The SAF Podcast
Welcome to The SAF Podcast, the only podcast on the internet that exclusively covers sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). So if you want to find out the real issues and challenges are for commercialising and scaling SAF production, look no further.
Every week we will be hearing from senior industry leaders who are actively shaping the future of SAF and aviation.
Hosted by Oscar Henderson and brought to you by the team at SAF Investor. Connect with us at www.safinvestor.com
The SAF Podcast
The SAF Podcast: SMBC - All things not the same for equity and debt financing
In this episode of The SAF Podcast, we sit down with Martin Forman, Director at Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (SMBC), to explore the challenges and opportunities in financing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) projects. With a background spanning energy M&A, hydrogen, CCS, and biofuels, Martin brings a pan-European and global view on decarbonisation finance.
We discuss why Japanese institutions—particularly trading houses and banks—have become such active SAF investors, and how Japan’s domestic SAF mandates are triggering large-scale international investments. Martin explains SMBC’s strategic interest across the SAF value chain, from project lending to aircraft leasing and storage infrastructure, and outlines what makes a SAF project attractive from a lender's perspective.
The conversation dives deep into equity versus debt in project finance, the challenges of funding first-of-a-kind SAF technologies, and the growing importance of public-private partnerships. Martin shares candid insights on why equity—more than debt—is the bottleneck, and how regulation, price certainty, and government support mechanisms like Project SkyPower are critical for unlocking financing and achieving 2030 mandate targets.
Finally, Forman discusses SMBC's preference for club lending arrangements, strategic sponsors over financial investors, and the importance of proximity to feedstock sources.
If you enjoyed this discussion check out our previous episode with Richard Mathers, Honeywell here: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2202964/episodes/17475885
Hello and welcome to the latest episode of the SAF podcast. This week I'm delighted to be joined by Martin Foreman from Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Banking Corporation, and this week we're going to talk about all things investment, why Japanese trading companies and trading houses are so active in investing in the SAF market, what's Sumitomo Mitsui's strategy when it comes to SAF and some of the issues that are potentially preventing those with capital from investing in SAF projects. But before we get into all that, Martin, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 2:How are you? Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, I feel good, excellent.
Speaker 1:Glad to have a podcast with you on a SAF investor Absolute pleasure. Thanks so much for joining us. Before we get into the detail, do you just want to give everyone a sense of your background, what your sort of career looked like before Sumitomo Mitsui, and then also what you currently do and where your current role sits?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so I spent most of all, pretty much of all my working life in the energy sector in some shape and form.
Speaker 2:I started initially with a unit credit in a mergers and acquisitions in an energy focused team focusing on the center and Eastern Europe, because I originally come from the czech republic, um. Afterwards, uh I I spent uh almost 12 years in a bp, uh in a business development, looking uh at up in upstream oil and gas, and then subsequently hydrogen and ccs uh team in a in bp looking at hydrogen and ccs projects um in, but also in the Middle East and Australia, and then roughly three and a half slash four years ago I can't remember when I actually joined SMBC I joined a new energy signature resources team that effectively covers green molecules, which would be a carbon capture, transportation and storage, pure hydrogen, green, blue, pink we are at the moment technology agnostic as long as it means a low carbon framework in each respective country and then it would be biofuels, hydrogen derivatives, also biogas, biomethane and also recycling, circular economic type of projects, and I will be covering Europe, middle East and Africa.
