Gabe Moreen: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Just a quick question on the fixed to floating and then back to fixed hedges, which you’ve got on, some of which are expiring soon. Just wondering how you’re thinking about that with some of the hedges expiring in the not-too-distant future for interest expense for next year?
Kim Dang: So we have about 25% of our deficit flow. For 2023, we locked in about half of that. So we – our floating rate for 2023, it was about 13%. Those hedges that we put on the 2023 expired at the end of 2023. And so you would expect us to go back to 25%. But we do have swaps that roll off in 2023 and swaps that roll off in 2024. Those swaps totaled $2.75 billion. We have not made a decision yet as to whether we will put a – put swaps on when those expire or just stay more fixed. We would – if we just let all those swaps expire did not put on any new swaps, we would be at 15% or 16% floating percentage. Our long-term strategy has been to float on a portion of our debt because the forward curve has generally overestimated future floating rates.
And so we’ve made – through last year, we’ve made $1.2 billion over the last 10 years on those swaps. This year, we gave back about $200 million. So we made about $1 billion. The one exception to – that we’ve seen in the charts to the forward curve over predicting floating rates has been when you’ve been in a rate hike cycle. And so I think we’re going to be flexible as to when we put new swaps back on. So I think there’s a reasonable likelihood that we may be at a lower floating percentage than 25% in 2024 and may wait for a period of time to put some new swaps back on. But in the future – in the longer term, we may decide to put some of those swaps back on, but in no event do I think we would go above the 25%.
Gabe Moreen: Thanks Kim. And then maybe if I can follow-up with another question around the LNG opportunity and whether Kinder-Morgan sees the need to perhaps develop more of a marketing presence outside the Intrastates to aggregate supply for some of these pipeline opportunities around LNG and similarly, whether there’s any thought to taking stakes in LNG export facilities yourselves to sort of marry up an integrated approach?
Kim Dang: Yes. So we actually do have a small gas marketing business right now and not really focused on LNG opportunities exclusively, but really just opportunities across the domestic market largely off of our assets. We’ll see if there’s incremental opportunities there. We may consider that, as you suggest. But I mean, we don’t – I don’t see us going into an international market that really hasn’t been our footprint and our strategy. But we’ll be open to consider things as opportunities develop, and we’ll see where things go from there. As far as our own LNG taking space out and an LNG facility, again, there’s a lot of capital a lot of risk related to doing that. And so we have tended to be more fee-for-service and provide LNG both capacity – transportation capacity and as it pertains to Elba Island export facility for our customers to play in the international markets. And I don’t see that changing much, if at all.
Gabe Moreen: Thanks Tom.
Operator: Thank you. Our next caller is Zack Van Everen with TPH & Company. Please go ahead sir.
Zack Van Everen: Perfect. Thanks for taking my question. Just want to go back up to the Bakken after seeing the announcements on gas side, have you guys looked into or considered converting the HH pipeline to an NGL pipe to help diversify some of the takeaway options up there?
