Good afternoon, good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Today we have an update with Talisker Resources. President and CEO, Terry Harbort, is with us. The company released the results of the PEA on the Bralorne Gold Project earlier this week. The format of today's session will be Q&A with Terry. If you have questions, please enter them into the Q&A box at the bottom of your screen. Thank you to those that sent in questions. We have those ready to go as well. Before we begin, as always, today's presentation will contain forward-looking statements. You can learn more about those in the presentation that's on the company's website. With that out of the way, welcome, Terry. Thank you for joining us. I think you're on site at Beaver Creek right now, right?
Yes, Magda. Up here at Beaver Creek. So been a very busy week, and good to be able to discuss this long-awaited PEA.
All right. Thank you. We have questions ready to go. We're going to start off with touching on the PEA resource and mine plan. The 2026 resource now contains over 3.3 million ounces, and grades are about 9 g per tonne. The PEA mine plan has an average head grade of 3.9 g per tonne. Can you walk us through what drives the difference, particularly around dilution and mining widths, and where you see opportunities to improve those grades?
Yeah, absolutely. Really the main focus that people see in the parameters that we've increased the mining width out to 2.5 m, from what our current design mining width now is 1.8 m to around 2 m. The reasoning for this is to increase the distance between our development levels, so that significantly reduces the development that we need to do. As underground long hole development, we have to do a lot of development along the veins, both above and below, so we can extract those stopes. So being able to reduce that has a significant impact on the value of the project and the amount of work and people. So it flows through into where it is. Being able to bring in more lower grade material that we can then process later on, and upgrade with the ore sorter is a significant component of this as well.
A lot of material, and I will remind everyone that our cutoff here, our economic cutoff is in the 2.3 g range. That material, although lower grade, is still very economic. We are not here just to mine gold, we are here to make money out of mining gold. We have to design a mine plan to be flexible and maximize the gold that we have available and taking on some lower grade areas. We see the grade reduces later in time, and this is after a lot of our CapEx and sustaining capital is already been invested. We have already got the plant, the process, the camp, all of this has already been implemented. A lot of the development has already been completed, a lot of the ramping and all of that. We do not need high grade material to be able to move that out.
The average production grade coming out of that is likely to be significantly higher. Probably up around the 6 g-8 g per tonne will be what will be coming out compared to the head grade, through the ore sorting process.
Got it. Thank you. The PEA leans heavily on inferred resources. How much resource conversion drilling is required over the next few years, and where will that be focused?
We have a significant program underway, I think that everybody is quite aware of. That is 85,000 m-90,000 m. The main focus of that is in three areas. Of course, Mustang, itself, where we are currently mining. Bralorne West, that is getting a significant amount of drilling, about 25,000 m going in. Then a preliminary program across at Olympus. Starting to drill out the first years of production that we will have there in Olympus. Beyond that, all of that is included in our sustaining costs. We will continually drill each year, as we support the mine plan a couple of years out in front. We have drilling several years out in front, development one year out in front, as we develop along these vein systems.
Got it. Thank you. You are currently mining at Mustang with access established to Bralorne West. What are the key underground development milestones over the next 12-18 months?
So really we have a lot of focus both on the continuation of the lower Mustang ramp, that is our 4 by 4 access spiral ramp. That will be continuing down to the 1,000 level and down beyond. We are currently stubbing into the 1015 level. So we have already completed from 1060 to 1045, 1030, now in 1015. So the ramp will continue, as we develop that lateral development. Again, lateral development, or long vein development has been completed on 1045, is underway on 1030. Then here over the next sort of three to four months, we will be developing on the 1015, the 1,000, and the 980. Over at Bralorne West, we will be developing a couple of key areas there, over the next nine months or so. That will be the 1060 level where we are currently at.
There will be a cross-cut going in there, which will intersect the veins that we will be mining. We will be then starting the lateral development of those veins on the 1060 level. Starting the ramp development to go down to the 1045 level. Also continuing the straight shot decline that we did from the Mustang portal, over to what is called the Blackbird Raise. That will allow a second point of surface ventilation to come in and ventilate all those activities that will be going on in Bralorne West. So, a lot of work going on, a lot of development work. A lot of infrastructure work to bring that Bralorne West up and into production, heavily in third and fourth quarter, particularly of 2027.
