Fabian Velez | 02:18
The. The highve. Isn't there?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 02:21
2.
Hello? We were Dia. Caalageero Deparza.
Fabian Velez | 02:35
Yes.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 02:38
Como ta Burglar. Ham Burglar.
See the do only request to join.
Fabian Velez | 03:10
Theres no response. Marilla Ta ha.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 03:25
What'sa you no.
Fabian Velez | 03:29
9.
You're not second?
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 03:41
Loita humbler a hagger king no, I'm person, I had the urge, I guess I'm a hamburger.
Fabian Velez | 03:49
That's the area [Laughter] Mer, got the inquiry, your panda. It's like a
hating a loy goog ant quadrup no, come yeah, let's see, no request to join I but there's no.
Speaker 3 | 04:49
Bo. 6.
Fabian Velez | 05:38
Okay tmb end no response more.
Of the gos power advocade kano the was a mechanan of Dramudo.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 06:13
Two.
Speaker 3 | 06:23
But let's see Hong Kong enter Tgong.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 06:34
Okay beta madama baala director.
Speaker 4 | 06:56
Morning people, whenever passage they say people whatsoever look coming. You know this is asa manni compass [Laughter].
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 07:10
That will be.
Speaker 4 | 07:24
Jump I like as to you have.
I know.
Fabian Velez | 07:34
Yes.
Speaker 5 | 07:36
Right now.
Speaker 4 | 07:42
Jacket.
Speaker 3 | 07:45
Out of your ta pajama [Laughter] this smeal.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 08:04
Wow that goes as to the software was.
Fabian Velez | 08:08
Okay whereon okay. No. Freemo.
Good morning.
Speaker 5 | 08:28
Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Morning, Maria.
Speaker 3 | 08:36
Sorry for the delay, we're still waiting on os blo. I think he's having some technical issues. Give me just one second to make sure that he joins.
Speaker 5 | 08:45
Yeah, that's actually what I have my camera off because I don't have power, and so I don't have internet, I'm calling from my cell phone.
Fabian Velez | 08:55
Okay.
Speaker 3 | 08:56
Thank you. Thank you so much for joining.
Fabian Velez | 08:57
Thank you.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 08:58
It's a what happened here, da and right.
Speaker 5 | 09:01
Yeah, that's just another day in paradise.
Fabian Velez | 09:02
[Laughter].
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 09:05
Sometimes.
Speaker 5 | 09:07
You know, I don't know if you remember Miguel and Maria, but years ago there was a tourism company campaign. The slogan was, "You're not dreaming. You're in Puerto Rico." I always remember it when things like this happened.
Speaker 3 | 09:23
It's not true.
Speaker 6 | 09:26
Yeah, I'm on my cell phone too. This is Matt Nicholson. I'm driving, so I can't turn the camera on, but I can. I'm here.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 09:33
Please don't. Be careful by while driving.
Speaker 3 | 10:01
Hi Dennis. Good night, he good morning.
Speaker 7 | 10:11
Hello everyone.
Fabian Velez | 10:12
One of the as?
Speaker 8 | 10:13
Hello no.
Speaker 7 | 10:14
This is a roll from car power together with Mr. Orhan who was in the call yesterday.
Speaker 8 | 10:25
Good morning.
Speaker 7 | 10:26
We're in the same room.
mgarcia@recomspr.net | 10:29
Hey, Aaron. How are you doing?
Speaker 7 | 10:36
Long time ny right?
Speaker 6 | 10:42
That's true.
Speaker 9 | 10:43
They were just waiting for a while.
Fabian Velez | 10:47
Yeah. We're waiting for a look at the lot to join?
Speaker 3 | 10:48
Yes.
See, he says he's in the lobby. Do you see us well, in the lobby? No.
Fabian Velez | 11:03
No, it's probably another meeting.
Marilla. I just sent him through the email. A new invite.
Here we go. Okay. He's in.
Good morning part.
Speaker 3 | 12:13
Are you sure? Yeah, there he is a morning.
Fabian Velez | 12:19
Good morning.
Speaker 3 | 12:25
And well, thank you so much everybody for joining. We wanted to review certain things in terms of the proposal submitted by the government.
I know we had a discussion yesterday, but we did have a meeting afterwards with our stakeholders. There are certain things that we want to make sure that we understand. On the letter that was received in August 2017,
Gotham clearly stated that they were willing to align with the terms and conditions and set forth with the bread resolution. Thank you so much for that. But there's one thing that still remains unclear. In the model contract that you presented, you mentioned that you wanted to have a discussion in regards to a possible advance of money or a letter of credit.
