Neal Dingmann: Good morning, guys. Thanks for the time. My question maybe Willie for you and Al just on Permian volume expectations, you did a good job. You mentioned the rig count, which continues to be nice and stable. But to me what seem to get a bit lost is the improved continued D&C efficiencies that have since the result in more volumes even with these similar levels. I’m just wondering, do you all continue to see this type of upside as I do even if the D&C, if the rigs stay relatively stable? Are you still expecting some nice volume upside on your part?
Willie Chiang: I think our forecast is consistent with what the industry is doing today, but they’re all working to get better. If you look at oil in place targets, they’re achieving and first recovery is less than 10%. We’re trying to get higher than that. If they do that that would be where a big movement would be, what I would say though is, consistent with our view of supply and demand and current D&C practices. I would agree with you that, there’s probably been 10% efficiency of just drilling completion time since the steadying out of the rig count. So, the 300 rigs is probably doing the work of close to 330 rigs 12 months ago. But as far as recoveries, I think recoveries and our view of efficiencies are built into our forecast this year. But longer-term, our bet would be on the U.S. E&Ps that they would figure out how to get higher recoveries.
Neal Dingmann: Yes, great.
Al Swanson: Neal, remember, we do a top down assessment. We also have our connection forecast. It’s kind of bottoms up. And so, we factor all that together and that’s where we got our number from.
Neal Dingmann: Great point. Yes, that’s good. You all have that detail. And then my second question is, maybe on the NGL segment specifically, it looks like, just wondering how you’re thinking about — is the sort of level now the propane, we’re through the — a bit through the season, seems to me do you think we’ll have more propane pricing pressure and just — I guess I’m just wondering how you think that’s going to impact the regional basis differentials and maybe some more spot opportunities you all might have.
Jeremy Goebel: Sure. I think that’s a function of location. So, the Fort Sask is limited on fractionation capacity, which is why we’re expanding in our peers. So, there could be some pressure on wide-grade prices there. I’d say in the Gulf Coast, production growth will continue on the NGL side as associated gas and other gas grows — sources grow and so there needs to be some expansion of dock capacity and fracs in the Gulf Coast. So you could see some issues there. But in a lot of the locations where we sell our NGLs there, structurally short and inability to bring additional capacity into, so we’ll continue to try to sell into those markets and maximize basis.
Operator: Our next question comes from John Mackay with Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.
John Mackay: I wanted to touch again on Permian crude, just on — you commented on your bottoms up estimates. I’d be curious, if you could give us a bit of a read on what you’re seeing for private versus public activity. And I think also related last year on the call, you just gave a bit of a your sensitivity to changes in basin production from an EBITDA basis maybe just a refresh on that too? Thanks.
Jeremy Goebel: So John, your first question, private versus plug, we’re not going to disclose any information from our customers, but generally a lot of the private inventory has been sold into the public hands. So, the privates are now buying back from the independents, lesser loved assets and starting to redevelop again. But I focus on the public, it has been consolidated to look at their growth forecast and that’s largely consistent with our forecast. And as far as the EBITDA refresh, I’m not sure I got that question.
John Mackay: Yes, I guess last year on the call you said maybe like a 100,000 barrel a day swing for the basin would be like a $10 million to $15 million EBITDA impact. Just curious, if that number is still fair for ‘24 or there’s some other moving pieces in there to refresh?
Jeremy Goebel: Yes sir. That’s consistent with the contracting profile we have. So, there’s not a lot of turn in the contract, so it doesn’t really change much.
John Mackay: And then just, just to follow up kind of staying in the same theme, but when you guys did the Oryx buy-in part of the narrative was eventually overtime we should be able to use this bigger footprint to flow more volumes into our long-haul side. Just curious, if you could give us a bit of an update there and maybe if we look at your ratio of kind of gathering to long-haul volumes going forward, maybe how that ratio changes from here or not? Thanks.
Jeremy Goebel: Well, one thing is I wouldn’t consider the Oryx buy-in, right? That’s our partner in there, we merged those assets together, so I just want to make sure we’re clear on that. But second, that the JVs done exactly what we thought we would. And I would say, it is bolted our relationship with our customers across the basin and given us the opportunity to provide integrated economics. But as for the markets will dictate where barrels flow and pricing dictates where they flow. And so, we have strong relationships and the ability to contract our pipes, but they can only be so full. And so barrels have to flow in other directions as well. And we’re completely comfortable with that.
Operator: Our next question comes from Theresa Chen with Barclays. Your line is now open.
Theresa Chen: I had a quick follow-up related to Jean’s earlier question on TMX’s impact on your crude marketing business. Completely understanding that the differentials to both Mid-Con and Gulf Coast should be constrained, especially upon landfill, but as TMX delivers barrels to the West Coast backing out some of the Middle East and LatAm imports, and given your liquid infrastructure business there as well as your marketing presence. Is that potentially a source of upside to crude marketing in 2024, relative to opportunities in 2023, as those waterborne imports are backed out and the flows and differentials change in California?
Willie Chiang: Theresa, this is Willie. It is a complex question that’s hard to put a pin to. What I can assure you is that, we have a very flexible system and that wherever flows will go, I think we’ll be able to adapt to that and capture value perhaps in different parts of our system. Long term, I look at this as very constructive because with more takeaway capacity to the West coast, I think it allows a better price signal to producers to be able to produce more short term. We could see some headwinds, but I can assure you that, we’ll adapt to that. Whatever the markets are we we’re going to try to look and see how we can use our assets to capture value.
Operator: Our next question comes from Timm Schneider with the Schneider Capital Group. Your line is now open.
Timm Schneider: Quick thanks for all the color on the Permian. Quick question for me, kind of higher level question on a sector strategic initiative. So, we’ve seen a ton of M&A activity on the upstream side. Really saw some of these blockbuster transactions. So I have two questions for you on this. Number one, how do you view upstream M&A, specifically kind of for Plains and for the Midstream sector? Is that good for you, bad for you, kind of neutral? And the second follow-up I have to that is, how do you think upstream M&A, this large scale, this large scale upstream M&A, ultimately trickles sort of Midstream sector? Because we haven’t really seen any blockbuster transactions there, right, we’ve seen one big deal over the last, call it 12 to 18 months that had some call it tax attributes to it? Or is it more so smaller bolt-on and that’s the way to go? So, just curious as to what your thoughts are on that.
Willie Chiang: Well, Timm, short answer on the question. For upstream consolidation and the impact on Plains with our asset base and the relationships we have, I don’t think it’s going to be a material impact on us. We work with if not all, most of the large players. So we’ve got volumes that flow on our systems today, and they’re tied with contracts. And the way I think about it is if you have stronger counterparties in tougher environments, we’re fine if they want to develop the Permian in a more thoughtful and efficient way because we’re a long term company and we want to be around for a long time. So whether or not the production comes this year, next year or the following year, the stability is probably a very positive thing for us.
And then, when you think about the Midstream, my observations are, I do think the upstream is a bit ahead of us. I do think there will be some more consolidation. Assets are probably the easiest way to go. And again, as you look at the landscape, there has been some M&A in the Midstream, but I think we are in the part of the business cycle where there are more opportunities to be bigger and be stronger. Not that we aren’t a large enterprise, but we’ll evaluate different opportunities as we go, always with the unitholder in mind.
Operator: Thank you. I’m showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the call back over to management for closing remarks.
Blake Fernandez: Thanks to all of you for your interest in Plains and we will look forward to updating you, as the year progresses. Everyone have a nice weekend. Thank you.
Operator: This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
