You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Xerion is using molten salt to refine the key battery mineral domestically and efficiently.

When John Busbee started his battery technology company in 2010, his strategy was about making just one small part that could be widely used by other manufacturers. He launched Xerion Advanced Battery Corp. at a University of Illinois startup incubator in a bid to commercialize a novel breakthrough in nanostructured foam for the internal components of batteries.
That same logic has since led the company to produce other key materials for the energy transition, including cobalt and, now, gallium, Heatmap has learned.
The same year Busbee started Xerion, some 7,000 miles west across the Pacific, China cut off shipments of rare earth metals to Japan amid a geopolitical spat over contested islands. The move shocked the democratic world and made apparent a troubling fact — that over the preceding few decades, China had seized nearly full control of the global supply of these key metals for magnets and electronics. In the years since, Beijing has used export restrictions on rare earths and other minerals to the U.S. and its allies as a geopolitical cudgel, leading Busbee and others to look for ways to rewire global supply chains away from China.
Xerion had previously experimented with molten salt electrolysis, a process that involves running an electrical current through salt that’s been heated to somewhere from 800 to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit — hot enough to achieve a liquid state, corrosive enough to eat through rock ore but leave behind the desired metals.
Ultimately the team at Xerion found that this method could be used to process cobalt, which is sourced mostly from Chinese-controlled mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The molten salt would eat away at the igneous rock containing the bluish battery metal, leaving behind the mineral. The company opened its pilot cobalt-refining facility in Dayton, Ohio, in April, and reached its goal of producing 5 metric tons for the year.
Now Xerion is expanding into producing gallium. The U.S. has no domestic industry to produce the soft, silvery metal, and imports of the raw material – widely used in solar cells, nuclear sensors, electric vehicle batteries, and semiconductors – have skyrocketed by nearly threefold since 2020. China banned exports to the U.S. in December.
“Gallium was low-hanging fruit,” Busbee told me. “It’s in all the radars. It's in all the missiles. It’s in all the planes. All the new chargers that are really compact are made with gallium nitride. It’s also in the cell phones. And it’s something where China has the market cornered.”
The U.S. stopped producing its own gallium in 1987, according to a U.S. Geological Survey report. Before then, the metal came as a byproduct of turning bauxite into aluminum; in China, where the vast majority of global production moved, the government requires alumina refineries to also extract gallium. As alumina processing disappeared in the U.S., there was no market incentive for refineries to invest in the complex process of also extracting gallium, which makes up a tiny fraction of 1% of the total bauxite ore.
At least one major proposed rare earths mine in the U.S., the Sheep Creek site in Montana, boasts large deposits of gallium, and U.S. Critical Materials Corp., the project’s Salt Lake City-based developer, inked a deal to work on building a pilot plant to test its own refining technology with the Idaho National Laboratory this summer. But the project is still at an early stage.
The benefit of using molten-salt electrolysis, Busbee said, is that it provides a shortcut. “I tell people I’m kind of dumb and stubborn,” he said. “What I mean by dumb is that I wasn’t in the industry, so I didn't know that it was widely known that you don’t use this method because it’s so aggressively corrosive that it’s a pain in the butt. And by stubborn I mean that, once we picked that, we stuck with it and spent 10 years optimizing these incredibly corrosive molten salts for the battery space.”
Since the molten salt will eat through nearly everything the Ohio-based Xerion isn’t looking to collect, the process can pull gallium out of mining waste and other sources with low concentrations of the metal.
“It’s a one-step process,” Busbee told me. “A lot of people dissolve in acid, then have to evaporate it and recrystallize it. Sometimes there are multiple rounds. There can be 15 to 100 steps. Ours is one step.”
Asked what the catch might be, Busbee laughed. “It’s been a pinch-me technology,” he said. “As we keep going further, we keep finding good things.”
There’s still some waste rock left behind after the process, and the company said it’s figuring out useful ways to sell that material.
Despite its 15 years in operation, Xerion’s bid to enter the critical minerals market is new enough that many analysts were unfamiliar with the company and its approach. BloombergNEF declined to comment. Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, the London-based battery metals consultancy, cautioned that Xerion’s claims of “very high recoveries” of materials “seems to be in a lab environment rather than at scale.”
“With respect to Xerion’s original cobalt line, my understanding is this is still at pilot stage, so difficult to compare against industry production,” William Talbot, the lead cobalt analyst at Benchmark, told me via email.
But Ryan Alimento, an energy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, said the ability of molten salt to refine minerals to much higher concentrations than water-based solutions is real.
