I will add the following alternative way of viewing this:instead...

I will add the following alternative way of viewing this:

instead of saving $4Mil , we avoided wasting $4mil on over priced airlift of supplies. No company in their right mind if they had the mandate and capital to more that volume of supplies would ever use air. So it was more an avoidance of high freight overheads that we were paying in past deliveries.

There are several reasons likely that sea was never used prior:

- The sea lift to a remote site would require a sizable delivery to justify it and make it economical.
- Not having a mandate yet to justify a large one off shippment
- Not having the financial means to order or purchase this volume of supplies.

Thought it was fair to present both arguments. And IMO this is still a good thing as hopefully moving forward we will
be able to implement other practical changes.

Good luck to all and have a nice weekend:)