 Hi, I'd like to welcome you to a talk about gas demethanol. This is pretty pivotal right now. It's actually why I talked with Dusty about trying to get this in there. For those of you that are watching this video and you tried to, I'm sorry, I apologize now that the timing got messed up. One of the issues is where this place is being built. So kind of one of the questions is Tacoma, what comes to mind? And Tacoma has a legacy of industrial use. The Tacoma Aroma is a big one. And so there's kind of the, they're not looking to build it in Mercer Island. They're not looking to build it in Bill Gates's. They're looking to build it. So literally there's a field out there called environmental justice. That's one of the big things that deals with this. With the methanol plant, and I'm going to go through this a little bit faster. But what have you heard? And there's a lot of information out there. And so what I want to do is kind of frame what it is, what are the risks, and then kind of what are our roles if there are as citizens. So there's a ton of hype out there right now. And most of it is reactionary. Most of it is emotional. That may be based on fact. It may not be based on fact. Social media is feeding this monster and it's growing really quick. And there are very much legitimate concerns with this. But that doesn't necessarily, so that doesn't negate these. But you're starting to see, this is actually a comic in Tacoma. And Tacoma is looking at banning single-use plastic bags like Seattle has. And so he's like, oh, basically deal with the plastic. Oh, and ignore the biggest methanol plant in the world. So there is a scale of what's important. So the project is being done by a LLC, a limited liability corporation called Northwest Innovations Work. It will convert natural gas to methanol. It will be the largest of three facilities that are going to be built. It is worth, the Tacoma one is estimated to cost $3.4 billion. And methanol is a feedstock for plastic. So this becomes olefins, which becomes plastic. All of the methanol produced by this plant will be exported to China for use. Some of that, obviously, will come back in products. Methanol, it's the simplest of alcohols. You've probably heard of ethanol in your car. This is a simpler version than that. It's been known as methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, spirit, carbonyl. It's colorless. It's flammable. It's volatile. It is in the environment, but it's usually at really low concentrations, like a 10,000th of a percent sort of idea. It is used industrial chemically as a solvent, as an additive. Again, you can put it into your fuel and burn it. It's a biofuel to some level. If you look, make sure you skip. If you use any chemicals at any location, they use what's called an MSDS. An MSDS is a material safety and data sheet. So if you have janitorial services in your facility, in their closet, they have a binder that has MSDS for all the chemicals they use. If you have a biology lab, they have an MSDS for all the stuff being used. And so the MSDS kind of lets you see what are the big issues. So this stuff can be, according to the MSDS, this stuff can be absorbed through the skin, through eye contact, through inhalation and ingestion. In other words, most forms of ingress. When they talk about toxicity to animals, one of the things is trying to compare apples to apples. It's toxic, but how toxic? Sort of that idea. And there's a toxicology test that they call the LC-50. It's lethal concentration 50. At what dose do 50% of the test organisms die? Lethal concentration 50. So what they found is acute oral toxicity, as in via the mouth, for rats at about 500 milligrams, 5,000 milligrams per kilogram. I figured that out for me and converted it. And that's like a bag of candy, sort of idea in terms of amounts. So for my body mass, that's how much would kill me. So about 450 grams. Dermal toxicity, lower, so through the skin, how much is going to cause problems. Acute toxicity of the vapor as in breathing it. And on the scale of things, not that you want to hang with these, but there's much worse chemicals out there. But then we're talking about the largest plant in the world. So we're not talking about microgram doses. We're talking metric tons of this stuff. According to the MSDS, it has mutagenic effects. So it causes mutations. It has teratogenic. This is effects on fetuses. So it can actually cross the placental barrier and cause problems with the fetus. It causes irritation with the skin, ingestion, issues. So there's a whole bunch of issues with this with exposures, i.e. you don't really want to be exposed to this. Ecotoxicity, this is ecosystem impacts. At, again, milligrams over a couple of days is problems, sort of idea. So if there's a large spiel of this, what kind of problems are we going to have? That's one of the serious concerns. Biodegradation, how quickly does it break down? So one of the things, Tacoma has a lot of legacy pollution on the acarcoplant with the arsenic. The acarcoplant hasn't been pumping arsenic into the atmosphere for decades, and it's still there, and it's going to stay in the environment over this entire region. This stuff breaks down relatively quickly within days. So we're not talking a pollution that, once you spill it, it's there. It will break down