Good morning all and welcome to today's sell side call on the occasion of Bluefield Solar Income Fund Limited's annual results for the period ended 30th of June 2025. I'm going to shortly pass across to the Bluefield Partners team, James Armstrong and Neil Wood there. We also have with us today John Scott and Michael Gibbons from the Board of Directors as well. Before they kick off though, just the usual reminder, if you could please remain on mute for the duration of the call and we will be taking questions at the end from sell side analysts through the chat facility. Please do feel free to add those as we go along and we will come to them at the end in good order. Right, I'll start sharing my slides and I think we're going to start off with James. We are. Thank you, Henry. Good morning everyone. Thank you for joining the results. As Henry says, for Bluefield Solar Income Fund Limited for the period ending June 25th. I'm joined as usual by Neil Wood, Bluefield Partners, with investment adviser to the company, but also joined by John Scott and Michael Gibbons. John is today the former Chair of Bluefield Solar Income Fund Limited and Michael today is the Chair as of this morning. Great to have you with us. The reason John and Michael are here is because there's been a significant announcement regarding the strategic initiative that John announced in February. What we're going to do is go through the presentation in a fairly standard form but a little bit abridged so that we can get to John giving the update in terms of his Chairman's statement and then we can open up to Q and A after that. Henry, if we could go to page five, please. Great. In terms of where we have focused our attention over the past 12 months, the three areas: strategic partnerships, we'll talk about GLIL, which continues to be a great success for Bluefield Solar Income Fund Limited and more widely I think is certainly a leading example of what you can do in the sector. We focus very heavily on our proprietary pipeline that's been moved forward very well and we've got over 400 megawatts of CFD approvals. The pipeline has been shifted forward very materially, which is a great source of value and potential growth for the company. Last but not least is the strategic initiative which, as they say, John will talk about at the end of the presentation. On to page six please, Henry. I think I'll talk about GLIL in a little bit of detail on the next slide, but in terms of what we can control, it's been a very good year. I'm going to exclude the share price obviously from that bit as what we can control. It's actually been a very, very successful, very busy year where we have not only created value but also protected value. The GLIL phase 3 has moved that partnership forward. We've refinanced the RCF and have obviously acknowledged that we'd like to pay that down when we can and start, which we have been doing over the past 12 to 18 months. We've also actually, as part of GLIL, refinanced the Lyceum financing. We've done significant amounts of capital recycling. There's been divestment in the period where there's been close to 200 megawatts co-located and ready to build projects. There's also been some investment which was. We've also, which is part of the board's, it really links to what John will talk about in terms of the, whereas the value that we see in BSIF, part of that is the development pipeline. There's been an investment of close to 250 megawatts of greater build solar projects in the northeast of England, which is where BSIF have bought the minority stake. They were the majority owner. Lots of different areas where there have been significant successes. If you go onto the next page, Henry, on page seven, really, again, the standout in terms of success has been the GLIL partnership. It's probably good just to reference the timeline of this, which is that we announced the GLIL partnership less than two years ago and as of today it's got over 400 megawatts of operational assets, it's got over 200 megawatts of assets which are in construction or development, which is part of that phase three, which is the big sort of announcement in August this year. Post period announcement it's realized a lot. That partnership has realized close to £120 million. That would be very good with it. £120 million of capital has been returned to BSIF through that. There's also been a partnership which has highlighted the strengths of the Bluefield Group platform, where we've got development capability through to operational capability, but it's also been one where we've been able to keep those very valuable bits of the business going forwards, which are things like the development pipeline. It's been another great 12 months in relation to that particular relationship. On to page eight please. Thanks, Henry. The key highlights, we often do these charts. You take the top row. We've seen gross asset value has dropped somewhat over the past 12 months. No great surprise there. You're getting largely actually driven through. A. Drop into the power prices. You're going to see that in a market which is shut down, you're going to see that coming down. Obviously, looking at the middle of the top row, the best example of that is where you're getting the NAV per share has dropped from close to £1.30 per share down to just shy of £1.17 per share. That is a function of