“The advantage of molten salt is exactly what Xerion says,” he told me. Still, he said, opening a pilot plant is just “the first stage in the entrepreneurial valley of death.”
“There’s still a lot more steps needed along the way,” Alimento said. “When you have a company introducing a new processing technology like this that really diverts from the norm, it requires a lot of capital.”
Xerion has raised “a little over $100 million” from venture capitalists and family offices, Busbee said. As the company moves into manufacturing, however, he told me he plans to tap into more large institutional investors. That may offer some promise. Critical minerals are undergoing something of a dealmaking boom as investors clamber for stakes in companies whose metals could win the bonus tax credits the Biden administration offered for domestically-produced materials or avoid the trade penalties the Trump administration has slapped on imports from adversary nations.
President Donald Trump has also used the military to invest directly into rare earths production. The Department of Defense bought a stake in MP Materials, the only active rare earths producer in the U.S., in what The Economist described as the federal government’s biggest intervention in a private company since nationalizing the railroads during World War I. While it’s not a direct ownership stake, the federal Defense Logistics Agency earlier this month awarded Xerion funding through the Small Business Innovation Research program to carry out tests on the economic viability of its technology. Xerion said it expects to complete the first phase of the testing in the first quarter of next year, and plans to pursue grants for the second and third phase analyses.
“This is definitely a priority for the U.S., which is good because what companies need is unambiguous and long-sustained government support for something like this,” Alimento said. “It does not surprise me that a company like Xerion would be thriving in this kind of industrial-policy ecosystem.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
In an age of uncertainty, investors want proven technologies.
When Trump won a second term, nobody quite knew exactly what havoc he would wreak on the climate tech industry — only that its prospects looked deeply unstable. After all, he’d alternately derided and praised electric vehicles, accused offshore wind turbines of killing whales, and described himself as “a big fan of solar” — save for its supposed harm to the bunnies — all while rallying supporters around the consistent refrain of “drill, baby, drill.”
At the same time, a number of key technologies continued moving down the cost curve, supportive policy or no. This collision of climate tech antipathy and maturing technology is already reshaping the funding landscape. New reports from Sightline Climate, Silicon Valley Bank, and J.P. Morgan point to a clear bifurcation in the industry: While well-capitalized investors and more established climate tech companies continue to raise sizable funds and advance large-scale projects, much of the venture ecosystem that backs earlier-stage solutions is struggling to keep up.
The headline numbers — which look strong at first glance — help obscure that reality. Sightline Climate’s Dry Powder and New Funds report, for instance, shows investors raising a record $92 billion in new climate-focused capital across 179 funds last year. But 77% of that total was concentrated among the largest players, institutional heavyweights like Brookfield Asset Management, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, and Energy Capital Partners, which tend to back proven technologies such as utility-scale solar, wind, and battery projects.
“A lot of infrastructure funds are very comfortable saying, Yeah, I’m going to do wind and solar. I know how that works. I can see the project finance there. All good,” Julia Attwood, Sightline’s head of research, said on a webinar about the firm’s report.
Meanwhile, the proportion of U.S. investment going to seed and Series A companies fell for the first time in about a decade, according to Silicon Valley Bank’s Future of Climate Tech report, bad news for less mature but critical technologies like carbon capture, green steel, low-carbon cement, and agricultural decarbonization. These remain the domain of more risk-tolerant early-stage venture investors, whose share of total funding raised is similarly shrinking, dropping from about 20% in 2021 to under 8% last year, according to Sightline. That’s due to both a decline in VC fundraising — the average fund size dropped from $174 million in 2024 to $160 million in 2025 — as well as infrastructure’s share of the pie growing as the industry matures.
Capital concentration also shows up within early-stage venture itself. While Silicon Valley Bank’s topline numbers show startup valuations increasing at every stage from seed to Series C and beyond, “there’s clearly a story behind that where the top performers are doing really well and a lot of the longer tail are still scraping to keep up,” Jordan Kanis, Silicon Valley Bank’s managing director of climate technology, told me. “There’s still money flowing into early stage companies. I think there’s more selectivity. It’s a higher bar.”
That selectivity has become a necessity, as investors struggle to raise fresh capital from their limited partners in a politically volatile environment, in which affordability and energy security have become the name of the game and the word “climate” is all but forbidden. Even before Trump’s second term, LPs were facing a liquidity crunch, as infrastructure-heavy climate tech companies often take a decade or more to exit and return capital to investors. So until those IPOs or acquisitions accelerate, many LPs will likely remain cautious about ponying up additional capital.
