Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Todd with Piper Sandler.
Ryan Todd: Sorry, I cut out there for a second. I missed it. Maybe one follow-up question on the Saguaro LNG offtake, at least a broader question on offtake agreements. Is there — you’ve got that offtake agreement now. You’ve got the 5 million tons from Port Arthur. Is there — when you look at your interest in offtake agreements in LNG. Is there a relative size in terms of how much feels appropriate in the portfolio relative to equity gas production either on a global basis or in the U.S. relative to kind of U.S. gas versus offtake agreements? How are you thinking about — partially which — should we expect to see you look at additional offtake agreements? Or do you feel like you’ve got a pretty good balance at this point in the portfolio?
William Bullock: Yes. That’s a really interesting question. So as we’ve laid out, we think about this as building up in kind of a latter fashion. You have to have the market placement with the LNG offtake that you secure. We feel very comfortable with where we’re at in that progress even just since AIM in April. So that’s why you’re seeing us being pretty confident with our West Coast volumes here. But you should expect that to kind of develop as a ladder. So you don’t get out ahead of your skis. We do see pretty strong demand on that. But I think we’re getting pretty close to critical mass here over time. So I think we’re pretty comfortable with where we’re at right now. We continue to look for capacity on the West Coast, but a lot of those things are more longer dated out in time right now.
Ryan Todd: Great. And then maybe — and I apologize, I’m not sure if you said something on this here. I missed the first minute of the prepared comments. But any comments on what — like the latest update on Alaska, particularly regarding outstanding legal or permitting issues that would dictate timing there at Willow?
Andrew O’Brien: This is Andy. So I’ll ask on the legal front, as you recall, we had the 2 lawsuits that were challenging the federal government’s approval for the project. So probably the main update since we last spoke is we’re pleased that a schedule has been agreed now, and we expect to see a ruling on that in November. As we previously communicated that given the prior rulings on this, the scope of what’s being challenged is narrow. And we believe that the BOM, the cooperating agencies have conducted a third process and satisfied all the legal requirements. So we’re kind of very much now looking forward for the court ruling in November as we start to plan for our 2024 winter season.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Lloyd Byrne with Jefferies.
Francis Byrne: I just have a couple of quick questions on long cycle — you talked about long cycle development and then deflation comments and whether — maybe you could take that to Willow. The FID that would seem like peak inflation and then some important costs have come down. So wondering whether you have a cost update there. Or I guess where do you expect costs to come down? And I understand it’s a 6-year project. But…
Andrew O’Brien: Lloyd, it’s Andy again. So when it was a longer-term project, it is a little hard to comment on sort of deflation and inflation through 2029. But I guess it is important to frame it. Willow is not a turnkey contract. And as we are entering into individual contracts, those contracts do have terms linked to agreed indices. That can move up and down with inflation. So probably just a couple of other things I’d mention is that we haven’t seen the same kind of inflation in Alaska, as we’ve seen in the Lower 48 over the last couple of years. So as we said in AIM, I think in terms of the capital range, that still holds. We expect the capital range to be in the $7 billion to $7.5 billion. That really hasn’t changed from the CapEx to first production.
And it’s also worth emphasizing, like all of our projects, Willow has got some inflation factor into those estimates. So we understand the project really well. This kind of activity is sort of — a lot of this is sort of typical activity we do in Alaska. And we haven’t seen the same kind of inflation that we have, having the lower 48. So I think the $7 billion to $7.5 billion that we provided at AIM is still a good estimate of what our thinking is in terms of the CapEx to first production.
Francis Byrne: Okay. Great. And then let me just go back to Surmont. I know you answered a few questions on it. But it kind of fell into a lapse and whether the exercise of the rofer changes any strategic capital decisions elsewhere in the portfolio. It feels like it gives you a lot of flexibility going forward, but I was just wondering if the change is the timing on any other project. I’m thinking Montney or anything like that.
Andrew O’Brien: As you said, Surmont, one of the things that we really like about Surmont, it’s a low capital intensity asset. So it really doesn’t change that much in terms of allocating capital to other projects. It’s just providing us a lot more cash flow. So I think the plan we outlined at AIM, it doesn’t really change how we consider the other projects, and we have the benefit of another long cycle asset with low capital intensity.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Alastair Syme with Citi.
