Claude Schimper: Yes, I’ll add that cyanide, as an example, is off its peak pricing and there’s better competition in the market in that area. We do see steel being better at some of the consumables for the plant, but the offset one is ammonia, and it’s really a function of the conflict in Ukraine that’s causing us supply chain issues with our explosives contractors, and that’s raising price there, so there’s puts and takes. The power in Nevada, as Andrea mentioned, the price is set 12 months and so we’re really paying in June 2023 for the power price of June 2022, when it was at its peak, so as we go, more of those things, we do expect some relief but we are watching it very closely and we think our 5% target was a good one to maintain the line.
Tanya Jakusconek: Yes, thanks Claude, I appreciate that, because you know, in general we’ve found that most companies between three to six months of inventory and contracts and others, so should we get through these, as you mentioned on the power which was priced on June 2022, once we get through that, hopefully we will see some relief in costs in 2024 as we get through, i.e. just power, and/or maybe other inventories at site that are booked at higher prices. I was just wondering, is it safe to look at, when Paul mentioned costs declining into 2024, is that just due to operational grade and other, or can we see some relief in inflationary pressures?
Claude Schimper: We certainly expect to see some, and you’re absolutely correct – as some of our inventory that we have on site was purchased at higher prices, so as we pull them off, we’re paying more for them now and then next year, we will see the opposite effect, where we’re paying less for some of the items that we’re bringing in to supply as we speak, so we do see some potential relief.
Andrea Freeborough: But the first part of your comment, Tanya, is also true in terms of the operational impacts. We expect costs to come down in the U.S. in 2024 as Manh Choh comes in Alaska, and then also in Nevada, as I noted earlier.
Tanya Jakusconek: Okay, all right. Thank you so much for taking my questions. I’ll leave it to someone else to ask.
Operator: Again, if you would like to ask a question, it’s star, one on your telephone keypad. Your next question comes from the line of Mike Parkin from National Bank. Your line is open.
Mike Parkin: Thanks for taking my questions, and nice quarter. Just a bit of a follow-up on Tanya’s question. With some of your inputs improving, namely diesel, are you seeing an opportunity to add additional hedges on things where you’re seeing potential for wins and locking in good prices?
Andrea Freeborough: We typically hedge somewhere in the 50% to 60% of currencies and WTI within a year. We do add hedges periodically when we see opportunities in the market, and then to lower amounts for a couple of years out. Our guidance for this year factored in the hedges that we had in place, and we’re still on track with that guidance. We’re hedge for this year about 60% of our exposures at an average rate of $56 a barrel, and then going out in 2024, we’re hedged between 35% and 40% at a bit of a higher cost, closer to $70, and then we’ve got a small amount of hedges out in 2025. We sort of roll that forward as we go through, when we see opportunities.
Mike Parkin: Okay, thanks very much. That’s it for me.
Operator: There are no further questions at this time. Mr. Paul Rollinson, I will turn the call back over to you for some final closing remarks.
Paul Rollinson: Thank you, Operator. Thanks everyone for joining us this morning. We look forward to catching up with you in person in the coming weeks and months. Thanks.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.