This year could be a turning point on that front, however, with nuclear startup X-energy going public last month at a valuation of nearly $12 billion, and geothermal unicorn Fervo Energy gearing up for its pending IPO. “Nothing gets this fired up more than some really good exits,” Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures, told me, referring to the climate tech ecosystem at large. “That’s going to get people talking a lot about the opportunities in the space.”
Obvious, which invests in climate tech companies but also those focused on “human health” and “economic health,” is one of the few venture investors to bring in fresh capital recently, raising about $360 million in January for its fifth fund. Last year, only 39% of climate-focused VC funds that were actively raising were able to close, according to Sightline Climate’s data, compared to 73% of mature infrastructure funds and 60% of growth funds.
Beebe said that for a well-known firm like Obvious, which has been investing in this space for over a decade, “we did not find it that hard” to raise, explaining that “LPs today are favoring experienced teams with track records.” The firm’s diversification beyond climate also might have been a boon, he said. And there’s always the possibility that “there were just too many funds, and we’re going to see a thinning of the field” in both climate and the venture landscape at large.
Indeed, the broader venture market mirrors many of these trends, indicating there’s more than just political sentiment — or even climate industry maturation — driving capital concentration at the top. For one, the entire venture industry contracted after 2022, as post-pandemic interest rates rose, money got more expensive, and valuations plummeted across the board. That’s led investors across all categories to hold off until companies demonstrate significant proof of traction.
“When we look at tech firms and look at how much revenue the median Series A company has in 2021 and compare that to what they had in 2025, it’s double,” Eli Oftedal, a principal researcher at Silicon Valley Bank, told me, meaning Series A companies are bringing in much more revenue than they were five years ago. “Investor expectations are higher across the board, not just in climate, and that’s a pretty clear indication of the whole ecosystem changing to request a higher level from founders.”
At the same time, revenue growth rates have slowed, elongating the time it takes startups to move from one round to the next. This environment has LPs and investors placing big bets on a few prosperous industries that seem almost guaranteed to generate returns, whether it’s solar and wind or artificial intelligence companies. For instance, OpenAI and Anthropic raised $40 billion and $13 billion last year, respectively, accounting for 14% of total global venture investment in 2025.
That type of focused hype is redirecting attention from generalist investors — who might have otherwise funded climate tech — toward more AI-centric bets. But the AI boom and the accompanying data center buildout are also behind many of today’s strongest climate tech deals, with surging electricity demand fueling investment in clean energy and gridtech startups as hyperscalers look to meet their ambitious — and perhaps impractical — climate targets.
“If you’re investing in the clean baseload energy and power part of climate tech, there’s so many dollars that need to be deployed to bring these companies to scale, and they’re viable today,” Robert Keepers, head of climate tech at J.P. Morgan Commercial Banking, told me. “Funds that are focusing on that part of the sector are doing really well.”
But the result is also a dynamic that disproportionately favors the energy sector, the most mature segment of the climate tech ecosystem. Last year, three quarters of new capital raised by climate-focused funds was earmarked for energy investments, leaving sectors including transportation, industry, and agriculture increasingly cut off from capital
If the trend continues, it could create a pipeline problem. Infrastructure investors would keep scaling solar and wind farms alongside politically favored tech like nuclear and geothermal, while a dwindling supply of venture capital leaves fewer next-generation companies able to graduate into that queue. “If they don’t have VC commercializing and providing [first-of-a-kind] funding for a bunch of the new tech then you’re just going to see more and more concentration in a few technologies, and you won’t really have that growth of a brand new market,” Attwood explained on the call.
As of now, however, that’s just speculation. As Attwood noted, Sightline’s data is based on climate tech funds that have already closed. “There’s another $200 billion out there that has not closed yet,” she emphasized. “So if all of that money is still in the pipeline, is still moving through, and could reach close fairly soon, that’s a huge indicator that there is still appetite to fund climate.”
With the historic level of electricity demand growth, Keepers told me “there’s never been this much momentum in the space.” And the climate issue certainly isn’t going away anytime soon. As Silicon Valley Bank’s report notes, over the past decade, billion-dollar climate and weather disasters alone have caused $1.5 trillion in direct damages — a figure that excludes smaller disasters and doesn’t even begin to capture the catastrophes’ broader economic ripple effects.
“We’re tackling a problem that some people still don’t really see, and we see with great clarity. So that’s where you make a lot of money,” Beebe told me. “Unlike some other cycles like blockchain, or crypto, or even enterprise SaaS, this cycle doesn’t come and go. It is a one way street. It will continue to become a bigger and bigger opportunity.”
