Bruce Brown: Do you have any comment on additional capital projects in the Williston?
Kelly Loyd: Sure. So, we are working with the operator there is Foundation. What’s interesting is that area is — if you’re talking about drilling new wells, we’re actually getting kind of excited. It’s starting to get drilled and the activity is moving towards us. So, we’re going to kind of wait and see and look how things move towards us there. So, we’re getting incrementally more excited about that area. As far as other projects within the field, I think it’s just general workovers. Mark?
Mark Bunch: Yes, it’s just general workover, it’s general fix-up. We’re also doing some electrification in some areas that will improve efficiency, reduce operating costs. But no wells planned to be drilled right now, at least like in the near term.
Operator: And our next question is a follow-up from Donovan Schafer from Northland Capital. Please go ahead with your follow-up.
Donovan Schafer: Sorry about that. Okay. So talking about organic growth kind of the levers that you guys have to pull, at this point, we’ve got the Williston, the SCOOP/STACK — well, I guess, yes, you’ve got some PUDs there, I can’t remember if you’re in a position to accelerate on the gas there or not, that may not be — but there’s like PUDs there. And then you’ve got the Chaveroo. So, the question is, do you feel like there’s a need to kind of add any more organic growth potential, a few M&A type stuff? Or do you feel like, given your size as a company and kind of what you see from flow of funds, CapEx and other things over the next, say, 12 months or so, do you feel like you’re kind of pretty content and pretty good, you’ve got everything you sort of need, unless something just really opportunistic comes along?
I think you said in the SCOOP/STACK, you’ve seen more things come [indiscernible] or more people kind of pitching things, so maybe if there’s a great opportunity. But otherwise, in terms of what you need in your portfolio for any type of organic growth potential, do you think you need more or do you feel kind of like you’re set there now?
Kelly Loyd: Thanks, Donovan. This is Kelly. So, the answer is we had a definite focus to make sure we added that arrow to our quiver, right? And we’ve — like I said, we’ve come a long way to accomplishing that. But along with everything else, you’re never done. So — if the next deal that comes along is pure PDP and it fits wonderfully with our portfolio, then that’s the deal we’re going to do, if it’s highly accretive for us. If the next one comes along and it does have an organic growth piece, we’re certainly going to absolutely consider it. So again, it’s like you said, if it’s the right deal and it’s really accretive for our shareholders, for sure. It is — I would say it’s not as much of a push as it might have been prior to these last two acquisitions or partnerships, but it’s certainly never off the table. How about that?
Donovan Schafer: Okay. That’s good. And kind of related to this, you — I think Mark made the comment that, with Chaveroo, and maybe is also a reference to the SCOOP/STACK. But just with those — with the combination of those, that’s extended the dividend — helps the dividend coverage for a decade or more or something like that. And so, I’m curious if there’s any kind of quantification you could give. I mean I could ask it in the form of like, gee, could you do a dividend increase or something, but that’s — this is sort of the type of thing you can’t really comment on. And I know you guys placed dividend protection first in any case. So, is there any kind of quantification or analysis or a sense, and maybe now of talking about Chaveroo from this kind of systematic participation standpoint, do you have an internal, a sense of how much — how many extra years these have gotten you, or stress test case where you say, we think we have the dividend covered as it is for x number of years?
Is there any color or anything you can give there? That would be helpful.
Ryan Stash: Yes. I mean — hey, this is Ryan, Donovan. Look, I mean, I don’t think we can’t comment specifically on, as you mentioned, long-term sort of guidance here. But what I will tell you is, obviously, you can look at the assets themselves and how much cash flow they bring, and you can sort of model out how much we think Chaveroo remain in the future. So, from there, you can obviously see quite a bit of dividend coverage. I think as we’re looking over at least the near term, we’re going to generate a good amount of cash flow and we have potential uses, right? One of those is increasing the dividend. However, others are also reinvesting in the business, right? So now that we have this organic growth leg, we have more capital to put to work than we have in the past, right?
Whereas in the past, we could have just returned it all to shareholders. Now, we’ll probably take some of that capital and put it back into the business to keep sustaining our production level. So, I know I’m not exactly answering your question, but I just — I’ll let you know that, at the Board level, we certainly look at every single dollar we put to work and whether that makes sense to reinvest in the business, buy stock, raise the dividend. Obviously, our goal is to keep it for a sustainable business at our base dividend or better for a long period of time.
Donovan Schafer: And I suppose, because you guys don’t — you characteristically do significantly less hedging than a lot of other kind of oil and gas companies, in practice, that all — that whole pathway just sort of becomes accelerated with upward commodity price cycles. Is that correct like you would — it’s in that situation where, if natural gas recoveries materially or oil climbs in some material way, that just puts you in a position to kind of double down where you think it makes sense? And then add in — layer in more assets that give you the kind of — the number of years of coverage you’d want, but then also at a higher dividend because like you’ve gotten this almost like a windfall of sorts with what commodity prices may do on the upside? Is it kind of the right way to think about it?