Got it. Thank you. Touching on geology and stope geometry, recent drilling highlights the M series as a set of flat-lying, vertically stacked veins alongside steep primary structures like the BK-9870. Given that current stope planning focuses on M2, how much unmodeled upside do M1 and M3 present in terms of incremental ounces per vertical meter, and how does your model predict that stack pattern down dip below 1015 level?
Okay. I can answer some of those points. Really, the M structures are third order structures. The Bralorne deposit itself is what they call a strike slip Riedel system. It consists of first order structures that control the overriding architecture of the whole deposit. They are generally unmineralized. That is the Cadwallader and Ferguson faults. The movement on those structures are what breaks our second order structures. The second order structures are long strike continuity, generally high dip between 65 and vertical structures. These are the predominant structures that we have drilled out for our resource, and that we will be mining. And the main reason for that is that they are very predictive, they are very continuous, and we can mine them with mechanical methods such as long hole, longitudinal retreat. The M structures are a series of third order structures.
These are not quite perpendicular, but near to perpendicular to the second order structures. We do not target those in drilling, because we would have to do a lot of drilling to be able to develop resource, and we are focused on what gives our best drilling, discovery, and conversion rate, which is the second level structures. Historically, the M structures or those style of third order structures were mined in an opportunistic sense, so they were not explored for, similar to what we are doing. And we are taking that same tact. If we come across them in our development, as we have here, so we did not drill them, we came across them in development because they are almost perpendicular to our drill pattern, then we will certainly take these out.
In that sense, we do not have a clear picture until we are on top of them and we can sample them and drill them with our long hole drills and sample that, of how much gold is contained in these. Where we are now, there is very limited historical development and historical mapping. Again, we do not have a clear picture of what the repetition of these en echelon sets is. So apologize, I cannot really answer that question. It is an opportunistic thing. Some cream on top of the cake, really. But they do not have the frequency or the geometry for us to really focus on building a mine plan around.
Got it. Thank you. I see one follow-up question about these structures.
Do you have a sense of the typical spacing or offset between M1, M2, M3? How short are the crosscuts required off of existing level drifts to access M1 and M3? Would you be extracting test stopes from them during the Mustang ramp-up?
Yeah. Look, just to sort of reiterate the geometries of these. They sit between the other structures. So they sit between what we're mining long hole. So, they're in between and nearly perpendicular to the BK-9870, and Alhambra. They've formed by movement on those structures. So, technically, as we're doing long hole development on the main structures, we're literally cross-cutting these other structures. So it's just when we get there, then we look to stope in between the main BK-9870, and Alhambra structures. So it isn't additional development. We're just developing this way, and then we hit these structures, and then we stope them out in the areas in between those veins.
Got it. Thank you. Then, coming back to the PEA. The PEA shows production ramping up from about 350 tonnes per day to 1,500 before the mill, and then ultimately to about 2,700 tonnes a day. What are the key bottlenecks to work through to get through today's operation to that scale?
Look, it's all the ordinary bottlenecks of developing a mine. It's having the drilling done, having the development done, having the infrastructure in. So, electricity, air, water, all of the usual things. So it's basically just following the mine plan, implementing these in a steady and systematic way so we can support that ramp-up over time.
Got it. Thank you. I see a follow-up question here about ramp-up. The PEA models a nominal 2,700 tonne per day central process plant. Is the circuit design modular enough to stage initial commissioning at 750-1,000 tonnes per day to lower upfront CapEx? How easily could it be expanded as you get portals coming online?
It will be one mill. We will not be having multiple mills going in there. We can run that mill at lower capacity, that is no trouble, so we can build that in. It depends on the amount of material that we channeled through the ore sorter. The current plan detailed here in the PEA is really just focusing lower grade material through the ore sorter and then sending that to the mill. We have quite a bit of flexibility. We can start to send more high grade material through the ore sorter to elaborate or open up more capacity if we are bringing in material from other sites or if we change our ramp-up profile to go faster because of a higher gold price or something like that. There is a lot of flexibility in it, but not relative to scaling the equipment backwards and forwards.
It is about the amount of material that we would send through the ore sorter. The ore sorter has got capacity for 1,700 tonnes per day. With a single inline ore sorter, we would really focus on the upgrading of lower grade material that would either be below cutoff or lower grade. If we are mining areas that are 12 g, 13 g, or 14 g, then we will most likely just send that directly to the mill as it is.
