back in 2024, granted to a SAF project in Ontario, similar but different than what we are doing. That grant had already been funded, and that is publicly available information that is there. We have applied for $5 million that I mentioned we are going to hear by the end of the year, hopefully. After the government grant hopefully comes by the end of the year, what other non-dilutive funding can we see going into 2026? Thanks, Robert. The biggest opportunities that we have in front of us in addition to the Clean Fuels Fund are other smaller grants and other funding opportunities, not the least of which is the LCFS credit minting. In addition to that, there's a number of additional federal programs. I mentioned some. I'm just going to—and I've got a list here. The Clean Fuels Fund, there is a Canadian Aviation Climate Action Plan that does have some additional roadmaps as it relates to funding as well. Provincially, there's also some additional initiatives through Clean BC and some other organizations, not the least of which is North X, I believe, as well. We'll provide some updates on that as we move forward, Robert. Does cannabis waste fall into the category of feedstock? Yes, it does, Michael. Thanks for the question. It is considered biogenic, although, again, it's about supply or consistent supply. I'm not aware of any grows in the area of Prince George, but not to say they don't exist. I do believe that they tend to reside more on the cannabis side down in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Will this only be for Canada? Is there any plans to, like before we go international, or is it not needed anymore? Danny, this is one of many projects. The whole impetus behind Project Nexus is the platform we create and the intellectual property that we develop. That's something that we expect to replicate over and over and over again. International feedstock- derived, and the feedstock might change. This is something that we have the ability to go in some different paths, as well as the outputs might change. We will be international at some point in time. Interestingly enough, not to go down a rabbit hole, Canada is kind of viewed as a bit of a safe haven right now for investor capital. I'd like to say that we're interested in jurisdiction to the south, but we need to see policy alignment as it relates to clean fuels or renewable fuels. We're not seeing that. Interestingly enough, a lot of funds have an eye on Canada now as it relates to a number of different reasons, political and otherwise. We have the benefit of an environment, no pun intended, that is conducive to what we're doing. That's Danny. Mark, how do you expect to finance the project? Mark, the easy answer to that is the one I provided earlier on this slide, which is the British Columbia Low Carbon Fuel Standard. We can fund up to half of the project through the minting of carbon LCFS credits. This is non-dilutive equity that is to the benefit of Cielo. And Cielo's project, I should say. In addition to that, I had mentioned Canada Infrastructure Bank and other Sustainability Innovation Fund as well, and so on and so forth. We have done a significant amount of legwork around identifying the financing. I mentioned the four legs to the stool, and financing was one of them. George. Hey, George. Who would be our customers for SAF? Is anyone else producing SAF locally? We are not aware of any other SAF production in British Columbia. Interestingly enough, the only—so the customers would be domestic and would be in YVR, the mandated SAF blending by the province and by extension, the federal government has a significant shortage of supply on the SAF front. With that, along with credits, we're going to be selling this domestically. Certainly, we could sell it internationally, but the LCFS grant or credit, rather, would be for the domestic supply or domestic production. We expect to be and have had conversations already with Offtake. Are you expecting to have your feedstock supply deals further completed within three months so you can focus fully on installing the technology? It's definitely a focus. As we work through pre-FEED, identifying the feedstock in the next—during our pre-FEED process will be a part of that, Mads, for sure. Robert, do you expect to complete the foundational feedstock agreement by the end of the year? The end of this year, we will be working through that pre-FEED into the new year, Robert. The most important part for us was establishing the feedstock volume and supply that we can agree on. The business terms and everything else fundamentally are what we believe to be in the interest of the project. We will be moving forward through that stage gate during pre-FEED and get you something to chew on once we're finished that pre-FEED. Michael, what can we do to help Cielo? I'll let you know when to bring the shovel to Prince George. Outside of that, I appreciate the offer. I know you and I have talked every once in a while, so we'll certainly keep in touch as it relates to that. How is this RJ? Oh, I like your initials, RJ. How is the project different from the previous arrangement you had with Expander that was dissolved? Significantly different from a scope and scale and location. Beyond that, there are similarities in the output and what we discussed in the jurisdiction in Alberta, but it was not, quite frankly, that the numbers did not work. We wanted something of scale that allowed us to leverage a different kit. That is how it differs. Ian, do you have a model carbon intensity range in grams per megajoule for the Prince George SAF, GH Genius? We do, and we will be providing that. We do know where we will sit. Interestingly enough, that BC Hydro circle that was on the slide before helped with that with respect to that. We did model out, thanks to our friends at BrightSpot, with the carbon intensity score. Interestingly enough, province and the feds use different standards. The feds need GHGenius, and the province—I think I've got that right. I'm sure Brandon's going to be schooling me afterwards about this, at Brightspot. We had to do it both from a federal and a provincial standpoint. We have modeled the CI score. How much fuel can the technology that you have in sight produce each month? Mads, great question. We have a preliminary amount of volume that we're expecting, and we'll let you know once we get through this next pre-FEED process. I know everyone's been so patient, and I thank everyone, but we want to make sure that the numbers aren't going to get restated and everything else. We're very excited about what we believe is going to come out of the next stage gate process. Yes, B.C. uses GHGenius, CFR uses—yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Ian. I had it backwards. I had the feds as GHGenius, but CFR uses the other one. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Looking at the chat and seeing everything. I know there's a few less people now, but certainly, as we go forward, I want to make sure that everyone understands and realizes that we're going to host these when we can. The next update you'll get from us will be after the AGM in December. Looking forward to that. It's not that far away. We'll have not much in the way of an update other than to answer additional questions that might come forward. This will be the most significant thing until we next talk to each other, most likely on December the 18th. I appreciate everyone's time. I'll hang out here for a few more minutes in case something else comes on. Certainly, everyone, thank you again. We'll make sure the recording is made available to everybody as well once we finish here. All right. I don't see anything more in the chat. No one's raising their hand. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Thanks for attending. Thanks, everyone, for being on the webinar today. I look forward to, at some point, seeing you all again in the future. Have a great upcoming weekend. We're just about there. Anyways, thanks, everyone. We'll talk to you again.