Tim Gitzel: So I’ll pass it over to Grant to talk about that. I’ll tell you the cover is getting a little bit skinny for sure on our sales going forward. But I just want to say on that Energoatom, the Ukraine contract, that’s a big deal for us. Big deal, obviously, in the delivery sense, financial sense, all of that stuff, but it’s bigger than that. We’ve been working with them for – I think we went over there in 2018 and then 2020. And we met with them in – I remember in December 2021 and talk to them are getting close and then, of course, the events of 2022 February happened. And so it’s more for us. It’s almost more than just a financial or a supply transaction. We’re standing shoulder to shoulder with them as they try to diversify their energy supply and their fuel sources and move away from the Russian.
So this is a big ticket for us. You saw it’s kind of two parts, the 9 reactors that they’re operating now. We’ll supply those over a 12-year period to ’25. And AfrAsia units, we’ll see what happens with those. I know the IAE is in there and working on that. So I just wanted to make that commentary. It’s – this is a big piece for us. Grant, do you want to talk about what percentage it might work out to, I think you could do the math.
Grant Isaac: Yes, a couple of comments from a market point of view on the Energoatom contract as well. It’s indicative of several things. It’s indicative of what we’ve been saying. There’s a security of supply trend going through the market. This is a security of supply contract at its very core. It’s indicative of our pipeline. When we tell folks that our pipeline is robust, you really have to believe us, and this is evidence of it. It’s indicative of our competitive advantages as a proven, reliable, independent and integrated commercial supplier of nuclear fuel. This is possible because we’re also a converter. Being just a uranium company wouldn’t have afforded us the full fleet opportunity that we’re enjoying here. It’s indicative of the improving tenors, volumes and time frames that we’ve been talking about through 2022.
So it’s indicative of that. And it’s indicative of the type of price exposure that we look for at this point in the cycle. When we see a security of supply cycle underway, we want price exposure from both our portfolio, committed sales that are market related. And then what you’re referring to, which is the pipeline, the pounds we haven’t sold yet. So what I can say is we are far from sold out. If you look at our price sensitivity table, we have, on average, 21 million pounds per year over the next 5 years, more heavily weighted to the near term, of course, our guidance, 29 million to 31 million pounds of sales in 2023, so sales going back up. And just a reminder to folks, those are committed sales. Those are not sales we have to yet make in 2023.
These are nondiscretionary requirement sales that we will deliver into in 2023. And as the years go out, obviously, less exposure. So really, for us, it will be less than 10% of the overall portfolio as the sales number grows as more customers come into long-term contracting. And yet as we look out, we have a lot of price exposure to come from pounds that are still in the ground that we have not yet committed.
Ralph Profiti: Okay. Yes, that’s helpful. I appreciate the context. As a follow-up, as the market has gradually gotten stronger and Chemical continues to maintain this disciplined approach, what’s the risk that other players that are not as disciplined in holding back supply actually starts to impact the market. Are we insulated from those types of trends? Or is there still risks in the market that whether in existing entrants or new entrants can sort of suppress or elongate the time at which we actually have a price recovery in the term market.
