We’ve continued to commercialize it over this year, gaining more traction in terms of efficacy and proof of ours versus other media, ours being a very economical workhorse to remove significant amounts of PFAS from water. The real catalyst though is not on stemming the flow of PFAS, it will be in the regulation of cleanup and cleanup levels. I think there’s a lot of opportunity out there in terms of cleanup of water, groundwater, drinking water systems. But I think until there’s a level of cleanup kind of regulation to what level needs to be cleaned up, I think that will be the real catalyst. Once people know where they have to go, they’ll know the system. They want to employ. And I think that’s going to develop a significant amount of opportunity for us.
In the meantime, there are acute areas around the United States and in the world that we’re seeing and that we’re being pulled into project-related cleanups. But I think long-term, with the amount of the chemicals that’s there and with it being there forever, our technology being able to bind it forever, is going to be a real good system once people start to use it more, I guess, from a regulations standpoint. So, hopefully that helps you. It’s one piece of it, David, but it’s not everything with remediation, water remediation for us.
David Silver: Okay. So, no landmark legislative or regulatory development in the last few months. No, that’s great. Thank you for that help.
Doug Dietrich: Yes. Not that’s going to change the opportunity for us, regulation on cleanup levels will accelerate the opportunity for us.
David Silver: Got it. Thanks very much.
Doug Dietrich: Thanks, David.
Operator: We’ll now take a follow-up from Mike Harrison with Seaport Research Partners.
Mike Harrison: Hi. Just a couple more for me. Can you hear me, okay?
Doug Dietrich: Yes. Hey, Mike.
Mike Harrison: Thanks. Sorry about that. I was looking for an update on the talc litigation. I know there will be something in your filing, but presumably that won’t be out for a little while. Any update on the number of cases relative to the last time you reported? And do you expect to have to add to the reserve at any point during 2023? I noticed there was not a special charge related to the litigation in the fourth quarter.
Doug Dietrich: No, Steve, there hasn’t been — I’m sorry, Mike, there hasn’t been any change. The level of case is stable. There has been no change in terms of the litigation and the reserve that we took, it continues to be adequate to cover what we saw back in the third quarter as the liability for that caseload. So, no change.
Mike Harrison: All right. And then, just a quick one on the Refractories business. You mentioned that kind of second half utilization rates were lower and things were stronger in the first half. But as I look at kind of the year-on-year change, I know this is sales, not volume, but the revenue number, at least, looks pretty consistent first half and second half. So, maybe just help us understand, is there something that’s changed that your Refractories business is maybe less sensitive to utilization rates than it had been in the past? I think in the past, we used to think of 80% as utilization as a number where your business would really be performing well, and if it was lower than that, that would be a headwind. But it doesn’t seem like that has been the case more recently.
