And hopefully, we’re conservative on that, but we think they are very good investments and again, in two of our largest, highest financial generating facilities. So one of the themes that you’ve heard from us is we’re going to invest in projects that we feel really strong about on a return basis, but they are also enhancing in competitive positions of some of our biggest facilities. And I think you’ve heard the theme from us for a while here. It’s margin enhancement, lower cost and efficiencies. And out on the West Coast, the other driver is there is emissions reductions goals that are going to occur over time, and this project will take care of that in a large way, and that’s why we grouped it into our low-carbon area. So hopefully, that gives you a little bit more color.
Manav Gupta: Perfect. My quick follow-up here is you were looking to ramp towards the nameplate capacity at your renewable diesel project on the West Coast. If you can give us some update over there, how is that project progressing?
Maryann Mannen: Certainly, it’s Maryann. Currently, we are running at about 22,000 barrels a day versus our nameplate at 48,000. We’re going to continue to run at that level as we work with the regulators to determine what repairs need to be complete in order to be able to get to that nameplate at 48,000. As we think about that, as you know, we’ve got our JV partnership with Neste, so really, what we’re looking at is the differential for MPC of about 13,000 barrels a day. So not meaningful to the 3 million-barrel system that we run. But again, running at 22,000 overall for the facility, and we will continue to work with our regulators to determine when we can bring it to full 48,000.
Manav Gupta: Thank you so much.
Mike Hennigan: You are welcome, Manav.
Operator: Thank you. Next, we will hear from Doug Leggate with Bank of America Securities. You may proceed.
Doug Leggate: Hi, thank you. Good morning, everyone. Mike, I hate to do this. So I wonder if I could try to capture a question in a slightly different way because we, I guess have a slightly different view of this. If you look at your system as more of an LP, we see a great deal of linearity between the indicator margin and what you’re delivering. I think I agree with you. I think capture is a terrible metric to try and measure a linear program business, frankly. But what we do see, however, is that the mix of inputs seems to be changing some, which is allowing you to capture more of the margin. So my question is really that. What are you doing in your commercial business or operations that is changing the optimization of the slate that you’re running in your system? Obviously, there are a lot of moving parts around crude in the U.S. right now with TMX and a few other things. Is that a factor?
Rick Hessling: Yes. Hi, Doug, this is Rick. So I’ll take a stab at that. So we are significantly I would say every day, Doug, we are optimizing our slate. And we look at this regionally. We look at this by plant. But in the end, Doug, I think what we do better than others in the industry, is we optimize for the betterment of our total return at the end of the day. So we are not, we could suboptimize one plant for the benefit of another, and we have worked years, decades, as a matter of fact, to give ourselves optionality within our Mid-Con system. We are currently juggling optionality with TMX and our West Coast and Pacific Northwest system as well as we’ve worked on it for quite a while on the Gulf Coast. So you are onto something from a crude slate perspective.
It’s constantly changing. We’re constantly pushing the norm on what we should run, what crudes we look at, what assays we look at, updating our system. So this is just an ongoing exercise that’s been happening now for several years now. And I’ve said it before, we’re unpacking everything from A to Z, Doug, we’re leaving no rock unturned in terms of capturing value. And that not only goes certainly on the crude slate side, but it goes throughout our entire value chain.
Mike Hennigan: And Doug, it’s Mike. I know it’s been a source of frustration since we don’t give a lot of detail in this area for competitive reasons. But to Rick’s point, we’ve made some changes. And to be honest with you, I’m more excited about what’s in the future for us. Brian’s new role as Head of Global Optimization for us, I think, is going to make a step change for where we’re going. So we’ve had a lot of momentum in this area. It’s showing up in the results. As we discussed, capture is not my favorite, but generating cash is. And at the end of the day, I think we have more opportunity in the whole area. If we run well and then deliver commercially, we will continue to generate cash and be a good source of return for shareholders.
Doug Leggate: LPs are a complicated beast and you guys seem to have figured it out. So thank you for the answer, guys. My follow-up is probably for, it might be for Maryann. I’m not sure. Congratulations to everyone on the new roles. But Maryann, if I look at Slide 21, you’re showing your debt maturity profile at the MPC level. Obviously, sitting with a net cash position at the MPC level, what are your thoughts on where you want your balance sheet to be as those debt maturities come due?
John Quaid: Hey, good morning, Doug, it’s John. I’ll go ahead and take that.
Doug Leggate: I wasn’t sure if you take or not. Thank you.
John Quaid: No, no, not a problem at all. And I think you kind of – were hinting at it as you were getting there. We’ve got a lot of financial flexibility right now. We’re very comfortable with the gross amount of debt that MPC has but certainly have the balance sheet to be very thoughtful about the right timing of refinancing that debt and really optimizing our cost of capital and really that cost of debt. And I think longer-term, right, we’ve laid out a target of kind of the gross debt to cap of 25% to 30%. We’re a good bit away from that, but that’s something we will continue to monitor as we look out into the future.
Doug Leggate: And John, remind me, is that consolidated for MPLX or stand-alone?
John Quaid: It’s stand-alone.
Doug Leggate: Okay, thank you.
John Quaid: In a much different position, I can probably speak to that one pretty well just given the seat I was in before, or. You’ve got a really stable company running at sub-3.5% leverage, but the cash flows there can probably support a debt-to-EBITDA ratio of 4x. Again, they have got some financial flexibility to be smart about what they are doing as well. So I think both balance sheets are in a really strong place.
Doug Leggate: Thank you very much.
Operator: Our next question comes from Paul Cheng with Scotiabank. Your line is open.
Paul Cheng: Hey, guys. Good morning.
Mike Hennigan: Good morning, Paul.
Paul Cheng: Mike, I think in the past, you have shown that you are not really interested in acquisition of refining assets. But one may argue that, I mean, given how well you are running your facility, do you think that there is a value to be added to have some additional assets to your platform so you can apply your technical know-how to even a bigger profile. And also in the Gulf Coast, you have two huge refineries. If we add additional facility, would that further diversify and reduce the operating risk, having multiple facilities and also, frankly, that will perhaps even increased commercial and optimization opportunities. So just want to see that, I mean, how you guys look at that question internally?
