Grant Isaac: Well, yes, Greg, we – it kind of goes back to that that pipeline conversation we keep having, we were amused here at Cameco just a couple of weeks ago when one of the trade reporters kind of characterized the market activity as being slow. And we’ve got a marketing team who just kind of sat around and looked at each other and said, which market is slow, like we are not seeing it at all. So perhaps we just have more of a view and a better view into the market than some of the trade reporters do. I think people could forgive me for saying it might start feeling like the summer of 2010 again, a big new entrant stepping into the market, tying up Western capacity, while others have not moved to fill those requirements.
It could feel like that kind of catalyst when the Chinese stepped into the market for the first time in the term market for the first time in a big way in the summer of 2010. So it’s off to a great start. And I would say that that the type of contracting volumes will be noticed by others who have needs out in the exact same window for both uranium and for conversion.
Greg Barnes: Yes. And just a follow-up. On Cigar Lake, part of the rationale for curtailing production there was to give you more time to assess Phase 2 at Cigar Lake. So the fact that you’re going to continue to run at 80 million pounds, I assume it means you’re accelerating Phase 2 forward to some extent, given the limited life you have left at Phase 1?
Grant Isaac: Yes, Greg. So you’re right. We are working hard on that now. We’re pretty excited. We’ve seen some of the potential there for the extension to Phase 1, as we now call it. So yes, we’re working on that, and we think Cigar’s going to continue to produce, hopefully, seamlessly into the 2030s.
Greg Barnes: Okay. Thank you.
Grant Isaac: Thanks, Greg.
Operator: Our next question comes from Lawson Winder of Bank of America Securities. Please go ahead.
Lawson Winder: Thank you, operator. Good morning, Tim and Grant, Nice to hear from you both. And thanks for the update. I wanted to ask about – well, first of all, the fuel contract pricing. So the revenue guidance for ’23 implies fuel contract pricing around US$26. So with spot conversion pricing approaching $40 per kilogram in both the EU and North America. Would it be reasonable to expect that some of these higher prices would start flowing through in future years?
Tim Gitzel: Yes, absolutely. You know that we have a trailing value capture approach to our on tracking. So as prices improve, in the spot market, we see that strengthening price, and we want to convert that into long-tail term contracts. So there is a bit of a lag effect. We don’t match the spot market going up and then we don’t go down with the spot market as we lock in that value over a longer period of time. So if you think about the uranium segment where more capacity is required, prices will have to go up to incent more supply. It is about price exposure. In the conversion side, where you have idle capacity that’s going to come back, it is about price capture at this point. And then that gets baked into our contract portfolio and creates a longer tail of financial performance.
Alice Wong: And Lawson, maybe just remember to that price that we put in there, that’s a combined price for all the products in our fuel services, not just U.S. VI.
Lawson Winder: Absolutely. Thanks for both the comments. And then for my follow-up, I just wanted to ask about the latest expectations on the timing around the closing of the Westinghouse acquisition. And in particular, just your thoughts on the SAMR review. So the state administration for market regulation in China and whether or not you have any concerns about that particular review…
