Welcome to the Enbridge Inc. First Quarter 2019 Financial Results Conference Call. My name is Gigi, and I will be your operator for today’s call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session for the investment community. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the call over to Jonathan Gould, Director, Investor Relations. Jonathan, you may begin.

Great. Thank you, Gigi. Good morning, and welcome to the Enbridge Inc. first quarter 2019 earnings call. With me this morning are Al Monaco, President and CEO; John Whelen, Chief Financial Officer; Guy Jarvis, President, Liquids Pipelines; and Bill Yardley, President, Gas Transmission and Midstream. As per usual, this call is webcast and I encourage those listening on the phone to follow along with the supporting slides. A replay and podcast of the call will be available later today and a transcript will be posted to the website shortly thereafter. In terms of Q&A, we will prioritize calls from the investment community only. If you’re a member of the media, please direct your inquiries to our communications team who’ll be happy to respond immediately. We’re again going to target keeping the call to roughly an hour, and may not be able to get to everybody. So please try to limit your questions to one with a follow-up as necessary. And as always, our Investor Relations team is available for your more detailed follow-ups or modeling questions afterwards. So, onto slide two, where I’ll remind you that we will be referring to forward-looking information on today’s call. Now, by its nature, this information contains forecasts, assumptions and expectations about future outcomes, which are subject to the risks and uncertainties outlined here and discussed more fully in our public disclosure filings. We’ll also be referring to the non-GAAP measures summarized below. So with that, I will now turn the call over to Al Monaco.

Thanks, John. Good morning, everybody. Well, we’re off to a great start this year with record operating and financial results across all of our systems. So, I’m going to start by recapping the quarter, then, provide an update on the three main businesses, Liquids Pipelines, gas transmission and gas distribution. John is going to take you through the results and the financial outlook for the year in more detail. I’ll wrap up with a summary of our priorities for the year and mention the executive changes that we announced today. Before we get to that, here is how we see our business today in the bigger picture. The steps we took in the past year made us stronger and further derisked the business. We’re focused on what we do best, building and operating low-risk pipeline utility assets. Our operating performance has been very strong and the consistency of our financial results over the recent quarters bears that out. We strengthened our balance sheet with the sale of non-core assets, giving us the financial flex that we want. And that flexibility allowed us to eliminate our DRIP last year, which moved us to a fully self-funded growth model. Lastly, we simplified our structure. And now, we have all of the core assets under the Enbridge roof. With this strengthened position and the progress on the three-year plan, we can now look to sustained discipline growth, well into the future. So, moving on to the results on slide five. It was another strong quarter across the board. The Liquids Mainline is running full, our gas transmission systems were in a very high demand and Ontario utility hit record send out. We also benefit from the very strong quarter in the Energy Services business. But given narrowing differentials, we don’t expect that to…

Well, thanks Al, and good morning, everyone. I’m picking up here on slide 15, which summarizes Enbridge’s consolidated financial performance for the quarter, by segment, focusing as we usually do on adjusted EBITDA. As Al noted already, we’re off to a very strong start, driven by a number of factors, including strong operating performance from our core assets, incremental contributions from the $7 billion of new capital growth projects we brought into service later in 2018, as well as the impact of colder weather [ph] operations and some exceptionally strong margins in our Energy Services segment. We also got a bit of a lift from the impact of a stronger U.S. dollar on the translation of earnings from our U.S. businesses, although this impact was muted by the impact of our enterprise-wide hedging program, which is picked up on the line labeled eliminations & other, at the bottom of the table. So, diving right into the results. Consolidated adjusted EBITDA for the quarter came in at almost $3.8 billion, about 11% higher than the first quarter of 2018. Liquids Pipelines adjusted EBITDA was up just over $100 million for the first quarter, driven by the performance of both the mainline system and downstream pipelines. The mainline benefited from both an increase to the international joint tariff and record average quarterly throughput. Average deliveries ex-Gretna for the quarter were up 90,000 barrels per day over Q1 of last year, largely due to strong supply and continued optimization of the system. We also saw higher spot volumes in our Flanagan South and Seaway pipelines as more barrels were directed to the Gulf Coast as a result of outages at certain eastern refineries. And the Bakken system continued to perform very well, benefiting from growing throughput driven by strong production growth in North…