in the environment. So the MSDS also says there's a couple of other things that it rapidly biodegrades. It has a relatively short half-life. Comparing it to other chemicals, if you look at, for example, motor oil or gasoline or diesel, this is methanol. What we see is blue is health hazards. So it's there. Red is fire hazard. It's fairly high. Yellow is reactivity. Obviously, we're not worried about it being like erupting sort of idea. It's not TNT. And then white is oxidizers, acids, radioactives, and so forth. So I mean, it's a chemical. It's a chemical you need to be careful of, but there are also way worse chemicals out there. The process, what they do is they're going to pipe a natural gas into Tacoma. They're going to use water and energy, and they're going to purify that natural gas. And then they're going to turn it using catalysts into methanol, which, again, will be shipped to Asia. So to do this, though, requires a lot of energy. And again, all of this is being shipped to China. It's all for export. Couple confusions. And if you listen to the public, you'll hear these confusions. Methane, natural gas, methanol. Those are the terms that kind of get confused. So let me first off, methane and methanol are not the same product. Methanol is a product through this process of the ingredient methane. So methane is being converted into methanol. Methanol is what the plant will make. Methane is one of the major constituents of natural gas. So if you have a natural gas, it's actually impure. There's other chemicals in it. Methane is the majority. You can also get some propane, for example. You can get some carbon dioxide, actually, and you can get some of these other ones. And these other ones are actually some of the issues when you burn this stuff. Because that's the pollution sort of idea. Methane, to be honest, if you look at its chemical form, there's nothing else in it. So as long as it's pure methane, it burns really cleanly. Natural gas is not pure methane. So where does that natural gas come from? There are pipelines all over the country. There is a trunk of a pipeline basically running through Washington and Oregon. The nearest this is to Tacoma is Puyallup. They will have to build a 10-mile-long pipeline from Puyallup to Tacoma. And there's already concerns about where that's going, whose properties they're cutting through, that sort of idea. Where exactly the natural gas is coming from, what I've heard is that it's going to be coming from Canada. So it's going to be a Canadian supply of fracked natural gas, and I'll bring that up. Historically, methanol has been made from coal or petroleum as the feedstock rather than natural gas. If you look just at what the factory produces in terms of the burning and the turning of coal and or oil into methanol versus natural gas, the natural gas is 70% cleaner in terms of carbon emission if you only look at the factory sort of idea. And that's one of the big, you hear this number touted. Actually, Governor Inslee has touted this as a clean energy sort of idea. He seems to be starting to back-petal a little bit on that. Also, if you're going to move natural gas, the best way to move it is via pipeline. Energetically, it's the most efficiently. Environmentally, it's the most efficient. So moving, you don't really want to move it by train. You don't really want to move it by truck. Those are much less safe and energetically more expensive. So we can get it here. We can get it in large amounts. Yes, they have to build a 10-mile pipeline on the scheme of the largest plant in the world, a 10-mile pipeline is relatively small. If that's my land, that's a different question, though. Natural gas in the United States, as well in Canada, has dramatically grown in the last 10 years as a fuel. It's actually perceived as what they call a bridge fuel, as in until we can get renewables up to speed, let's move away from coal and use natural gas. And again, it burns cleanly. So it's better in terms of carbon dioxide. No, actually, it's not. There is what they call fugitive emissions. And these are the hidden or unknown impacts of these gases. So one of the reasons why it's a big deal is, and I'm going to use natural gas and methane interchangeably here, but the reality is methane is a purified natural gas, is methane ounce per ounce, gram per gram, is 25 to 80 times larger of a climate change impact, as in heat absorption than carbon dioxide. So you release a metric ton, you release a metric ton, the methane will be 25 to 80 times greater. And the reason for the range is it depends on the time scale of what you're looking at. If you're looking at a 10 to 20 year time scale, it's this number. If you're looking at a 100 year time scale, it's this number. And that's methane breaks down. It doesn't last in the environment longer than decades. The production is potentially larger than other sources in the country, i.e. we have massive amounts of natural gas potentially available. One of the big issues with it in terms of those fugitives is transportation and storage. It has to be transported. Pipelines do leak. It has to be stored. Storage tanks do leak. What is currently going on in California, although the last word in the last couple of days is they may have finally capped the leak. The Southern California Gas Company has, over