Mark Stainthorpe: Yes. I mean, well, looking back, we got to the 100%. When we looked at the net debt level of $10 billion was quite conservative when you think about the size of our company, the nature of the assets, the long-life reserves, the low-decline, low maintenance capital. So to us, it’s quite a conservative debt level. But coming out of 2020 and those years, it was prudent to make sure we had a strong, strong balance sheet. So that’s where we’ve got to now and the 100% makes sense to us. Of course, we’ve had the base dividend increasing, and that’s part of that returns to shareholders, and we’ve had three increases over the last year, over 20% returns there or additional returns there. So that gives us that opportunity.
And back to your question, if something more material is to happen, I don’t like speculating on those things. But if you have an acquisition that comes with cash flow and it comes with all those different things, we’d have to evaluate that. But for today, we’ve hit our $10 billion. We’re focused on the 100% returns to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. And it’s a pretty big milestone, and it’s been — the reason for it has been a very strong, safe, reliable operations over the last couple of years.
John Royall: Got it. And then my follow-up is just on OpEx in mining. 4Q was the lowest level, I think, in two years in both per barrel terms but also in dollar millions. Can you talk about the OpEx side? Are gas prices a factor? Or is there some other kind of sustainability to these lower numbers? I know you’re doing a lot of work to extend the turnaround cycle and that’s the general focus, but I’m just trying to understand if there are kind of structural OpEx dollars that have come out there.
Scott Stauth: Yes. As you know, on oil sands mining, the costs are largely fixed. The variables will be in natural gas and diesel pricing. But they’re largely fixed. So as you have, obviously, as you have higher production levels, the cost remains about the same. So your cost per dollar will be lower as you have the higher volumes.
John Royall: Yes. The question was on the absolute dollar millions went down, but I think you answered it on the gas and diesel.
Operator: Your next question is from Mike Dunn from Stifel.
Michael Dunn: Just one question from me guys on Trans Mountain. You’ve got 94,000 barrels a day committed capacity once that starts up. Are you able to use some or even all that capacity for light crudes? I know the assumption has been that you would use it for heavy crudes, but I’m just wondering about your flexibility with that capacity.
Scott Stauth: Yes. You bet, Mike. So really with TMX, we’ll be looking to maximize the value of those committed barrels. So whether that’s through some of our light volumes or heavy volumes, we’re just looking at the opportunities to maximize — give us the best value back there. So it could be a mixture of both. And I wouldn’t lean for it to be all one way or the other way. So we’re just going to look at — our teams are reviewing what the best opportunities are and planning from there.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your next question is from Dennis Fong from CIBC.
Dennis Fong: My first one here is just related to the buybacks. I just wanted to hopefully understand a little bit better in terms of how you judge the return of buying back share of stock versus that of kind of investing in your own asset base? I understand the desire to remain strategic and disciplined on capital deployment. And I know you just updated or provided kind of 1P net asset value from a third-party evaluated at $139.07 a share. So how do you balance the return of — or the allocation of capital between buybacks and reinvestment in the asset base?
Mark Stainthorpe: Dennis, it’s Mark. When we look at reinvesting in our asset base versus the returns to shareholders, it is kind of what you said. It’s a little bit of looking at the balance. We want to make sure we have a prudent capital program that can deliver growth in a prudent stage, but we also want to provide that on a per share basis. And we’ve historically, been very — in my view, very good at that capital allocation and being prudent and making sure it’s delivering value, not just production growth. So we’re really looking at value growth. So it’s a matter of balancing what is efficient in any one year from a capital program perspective. What the advantage for Canadian Natural, of course, is the diversity of the asset base.
So as Scott talked a little bit about, we’ve got a lot of opportunity, no gaps in the portfolio. So it’s all right there to allocate. It’s just a matter of driving the best value in that year. And given where we are today, that’s going to leave a lot of free cash flow in the year. And we have now the ability to balance that between our dividend that’s been ever increasing and now share buyback program where we see a lot of value still for some of the reasons you mentioned.
Dennis Fong: Great. I appreciate that context. Switching gears for my second question is really focusing on Kirby and the continuation of the solvent project there. Can you discuss a little bit about the applicability to some of your other in situ assets in the region? And maybe how you think about it with respect to, I know kind of early stage, but the development of Pike as well?