dividends being paid out but also slightly lower power prices. On the top right, though, very, very good, very healthy operational cash flow, higher than last year but also close to the highest record we have, which was two years ago, which was just in excess of £100 million. Very, very healthy on that side. Leverage has increased a little bit on the middle row there; it's gone up to 46%, which is partly due to the buybacks but also the Lyceum gearing. You'll see in the middle there the overall leverage average cost of debt has gone from 3.4% to just closer to 4%, but still very attractive in terms of overall cost for shareholders. With an average duration of 11 years to go, which, as you know, people are the watchers, and Neil will talk about this, the watchers of BSIF, we've got that debt at the HoldCo level, so not at the asset level, and it's got long duration amortizing debt down the bottom. Some pretty remarkable numbers, certainly bottom right. Dividend cover, a healthy 1.2 times. If you add in carry forward, it's 1.7. The dividend targets the board announced this morning, an increase for the period ending June 2026, is going to 9 pence per share, so remains one of the highest in the whole infrastructure space on a pence per share basis. That's post debt amortization, I should add. The dividend yield today, because of where the share price is, and that's the challenging part, is close to 11%, which remains interesting when you think about the predictability and the forecastability and the stability of the revenue streams over the long term. There we are. Page—oh, I think it might be—yes, page nine, please. Thank you. We go through this. I think this is a—I won't labor this too much, but you've got a very defensive portfolio. This is the portfolio ex Lyceum, overwhelmingly solar with a bit of wind. You can see down there you've got the high levels of operational cash flow, which is that 1.08 times gross cover for dividends. We then will pay down the principal debt, which largely comes in the first half of the financial year, so up to December, and then you drop down to the 1.2 to 1.7 times cover. Even in a sort of a falling power market where we've captured some very attractive rates, it remains a very, very healthy proposition. As you can see here, where does the surplus cash flow go? It goes into the dividend, which is obviously how these businesses were originally set up, and onto the next slide and then final slide please for hand over to Neil to talk about the capital structure and valuation. Not too much has changed here. This is the total portfolio including Lyceum. The interesting bit, if you look at what we've been planning over the past five or so years, is if you look at the donut charts on the right-hand side, the donut to the left with revenue split, you can see a sky blue CFD bit there. That is yieldsoft. If we were in the position to be able to fund the business correctly, we have 400 megawatts of CFDs which have been consented and approved in auction, and we've got another 300 megawatts in the AR7 bucket. Effectively, I don't know how AR7 will go, but just being optimistic because we tend to do pretty well in those, you're looking at really being able to double the size of the company if it was able to be funded properly with CFD assets, which we think are very attractive going forwards. You would see a lot more sky blue in a few years' time than you have there. Overall, still a very, very defensive, very stable, very high quality portfolio that's performing very well. With that, I will hand over to Neil to talk about capital structure and valuation. Thank you very much, James. Good morning all. We've shown this slide a number of times, so people who have tuned in will be familiar with its contents. I think it's worth always reminding people the way that we have approached debt within the capital structure and it's been essentially one of deliberate simplicity. As James has mentioned, we've very deliberately put all of our long term financings at portfolio level and we have also ensured that the amortization profile of that debt is matching the regulated life of the revenue streams. We have always looked to have fixed interest rate debt as well. Why have we done that? There are three core reasons behind that. Firstly, we feel that long term amortizing debt is most suitable for this asset class, especially in relation to removing interest rates and refinancing risk. Secondly, we have found that this achieves a lower overall cost of debt than shorter term amortizing or bullet repayment facilities. James has alluded to it already. We have an all in cost of circa 3.9% on our long term financing. Very, very attractive rates. Thirdly, perhaps in the current climate and looking into the future more pertinently is as the bar chart at the bottom of the slide illustrates, as you move into the 2030s, there is an annual deleveraging of the portfolio. By the time we get into the mid-2030s the portfolio leverage will be close to 0%. That's at a point in time in the life cycle of the assets where there's still 10 to 15 years of operational life remaining. Why is that important? It means today we have a debt structure that is providing the perfect platform for the future. This natural dearing that is inherent in the portfolio at present is providing significant headroom as we look into the future