So we just wanted to make sure what Gotham's position was in terms of that.
Speaker 10 | 13:23
Hi, Maria, this is Maria from the subcontractor. Very nice to meet you. So just to confirm, what we have expressed in the letter of August 17th is our position, and we will not align fully with the conditions and in that sense, we will make no requests, we will discuss no advance payment,
and no letter of credit.
Speaker 3 | 13:54
Okay, perfect. Thank you for confirming that. The other critical issue that we wanted to review is particularly the permitting process, and you sent an annex to your.
Speaker 11 | 14:14
Before. we move to that, we're talking that there's no letter of credit, there is no advance, and there is no take or pay. No. Okay.
Speaker 3 | 14:38
Okay. So moving along. I know that you sent the annex explaining the different permits that you were going to be needing. And yesterday, as we discussed, I did call the Coast Guard, and I had a discussion with them. At this point, they cannot sit down and have a meeting with a private company like a formal meeting.
Therefore, I addressed our worries in regards to the timeline of the proposed solution. One of the things that he was mentioning, among others, is that evidently, that he says that he's going to definitely need to, even though there's an executive order that they still have to do the consulting to the federal agencies.
He even told me that the regulation established that the proposed resolution had to be presented 180 days prior to the start of the project. So, obviously, that would create a delay. We even discussed maybe engaging with the Department of Energy to see how we can accelerate again. We want to be facilitators. We can't be responsible for the permitting.
Fabian Velez | 15:56
[Laughter].
Speaker 3 | 15:57
But we definitely want to see and try to see if this is really a solution that can come in as soon as possible. So, one of the things that we were discussing was maybe having a discussion with the DOE to see how they can assist us in any way in accelerating this process.
Because the information that we're receiving right now from the Coast Guard is that even the solicitation to review would have to be 180 days prior to the commencement of the project.
So, that's where we are. We just wanted to have a discussion with you in terms of seeing if you had done any legwork in terms of having discussions with federal agencies or anything other than you could provide that would help us assist. While we have these conversations.
Speaker 5 | 16:46
Gunner, Matt, do you want me to start or do you guys want to take it on you?
Speaker 9 | 16:51
You'll please start.
Speaker 5 | 16:52
Yeah, sure. So Maria, thank you. To answer your question, and I know Osvaldo was not at yesterday's call, but I want to reiterate some of the things that we discussed yesterday. The first, to answer your specific question, yes, we have done legwork with federal agencies, as we mentioned yesterday and in our proposal, including with the Coast Guard, Central Command, others at DOD, and Homeland Security.
So we are confident, as we explained yesterday, that despite the fact that, as we explained, the agencies could, in theory, take as long as they want under the applicable rules, laws, and regulations. We are confident that together with the Gotham's team and the Carr Powerership team, we'll be able to accelerate the maximum timeline allowed under the law and the regulations. As I said, we have engaged with the DOE. We have engaged with the Coast Guard. Of course, we have nothing in writing, as you might imagine, that the agency is advancing.
But we have engaged with the superiors of the Coast Guard officers that are present in Puerto Rico and feel confident that the project will not take the full period of time that is contemplated in the regulations and the law. We, as I said, as we said yesterday, are completely committed to making that happen.
What I mean by that is you will not have a contractor here that, if faced with a minor hurdle of timing, will just throw up its arms and say, "This is too difficult." We are fully committed to getting this done within the fastest timeline possible.
So it's not surprising that the local Coast Guard is raising these issues, but we are confident that we can overcome them with our combined resources. And.
Speaker 6 | 19:09
Told. We were told by the Senior Coast Guard that that's their job to say this.
Speaker 5 | 19:15
Yeah.
Speaker 11 | 19:16
So in terms of the permits, do you have? Are you retaining the services of a third party? Are you doing that yourself? Who's going to be handling this area?
Speaker 9 | 19:33
We do have a consultant on the Coast Guard-related issues, and we are handling permits ourselves at the federal level in expeditions that we've obtained in the past for other projects.
So yeah, there is a consultant that will help us in Puerto Rico who is formerly in the Coast Guard and has context on this and knows how to work with these things and accelerate them. Furthermore, Gotham's will assist and add to the federal level to be able to support there as well to accelerate the timelines.