Okay. Thank you, John. Before I wrap up, we’re on slide 19 here, I just wanted to touch on the executive changes that we announced today. For those of you who have followed us for a long time, you’ll know that we spend quite a considerable effort on succession planning at Enbridge. And this is part of the ongoing commitment we have to developing our people and providing new challenges and experiences. And of course, that’s good for the Company and shareholders. Most of you know, Vern Yu, who currently leads corporate development as EVP and Chief Development Officer. Vern is going to move to Liquids Pipelines as President and COO, looking after operations, engineering, asset management and pipeline control, and he’ll report to Guy Jarvis. Vern’s actually returning to Liquids after leading the commercial and BD part of the business and a member of significant strategic growth initiatives over the years. He’s held a number of roles at Enbridge over his 25-plus-years here. Replacing Vern as EVP and Chief Development Officer will be John Whelen. Of course, John is currently the EVP, Finance and CFO. Working closely with our business units, John will look after Corporate Development, Strategic Planning and Investment review along with Energy Services and our Renewable Power Generation group. Finally, taking on the EVP and CFO role and all things finance at Enbridge is Colin Gruending. Most of you know Colin from his most recent role as SVP Corporate Development and Investment Review and his 20-plus-years at Enbridge. Over that time, he’s held a series of senior finance, tax, treasury and accounting leadership roles. So, he’s very well experienced and suited for the CFO position. So, good continuity with these changes, and I’m pleased with the strengths and runway of the team. We’ll look forward to…

Thank you. We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Jeremy Tonet from J.P. Morgan is online with a question.

Hi. Good morning. Congratulations on the strong quarter here. I just want to see, with regards to your guidance in 2020 plus that you had provided previously, granted, there is kind of uncertainty with the Line 3 timing and that’s going to impact how that shakes out. But just wondering, if you could provide any other thoughts as far where you see that guidance now versus what you guys had said before.

Okay. Jeremy, just to clarify, we’re talking about post 2020 guidance. And, I think as you recall, at Enbridge Day, we indicated that on average post 2020 we’d expect, based on the hopper that we see going forward and the strength of the current businesses that we’d be in that 5% to 7% DCF per share outlook. And so, nothing’s really changed on that front, as you’ve heard me say, and others talk about in the businesses. There is plenty of opportunity out here into that timeframe. So, no change on that going forward.

Sorry. I was thinking more about 2020 itself at this point, if there’s any thoughts that you could provide there. Sorry about that.

Okay, yes. Thanks. So, in 2020, as you know, we had guidance out there at $5 per share in DCF. And of course, since the Line 3 delay, we know that that will shift. And we can’t get specific on 2020 guidance at this point, until we finalize the construction planning and schedule for Line 3. And of course, that depends on the permitting, which we outlined in discussion here. But, other than that, we’ve provided general guidance, I would say, and John mentioned this as well in his remarks, it’s about $0.04 per share in DCF per month. So, that’s the sensitivity that we have for the timeline around Line 3.

Okay, great. So, everything else seems intact, it’s just this is the one variable that still monitoring at this point relative to 2020?

Yes. I think that’s the right way to look at it, Jeremy. In fact, as you’ve heard us say here, the business is running well, we continue to bring new projects on. So, I think we’re still very confident in 2020.

That’s helpful. Thanks. And just second one, if I could, with regards to Line 3 here and some of the legal actions taken by other parties out there with regards to oil spill analysis or tribal cultural resource study. Just wondering if you guys are concerned that any of these actions might impact the schedule or the timing for the Line 3 project?

Not at this point. I mean, as I mentioned in my remarks, Jeremy, this has been an extremely robust process around the environmental work. In particular, it’s gone through many months’ review with many points of consultation and expertise from a number of parties. It was reviewed by the ALJ and of course, after that - after hearing itself for the PUC. So, we think this is pretty robust and will withstand any challenges. But, I don’t know, Guy, do you have anything to add on that?

No, nothing to add.

Okay.

That’s all very helpful. Thanks for taking my question.

Okay, Jeremy. Thanks.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Shneur Gershuni from UBS. Your line is now open.

I was just wondering if I could follow up on Jeremy’s question. Specifically, in your 2020 guide, can you remind us exactly what you had baked in for Line 3?

It’s John, Shneur. Line 3 in our original guidance we’d assumed would have been in service for the full year of 2020, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Yes. I was just wondering what was that actual EBITDA number.