Got it. Thank you. I see two investor questions here about costs. I will try and combine them. Are there significant opportunities to reduce the PEA projected all-in sustaining costs? What factors need to go right for you to have about $1,500 per ounce AISC long term post-inflation?
Sorry, just ask the first part of that again.
Yep. So what opportunities do you see to reduce the PEA projected costs, please?
I think the costs are pretty solid as they are. We are quite close to what industry averages production costs are at this stage. Underground mines are always generally high cost mines and a high cost per ounce. That is relative to the level of development that we need to operate on. I guess it comes down to cycle time and operational efficiency. So moving across to single operator, double boom jumbo style, moving away from any manual style operating and having a very tight cycle time. With the cycling or with the scheduling of the mine, I think it has been quite well designed. So that is all coming out of the Deswik software. So I think that is quite a robust number that we have there.
We are always looking at efficiencies to be able to keep that there and keep it quiet, but it is really backed on a really well-designed mine schedule.
Got it. What factors would need to go right for you to have a $1,500 AISC long term?
Execution of the mine plan, I guess. Yeah. That's it.
Got it. I see a follow-up question here about grade. Can you kind of speak a little bit more why the grade in the PEA is lower than the historical context for Bralorne? Was there an application of a conservative methodology due to much of the resource being inferred? Would current drilling address this issue?
Yeah. Look, I can answer both of those questions sort of in one answer. The historic production at Bralorne was using a different mining method, a very manual and nowadays very expensive. People are the most expensive cost we have, called shrinkage and also cut and fill. The levels were very close, so it was quite expensive mining, quite manual mining. But they were able to be very selective and very surgical. There was limited amount of waste material included in. They were able to mine quite narrow widths. We could try and attempt to mine very narrow widths, but it would be very expensive and very slow. We wouldn't be able to achieve the large level of rates that we have.
To be able to achieve these rates, what we are doing is increasing the mining units, increasing the size of the stopes, and that causes more dilution. The in situ dilution, which is the grade of the veins before we put any mining shapes. What we have is very similar to the historic. If we could be incredibly selective, we would be mining at 17 g, 18 g, or 19 g, but we would not produce much gold, and it would be very expensive gold. Our focus or our objective is not really to mine gold, it is to make money. Make money by mining gold. To do that, we are looking at a larger mining unit, faster mining rates, more mechanized mining. Basically, mining faster, mining bigger, causing more dilution, but still mining, bringing the same gold out.
We reduce our processing cost because we pass this through the ore sorter that removes a lot of that waste material. But using old mining methods as they did in the '40s, '50s and '60s, it is just insurmountable now to be able to mine like that. It is very difficult to find people who still know how to mine in those operations. We moved to a more mechanized, much faster, lower risk mining method to achieve those rates.
Got it. Thank you. I see one more question here on grades. The PEA models at 5.7 g per tonne head grade during early operations, till 2030, and then dropping to 3.7 g a tonne post-expansion. Why this drop? Is there capping? Do the stopes get bigger? Can you speak to that a little?
We are just incorporating more material and higher production rates. We keep the capping standard across the area at 100 g per tonne. A lot of this is, particularly the long range material, is based all on inferred. And we do certainly see the grade come up 10% to 20% to 30% when we convert into indicated. And then as we are doing channel samples, we see the grade jump again, as we go into proven and probable before we mine the stopes. Now, until we have collected that data in a mining area, I cannot tell you that the grade is going to come out at those grades. We certainly anticipate that it will, but we need to build our model, our economics, and our mine plan on the data that we have.
We expect it will continue as we have seen here in Mustang, higher than what we expect. But we have to work our economics, our cutoff grade and our mine plan on the data that we have.
Got it. Thank you. Initial capital is listed at CAD 416 million. How much of this has already been incurred? How much will be paid through cash flows? Do you have a sense of how much you would anticipate needing to raise via debt or equity?
All of that is basically from the start of the PEA period, which is mid-next year, onwards until the completion of the mill. The figures I think was CAD 185 million for capital development work. So that's development through the growth phase. So that's all growth capital, basically to take us from where we are now at about 200 tonnes, 250 tonnes per day, firstly up to 750 tonnes per day, and then onwards to 2,700 tonnes per day. So that's the lion's share of that growth capital that's going in, and that'll be deployed parallel to that ramp-up phase, basically over the next five years. Coming into the mill build, the remainder of that CapEx is for the mill process plant, tailings facility, and the paste plant, filter press, all that that goes with it. The new 300-person camp coming in.
