Glad you're here for our next presentation with PotlatchDeltic. We are delighted that Eric Cremers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, and Wayne Wasechek, CFO of the company, are here for our discussion. We thought it might be a good idea maybe to start with kind of an opening comment or two from Eric just on the business industry, and then we'll get into Q&A. So, Eric, take it away. Yeah, thanks, George. And joining me here is Wayne Wasechek, our CFO, and he'll handle some of the questions. So we're a timber REIT. We have about a $4.5 billion enterprise value. And what comprises our timber REIT really are three different business units. The first one is Timberlands. We have 2.1 million acres, roughly 600,000 acres in Idaho, and about a million and a half acres spread throughout the Southeastern part of the United States. And with those acres, we harvest about 7.5 million tons of logs per year. Our second business unit is Wood Products. We have six lumber mills and one plywood mill in our wood products division. We produce about 1.2 billion board feet of lumber per year. And we also have an industrial-grade plywood mill that produces plywood for high-end applications like boats, RVs, trailers, that sort of thing. Then the final business unit that we have is our Real Estate business. You can imagine of those 2.1 million acres that we own, some of that land might have more value sold to somebody else for conservation or somebody trying to protect their view shed or for development, what have you. The value for that land could be higher in that kind of an application as opposed to it being used for timberland. We sell roughly 1% of our acreage every year in those higher- value- type opportunities. We sell that land at roughly three to five times what the underlying value of the land would be if we kept it for timberland. We also have a master- planned community as part of our Real Estate business unit. We sell about anywhere from 100 to 150 residential lots in Chenal Valley, the master- planned community in Little Rock. And we also sell about five to 15 acres of commercial land in Chenal Valley at really high prices. Got a great balance sheet. We're investment- grade- rated, 20% debt- to- EV. I think the one thing that makes us unusual relative to our peers is that we're the timber REIT that's most leveraged to lumber. In other words, our earnings go up and down pretty dramatically with lumber prices. And we actually like that as a strategy because we're very bullish on the outlook for lumber. Lumber prices troughed last year, but they're headed higher. They're headed higher as we speak right now, not just because of the tariffs that Trump is threatening, but for a lot of different reasons. We're bullish on the outlook for lumber. And just to give you a sense of it, for every $10 change in lumber prices, our P&L has impacted about $15 million at the EBITDA line. And that's significantly higher than either Rayonier, which really has no exposure to lumber, or to Weyerhaeuser, which is, I think, roughly 30% exposed. So with that backdrop, I'll pause there, George, and let you ask your questions. Thanks, Eric. And thank you, Wayne, again for being here. We want to make this interactive, so if you have questions, please fire away. One of the things that the company's obviously talked a lot about is the Waldo project. And so if you can remind us a little bit about what the profile is, I think you're going to get an extra 80 million board feet. I think your processing costs come down something like 30%. And in terms of earnings benefit, I think through the mid-cycle, what did you say, like $30 million if I'm not. 25-30 million of incremental EBITDA, yeah. That's wonderful. Yeah. Tell us what allowed you to do that project and get what looks to be a great return. And are there any other Waldos in your back pocket that we'll see about in PotlatchDeltic over the next few years? Yeah, it's a good question, so Waldo is a small town in South- Central Arkansas. We picked up that sawmill when we bought Deltic back in 2018. Waldo sits, that sawmill sits in a fantastic wood basket with an oversupply of large logs, and so clearly the fiber was available for us to build a mill or expand our mill to significantly higher- capacity levels. The mill had been running when we bought it around 200 million board feet, and when this project is fully complete, well, the project is actually done. We're ramping up production right now. When we finish ramping up production, we'll be at about 285 million board feet per year. Processing costs are going to come down 30%. Recovery will improve by 6%. Recovery is a term that we use in the industry that represents the amount of logs that are needed to produce a given amount of lumber. Recovery is really important because 60% of the cost of making lumber is actually the raw material feedstock of logs. That really matters. We also had a fantastic workforce at the Waldo sawmill. We wouldn't have undertaken this project at just any of our mills. It really, we really, to execute on a