Linda Ezergailis: Thank you. Recognizing we’ll likely get an update on Cedar LNG in mid-year. Just wondering how we might think about the book-ends of cost estimates for the project recognizing that a few things have moved around including foreign exchange since you first announced the project?
Cameron Goldade: Yes. Thanks, Linda. It’s Cam here. I guess we’ll continue to defer being very specific about that question until we can really tell the whole story around the opportunity. I mean, obviously, when we bought into that project, we announced the capital cost of — in the mid-US$2 billion range. Obviously, the world has changed since then and I think we all recognize that it’s going to be higher than that. That said, you know, when we look at Cedar from a global competitiveness standpoint, we see that it continues to stack up very well from a cost per ton basis against the North American alternatives into the global markets; reflecting both, the capital intensity but also the West Coast advantages in terms of shipping that Cedar enjoys. So, recognizing there is a desire for more specificity, we’ll probably leave it at that until we can tell the full story.
Linda Ezergailis: Okay. And maybe as a follow-up, if you can help us understand, given all of what you just shared in terms of that compelling advantage, has anything changed about your return expectations for the project? Would you expect kind of similar returns even with a higher capital cost or potentially higher, given the compelling locational advantages? Or maybe were your initial returns higher and they’ve come down a bit; is there anything that you can point towards directionally?
Cameron Goldade: Yes. I would say from where we look at this project — from this point, in the development cycle; the economics of Cedar continue to reflect what we would have seen historically, in terms of Greenfield type returns for projects of this sort. They’re clearly not where the brownfield opportunities are, and obviously we’ve got a number of those as well. But they would continue to be in that same sort of historical range — that mid to high single digit kind of range.
Linda Ezergailis: Thank you. And just maybe commercially as well, recognizing that there is a few moving parts. Can you talk about what the potential sticking points are about getting different off-take agreements? And what sort of mix of — you know, take or pay versus fee for service or other attributes would you be looking for in any off-take agreements?
Scott Burrows: Linda, it’s Scott here. I think really, it’s time — there’s just a lot of different agreements that have to be put in place. And so we’re continuing to progress detailed negotiations, but a lot of it is just — is just due to time and interdependency of so many different agreements on this project. And in terms of our structure, recall that this project will be project financed; and so just by the nature of that this project will need to have significant underpinning in order to proceed on that basis.
Linda Ezergailis: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. And your next question comes from the line of Robert Catellier from CIBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Robert Catellier: Good morning, everyone. A follow-up here on the Ethane Supply Agreement. I’m wondering if you could explain the exposure that you have on that agreement to commodity prices and volumes.
Cameron Goldade: Yes. I think that if you think about the way that ethane is contracted in Western Canada, it’s obviously different than other parts of North America. And so, generally speaking, you know, the way that works is that it’s ultimately for folks like us, a fee-based structure. But the way that Pembina really makes money is — on this is through transportation and provision of the volumes through the rest of the assets base. So, as we sit today through the conventional business, through the transmission business, through the deep cuts and the gas plants and the fractionators; it’s really sort of the tolling model that is the value driver for the ethane molecule along with the associated C3 plus that comes with those molecules, when you extract it.
Robert Catellier: Alright. So to the extent the markets short or tight, and the — you know, maybe short volumes or the price was up, but ultimately is borne by the counterparty?
Cameron Goldade: That’s correct.
Robert Catellier: Right. And then, I wondered if you could just talk a little bit about the degree [ph] of additional costs for some of the emerging regulations and amended methane regulation, for example, clean fuel regulation, etcetera, etcetera. You know, typically we would expect any change of law or tightening of these regulations to have some cost sharing with your customers but as it seems like a pretty — I guess, a continually evolving landscape, and as far as environmental regulation goes. But as you look over the rise in the next three to five years, is there any substantial change to your class structure that’s not otherwise shared with shippers or producers?
Scott Burrows: Not at this stage, Rob. I mean, I think we’re continuing to assess all the existing and pending regulations. We continue to work on decarbonisation of all the assets and really understanding where we can get the best emission reductions for the best dollar value. As it relates to contracting as you pointed out, many of the assets have cost sharing arrangements which protects us a little bit. But we also have assets like Empress where we’re fully exposed, and we’re working on what the implications of that. But at this stage, there is no — what I’d call material change in the cost structure.
Robert Catellier: Okay. Last question for me is, just — are there any significant implications for Chevron selling their [indiscernible] assets in terms of your business development?
Jaret Sprott: No, no major implications, Rob. Actually, we’re excited we’re going to support Chevron through the transaction. Chevron, I would say, has taken a modest approach to the development in the area. And we believe that upon divestment of those assets, the acquirer may take a more advanced or aggressive approach on developing those resource which will benefit PGI and the rest of Pembina’s infrastructure.
