Operator: We’ll go next to Greg Pardy with RBC Capital Markets.
Greg Pardy: Hey, thanks. Good morning, and as always, thanks for the super-detailed summary, Brad, and Dan, and others. Want to ask you a couple of questions. Maybe to come back to Pathways, so you are not as dependent on the pipe coming down from a sequestration standpoint or at least you will be able to, I’m assuming, get ahead of the queue a little bit in terms of actually injecting CO2 at Cold Lake. Is that the right characterization, and then how material could that be if you can start injecting in ’26 or ’27 versus 2029? Have I got that right?
Brad Corson: Yes, you do, Greg. When you step back and you look at the whole Pathways project, focused on 95% of the oil sands production we have oil sands production we have, the cornerstone of the project is this foundational pipeline running from the north, around [Fort McMurray] (ph) all the way down to Cold Lake. And along that way there are probably 20 different operations that ultimately would get tied in. But at the very end of that pipeline is where Cold Lake sits. And so, we have the advantage, with Cold Lake, that we can start decarbonization activities, carbon capture activities without being dependent on a pipeline — a big trunk line to transport those to the sequestration site where the pore space is. Now, the pore space that we will be using is all part of the Pathways Alliance of pore space award from the Alberta government.
So, we will be accessing that. So, we view Cold Lake as an integral Pathways project, but it does not require the pipeline. So, it does have the potential to start off well in advance of the pipeline in the late-2020s, but targeting well in advance of 2030. So, our technical teams are actively working on that project. It has a material impact. I don’t have the tonnes right in front of me, but as we’ve said for Imperial, we are targeting a 30% reduction in our greenhouse gas intensity by 2030, and Cold Lake carbon capture is a key component of that.
Greg Pardy: Okay, terrific. And I’ll shift gears now maybe completely, and it’s a bit of a holistic question, but it’s probably a question aimed at Dan. But I’m just curious; want to come back to your capital structure and then where your comfort zone is as a CFO in terms of cash balances and long-term debt, particularly on cash balances. Is $2.5 billion like a nice minimum place to be? And then how does that then connect a little bit to the NCIB and SIB? And, obviously, I know you’re not going to spend money you don’t have, and so on, but I’m just trying to better understand that capital structure in terms of how we’re thinking about this going forward.
Brad Corson: Well, Greg, I love talking about our capital structure and capital allocation as well, especially with the very aggressive plans that we’ve laid out, and we continue to deliver on. But I’m going to let Dan go through some of those details because he loves it too.
Dan Lyons: Thank you, Brad. Yes, well, Greg, I appreciate your talk about not returning cash that we don’t have; you’ve been listening carefully, I appreciate that. But, look, we’ve said debt-wise we’re comfortable with our level of debt, it’s quite low, and we paid some last year when the sold the XTO and used those proceeds to make a structural change in our debt. So, we’re comfortable there. Regarding cash balance, we’ve never put out a target. And I would say it all really just depends on circumstances. We do like to have a buffer, but there’s no magic number there. So, we’re committed to returning cash, as we’ve said, as we generate it. And that continues to be our philosophy, longstanding. And we don’t have a magic number on the cash balance; it’s going to be dependent on circumstances, quite frankly. So, probably not exactly the answer you’re looking for in terms of granularity, but that’s where we are.