for utilizing debt to potentially fund the next phase of growth should circumstances be permitting of the asset base. Henry, if you turn over to valuation, please. Just pausing for a moment around sort of more market based element. Higher debt costs and wider economic uncertainty as everyone has seen across the market, has materially reduced interest and transaction activity for aging renewable operating portfolios. What has happened is the demand that was present for operating portfolios has shifted almost exclusively to what could be determined combined opportunities. These are portfolios or companies that contain operational assets alongside a pipeline of development projects. They enable an investor to marry the benefit of steady cash flows from an operational base with the reinvestment and growth opportunity that the development pipeline offers. As James has alluded to, this company was one of the first in the sector to identify this transition in appetite and hence the establishment of strategic partnership with GLIL. Looking at the past 12 months, as James has outlined, this company has sold a ROC-backed portfolio of 112 megawatts. It has also complemented that with the sale of a 210 megawatt collection of ready to build projects, all into the joint venture. I think the key point to note, aside from the cash generation that has been achieved, is that the values achieved across both of those sales were almost certainly higher than if they had been done just on a standalone basis. This really outlines the merits of an attractive proposition in the round. Just before turning over the slide, one note of caution, specifically in relation to the discount rate that's being applied to the June 25th valuation. With gilt rates remaining stubbornly high, and we have outlined this in previous presentations, we are now really in a place where the prospect of increases to the discount rate in future valuation cycles is really beginning to heighten if we do not see gilt rates starting to fall. Thanks, Henry. Just onto the last slide before I hand back to James. A quick pop, skip, and a jump through the NAV bridge. With the company set up as a full payout model, it's distributing all its earnings that it generates to shareholders. What this means is that assuming all valuation assumptions were to remain equal each year, the NAV is going to fall by pretty much the dividends that it's paying out. In simplistic terms, we have a company and a NAV that is inherently in slow runoff. That is the scenario that you can see playing out across the bridges on the chart, where the movements can be categorized into two essential themes. One is around cash utilization, so that's the payment of dividends and, as James mentioned, share buybacks. The second theme of changes relates to amendments to valuation assumptions, which in this case over the last 12 months have been negative. Those are in relation to power prices, which have come down, REGOs, which have also come down. There is an update for in-period operational performance and a slight adjustment to overall operating costs. With that, I will hand back to yourself, James. Thank you, Neil. Yeah, just before I hand over to John, three slides which I think are important in terms of a reminder of the reason that we've had the success we've had with GLIL and some of the key differentiators in the way that BSIF and Bluefield, the Bluefield Group, is set up, which again probably leads to what John will talk about in terms of the strategic initiatives. Probably the first thing is this end-to-end platform that provides the services to BSIF. We have development through to operations, a circa 140-person strong team of people that are creating and protecting value for shareholders. It's been one of the big differentiators for us. In essence, it's an external, at the moment, it's an externally managed IPP. That platform has been one of the ways that we have and we are set up for growth, but we're also set up for long-term management of the assets. That is, as I said, one of the first very key differentiators. On the next slide, on 17, another part is the—so it builds on what Neil was saying about the capital structure, and it's something which the capital structure we have, where you've got debt at the UK HoldCo level, is very material in terms of the flexibility it gives the company to be able to drive and optimize its power sales revenues. That's been one of, again, the consistent standout features. It's not that we can—what we do is we focus because we don't have a bank basically telling us what we can do with our power strategy. We have complete flexibility, we could float, we can fix at the short end of the power curve, we could enter into long-term contracts. What it is is just pure and simple optionality for our shareholders. That means in any prevailing market, obviously, clearly we can't buck the trend of what the prevailing market is, but whatever that price is, we have proven very consistently we can optimize it and we tend to have a premium that we can achieve against every other fund that has a bank telling them they've got to enter into long-term suboptimal contracts. It tends to be a sort of 30% to 50% increase. Over time, what we've designed for shareholders is something which is very flexible and very effective, and it continues to drive out very high power prices