“We mentioned that there is some opportunity out there for rebuild and restart, and that has started, but that is going to take, we think, six quarters to unfold here, and we will see how that goes.”

In context

“ys. Hi, Scott. A couple just points to clarify. I thought that detail you gave in the call was pretty thorough, but so we lost about a point in the Middle East, and it sounds like you expect to get about a half of that point back. Is that correct? Is the rest lost revenues, or is there still optionality or potential to regain the remainder of those revenues? Michael J. Baughman: No. I think, Scott, we have seen the disruption in the Middle East, and as we mentioned on the call, there was about $50 million in the quarter. As we look out, we are expecting about another $100 million of disruption. What we see is encouraging with the supply chain improving, but it is still a very uncertain situation and we have six months left here for the year, and capacity right now is running at about 75%. We mentioned that there is some opportunity out there for rebuild and restart, and that has started, but that is going to take, we think, six quarters to unfold here, and we will see how that goes. But I would say do not think there are revenues that are lost, and in fact, over the longer term, there should be opportunity. In this next six months, based on what we saw in the quarter and based on what we see on the ground today, we felt it was prudent to bake that in and take the full-year guide down by a point at the top line. Scott Davis: Okay. That is helpful. And then I do not think you mentioned why China was weak in the prepared remarks, but down 9% was pretty material. Is that chemical-related, or are there other dynamics? Surendralal Karsanbhai: Yes, Scott. You hit the nail on the head. Our exposure to the chemical industry in China, an industry that continues to be over-capacitized and very weak in terms of spend, has adversely impacted us now for a few quarters, and that co”