Bruce Fleming: Sure, Gregg. This is Bruce. I’ll take that. The ultimate throughput potential of our hardware is the first thing to hold in mind. And we’re not sure what the upper bound is because in fossil service, we never filled that unit. We’re already substantially above its initial engineering design from when we put it up, so we will find the engineering basis and then we’ll stretch it. Our estimates are that’s where we get the 18,000 barrel a day throughput number that you’ve heard us talk about. Optionally, we can install yield flexibility so that, that 18,000 barrels a day can have a mix like the current mix or rotate to — all the way or almost all the way SAF yield, and that’s an incremental capital incremental return decision that we would expect to execute in the field at the same time.
So there’s two decisions, but we’d like to just do 1 project and have 1 outage to tie it in. That’s what’s been sorted this year, and by the end of the year, we expect to have that clarified. Capital is obviously contingent on whether or not we add the yield flexibility. So we’ve floated some super notional ranges in the couple of hundred million dollar source of funds for that. DOE is very interested, cash flow from operations is also sufficient. But if we can fund it that way, we’re interacting with the corporate strategy that Todd covered earlier. So by the end of this year, in summary, we’ll have our capital pinned down, we’ll have our investment basis agreed and we’ll have DOE as a source of funds. That is the mainline planning.
Operator: And our next question will come from Justin Jenkins with Raymond James.
Justin Jenkins: Great. Sorry, guys, I’ve just got a couple of modeling questions here. I think over the past few quarters, we’ve seen a pretty big working capital built. I assume a lot of that is just related to Montana Renewables inventory. But just the progression here maybe going forward on how that unwinds there? Or it doesn’t?
Louis Borgmann: Yes, I think you’re right. As we’ve ramped up Montana Renewables, obviously, we’ve — obviously, we’ve built inventory. We’d expect that to normalize over time. This is expensive feedstock, it’s expensive product, so it adds up in a hurry kind of on the working capital front. And as we’ve been building the front end of that supply chain, naturally, we see that. And then over time as revenues come in to offset it, we’ll see normalization.
Justin Jenkins: Perfect. And I guess, second question is on managing the RINs liability here in the context of recent EPA decisions and obviously, in the context of you guys producing a lot more RINs here with RD production. Just how we should think about that liability going forward?
Bruce Fleming: This is Bruce, Justin. I think the key is that the obligated parties, which are the downsized Calumet-Montana refinery, which we’re referring to as a specialty asphalt refinery now, has got a much, much smaller RIN liability footprint. Shreveport remains about the same. We’re simply not very prominent on the RINs landscape. The entire activity around about 29 legal challenges is going to give you the answer, and you’re going to find out at the same time we do as the courts rule on these things. So I think I’ll leave it at that.
Operator: And our next question will be a follow-up from Gregg Brody with Bank of America.
Gregg Brody: I got cut off there. Just — is there a timing on the DOE that we should expect in terms of having an answer? Maybe you can talk a little bit about how that process is going?