and optimized power prices for our shareholders. On page 18, final comments from me before I hand over to John is the development pipeline. That's something which, you know, we designed this 2019, early 2020. We had no developments at the beginning of 2020 and we've now pushed through a pipeline that is 1.4 gigawatts. What you can see if you look at the progress from a year ago, if you're looking on the left hand side of the chart, you've got now over a gigawatt of assets which are consented and are ready to build. That's something with the available funding, those have grid connections which are going to come through between 2026 and 2030. It's incredibly valuable, it's incredibly powerful for the business. It needs the right capital structure to be able to fund it. If you look on the donut chart on the right hand side, you've got this very large capacity of CFDs which have already been given, which have already been successful in the auctions. As mentioned earlier, we've got a large portfolio which is going into the AR7, which is the current CFD auction, which again, we expect to add to that area. It's very, very, you know, it's something we've spoken about a lot over the past few years, but it's one which is when you add it into the platform. The power sales strategy and this area of sort of differential, it's a very, very sort of key part of the story of Bluefield Solar Income Fund Limited and the Bluefield Group. With that we go to page 20. I'll hand over to John to talk about the update on strategic initiatives. Thank you, James. I gave you a rather longer statement, Jim's statement than usual, roughly twice as long, but I think I had twice as much to say. We did do a huge amount of work in the past 10 months on looking at opportunities to sell some or all of our assets, or indeed the whole of the business. We discovered fairly quickly that there was far more interest in an integrated model than just selling off parcels of assets, or indeed the assets as a whole. It had been my hope until quite recently that today we would be actually talking about a firm recommendable bid that we could put before shareholders. That fell apart about a month ago. Since then we have been considering alternatives. You will understand that in the number of weeks we've had since we realized the change of direction, this is still very much work in progress with a lot to be discussed with shareholders. But. It was clear to all of us that although our current business model works, it does, as I say very frankly in my statement, it's a steady, steady erosion of our capital base. We have to continually, in the absence of being able to raise fresh capital for the business, which has been the case now for two and a half years, and with no, in my view, no immediate prospect of a change to that. We either accept the current business, which we can continue to pay a very good dividend, but long term, we're running the business, we will be running the business into the ground, or we look to do something different. Our starting point is to look at internalizing Bluefield Partners and their associated businesses so that we have the basis for an independent power producer. If we do that, we then have to look at our capital structure, our debt and particularly our dividend policies. I suspect that if we cease to be treated as an investment trust and more of a corporate, we would have access to different capital markets and a different investor base. That's quite a long way down the road. I'm not ruling out possibility of raising fresh capital. I do not believe that in our current, in our current categorization that investor sentiment is going to change towards us. I should also say all the other people who are in the same box as we are. I talk about being becalmed in a sea of capital starvation and that's exactly how it feels. My expectation, and as now the ex Chairman, I'm allowed to say expectation, is that we will go for a largely self-funded growth model where we have a different dividend policy which is code for a lower payout, higher retention and using the surpluses we're generating year by year to reinvest in our business. I'm absolutely convinced that that will produce better shareholder returns in the long run, albeit at lower yield in the short run. To repeat myself, these are early days. We have a huge program of engagement with shareholders in the coming days and weeks and we will be wiser as well as the shareholders at the end of that process. Thank you. Can I hand back to you, James? Thank you, John. If we just go, I think there's one, it's just the final slide. Thank you, John, for that. You go forward to the concluding remark. Just repeating where we started from, I think it's been a very good year overall. We focused on how we can keep and retain value for the company. As John has just said, there also needs to be a reimagining of what we are to take advantage of the key strengths of the business. Some of those are quite unique to BSIF. I think it is important to be able to talk to shareholders about that because we have the opportunity, if we get the support of the shareholders, to be able to reimagine the business and create a business that is largely, as John said, self-funding and able to grow and take advantage of those unique characteristics of the platform and the large proprietary pipeline. With