Mike Hennigan: Yes, Jeremy, I’ll start. So this particular situation $270 million to buy out our partner, obviously we were the operator of the assets, so we’re very familiar with the operations. We know what volumes and contractual dedications we have to it. We said it was an attractive multiple. It was a little under seven just to give you a flavor as to where the economics of that were. So these are things that Dave and his team are always talking to our partners about. If there’s an opportunity where somebody is willing to get out for their reasons and we see it as a good opportunity for us that’s how these transact. We go into these types of things just looking to be a good partner with all of our JV partners. But there are times when, like in this case the partner wanted to exit at a time when we thought it was a good opportunity.
So that’s how those kind of play themselves out. We don’t count on them, but when those conversations come up, we’re certainly willing to look at it. And then in general, we as you know in this space, we have quite a bit of JVs across our footprint. So most of the time we’re just trying to work with our partners on how to grow the interest so that both of us, or three of us, or however many partners are in it, are all getting a win. And that’s kind of the way we look at it from the partnership standpoint. And then aside from that, our teams are looking, how do we bolt-on where can we do some, some little bit of capital organic capital investment such that we can add to it, whether it’s a JV asset or just one of our own assets. So it’s kind of like what I said at the beginning, we’re kind of looking out throughout the year, we’re looking at where can we bolt-on, where can we add stuff?
And if bolt-on isn’t sexy when it comes to the earnings calls, but it’s really good return. So, they’re the types of projects we really like.
Jeremy Tonet: And just to clarify, are these assets currently in the Permian or could they be relocated to the Permian? Just want to make sure I was clear there.
Mike Hennigan: They’re in the Permian today. They’re in the Delaware.
Jeremy Tonet: And as far as M&A, a lot’s been talked about today, but it sounds like you’re saying these bolt-ons are more likely than anything larger in nature is how we should generally think about potential M&A activity.
Mike Hennigan : Jeremy, it’s a balance. Obviously if you’re going to get involved in M&A and to a large extent if you get into biggers, the returns are going to be much more competitive. Because a lot of people are going to be involved in that process. The ones that we like better, as long as they continue to be there for us is where we can just organically invest and get a much higher return than the M&A market will typically give you. And as long as we continue to have those, that’s why, look, when we announce our total capital, a large majority of it we don’t talk about on earnings calls or press releases or things like that because there’s smaller projects, but they’re much higher returns. So, we tend to favor those just because of the return that they give us.
And that’s why some people keep scratching their head a little bit of how you guys grow in the partnership 7% CAGR over four years. And a lot of it has to do with self-help, things that we’re doing internally, these bolt-ons that we’re doing, and then occasionally adding stuff that meets earnings call discussions, et cetera. So it’s a combination of all those, but what I hope investors are not realizing is we’re sitting here behind the scenes, looking at it over multiple years and seeing that we think we can continue to grow the partnership we have in the back of our head what that means for how we’re going to return capital. Obviously it starts with, you got to get a return on that capital and then we think about what’s the best way to return it, and that’s kind of the internal discussions that we’re having all the time.
Operator: Next we’ll hear from Keith Stanley with Wolfe Research.
Keith Stanley : Wanted to follow-up on some of the good growth that you saw in Marcellus and Utica and Q4 and through last year and some of the positive commentary on 2024, or would you say your integrated footprint across Appalachia is allowing you to take market share over time in that market, and that’s part of why you’re able to see a little better growth? Or do you see the Basin kind of inflecting positively with MVP and you’re just kind of maintaining your market share overall?
Greg Floerke : I would say, it’s some of both. We have the most extensive integrated footprint in the Basin both across the Utica and the Marcellus. They’re interconnected. We have access to multiple fractionation facilities. We have a distributed [indiscernible] plant. So, we have a lot of flexibility there, but we also are — it’s just good rock. The Utica and the Marcellus basins in terms of uniformity are really good. And I think there’s some combination of existing producers that are drilling longer laterals that are driving more production per pad. And then there are, the Utica is a good example of some new producers moving into the region and taking advantage of particularly the light oil and condensate window over there, which brings associated gas and NGLs as well. So really a combination of both our scale and integration as well as new production, new producers.
Keith Stanley: Second question. I guess just on the growth outlook and Mike, you’ve talked about this a lot already, but the company’s investing a billion a year of capital. If we’re in a world without kind of an inflation escalators anymore, and assume kind of flattish commodity prices, is a billion a year of capital enough to hit your growth targets, or do you need to continue to find self-help type mechanisms, whether it’s costs, efficiency improvements, tuck-in M&A, et cetera in order to hit the growth target? So is a billion enough per year or do you need to find other things to get there as well?
Mike Hennigan: Yeah, Keith, it’s Mike again. Yeah, it’s a combination. So what I was saying? If you look at the history we’ve been spending around a billion even slightly under the last couple years, and recall that, that number also includes that $150 million initial maintenance. So we take a look at our portfolio and we try to examine where do we think we have opportunities. And it’s really what I was saying to Jeremy’s question. It’s a combination of all of it. But I think, if you look at the results, 7% over four years, we’re about a $6 billion, EBITDA business. So, you’re looking roughly at about $400 million a year of growth at that 7%. So we look at what we have on paper and we try and think about how do we get to those kind of levels.