project like this, it comes down to people. It also takes the good wood basket. The project has been great. We're really happy we did it. We think when it's fully up to its boiler or nameplate capacity, I should say, it's going to earn us an incremental $25 million per year of EBITDA. Second part of your question, are there other opportunities? We're currently going through our mill network as we sit here today to look for other opportunities. We do believe there may be another opportunity. It's too soon for us to say definitively because we haven't finished our studies, but I think it's reasonable to assume that there will be another project announced at some point in the future. Thanks for that, Eric. You know, the question, right, the staffing, the workforce at any operation or any mill is crucial. And so what was unique about the particular considerations with Waldo's workforce that made it an appropriate- additive reason to make the investment? Yeah, so it was a workforce that was very loyal to that mill and to the company. And you can imagine across our mill network, every mill is a little bit different. But in particular, Waldo was, the employees there were very loyal to our workforce. I think they're also, that mill was really important to the livelihood of those employees. And that group had been offered the opportunity to join a union over the years, and it kept rejecting joining a union. And that encouraged us to think that these folks actually feel like they're part of the team. And that matters. You want a workforce that feels like they're part of the team. And that's what we wanted, and that's what we got with Waldo. Thanks for that. One of the things also that we've talked a lot about at the conference is capital allocation. In fact, we had a separate panel on this yesterday. Certainly, that's something that Potlatch lives and breathes every day because of how crucial it is to the Timberlands business and timber overall. Can you, if there is, a couple- three points that you think define how Potlatch looks at capital allocation, perhaps even if it's a little bit unique relative to the rest of the industry you see it, what would those points be if you want to relate them to potential investors? Yeah, I would say first and foremost on the capital allocation side of things, everybody wants to grow their business, right? We all want to get bigger, more powerful, that sort of thing. I think for us, what maybe makes this unique is that on the acquisition front for timberland, we are very careful to not overpay. And we have seen this with others in the industry that, I mean, we're all bidding on the same properties, make no mistake. We're looking at a property, a competitor's looking at a property. We submit a bid, they submit a bid. Ultimately, we might lose that particular transaction. And we look at what the competitor's paying. And we're looking at it saying, how can they possibly pay that much for that piece of land? We valued it at X price, and they bid and paid X plus 25% or what have you. And we see this time and again in the industry where people are paying a lot of money for timberland. We think it's below their cost of capital. We will bid to our cost of capital. We will not bid below our cost of capital under any circumstance. I think people are kind of giddy about timberland as an investment vehicle. There's lots of reasons why timberland is a great investment too, by the way, diversification, inflation hedge, all these sorts of things. But at the end of the day, it comes down to we don't want to get the winner's curse. We don't want to be the company that wins the acquisition, but then ultimately suffers because we overpaid for the acquisition. So I think on the capital allocation front, George, we're always trying to grow our business, but we're only going to consummate deals if we exceed, if the returns exceed our cost of capital. I would say on the share- repurchase side of things, I've seen companies time and again blindly just repurchase shares regardless of where their stock is trading. And that's not how we operate. We operate with a philosophy of buying back our stock, but only when it's trading at a deep discount to net asset value. And I think we've been awfully darn good. If you look at our track record of when we buy back our stock or when we issue stock for acquisitions, we'll issue it at pretty high levels, and we'll buy it back at pretty low levels, which is what you want to do as a public company. I think those two things make us unique in the industry. Eric, can you remind us what the company's longer-term goal, if you've put it out, is for the dividend and its growth rate over time? Because again, dividend is a way that if you're not careful, it can be sneaky- dangerous in terms of capital allocation and then ultimately cost of capital when people start to worry about that. So help us understand how you look at dividend policy and the growth outlook. Yeah, we don't have a publicly stated goal for growing our dividend. We think it'd be very dangerous to state a goal because