that, Henry, that is the end of the formal part of the presentation and we look forward to answering any questions. Thank you very much indeed. All welcome questions from the sell side on today's call. Please do put those into the chat bar facility and I'll come to them in turn and read them out today. First of all, from Adam Kelly at JPM, why was the cost of the inverter replacement plan not previously included in the NAV if the issue was identified at the time of the March NAV? Good question, Adam. I think this is one of timing within the cycle. We were open in March that we had uncovered a systemic defect, and we were clear that there would need to be investment into the replacement of those specific types of inverters. I think we signaled to the market that there was a cost that was going to need to be included. The difference between then and now is simply the certainty upon which we can run the numbers through the valuation. We move from in March being aware of a position and in June being in a place where it trips over the requirement to recognize it. It's simply a timing point. Also, the auditors, if I recall, said you can't do it until you know more about the timing. It's not clear enough. We'd have done it early if it hadn't been to the auditors. That's my recollection. To round it off, my recollection is there is a modest allowance in the March NAV for this, given the commitments that we made at the time. It's one minute. Yes, less than one. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. If that answers your question, Adam, thank you for it. Again, another call for just placing questions in the chat bar facility, please. One here from Marcus Jaffa. These are probably directed towards the Board. These ones. Can you provide any color regarding the interest level for the portfolio that existed at prices below the preferred bidder? Why do you think BSIF would achieve a higher valuation through an internalization rather than seeking to sell the existing portfolio to an existing IPP? Finally, we can take these one at a time, or whichever one you wish. How do you plan to deal with the management contract and price of Bluefield Partners? Business elements not associated with servicing BSIF. Obviously, I don't know how many of those we'll be able to answer today, but pass them over to you guys. Let's take the last one first. Clearly, if shareholders are supportive, and we hope they will be, and we'll be exploring the situation with them over the next couple of weeks, one of the things that is on the critical path is a discussion with Bluefield Partners about the potential for internalization, and that will be an important discussion and negotiation, and we look forward to having it. We thought we should explore with shareholders first in order to get sufficient support for that. That's one of the key issues, and clearly it's well on our radar, and discussions will take place. Great. I think, Marcus, in terms of the sort of the appetite, as John said in his statement and what he's just said, it became very, very clear that, first of all, it's not a great time to sell assets. That's the first thing. It's not. The board, there was nothing that was off the table in terms of the deliberations around the strategic initiative. You only need to look at what's going on in the market to know that it's not a good time just to—it's absolutely a buyer's market. If you want to create value for the shareholders, you've got to come up with something slightly different because it's not going to be a good outcome. It won't be a good—or, for some reason, it's not going to be a good sort of—it won't be the best outcome in our view. It was really demonstrable that over the past few months, what has educated the board and certainly Bluefield Partners is that having something differentiated, which is a growth model, is far more potentially interesting for shareholders, whether it's public or private, because you've got this built-in capacity to take advantage of the platform and also the development pipeline. Just to be clear, there aren't a lot of people that can do this. It's great, you can say there's an IPP, tell me another independent power producer out there that does exactly what we do. You've got some good old utilities there who don't have any specialist solar coverage. By the way, people know these conversations have been going on. It's not like if there was some interest in the assets, people would go for it. That was the process I think we all went through, which was interesting, where in order to try and optimize the value for the shareholders, the integrated model looks like the most successful. I think the earlier part of the question was about why do we have such optimism in that idea, which is our preferred idea. I think we've done a fair amount of thinking, a fair amount of work on it, and we've concluded that this idea is likely to achieve a lower cost base. Clearly, in the absence of an IA fee, there is the potential for improvement of costs. It will improve alignment. We would expect multiple efficiencies. As I say, we've done enough modeling to believe that given the growth that would be inherent in such a model, we could achieve far higher total shareholder returns than has been the case with the existing model. There was also a question about was there an under bidder we could have gone back