Thanks, Gerard. This quarter saw yet more momentum created for this emerging industry with the three most populous countries on the planet as well as other leading industrial economies taking notable action on sea floor resources. As concerns over China’s dominance of key critical mineral supply chains continues to garner more U.S. government funding and attention in the media, the U.S. House announced that it had allocated $2 million towards the studying of the processing of nodule derived intermediate products on U.S. shores. China, for its part, is moving forward aggressively on the technology development side and has announced its intention to conduct two separate collector tests next year through Chinese sponsored contractors. And of course, China is playing an assertive role in driving the regulatory process forward at the ISA. Meanwhile, other credible industrial economies, including those with significant offshore industries like Japan and Norway, continue to press ahead with plans for seafloor minerals with Norway announcing it would be opening up part of its territorial waters for mineral exploration applications and Japan acknowledging the discovery of hundreds of millions of tons of nodules in its waters, which it hopes to collect in trials next year. And in another clear win for evidence-based decision-making, we are encouraged to see NGO proposals to support a moratorium on deep-sea mining overwhelmingly rejected by the shareholders of two of the biggest names in the auto business, Tesla and General Motors. Shareholders agree with both Boards with a tally of around 90% rejecting the proposal as both Boards noted that they have been engaging with third parties making science-based evaluations on seafloor resources. We also pride ourselves on being driven by science, and we question the motives of those pushing companies and major metal consumers to adopt activist positions before environmental impact assessments have been completed and then that data reviewed. All projects, whether in our tropical rainforests, deserts or on the deep sea floor, must be judged on merit, and we are confident that nodules can provide the metals we need with a fraction of the environmental impacts compared to land-based alternatives. And as Benchmark found in their recent life cycle analysis of our NORI-D project, we now know nodules would outperform key land-based production routes for nickel and copper in every impact category analyzed. On the onshore side, we have made great strides in collaboration with our partner, SGS. And at their facility in Ontario, our pilot scale module processing program has produced both nickel and cobalt sulfate, indicating our resource is suitable for battery markets. Given the mining industry is by far and away the single largest producer of solid waste on the planet, this program proved that a highly few flow sheet can process high-grade nickel-copper-cobalt matte into key raw material inputs for batteries while producing fertilizer byproduct instead of solid waste or tailings. Considering what we’ve accomplished since 2021 alone, it’s frustrating for us, and I’m sure for many of you to see our market cap sitting at about just 60% of the nearly $0.5 billion we spent already since inception to de-risk these projects and never mind what might be tens of billions of underlying asset value based on the resource itself. While the public markets might still be getting it wrong, we are confident that this work will generate significant value as countries and companies increasingly turn their focus to nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, as recent headlines clearly indicate. Going back to the beginning of 2021. We laid out what we wanted to achieve as a public company, and then we got to work. In early 2021, we put out two SEC compliant resource statements and an initial assessment on the NORI-D area signed off by AMC Consultants, noting at the time a net present value of $6.8 billion. In late 2021, we completed our pyro-metallurgical processing pilot, derisking our flow sheet in advance of future onshore operations. In 2022, we completed the first successful integrated pilot system test in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone since the 1970s, lifting 3,000 wet tons of nodules and helping to de-risk our future offshore operations alongside our partner, Allseas. And as discussed earlier this year, we also finished the last of our 22 preproduction offshore campaigns, including the completion of late February of our environmental campaign of 1 year following our pilot collection test. And as noted, we’ve also successfully pivoted to a capital-light approach with the support of key partners like Pacific Metals of Japan onshore and Allseas offshore, which can provide production assets to us for our exclusive use and then reduce the preproduction CapEx requirements to a bare minimum. On to the environmental impact assessment. Our environmental impact assessment will draw on this wealth of data gathered over the past 12 years and is tightly focused on assessing the potential impacts of our operations on marine biodiversity and overall ecosystem function. Based on discussions with stakeholders, our team has honed in on six primary concerns related to our operations. And with those 22 offshore research campaigns under our belt, including our