So you will continue to see us jump in deeper during those periods of time. And then there may be weeks or months where we’re kind of sitting on the sidelines. But the whole idea is to make sure that we disproportionately reward our long-term shareholders by taking out as many shares at the lowest value as we can. And I think it actually is a good strategy. I’m not really that worried one quarter to the next if we flex up or flex down a little bit. And as Chris mentioned, we expect to close the Waggaman transaction here within a month. And so $1.25 billion is already spoken for in that regard.
Chris Bohn: Yes, this is Chris. I would just add to that. As Tony mentioned, really just being opportunistic with patience. So there will be periods where we have higher cash balances on the balance sheet. I think if you look at the overall macro uncertainty, whether that be geopolitical in Ukraine, or the Middle East or even here at home from whether they will be funding approved by Congress in the next couple of weeks. And then even the higher interest rate market and having companies deal with that through that time. We’re probably going to see periods where that macro uncertainty goes counter to the fundamentals of the company that Bert and Tony have talked about today. And as a result of that, that’s Tony said, we’ll go in deeper and more shares during that particular time, really rewarding the long-term shareholders for their patience.
Tony Will: I would also say that we were blocked out for Q1 because we were in kind of the final throes of negotiation with InsTech on the Waggaman acquisition. And so we couldn’t be in the market buying our shares back. So that kind of thing may happen here or there. But we are focused on continuing to drive the underlying fundamentals of what underpins that Page 16 that I referenced in our materials, which is selectively adding capacity where it makes sense and otherwise returning capital and buying our share count down.
Andrew Wong: That’s great. Makes a lot of sense. And maybe just — maybe I’ll throw a question over to Bert. Just going back to the question on Europe as a marginal cost producer. Globally, we tend to look at urea alive. But Europe is more of an ammonia and nitrates kind of market. So should we be maybe more product specific, when we talk about marginal cost and if you look at it today, ammonia prices aren’t that far off from European marginal costs and maybe just looking at a Urea, more specific, isn’t the right way to look at it? Like how do you think about that?
Bert Frost: Yes and no. I think regarding your question, urea is a placeholder globally that is the most traded product that 190 million tons of consumption, 56 million tons moved globally on a ship. And so it becomes the placeholder that it’s basically used on every continent. So it’s a good measure of nitrogen values. You’re correct that Europe is more of a nitrogen or ammonium nitrate, calcium ammonium nitrate consumer or UAN, but there’s still a large importer of urea. I think 4 million to 5 million tons per year. So they do participate by a lot of North African and Nigerian tons and some Middle Eastern tons make it up there. And so that’s what I talked about in the Northern Hemisphere moves into its high demand period here starting in January, they become a pretty good importer as well.
So yes, you need to look at it that way. But ammonium nitrate is not really consumed that much on for agriculture outside of Europe and maybe Russia and Ukraine as well, maybe 1 million tons in Brazil. And so that’s falling in North America, so we don’t really talk about it. outside of the explosive sector in North America. So we do look at all those factors. But again, urea is more of the easy placeholder for everyone to understand.