We need people to be able to mine at that rate. So all that's that material that comes in towards the end of that ramp-up cycle. So when we hit the edge of that ramp up is when we bring the mill online, commission the mill, and that's when that capital will be expended. It's likely, at this stage, still quite a few years off, Magda, but we'd likely do manufacturer or vendor finance for that material. Anything that's got physical assets or equipment would likely be. That's usually the general form how things are done.
Got it. Thank you. What is your conviction level in maintaining 1.8 m stopes while reaching 1,000 tonnes per day through the Mustang portal over the next, or within 24 months? How do you see the mining methods evolving as the total site tonnage scales over the long term?
Okay. We will not be mining at 1.8 m, we will be mining at 2.5 m. The mining method will remain unchanged. We will be doing mechanical long hole longitudinal retreat, so developing along the veins and then stoping backwards, so retreating backwards, as we come. The main changes that we will see from what we are doing now, aside from the stope width, is increasing the lateral development height. We will be increasing that up to 3.5 m. That is basically to allow us to have better long hole drilling equipment. To be able to use gyroscopic drilling so we can get very good control on our blast patterns and minimize any sort of dilution that comes out. Our 4 by 4 ramping, we are likely to transition that all into double boom jumbo. That allows one operator to bore, mesh, and bolt with one piece of equipment.
It shortens that cycle time and allows us to have rapid cycle development, 4 by 4 blasts, so a lot of movement. That development will likely stay the same, about 4.5 m. This allows us to increase our current trucking tonnages. We are using 22 tonnes trucks. We still fit 30 tonne or 40 tonne trucks there. So that helps us to move more material with those larger trucks with the same development scale. Really to summarize that, there will be changes mainly in the mining unit, and some slight changes in the width. But the mining method will remain the same, unless we hit some of these third order M type structures, where we will likely mine those by other, more manual methods, if the grade and the cutoff warrants it.
Got it. Thank you. Do you have a sense of the physical practical limit in tonnes per day of the Mustang portal single decline when accounting for haulage, traffic, congestion, and ventilation?
Oh, I could probably try and calculate it for you. It would be well beyond what we have. If we look at early stage using 20 tonne trucks, if we have a 10-minute cycle time and effective 20 hour per day running, that would be 4,000 tonnes that we could move out that portal. If we had increased cycle time, let us say it is 20 minutes cycle time, that would be 2,000 tonnes per day throughout that portal. If we use 40 tonne trucks, then it comes back to 4,000 tonnes per day. I think, well beyond what we would be stoping, we would be able to.
Right.
Get there. Yeah.
Thank you.
It allows us, and we have basically designed that so we can mine at a maximal rate at Mustang itself, out of Bralorne West, where we are developing now, and then out of the Mustang West, which we will be looking to develop in 2027 and 2028.
Okay. Thank you. Terry, I see a follow-up question here. Can you speak to how much of the CapEx you hope to fund from operations? Do you have a target goal in terms of that outlay?
Yeah, look, I'd obviously like to be able to generate as much as I can out of cash flow. At this stage, it all sort of depends on what the gold price does. If the gold price stays where it is, then of course we'll have a significant amount that we'll be able to utilize out of cash flow. If the gold price goes back down, $3,500 or whatever, then we'll have to look at other mechanisms to be able to fund that, whether that's through combinations of debt, offtake, equity or other instruments to be able to fund that. I'm hopeful that the gold price is going to stay or even go back higher to where it is. But we have to be realistic about this, and that's why we've chosen the base case we have.
But obviously the gold price is well above it and has been significantly above. It's been $2,000 above our base case less than six months ago. So, I am hopeful that we can fund the majority of that through our production if the gold price plays ball with us.
Got it. Thank you. I see a question here about current operations. We're heading now into the fourth quarter. Earlier in the year, you gave some guidance on potential production targets, about 20,000 for 2026. Are we still on track, or are we looking at something different for production for 2026?
Okay, I wasn't previously technically allowed to give any formal guidance, but we were able to give some rough ranges of production. The production this year will be around, we expect the 10,000-12,000 mark. Most of that's related to the delay from the resubmission of our bridging permit. We submitted in December last year a permit for increase to 500 tonnes per day. After discussions with the government, we retracted that and resubmitted it for a larger production rate, 750 tonnes per day. Basically to allow us to then only have to do one more permit amendment for the mill and for the larger plant. As opposed to sequentially going through and doing multiple permit amendments, we've just narrowed that down to doing two specific amendments.