Speaker 1:Perfect. So SMBC is one part of what is a behemoth of a company. Sumitomo Mitsui widely has got so many different arms and sort of segments to it and obviously it's got a global footprint. Do you just want to sort of help people understand sort of where you sit within the wider framework of the company, because it's quite confusing sometimes for sort of outsiders to look into and work out what's going on within the wider framework of the company, because it's quite confusing sometimes for sort of outsiders to look into and work out what's going on.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, I think that's quite typical of Japanese companies. So I think that it needs to be clarified that Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation carries a heritage from Sumitomo Corporation and Mitsui Co absolutely, but we are at the moment. And Mitsuenco, absolutely, but we are at the moment and for some time, independent financial institutions. So, similarly for Mizuho and MUFG, which are the two other large Japanese financial institutions, they do carry also heritage from the trading houses, but at the moment all three banks are independent entities and, in general, like a financier of the energy sector globally. So all three banks are really active in the energy sector.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and why are, oh why is it so common? Because you look at sort of SAF investments, if you take them, for example, and you can't help but notice that almost one in three, maybe one in four, it's got a Japanese institution involved somewhere in the investment stack. So what is it? Why are they so forward thinking in this compared to potentially other financial institutions globally?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that I think first trading houses were actually, you know, because Japan has limited. As a result, you know, the trading houses has been very active across the supply, energy supply chain, but also, you know, in general, like wider natural resources, which would include also hard rock mining and so on, so forth, and I think that I believe it was the end of maybe 23 or middle of 23, where actually also Japan started to really discuss self-mandates within Japan and I think that that really triggered really the interest from Japanese trading houses. There was an interest before, don't take me wrong, because they do have a global operations, but I think the activity has increased subsequently really to help secure sustainable aviation fuel for the Japanese economy and, you know, not everything can be produced at home by the traditional refiners there. Something will have to be imported. So I think they took the traditional role and, as a result, we as banks also come with it in many ways because we are interested in financing this project as well.
Speaker 1:But it's interesting how that sort of a Japanese discussion around a domestic mandate can trigger such large-scale international as well as domestic investment, as opposed to sort of, you know, keeping it more sort of regional and local.
Speaker 2:It's very much across across the globe where we've seen, seen yeah, I think, I think that, I think that's that's true and I think that, but it's my personal view really, and I think that my Japanese colleagues would also have anger to add but I think it's driven by regulation.
Speaker 2:You know, at the moment, as far as I understand and I am not a global expert on self-regulation in general I do have, hopefully, a good grasp of the regulation in EU and UK at the very least. But I think that you know the definition of South are changes from country to country, from region to region, and I think what has happened that Europe is trying to push, let's say, more innovative Technologies into the market because of the lack of feedstock in many ways and and that also, uh, I think, created uh, opportunity for trading houses to really try to secure, you know, the technology and the project know-how that comes with this first-of-a-kind plan, especially in the south sector, and that may not not be a current in Japan, you know, because they're looking largely at heffa or maybe alcohol to jet as a step one or initial step into the south. But they are. They they do understand that they will need also the other technology, so they're looking at more innovative technologies as well and potentially some breakthrough new feedstock, new technology, production pathway and so on, so forth.
Speaker 1:so I think it is the result of regulation really and coming back to smbt, in terms of you mentioned that there's not just saff, there's wider renewables, there's biofuels, there's hydrogen. There's other, just SAF. There's wider renewables, there's biofuels, there's hydrogen. There's other aspects that fall under the same umbrella that SAF does. What sort of percentage or amount of time and how much emphasis is put on SAF versus those other renewable avenues that you could look to, that you are looking at investing in?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that's a very good question and I don't think that we have a fixed target. I think that is subject to review or periodical review. Why? Because the new energy sector decarbonization is moving at different paths at a different time. If you were asking, maybe two years ago, we only heard about hydrogen, like pure hydrogen projects. There was very little discussion in a market around sustainable aviation fuel in many ways, maybe two or three years ago and and I think as these markets develop, then people recognize what is possible.
Speaker 2:I think that sustainable aviation fuel and given that we need to turn anything into the jet fuel molecule, I think it became quite prominent because infrastructure is in place. There is a clear understanding that the aviation has very few levers to decarbonize and sustainable aviation fuel is one of the major ones and I think that brings all the stakeholders in many ways together to pull that direction. Other industries, like maritime or other industrial sectors, do not have such a clear path to decarbonization like aviation. So I think that really brought aviation forward as a potential consumer of pure hydrogen, requirements of CO2 and leveraging the infrastructure. That is largely in place. It needs modification, don't take me wrong, but it is largely in place, with the end user having clear view how to decarbonize. I think that's why SAF is now quite important.
Speaker 2:Maybe you also ask why for SMBC it is important so traditionally I believe it's not just a question of SMBC but also it's MUFG and others. We do have extended, maybe affiliates or subsidiaries that are actually exposed along the whole value chain. So, for example, smbc has a SMBC Aviation Capital which is one of the largest lesser to aviation industry. So there is not another angle why SMBC is quite keen on sector and sustainable aviation fuel. We do also lend to our airports and also our storage providers here it would be tank farms or maybe port autorities, you know import of products. So there is exposure across the value chain in aviation as well. That is quite important for us to understand SAF and how it might change the whole supply chain going forward might change the whole supply chain going forward.
