Chris Kapsch: Okay, that’s helpful, thanks. And then just one quick follow-up on Fortress and I believe there were some incentive or premium pricing that was applicable, maybe even the government statutes incentivized alternative suppliers when there is like a sole source situation. So curious if that will apply to the fiscal ’24 supply agreements when they are more definitive.
Kevin Crutchfield: Yes. Our — the open solicitation currently is a sole source. So it’s our competitor has a has a sole source contract as do we for 2024. So, yes, that continues into 2024, the terms could be a little bit different than they were in ’23, but fundamentally, it’s the same structure and then ultimately over time, we expect this to move away from that mechanism and move more into a competitive environment with bidding — regional bidding occurring from year to year.
Chris Kapsch: Okay and then sorry, could you just — then the follow-up is just on the situation in Canada. I think they were effectively piggybacking off the US approval for this product. Is there, can you just provide any color on how that’s progressing as well. Thank you.
Jamie Standen: Yep. The Canadians use the US Forest Service QPL. Our focus in North America for the early days of this business are the US Forest Service contract, CAL FIRE, and then Canada. So yes, we are able to compete up there, but our focus right now is in the US.
Chris Kapsch: Thank you.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] And we will take our next question from Jeff Zekauskas with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeff Zekauskas: Thanks very much. Can you briefly discuss, how management comp changed and our incentive comp changed in 2023 versus 2022 and how it might change in 2024?
Kevin Crutchfield: So, there are a couple of components of incentive compensation, Jeff. One is kind of a cash bonus, annual incentive plan sitting here thinking, but I don’t think that changed from one year to the next. It’s driven off of cash flow, EBITDA, safety and some shared goals and ESG activities that kind of thing. The long-term incentive plan which is stock-based plan did change. Have we disclosed that yet? No. So you’ll read about that coming up here shortly. So, the short-term incentive plan didn’t change the long-term incentive plan, plan to stock-based plan is changed modestly from one year to the next. And you’ll read about that in the upcoming proxy.
Jeff Zekauskas: Okay. You talked about looking for a partner in your lithium project. So if it turned out that regulatory developments were favorable, would you then begin spending as you did before and look for a partner? Or would you wait for a partner before you spent more? Or if you couldn’t — if you didn’t have a partner, would you continue to spend? Can you just clarify the importance and the timing of the selection of a partner if things resume?
Kevin Crutchfield: Well, that’s a lot to unpack in there, Jeff. I mean I think the ideal outcome for us is to have a partner at the project level for lithium again to allay some of that capital risk and, you know, as I mentioned earlier to the extent that they have domain expertise, that’s a — that’s a nice bonus [Technical Difficulty]
Operator: And ladies and gentlemen, we apologize for the disruption. We are back live with our presenters.
Kevin Crutchfield: Maybe I’ll try to pick up where I think I got cut-off and then will officially close the call down. But Jeff, I was answering your question around a partner and I think I’ve said where I got cut-off was, ideally a partner would have some capital wherewithal balance sheet wherewithal and sure some domain expertise would certainly be a value-add. But in terms of timing, as I mentioned earlier on another question, it’s important that we resolve matters in Utah, in a way that is favorable to our project and that’s going to be a fine balance between what the legislators are looking forward and what the regulator is — but what we have to have in terms of regulatory legislative clarity to make such long-term investments.
So that’s kind of condition number one. Condition number two is, we’d like to finish out the Dustguard unit to demonstrate to the world that is a commercially viable, scalable technology and we have every belief that it will be, but I think that’s an important proof point. And I think doing something on a partnership level prior to those criteria having been met, it’s going to jeopardize project valuation obviously, it creates uncertainty. So those would be two valuable conditions precedent to getting anything done with a — with a partner, but you can expect us in the meantime to be continuing to collaborate and work closely with the folks in Utah, that work on these other things in parallel as well. So hopefully that’s responsive to your question.
Operator: And there are no further questions at this time, so I will now turn the call-back to Mr. Kevin Crutchfield for closing remarks.
Kevin Crutchfield: Thank you. We apologize sincerely for the call abruptly stopping and everybody having to dial back in, but we thank you for your interest in — continued interest in Compass Minerals and look forward to keeping you updated as time progresses. So, thank you for dialing in today.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s call and we thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
