Good day, ladies and gentleman, and welcome to the Fourth Quarter Atlas Energy L.P. and Atlas Resource Partners L.P. Fourth Quarter Earnings Conference Call. My name is Lacey, and I will be your coordinator for today. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will facilitate a question-and-answer session towards the end of the presentation. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the presentation over to your host for today, Brian Begley, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please proceed.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for today’s call to discuss our fourth quarter and full year results. As we get started, I’d like to remind, everyone, that during this call we’ll make certain forward-looking statements, and in this context forward-looking statements often address our expected future business and financial performance, and financial condition and often contain words such as expects, anticipates and similar words or phrases. Forward-looking statements by their nature address matters that are uncertain and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, which can cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. We discuss these risks in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and our Annual Report also on Form 10-K particularly in Item 1 which will be filed later this afternoon. I’d also like to caution you not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect management’s analysis only as of the date hereof. The company undertakes no obligations to publicly update our forward-looking statements or to publicly release the results of any revision to forward-looking statements that may be made to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or reflect the occurrence of our anticipated events. In both, our Atlas Energy and Atlas Resource earnings releases, we provide a GAAP reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures that we refer to in our public disclosures. I’d also like to note that as of today, Atlas Resource Partners 2013 K-1 tax forms are now available on our website atlasresourcepartners.com, and the Atlas Energy K-1 forms will be online at atlasenergy.com next Friday, March 7. Lastly, we’ll be participating in several upcoming investor conferences, including the Morgan Stanley Corporate Access Event in New York on next Tuesday, March 4; the Capital Link MLP Form, next Thursday in New York, March 6; and the ICAA New York Conference on Monday, April 4. With that, I’ll turn the call over to our Chief Executive Officer, Ed Cohen, for his remarks. Ed?

Thanks Brian, and hello, everyone. My message today really can be briefly summarized. For the Atlas Energy Group of companies 2013 was a good year, although not without challenge, and 2014 should be even better. The information and guidance that we’ll provide on this call however is somewhat static, it’s doing no benefit from fresh initiatives such as the extensive reworking of wells that we’re undertaking, or from acquisitions or from now unscheduled expansions that may position our company to improve results in 2014, and for even greater success in 2015. Now, let me see tangibly. I’m frankly, quite disappointed that Atlas Energy, ATLS, shares have declined in price by about 7.5% during the past three months. Although I should point out that ATLS total returns for unitholders for 2013 was about 39%, and ATLS’s total return of about 275% during the past three years ending December 31, 2013. That’s roughly the period since the Chevron sale. It does represent one of our highest returns in the entire world energy industry for that period. But of course, I’m also unhappy about the performance of Atlas Pipeline Partners, APL, which is down about 12% during the past three months, that’s a decrease that has comparing adversely impacted the price of ATLS stock. The slight rise, about 4% in Atlas Resource Partners, ARP shares during the past three months is really quite solid, but the reality is just the buy I think, optimistic expectations for the near and further future. Both intangible accomplishment, and in returns for unitholder. Let me speak first briefly about APL, and then in length about ARP and ATLS. APL stock price has been fumbled by investor disappointment over APL’s failure immediately took out new Silver Oak plant, south Texas, and by lackluster results at its Arkoma division…

Thank you, Ed and thank you all for joining our call. The fourth quarter of 2013 concludes another year of outstanding growth at Atlas Resource Partners. Over the course of the year we increased our total net production by roughly 100%, including a three-fold increase in high margin oil production. Not only have we greatly increased our production but we also have significantly diversified across basins and regions, and materially lowered our portfolio decline rate bringing out stability to our production stream. The total production increase was a key factor and our peer leading cash distribution growth rate of 21% for the fourth quarter of 2013 compared to the fourth quarter of 2012, so that’s behind the numbers. Our track record results from both acquisition and organic growth, including the effective acquisition and assimilation of high quality producing assets, the exploitation of liquids rich and high yielding dry gas drilling locations, and the growth in our development and operating activities for our investors and our drilling investment programs. It is my firm belief that our company is better positioned today to execute our growth focused business plan, and develop and manage our attractive assets compared to any other time in our history. We’re better positioned to expand areas of our business for the preferred well, and to address the areas where we believe we can improve. Key of that belief is an all important element that I have a benefit of witnessing every day, and that is the collective experience, talent and dedication of our teams [ph]. This important element manifests in many of the exciting aspects of our business that I’ll address in a moment. First of all, I would like to recognize and thank all the men and women of Atlas for their dedicated efforts in 2013 and…