Speaker 6 | 20:07
And you saw a letter from our local representative or our local consultant.
Speaker 11 | 20:15
Okay. Do you have an idea from how many federal agencies what would you need permits and do you have an idea as to who would be the lead agency?
Speaker 5 | 20:29
I think that's going to be a project, which, yeah, it's going to be project-dependent. Osvaldo because the two projects are not exactly aligned in terms of the specific and therefore the permits that might be required.
But yes, we have an idea of the permits that will be required and which agency or agencies will take the lead. For some issues, it will be the Coast Guard, for others, it will be the Army Corps. There will be, depending on the location, fish and wildlife issues.
So yes, we are again committed to working through all of that process and have the resources to do that, both externally and internally, to GOTTHMS.
Speaker 11 | 21:13
Okay. Have you reviewed the order entered by the Department of Energy to see whether that would be of any help?
Speaker 9 | 21:24
Are you talking about the Federal Power Act for emissions that they've ordered for other power plants in Puerto Rico? Is that what you're referring to? Yes. Yes, that would be of assistance in multiple different scenarios here. That one is particularly interesting for things like emissions and certain environmental regulations. We would be able to utilize that, and that's something that we are definitely considering in terms of expediting. There's a world in which there are other expeditions and orders that are decreed in order to facilitate that happening.
Speaker 6 | 22:01
So right now, the emergency order... Yes, but the emergency order right now covers energy, et cetera. It doesn't cover DHS, so that's another avenue that we are looking to pursue, which is having the emergency order cover the DHS, which would then cover the Coast Guard.
Okay.
Speaker 9 | 22:23
And we've actively with in the past.
Speaker 11 | 22:26
And is something that you're actively doing, you're trying to correct correct.
Speaker 5 | 22:30
Yes, and I was well know.
Speaker 9 | 22:33
Just we're looking at doing the car power ship project around the US. This is one of many situations.
Speaker 11 | 22:40
Okay?
Speaker 5 | 22:41
And was well-known, just for your peace of mind. Yes, we have been actively engaged in these efforts for the prior OFP as well. So those efforts are well underway again, as we mentioned during our call, our last call. If there are specific questions, concerns that come along the way, we will be happy to address those in writing with all the full level of technical and legal specificity that's required.
So, if there is a reference that Maria made about no meeting with the Coast Guard, that was one of the things we discussed during our last call. If the Coast Guard has specific questions and they'd like us to address them face-to-face, we'd be happy to do that.
I think that's why Maria asked for that potential meeting. And so we're committed to doing that throughout the process, throughout the negotiation process.
Speaker 11 | 23:41
Okay. Regarding your proposal for San Juan, in generic terms, what is your proposal in terms of what arrangements you believe that can be made in order to operate from there in San Juan or in the port of San Juan.
Speaker 6 | 24:13
So we've identified a location where we can put the ship. We don't want to cloud the proposal, but we've identified a location where we can put the ship. We would be working with you as well as the Coast Guard to make sure that is adequate.
Speaker 11 | 24:37
Okay? And the ability to engage.
Speaker 9 | 24:39
With be able to engage with the private landowners to potentially facilitate a deal. That would be done on our end, not through you guys. We would facilitate land deals and basically figure that out there.
Speaker 11 | 24:54
So you would have two alternatives in I want it would be securing a private LA and using, I guess an existing location, correct? I built the pet.
Speaker 9 | 25:12
Correct? I believe so. Yeah, that's that. The plan would be to use an existing location and acquire or lease private land.
Speaker 5 | 25:22
The other issue that's worth mentioning was Osvaldo. We made sure to emphasize this. We want to make sure that the 3PPO, to the extent feasible, evaluates each location on its own merits.
Because it's not our proposal, it's not an all-or-nothing deal by any means. So, in the context of future discussions, I think the 3PPO team mentioned a couple of other potential locations like Camba and Magas. We'd love to look at those other opportunities and talk about that in the future,
but... But to the extent you guys are evaluating each of these as an individual project or proposal, that'd be great. We're happy to work.
Speaker 11 | 26:15
We are definitely.
Speaker 5 | 26:16
And we're happy to work with you guys as and prepa to evaluate other options as well along the way.
Speaker 11 | 26:24
Okay. In terms of a time frame for your evaluation of Cambalech and Maja Wes, what would that that?
Speaker 5 | 26:35
Well, we didn't. We didn't talk any specifics during the last call that sort of was brought up sort of generally, I think I forget, but I think it was either Marriello or Carlos who brought it up. But it's going to depend.