you don't know what the future holds. It could be a recession. It could be a great acquisition opportunity. You just don't know. So it's not feasible for us to try to project what our dividend is going to be. We do know today what our existing asset portfolio looks like. And we've battle- tested it with what do we think, even in a down market, what kind of cash flow do we think we can generate to support the dividend. And that's how we arrive at our dividend, which today is $1.80 a share on a roughly $45 stock. We've grown our dividend roughly 50% since 2011. We last raised it in December of 2022, I think was our last increase to $1.80 a share. We paused it there over the past couple of years. And frankly, the way we think about the dividend is there's something inside the company has to change to justify us raising our dividend. There has to be an event or there has to be something that gives us the confidence that whatever dividend level we set, we can earn that dividend through- the- cycle. Because we certainly don't want to surprise investors with a dividend cut. And our dividend is sacrosanct. It's number one on our capital allocation list of things to take care of. So right now we've paused it. We've been in tough markets here the past two years. Lumber markets have been very choppy. And so I think the outlook is for much better times ahead. And hopefully that'll give us an opportunity to raise the dividend again. We'll see. Yeah. And please don't take the questions as, why haven't you already? It's really just trying to reaffirm kind of what the fundamental underpinnings are. And the company's done, as you pointed out, a good job in terms of its capital allocation over time. Yeah. So as I say that, I think on the last call, you talked about slow- and- steady capital allocation, reaffirming what you just said. And I think it was answering a question on buyback. And so if you believe, and I think you said on the call that you are at a fairly significant discount to NAV, correct me if I'm wrong. Yep. We all like prudence. We all want prudence. But why not maybe pull the lever a bit more on buybacks given that statement? Yeah, we do operate with a slow- and- steady- wins- the- race at the end of the day, especially as it comes to capital allocation. You know, what I would say, we have full information on what capital allocation opportunities are available to us, and the investment community and you don't have full visibility. For example, you don't know what M&A opportunities we might be working on. Well, if I see a great M&A opportunity headed our way, obviously these things are discussed, negotiated in private. You wouldn't know that I'm going to need capital to consummate that M&A transaction. So I'm going to have to reserve some firepower for something like that. Or if we have another Waldo expansion opportunity, you know, that was a $130 million check we had to write. If we're looking at a project and we say, gee, here's a great opportunity coming our way. Do I really want to, which is the better return for investors? Is it buying back stock today and eliminating the dividend on those shares? Or is it to save it for the big large- capital project like we're doing with Waldo? So we have near- perfect insight into what our options are, way more insight than the investment community has. But rest assured, when we see that our stock is significantly undervalued like it has been, we will step forward and buy back stock. And we bought back $115 million, I think, in shares, 2.5 million shares over the last three years as we've been trading at a deep discount. Thanks, Eric. Any questions from the audience for Eric or Wayne? Thank you very much. You can just hold up for the microphone. Maybe if you could just talk a bit about the long-term drivers of the lumber market. You say it's looking a bit better now. But in terms of the long-term structural drivers for the end use of the product and how they've trended over the last few years and how you expect them to trend in the next 10 years? Wayne, you want that one? Yeah, certainly I'll take that. Yeah, when you look at the fundamentals, we certainly think that for us, there's several long-term strong fundamentals for our industry. I think the two biggest demand drivers for lumber are the repair- and- remodel sector. That's about 40% of the lumber demand market in the U.S. The other 35% is new- home construction. So those two sectors right there make up at least 75% of market demand. And when you take a deeper dive into each one of those, first housing, you look at, we think the U.S. market is underbuilt, 4-6 million units. So certainly there's a demand there that needs to be provided. Also, you look at the tailwinds from the demographics, millennial demographics in their prime home- buying years, looking for new housing. You look at where home equity is. There's really a lot of favorable fundamentals on the housing side. You look at repair- and- remodel in the U.S., on average, the average age of the home is over 40 years. So certainly a need for repair and