Thank you, Matt, and thanks all of you for joining us on the call this morning. Regarding ARP, we generated Adjusted EBITDA of approximately $63 million or $0.95 per unit and distributable cash flow of approximately $41 million or $0.58 per unit for the fourth quarter of 2013. As Matt previously mentioned, we were unfavorably impacted by approximately $2.5 million to $3 million due to lower volumes on ARP’s Barnett and Marble Falls region due to adverse weather conditions during the back half of the fourth quarter. ARP distributed $0.58 per limited partner unit for the period based on these results, representing approximately 1.5 – 1.05 times coverage ratio for the quarter adding back restored impact at 1.1 times coverage ratio on a rolling four quarter basis. Adding back the impact from the storms, production margin for the fourth quarter was approximately $62 million which represented an 8% increase compared with the $58 million for the third quarter of 2013, and an increase of overall 100% compared with the prior year fourth quarter. Production volumes were approximately 250 million cubic feet of equivalents per day for the fourth quarter compared with ARP’s third quarter production run rate of approximately 261 million per day. This decrease was principally due to over 6 million of equivalents per day that was impacted because of the storms. With regard to commodity prices, although Henry Hub gas, first month prices were approximately $0.05 higher in the fourth quarter of 2013 compared with the sequential quarter, realized gas prices were $0.17 higher due to higher hedge prices and improved basis differentials at a number of our sales point. Pricing for our Lycoming gas at Leidy Hub [ph] which count for approximately 8% of our total natural gas production, averaged almost $2.85 per Mcf for the current…

Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Sean. I think we’ve given you a lot to digest but we will now – Lacey open the lines for questions.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions). And our first question will come from the line of Noel Parks with Ladenburg Thalmann. Please proceed. Noel Parks – Ladenburg Thalmann: Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning. Noel Parks – Ladenburg Thalmann: Just a couple of things. Thinking about just overall with your portfolio as a key to broaden over the last year in particular, where do you see the – I guess, the most mismatch or gap in terms of the regions where you probably still need technical manpower, the most – sort of, overstaffed or, versus understaffed regions. Just wondering what your biggest challenge is regionally as far as Black Warrior [ph]?

Matt?

Yes, hi Noel. I would say the area that presents the greatest challenge for us or the areas that present greatest challenges for us are those where we’re undertaking the greatest growth. And I will say that the asset teams that we have assigned to each of those areas, those teams are doing really a tremendous job keeping up with the level of drilling that we’re undertaking, overseeing the operations, field management operations, making sure that we’re ahead of schedule in terms of ops, improving water systems, drilling salt water disposal capacity and anticipation of further growth. But generally speaking, the greatest challenge that we face is simply keeping pace with the drilling activity that’s ongoing in – primarily the Mississippi Lime, and the Marble Falls areas. We benefited in both of those areas for having people who have experience in both, north Texas and the Barnett Shale and the Marble Falls, and in the Mississippi Lime, or broadly speaking, our company today has people who are very well experienced in all regions where we’re operating, which is part of the reason I think we’ve been able to successfully bring forward production, and in fact, do better than we had anticipated with some wells in some areas and with producing assets that we’ve acquired. But, and as I said in my prepared remarks, I think we are better positioned today than we’ve ever been. And part of the reason for that is the quality of the people that we have. But the greatest challenge we face today is keeping pace with the development activities and undertaking those primary areas. Noel Parks – Ladenburg Thalmann: Okay. And, since we’ve – with the cold winter we’ve seen some whopping improvement in the spot and also this trick. Now which of the major reasons of your gas production – which one has benefited the most from say, I don’t know, maybe a year ago we were thinking about – I don’t know, a $3.50 to $4 strip as being maybe what we – what we have to assess a little while and now for your – we’re looking $4.50 range. That incremental difference, which region has helped the most?

You have to bear in mind that we are heavily hedged to that extent but Sean, were you about to respond?