Speaker 1:When you're looking at sort of potentially making investments, what sort of size or sort of types of investments are you guys comfortable and sort of, where's the sweet spot in terms of you guys for making investments in this space?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think it's very difficult to answer like a clear context for everyone. I think that we have a clear boundaries which is we like to do like a landing in a club of our institutions. So we don't want to be only single lender to the project, which is in many ways it is unlikely given the capex associated with most of the sustainable aviation fuel plants. So it is unlikely that SMBC would come on its own. Second, I think it comes down to our sponsors as well. We tend to be driven by relationship and which is developed over time. So we tend to provide a much larger loans to our project that are developed, let's say, with our large clients, investment grade, strategic players.
Speaker 2:Given the sustainable aviation fuel is driven predominantly in my view at the moment at least, the more complex production pathway by small startup, I think that we would tend to start at a smaller scale maybe 20, 25 percent of the debt quantum um and grow with the company. You know, as we build the relationship. You know it's not a single plant, it we're talking about potentially two, three, four plants and we will have a certain um limits on exposure to a party. So that needs to be kept in in perspective by the startup companies. It is not a one off loan we are talking about to bring financial institution for the growth. So hopefully you keep them in a line for not just the one plan but maybe two, three, four or five, and that exposure would grow over time.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you mentioned that you you don't want to be the only lender and you want to sort of go in with other, with other entities. How closely, and you know, do you look at the full makeup of all the lenders for a project, in terms of you know what the sort of capital stack looks like for these projects and how much of a consideration you know is that for you Is that something you sort of don't have that much control over, so don't really worry about how does sort of the other investment, sort of makeup of a project matter?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think we would like to have, you know, like experienced project financing banks. That is not a requirement, but it always gives a comfort you know needs to be. You know these projects are first of a kind, you know. So more eyes is better. You know, I think that when we tend to do the assessment, it's better to have a much more thorough view. I think that it's quite important, especially for SAF, in my view, to potentially bring along the likes of European Investment Bank in Europe or Nordic Investment Bank or any other national institutions that can help with debt funding and maybe address some of the risks that are associated there. No one is really willing to take today. So I think it is quite important. And equally, equity providers. Don't take me wrong. We look quite a lot on equity providers, but having a diverse pool of financial institutions in it, with the different drivers, is quite important for these new novel projects.
Speaker 1:Do you think the slight lack of these sort of you're sort of touching on the public-private partnerships with these sort of public institutions like the European Investment Bank and etc. Do you think there potentially needs to be more work there to collaborate to sort of manage risk, spread risk and help crowd in a bit more sort of private investment through these sort of public and private partnerships?
Speaker 2:I think it's very important. Um, I think that you know similar type of discussion is happening in the uk. Uh, you know, you, you, you have heard about, uh, the monday, but also the revenue certainty mechanism and and there is a there is an ongoing um discussion with national wealth fund. Uh, what kind of role they can and they could help to address potential risk that is very difficult to take for anyone and asking similar type of roles should be played by AIB and NIB and other institutions to help these smaller companies with the risks that are difficult for them to take because they simply don't have a strong balance sheet and there is ultimately a risk involved, which is not typical for project financing that usually deals with proven technologies with proven operational performance and strong parties behind it, which is quite different to traditional project financing.
Speaker 1:Do you think that you mentioned there that it's very different financing using project finance for a SAF facility versus other traditional infrastructure investments, versus other traditional infrastructure investments? Do you think sort of the model of sort of how investments get made in this space can be adapted to sort of accommodate these much more risky but equally expensive sort of infrastructure projects? Or is there sort of not too much innovation that can be done in the finance, in the financial space, to to help bring these projects through financing, get them constructed?
Speaker 2:um, I don't. I think. I think there are additional risk that lenders, like a traditional commercial lender, has not really dealt with in the past, and I think that it's because there are also different production pathways. There is not going to be, in my view, a blueprint how to finance this project for some time, so I think it really is not that financial industry should invent something new. I think it's the question, the risks that are not typical for project financing how they're going to be mitigated, and I think that's where, in my view, regulation or policymakers need to really step up. And I think that one of the at least drivers for ESAF is the project SkyPower in the EU, as far as I understand that, and it is really to bridge the issue of the offtake contracts and the price of ESO, and I think it's the classical example that can help this project to get financed, you know, to underpin the offtake contract, which has been so difficult for most of the projects to secure, and I think that is something like that is needed to get financing in place.