the past four months, leaked the natural gas emissions equivalent of eight or nine coal plants through this. Basically, they stored underground in old and actually a dried up oil well and the system leaked. And they couldn't fix it for months and months and months. So it's, yeah, if you think of the carbon dioxide emitted by that, this would be equivalent to that of like a year. So I don't believe so. No, no, from the best numbers I can tell. And that's one of those. A lot of these numbers are really wiggly a little bit, because the Northwest Innovations Company isn't telling us about the negatives. So you've got to find them. How do you find them? So to kind of try to line in on that wiggly, the fugitive emissions, what are we talking about? So there's been numerous studies. You can see most of these have been done in the last five years that have looked at the amount of gas that's leaked by getting it out of the ground. And what you see is a range of from maybe a percent up to seven, eight, nine percent. One of the problems that these have is if you're a natural gas driller source of that, you're not really wanting to advertise that you leak in this process. So there's some, you can do a direct testing. You can also do some remote testing. So but even, let's just say the number is 2%. If you're talking a gas that's 80 times more, 2% leak times 80, math guys, those work out about the same sort of idea. So in other words, shifting from oil or coal to natural gas, to be honest, maybe slightly better. But the reality is it's probably been about a wash. But we've been patting ourselves on the back for the last decade going, we're doing good sort of idea. Kind of scary. How much gas will this place use? It's an interesting question. According to Northwest Innovations' work, they will use 524 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. How much is that? 524 million cubic feet. Highline campus is 80 acres. If you take that square footage and you go up 1,800 feet, that is 524 million cubic feet of natural gas. Now, just to kind of get it to scale, these are the top 20 tallest buildings in the world as of 2020, as in the two of the top three aren't done yet. They don't exist yet. The red line is approximately 1,800 feet. That's the space needle. It would take three space needles to reach 1,800 feet. So we are talking huge quantities sort of idea. That's one of the problems with this facility. When you burn natural gas, you get carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, sorry. And so a lot of these, how do they go with the air pollution plume? Generally in this area, because of weather patterns, shifts north, i.e., Des Moines, Federal Way sort of idea. That's why the Asarco-Arsenic plume was over Vashon Island and Des Moines as well, same exact stuff. So this stuff is going to mostly blow north out of Tacoma. I live in Tacoma. Thank you for taking it, sort of idea. How much carbon dioxide are we talking about? I don't know. The question is, how much of this natural gas will be turned into heat and energy to run the process, and how much will be used as fuel stocks? I can't find that information anywhere. Company's not saying. Nobody else is saying. If 20% is burned of the amount that they're using, it will become the second largest source of carbon dioxide in the state. If 80% is burned, it will become the largest source of carbon dioxide in the state. And remember, this is one of three plants planned for the Northwest. And that's a number that you actually don't see anywhere. This is one I talked to a couple of chemistry instructor friends and had them do the math on figuring out, how do you convert 524 cubic million cubic natural gas to carbon dioxide? And two of them came up with the same answer separately. So I feel pretty confident about that. This facility will also use a lot of water. A lot of water on the order of 7,200 gallons of water per minute. I run an aquarium. We pump water out of the sound. We use 250 gallons of water per minute. And I have a big pump. You can imagine what 720 gallons per minute is. And this is, again, according to company information. On the good side, that is a reduction of 28% from their initial numbers of 10,000 gallons a minute. Now, how are they doing that reduction of 28%? They said through efficiencies in the system. That's as far as the information goes. Of that 7,200 gallons per minute, 90% is going to be released as steam. So you can imagine how much heat energy we're using and having to do. 7% will release as waste water and the rest is in rounding and so forth. 