Current conditions: Temperatures are climbing to 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Las Vegas as a heat wave settles over the Southwest • In India’s northwest Gujarat state, thermometers are soaring as high as 112 degrees • Fire season in the U.S. state of Oregon has officially begun, weeks ahead of usual.
A tanker carrying liquified natural gas from Qatar has appeared to transit the Strait of Hormuz, marking the country’s first export out of the Persian Gulf since the Iran War started. On Sunday, Bloomberg reported that the Al Kharaitiyat had successfully passed through the narrow waterway near the mouth of what’s traditionally the busiest route for oil and gas in the world. As of Sunday evening, the vessel en route to Pakistan from Qatar’s Ras Laffan export plant had reached the Gulf of Oman. The ship, the newswire noted, “appears to have navigated the Tehran-approved northern route that hugs the Iranian coast through the strait.”
Still, progress on ending the war the United States and Israel are waging on Iran remains limited. In a Sunday post on his Truth Social network, President Donald Trump said he had just read a “totally unacceptable” counter proposal to end the war “from Iran’s so-called ‘representatives.’” In the meantime, it’s not just hydrocarbon buyers feeling the pinch of higher prices. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported last month, the closure of the strait is squeezing both ingredients for battery storage and solar panels.
Data centers may represent big new buyers for electrical utilities. But Eversource Energy, the Massachusetts-based electrical power company serving nearly 5 million customers across New England, is betting against data centers. On a call with investors last week, Eversource CEO Joe Nolan said he’s “not interested” in developing new server farms across the company’s territory, as it’s “only going to drive up the price of energy,” according to Utility Dive. “It’s of no value to our residential customer — actually, any customer,” Nolan said. A limited buildout of artificial intelligence infrastructure had kept prices steadier in New England’s grid than in PJM Interconnection, the mid-Atlantic system. “If you look at the volatility in ISO New England, there’s not a very volatile market compared to PJM,” he said. “So, I feel good about it.”
That position may align well with the push from some Democrats, particularly on the left, to halt data center construction amid a populist backlash to the projects. But this isn’t a blue state issue alone. The same day Nolan made the remarks, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a hard-line Republican, signed a bill mandating that utilities require large data centers to pay their own service costs and prevent those costs from being shifted to ratepayers. “You should not pay one more red cent for electricity because of a hyperscale data center as an individual,” DeSantis said, according to E&E News. “That’s just not right, for the most wealthy companies in the history of the world to come in and have individual Floridians or Americans subsidize these hyperscale data centers.”
One of the biggest early problems afflicting America’s next-generation nuclear industry is the fact that a key fuel many new reactor technologies need has, for years, only been manufactured commercially by Russian and Chinese state-owned nuclear companies. For companies pitching a return to fission as a way for the West to avoid Moscow’s gas and Beijing’s solar panels, batteries, and critical minerals, that posed a problem. But Washington has been racing to shore up a domestic supply of what’s known as high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. Now it’s tapping in one of its closest allies and partners in the atomic energy industry. On Friday, World Nuclear News reported that Japan had shipped 1.7 metric tons of HALEU to the U.S. as part of “the largest single international shipment of uranium in the history of the National Nuclear Security Administration.” The delivery joined together the U.S. Department of Energy’s NNSA, Japan’s top two nuclear regulatory agencies, and the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Transport Solutions and Civil Nuclear Constabulary. “This milestone accelerates our progress towards a secure and independent energy future, while reaffirming our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation,” Matthew Napoli, the NNSA’s deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation, said in a statement. “Through this partnership with Japan, we are fuelling the next generation of nuclear power, and solidifying America's energy dominance.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
ITER is just about ready to eat. The world’s biggest nuclear fusion experiment, the globally-funded megaproject in France known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, has received the final shipment of components needed to assemble the giant magnet at the heart of the facility. As a result, the project is now back on schedule, NucNet reported last week.
The joint effort between the U.S., China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea was once considered the vanguard of the quest for the so-called holy grail of clean energy. But delays, bureaucracy, and funding pauses created repeated setbacks. Meanwhile, fusion has made major strides at small startups in the U.S., while China — as I have reported here — is outspending the entire world combined on research.
JinkoSolar is selling a 75.1% stake in its U.S. manufacturing subsidiary to the private equity firm FH Capital for an undisclosed sum. The deal, announced Friday, also includes the Chinese giant’s battery business. “FH Capital brings deep sector expertise, financing experience, and a deep understanding of the U.S. market,” Nigel Cockroft, U.S. general manager of JinkoSolar, said in a statement. “We believe this transaction provides the right ownership, management and strategic direction for this new venture to grow capacity and serve the growing demand for high performance U.S.-sourced renewable energy products.”
