Speaker 1: No welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westerveldt. This week
Speaker 1: there was some huge news related to our most recent
Speaker 1: season in Guyana. A verdict came through on one of
Speaker 1: the cases that we covered, the one that Melinda Jenkie
Speaker 1: filed that had to do with insurance and particularly with
Speaker 1: something called financial assurance. The case argued that Guyana's Environmental
Speaker 1: Protection Agency it's EPA, had failed to require proof from
Speaker 1: SOO Exon subsidiary in Guyana and from Exon Mobile itself
Speaker 1: of the sort of liability coverage needed for a risky
Speaker 1: offshore oil project like the one that's happening offshore Guyana
Speaker 1: right now. The law asks not only for an insurance
Speaker 1: policy from the local operator, but also for an unlimited
Speaker 1: guarantee from the parent company, in this case Exon Mobile,
Speaker 1: that it will cover any damages related to the particular
Speaker 1: activity that's being permitted, in this case, oil drilling. Part
Speaker 1: of the argument was that an oil spill offshore Guyana
Speaker 1: would not only impact Guyana, but could potentially impact multiple
Speaker 1: other countries nearby. In fact, Exon's own environmental impact assessment
Speaker 1: for its most recent well indicated that a massive oil
Speaker 1: spill offshore Guyana could impact up to fourteen Caribbean countries.
Speaker 1: Those are all countries that depend on fishing and tourism
Speaker 1: for their economies. What this case argued was that the
Speaker 1: government was allowing Exon to ramp up production quickly to
Speaker 1: get around certain permitting requirements, while also not requiring that
Speaker 1: it had this level of liability coverage, opening up the
Speaker 1: country Guyana to enormous financial risk because imagine if there
Speaker 1: was a deep water offshore blowout and it did impact
Speaker 1: fourteen Caribbean countries, where would those countries go looking to
Speaker 1: cover those damages. If there was no policy in place
Speaker 1: requiring Exxon to pay for those damages, those countries would
Speaker 1: be coming to the government of Guyana. The judge in
Speaker 1: this case issued an absolutely blistering ruling against Exxon and
Speaker 1: the Guyanese EPA. He called what's been happening in egregious
Speaker 1: state of affairs that has engulfed the Environmental Protection Agency
Speaker 1: in a quagmire of its own making. He also wrote
Speaker 1: that quote in the course of these proceedings, the court
Speaker 1: found on the evidence before it that So Exploration and
Speaker 1: Production Guyana Limited was engaged in a disingenuous attempt which
Speaker 1: was calculated to deceive when it sought to dilute its
Speaker 1: liabilities and settled obligations stipulated and expressed in clear unambiguous
Speaker 1: terms while simultaneously optimizing production at the Eliza Phase IE
Speaker 1: petroleum production project in the Stopwrich Block offshore Guyana. He
Speaker 1: goes on to write so Exploration and Production Guyana Limited
Speaker 1: engaged in a course of action made permissible only by
Speaker 1: the omissions of a derelict client and submissive Environmental Protection Agency.
Speaker 1: Elsewhere in the ruling, he writes these matters were not
Speaker 1: unknown to SOO or the EPA, and consistent with the
Speaker 1: benefits of its petroleum production activities to which SOO is
Speaker 1: entitled comes the burden of fulfilling its obligations under the permit,
Speaker 1: and the agency sought refuge in silence, avoidance, concealment, and secrecy,
Speaker 1: notwithstanding the grave potential danger and consequences to the state
Speaker 1: and citizens if an event occurred at the Eliza Phase
Speaker 1: I petroleum production facilities in the Stabwrich Bloc offshore Guyana
Speaker 1: in absence of such financial assurances. He concludes that the
Speaker 1: Environmental Protection Agency is in breach of its statutory duty
Speaker 1: by its failure and or omissions to enforce compliance by
Speaker 1: SO Exploration and Production Guyana Limited of its financial assurance obligations.