The figure of 750 is related to our bridging agreement that we have with our First Nation partners, which has a maximal 750 tonne per day, that we can truck through their territory prior to triggering an IBA. We're sort of packaging everything together, so it reduces the amount of work that we have to do and that the government has to do in that permitting cycle. We believe it was the right decision, but what it's done is slowed down the production that we could achieve here in fourth quarter and pushed that into first quarter of next year.
Got it. Thank you. Here's a question. Do you have any comments about the initial PEA estimates for production? They seem conservative for the first four years, about only 188,000 oz.
Sure.
How do you view those?
Look, I think overall, everyone will probably agree that it is quite a conservative PEA. The reasoning for that is that we are executing this now. That this is based on our actual mine plan. That this is based on what we are going to do. It would have been a frightening position for us to extrapolate too much beyond what we believe we can actually achieve from our production rates, from our ramp-up cycle time. What we believe we have put out here is an achievable rate. It is not a comparable PEA, so we did not take other people's numbers. We used our numbers, our actual economics of how we are going to develop this. To answer your question, yes, it is conservative, but I would rather be conservative with my shareholders.
If we can achieve more than that, we can get better grades and get a better production and more development. All of us are happy. To answer that, yes, perhaps we can mine more than that. But again, it is based on a real mine schedule. We have got an optimized mine schedule, stope optimized ore bodies, and this is what we are going to be executing. We think we have come up with a realistic way to do that, a realistic ramp-up of development. Development is the key bottleneck, being able to get access to these veins, develop along these veins so we can access the stope material. That is really what our focus is, particularly here for the next nine months as we bring Bralorne West online. But then following that ramp-up, we have got to execute that development out in front.
Got it.
Brr.
Thank you. Once the Mustang operation matures at 1,000 tonnes per day, what is the targeted steady state ratio between stoping ore and development?
I'd have to ask the engineers that one. Perhaps I can cycle back to that shareholder, or on the next webinar, I can go and get that data and let you know. I apologize, I don't carry that sort of statistics around in my head.
Okay. No worries. Near-term production outlook. Can you provide any color on production, execution, haulage plans, and kind of grade reconciliation, like a bit of an outlook for Q4? So into the-
Yeah. In a way, I can. As we haven't got published guidance, I can't tell you that, but it's likely around the 5,000-6,000 ounce mark. We have I think 3,000 tonnes or 4,000 tonnes that's just been crushed and will be issuing a holding certificate. We're likely shipping another 10,000 tonnes or 11,000 tonnes towards the end of October. Mining rate will be around 200-250 tonnes per day between here and the end of the year. Development rate, couldn't tell you straight off the top of my head, but I can certainly grab those figures and bring them into the next webinar.
Thank you. Would you consider completing a follow-up technical study, such as a PFS or feasibility, especially if doing so could broaden the financing options available for the larger build-out?
Margaret, it's always an option. At this stage, I wouldn't see the value in drilling off a 10-year mine life to indicate it to support a PEA. We've got a very de-risked, very well-known ore body. It was mined for a very long time. I'm quite happy with drilling out to support our mine plan several years in front. Having to drill out 10 years, I think is cost prohibitive, and I'd rather put that CapEx into development.
Got it. Thank you. Kind of wrapping up, the PEA describes a transition, over four years, from today's operation to a larger mine and mill complex. Where do you see the greatest execution risks during this transit?
Well, I guess it's normal execution risks of any mine. Execution risks are being able to keep up our development rate, which depends on having enough electricity and have enough air in place, having enough drilling completed out in front of where we are. The conversion from inferred into indicated. As we drill things out, we might lose some stopes, we might gain some stopes. We think that risk is quite low, and that's why we've transitioned into production because it's a very well understood ore body, very well understood conversion statistics. Our reconciliation statistics up until date, even though it's only this year, we're only at eight months or so of statistics, has been very good, slightly on the positive side. So it appears that it's an ore body that behaves very well. The geomechanics behave very well.
Although all of these risks exist, I think they're well mitigated against by our mine plan and our knowledge of the ore body.
