amassed an excessively risky loan portfo o portfolio. there are experts that disagree. congress authorized a $2.74 billion for potential losses in the d.o.e. 1705 loan guarantee program. according to several analysts have after the collapse of sylindra and the d.o.e. loan program ended up being a fraction of what the government budgeted for the losses. bloomberg government came to a different conclusion than the majority. bloomberg's recent report loan guarantee program the loan portfolio projects unquote. now, do you agree with the majority that armat technologies project is excessively risky or it's a lower risk project? why? >> the three projects that received the d.o.e. loan guarantee are very low risk projects from a technology point of view. they are similar to many megawatts using the same technology. it was all about expanding and not innovation. >> i understand, but the risk was low? >> very low. >> as i understand it, one reason why the portfolio can be considered low risk is because most of the projects that received 1705 loan guarantees are for power generat