U.S. manufacturers have long struggled to compete against Chinese solar panel producers, which — as I told you two weeks ago — have seen exports more than double since the start of the Iran War. And as I also recently noted, new kinds of solar panels are getting a second look in the U.S. right now. But U.S. panel manufacturers don’t just struggle to compete on price. A new industry report highlighted last week in PV Magazine found that U.S. solar factories are struggling to meet high soldering standards.

Coyotes are the best animal, just in case you didn’t know or you weren’t sure. They are cunning, beautiful, and so clearly emblematic of the natural wonder of this continent that various Native Americans cultures revered the canine European settlers later renamed Canis letrans — “barking dog” in Latin — as a deity. They are wily, the trickster whose wit and determination to endure against bigger predators such as wolves and bears and survive a record-shattering onslaught by the U.S. government. If you ever want to fall in love with the biology and mythology of these creatures, read Coyote America by the environmental historian Dan Flores, or listen to one of his lectures on YouTube. What you’ll learn is that the coyote was subjected to the most extensive extermination campaign in American history, facing all kinds of creatively cruel new weapons especially after World War II as ranchers demanded the U.S. government eradicate one of the peskier pests for livestock, only to spread to more corners of North America than ever before. One of the worst innovations in coyote killing: Cyanide bombs. In 2023, the Biden administration banned the devices, which shoot liquid cyanide into the animal’s mouth causing a vicious but swift death. Now the Trump administration is bringing back cyanide bombs, despite concerns that the traps kill wolves, foxes, and unleashed dogs. It may kill off more individual canines. But it certainly will not eliminate coyotes.
Rob takes stock of both Biden and Trump’s climate legacies with John Bistline and Ryna Cui.
When Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, researchers estimated it would cut U.S. carbon pollution by more than 40% by the mid-2030s. Then President Trump and a GOP majority partially repealed the law, and many of those emissions declines looked doubtful. What will U.S. carbon emissions look like after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
We’re starting to get a sense. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks with John Bistline and Ryna Cui about a new paper they coauthored modeling the Inflation Reduction Act and One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s combined effects. Bistline is the head of science at Watershed and a former researcher at the Electric Power Research Institute. Cui is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and the research director for its Center for Global Sustainability.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: One of the many things the IRA was supposed to do — but I think one of the things that it got the most credit for, and that ultimately got some people who were maybe wavering about the law to get to yes — is it was supposed to really drag down the path of U.S. emissions, I think as far as 33% or 35% below where they would be otherwise.
It’s now been partially repealed, and without getting too much into it, basically, as we’ve talked about before, the solar and wind and some of the clean energy tax credits are going to terminate as soon as this year or next year. And then tax credits for energy storage for nuclear will remain on the books for longer. And it’s a more complicated story as we get into EVs. But it’s now been partially terminated. Do we have a sense for where U.S. emissions will wind up? Will they be lower thanks to passing IRA than they would have been in a world where we didn’t get IRA, even though we now also have OBBBA?
John Bistline: Yeah, I think one of the big stories from this paper, in aggregating the modeling work that a range of different teams have been doing, is that IRA was roughly expected to double emissions reductions over the next decade. I think the exact number is that, you know, across the economy, greenhouse gas emissions would be something like 40% to 50% below 2005 by 2035 with IRA in place. But without it, given the changes in OBBBA, something closer to 25% to 35% lower than 2005. Just as context, we’re at about 20% below 2005 right now. So with OBBBA, emissions are still projected to decline, just not as steeply as with IRA in place.
Ryna Cui: Yeah, I will add there, and we are also one of the modeling teams that’s doing the emission pathway trajectories. And I totally agree on John’s points there. Definitely IRA and other actually federal action on the climate policy front, it’s an important, very important contributor to the emission reduction trajectory in the U.S. And I do think the context about declining technology costs and also stronger market forces, it’s going to make it even more effective. It’s not like we have IRA going to replace the other enabling factors. So I do think with the ... now the context is all the enabling market forces are more favorable to the transition.
On top of that, with the policy incentive, we’ll see deeper reduction. Of course, with a series of rollbacks, we’re going to slow down that trajectory. But I also want to mention there’s also beyond federal action, there are other level of governments are still engaging and there are potentials to continue those trends.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
The new paper: Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act and One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the US energy system
A cheat sheet on the energy policy changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
--
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.