7,200 gallons per minute works out to 72.5 million gallons per day, works out to 3.8 billion gallons per year. This is water coming from Tacoma water, city of Tacoma. So how big is that? According to Tacoma water, mytpu.org, Tacoma's current water, the water supply is to 316,000 people. Of that, 200,000 are in Tacoma, the restaurants surrounding areas. It can get 150 million gallons per day from the Green River when the Green River is flowing, as in wintertime, summertime, not so much. It can get 55 to 277 million gallons from the toll system for a total of 5.8 billion gallons per year currently using. And again, we backtrack. This would use 3.8 additional billion gallons. This is one of the big concerns about this facility. So this last year, King, Pierce, and Snohomish County during the summer instituted what they call a stage two water shortage response plan. If you remember, they asked you to cut water supply by 10% because they didn't have enough. If you have to cut it by 10%, how do you permanently take and expand it by 2 thirds is what they're talking about. What this basically does is right now, city of Tacoma has enough water to deal with growth over the next 20 years. This would use all of that water. So there would be no other water available given current infrastructure. So the water has to be gotten from somewhere else. Now, one of the interesting things is Tacoma provides water to other municipalities, such as Lakehaven Water District. If all of a sudden Tacoma doesn't have its water supply, well, it doesn't have extra water supply, it doesn't sell extra to Lakehaven, Lakehaven's got to find it somewhere else. And so there's domino effects throughout the region on this. Waste materials. This is called an ultra low emissions factory. It's the first of its kind in the world. It's, again, the largest of its kind. It's also the first one built by this company. Maybe there's some problems there. There will be some catalyst materials that needs to be disposed of. How much and how it needs to be disposed of hasn't been answered. It'll, about 7% of the water or 1.44 million gallons per day will need to be treated by City of Tacoma's wastewater sort of idea, which, again, is using capacity. Obviously, that'll raise some money for the city. But that's more electricity. It's going to use equivalent to 83% of Tacoma power's public utilities energy supply that was used last year. Again, a lot of that is, some of that is generated through the burning of the natural gas. So why the US? Why here? It's a really important question. So historically, China has made this stuff in China. And if you've heard, China has a lot of problems with air pollution. So they're trying to, OK, we need to be more smart about that. So if they want to shift to these newer supplies, for example, natural gas in China is four times the cost as it is in the United States. And the other thing is the supplies are far inland. And China doesn't have the infrastructure to really get that out to the coast where these plants are. So it's actually cheaper to have made in the United States and then ship it to China. Economically, that works. Partly because US and Canada has a monstrous supply of fracked gas relatively close to the coastline, which again, you need to be able to ship this. The demand for methanol is expected to double. It was 30 million metric tons in 2013. It's 67 million tons in 2023. Although some business models actually show that demand could be oversupplied, i.e., we create a glut, which then they're not going to make as much because there's too much. We're seeing growth of other plants also in the Gulf States. In 2008, there actually was a glut of this. And so a couple plants kind of reduced capacity and or shut down. Again, this one is that new generation. So it's more efficient. It should be able to make it. In terms of this region, we're going to put three proposed plants. Again, the one in Tacoma is the largest. It'll produce 20,000 tons of methanol per day. There's also going to be a facility in Kalama and Port St. Helens. I believe it's the Kalama one. It's actually about a year ahead in the process. The Port St. Helens is about the same one, same level. The Tacoma location, this is the Port of Tacoma. Downtown Tacoma is over here. Federal Way is over here. Highline's up there. This is the Heilobos Waterway. And so this is the facility they're going to use where they want to build it. It was originally a smelter. It's been cleaned up and turned in. It is an industrial site. So the facility is 125 acres. It will also store 300 metric tons of this stuff. It has the potential to store that much on site, which is about a month's worth of productions. So this process, there's all this fervor about what can we do as citizen sort of idea. So this is in a long process. Right now, it's just in the permitting. So we are right now in basically quarter one of 2016 of the timeline. This is their timeline. And we're in what's called the scoping period in public comments. So the first big permit they have to get is the environmental impact statement. And right now they're asking the public to scope as in to decide the breadth of what needs to be included in that environmental impact statement. So water supply is a very obvious one. But if we're going to talk about pollution, do we talk about carbon emissions in Tacoma? Or do we need to include Federal Way, King County? Do we need to include the state? Do we need to include this? Do we need to include the emissions of the fugitive gases from the leaking of the methane sort of idea? That's what the scoping is trying to determine. So if we zoom in. So again, right now they're in this. In this period of permitting, no construction, just permitting, is expected to take well into 2017. So this is a laborious process. The lease was signed in 2014. And that first two years of the lease is them getting their ducks in a row sort of idea. This is the whole process. If it's approved and if it stays online, construction will start in later 17 with the first half kind of operational