remodel on U.S. homes. Combine that with people have a lot of home equity. That tends to be their biggest investment, wanting to continue investing in their largest investment. So there's again a lot of tailwinds for repair- and- remodel. And we certainly think that will propel our business in the longer- term. Certainly, there have been more near-term headwinds. And we've seen kind of a downturn in the last couple of years, really driven when the Fed pivoted and drastically increased rates. Certainly, that put pressure on the housing sector, repair- and- remodel, trying to finance repair- and- remodel projects. So we've certainly seen a pullback there. Like Eric mentioned earlier, we've seen prices since the low part of last summer increase $100 per 1,000 board feet. That's really been a supply-driven shift in pricing. Given those low prices, we've seen a lot of capacity come out of the market. Last year, probably around 3-3.5 billion board feet of capacity came out. That capacity, lower capacity has really been driving where price is going. We think that supply coming out of the market and then you combine that with these favorable fundamentals, certainly demand picking up, we think it will. I think that kind of really reached an inflection point. As more and more demand picks up, we think pricing will follow. You know, Wayne, on that point, are you surprised by where lumber prices certainly have started to pick up, but they're still into the fourth quartile? And it would seem from a cost standpoint, it would seem like you would have further room for prices to have been higher already. So what do you think are some of the constraints for why we haven't seen, if you agree with the premise, you may disagree, but why we haven't seen higher lumber pricing just based on the economics, based on the fact that prices are trading below upper end of the cash curve, the cost curve? I think the bigger surprise before we talk about pricing would be just where capacity was. I think we were surprised to see that it took so long for capacity to come out of the market given where pricing was. It's been in this trough for the last couple of years. When we think about the cost curve, you have upper- quartile, lower- quartile mills, kind of first and all the way to fourth- quartile. Fourth quartile mills in this pricing environment really struggled to maintain any sort of profitability, probably running at negative margins. I think that was really driven by two factors. One, certainly there was strong cash- flow generation with historic run-up in lumber prices during the pandemic period. So these higher- cost mills living off that. Also, labor is a challenge. If you decide to curtail a mill, it's hard to get labor back. I think certainly a lot of mills delayed pulling out that capacity, so I think for us, really the big surprise was that it took that long for capacity to come out of the market. Like I said earlier, once we saw that, we saw pricing at least improve, not certainly where it needs to be. The industry needs certainly higher prices longer- term, but definitely an improvement, and we think that, yeah, once there is capacity utilization, probably around 80%, high- 70s, 80%. Once you get to maybe around 85%, that's where you really see strong price and improvement in lumber. That's another, say, 1.5 billion board feet in the U.S., so we think once that happens, you'll really see a movement. Thanks, Wayne. I'm trying to do the math in my head, but another 1.5 million homes would what be like 100,000? 1.5 billion board feet would be what, like 100,000 homes, I think, give or take? Yep, about right. So actually, one last question on this. I had some other longer- term ones. To the extent that you see it, can you comment on how much competition you have with engineered products? Like, is there a big overlap between engineered or not? Very little competition. Very little. So Very little. So the fact that they've got some excess capacity, they're dealing with not an issue for you. In terms of value accretion regionally, to the extent that you can comment, where do you see value sort of CAGRs in the South versus the North? What do you typically bring in plain- vanilla when you're assessing a new stand if you're looking at it? I'd say probably the biggest difference is the Natural Climate Solutions opportunities that tend to exist in the South versus in the Pacific Northwest. We're talking about solar farms. We're talking about lithium, carbon capture and storage, carbon offsets. All these things tend to favor, I would say, the Southern part of the United States. Now, all that being said, there is an oversupply of timber in the U.S. South, which on the one hand, that's going to hold back timberland cash flows. On the other hand, all this natural climate solution stuff, solar farms, lithium, et cetera, that's going to raise cash flows, and if I think longer- term about where converting is going to go in North America, that's really going to go into the Southeast. Southeast has got the lowest delivered logs in the free world, lowest