Paul Brink: So, the preference is precious metal and most of what we are active on is precious metal. As I say, on the diversified side, it’s more about are they great assets, often we look at it and say, are there things that we can do in diversified assets that we can’t do in gold. And so that’s often. I think great ore bodies or ore bodies with very long lives, those are the sort of things we are looking for. We have been spending time on lithium. There is a lot of capital that will get spent building lithium mines over the next 5 years to 10 years. I am not expecting to get anything done in the short-term with spot prices roughly 4x higher than consensus on long-term prices. It’s hard to get the bid and the ask to match at present. But if there is a great lithium deposit and we could get a deal done based on longer term prices where we can honestly believe there is more upside than downside, we would be interested in doing something.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay. So, would it be fair to say then, Paul, that on the non-gold, on non-precious metal side, it is not in energy, it would be in assets like would you increase further iron ore, lithium and other electrification metals rather than the energy side?
Paul Brink: Yes. On energy, we are €“ as you know, we have guided to 20% is where we are comfortable on energy. We wouldn’t look to acquire energy above that level. Obviously, when prices run as they did last year, then energy gives you a greater contribution. And that’s all upside. That’s why you do it. So, at our current levels, we are not looking to add more energy. But no bright line in the sand, in due course, if it was a lower percentage of our portfolio, we may consider it again.
Tanya Jakusconek: Appreciate that. Thank you so much and look forward to hearing from you Sandip on the Rosemont and Copper World.
Sandip Rana: Thanks Tanya.
Operator: Thank you. There are no further questions on the phone lines. I will now turn the Q&A session over to Candida Hayden, who will take questions from the webcast.
Candida Hayden: Thank you, Michelle. Our first question comes from Barry Dunaway from America First Investment Advisors. Will the First Quantum agreement on Cobre Panama lead to any change in terms on your contract with them?
Paul Brink: It’s Paul speaking. No. So, the terms that have been negotiated and there is a draft agreement on principally related to the taxation on First Quantum or MPSA, the entity that operates in country. So, no direct impact on the contract that we have.
Candida Hayden: Thank you. Our next question comes from Bernard PG, Holy State Capital . Other than delay in deliveries for two GEOs in Q1, is there any impact on FNV for the higher cost that First Quantum will occur €“ incur at the operation?
Paul Brink: So again, a similar comment before. There is no direct impact there. For us to do well over time in the asset, you are obviously hoping that the operators will spend capital and expand the asset over time, spend money exploring the asset. That obviously is impacted by the overall economics of the assets. So, a higher tax burden is €“ can be a detriment. But I think that the tax rate that has been agreed given the margins on the asset should be at disincentive. So, I don’t expect the longer term impact.
