Matthew Blair: Hey, Sean and Kevin, congrats on the strong results. I wanted to just dig in a little bit more on the details of the RIN monetization in Q2. I believe you said that 17.4 million RINs were monetized at the $2.16, I guess, price. Is your regular run rate on RIN generation per quarter, approximately $12 million? So just doing the math there, the 17 minus 12 times the $2.16, should we think about that extra boost in Q2 at around $10 million, maybe $11 million of EBITDA? And then as we look into Q3, it sounded like the remaining 3 million of RIN inventory were sold at $3.06, so that would be roughly a $9 million boost as we look into Q3 on top of your regular operations. Is that the right way to think about those moving parts on the RIN inventory?
Kevin Van Asdalan: Generally, Matthew, yeah, you can look at it that way. And also don’t forget, you’re going to have to account for the carryover RINs exiting the first quarter that would have been sold, recognizing revenues and monetized in the second quarter as well. Into the third quarter, we highlighted the D3 index price, but did make a comment that our third quarter commitments of the RINs generated and unsold in July of 2023 were at or above net index price. So generally, how you’re getting to your math of contribution from RIN pricing in the second quarter and the third quarter is generally geographically aligned to what we’re trying to convey.
Operator: Thank you. And our next question comes from Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley. Your line is open.
Ryan Pfingst: Hey guys, congrats on all the recent developments here. Kind of a higher-level question around the RVO. With it being the first time we’ve had a multiyear RVO, can you talk about what that might mean for the industry and how it could benefit you guys in particular as a producer?
Sean McClain: In general, Ryan, we do not comment on pricing speculation for the attributes. But definitively, having a demand range of clarity for multiple years does and will likely shape the landscape of development opportunities, acquisition opportunities, as folks are starting to determine the level of supply that will go across the industry. We are active participants in renewable natural gas coalition and that information is routinely aggregated for EPA comment as they go through the RVO. And so there’s always a mindset where we are trying to determine what that supply/demand mechanic looks like, particularly in the absence of a formal cellulosic waiver credit. But beyond that, we typically don’t focus on guidance or commentary associated with what the pricing outlook could look like for those attributes in this year and beyond.
Operator: Thank you. Looks like we have a follow-up from Matthew Blair with TPH. Your line is open.
Matthew Blair: Hey, thanks for taking my follow-up. On the swine RNG efforts, you seem to be making good progress and I would say Montauk is certainly a leader in this space. Could you just talk about what’s your competitive edge on swine RNG? Is it technology? Is it people? Is it relationships or maybe something else?
Sean McClain: Sure, Matthew. As we have disclosed in previous quarters, our patented reactor technology allows for a very efficient processing of the swine waste in sort of a spoken hub type of fashion that allows for the optimal conversion of the swine waste into the various elements of biochar, renewable natural gas and renewable electricity. It is essentially an opportunity to do what traditional digestion methods do in a fraction of the time with a more compact, more reliable piece of technology and demonstrate that with folks like Duke Energy and with other folks as we look to monetize all of the commodity and attribute streams of that project. So in general, that would be our largest competitive advantage.