Yes, I was trying to correlate, did you mean drilling opportunities, which really – regions that helped with them with drilling opportunities to drill wells because more wells are economical or did you mean just what – where we’re going most up in terms of pricing per region? Noel Parks – Ladenburg Thalmann: I think I meant just in terms of economics, you know, some password is of course they – the $3.50 gas and explore gas is a big inflection point and then other is, when you get – when you cannot be optimist took a better than forth, you know that really helps to bring them from just breakeven to much better economic.

Noel, I think that the one area that we have, that will likely benefit more than any other, from higher – potentially higher, realized higher than natural gas price, they have potential prices going forward. These are Barnett Shale position, we have a fair number, quite a few drilling locations in the Barnett Shale, particularly the dry gas windows Barnett Shale where we have drilling sites that are available to us on – add sites that have been developed or infrastructure is in place where we have frankly the greatest – to the most outstanding drilling and development team in the Barnett Shale in place, ready to develop those assets for us. As soon as the pricing prevails, the cost is said to be – those assets being competitive with the other areas we’re drilling. But the Barnett Shale will clearly benefit from our natural gas prices. We have quite a few locations in the Raton are and the Black Warrior basin area, that will benefit from higher natural gas prices as well. And as the Lycoming assets are – that we have, they will also benefit from higher prices. So we have quite a few drilling locations where we have embedded infrastructure, takeaway capacities in place. Infrastructure has been built, PAD locations are developed, with benefits that are available to us with higher gas prices, and really would be dumped better with our other projects. Noel Parks – Ladenburg Thalmann: Great. That’s all for me. Thanks.

Thanks.

This is Brain, just to acknowledge I’m staying that there is similar problems on the call. And then we’ll have Sean’s. So we apologize for that. There was an issue with the called service for about a minute or so. We’re happy to address any additional questions regarding it, that was missed on the Q&A session here. Thanks.

And our next question will come from the line of Michael Gaiden with Robert W. Baird. Please proceed. Michael Gaiden – Robert W. Baird: Good morning, gentlemen. Thanks for taking my picture, and Brian, thanks for galloging [ph] that drop up. Can I ask – I think we were dropped off during Sean’s comments about maintenance CapEx. Sean, could you perhaps briefly share with us your comments on the yield CapEx and maybe you are going to talk about the 2014 outlook for that line item.

Sure, absolutely. I mean, I essentially enjoy my comments, so just explain me, maintenance capitals to do the same things, it’s been last quarter just about private class wiper, new people are on the call, but I think of a range $45 to $50 million for maintenance capital for 2014. Michael Gaiden – Robert W. Baird: Great, thank you. And if I can follow up with a much broader question for both, you, Sean, and the rest of the team there. How do you think about your flexibility or M&A at present using your goals to reduce the leverage that we heard? Does the echo said all, and EBIT your ability to be a continuously active in M&A, if you could frame that for us, that’s be helpful.

Sure, yes. I didn’t know we were looking at the M&A market, there is some great potential out there. We see a lot of good opportunities that will be complimentary or business. Obviously we’re very focused on adding the correct aspects with the appropriate decline, prices with the good. And that we are seeing. When we look at financing acquisition, I think when you look at history, we’ve averaged I’d say probably 60% to 65% of equity on the transactions, make sure they are conservatively financed. I think if we stick to that pattern, when you look at our leverage, and you look at the deed [ph] we have come along with a great drilling activity, the managed teams are doing. I think leverage will naturally decline during the courses of the year but as I said, you know, pro forma for the cash, for the partnership programs we were down 3.81 times at this year-end. We’re expecting to year the year around, 3.6 times at 2104 and in that range. So, I think with the M&A market, I think if we just speak to our conservative approach how we’re file affinity, you know the transaction is also accretive, the BSF per unit and additionally, how to flow our leverage. Michael Gaiden – Robert W. Baird: Great, thanks Sean. And can I maybe ask – how do you see the infrastructure in the Utica and Marcellus bathing if at all in the coming year?