Thank you, Terry. As we kind of look into Q4 and the first half of next year, Terry, in your opinion, what could be some of the catalysts that would be supportive of an increase in the share price?
Well, of course, I think the main two here are receiving our permit amendment, which our guidance from the government here is that will be in January, in Q1. Then, of course, following on from that is continued development across at Bralorne West, and then bringing Bralorne West online first with lateral development, so development ore. Then, of course, our stoping, which is now scheduled in for Q4 in 2027, that we will be stoping out some of those good-looking high-grade stopes over there. There will be a significant amount of drill results coming out here, particularly out of Bralorne West, and also out of lower Mustang, so continuing down below where the ramp currently is. Also has some good returns coming out of our production areas, so where we are doing our development now. We have had some good press releases out.
We are expecting to track those ore shoots, so some very high-grade ore shoots there, quite extensive. We are continuing to track those down there as well. Of course, we will be continuing with our gold sales and tracking with that our revenue ramp up as we ramp up our development and production rates.
All right. Thank you, Terry. Is there anything else you wanted to cover that we did not get a chance to cover today? I know you have meetings at Beaver Creek, but was there anything else that you wanted to cover we did not get a chance to touch on?
There's only one thing that I've been asked here that I think might be useful for anybody on the line, was a question about an update to the resource following the drilling that we're doing here. So if we're doing another early 2027 update to the resource. The simple answer is no, we won't be. We'll be continuing through that drill out program. We might look to do an updated resource, which will be predominantly updating the indicated category. Its majority is resource conversion drilling, so it'll increase that volume of indicated. At this stage, again, I sound like a broken record, but I'd rather spend that money, put it into development, put it into infrastructure, put it into growth, and wait until we've completed that program as opposed to just cutting off at the end of the year.
I've been asked that a couple of times here, so I think that's good to bring up as well.
Got it. Thank you. Can I throw in one more question about the ore sorter?
Yes. Absolutely.
All right.
I've still got a bit of time here.
Okay. Thank you. After installation and testing of the ore sorter, can you speak to the average grade that would be expected to be shipped, and can you provide any color on the payabilities from Ocean Partners?
To answer the first part of that, initially we'll be reprocessing our lower grade ore that we have. That's sub 5 g material. We've been stockpiling that underground back in the stopes that we've mined. We'll be extracting that material and upgrading it to above what our shipping cut-off is, which is 5 g per tonne. We're bringing that material in. I don't know what the range of that will be. Was the second question regarding average grade?
Can you provide any color on the payabilities from Ocean Partners?
Not really. We have factored some of this in, but it is quite contained by them. Basically it works within a range of 86.5%, I think it is. At the top end of the high-grade material, it goes up to 93.5% payable for total contained gold. Not recovered gold, total contained gold.
Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Terry, for the update. Thank you to the audience for participating. If anybody has any questions we did not get to, please email us at info@6ix.com and we will get those in front of Terry . Thank you, Terry. Have a good afternoon, everyone. Take care.
Oh, Magda, there is one more question that has come in about the mine life.
Oh. Yeah.
I am happy to address that as well.
Okay.
Yeah.
Can you speak to the 17-year mine life from the PEA versus the 30 expected prior guidance?
Yeah, absolutely. A simple answer is, with calculation of net present value, the longer your project life, the less value you have for things a long way from today. We work at a discount rate, so long term or way out things get discounted back. Really, beyond sort of a 15-year or a 16-year mine life, any production that we will do, if we were to do 20 years, we would get no value for that. It would be discounted back to zero. At this stage, there is not really any point in having a very long mine life developing that out, because it would not add anything to the NPV or the cash flows. It would be discounted out. Also, the mine plan is likely to change. We work on a short-term mine plan, a mid-term mine plan, and a long-term mine plan.
We have a long-term mine plan to continue beyond the resource that's in the PEA, which I think was 1.8 million ounces. All that material will likely be drilled, be changed. The sequence will change. We know we're going to mine it, and I still stand by the fact that we expect the mine to run well beyond this 30, 40 years. I've got no concerns about that at all. It's just too far away for us to plan, and the economics get discounted back to zero anyway, so it has no value for us.
All right. Got it, Terry. Thank you so much for the update. Thank you to the audience. Again, if anybody has any further questions, please email info@6ix.com. Thank you. Have a good afternoon. All right. Thank you, Terry. Bye, everyone.