Gregory Gibas: Got it, very helpful. And then I guess lastly just, what is maybe reasonable to assume regarding variable revenue this year? I know you provided the range, but what would maybe be kind of a rough baseline that would be a fair assumption?
Eric Kalamaras: Well, we had initially indicated that we were going to look at close to 50 million in variable revenue for 2023. And as I’ve said, that is we pushed more towards the second half specifically — partially due to the Title 42, but it’s really a function of this typical seasonal census that we’re seeing right now, which is not out of the ordinary. So that’s actually coming in fine. Look, I’d like to say there’s a chance that it’s better than all that. But look, we’ll just have to wait and see. I think it’s a little too early, just to say, if it is better, how much? Look, I think it’s hard to make a determination, Greg, when you’re in the shoulder period, when you’re coming off of the period where fewer net children have been coming over the past few months.
And so that kind of winds down the influx capacity a little bit, or need a little bit and then we’ll see what that looks like particularly coming to spring, which is seasonally very, very strong. It could be exceptionally strong with the changes in the administration policy.
Gregory Gibas: Got it. Thanks for the color. I’ll pass it on.
Brad Archer: Thanks.
Operator: . The next question comes from Stephen Gengaro with Stifel. Please go ahead.
Stephen Gengaro: Thank you. Good morning, everybody.
Brad Archer: Good morning.
Eric Kalamaras: Hi, Steve.
Stephen Gengaro: A couple of things for me, the first was just on the variable piece and I don’t want to read into this too much, but when we think about the $50 million expectation for the year at least I guess is the sort of baseline. How much those utilization of the asset this year impact the negotiation? Like, is it pretty clear this long-term need is sufficient where like if your utilization was low this year that the government could rethink the capacity needs longer term, or is that reading into too short term of a data point?
Eric Kalamaras: Yes, I understand why you would ask that question. I think it’s very much a too short term of a data point, partially because what we’re seeing is no different than what we saw last year at the same time. So that’s kind of point number one. Point number two, I think the case of our deli location is a great case study for this. That was renewed for five additional years right in the middle of COVID with very few occupants obviously for health reasons. And so I don’t think there’s really a correlation to that one bit. As we mentioned, the government is short on the influx capacity, and so I don’t think they — I don’t think that really has any bearing as to how they’re thinking about this.
Stephen Gengaro: Okay, thanks. That was what I thought, but I’ve gotten questions so I figured I’d ask you. So the other sort of bigger picture question, if we work under the assumption and our model is kind of built this way that you guys do secure this long-term contract. And then we look out and you don’t have to bless the number, but then you’re looking at, I don’t know, $175 million to $200 million of annual free cash flow and visibility on that free cash flow. What does we do over a multi-year period as far as utilizing that cash? And maybe I know we’ve touched on this a little bit, but what are the other sort of end markets you might access or could this just be a massive return of capital storage to investors?
