Debbie Simpson : My apologies. Adam. Yes, as I said, we’ve got $100 million as of right now. And as we work through this plan absolutely working on a minimum that we need and then working around that minimum to build on near-term financial options around that to support this, it’s going to be really important. You asked about capital commitments. I think there’s a couple of things in there. One is we paused on future growth capital projects. So, there’s nothing flown out as a result of that. And then — clearly, everything on — roughly a better month behind any status. So, you’re absolutely right, there are still bills to be paid with regards to recent work at the Rochester Hub. In addition to that, we’ve got costs around securing the site, making the site safe, and keeping it in a good preserved state so that it’s in good state for a fast start up when we’re ready to do that.
So, we went of onetime costs in the next couple of months, including the cost of our workforce reduction to work through in November, December. So, I think that will give you an idea of two sort of speed bumps that we need to hit in the next little while. And then as we complete the work around the cash preservation plan, we’ll have more of a sense of what the run rate is at the back of that.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from Matthew O’Keefe with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Matthew O’Keefe : Thanks for taking my question. Just a question on you’re changing the flowsheet a little bit here. I understand you want to go to produce MHP in your review of Rochester. It sounds like it will save some CapEx, and I can see that. But why are you applying that also to the Portovesme Hub? Is there — is it a significant CapEx? Or is it — is the premium just not there to produce nickel sulfate and cobalt sulfate? What should we be thinking about on your — on this side of things?
Ajay Kochhar: Matt, those great questions. Good for Tim to address.
Tim Johnston: Matt, nice to talk to you. So, let me answer the first one, which in within to Portovesme. Just to make it clear. So, the plan for Portovesme was always to produce MHP when we originally Spoked it out. And there was a couple of factors that were driving that. One being the — desire to maximize the utilization of existing equipment on site. i.e., the MHP process was much more well tied to the distinct footprint of the existing asset on site, making it more experience and effectively a lower capital project overall. This is a process that we’re very familiar with. And when it comes to Rochester, part of the rationale for driving that, you touched on it exactly right in that, is that it reduces the near-term capital expenditure associated with installing certain parts of the plant associated with sulfate production.
What we have seen from a market perspective, and this is public and you can look up the indexes is the spread between MHP discounts to metal and sulfate has narrowed. And so, the financial impact is somewhat negated by that combination. So, it’s a decision that’s based primarily on construction costs but there is market factors that you can see that have changed in recent times that are also helping support that.
Ajay Kochhar: And on the other side of that, just to add, obviously, the input typically a precursor and the input to cathode thereafter, the precursor is the sulfate typically. And so, one thing that’s been missing in North America is precursor manufacturing. And there are some plants out there, people see them publicly, that are coming but it is taking longer than anticipated. So, we don’t have an end today of what pathway would go. We do still see the value in the sulfate to be more adjacent to pre-CAM production, precursor production. But as Tim indicated, it’s really a question of if we go that path, how you get there?