I think, the way to look at it is, as we mentioned in the previous question. Again, the guidance we had out there that we put out at Enbridge Day for 2020 was $5 per share in DCF. And if you assume $0.04 per month contribution in DCF, I think that’s the simplest way to look at it, Shneur. Depending on when it comes in, you can use that sensitivity to calibrate your outlook for 2020. Is that helpful?

Yes. No, that’s extremely helpful. Thank you for that clarification. Just with respect to this quarter’s results, you seem to have strong results due to basis differentials. You didn’t update guidance specifically for that. Is that because you believe it’s temporary in nature and should be normalized at some point this year?

It’s John, Shneur. I think, what I did mention in my remarks was, there is a few things developing over the balance of the year, which will serve to offset the very strong performance that we had in Q1, base businesses will continue to perform well. But, some timing around O&M expenses will impact that, some higher expense on integrity and our gas transmission business will serve to offset that to a degree. So, if you look at all those puts and takes, those are sort of what’s prevailing over the course of the year. So, I’d say, solidly within that guidance range, and pretty much as I characterized it. We need to work a bit to make sure we hit the midpoint.

Final question, the VLCC project, are there any discussions at all to merge the project, let’s say with enterprise where you’ve worked together with them in the past, or are you guys going to pursue as two independent projects?

It’s Guy. At this stage of the game, we continue to purse Texas COLT as an independent project. We’re out there competing every day. Still got work to do but still confident in our own project.

Great, perfect. Thank you very much, guys, and enjoy the weekend.

Thank you. Our next question is from Rob Hope from Scotiabank. Your line is now open.

Good morning, everyone. I just wanted to take a look at the Canadian Mainline. Can you update us on your thoughts to potentially add any optimizations there? Has that changed? As well as, if a Canadian portion is constructed by mid-year this year, any potential chance that you could come to in the quarter to shippers to put it in service?

Yes. So, it’s Guy. On the first question, we continue to look at those optimization opportunities all the time. With the delay in Line 3, it has us looking at some different things. So, we’re still confident in what we have been seeing since back at Enbridge Days in terms of the potential for 50,000 to 100,000 barrels a day. As it relates to Line 3 in Canada, we certainly don’t have the commercial underpinning today that would allow us to put Line 3 Canada into service. But, it’s certainly something that if our shippers were interested in, we’d be willing to have that conversation.

All right. Thank you. I’ll hop back in the queue.

Thank you. Our next question is from Robert Kwan from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Kind of coming back to the main line and with the contract in proposal, I’m just wondering you can update what you’re hearing from customers on that, what are the pushbacks as you think about some of your small producers and even some of the large producer commentary? Is there also a push to get you to negotiate in parallel something in lines of CTS extension?

Robert, it’s Guy. So, I think that the key points in terms of the way the nature of discussions or what I’ve outlined, our shippers are interested in priority access; they’re interested in toll certainty; they’re interested in the market optionality that our system provides. And that’s really the driver behind the approach. We’re responding to those shipper interests. We have a very diverse shipper group. It is very unlikely at any point in time that we’ll ever receive 100% consensus on just about anything that we would do. But, we are going to great lengths in terms of the way our offering is being developed to accommodate as many of the issues and concerns and opportunities that our shippers are putting in front of us. In particular, on the small producer side, producers can contract for as little as 6,000 barrels a day. The offering that is designed for producers is very customer-friendly, to use a term, in terms of their ability to access capacity. And we also know that there are people out there offering small producers who are as small as 500 barrels a day, the opportunity to participate in this program with firm capacity and downstream pricing access through these -- this aggregation of these volumes. So, we actually see the opportunity for small producers coming out of this program to get some things that they currently don’t have access to.

I think other than that, Robert, just two things. We’re -- I think, as Guy’s comments imply, we’re doing everything we can to make sure this process is fair but accommodating to all groups of customers, and we’ve got different streams of work here and teams working with each of the groups that’s been identified. So, our job is to make sure that we have an offering here that works for everybody. And hopefully that will allow us to move smoothly through the process. You mentioned also discussions around extension of CTS. I think that the response to our offering and our response to what customers desire here from us is pointing to recontracting the line and moving in that direction as opposed to extension of the current commercial deal.

Got it. If I can just clarify something on that answer, Guy. You mentioned optionality. Is the anticipation here to have back-to-back or a concurrent, open season refining in South Seaway extension or some sort of other flow path options such as one in the eastern Gulf Coast?