pilot collection system test, we now have a far clearer picture of our expected impacts which does contradict much of the speculation by activists in the media to date. For example, we now know that sediment plumes at the seafloor form a turbidity current hugging the seafloor and settling quickly. In fact, between 92% and 98% of sediment stays within 2 meters of the seafloor, a far cry from some of the modeling put forward by opponents to this industry, and it just shows that infield observed data needs to trump speculation. Likewise, while it was claimed that organisms impacted by the sediment plumes would never recover, the pair of campaigns we wrapped earlier this year have proved and provided visual evidence that organisms in these areas most heavily impacted by plumes, and even those right next to the collector tracks, were still present and alive 12 months on. And nodules that were covered in sediment only a year before were uncovered and visible. While it can be very frustrating to see the media get whipped up into a frenzy over certain extraordinary theories, as publication is often almost conveniently timed to coincide with meetings with the regulator, we must be cautious in their interpretation and demand equally extraordinary proof. Last year, they warned of dangerously radioactive nodules. And this year, it’s dark oxygen. But the scientific process always dilutes the hyperbole and tames down those wild claims. We will continue to address each and every one of these through rigorous scientific study by leaning on the world’s most comprehensive deep-sea data set. As you can see on the next page, we have just made a huge submission of data to the ISA in May based on our offshore research campaigns. And I will not claim to understand all of this, but our science team certainly does and they’re excited to continue work on the key pillar of our application, the environmental impact statement. Now some may wonder why NORI hasn’t submitted its application already. While our top priority is to get it right the first time, ensuring the most accurate and reliable assessment of our expected impacts. And this means waiting for the highest resolution data to be validated. We’re currently co-leading and analyzing the extensive data collected during our post-collection monitoring campaigns, and the results expected later this year will be crucial to our submission. All of this data will continue to be shared with the ISA and made freely available to the global community via open-source databases. Some of you did likely see the global media cycle focused around dark oxygen, the notion that nodules on the abyssal plain created oxygen through electrolysis. On one hand, our science team was surprised to see a paper with such clear methodological flaws and sensational claims get published in the first place. We should know because some of our science team was aboard the TMC research campaign where the author began making such claims. And the flaws in the methodology were as obvious as they are now. It also backs up what we’ve been saying for years. TMC does not sensor or edit the content of the scientists that are part of our research campaigns despite what some NGOs claim. But on the other hand, we are pleased at the conversation that this has started, with those in the scientific community increasingly beginning to push back on the media hype. In particular, a recent review of the paper by scientists at a depth noted that the paper lacked the data need to support its claims, where we have the data, and we agree that it certainly does not support those claims. Ultimately, extraordinary evidence – excuse me, ultimately, extraordinary claims must be backed by extraordinary evidence, and we look forward to sharing the data that these scientists took issue with as part of their own rebuttal, which we expect to be available in just a matter of days. Once we file our rebuttal, we’ll be running a series of panels and presentations to help people understand the flaws of this paper and why the topic has been completely overblown by the media. But on to the regulatory update. The ISA recently wrapped its latest a session in Kingston, Jamaica. And as with every session, our full team on the ground was looking for progress and progress is what we got. If the publication of the consolidated regulatory text earlier this year marked the transition to the final phase of negotiations, the ISA Council’s completed first reading brings us one large step nearer to bringing the whole process to a close. After multiple draft regulatory texts, dozens of technical studies and thousands of hours of in-person meetings, we have a very good idea of what the final mining codes looks like. We believe that regulations are the best way to protect the marine environment and in-line with the ISA’s road map for adoption in 2025, our submission prior to its March session next year and the expected 1-year review process that would follow, provide ample time for the regulator to adopt regulation ahead of first commercial production. And while some of these ISA meetings can admittedly be quite dry, this year, there is quite a bit of excitement over the election of the new Secretary General, Brazil’s Leticia Carvalho. While the Secretary General will play a major role in ensuring the ISA’s primary decision-making organs can fulfill their