Speaker 1: He orders the Environmental Protection Agency to issue an enforcement
Speaker 1: notice on or before May ninth, less than a week
Speaker 1: from the date of the ruling directed to SO Exploration
Speaker 1: and Production Guyana Limited to perform its obligations. First to
Speaker 1: provide within thirty days the unlimited liability parent company Guarantee
Speaker 1: agreement and or an unlimited liability Affiliate company guarantee to
Speaker 1: indemnify and keep and debat the Government of Guyana and
Speaker 1: the Agency against all such environmental obligations of so SO
Speaker 1: and its co venturers within the stopwrit bloc. They also
Speaker 1: have to provide proof of environmental liability insurance, as is
Speaker 1: customary in international petroleum industry, in accordance with the conditions
Speaker 1: of its permit. It says, if they fail to provide
Speaker 1: both of these things, its permit stands suspended. The judge
Speaker 1: also tackled the question of standing in this case, which
Speaker 1: is really really interesting. SO had argued that the particular
Speaker 1: plaintiffs bringing this case to individual citizens, one of whom
Speaker 1: we actually heard from this season, Frederick Collins, the President
Speaker 1: of Transparency Guyana International. However, the organization that he works
Speaker 1: for was not a party to this case. He was
Speaker 1: a plaintiff in this case as an individual, as was
Speaker 1: mister Godfrey.
Speaker 2: White also argued that these two men had no standing
Speaker 2: that Guyanese citizens can't bring a case like this because
Speaker 2: it has to do with the regulatory structure and the company,
Speaker 2: and they referred to these plaintiffs as meddlesome, meddlesome busybodies.
Speaker 2: The judge said, yeah, no, Actually, citizens need to be
Speaker 2: able to bring cases that are in the public interest,
Speaker 2: especially in situations like this where there are major environmental implications.
Speaker 2: So that's a huge precedent to set too. I caught
Speaker 2: up with Melinda Jenki the day after the ruling came
Speaker 2: out to hear what she thought about it and to
Speaker 2: hear what kind of message this sends, what kind of
Speaker 2: precedent it sets, both in Guyana and beyond. That conversation
Speaker 2: has come up after this quick break. So first I'd
Speaker 2: love to get just your initial reaction to the ruling
Speaker 2: when it first first came out.
Speaker 3: I think it's an excellent ruling. I mean, the judge
Speaker 3: said that the EPA's lax behavior had put this nation
Speaker 3: and its people in grave danger of calamitous disaster. And
Speaker 3: so immediately what you have is a very strong statement
Speaker 3: of the situation as it is. Remember Exxon, so the
Speaker 3: Exxon subsidiary has admitted in court that they've been using
Speaker 3: faulty equipment, and they've admitted in public that they're operating
Speaker 3: above the safety limits. So that's very dangerous for Guyana.
Speaker 3: And it means that if there's any kind of oil spill, disaster,
Speaker 3: to blow out, whatever God forbid, any of that should happen,
Speaker 3: Guyana would be liable for all of that because the
Speaker 3: insurance is not in place and the parent company guarantee
Speaker 3: is not in place. And the judge has corrected that
Speaker 3: by ordering the EPA to enforce the environmental permit. I mean,
Speaker 3: where else in the world would you have such dangerous
Speaker 3: deep water operations going on without proper insurance and without
Speaker 3: having the finance in place to protect the home country.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I'm curious. I know that the government has
Speaker 2: said that they plan to appeal and whatnot, but I'm
Speaker 2: assuming that the ruling is the ruling in the meantime,
Speaker 2: and they are under pressure to correct this fairly quickly.
Speaker 3: Let's just be clear the government cannot appeal this ruling.
Speaker 3: They're not a party to the case.
Speaker 2: Interesting, it's the EPA that would have to appeal.
Speaker 3: So only the EPA or so can appeal. Yeah, and
Speaker 3: the EPA is not the government. The EPA is an
Speaker 3: independent statutory authority. Now, if the government is instructing the
Speaker 3: EPA to appeal, then that's clearly unlawful. And that and
Speaker 3: if the EPR were to then act on the basis
Speaker 3: of instructions from the politicians, that action would be unlawful
Speaker 3: and it would be open to judicial review on the
Speaker 3: grounds that the EPO was carrying out instructions that were
Speaker 3: not part of its mandate.
Speaker 2: Right right.