At this point in time, the direction that we’re proceeding will be around existing capacities only. Depending on the outcome of that process, we will then begin evaluating whether there’s some other steps we need to take.

Okay, got it. If I can just finish, Al you mentioned additional rate proceedings on the gas pipeline side. So, just to clarify, for Texas Eastern you talk about revenue enhancement, I assume that’s a positive. I’m just wondering, as you look at Algonquin, is that similar, or is it something where you’re trying to get out in front and stay ahead of the Section 5 proceeding?

Yes. So, basically, really all of our rate base is going up, Robert, over time. It’s been a while, as you know, since we filed rate cases on all these systems. And yes, you’d expect revenue enhancement on all these. What the question is just timing. With Texas Eastern, we’d expect to hopefully settle something by late summer, early fall. If not, we’d go into litigated rate case. Algonquin is probably a little bit later than that, and East Tennessee perhaps even beyond that, but all probably within the next year.

Thank you. Our next question is from Joe Gemino from Morningstar. Your line is now open.

Great. Thanks for taking my call and congrats on the great quarter. How do you think about the priority access with -- on the mainline with potential good news coming from the Trans Mountain expansion in the next month or so?

Yes. It’s Guy. We don’t see a lot of impact in terms of those types of decisions that may or may not come in, in the near term around competing pipelines. Our customers are after priority access on the system and the market access opportunities that we offer. And we don’t, for example, see customers sitting in front of us and saying well, I’ll do X on your system if that pipeline is delayed and something less than X if it’s going ahead on a particular time. There’s people that are focused on shipping on our system seem to be making those decisions independent to what might go on, on competing pipeline.

I think one of the key things too just to add on what Guy is saying, you really have to look at the fundamentals of where our infrastructure is connected to. So, if you look at the markets that we serve, we’re directly connected to huge capacity in the U.S. Midwest and then now, into the Gulf Coast. So, I think this is more about the fundamentals of the markets we get to and the fact that we get there at the lowest possible cost. And so, the optionality, the low cost, the ability to have flexibility in this priority access offering or offerings that are very attractive to our customers regardless of what’s happening with other options.

Great. I appreciate the response. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question is from Praneeth Satish from Wells Fargo. Your line is now open.

Hi. Good morning. Can you talk about your willingness to be a partner on the Capline project, either as a shipper or part owner? And I guess tied to that, do you need to wait for the open season on the Mainline to conclude before making decision on Capline?

It’s Guy. So, a number of questions. I don’t think at this stage of the game we’re contemplating being a shipper on Capline. As we’ve said all along, we’re very interested in looking at that opportunity for Canadian crude when the Capline owners get around to considering that mark fulsomely. The current plan they have in place is clearly targeted at light barrels and less so heavy barrels. And when the time comes that they want to pursue that, we’re happy to engage.

Just, again just a bit of expansion on what he’s saying. Fundamentally, it does make a lot of sense. I mean, obviously, we already connect to the Western Gulf, and that’s a big plus for us. But, if you look at the fundamentals of Canadian heavy, there’s a good market for heavy barrels in the Eastern Gulf. And the opportunity that we bring too to this kind of thing is through some kind of joint tool all the way down into that region, so I think it makes a lot of sense. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens on various fronts between now and getting those heavy barrels ready to go.

Thank you. Our next question is from Dennis Coleman from Bank of America. Your line is now open.

Great, thanks. I guess, if we can explore the LNG initiatives a little bit more, I know this has been talked about quite a lot, and you spent time on it in your prepared remarks. But, just trying to think about the scale of what the opportunity is here. And as we start to see some of these facilities approve by the FERC, is it just in the pipeline side of things? Is there a situation where you would get into the liquefaction piece of it?

Hey, Dennis, it’s Bill Yardley. So, yes, first, our primary interest would be in pipelines for some of the facilities, it’s what we’re good at. Generally, we’re really well positioned to serve what are the Gulf, Western Canada, and a chance anything happens on the Atlantic side. We’ve got really good infrastructure there and building upon that’d be great. Scale really depends on, which facility you’re talking about. These could be -- they range from a small $100 million, $200 million laterals to multibillion dollar lines, particularly on the West Coast Canada or South Texas. So, I think that’s probably the answer to scale of pipeline opportunities and our focus. When it comes to liquefaction, we’d certainly explore it and be interesting to look at, but it’s not our primary focus at this point.