to? Oh, yes. The answer is no. Okay, thank you very much. Thanks. Marcus, another call please. For questions, please put them into the chat bar facility and we'll come to them in turn. Ian, just waiting for yours through that facility. Kales, you're able to do that. Otherwise, unmute yourself. I actually can't find the chat function. Apologies. I forgive you. Sorry. A couple, if I may. Obviously, in the sort of strategic options you've talked about materially higher total return potential, and clearly that lends itself to the obvious question: where do you see that return coming out? We've heard from a couple of your peers where they think returns can be delivered. You've Octopus at 9% to 11%. You've got Foresight talking 7% to 9%. Obviously, the attribution between income and capital hasn't been clarified, but given you've got such a near-term proprietary pipeline of subsidy-supported assets, what do you think is achievable return-wise from this new strategic option? I mean, I think you sort of. Shall I go for that one first? Yeah. I mean there's no point changing the strategy, Colette, unless you think there are going to be a change in return profile which is beneficial to the shareholders. You know, you've got at the moment which is a, you know, the standard kind of 7% to 9% on the sort of income play if you can create the correct capital structure which balances the use of leverage and the distribution of dividend. Our view is that you're looking at, you know, low double digit across the portfolio that we can see. Now the starting point which you mentioned is we have a very, we have an inbuilt advantage at the moment is that we have a proprietary pipeline which is being funded at a fraction of the cost that you would see in the open market. You start from a position which is materially better off than anyone else and then we have the. Within the platform we've got the ability to construct and fund those assets in the most efficient way. We see a highly accretive model available if we can get the rights, the balance, and that's part of the consultation. It is certainly something where we are extremely excited about the ability to deliver, as John said, a materially better total return to shareholders with the right structure and with the right vehicle. Just on that around the debt piece, obviously leverage will play a part in that. We can look across the renewable development European operators and we know what their net debt to EBITDA ratios are and what typical rating agencies look for through a cycle. Do you have any, within the modelling, are you able to sort of share an idea of where we should expect that to be? John hasn't mentioned anything in the statement, but clearly we are sub-optimally leveraged at the moment. When you look at, let's just take, you start with the CFD pipeline where you've got 100% regulated revenues for 15 going out to 20 years. You know, sort of 40% leverage is not the right amount. You also don't need to be overly aggressive on the debt side to create a much better sort of balance for shareholders. It's about, there's a lot of headroom in terms of the debt for people without it being an aggressive strategy. We haven't been specific. Of course, as Michael said, we've done a lot of modeling on this, so we do know and it's something we probably just need to talk to shareholders about. It's something which remains within a very prudent level of debt, one that can really optimize the potential returns for shareholders. Brilliant. Thanks, Colette. Got a question here from Ian Skiller questioning the reason why the NAV was restated from £117.8 million to £116.6 million. Please. I can take that one, Ian. That's essentially the same answer that Adam was questioning. During the course of the financial accounts process, we brought in the inverter replacement allocation. It's simply the recognition of the circa £6 million to £7 million that we identified in March that has come materially into the valuation, or rather the NAV, between the unaudited and the audited. Brilliant. One from his colleague Will, what sort of level might the dividend need to be reduced to in order to enact this model? I just don't think we need to get into the numbers at this stage. It's a preliminary stage. We want to talk to shareholders about it, but it is clear that the two levers available to us in order to fund, to self-fund the growth pipeline that James has talked about are the debt structure and the dividend policy. What we're looking for is the optimum balance between the two to achieve the shareholders' return we're looking for. Great. I've got one more question available at the moment, so if you do have one, please do shuttle it across on the chat function or email it across to myself directly. This one from Joe Pepper at RBC mentioned the idea that BSIF merges with its manager and becomes a single corporate entity. Have there been any discussions yet about any of the proposed terms for this? No, they have not, not of any. Substance, but I mean there hasn't been. Jo, it's a very good question. I mean this would be, just to be clear, just this is a, if it's going to be enacted properly, it needs a 75% vote for shareholders. It will obviously be something that will need to get their support. Clearly, it's going to have to be a very balanced proposal to make sure that it works for all parties. As Michael