Thomas Meric: Yes, thank you. On Brookfield specifically just thinking about the unlock of future projects and I’m wondering if you could comment on the potential for additional project FIDs after the first one gets transferred?
Jennifer Holmgren: Right. So, we do have a very robust pipeline of projects that can go into our Brookfield pipeline, if you will. What we are doing is focusing on the very first one for a reason, right? This will be our first project and defining all the parameters that we need to define to transfer the project. If something we’re doing lockstep in them, we’ll work very closely with them and we’re understanding each other on what makes a good project and what is it that they need to see for them to pick it up. So while we have a robust pipeline that we are moving along in certain parameters like getting gas agreements and other such things, we have focused on only one project, so, that we’re clear on how to transfer. The other thing that I think is quite important is that with the Brookfield pipeline, we are able to look at projects in North America more and more and as well as Europe and the UK.
But we’re starting to see a lot of interest in North America, so we’re super excited about using the Brookfield approach and partnership to enable those projects to move forward.
Thomas Meric: Thanks. That’s it for me.
Operator: Thank you. We go next now to Jeffrey Campbell of Seaport Research Partners.
Jeffrey Campbell: Good morning and congratulations on all the positive developments. I wanted to ask a few questions about Project SECURE. First of all, I think you gave us an ethylene output number for the project, but I was wondering what would be the likely ethanol output from a plant costing $400 million to construct?
Jennifer Holmgren: So the output of the plan besides to that ethylene production number, this is meant to be an ethylene producer, so all the ethanol will go straight into the ethanol to ethylene plan. The yield losses are less than 15%, so basically the ethanol number is very close to the ethylene output number.
Jeffrey Campbell: Maybe I should rephrase the question. What I’m trying to understand is how does the LanzaTech plant for this project compare to your typical $50,000?
Jennifer Holmgren: Yes, thank you for the question. It’s $50,000 tons per year. This is an ethanol plant of the size, $50,000 tons per year and all of the ethanol will go straight to ethylene. Yes.
Jeffrey Campbell: And are you and Technip looking to construct projects of approximately that size going forward, or can smaller units be profitable?
Jennifer Holmgren: So, we can go both smaller and larger. And what we’re starting to do is we’re going to have standard sizes. So the $50,000 is one of our standard sizes, as you know, Jeff, because we use that in multiple of our projects. We also have one that is approximately half of that size that we’re now using as a standard, and then we can also go bigger. So what we are trying to do now, especially in this partnership with Technip, and more and more as a company, its create standard units rather than bespoke units, because that will allow us to do the engineering package and work with EPCs [ph] in a way that goes much, much faster than trying to customize size for every opportunity. So if that is your question, that is exactly what we’re doing, and that $50,000 is there for that reason, Jeff.
Jeffrey Campbell: No, that’s a great answer, and I appreciate the color on moving away from bespoke. It sounded, Geoff remarked, if I heard them correctly, it sounded like there might actually be some revenues from projects that are here at some point in 2024. Was that correct? And if so, is it included in current guidance, or would this be in addition to guidance?
Geoff Trukenbrod: So thanks for the question, Jeff. And yes, we do anticipate currently that we will be in seeing revenues associated with Project SECURE in the back half of the year. There is a — the timing associated with finalizing and administrative contracting associated with that is the piece that’s the time uncertainty. We’re working hand in hand with the DOE to accelerate that, but we do expect to start work in the back half of the year. That is included in our guidance. As again, as I mentioned earlier, we do probability adjust our forecasts, and so we expect that to leave us in the range. So we’re not adjusting our range at this point in time, but we do feel good about having additional committed revenues in that.
Jeffrey Campbell: Okay. Let me ask one SAF question, and then I’ll get off. I was just wondering, how are you going to manage the allocations of the LanzaJet production once it starts coming to market in the second quarter or ’24 and beyond?
Jennifer Holmgren: Actually, we have 10-year offtakes. LanzaJet has 10-year offtakes for all of that fuel. So the production is spoken for, and it will be managed in a way that’s fair to each of the offtakers so that they can get their share without one of them being first in line all the way through the year. But that is one important element of that plan is that the offtake is 100% spoken for.
Jeffrey Campbell: Got you. Appreciate it.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] We’ll go next now to Steve Byrne of Bank of America.
Steve Byrne: Yes, thank you. I was just curious about the choice of an ethylene cracker for this Project SECURE. Have you already done some pilot testing on the furnace flue gas at a cracker? I’m curious about that CO to CO2 ratio, and perhaps having it at a cracker you got the hydrogen coming off of the cracker that could also help. But I guess ultimately, do you have a view of where the variable cost could be for the production of this ethylene?
Jennifer Holmgren: Let me start with that. Thank you for the question, Steve, and very well noted these points. So first of all, that’s right, often petrochemical complexes are a little bit long on hydrogen. So there is some hydrogen co-production off of the cracker that we could utilize in that integration. The second thing that’s worth noting in terms of variable cost is the fact that at the end of the day if we are to bring in hydrogen, which we intend to do a green hydrogen into this, that will be the biggest driver of cost. And so the amount of green hydrogen will impact the cost of production. Why integrate into a cracker? First of all, we know we can use that CO2 from that plant. We have looked at that gas very carefully, the contaminants as well.
