Michael Garcia: Yes. Ahmad, I think at a high level, the main reason is because even though the overall timeline and completion date of the project has not moved or slipped, within that timeline, there are certain components of the way the project is unfolding that have moved. I think a very good example of that is the erection of the building, the main steelworks building that we are building. Originally, the original project schedule contemplated starting that building in October of last year and kind of being heavy into the erection of it through the current period. As we reworked the project that confirmed all of the different components of the project completion, we moved the erection of that building to beginning this month actually.
I think our first pillar, our column is going above ground today. So, obviously, the cash flows associated with that building, to that contractor have shifted into this quarter versus last €“ beginning in the last quarter. And then as a part of that, we have got all this built component and machinery sitting in the build shops in various parts of the world, whether it’s Thailand or Europe. And of course, we have been over there and done all the factory acceptance testing. But originally, in the project schedule, we contemplated shipping that equipment here as the building comes up. And now that the building is coming up a few months later, there is no need to ship it on the original schedule. We will ship it a little bit delayed so that the cash flows associated with that because that’s largely triggered upon shipment move to the right as well.
So, kind of all of that is happening within the overall project schedule, but the overall timeline has not shifted. Does that help?
Ahmad Shaath: Yes, that’s very helpful. And I noticed maybe on your MD&A, there is some commentary around discussions with the Ministry of Energy for securing power for the full year of transformation. Any positive or progress development there that transpired since the last quarter, given the change in the disclosure?
Michael Garcia: Yes. We have had a lot of interaction with the ministry, with the local utility entity PUC, with the provincial power provider Hydro One and the provincial grid operator as well. So, there is a lot of stakeholders or entities that we are in pretty much constant contact with them. I think the support we have seen has been overall very, very positive. They €“ there is nobody in the province from the political or the ministerial level that isn’t a very strong supporter of this project. It moves the province exactly the direction it wants to move in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. We have gotten great support from that perspective. Of course, they are responsible for the stability and the performance of the overall grid.
So, they are very mindful of what the new load in Sault Ste. Marie will mean for overall grid stability and robustness. So, we continue to have those conversations with them because not only do we look to be a future customer of the grid, but we want the grid to be very stable as well. So, we will work with them and make sure that everything we are doing to bring all this demand online keeps the grid very stable.
Ahmad Shaath: Got it. So, if I got it correctly, positive development, but still too early to make any assumptions about earlier timeline for EAF production than we previously discussed, right?
