As an organization, we will use different metrics for what we consider strategic projects. For example, one critical concern we have is redeployment of our hardwood wood basket assets, because hardwood preferentially goes into printing grade, and that is the grade that is under the most pressure, if you will.
In that regard, if we are looking at something that is a redeployment of a hardwood supply chain, and it's strategic and could be a repurpose that saves the asset and saves up part of the supply chain—which is a big ask and doesn't always happen—we would stretch out to a seven- to eight-year time frame.
Having said that, we are in competition for capital, “we” being innovation projects. We are in competition for capital and for the existing core business, which is generating cash and generating profits. The three- to five-year time frame for a rock-solid energy project, for example—something you could really take to the bank—is about the minimum that you would ask for.
It is a really tight competition, and the argument that has to be made in order to successfully launch an innovation project is that there is a strategic upside to this. You have to suspend your normal metrics.
Again, this is where I believe policy and government support and partnership and multi-stakeholder collaborations really help make the argument that there is a strategic upside here.