Speaker 1:It's not the biggest risk.
Speaker 2:I think it could largely underpin the supply chain, because aviation is not really a sector that is known for high profitability and stability and creditworthiness is known for high profitability and stability and great worthiness. Now, if you think about the price of esaf and I'm asking that, we can all agree that it's extremely expensive to produce um and 10 or 15 years long time of take on track for 100 000 tons plan is a quite a big liability for aviation company or airlines uh, to really put on a balance sheet, and I think our project, sky power, can hopefully address that issue and bridge this long-term versus short-term contract that potential airlines are willing to sign up to. And I think that would be really good also for lenders, because entity with some sort of budget in between, rather than relying on a balance sheet or credit versus airlines, will help a lot and I think it also will bring far more parties towards the table, helping these projects to get off the ground with the off-take contract get off the ground with the offtake contract?
Speaker 1:isn't the the risk of the price discovery over a long term offtake you were mentioning it in the context of esaf with these 10-15 year offtake agreements not being realistic? The price is so high and obviously over that time period, the price discovery is, you know, the big challenge for an airline because, as you say, it's not renowned for being the most profitable of business. But that goes without saying that that's applicable to other SAF as well, whether it's Hether or other pathways as well. So this pricing issue is something that's really important to airlines and presumably something that you keep a close eye on as the, as the lenders um, yeah, no, absolutely.
Speaker 2:Look. I think that I think esau and I think it's quite difficult question in america to answer I think esau on its own is extremely difficult because I think that if you would test a business case on, let's say, maybe against HEFA or some more maybe quoted pricing benchmark, how it would look if, let's say, the off-taker falls away in some shape and form during the tenure of the loan. I don't think that these projects, the pricing would cover operation or OPEX or operational costs for ESARF plants because simply it is too expensive, which is largely driven by the price of green hydrogen, which is also electricity. So I think that ESARF is quite specific.
Speaker 2:Other biosarfsF, I think is easier to navigate because you can make the assumptions. They are maybe closer, still more expensive than HEFA, but they are closer to this. So the lenders can take a view and what would happen in case the off-taker would fall away. And I think that's how we're trying to test at least the cases in SMBC. We have an offtaker but we need to test how it potentially would look like if the offtakers would fall away and I think that that case is extremely difficult to make for ESOF to make for ESAF.
Speaker 1:The issue around FID is a big one for ESAF. Alongside the timeline set by mandates, particularly in Europe, in the EU and in the UK, I know we've mentioned project sky power and the sort of proposal for sort of two-sided auctions and sort of bridge the octane gap, but what else needs to be done to to encourage debt or investment into those projects in a line with you know where the mandates are saying production needs to be, because, realistically, there needs to be very, very big moves happening in the next 12, 18 months for there to be any possibility of there being production by 2030 when sub mandates come in. So so, one, how realistic is that sort of to meet those targets? And two, what needs to be done, what can be done to meet them from sort of the investor side?
Speaker 2:Yeah. So look, I always think about it, at least in Europe, that these plans roughly take three and a half to four years to construct. I've seen like a potentially uh timeline for three years. I think that's quite aggressive um for these plans, especially if you talking um maybe around hundred thousand tons, uh size, uh, which if, when it's smaller, possible uh, but give or take three to four years. So, as you probably write that these projects need to take a fid this year or next um, in my view, otherwise, we are in a real danger that there is going to be no ESALF.
Speaker 2:Second, I think that a lot of people forget that there is a ramp-up period and for these maybe quite extended.
Speaker 2:So, even if you hit the FID COD by 29, you know you're still gonna have a reduced production on these plants. They'll still be reducing, maybe at 50 or 60 percent level, maybe ramping up, assuming nothing goes wrong. So I think that we are in a real danger not having an ESOF or sufficient amount of ESF flowing around in 2013. Now I think that the equity part is also an issue. I think that these projects struggling to rise the large amount of equity assuming each plant must cost, give or or take one billion and I think that it almost requires at least three to four hundred million euros in equity and I think that equity investors potentially investing in multiple asset classes SAF needs to simply compete with other opportunities and at the moment I see, because of the technology risk, especially in e-SAF or maybe some advanced bio-SAF is skewed to the downside on their profitability. So I think that is another problem and I think the project SkyPower doesn't address that either.