I'll defer to the technical team at Gotham's and KR Power.
Speaker 9 | 26:54
I have an answer here or on... Do you have an answer in terms of a timeline that we could get that done on or what your thoughts are there?
Speaker 8 | 27:02
Hi, guys. Let me... I'm here with that old... Hello, everybody. Just on both occasions, I think we agreed to stay within the limits of what was officially communicated and what was during site visits half officially communicated and what was talked about in the ground. That a dredging issue may be too complicated.
So we based all our options, all our primary options that do not require integration activity. So San Juan does not require integration activity, our Coal SFER does not require integration activity, and our gear option does not require integration activity for compilation. The suggested site... We are concerned that we may end up requiring integration activity, but I will be a little cautious in jumping to those conclusions. Our analysis may not take more than a week or ten days, but the outcome of our analysis may require more time to
Okay.
Speaker 11 | 28:18
So I just want to... I just want... I just want to make sure that it is understood that the RFP provides for connections in any location that would allow that.
Speaker 8 | 28:29
Yes, we have taken a more conservative view of the RFP in line with everything that was communicated on the site. Therefore, we tried to focus on the most certain projects to execute. Given the time frames, we did not want to wander off to locations that may require longer time for execution. That was the premise.
Fabian Velez | 29:00
[Laughter] hay.
Speaker 8 | 29:01
But if we are told that there will be a little bit more time than the 60-90 days provision in the RFP, all those other sites may be doable with a little bit more time.
Again, as I said, we tried to make sure that your job was easy to evaluate to say yes or no to the at least first two or three options we have offered, and all others are certainly executable. We have done such projects. We are happy to do these projects. We just need about a week or ten days to evaluate those. With a little caveat that execution may take a little more than the 90 days that was, to our understanding, the target COD date under the RFP.
Speaker 11 | 29:55
Okay. Understood. And in terms of the GAs supply, what are your arrangements?
Fabian Velez | 30:01
Yeah. Than.
Speaker 8 | 30:05
Well, for San Juan, we would rely on the regified LNG that will come out of the terminal. For our Coast SUP project, we'll bring our own LNG independently supplied and provided by our related fuel suppliers.
So for other locations.
Speaker 11 | 30:26
So it's unlike you would have an agreement with NF.
Speaker 8 | 30:32
That will be the most cost-optimal way because it will be obsolete to have another regrification unit in sight. We could optimize using the re-siification that is available at the and.
Speaker 11 | 30:49
And you have already held conversations. You have a preliminary agreement.
Speaker 8 | 30:54
We have an understanding that there is this adequate capacity and willingness to provide those GAs. We get vital energy.
Speaker 6 | 31:02
And, yes, we've had conversations and meetings with N.
Speaker 11 | 31:16
I don't think I have anything else on my side. I don't know whether you have anything else. It is your turn to mute.
Speaker 3 | 31:26
Sorry. No, that was the pending question that we had: making sure that they would have the capability and the supply for the San Juan units. We still have to go circle back with Lu and understand if the generation there, the capacity, is available.
So for us to consider that as an option. But if they have the supply and everything else, then I think it's pretty clear. So thank you, I think. To us, Miguel Vicente, yeah. I don't know if anybody else has any questions.
Speaker 11 | 31:58
But let's any questions of your side.
Speaker 6 | 32:04
The only thing that I would state is that you mentioned something where you said that you want to work with us. We welcome working with you and your assistance with the agencies. We do have wonderful relationships at very high levels, but we always welcome collaboration and teamwork.
So, if you... I think as this process goes forward, if we are offered the opportunity to do this, we would welcome working with you hand in hand to get necessary permits, whether it be local or federal.
Speaker 11 | 32:38
Okay, perfect. So we're going to be making decisions soon, possibly during the course of this same week. We are right now focused on diversification. So there is the possibility that we could do this if we have more than one proponent that is selected. It will give you some more space in order to get your permits, right?
So that's something we're looking into.
Speaker 5 | 33:18
Understood We look forward to the opportunity to sit down with the stakeholders for negotiations. Thank you so much for your time and for the time during our last you. Thank of.
Speaker 11 | 33:30
Thank you. Thank.
Fabian Velez | 33:32
Thank you.
Speaker 11 | 33:33
Thank you, everybody.
Fabian Velez | 33:34
Thank you, everybody. Bye. Bye.