Okay, thanks for that. I guess, my second question is a little bit about leverage or maybe more broadly capital allocation. You’ve been pretty clear about leverage and your targets, and that it will sort of tick up a little bit next year. But then, you talk about being well below your range in 2021 and beyond. And that obviously raises the question of do you move to a lower leverage target? Do you hold that target and use the funds obviously for reinvestment but potentially share repurchases or things like that? How do you think about the capital allocation with regard to leverage in the 2021 and beyond?

Maybe I’ll start off, Dennis. So, if you look at what we’ve talked about just a few minutes ago around the outlook in terms of our DCF growth, I mean, you could actually get there through organic investment, which is our base case or you can get there by other means around buybacks and other options that are there. So, I think we’re going to be pretty diligent about assessing all the options. The reason it’s the base case in organic investment right now is that we think we have a pretty good hopper out there that can generate good projects. And what I mean by that is projects that are right in the core business, either expansion or expansion of the current franchises in all three of the main businesses, and then, of course, the power business as well, on the side is -- are all good opportunities. So that’s the base case. And in terms of the leverage component, maybe John can add on this. I mean, you’re right. In 2021, the leverage number would move down below the range, which to me is a pretty good option. And from there, it makes the capital allocation choice, I guess, flexible from our point of view. We can use some of that capacity, or if we don’t see those opportunities, then we’re looking at potentially buybacks or other uses of the capital. So, that’s the general outlook on leverage and how we allocate capital.

Yes. Nothing further. I think that’s exactly right. It’s all about flexibility.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Robert Catellier from CIBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Hi. Thank you. Just a follow-up to some of the CTS questions you’ve been fielding. You addressed Robert Kwan’s questions about how you accommodate smaller producers versus larger. But, what about -- is there anything that needs to be done to balance the interest of producer shippers versus non-producer to ensure reasonably smooth outcome on the regulatory proceeding?

It’s Guy. Yes. The way that plays out is that we’re going to have to have an open season process that provides for open access per the rules of the National Energy Board. So, it’s not really a situation that Enbridge can have an overwhelming influence on. It needs to be a fair and open process and that’s what we’re planning to run.

Okay. Thanks for that. And then, just a follow-up. You’ve touched on the 5% to 7% DCF per share growth beyond 2020. Wondering what outcome on the CTS in terms of pricings and volume certainty is baked into that 5% to 7% growth number?

Well, I’m not sure we’re going to get into the granularity of that beyond 2020 for sure at this point, Robert. I think, generally, speaking, you could assume an extension of what we’re seeing today in terms of the revenue from the main line. I think that’s a good overall assessment you could use for what it contributes. But, I think that’s about all the detail we can provide now.

Yes. That’s helpful. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Matthew Taylor from Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. Your line is now open.

Hey, thanks for taking my questions here. Just can you clarify the timing on downstream expansions? I know, as mentioned to some other questions on Flanagan South and Seaway. Are these commercial discussions ongoing or are you waiting until after the mainline settlement application is approved or even Line 3 construction is started? Just trying to understand the drivers there?

So, it’s Guy. Obviously, we’re talking to people about things like that all the time. The plan we’re on right now is, it doesn’t really make any sense for us to be spending any detailed time on things like that until we have a better sense for how the open season process and contracting will play out on the existing capacity that we have. So, how the current process plays out and what we learn about that in terms of demands for our systems, will dictate the next steps that we might take on Flanagan South or Seaway or any of those other downstream pipes.

That’s great. Thanks and then one more clean-up question here. Can you provide some more color on NGL infrastructure opportunities you noted in the slides, including Aux Sable, does that dovetail with an Alliance expansion?

It could. Yes, it could dovetail nicely if we do an Alliance expansion that it obviously require more processing at the Aux Sable facility. And then of course, in Western Canada we’ve got some liquids in trains and the gas stream on north [ph] which could potentially result in some NGL opportunities there too.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Ben Pham from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now open.

Okay, thanks. Good morning. And this question is probably for Bill and it’s on some of the comments around LNG Westcoast Connector. And I’m curious if your, how are you guys, if any positioning is this project going forward, when you compare it to how Spectra was looking at in terms of partnerships, capacity? And if you could just share just difference to your Investor Day of this project, do you think that the probability of that has increased or not?