There are infrastructure projects that are now approved and are being by funded by some of the major midstream companies in the Appalachia Basin. I think that there is going to be some relief coming forward in future period as a result of very substantial capital investments which is being made by pipeline companies in the Marcellus. So obviously oil companies’ will – that operate in that region will benefit. One thing that’s interesting to note – by the way, your question brings to mind, we – had we been under restriction expanding in the Appalachia region because they – non-competing agreement we had that persisted from a former transaction that we had done with Chevron number of years ago. That non-compete agreement expired about 10-12 days ago which was a very significant event for our company because we have a great deal and better knowledge associated with Appalachia. We were one of the first developers, the pioneer if you will develop in the Marcellus Shale a number of years ago. We have probably 250 or so wells that we’re operating today in southwestern Pennsylvania, in Green Country, Jack County, Washington County. So we have deep and better knowledge in the Marcellus play. We now have had restrictions removed, it limited our ability to expand in the Marcellus in the past. We intend to use our embedded knowledge, we intend to use the operating leverage that we have in Appalachia to ultimately – when the right transactions, the right opportunity surface, to take advantage of all of that. I think – that we will continue from the midstream side, relief will continue, and the gas will move around the country to where it’s needed. Here I think infrastructure clearly is coming in many projects that have been announced that are being funded. Michael Gaiden – Robert W. Baird: All right. Thanks Matt and thanks Sean for your comments. That’s it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of John Ragozzino with RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: Hi, good morning gentlemen.

John [ph]. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: Mark, you provided some color on the fourth quarter of 2013, impact from the weather and – can you try to little bit more color on what the 2014 first quarter impact might be in terms of production volumes or cash flow impact from the weather?

John, at this point we’re still trying to quantify the storms in February – the storms in the early part of the year had a bigger impact and February had a slight impact, really in January, really February was the biggest impact. We’re really – the end of February, we’re still kind of quantifying the numbers and putting them together. So, we’re going through that process and trying to just make sure that we get the most accurate number in terms of that. I don’t really have anything to provide you right at this point in time but we’re going to be actually working for that, both, the accounting financing teams as well as the operational teams to see really where it’s at. I think Matt’s team, and Matt can talk about this. He has really done a great job bringing those volumes back online as quickly as possible given all the promise we had during the period. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: Right, just giving us some interim update, when you’re do going to boil down to the reliable number?

We haven’t talked about that yet, I mean if we have something that – at a point in time before the first quarter earnings call, we will definitely discuss that in terms of whether we want to put that out there ahead of time. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: Okay, great. And then, Mark, you guys mentioned your partnership with SandRidge and the Mississippi Lime, yesterday they gave a brief update or a brief bump to their tight curve assumption on their UR which is about 38 MMboe. Can you just judge what their – what the difference is if any are between your assumptions of how the Mississippian wells perform over the long-term and what SandRidge is saying?

The SandRidge Company has an acreage position to reversing the crow [ph], something like 1.7 million acres, that SandRidge has defined is the Mississippi Lime play. I would suggest that our acreage is in what I believe SandRidge would also characterize is the core – if not the core then the core of the core, of the play. And so as far as the UR assumptions are concerned to a degree, and when we first get started, and this just continues today. It started in our development of the Mississippi Lime play, we leaned on tight curves that SandRidge was using. What we have found, and we haven’t changed by the way our type of group assumption which is all about – actually little bit lower than the number that you just mentioned that SandRidge is now using. But what we’re experiencing is higher production than the tight curve would suggest. So I’m hopeful certainly that that will continue which will lead us also to bump up our tight curve assumption in future periods. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: And just as a follow-up to that question. Over the last of couple of years they’ve had some real trouble with giving a good handle for the different product streams than the associated decline rates and the positive number of revisions. Have you seen anything that I guess that’s materially different from your expectations when it comes to the oil decline rate relative to how fast gas volume declines or is it something that you’ve been aware of?

It’s not something that we’ve necessarily seen and on our property it’s been our production and I don’t – I rather not jump speculate on what SandRidge has experienced and where they’ve had their experiences. But, my speculation is that one of the reasons that SandRidge pulled back to their core areas was because they were getting, probably getting better production in the core area compared to some of the trend areas where they were testing and they have been experiencing higher components compared to liquid component. Potentially higher decline, I don’t know that for a fact that speculation but that maybe his game. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: Thanks. I’ll move on. I don’t want to pick up, I’m not for anything in specific. Add just one more on the partnership program, you guys mentioned a target of $200 million in 2014. I am huge of fan of the program, once I finally get my arms around, I’m understanding all the benefits there that provided you guys. But allow me to play that because I think [ph] if there was excessive demand beyond that $200 million for 2014, is there a potential risk that the portfolio decline rate may experience some undesired inflationary pressure plus inflationary pressure driven by excessive wells drilled in place such as the Mississippian?