Speaker 3: So that's well, it's a very foolish course of action
Speaker 3: for any government to take, is to say publicly that
Speaker 3: they're going to appeal a case that they're not a
Speaker 3: party to, and therefore implying that they have some control
Speaker 3: over an independent statutory authority.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's interesting. That's very interesting.
Speaker 3: It's an independent statutory authority. I mean, I wrote the
Speaker 3: legislation that set this thing up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I thought that was really interesting actually too
Speaker 2: that at several points in the ruling the judge mentioned
Speaker 2: how SOO had tried to sort of tell the court
Speaker 2: what some of these laws meant, and I wanted to
Speaker 2: get your take on that that approach that they have
Speaker 2: taken in this case.
Speaker 3: Look, the I mean SO obviously has to be advised
Speaker 3: by its own lawyers, and I can't comment on that.
Speaker 3: We put in our submissions, and clearly the judge has
Speaker 3: ruled on the basis that he thinks he agrees with
Speaker 3: our submissions, and he's given a judgment that is based
Speaker 3: on law and legal principle. So's views on what the
Speaker 3: law says are completely irrelevant. I mean, so, these are
Speaker 3: business people. The business model depends on polluting the atmosphere
Speaker 3: and the ocean with greenhouse gases. They make them money
Speaker 3: out of destroying the climate and making the ocean more acid.
Speaker 3: I mean, that's what they do. Law is not their concern.
Speaker 3: They take advice from their lawyers.
Speaker 2: I'm curious to hear what you think, like, what kind
Speaker 2: of message this sends, both in Guyana and beyond to
Speaker 2: all of the countries that oil majors are operating in.
Speaker 2: What kind of precedent does this sad and sort of
Speaker 2: message does it sound?
Speaker 3: Well? I think there's some really significant messages here, I
Speaker 3: mean the top line. Two ordinary citizens in this little
Speaker 3: country which most people can't find on the map. Two
Speaker 3: of them have gone to court and they've beaten the EPA.
Speaker 3: But they've also beaten Exxon Mobile. And this is really
Speaker 3: a victory for the people by the people. I think
Speaker 3: we have to give full CDOs to his honor Justice
Speaker 3: Sandil Kisun. He put the rule of law above the
Speaker 3: interests of Exxon Mobile. That's massive. That's what every judge,
Speaker 3: every country should be doing. And I think this decision
Speaker 3: sets the standard for judges everywhere, not just in Guyana,
Speaker 3: but across the world.
Speaker 2: Is there any sense that the judges ruling will be
Speaker 2: politicized in some way that you know, it will get
Speaker 2: the sort of oh, he's just against the PPP or whatever,
Speaker 2: that kind of reaction from folks.
Speaker 3: This is a decision that puts the interests to Guyana
Speaker 3: and the nation foremost. It's a decision that upholds the
Speaker 3: rule of law. It's a decision that says you s
Speaker 3: so took a business decision to accept this permit, and
Speaker 3: you signed for it, and you agreed to provide the insurance,
Speaker 3: and you agreed to provide the parent company, the unlimited
Speaker 3: parent company guarantee, and you, the EPA, have a job
Speaker 3: to enforce that permit, so you will need to provide
Speaker 3: that insurance and that unlimited parent company guarantee. Now, if
Speaker 3: anybody tries to politicize that decision, they are going to
Speaker 3: look extremely foolish. The government is already looking silly by
Speaker 3: saying that it's going to appeel the decision, and people
Speaker 3: are asked, why is the government taking this attitude and
Speaker 3: appearing to be on the side of ess rather than
Speaker 3: on the side of the country. This ruling, once the
Speaker 3: insurance and the guarantee are in place, means that Guyana
Speaker 3: is no longer potentially liable for billions of US dollars.
Speaker 3: So who would actually question that? Why would anybody question
Speaker 3: a decision by the judge which says, enforce the permit,
Speaker 3: comply with your obligations, and make sure that this country
Speaker 3: does not suffer as a result of your default or
Speaker 3: bad behavior. I mean, he didn't use those exact words,
Speaker 3: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I thought that was really interesting about
Speaker 2: this case in general, just the extent to which SO
Speaker 2: SO and the EPA were really partners. You know, talking
Speaker 2: about this stuff, and I'm curious for your thoughts on
Speaker 2: that too, just just the extent to which the EPA
Speaker 2: seemed to be very much, I don't know, just sort
Speaker 2: of complying with the way that so slash Axon wanted
Speaker 2: to handle things.
