Jason Veenstra: I think I can elaborate on that. The current run rate is the Q4 run rate. MacKellar is at a tick above even their Q3 prior to our acquisition. So the comment is really meant to say, the range for MacKellar is consistent with where they’re running here in Q4. So, obviously, the upper end would be a bit of an increase for them and the lower is kind of where they’re at right now.
Rahul Malhotra: Right. That’s helpful. And then in regards to the 2023 EBITDA and EPS guidance swing, just wanted to clarify. Is that just a factor of the timing of the MacKellar acquisition close or expectation for better performance in the legacy business as well, or both?
Jason Veenstra: Yes, of course it’s both. But the primary is MacKellar. We had MacKellar closing in mid November here as far as the July 27 guidance. And the ability to close it effective October 1 gave us some upside there. But we have a slightly improved outlook for our base business as well. So that’s what gets the midpoint of 2.90 for EPS.
Rahul Malhotra: Okay, very helpful. Thank you very much. I’ll pass it over.
Operator: Your next question comes from Adam Thalhimer of Thompson Davis. Your line is already open.
Adam Thalhimer: Hi. Good morning, guys. Nice quarter.
Joe Lambert: Hi, Adam.
Adam Thalhimer: The revenue you lost within Nuna in Q3, does that come back in Q4, or is that just a deferral?
Joe Lambert: We’re trying, but it’s all weather dependent. So a lot of the places they’re working will get snowed out pretty quick here if they haven’t already. So unfortunately, sometimes those deferrals can’t be pushed past that level, because they work in some high snow areas at some of these projects. And they actually get pushed into next year. So some of them — when you get deferrals with Nuna in Q3, you can’t always recover in the same year. If I’m guessing, Adam, I’d say half and half.
Adam Thalhimer: Okay. And you’re — I also wanted to ask about the bid pipeline. So your bid pipeline went from 5 billion to 6.5 billion? Is the jump there the inclusion of MacKellar?
Joe Lambert: No. Actually, there’s several major mining projects that we have that are multiyear mining projects that are non-oil sands that have come up in the last quarter. I think we’ve added over 2 billion of pre-tender phased projects in that. And we continue to see — you would have heard it in my comments, we continue to see good opportunities for long-term mining contracts in the resource industry in Canada. And I think we’re going to see the same thing in Australia. But these ones are only our core business right now.
Adam Thalhimer: Good news. And then your largest oil sands customer, the change in terms and commitments, if you were in our shoes, would that at all changed the way that we should be modeling your oil sands business?
Joe Lambert: No, I wouldn’t change it at all. It’s unfortunate that we have to revise our timing of things, but it’s not unusual. As I said, the exact same thing happened on our last contract with our other oil sands producer. Unfortunately, this one’s even bigger than that one was. So I can understand how it may create some anxiety, but it wouldn’t change our basis of prediction of how we’re going to perform. Our budgeting and forecasting is done purely on first principles, and hopefully with a little bit of conservatism in them. And so, no, we fully expect that we will replace that work and hopefully do more through an increase in utilization, which is what our plans are.
Adam Thalhimer: Great. And just lastly, Jason, do you have the depreciation numbers for Q4 and for 2024?
Jason Veenstra: Not right in front of me. I think we’re running right around 15% combined revenue for those years, and it’s all reflected in EPS. So we’re giving ourselves a little cushion with MacKellar as the common [ph] came with their capital for next year. So a little difficult to predict MacKellar’s depreciation rate at this point, but we’re right around that percentage.
Adam Thalhimer: Okay. Thanks, guys.
Joe Lambert: Thanks, Adam.
Jason Veenstra: Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from Jim (sic) [Tim] Monachello of ATB Capital Markets. Your line is already open.
Tim Monachello: Hi, guys.
Joe Lambert: Are you Tim’s brother?
Tim Monachello: Yes, his evil twin. I guess just around the Suncor contract you guys are negotiating, is that still going to incorporate all the sites into one?
Joe Lambert: It will be one form of contract for all three sites. I guess technically, there’s five different mine sites on three different locations. But each one will have their own scope.
Tim Monachello: And you’ll be able to [indiscernible] is that still the idea, or is that changed as well?
Joe Lambert: No. I believe our contract specifically, I don’t believe that will be in every base contract. I believe we will have that provision in ours, where we allow movements of committed volume between sites.
Tim Monachello: Okay. And I appreciate all the commentary around sort of your view of how it may or may not affect activity, at least over the near term. The optics of it might suggest that the long-term positioning for the way that they’re thinking about contractor usage has changed and that would align with some of the commentary that you said publicly, although I think there’s a number of structural reasons why that’s difficult. I’m wondering if you can kind of elaborate on why you think your positioning in the oil sands is defensive over a longer period of time.