I would say that the $200 million figure is the figure that we buy today, it’s not a target figure in a sense that we hope to reach that point. We actually have registered a program that could go to $300 million, and I would not be surprised if we reach that number given the rip on to last year’s program and other factor. We can easily handle the $300 million. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: I guess, let me just re-word the question just as a slightly. If you did have excessive demand beyond $200 million and that had the opportunity to deploy significant capital above that in those place, would you choose to do so or would you lead your activity levels at kind of where you budgeted at the risk of maintaining a portfolio decline rates, that’s more manageable.

I don’t think the portfolio decline rate is the factor in the partnership program. I think that we’re simply being conservative in budgeting the $200 million. We find that people are pleased if we do $300 million where we budgeted $200 million and on the other hand are not pleased if we are not submissive and our instincts are submissive [ph].

And if I could just add, from an operating point of view, we always build in significant option already. So that we’re prepared to deploying capital in the various regions where we operate, so we have a plan in place to deploy more capital than a conservative $200 million number would suggest that we’re prepared to deploy more capital if that circumstances is demote.

John, I also mentioned that when we look at our overall growth strategy, drilling the punch programs or one half of that order two thirds of it – you know, we also look to grow through acquisition acquiring low decline, PDP oriented properties. So the combination is to as we continue to grow. That drilling program, the one-third that we in it as well as direct drilling, it becomes a smaller percentage of the overall growth. So you’re growing like an EP Acquisition which has made 10% decline. And you’re adding wells that you have a third interest with the partnership programs that have the decline profiles associated with them, your overall declined portfolio. He’s going to be unpacked by raising additional $50 million to $100 million of partnership per fare. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: That’s exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much. And just two real quick, it’s been housekeeping ones. When do you expect the file to KN who is only a plan in place for the next 12 months to possibly hold some Analyst Day or that would give us a little more of an opportunity to come and check the tires [ph] a little bit?

John as we do on a regular fashion, we’ll have group meeting for the investors and no definitive plans for a larger Investor Day at this point, so it’s nothing that we consider for the future, obviously with our attendance in a lot of meetings and conferences over the course of the year, we have a lot of exposure and blocks to update our plan and strategy for the rest of the year and the case should be filed in next couple of hours. John Ragozzino – RBC Capital Markets: Fantastic. Thanks a lot guys.

Thank you, John.

Thanks, John.

(Operator Instructions). And our next question comes from the line of Craig Share with Chewy Brothers [ph]. Please proceed.

Morning guys.

Morning, Craig.

Congratulations on a good quarter. So let me just take you back on John’s question around the partnership raise. You know the increase was certainly helpful, year-over-year, but perhaps a little anticlimactic given the fact that last year it was down from the sloppy or the prior year, and in this period we have rising gas prices into the end of the year that obviously accelerated. We had clarity around rising interest rates and you had some good 2013 drilling results. So as we think about potentially doing better than the $200 million budgeted capital raised for this year, what do you think the obstacles were previously and what should get us over the home because I know you’ve done twice that historically some years ago.

That’s an excellent point, Craig. This is Ed. Prior to the Chevron family consistently raised without great effort, we had written without great pressure, $350 million to $450 million. The Chevron sale eliminated our ability to immediately provide acreage because when we came out with the new company, we had very limited aspects. So I think that the disappointment that investors had when we were at naively just figured using other joint ventures partner, we assume that they might not do as well as Atlas but they would do okay. That was a disappointment to us, to the investors. Now for the first time, investors are getting the results, very favorable results of Atlas, its own program, and I think that really takes still for the hub. That’s why $200 million to be conservative expectation, and I think that in the future there is no reason why we would not get back to an even XP focusing previously.

That would be great to see and it’s a big part of the story so I’ll keep an eye on that. Also, a little bit surprised about maintaining reduced distribution guidance from last October in light of – to Sean’s point, the rising commodity price tailwind that obviously is helping at least first quarter 2014. Can you discuss your price deck assumptions for the rest of the year versus current market, your basis spread assumptions, and what you’re distribution policy is as it relates to these kind of commodity driven fluctuations or windfalls if you will?

Craig, this is Eddy. Before Sean answers it I wanted to emphasize again that this is a static projection, it doesn’t assume any value to many programs and efforts that we’re undertaking that will unfold during the year 2014. That being said, Sean, why don’t you answer directly?