mandates, it’s important to remember that it’s ultimately the council that is the main driver of the negotiations over the mining code. To that end, the council, led by its Norwegian President, has already set out a thorough agenda of eight intersectional working groups, which will meet over the coming months to address outstanding issues ahead of its publication of an updated consolidated text this November. As for the process governing the submission and review of an application for an exploitation contract, let me describe how it works as envisioned in the draft rules. Upon submission of our application before the ISA’s next session in March 2025, the ISA secretary will briefly review it for completeness, and then hand over to the 41-person body of experts at the Legal & Technical Commission. The LTC reviews the application in whole, including the wealth of environmental baseline and impact data we’ve gathered over more than a decade before making a decision on whether to approve our project, either by consensus or a simple majority vote. With approval from the LTC, only a two-thirds majority from counsel could overturn a positive LTC recommendation, which would also require a simple majority of each of the individual groups of the council. One element not highlighted here is the stakeholder consultation component of our application submission, which will be shared by the ISA for extensive public review and consideration as we fit the comment heritage resource. And now on to the project economics. In March 2021, AMC Consultants issued our SEC SK1300 initial assessment and that arrived at a net present value of $6.8 billion. And running the same level solely updated for current metal prices, the NPV of NORI-D would today be about $8.5 billion, and our current market cap would represent just 4% of that number, representing a substantial discount to pure nickel or copper developers at this stage of preproduction. Beyond that, our market cap today, as we said earlier, is a significant discount to the money already spent on our projects. And in that time, we’ve achieved historic derisking milestones, and this is at a time when many other large countries are clamoring for access to seafloor resources and expertise in this area. And that puts TMC in a very strong position. As far as our financial results, TMC reported a net loss of approximately $20.2 million or $0.06 per share in the second quarter of 2024 compared to a net loss of $14.1 million or $0.05 per share for the same period in 2023. Exploration evaluation expenses during the second quarter of 2024 were $12.4 million compared to $8.1 million for the same period in 2023. The increase was primarily due to an increase in mining and technological and process development, resulting from increased engineering work by Allseas and share-based comp due to amortization of [indiscernible] options granted to directors and officers in the second quarter of 2024 and higher personnel costs. This was partially offset by a decrease in environmental studies as the cost to complete Campaign 8B in the second quarter of 2024 was lower than the cost of environmental work seen in quarter of 2023 to complete the NORI pilot nodule collection system test. General and administrative expenses were $7.9 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2024, compared to $5.1 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2023. The increase in G&A expenses was mainly due to an increase in share-based compensation due to amortization of the fair value of RSUs and options granted to the directors and officers in the second quarter of 2024, higher personnel costs and an increase in legal and consulting costs. The second quarter 2024 results included a gain of $0.6 million for the change in fair value of warrants liability and $0.5 million of fees and interest on the credit facility. In the comparative quarter of the prior year, the loss due to the change in the fair value of warrants liability was $0.8 million – was of $0.8 million. And fees and interest on the credit facility was $0.3 million. In the second quarter of 2024, the net cash used in operating activities amounted to $12.1 million compared to $8.4 million for the second quarter in 2023. The gap between the net loss for Q2 2024 and the net cash used in operating activities for the same period is due to share-based compensation and expenses that have been settled in equity and the change in working capital due to some increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities. The free cash flow for the second quarter of 2024 was negative $12.2 million compared to negative $8.5 million in the second quarter last year. Free cash flow is a non-GAAP measure. And I’d point you to the non-GAAP reconciliation table included in the slide deck, which is also on our website. We do believe that our cash on hand, the undrawn $27.5 million unsecured credit facility from an affiliate of Allseas, the undrawn $20.8 million capacity on the unsecured credit facility from Gerard Barron as well as ERAS Capital will be sufficient to meet our working capital and capital expenditure needs for at least the next 12 months from today. During the second quarter of 2024, the company had drawn $5.9 million from the credit facilities and short-term debt. And with that, we will turn it back over to the operator for some Q&A.