Speaker 1:So do you think it's harder for projects to raise the equity required than the debt?
Speaker 2:I see, assuming the EPC contract and let's say the technology contracts are reasonable, including offtake, I assume, reasonable from a project financing perspective, I think the obstacle is going to be in equity rather than debt.
Speaker 1:Interesting, because a lot of people that you speak to it's quite interesting to see the divergence, whether sort of SAF is, you know, a debt play or an equity play, which sort of market is sort of riper for currently in its current form in terms of attracting investment, and there is sort of a difference of opinion about sort of which one's more suitable currently in the current form and then, sort of as the market matures, going forward look, I'm not like an equity, like a professional, but um, I think that most of the like equity players in this space um, investing in, maybe like a commercial uh, technologies that are being commercialized, rather that are commercialized.
Speaker 2:I think the issue is is simply the capex associated, and it's a capital intensive industry and I don't think that we have seen funds that are capable of doing this infrastructure fund. Yes, absolutely, they will come, but that might not be the first plant and and you know what's going to happen if these equity investors will invest in a plant that is going to fail in some shape and form. So I think it's a big risk.
Speaker 1:Is that still true for heifer? Even though you know there's lots of heifer plants being built and you know the technology is de-risked and there is a lot of there is commercial production going on, is that probably the only exception to to that where it might be able to sort of attract equity and debt sort of equally? Or even then do you think there's still sort of too much risk for infrastructure funds?
Speaker 2:to I think. I think it's that largely large risk. I think that should be the easiest way for equity and such debt to get around. I think the issue is the feedstock. I think that is going to be a concern over the long period of time. So I think heifer plants might be suitable in some geographies more than the others. I think that it's also the experience to construct these type of projects. I think it needs to be noted that I don't think that Europe has seen any large scale greenfield refinery being built in I don't know, last 10, 15 years. Most of these refineries are upgrade or conversion and so on. So I think it also comes down to regional specific issues.
Speaker 1:If you were to, if I was to put you on the spot, which I am going to do which if you had to invest, say, in a project right now, what would that project look like? Where would it be? What pathway would it use? How much would it produce? When you look at the market now, where do you see as the most desirable from an investment point of view, as sort of a project makeup looking?
Speaker 2:so from a uh up from a landing, but there are two lenses to it. Maybe there is a one equity and one for lending. Uh, so I probably, because primarily I would be looking at the debt. So I would like to be in a in a part of the world and if it narrows down to potentially to EU, we're close to a feedstock At the moment.
Speaker 2:I think it's important to be close to the feedstock. It's from a perspective of carbon intensity and also the density of the product, so it doesn't really make sense to move around biomass. So I would see these plants moving towards closer to the feedstock and it can be biofeedstock power CO2. So I think from that perspective, I would imagine like a Nordics, but also like a southern part of the EU you know the likes of Iberian Peninsula, but also Italy and others, like in the south, would be in a great place to start looking for it.
Speaker 2:Second, I think that access to our infrastructure you know the evacuation, because we still don't have the book and claim, so it's a little bit difficult, you know, for the projects that are placed in a parts with a great resources but no access to port or how to move the product out, and then I think that I would be also looking at the projects that have a great stakeholders around. What I mean by that is potentially government interest. So there is a strong government interest that is looking at the sector. Have EPC slash technology providers potentially even looking at the sector, have EPC slash technology providers potentially even looking at smaller equity you know, being aligned along. And then strong sponsors. My preference would be for strategics, because they are ultimately looking to have a molecule rather than financial investors and they could ultimately be also, in some shape and form, off-taker.
Speaker 1:So if you see a project with government grants and you want sort of motivated parties as opposed to it being purely a a financial play, seeing those sort of other aspects to it, whether it sort of be governments committing government grants and then strategics giving money and then potential for offtake, so it's not just purely there for sort of the you know the roi at the end of the project and seeing return on any investment as a purely financial motivation, that's quite important for you to see.
Speaker 2:Yes, so for lenders it is the certainty of the cash flow to repay the loan. So you know the ROE or you know the typical equity investors or NPV is less of importance to debt providers, it is the cash flow generation on an annual basis. I think you mentioned grant.
