Roger Read : Yes. I follow that. I guess I understand Tim’s conservative when we look at certainly the history of the company and the industry, but what defines $10 billion is conservative in your mind? And I’ll just say, as opposed to, say, $5 billion or $15 billion, like what — what is — is it strictly the dependability of the dividend in kind of all price scenarios? Or is there some other component involved?
Mark Stainthorpe : Well, I think there’s several components involved. Again, one is making sure that the dividend is sustainable through those cycles. So your debt level needs to be able to be managed through those cycles. And as I’ve mentioned before, I think this is just a very conservative approach at this time. And we’ve come out of lower commodity prices in 2020 and to be conservative is, I think, the right place to be at this stage. And it still generates significant free cash flow returns to shareholders right now on the 50-50 split. And obviously, that’s getting enhanced and augmented as we come into late 2023.
Roger Read : Okay. And then just a final follow-up. I’m fine with share repurchases as a use of cash, but when you look at base dividend, share repurchases, other alternatives, variable dividends, something like that, what’s the evaluation process there that leads you more towards, I’m going to assume, share repurchases over other options?
Mark Stainthorpe : Well, we look at a lot of factors, and Trevor mentioned it in his prepared remarks. If you look at net asset value, intrinsic value, you can look at it on a historical multiple basis, we feel buying back shares as a very good opportunity right now.
Operator: Your next question comes from Greg Pardy with RBC Capital Markets.
Greg Pardy : Mark, at the risk of frustrating with my question, I just want to make sure I understand things that a few other people ask me at the same time. So should we think about once you hit that $10 billion level of net debt that effectively thereafter, it’s kind of a new world where you’re at this 100% payout? And the reason I ask is that if acquisitions aren’t included in the free cash flow generation definition, but they include net debt, then I’m just wondering how do you avoid hip hopping back and forth between that level? How should I think about that?
Mark Stainthorpe : Well, you should think about it is that we’re driving down to $10 billion in net debt, so we’ll go to 100% free cash flow going to shareholders. I suppose down the line if there’s an acquisition, and Tim mentioned that that’s not really something right now, but if there is, then your net debt goes up, then you will revert back to the 50-50 threshold until you get back to $10 billion, that’s how you should think of it.
Operator: Your next question comes from Neil Mehta with Goldman Sachs.
Neil Mehta : I had a couple of macro follow-up questions. The first is around Pathways. I know you’ve got a lot of people dedicated to this project. Just give us a lay of the land, what are the gating factors to get to FID? And what’s your best guess on when we get the project at final investment decision?
