Leo Mariani: Okay. And just on the cost side, I hope you could help me out a little bit here. So I’m looking at it just on kind of the key cash costs. If I take R&D plus cash G&A, it looks like that was up about $3.2 million in the first quarter versus the fourth quarter. I got the sense that there maybe there were some one-time costs in there, some severance, and maybe some others. Could you quantify what the one-time costs are? And then is your expectation for those kind of key costs to start dropping here in the second quarter?
Geoff Trukenbrod: Yes. And there’s two aspects of it. One was the they’re — in the SG&A and R&D costs, these are largely a function of personnel costs. These are headcount costs largely. And so in Q4 they were slightly down. As you recall we cut back our bonuses in 20 — associated with 2023. So that resulted in a reduction in cost in Q4 of last year. Normalized for Q1 it’s slightly up as well as there were as you noted some one-time costs, some severance costs associated with the reorganization that we announced in Q4. I’m not going to get into the specifics of the severance cost, but we do expect those to be one-time and that will be built — that will trail off the rest of the year.
Leo Mariani: Okay. So you’re saying that your kind of cash costs are going to start going down here in the second quarter?
Geoff Trukenbrod: We expect the cash costs for those line items to reduce going forward.
Leo Mariani: Okay. That’s helpful. Thanks guys.
Geoff Trukenbrod: Thanks Leo.
Operator: We’ll go next now to Jason Gabelman of TD Cowen.
Jason Gabelman: Yes. Hey morning, thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to ask about the project pipeline and some growth that you mentioned nine projects added to that pipeline. I was wondering if you could give us some flavor for what those projects were, and if you expect to maintain that kind of pace in terms of projects being added to the pipeline or that will be lumpy again as well I should say quarter-to-quarter? Thanks.
Jennifer Holmgren: Let me address that. The project pipeline just because it’s early stage for us will be a little lumpy initially. However, we are adding projects both to the top of the funnel and getting projects through to FID. So we do expect to see construction this year. The projects that are being added to the front of the funnel however are cut for me to discuss this specific partners because of the fact that a lot of those are still not named partners. However, we are starting to also see interest from companies to start replicating projects. We’ve done that in China. We have four projects with the same partner. And we’re starting to see filling up the funnel with partnerships related to companies that are already building plans.
Jason Gabelman: Got it. Thanks. And my second question is just on the earnings outlook. I think you have previously mentioned breakeven EBITDA in 2025. Is that still your expectations and any other color around that in terms of growth from ’24 to ’25? Thanks.
Geoff Trukenbrod: Hey, Jason, thanks for the question and for being on. As you know we haven’t provided any guidance beyond 2024. Specifically at this point in time we do think our path of profitability is a function of growth. And our expectation is that the company will continue to grow significantly year-over-year. And as we grow the top line in the associated gross profit that will drive our ability to get to profitability, but again, just we haven’t been specific about our guidance for anything beyond 2025 [ph].
Jason Gabelman: All right. Great, thanks for the answers.
Operator: We’ll go next now to Thomas Meric with Janney Montgomery.
Thomas Meric: Good morning. Thanks for the time and taking the question. A couple for me on the SAF market. Firstly, what’s your assessment of the current SAF feedstocks in terms of supply, demand and really cost to use it? And then, how do you expect that to change in the coming quarters? And then second one on SAF, just share your thoughts and reactions to the recent Greek model, if anything stood out to you there? And then one follow-up on Brookfield after that.
Jennifer Holmgren: Sure, let me start and thank you for the question, Thomas. On the SAF market, we continue to see demand for waste-based feedstocks as a key priority. I think you saw the UK government incentives and targets, and they really grow in terms of SAF demand, but also they disproportionately grow the non-HEFA, in other words, the non-oil stats and greases demand vectors, so you’re really starting to see people talk about shifting to waste demand, waste feedstocks. The fact is that we’re very well positioned in that since all we use are waste feedstocks; however, I would also say that in generally, these types of feedstocks can be more expensive. And so, what’s happening is that the mandates are slowly increasing the waste inputs so that they are creating a market without unduly pushing towards waste.
So we’re really excited about how that’s happening, and it’s happening globally. We’re also excited about the fact that e-fuels, CO2 plus hydrogen, are also being incentivized disproportionately in favor of trying to create that industry, and as you know, coupling LanzaTech and LanzaJet using CO2 as feedstock is something we can do because e-fuels is a path for us to make ethanol, that ethanol then can be converted to SAF by LanzaTech, so we’re seeing more and more incentives, but we also find them to be quite measured in that — and governments are being realistic and saying, when are these things going to be ready, and they’re not ready, they’re not in the market today, but they will be in the next few years, or at least that’s our intention and that’s what our project portfolio would say.
The second thing I would say to your question, the second question you asked, was the Greek model, and as you know, what the Greek model use has done, the White House has sent out a direction around that, and the bottom line is it enables corn ethanol, if certain measures are utilized to reduce the carbon intensity of corn ethanol, to qualify and to be used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel. So we think it’s a big win both for corn producers here in the United States, corn ethanol producers here in the United States, because it shows them the path by which they can also participate in a market that was difficult for them to participate because there was no clear picture on how they could reduce their carbon emissions, and so the White House basically has shown a path that enables them to participate.
Hopefully, that addresses your questions. I think you also wanted to ask about Brookfield, so I’ll pass it back to you.