cost delivered free logs in the free world. So that's where capacity is going to go. And as capacity goes there, it's going to tend to lift log prices over time. You don't see a lot of new mill construction activity in the Pacific Northwest. What about learnings in the climate solutions businesses and maybe some of the surprises as you've seen them over the last couple of years, and particularly in terms of carbon credits? What have you learned so far and how does that inform the rest of the business plan for the next couple of years? Yeah, I'd say one of the biggest surprises to us has been solar. Solar has been just completely on fire. It's fantastic. And we get asked this question all the time. Do you think this is going to go away with Trump? And I don't think the opportunity for solar is going away. I think it's here to stay. The country's demand for electricity right now is just insatiable with all these data centers and whatnot going up everywhere. In fact, I think I heard the other day that in the next five years, incremental electricity demand in the United States is going to be the equivalent to a California. That's how much demand increase we're talking about. So the country is going to need electricity from all sources. Solar is cost competitive, especially if it's got battery with it to natural gas. It's renewable. It's in a lot of southern states, Republican states, and states, and there's been pushback from those Republican House members to not change the tax incentives for solar, so I think one of the big learnings has been solar has just been fantastic, and it's a growing business for us. It's a growing opportunity, and it's huge. Won't really start showing up in our P&L in a really significant way for probably about two years, but when it hits, it's going to be fantastic. On the carbon offset side, I think probably the real big learning we've had there is that the world's really starting to bifurcate between good credits and bad credits. There's been a lot of greenwashing in the world, no doubt, and some of that's been through forestry, and so you've seen less quality, lower- quality credits command prices that are really low. Meanwhile, you've seen high-end, high-quality credits being sold to the likes of Microsoft and Google and whatnot. Those types of customers are demanding fantastically clean credits, good credits. And consequently, they're commanding a significant price. So the market's bifurcating. We're working on a carbon credit project ourselves right now. They take a long time to get done, the amount of paperwork, the amount of auditing, two years or so to get a project done. But it is an opportunity for us and for the industry as a whole. When you talk about significant credits, would that be something $30 a ton, $40 a ton, $20? If there's a way to dimensionalize it, realizing it's going to be sort of project specific and you don't want to give away necessarily what your own expectations are, but. Yeah, I think $30 a credit is kind of where it starts to get interesting for us. That's where with lesser quality timberland, we can justify setting aside that land for carbon offsets. I don't know that $30 a ton is going to be enough to incent us to take high-quality industrial plantation timberland off the market and save it for credits. It's probably not a high enough price for us to do that. But certainly, we have acreage that's worth putting into carbon offsets for $30. So if those are opportunities for you in terms of high-quality credits and solar being, as you said, on fire, what are some of the real concerns? You're not so worried about change in administration policy and what it means for solar. Are there any things that do concern you about the outlook relative to, say, a year or two ago? And the answer might be no, and that'd be fine. Just want to pick at that. Yeah, I don't think there's been a huge shift. I mean, when we look at our opportunities on NCS, solar, we're looking at lithium opportunity, lithium deposit opportunities. Those tend to be, those are really near term right in front of us. We have option agreements related to those types of opportunities. Certainly, as Eric just mentioned, looking at carbon credit opportunities. I think on the longer, it's been on the longer- term spectrum, but carbon capture and storage, those are just complex projects, take a lot of infrastructure to execute on. And carbon capture and storage is where you're pumping carbon underneath the ground. And certainly, in some of our ownership, we have the right geological formations and structures to do carbon capture and storage. But like I said, they're complex, require heavy investment. And those have been longer- term. We also think that in order for those types of projects to be successful, they would need definitely subsidies from the government. I think those are probably more at risk than per se where we don't think solar or lithium would need. How does a government subsidy come into play in a potential transaction like that? Yeah, I think just subsidizing the cost of the facility