RE:RE:RE:RE:Jabil last yearIn all likelihood not. My interest is the overall judgement and condition of our strategic partner, who continues to excersize strategies that deliver value. The $34 target probably does not take into account the value proposition of having access to a technology that has been producing on average 500GPT of AU, which smelters were under paying for by as much as 35%. That problem has been significantly mitigated by the fact ETI has improved the chemistry to the point only the fraction containing the last 25% of unrecovered AU ever leaves their facility to a smelter. Imagine applying those numbers to conventional ore mining. What would it mean for a gold producer if only the concentrate possessing 25% of the total yield of AU had to leave their mill for smelting? No, a $34 target would not reflect as much as $100,000,000 per year of increased value from a single 20 TPD mill running a constant supply of 500 GPT feedstock. Congratulations on your efficiency at being both didactic and pedantic as always.