Probably about the same, Ben. It’s I don’t want to say early days, mid days, right? So, we’ve been talking to a number of potential shippers, the scale of the project, maybe a bit different than what we were looking at in the Spectra days. But not a whole lot has changed from Investor Days. Yes, and I know, that’s not a lot of detail, but I’ll leave it there.

Okay. And maybe the T-South pipeline, maybe just a quick commercial update on? I know last year, it’s put some a little bit here, but just really in line with in-service, but anything you can share on that project?

Yes. I think, we are -- we saw a little bit of -- we see a little bit of pressure on in-service on that project. I believe we had 2020 originally, and we may be pushing out to 2021 with some of the, any de-activity that was announced, not too long ago. So overall, commercially looks fine, but perhaps delayed six months or so.

Okay, all right. Thanks a lot, Bill.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Patrick Kenny from National Bank Financial. Your line is now open.

Good morning, guys. I’m just wondering if we could start with an update on Line 5, and your discussions with the Governor with respect to the title and when we might see a resolution there.

So, it’s Guy. Not really going to get too far into that. We continue to operate Line 5. We believe it’s safe today and it’s going to be safe for many years to come. The tunnel option in our view is an opportunity to make already safe pipeline even safer going forward, which is why we’re so interested in it. And other than to say, acknowledge, as the Governor said that we’re talking, we’re not going to go into any more of those details today.

Fair enough. And then, just to circle back on the mainline open season here, and the contract term, I know you’re looking for up to 20 years with some of the larger customers. Would there be a minimum term for the smaller producers, Guy, or does equal access, allow for shorter term say annual maintenance?

I think we don’t want to get into what this entire commercial offering is until it’s fully baked. All I will say about the opportunity for the small producer and the nature of the contract that is being offered is that the -- there is a minimum terms, but there is flexibility within the offering that should not put them in a position that is untenable.

And we’ll have spot capacity reserves as well.

Sounds good. And then, just lastly, can you remind us if reversing the Southern Lights will be part of the conversation with shippers this summer, or is that completely separate from the priority access offering we shouldn’t expect new agreements on Southern Lights for at least a couple of years?

So, it is completely separate. And again, it goes back to my earlier comments that until we see how the contracting plays out on the mainline with the existing capacity, we’re actually not that focused on any options to increase capacity at this time.

Okay. Sounds good. Thanks for that, Guy.

Thank you. Our next question is from Andrew Kuske from Credit Suisse. Your line is now open.

Thank you. Good morning. If you manage to get the mainline in a contractual framework and you grow all interests, [ph] if you have these longer term contracts, if it derisks the line, you can offer lower tolls. But is there a financial consequence if you could actually put more debt on the line to enhance returns for Enbridge?

Yes. It’s John, Andrew. Overall, our system, taken in the whole, is very low risk system, the agencies technology that in their evaluation of credit. And I think that in this circumstance, at the margin clearly, there is a little less overall business risk. I don’t think that leads us necessarily to fairly to lever the business up anymore than it would have otherwise. And if you think of that range that we’ve adopted, I think we’re all within that target range, if you will, in terms of sensitivity.

Okay. That’s helpful. And then, if I may, just a follow-up, and probably more for Guy. If you look at the quarter and the volumes you had on the system, on the mainline system, did you effectively see lower heavy volumes through the pipe than you saw greater amount of blending and higher lighter value products that have a higher value to them?

No. I don’t think we really saw that playing out. The issues that played out for us in the first quarter, first off, we had no planned maintenance in the quarter. So, we have gotten very particular about planning our maintenance in conjunction with planned refinery turnarounds and what not. So, we had -- the availability of capacity was high. We saw strong performance out of both the heavies and the lights from a supply side of thing. And the only nuance, and John referenced it a little bit, was the cold weather did impact the performance of some of the pad 2 refineries which then saw barrels redirected down Flanagan South as opposed into the Eastern part of pad 2. So, that was all a positive outcome from us, but nothing of the nature that you’re talking about in terms of the crude slate.

Thank you. This concludes today’s question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call over to Jonathan Gould for final remarks.

Thank you, Gigi. That was a good discussion on the call today. And as always, our IR team will be available to take any additional follow-ups you may have. So, thank you to everyone for your time and interest in Enbridge. And have a great day.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.