Greetings and welcome to the Energy Transfer Fourth Quarter Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Martin Salinas, Chief Financial Officer for Energy Transfer. Thank you, Mr. Salinas you may now begin.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone and thanks for joining us today. I am joined by Kelcy; Mackie; John McReynolds; and Jamie and other members of our senior management team who are here to help answer your questions after our prepared remarks. We had another busy quarter and have lots to discuss this morning. In addition to talking about some of ETP's key accomplishments and providing a quick update on our announced growth projects, I'll also highlight a few points regarding our fourth quarter results which were very strong again this quarter. I'll then turn the call over to Jamie to discuss ETE's activities and other updates. Then we'll open up the call to take your questions. As a reminder, we will be making forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the SEC Act of 1934. These are based on our beliefs, as well as certain assumptions and information available to us. I'll also refer to adjusted EBITDA and DCF, both of which are non-GAAP financial measures. You'll find a reconciliation of our non-GAAP measures on our website. Let's start with our recent distribution increase where we are pleased to announce in late January the sixth consecutive quarterly distribution rate increase for ETP to $0.9950 per unit or $3.98 per unit on an annualized basis. This distribution represents an increase of $0.30 per unit or 8.2% on an annualized basis as compared to the fourth quarter of 2013 and was paid on February 13 to unitholders of record as of February 6. And we managed our distribution coverage ratios to a healthy 1.12x for the fourth quarter and 1.27x for the full year. Needless to say our strong diversified asset platform continues to perform very well. We are very confident we will continue to deliver increased unitholder…

Thank you, Martin. There was a lot to get through and good morning everybody. The main headline since our last call was at January 26 announcement of the planned merger of Regency and ETP. This is a unit for unit transaction valued at about $18 billion including $6.4 billion of Regency’s debt. I hope by now you’ve had a chance to review the news release, as well as the investor presentation posted on our website that provides more detail as to highlights and benefits of the merger. The bottom line is we expect this merger will take ETP to the next level in our growth strategy, and it reinforces our position as one of the strongest and most diversified midstream companies in the U.S. It creates the opportunity for higher long-term distribution growth for ETP than what have been possible on a standalone basis. We filed the Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance last week and we expect to file our dropped proxy next week. We still anticipate closing the merger in the second quarter. As you may be aware, we filed an amendment last night to the merger agreement that modifies the transaction structure for the merger with Regency to become a subsidiary of ETP, as compared to the price structure which provided for Regency to merge directly into ETP. This change was motivated in large part by a desire to provide more flexibility under covenants related to ETP’s and Regency's outstanding debt. In addition, this structural change removes the requirement for an ETP unitholder vote. Also we converted the $0.32 per unit cash payment to an equivalent payment of ETP units, measured on ETP's unit price just prior to closing. This minor modification in the form of consideration simplifies and accelerates the SEC filing process for the merger. Switching topics; at our…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Abhi Rajendran of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning guys.

Hi, Abhi.

Couple of quick questions. Can you just touch on, you know, obviously you announced a big buyback, could you just touch on how you’re thinking about the base of executing it of the – you know that it'll be opportunistic kind of depending on trading, but is it – are we talking a couple of quarters, a couple of years, just any color there would be helpful?

I think Abhi, right now it’s just going to sit on the shelf. We did it because we continue to think ETE is undervalued. I think we’ll direction from Kelcy, as we look at the trading activity on ETE’s unit processing where we see weakness, and we think that there is the opportunity to in fact retire more units then we’ll capitalize on that opportunity. So it’s open-ended, it’s not that we’re not going to execute it one quarter, I think it’s too big for that, I mean that's just not realistic. But we will be very mindful of sort of taking direction as we sort of see opportunities that we think make sense.

Okay, got it. And then just a quick one on Lake Charles, obviously the comments you guys have made are certainly reassuring. As we look ahead sort of over the next couple of quarters, could you touch a little bit on maybe some of the milestones we should be looking at, whether it's more in the BG side, in terms of them sort of signing up contracts or if it’s EPC process we should be following, just where should we be looking at to track the progress on Lake Charles?