Speaker 3: Oh, I think it's clear from the decision that the
Speaker 3: relationship between the EPA and SO has not been the
Speaker 3: relationship that you would expect from the regulator and the
Speaker 3: entity being regulated. The EPA has been far too compliant,
Speaker 3: hasn't done its job, and so SO has been allowed
Speaker 3: to get away with breaching its permit. And the result
Speaker 3: of that, the judge says that lack of vigilance by
Speaker 3: the EPA and its lack of enforcement has put the
Speaker 3: quoting now put this nation and its people in grave
Speaker 3: potential danger of calamitous disaster. So the EPA has been
Speaker 3: completely irresponsible. The judge has corrected that situation, and everybody
Speaker 3: in the country should be cheering this decision. Every politician,
Speaker 3: every business person, every activist, academic student, everybody should be
Speaker 3: cheering this decision because it's protecting Guyana. It's protecting every
Speaker 3: single one of us.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, it also really seems like a good proof
Speaker 2: point that the court is not being influenced by either
Speaker 2: the government or corporate interests, which should make anyone in
Speaker 2: any country feel like, Okay, we have a functional court system.
Speaker 2: This is good. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think this judge deserves a real recognition and praise
Speaker 3: from around the world for taking this position. This is
Speaker 3: a country that is very new to oil and gas,
Speaker 3: and he says that we've seen politicians across the divide,
Speaker 3: whether it's the PPP or the ATNEU or the AFC
Speaker 3: or whoever, all completely pro oil irresponsibly, So throwing caution
Speaker 3: to the winds over excited about Guyana becoming an oil producer.
Speaker 3: And now you've got the voice of reason coming in
Speaker 3: and saying, wait a minute, there is something called the
Speaker 3: rule of law, and we're going to uphold it. There
Speaker 3: are rules here to protect the people of Guyana and
Speaker 3: the environment of Guyana and the Caribbean, and this judge
Speaker 3: is going to uphold those rules.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I thought that his stance on standing was also
Speaker 2: really important. You know this idea that look, especially when
Speaker 2: it comes to things like environmental regulation, it's important to
Speaker 2: protect the ability of citizens to bring public interest suits.
Speaker 2: And I'm curious what you thought about that that part
Speaker 2: as well.
Speaker 3: I've impressed you really have read the decision.
Speaker 2: Yes, I've highlighted many parts.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I think what you have there is a
Speaker 4: really good statement of judicial review.
Speaker 3: Judicial review is basically the rule of law in action.
Speaker 3: We depend on citizens to go to court and say, look,
Speaker 3: there isn't there is abuse of power by this public authority,
Speaker 3: and you, the court, do want you to step in
Speaker 3: and put a stop to this abuse. And by ruling
Speaker 3: on standing in this suaity, the judge is basically saying,
Speaker 3: in the modern era, everybody has a right now, every
Speaker 3: citizen has a right to go to court to protect
Speaker 3: the public interest, and the traditional rules on standing are
Speaker 3: inappropriate for the situation that we are in now, and
Speaker 3: that actually we have to have these rules of standing.
Speaker 3: This is a really good modern decision based on the
Speaker 3: legal principles.
Speaker 2: Good. Well, I was just saying someone this morning like that,
Speaker 2: I would love to see a ruling like this from
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court, and it feels like totally wishful thinking.
Speaker 2: So so yeah, it was. It was. It was a
Speaker 2: good read. Okay, excellent, I guess yeah, what are just
Speaker 2: the next steps for you on this case? Are you
Speaker 2: sort of waiting to see if if anything gets filed
Speaker 2: and then and then you know, proceed from there. Are
Speaker 2: you looking at okay? If if the government you know,
Speaker 2: is making public statements about this, then possibly that could
Speaker 2: be a case as well. I know there might be
Speaker 2: things you can't discuss, but to the extent that you
Speaker 2: can share, what's what's next on this for you?