says, you know, that's a little bit early on, but I think everyone is realistic about the fact that it needs to be very transparent and due process. Very good. One more from Marcus Jaffer at Peel Hunt. What is Bluefield Partners AUM outside of BSIF currently? We've got, it's about, let me think, probably about £700 million, including some of the European. Outside of BSIF. Yeah, yeah. Good stuff. Charlie Murphy now from Singers. How long is the consultation expected to take place, and when should the market expect news? I think we're looking to see rather large numbers of shareholders, I'm glad to say, over the next two weeks. I think we should be in a position to be able to determine the degree of shareholder support for this idea, probably within a month or so. Thanks, Michael. The last one on my screen currently, unless we get any more, Priyan at Marex, long-term gilt rates are largely unchanged over 2025. Shouldn't this be considered in the current valuation? Separately, what is the pricing environment for underlying assets? Is the market treating all assets the same, regardless of their pros or cons? I can take that one. I think it's good. The question on discount rate is a really valid one, and I think. What. We're seeing in the market at the minute is, I guess, a split in interest as outlined. There is less interest in operational assets in isolation. You're right, there is an argument that discount rates could, I mean, across the sector could be increasing. We haven't chosen to do that at this point in the cycle because we have transacted during the course of the year on operational assets that are in line with our navigation. We've got direct evidence within this business for capital recycling that is supportive of the Director's valuation. I think if you're looking out across the sector, yes, there is absolutely pressure on discount rates and I don't think it would, you know, we've hinted at it in the accounts and I've mentioned it this morning. I don't think people are going to be surprised if people start to push the discount rates up specifically on operational, just on the operational portfolios. Second point to your question, not all assets are equal and not all development pipelines are equal. That's the other thing that is happening out there in the markets. There is far more judiciary being paid to certainly the operating, but actually more pertinently the development pipelines that people have. There is a lot, there is a lot of development pipeline out there for sale at the moment and ensuring that you have the right mix between CFD allocations. AR4, AR5, AR6, all of those have different strike prices, so they carry different values. Location of the projects makes a difference, those up north versus down south because of the irradiation element, and then more material is the grid costs the projects have. Pipelines can be, yeah, there is a lot of interrogation on pipelines and there is a lot of value differences across them. Brilliant. Thanks, Priyan. Question here from Chris Brown at JPM. Can you give an indication of the cost base and profitability of Bluefield Partners? Anything you can say on that? No. From Matthew Reed here at Quoted Data, has any work been done on the cost of integrating Bluefield Partners into the business? Yeah, it's been looked at. There has been work done and, as I say, it's a process that will be, depending on the conversations, as Michael said, over the next couple of weeks. That's something that will be an absolute priority with the company's advisors to look at that. As I say, it's going to be done, has to be done with the full support of the shareholders with a very high bar in terms of the shareholder vote. That, to me, drives what will probably be a very sensible process. I think that's the point. There has to be a balance between the amount of work you do in order to take the idea to shareholders, which is what we're doing right now. We've done enough, we're sure, to be clear that the idea, the model is a feasible one. We're very clear on that. To do more work and to have the negotiations and the other aspects of developing the proposal without having already talked to shareholders, I think would be inappropriate. We want to make sure we have shareholder support and consent before going a lot further. Thanks, Michael. One more from Chris Brown here. Will there be a separate vote on the price agreed for Bluefield Partners? Anything we can say on that today? I think it gets. I don't know. Yeah, we were 75% supporter shareholders. Yeah. I think internalization requires 50%, I think, but other aspects of the idea do require 75%, so will need a lot of shareholders for. Cool. Yeah, they're all wrapped up in the same thing, to be honest. One last call, perhaps, for any further questions. We have gone through all the ones that were on my screen. Wonderful. I shall take that as a sign of widespread contentment and pass back perhaps to James Armstrong for any closing remarks for this screen. Great. Thank you, everyone, for your time and the questions, because it's really great to be able to kick this off. We look forward, as John and Michael say, to talking extensively with the shareholders on this development over the coming weeks. Thank you very much this morning. Brilliant. That concludes today's analyst call. Thank you very much indeed for joining us.