Michael Blum: Great. Thank you.
Operator: And the next question in the queue is from Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan. Your line is open.
Jeremy Tonet: Hi, good afternoon.
Rich Kinder: Hi, Jeremy.
Jeremy Tonet: Just want to come back to the gathering volumes as you laid out, it seems coming in a bit below budget there. I was wondering if you could dive in a little bit more by basin where you see those volumes coming in softer than budget?
Tom Martin: From a budget perspective, yes, it’s slightly below budget in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken those are well – and even a little bit in the Haynesville overall, but still good growth year-over-year. And like I said earlier, I think this is a temporary blip and development of the production because as demand picks up next year, we’re certainly going to need all these volumes and more to meet that demand.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. That’s helpful there. And I was just curious, I guess, from a higher level thought process. We’ve seen some large-cap peers out there look to kind of separate the business along commodity lines such as natural gas versus crude oil. And just wondering how Kinder thinks about the business today, be it the Natural Gas pipes versus the Terminals versus the CO2, if you still see the same synergies of having it all under the same roof or how you think about that in the current environment?
Kim Dang: Sure. I mean all the businesses that we own and operate, we like. We think they provide stable cash flow and good opportunities. I think that really – we could simplify it a little bit for you. I mean, if you put products and terminals together since they’re both primarily refined products, we’d have essentially three different commodity lines. We have Natural Gas, we’d have petroleum products, and we have the CO2. I think on CO2, that oil production is going to be needed for a long time. There’s going to be incremental opportunities for CO2 flooding in the Permian as you get through all the primary production. And I think that business gives us the expertise that we need to exploit the CCS business. And so the reservoir engineers that we use in that business help us as we go out and talk to customers and talk to them about sequestering their gas and being able to keep it in certain reservoirs.
And so the businesses we own and operate, we think, are similar in that they are stable fee-based assets, they are – or to the energy infrastructure. And we will continue to operate the asset, somebody coming in and offering to buy them at a great price, in which case, we are highly economic, and we would entertain that. But I think absent getting a wonderful price for our shareholders, we are happy with the businesses that we own.
Jeremy Tonet: Got it. Understood. Thank you.
Operator: Next question is from Neal Dingmann with Truist Securities. Your line is open.
Kim Dang: Hi, Neal.
Rich Kinder: Good afternoon, Neal.
Operator: Neal, if you’re there please check your mute button.
Neal Dingmann: Sorry about that. Good afternoon, Kim. My question is on shareholder return, given the new plan for, I guess, the modified plan, I’d say, for the leverage. Will that change anything? With these thoughts towards dividends and buybacks on a go forward?
Kim Dang: No. It has – and let me say this again, so that it is clear to everybody. This change is just bringing our policy in line with the way that we have operated over the last couple of years. There is no, zero change in our capital allocation philosophy.
Neal Dingmann: Very clear. And then just a quick follow-up on the – I think I got that one on the – exit midstream assets, I’m just wondering, is that kind of going as you had thought, maybe just talk about integration and potentially even maybe more upside than expected. It seems like it’s going quite well.
Kim Dang: South Texas?
Tom Martin: Yes. So I mean, early days, obviously. But yes, we are seeing some of the commercial and development opportunities that we were contemplating when we made the acquisition, we’re seeing those opportunities come together sooner than we originally expected. Some of those were out even several years from now. I think we may see something even sooner than that late this year or next year on some of those opportunities. But yes, on the other side, we are seeing slightly lower volumes this year to start with, again, given the lower price environment. But overall, we feel we’re going to be on our acquisition model for 2024 and beyond.
Neal Dingmann: Thanks for the detail.
Operator: And the next question is from Keith Stanley with Wolfe Research. Your line is open.
Keith Stanley: Hi, good afternoon. Just one question on the backlog. So, you increased the $300 million. I think you said you brought on – added some gas projects, just I’m not sure if other projects came into service and maybe it’s even more than $300 million. Just give more color on what projects you added? Was there anything notable on that? And then a follow-up, Kim.
Kim Dang: We added, Keith, about $400 million, and we put $100 million of projects in service to get to the $300 million net additions. And on the projects that we added and gas, we added one interstate projects on TGP. We added an intrastate lateral project on the Texas Intrastate and we added a pipeline Egress project in Altamont, which is on the gathering and processing side.
Keith Stanley: Got it. That was all from me. Thank you.
Operator: And the next question in the queue is from Theresa Chen with Barclays. Your line is open.
Theresa Chen: Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my questions. I’d like to touch on the theme of increased demand for power related to AI and data centers. Just curious if you had any early discussions with customers as far as the steps it would take to commercialize these activities, these potential projects on your system and what that could look like?