Speaker 3: Well, to be honest, I think the most important thing
Speaker 3: right now is to get people in Guyana to understand
Speaker 3: the immense significance of this case. The judge has put
Speaker 3: the root of law above the interests of Excelmobile. So
Speaker 3: all of those people who've been running around saying, oh,
Speaker 3: you can't do anything, you can't do anything, now they
Speaker 3: don't have an excuse. Red Thread, which is a group
Speaker 3: of activists women, were out on Wednesday protesting and campaigning
Speaker 3: in order to get the insurance in place, and people
Speaker 3: were saying to them that they support Red Thread, but
Speaker 3: they don't think they'll get anywhere on the insurance. And
Speaker 3: of course this ruling comes out saying that ESSO has
Speaker 3: to provide the insurance. And I think that sense a
Speaker 3: really important message to people, and it says stop giving
Speaker 3: way to despair, stop looking for excuses. Actually, you have
Speaker 3: the power to act, so act because it brings results.
Speaker 3: And again this is two people to ordinary citizens who
Speaker 3: went to court. There's no CSO involved in this sign up.
Speaker 3: The Bloomberg article says it's Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. But
Speaker 3: it's not. It's Fred Collins and God free weight to individuals.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the next step, I think the really important thing
Speaker 3: is to get people to understand that they have this
Speaker 3: power and that they have an obligation to protect democracy
Speaker 3: in Guyana, that they have the power to stand up
Speaker 3: instead of just complaining about things not being right have
Speaker 3: they can act and they will get.
Speaker 2: Right, and that the court will actually hear them and
Speaker 2: rule accordingly. That is it's so important for people to
Speaker 2: feel like it's not a lost cause to take a
Speaker 2: case like this to court.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think this also sends a message to the
Speaker 3: judiciary because we have we have had a case, the
Speaker 3: gains Skin case before the Chief Justice where the Chief
Speaker 3: Justice took over a year to give a decision and
Speaker 3: that's in breach of national law, specifically in breach of
Speaker 3: the time limit for Judicial Decisions Act and in breach
Speaker 3: of the cases in the Caribbean Court of Justice, which
Speaker 3: is our highest court of appeal. This case, Justice Casson,
Speaker 3: took from start to finish in eight months.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was shocked at how quickly the ruling came out.
Speaker 3: This is what you want in a judicial review case,
Speaker 3: because every day in which you're waiting for a decision
Speaker 3: is a day in which a public authority, and in
Speaker 3: this case so is acting on lawfully. So judicial review
Speaker 3: is always urgent. The judges are expected to move swiftly,
Speaker 3: and the judge in this case has shown that it
Speaker 3: is possible to do that, so that sends a very
Speaker 3: clear message to the rest of the judiciary. We have
Speaker 3: another case before the Chief Justice in which the hearing
Speaker 3: ended in May last year. It's again May, and we
Speaker 3: still have not heard a decision from the Chief Justice,
Speaker 3: even though we've written several letters. So I think looking ahead,
Speaker 3: I would hope to see decisions coming a lot faster
Speaker 3: on these judicial review decisions. Now it's not acceptable, I think,
Speaker 3: to be waiting for a year for a decision, and
Speaker 3: it's it's certainly contrary to national law and contrary to
Speaker 3: the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice. So it's
Speaker 3: a most unfortunate situation in these other in the other
Speaker 3: cases that I mentioned.
Speaker 2: I also thought it was really interesting how many times
Speaker 2: the judge emphasized that the issue of you know, whether
Speaker 2: or not the law requires financial assurance and this this
Speaker 2: parent company guarantee, Like he said sort of over and
Speaker 2: over again, like it's not complicated because because you know
Speaker 2: s O and the kind of message that like, well,
Speaker 2: the law is really complicated, it's open to interpretition and
Speaker 2: I don't know that seemed really important to me too,
Speaker 2: that like he sort of repeated over and over again, like, look,
Speaker 2: this is not actually that complicated of an issue with
Speaker 2: the loss as this. It's very clear both sides understood it.
Speaker 3: Yes, I agree completely with the judge. I have no
Speaker 3: idea why you thought it was complicated, and if it was.