Speaker 2:I do not have issues with the grant but I think that if you have a look let's say for example, in the UK, maybe carbon capture and storage you know the regulation and the backstop by government to address the risk that not even the big players like BP or ENI and others in this particular situation were not willing to take, uk government took and it underpinned the FIDs, the investment and so on. I don't necessarily subscribe to a view that grant answers the question for these plans. I think it's the regulation to address the risks which are new to industry and I think that's where the government should play. So I would imagine, like UK government looking potentially having a five or six plans you know it is not clear how it's going to look like, but there might be some fallback or backstop by UK government that will attract the providers of equity but also debt and I think that is quite important.
Speaker 1:But finding the right level for this policy is challenging because you know, there was this all big sort of hurrah over there being mandates. But now we're sort of six months into mandates and there's an element of sort of you put one policy in place and people always want more. They always want a bit more policy, and you know where, where can you draw the line? Where's enough? Industry will always want more support. Government can only give so much. So it's it's. It's not an easy, or it's almost an impossible line to accurately, accurately find, to find the right way to stimulate the investment and stimulate the market yeah, uh, no, absolutely agree.
Speaker 2:I think that especially government, these days are stretched. You know the public finances, so I think there is only the amount that can be asked from government. I think that you know sustainable aviation fuel, our power aviation industry. I think it's largely down to regulation being new, not tested, and I think, unfortunately, we are in that period you know, 2025 is the first year, at least at the EU level, and so on, and I think it will just take time, potentially this stress in a system to trickle through and bring the parties to the table. Mind you, I think that also, aviation being the global industry, I think that what we have seen in maritime IMO announcement, I think it would be great to see similar type of movement in aviation industry make the staff definition maybe across a widera, rather than having us so fragmented, which makes you know everyone's life are more difficult from equity, from a debt and so forth.
Speaker 1:Um, I think it would be good to see as well so more alignment, sort of globally on standards and criteria and what sort of is allowed, what isn't allowed, is a good thing from a from an investor point of view. I think.
Speaker 2:I think there is a different way uh, at least maritime goes around it because they are focused on a carbon intensity, you know, lowering the emissions from carbon density. Well, it seems that aviation went down to eligible feedstocks, which is a slightly different approach. So I think that carbon intensity should be the driving force behind it, and whatever feedstock is used, there are certain constraints, I do appreciate that, but I think that should drive really the definition of SAF and the industry, and I think it would be much easier, because then I think the industry could drive the production costs down in general.
Speaker 1:Final question We've spoken a lot about sort of the challenges around, sort of activating capital and the drivers. What are the sort of the, what's sort of the golden ticket to speeding up projects, reaching fid because we mentioned it before that there is, you know, there's timelines associated with this. This is, there is a sort of an element of speed related to it. You can't just wait and let a market develop before money gets invested into the, into the industry. So what's the sort of, as you see it, the fastest way to activate more debt going into projects?
Speaker 2:I think it's not a question of debt. I think lots of projects in Europe have made great progress on a technical side and I think they are ready from that perspective. I think that what hinders them to take FID is the lack of offtake slash equity. I think that then they can engage with that and most of these projects which are ready to take FID engage with the debt providers in some shape and form. So I really think what struggles, what hinders this project to really reach FID, is at the moment the offtake slash equity, and I think they are closely connected in a way that no equity if there is no offtake, and so on and so forth. And that might be the vice versa as well, because offtakers ultimately would like to see these projects taking fid, meaning they need to have a view uh, how much, uh whether the funds um are ready to be deployed I think that so aptly sums up a lot of the issues around sustainable aviation fuel.
Speaker 1:It's very much, in so many situations, a chicken and egg situation and a catch 22,. You need one, but you also need the other, and one's not going to happen without the other. So, um, martin, thanks so much for joining us and explaining your perspective. That's been a um really interesting conversation.
Speaker 2:No, thank you very much for having me and yeah, and looking forward to for the engagement with the selfF investor, but also with other SAF players and, yeah, the financial institutions and including SMBC. The door is open. We would like to see certainly more SAF plans being constructed, taking FIT.
Speaker 1:Perfect Thanks. Thanks again, martin.
Speaker 2:Yeah, perfect thanks, thanks again.