Sure Craig, yes, absolutely. When we look at 2014, remember that for gas we’re hedged over 80%, probably 80% to 85%, same with oil, both are very solid prices. On the NGL side when you look at heavier, we’re probably 55% plus hedged and the propane will probably in the – I’d say 75% hedge range. So, we’re hedged at very good prices for 2014. So while the uplift in prices, it’s helpful to an extent, it’s – we’re heavily protected, already at good prices. So this helps us with our unhedged volume, so we will see on the day certain impact of that but not where the original prices were going back to prior – mid of 2013. So we expect it will hopefully stay there, we’re going to look for good opportunities in walk in those prices but we’ve already protected ourself against that, potential downside movements.

Okay, fair enough. And this might be a good opportunity to don’t tell this question with some of the prior questioning, I think it was novice comments about commodity prices and the opportunities, they are developing some of the gas fear areas and I think that commented on the Barnett. One of the things though is, we’re seeing short-term movements, I mean turbo charged, but the 2015 and 2016 and beyond strips haven’t moved out much. And if you’re going to think about a drilling program, multi-year program. You obviously, historically have shown that they want to hedge out your returns and prove that you have some level of guidance cash flow and distributions for investors. What do you need to see, I guess this is directed more demand. What do you need see in terms of longer term strips and the ability to hedge, before you start taking a look at seriously returning to dry gas Drilling.

Well, the financial results thing we need to see, Craig is the – we’ll undertake the analysis and we’ll allocate capital according to what we believe will be the highest returning project that we have. And so, for the gas project, the dry gas project, which what exception probably of our Lycoming project which is unique in it’s – in the ability to generate volume per dollar of investment for the other gas projects simply, for our capital allocation internally, or simply going to have to be competitive with the more oily and liquid oriented location. So when that occurs, what the crossover point will be is based on a variety of dynamics including natural gas prices, currently including natural gas prices on the forward strip. That relative to oil prices and NGL prices will all be part of the arithmetic review that we’ll undertake and which is ongoing. I think my personal opinion is, and I think we generally share this in our company is that the forward curve for – first of all, obviously the natural gas curve today is recognizing that in order to refill stores levels, producers are going to have to be induced by price to drill, to refill storage levels. But beyond, say the first, early into the second quarter of next year, the forward curve is backdated [ph]. And I think that that will probably prove to be inaccurate, that forward prices after the first quarter of next year are likely, ideally to increase through time. We are not going to allocate capital based on that presumption or that belief, but if we see that happen, I think we will, and if we see that happen and then we see gas prices advanced to the point that it substantiates allocating capital to dry gas locations, in the way the oil relocations, we’ll certainly do that.

Matt, I really appreciate because I share that view of the gas markets but let me expand a little on the question because your response kind of assumed constraints and limits in the capital budget where you have to make choices and we all have to make choices in life. But let’s just imagine for the moment that you do have a significantly better private-partnership raise in the next, or this year, and that you don’t have significant capital constraints. So if you’re thinking about garnering 20%, 30% IRR’s, at what level do you need to be able to hedge out long-term strips to join the Barnett in the gas results?

Well, I think the Barnett in particular, I think gas prices are in the $4 range and that potentially moving to a contained [ph] position from there causes the Barnett to be economic. Whether the Barnett becomes economic at those levels, it’s competitively economic with some of our other opportunities, it’s something we have to evaluate if one of that condition prevails. I think that part of the ability – if we had more capital and an infinite capital available world, we probably choose to ramp up activity in the areas that today are providing the greatest returns and then I get back to the areas where we’re drilling, the Mississippi Lime, the oily Marble Falls, the high returning dry gas areas in the Marcellus, etcetera, those areas we’re really focusing our capital today.

This is Ed, Craig. I think you should bear in mind that there are many factors in the energy industry who are not as conservative as we are. We’ve always liked the idea of hedging for immediate profitability but it’s obvious that there are lot of people who believe that the future’s markets since the efforts to drive major banks out of playing the role in the commodities markets that they’ve played in the past when they were able to trade for their own account, a lot of people believe that the markets no longer reflect the considered judgment of the world as to where the prices will be in the future. And a lot of people like us have a different view as to whether the futures market really should be backward dated. Those persons may well desire to purchase our acreage, and that’s another element that may take place.