by 2020. And then they'll build a second phase that'll be operational by 2021. These are some of the permits they need to get. So what could go wrong? It's a good question. These were cutting edge technology. These were the penultimate thing. And if you didn't know, one of these blew up fairly famously. I'm a river rafting guide. This next summer, I'm going to go down the Grand Canyon and spend 18 days on the Grand Canyon, trip of a lifetime sort of idea. One of the warnings that they tell to people when you're going down the Grand Canyon is if you ever hear somebody say, hold my beer, stop them. In other words, what stupidity thing that sounds like a good idea as long as you're holding a beer, but maybe really shouldn't do that sort of idea. Nobody builds a plant with the idea that oops, something could go wrong. We're not intending for it to go wrong, sort of. So sure, this is cutting edge technology. So was the asarco plant in Tacoma when it was built. The asarco plant had the largest smokestack in the world at the time, partly because then the pollution would go elsewhere. That was why they built tall smokestacks. That was what Common Sense said to do. So what could go wrong? Well, Porta Tacoma is flat. So this area, if you haven't heard, is prone to earthquakes. And they're expecting a big one sometime in the next couple hundred years. That's another science seminar. This was where the tsunami would hit from a Seattle fault, magnitude of 7.3, to be honest, on the big quake that we're expecting in the Pudet Sound. 7.3 is on the small side. The facility is right there, where it would go. Fairly bad area to be. The Tacoma wastewater treatment plant that is about here just finished a $25 million construction of an 8-foot seawall around it to try to help deal with flooding events, sort of idea. So obviously, the city of Tacoma feels that flooding is a possibility. Otherwise, they wouldn't have spent $25 million to try to protect this thing. If you shake the ground, not only can you cause a tsunami, but you can also liquefy the ground. This entire area is fill. And fill, if you've ever made a mud pie as a kid, when it shakes, it liquefies, which causes things to collapse. Big issue there. LaHars, that's basically the liquid coming off of Mount St. Helen's erupting sort of idea. And this is Mount Rainier. If Mount Rainier has any kind of geological burp and it causes glaciers to melt, well, guess what? There's Porta Tacoma. This is where they expect it to be bad. And I love it. There's two color differences here. And it's basically, it's all the one color, except for the very edge. And this is all we're talking right here is where this plant is. So right in the middle of this, it wipes out that whole area. Wipes out the whole port. Any of these wipe out the whole port, by the way. Magnifying the dangers. The final environmental impact statement for Pudet Sound Energy's liquid natural gas plant that they want to build into coma was approved last fall. So they are going to build a facility that will produce 87.5 million gallons and store eight million gallons of liquid natural gas. The plant is there. This is an artistic drawing done by Pudet Sound Energy. This is where it is. This is the one mile blast zone. This is the two mile blast zone. This is the methanol plant. So in other words, one catastrophic failure could trigger a second catastrophic failure. Now, I don't know if any of you remember back in 2007, and down in the Nally Valley on I-5, right where it takes the big corner to head to Highway 16 in the Tacoma Mall, there was a propane tank at the smelter there, atlas foundry. And it blew up, and it killed somebody. That was an 8,000-gallon propane truck that blew up. And it luckily didn't trigger two 30,000-gallon propane tanks nearby. They caught on fire, but they didn't explode. 8,000 gallons created that fireball, lost power for 13,000 people. 8 million gallons is a whole other scale, sort of idea. I've heard numbers. I'm not the person that can figure those out. But they're talking if these explode, we're talking nuclear weapons numbers of explosive powers. Do plants explode? Yeah, actually, they do. And remember, this is being built by a Chinese company, run by actually the Chinese government. In this last year in China, there were four explosions within a month at different plants. This was one of them. And the plant blew up. It wasn't a methanol plant, but the methanol burns triggered this. That was a parking lot. And you can just see all the cars are just incinerated, sort of idea. So a little scary. What's, again, catastrophic can happen. And we need to be aware of that. And one of the big issues is, is it good for us? Should we do this? There's a concept out there called the thin green line. That is the idea that we're shipping all of this oil, coal, natural, whatever, all these fossil fuels to China, to Asia markets. And they're going through the port system, the Port of Tacoma, the Port of Shehalis, the Port of Vancouver, the Port of Seattle, the Port of Everett, the Port of Vancouver, all of them. And economically, that can be good for us short term. But do we have a moral obligation to say, you know what, this is not good for us as a planet in the long term. That's what the thin green line is about. And that's, a lot of people that are riled