I think a couple of things Abhi, there probably won’t be a lot of – there won’t – a publicity around the whole EPC bid process, it’s a process that will happen in house with BG the various contractors and ourself as we work through their terms and their pricing. Obviously you will continue to monitor BG on their quarterly calls and what they say around their commercial activity, as it relates to the volumes or cargoes. And then for us really until we sort have greater definition and specificity on the EPC side and what the ultimate price is, which then obviously derives what our tariff is. For us that will be then I think the guiding post as to when we decide to launch the financing. So for the next several months, I think, it’s going to be pretty low-key, which it’s just – it is what it is and we've got a lot of work in front of us, a lot of wood to chop, and to get to an FID, which is obviously what we’re focused on.

Okay, got it. And then just one last question from me. With regard to SUN, how you’re thinking about sort of timing and completion of the remaining drops from ETP, and then also eventually the possible GP move up to the ETE level? Thanks a lot.

This is Martin. As we talked about on our prepared remarks, we’re focused on the next 30 to 60 days to complete the second drop, as we also mention we’re targeting the qualified income operations that are embedded within ETP, that’s kind of be our first focus, and then it’s the non-qualified income that will then move. We still think we’re still on track for call it 24 to 30 month process to get all the drop-downs completed. With respect to the exchange of the GP and IDRs of SUN moving up to ETE, again, as we continue to grow the distribution and increase the value of the GP and IDRs through that increase, we’ll look at targeting that exchange, you know it could be late 2015 into 2016, that will depend on the timing and the speed of our drops.

Okay, got it. Thanks a lot.

You bet.

Thank you. The next question is from Brad Olson of TPH. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning guys.

Hey Brad.

Hey Brad.

A quick follow-up on the buyback announcement equity; am I right to think of this strategically as kind of a plan B in your back pocket, while you look for M&A opportunities or is the announcement of the buyback more of an indication that the bid ask spread remains too wide, at least for the time being in the M&A market where you're looking?

Let me – my view and Kelcy will also chime in here is we divorced this from M&A activity, we don't influence M&A activity. So I suppose what we see in front of us is we see the prospects for ETE given our cash flow growth and then pro forma the Regency deal that is apparent to us that ETE is undervalued even at current price levels, and we wanted to take the opportunity to capitalize on that and we set up the buyback program. As far as on the M&A side, I think we've said look if there is something that makes sense and it’s in our will house and it has the right risk reward balance to it and we think it creates long-term value for our unitholders then we’d certainly look at it. We haven't had that opportunity – we haven't had that opportunity and I'm not sure whether that our bid spreads are still significant between the buyers and sellers, as I think we’re being more focused on making sure that our house is in order during what is being a fairly I would say torrid couple of several months as it relates to commodity prices around this.

That’s helpful color. I guess when I think about the buyback and what you're trying to achieve there, definitely an agreement that equity remains very undervalued, especially in light of all the accretion coming out of a potential Regency merger. When you think about what could correct that valuation discount and you weigh two different options, say a buyback on one hand and on the other hand you know, I guess the market doesn't seem to be discounting the Regency accretion. Do you plan on doing more just in terms of press releases or presentations to provide color around what the synergy number could potentially be from the Regency merger and how that all flows up to Energy Transfer equity at the end of the day? It seems like a much lower cost way of closing that valuation gap than a buyback.

Yeah, Brad, this is Kelcy. That’s a great question. It’s something that you should expect. We are prioritizing however our sensitivity to the human resource emotion part of this deal. We are being very careful even -- and I recognize these our unitholders listening this call and don’t have the same sentiment that we do towards the people, but I think the value will be corrected in time, and at this time, I don’t think it would be the right thing for us to do is to be overly boastful of cost that we’ll be extracting from the organization until we properly have time to analyze that and communicate that correctly, and be respectful of those that maybe involved.

Okay, got it. Thanks for that color Kelcy. Just one follow-up, jumping back to Lake Charles if I may, I realized that you guys have kind of provided contacts that the reason that FID has been pushed back. Here is really just a FERC timing issue. Now understanding that, that some of the nuances of the BG call, maybe lost, as I don’t follow BG, it did sound as though BG’s management was significantly less constructive than you all are being on this call, specifically saying things like, you know there is still a lot of wood to chop both on the off take side and the EPC side, and then an FID was hard to predict what was likely pushed way back into 2016. Is there anything that you guys can do to help me kind of reconcile their messaging with kind of what we’ve heard today on the call?