or what it takes to produce the infrastructure in order to achieve a project like that. Because these projects to build facilities can be $500 million-$1 billion. They're not cheap. And so because of that, it takes investment and subsidies. Yeah. And I guess George, what I would add is if you think about it, there really isn't a natural market for taking carbon out of the air and putting it underground. It takes government incentives to force that to happen. And I compare that to solar. There's natural demand for electricity. Everybody's got phones, computers, using AI, all this stuff. There's natural intrinsic demand for that sort of thing. So less need of a tax subsidy to make it happen than CCS, which is purely driven by tax subsidies. Thanks, Eric. Any questions from the audience? Question? Okay. We'll keep forging ahead. We've been waiting for a while for Southern timber prices to inflect higher. And I realize we talk about incorrectly the South or the north in very monolithic terms, right? They're regional wood baskets and you have different characteristics as a result. But in aggregate, when do you think, what circumstances would we need to see for timber pricing in the South, sawn timber, to start appreciating more consistently? And remind us where you are actually already seeing a bit more tension in wood basket. I remember the coast has been positive for you, but any update on your thoughts would be welcome. And do we need to see how much capacity has gone to the South over the last five years, six billion board feet, give or take? Give or less, yeah. So if that doesn't do it, do we need to see another two, another three? I realize it's not an exact science, but how would you have us consider that question? Thank you. Yeah. When you look at different wood baskets, certainly it's very unique by wood basket. I think broadly speaking, you think about what we call growth- to- drain. So growth of the fiber versus drain meaning consumption by converting facilities. In the south, growth has been outpacing the drain. And do we think that'll shift in the future? Yeah, most definitely. And we're starting to see that. And then with where interest rates are and the pivot by the Fed, certainly that slowed demand down both on the lumber and then therefore the log side of it, seeing a shift there. When we look at our operations, we have in the U.S. Gulf South, kind of Arkansas, Mississippi area, yeah, those markets tend to be less tensioned. So we would need to see more converting facilities show up there. I think not just sawmills, but also there's active discussions and planning going on for other types of converting, whether it be pellets used for energy, biofuels, for example, like sustainable jet fuels, bioplastics. So there's a lot of discussion about other end uses for wood fiber that we think will continue to tension those markets over time. But it will take time for those facilities to be built and start using that excess capacity, fiber capacity. Now shifting to the Southeast, as you mentioned, George, certainly that's a much more tension market. You also think about as you get closer to the Coast, yeah, they don't grow trees in the ocean. So you have a much smaller area for a wood basket that's created more tension. You have more converting facilities there. So we've seen pricing. There's more of a better pricing in those markets than our Gulf South region. And so when we think, when we see lumber pricing improve, demand pick up, I think we'll see pricing accelerate more in the Southeast region than we will in the Gulf South region, for example, in the nearer term. But longer- term, we think Gulf South will also come around as we see demand pick up and more facilities continue to enter the Southern markets. When we look at sort of the North and the West in terms of timber pricing versus the South, is it just a function you have a little bit more of an export channel? And And the Northern and Western markets, recognizing there can be differences in terms of whether you're inland or on the coast, you have a greater amount of housing demand from California or not so much because Southeast has obviously been a growing market. In other words, I'm trying to figure out, understand from your vantage point, why we've seen more price appreciation in the West, why we're seeing more favorable growth- to- drain in the West than the North and the South. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, the dynamics are much different North versus South. I mean, when you take a deeper dive into the North, there's a couple of factors that are driving constraints there on fiber. One, you just look at timberland ownership. That's more. A lot of that's public ownership versus private ownership. In the U.S. South, that's far more private ownership, which allows more harvesting activity versus, for example, the Pacific Northwest. One. Two, really the other, I guess, competition for lumber has been Canadian SPF. And Canadian SPF, the log supply there is becoming more and more constrained, specifically British Columbia for various reasons. One, they had significant pine beetle infestation that's reduced fiber supply. A lot of that timberland is government-owned, Crown-owned, which is restricted harvest activity. You also have pretty hefty duties that the U.S. places on Canadian lumber. All of those factors have reduced mill production and lumber production out of Canada. That has all come into the U.S. North, that pickup in lumber and therefore increase in log demand in the North. Those constraints have really driven pricing much higher in the North versus the South, where, again, as I mentioned, much growth has exceeded drain. It becomes a supply-demand dynamic in each location. Thanks, Wayne. Questions from the audience? Question in the front, if you can just wait for the microphone. Linda? Thanks. Yeah, just a quick one on the export markets or the international trade for lumber. How much do you see that? How much integration does your market have with lumber around the world, I guess, particularly in Europe? Yeah, I think directly we're primarily just domestic, whether that be lumber or log sales. So well over on the lumber side, well over 95% is domestic. Our log sales are 100% domestic. So speaking from an export standpoint, directly not, but indirectly, certainly the ability that there's more exports would drive demand up. Certainly, we've seen a, I think there's been a pullback in the North on export demand from the logs, which has provided a little bit more supply in the North. But yeah, directly we don't see it. Indirectly, yeah, that has more of an impact. I would say on the lumber side, when prices reached historic levels back in 2021, 2022, certainly European lumber, there's a lot more European lumber that came into the U.S. market given where pricing was at. One. Two, European fiber, it was impacted by a significant bark beetle kill, which produced very cheap salvage logs. And keep in mind that fiber is about 60% of the cost of producing the lumber. So European producers had very cheap fiber that allowed them to ship a high-margin product into the U.S. market. Now, certainly that's eroded on the salvage side. And then where pricing's at, we've seen a significant pullback in European imports on the lumber side. And yeah, I think whether it be once the European market turns around, I think a lot more lumber will stay in Europe. Also, rebuilding of Ukraine, there's a lot of factors out there that will pick up that supply from European markets. Thanks for the question. Wayne, if we're looking at 7.4 million tons, I think, is the harvest profile this year that you've guided to. Look, 2026, 2027 are a ways out. We're not going to hold you to this. But do you think a more normalized harvest level would be somewhere, I don't know, 100,000, 200,000 tons above that? Or you think 7.4 is sort of the right range given demand, your harvest cycle, and so on? Yeah, we've guided to 7.4 million tons this year. Looking to 26 or 27, we're not in a position to probably give guidance there. Just we still haven't completed our modeling yet on what future years will look like. We've talked about it on the last call. Our harvest volume certainly has impacted. We've sold over 75,000 acres the last couple of years, and that's had an impact. Now, you have normal variability in harvest volumes, plus or minus a couple of hundred thousand tons, which we've experienced that over the years. I think really keeping in mind we have a long-term sustainable harvest approach, and we continue to maintain that. When we look at our harvest modeling over, and we do that over, we have a 50-year harvest model. You break that down even, say, the next 20-25 years. I mean, our harvest modeling currently ranges between 7.1-8.2 million tons. And then the other factors, it just depends on real estate sales. But also we're very active in acquiring Timberlands as well. So those things will have a significant play on what future harvest volumes look like. But then it also gets back to the balance and the discipline you bring to capital allocation, right? So you don't want to have a need for cash drive your harvest. You want to do the right things from that standpoint. Last thing for me, just a box checking. Obviously, you gave some qualitative guidance at the end of the last quarter. Just to the extent that you can talk to kind of key drivers, how are things looking in the first quarter? Or what would you point us to coming out of fourth quarter into first quarter that we should remember as we look out to the outlook for the quarter and the year? Yeah, I don't think much has changed in our outlook. We talked about lumber pricing was up just slightly, maybe around 1% compared to the fourth quarter average. Where we sit today, that still is holding. Okay. Spot prices are better though. Yeah. Spot prices are up maybe 4% compared to fourth quarter. Yeah. All the rest of the guidance, lot, volume, harvest volume. Yeah. No real change there. Understood. All right. Well, everyone, please join me in thanking PotlatchDeltic and Eric Cremers and Wayne Wasechek. Thank you.