Scott:

Thank you for the kind words.

What would you call it if you were producing at x 11 months ago and you are now producing at .85% x? Regardless of what one calls it, it translates to reduced output and efficency of the plant relative to the resource. Which in turn means added costs and reduced cost absorption. Which bottom line means that one is generating lower revenue and profit than design intent and plan. Obviously, they are not getting the productivity out of the resource at this point in time. Does that mean they wont? Not at all. Only that they have had a chronic dimunition in resource performance with attendant higher costs. Any time one has such a condition, I believe it is accurate to describe it as at least a temporary dimunition in system performance leading to under utilization of available system capabilities. Does not suggest that the resource is not still available. Only that ones efficencies have declined as is apparent with reduced system output.

Brian