Peter Zebedee: No, I’m happy to do that, Rich. And I think I’ll link back to your earlier comments, Rich. And the biggest component in cash cost per barrel is our mining costs at Syncrude, and this is true for all our operations. We are working to drive improved efficiency in our mining business. The scale of our mining business across the Suncor portfolio, we’re moving 1.3 billion tons per year. And so, a little improvements add up to a lot here. And we will look at driving improvements within our own mining operations, especially at Syncrude, but also looking at the balance of how those tons are moved, how much we move with our own fleet versus how much we move with third-party contractors, and leveraging what we see as an arbitrage opportunity to move more ourselves.
So Syncrude’s focused and an improvement on cash cost per barrel will be driven through improvements in further in-sourcing of mining operations and in the future, looking to implement autonomous haulage technology to improve fleet productivity and drive a more competitive mining cost per barrel.
Rich Kruger: And 2Q was distorted a little bit by the turnaround impact, I think when you take it on a unit cost basis?
Peter Zebedee: Yes. It was distorted. We did have a coker out for 63 days, 2-day — beat the turnaround schedule by 2 days. And that, of course, is another opportunity for us is to look to reduce the duration of those turnarounds, improved our risk-based word [ph] selection, and we’ll be doing that coincident with our downstream colleagues and corporately on improving the efficiency of our turnarounds. So that did impact at cost in the second.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. And that will come from the line of Menno Hulshof with TD Securities.
Menno Hulshof: I’ll start with a question on shareholder capital returns. You were quite active on share buybacks in the first half. So, is it reasonable to assume that the second half will be more skewed towards debt reduction, given your 50-50 target? And when do you expect to hit your secondary $12 billion net debt target on the strip?
Kris Smith: Yes. Thanks, Menno. It’s Kris here. Yes, as you pointed out, we had probably more weighted towards buybacks in the first half versus debt reduction, though obviously, we made progress on debt reduction, as I mentioned in my remarks. I think as we go through the balance of the year, you probably see a little bit more trending towards the debt reduction side, but we’re still going to be focused on both. And we’ve got that 50-50, capital allocation is our guidepost as we move through the balance of the year. So you’re going to see us continue to toggle on both of those. But I think you’re right to point out, it will probably be a bit less in the second half on the buyback side, but still I would say, a very good buyback program continuing.
In terms of your question around the $12 billion net debt, I mean, obviously, it’s going to be a factor on your view on what you think pricing is going to look like. I think if we see pricing continue at its current level, we’re going to start approaching that kind of as we get it earlier into next year. Now, the one piece, Menno that I would add is — as we talked earlier in Rich’s comments on the Q&A is the potential for the Fort Hills transaction. If that does transpire, then obviously, that will change the profile, but the amount would be much less than what we’ve been talking about a couple of months ago in the original transaction. So we would expect to be able to work through that very quickly.
