RE:some factsIf I may, I would just nuance some of your facts for greater accuracy. Semantics to some, clarifications to others that pay attention to financial terminology. While it is true that there was no operating profit, if not for the share-based payments, there would have been a positive cashflow from operations. As at the end of December 31st, they had a $30M backlog. That is the amount of signed sales contracts that will be converted into revenues once executed. I think you made a typo in saying "as at minimum $65 in sales" corrected by "likely quite firm" which is inconsistent. They believe that they have proposals that are solid enough out there that will result in $65M in contracts within 6 months, to be recognized as revenues or sales within 18 months of when individual contracts are signed. This amount of contracts is seen as a minimum. There could be more contracts signed than this within 6 months, and there is no indication for beyond 6 months. How all this stuff rolls into the annual results for this year cannot be reliably estimated by us, but at this stage it may not matter. It may matter more how much of current and future business is being secured. Within six months (mid-October-ish), according to this guidance, PYR would have had a combination of earned revenues and backlog of minimally $95 million.