Speaker 3: If they did think it was complicated, surely they would
Speaker 3: have obtained a competent legal advice before signing a document
Speaker 3: that they thought was complicated. So if they didn't, So
Speaker 3: if they thought it was complicated and they didn't get
Speaker 3: proper legal advice, what's going on there? If it was
Speaker 3: complicated and they got proper legal advice, why are you
Speaker 3: coming back and saying you don't understand it or it's complicated,
Speaker 3: you know, yeah, it just doesn't make sense.
Speaker 2: I know, it almost it seemed to me more like
Speaker 2: something they wanted to convince the public of that like this, Oh,
Speaker 2: actually the problem is that this law is complicated and
Speaker 2: open to interpretation. I don't know, it was Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't know. That's what it seemed like to me,
Speaker 2: because they mentioned it in a lot of their marketing
Speaker 2: videos too, that like, you know, it's it's a complex issue,
Speaker 2: but don't worry, we have the right insurance in place,
Speaker 2: and and and like I you know, it was interesting
Speaker 2: to me that this so far, of all the court cases,
Speaker 2: this is the only one that I've seen sort of
Speaker 2: multiple Exon videos about.
Speaker 3: So On is of course entitled to say whatever they want.
Speaker 3: The question is whether people believe them. The question is
Speaker 3: whether people trust what Exon Mobil says. And I think
Speaker 3: perhaps a more important question is whether they're investors and
Speaker 3: the market have confidence in Exon Mobil and its business
Speaker 3: plan and the things that it's saying. I don't know
Speaker 3: the answer to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that should be because actually the main group that
Speaker 2: they have messaged to about how great it is that
Speaker 2: they're moving so quickly is shareholders. So it'll be interesting
Speaker 2: to see if that tune changes.
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean I wonder whether they thought this went
Speaker 3: through because to be operating above the safety levels of
Speaker 3: your fbso your floating production storage, offloading vessels, and to
Speaker 3: be using Faulter equipment, those are not items that would
Speaker 3: fill a shareholder with confidence, particularly when you think that
Speaker 3: this is dangerous deep water drilling. This is one hundred
Speaker 3: and twenty miles off shore, the oil is about a
Speaker 3: mile below, the ocean is about a mile deep, and
Speaker 3: the oil is you know, I think about another mile
Speaker 3: below the seabed. This is extremely dangerous. And then when
Speaker 3: you add to that, clearly a lax regulator. In fact,
Speaker 3: the message to shareholders is not, look, it's wonderful, we're
Speaker 3: moving so fast. It seems to me that one could
Speaker 3: reasonably conclude from the operations and the lax regulation that
Speaker 3: this is a very risky operation, and in fact, shareholders
Speaker 3: might want to think about the implications.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but again, you know, that's why it's important to
Speaker 2: have a judge that reminds the EPA of its job.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think this also has implications for business, because
Speaker 3: what business requires above what else is a level playing field,
Speaker 3: rules that apply to everybody and that are enforced equally
Speaker 3: against all of this entities in the sector. Now, if
Speaker 3: you've got one one operator think they have a collaborative
Speaker 3: relationship with the regulator, that's actually really bad for business
Speaker 3: and really bad for the country.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you want to attract investment, and yet you're boasting
Speaker 3: that there's a collaborative relationship between the regulator and one
Speaker 3: of the entities, and the government is saying they want
Speaker 3: to attract investment that they want to develop, and yet
Speaker 3: they can't even meet the very basic standards that you
Speaker 3: require for business, which is which is a level playing field,
Speaker 3: a market in which everybody, everybody knows what the rules are,
Speaker 3: and all the entities in that market about the rules,
Speaker 3: and they know that the rules are going to be
Speaker 3: enforced equally against all of them, no favors for anybody.
Speaker 3: Otherwise you're distorting competition.
Speaker 1: That's it for this bonus episode. Thanks for listening. We
Speaker 1: will have a more detailed story on this ruling on
Speaker 1: our website at Drilled podcast dot com. I'll also have
Speaker 1: a story in the Intercept coming this week. We might
Speaker 1: have something in the Guardian as well, So keep an
Speaker 1: eye out. There's a lot more coming on this story.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.