about this are, my interpretation of them is they're riled about that sort of idea when they think about the bigger pitchers. A local version of the thin green line is the red line in Tacoma. And this is a grassroots group that has literally grown up in the last month. Because again, nobody was aware of this two months ago. And they had a public comment meeting. And the people that were supporting it wore red. And I actually talked to a lot of people that weren't wearing red and they're like, I didn't know I had to wear red. So in other words, the word hadn't even gone out. I like this picture. This was 2000 seats room at the Tacoma Convention Center. My estimate is it was about half full sort of idea. And you go, well, there's a lot of empty seats. This guy, this is the city of Tacoma guy in charge of the environmental impact statement. In other words, nobody's sitting near him sort of idea. So kind of interesting impacts there. So who's in charge? So there's now this repercussions. Well, again, this lease was signed over a year ago, closer to two years ago, actually. And it was signed by the Port of Tacoma. Port of Tacoma is saying it's not our job to say whether this is a good deal or a bad deal. The commissioners are saying it's our job to bring economics to the things. It's the city of Tacoma's job to decide what's a good idea or not. City of Tacoma, on the other hand, according to Tacoma News Tribune, is going it's their job to decide. And so right now everyone's going it's their fault sort of idea. Nobody's taking responsibility for this. And so that's obviously one of the problems. Now, this woman speaking here, this was at the first public comment meeting. Her name's Ellen Moore. Ellen and I were both on the Tacoma has a citizens advisory group called the Sustainable Tacoma Commission. She resigned at that meeting. I resigned at the last one because both of us feel that the Sustainable Tacoma Commission was a greenwashing for what was going on. As a committee on sustainability for the city of Tacoma, we found out about this in December through our personal Facebooks, not through the commission sort of idea. And so why have a sustainability commission if you're not aware of anything and we felt that it not much was being done. So that story may still grow a little bit. Another big question to ask is, where should you build it? I mean, if you're gonna build it, is it better to build it in China or is it better to build it here? I mean, it's for Chinese plastic. You could argue we're gonna buy that plastic. But one of, to be honest, if you're gonna build it, if the choice is those two, build it in China or build it in Tacoma, it's better for the environment probably to build it into Tacoma. We have higher quality workers in terms of standards, safety standards, a lot of those other things. If that's the choice. And partly, why should they get our pollution for our products? And that's that idea of social justice. So should, you know, my cell phone, one of the reasons they don't build these in the United States, besides labor salaries, sort of idea, is you can't meet environmental demands, environmental laws to build them. They're too polluting. So go build them in China. Go build them in Bangladesh. Go build them in, you know, whatever third world country you wanna do. And that's a huge idea. The other thing is that NIMBY idea. Not in my backyard. I don't want it in my backyard. I don't wanna dump in my backyard. I don't want a freeway in my backyard. I don't want the third runway in my backyard. Whatever it is we're talking about, you can apply that here as well. So lastly, what can you do? Again, right now the process is asking for citizens to say what should be included in the EIS, in the environmental impact statement? What is the scope? What is the breadth? What's the width of this that they should investigate? And that's, and so right now they're not asking, is this right or wrong? They're asking what should we look at? The water, air pollution, those sort of things. If you feel that this is something that needs to, that you need to have a voice for, for example, this is gonna create jobs. The estimate is that it's gonna create 1,000 jobs during construction and about 250 permanent jobs moving forward. That's great. Jobs are good. Absolutely, sort of idea. Are that number of jobs worth that cost in terms of the environment? That's a question. That's a larger question, sort of idea. And right now having the Port Commissioners and the City Council go, it's their decision. Nobody's actually addressing that. And the procedure doesn't let that be answered right now. So right now all we can do as citizens is say, look, this is what you need to look at. Saying that the city of Tacoma is looking at some citizen initiatives, actually the citizens are looking at some initiatives in the city of Tacoma. One of them would be if a company uses more than a million gallons a day, it has to go for voter approval. Washington State also has two bills currently in process that could potentially affect this as well. And so it's an intriguing, interesting issue. And I encourage you to get involved. I've been to two of these meetings and they're emotionally, the energy they're seeing citizens invested in their community is really empowering, sort of thing. Thank you.