Thanks Ed, that’s an excellent point. All I’ve got here my last question, it relates to AGP, if you’re able to answer it, and thank you so much for the additional color in your prepared comments. My question is, you said you raised the fund raising amount, you’re not anywhere close to the original $300 million at this point, are you?

I don’t want to go there because the one thing we can’t comment on is the fund raising aspect, I know it bothered people during the period that we were doing the tax oriented fund raising that we could not comment, but we simply can’t talk about that.

Understood. Thanks again for all the answers.

Thanks, Craig.

And our next question comes from the line of Sean Sedam [ph] with Oppenheimer. Please proceed.

Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my questions.

Hi Sean, no problem.

Ed or Sean, could you maybe talk a little bit more about the M&A environment that you guys are just seeing out there? Income, do you feel are more of the income from EP deals out there or are you guys more focused on the GeoMet type of transactions early for this year?

I think those deals basically differ in size, the motivation also differ based on somebody’s particular corporate situation if an acquisition has been made and they are dispersing – they are disposing some of the properties. But the overall market I think is really strong, there are lots and lots of GeoMet type deals available, obviously there are fewer deals in the larger size but those deals are present, all right. I think that the smaller deals are of less interest to larger companies and therefore you don’t get the hectic price competition that you get in the other areas. But we have lots of opportunities; we will look at each particular situation, and really – do what’s best for the company, but my failure to complete a deal will not reflect the fact that there aren’t lots of opportunities. Daniel Herger, [ph] are you still on the call?

Yes, I am Ed.

Daniel heads our effort in this area as in some other areas. So Daniel do you want to comment?

No, I think your comments are exactly right, the M&A environment is robust today, both for smaller opportunities, as well as larger opportunities. There are lots of the E&Key [ph] companies that are divesting of assets that we would define very attractive to redeploy that capital elsewhere. And similar to other transactions we’ve done in the past, there are private equity firms that are winding up their investment lives and looking to divest of those assets.

That’s helpful. Maybe you guys think – maybe you can comment if I’m thinking about this right then you’re probably on the margin than your preferences first on this call, if you feel there is more value in less field price competition, and is that a fair assumption?

We do lean in that direction, but every time you start leaning in that direction, you’re amazed, at least I’m talking from a pays, when suddenly a fantastic deal comes along that’s properly priced, often for reasons that we could not anticipate it. And so the past is any guide to a future, it’s hard to predict just where we’ll wind up, but it’s really nice to know that there are lots of opportunities.

Fair enough, fair enough. And then Sean, I apologize if you already gave this but could you maybe remind us how we should be thinking about unit production cost this year, is it roughly similar to the fourth quarter?

I’m sorry, unit product – yes, it’s quite early [ph] and cost per unit, yes, that’s right. I think overall if you look at 2014, it’s probably in the $1.05 to $1.15 area, it really depends upon the timing and level of the oils production, the liquids production that we have coming on. Obviously, as liquids production increases, it’s going to raise that number up because you’re using even though more valuable units, fewer units to spread the cost.

Okay, I appreciate that. And then just one last quick one, maybe for Matt. Do you think your Miss Lime acreage is perspective for additional zones, you have SandRidge to talk about themselves from other returns there, are you guys going to test any this year?

That’s an excellent question. It gives – I forgot to mention that today it was – in particular, SandRidge has announced that they’re gravitating towards the service stat pay approach if you will to drilling on their units and we’re watching what they’re doing. It has merit we believe because the Marble Falls, pardon me, the Mississippi Lime was particularly sack [ph] where we operate, so we think they are probably our opportunities to drill inimitably on a unit between the shallow sections of the formation and deeper sections of the formation. It’s interesting is that it’s kind of offsetting flanking our property, sort of the east to where we’re located, there has been some very attractive Woodford Shale wells drilled, so we’re watching that closely. In terms of our capital plan for 2014, we are not allocating capital to either – the intermittent staff pay approach if you will or the Woodford where we are very very closely watching on what’s occurring around us and I’m pretty excited about it, we’ll see what occurs but now we’re not allocating capital in that direction yet.

Okay. I appreciate that, it was helpful. Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

At this time there are no further questions in queue. I would like to turn the call back to Ed Cohen for closing comments.

I thank everyone for their participation. We look forward to the next call. Bye, bye.