Mr. John Melvin:

The key factor is the cost of the fuel. From discussions with the applicant around that time, I understood that the matter was coming from the US. This is not my area of expertise but according to the applicant, under US law, one must clear out the thinnings from forestry in order to avoid the risk of forest fires. Therefore it is a cost to forestry companies and there is a surplus of naturally dried chippings and wood like this. In essence, it was cost effective to ship that across the Atlantic to Dublin, move it across the country and burn it in Mayo at a lower price than similar fuels could be obtained here. That was the case at the time and then what the applicant said in the 2018 case was that it was going to burn 70% of its finished product. That is a valuable product, has a very different price and leads to a very different economic justification.