Brad, sure. We did receive our bid, so we obviously are working through on the EPC side, and that’s going to take us some time, just given the scope and size of the overall project. BG is in transition obviously, they’ve got a new CEO who joined what, three weeks ago. They are themselves going through the transition, having started commissioning out of the Queensland project and obviously what's going on with Brazil and obviously with crude prices around this. I think that continuing their discussions on the volume – with customers on the volume side, but it remains our expectation that we – and in conjunction agreement with them that we are just moving through on the development milestone basis and the earliest we could see an FID would be January and that's what we’d ideally like to see, but there may be some slippage in that and we respect it, but our current intent is to try to get ready so that we are able to take an FID decision and we've obviously got some milestones to go.

Got it. And just one last one, this one is on Rover. In light of the decision to beef that capacity on Vector, is there anything that you’ve seen in terms of right of way acquisition or kind of open houses that you posted in Northern Ohio that makes you nervous about any of the kind of development trends that you're seeing in that part of the country. Obviously you’ve kind of crossed Michigan and Canada off the list, but are there any challenges that remain in Ohio that gives you any [indiscernible]? And that's all for me.

The answer to that is no. We – the FERC process on building a pipeline of this size takes time. We believe we’re probably one of the best and most experienced partnerships in the country to accomplish a project like this. We were having probably more difficulties or more conversations right away north of Vector than we’ve had in other projects in the past. It certainly was behind some of our thinking, what we’re going to do at Vector and also doing what FERC has asked us to do and looked at other alternatives, but by and large the remainder of the right away out of West Virginia, out of Pennsylvania, across Ohio and partly through Michigan, we feel very good about the achievement of this project, own time and under budget or at budget in a minimal.

Thank you. The next question is from John Kiani of Teilinger Capital. Please go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning, John.

Hey, John.

Jamie, you talked a little bit about the M&A market, I'm assuming you were talking perhaps a little bit more from a corporate perspective, but what about producers that have midstream assets that perhaps need to raise capital, do you think that there might be some opportunities for you all there?

Short answer is sure. I mean we’re still seeing activity, we saw the Coronado announcement last week or so. So we continue to think that there will be folks that will look to try to monetize assets, and in fact if you can think of a differential between trading multiple for an upstream producer and what they could possibly get for their midstream assets if they have the right contracts in place, it’s probably a pretty nice arbitrage and much more effective than writing debt or equity and obviously the current environment. So I think you probably hit on to a virtual patch, that I'm sure every banker on Wall Street is going to be focused on and we’ll look at those opportunities as they come and as I said it, if they seem to fit what we’re looking for and what ideally suits us then that will make it quite attractive.

Got it. And then on the Regency transaction, I certainly appreciate the comments Kelcy that you made and you’ve made as well Jamie about just the sensitivity around the human resource part of that transaction. Are you able to just give us a little bit of clarity or understanding around post-transaction close, how long it will take for us and for the market to see the benefits of the transaction in the form of the ETE distribution?

This is Kelcy. We’ve established – I’ll do the best I can to answer that. We’ve established an immigration committee; it consists of two parties from two people, from Regency and two from Energy Transfer Partners. They reported up to Mackie and then ultimately to me. They are going through announces right now and there will be certainly cost reductions experienced in 2015, and we believe substantial reductions experienced in 2015. Mackie and his team have already identified a lot of commercial, these the ones that are the most fun because these are the ones where are you combine hydraulics, you reduce compression, you improve recoveries, you reduce fuel, those are the ones that are firm on the cost side they don't involve reduction of a job. And we’re finding more of those actually than we anticipated. So we’re going to see a quite a lot of efficiencies derived in 2015, however I don't think the unitholders on this call are going to see your full bank for your buck until 2016.

I think John, the last point, your question on the ETE distribution, I think it is such a long way to go between now and closing. We’ll look at it; Kelcy and I will sit down, we’ll talk about it, we’ll work out what makes sense, we know that there is accretion in there, we don’t know what else will be occupying our time and focus and attention at that point. So I think it’s premature to think about how we would think about any increase in distribution of ETE as a result of incremental cash flow from the Regency transaction.

Got it. And just one last question please, the Waha to Presidio header system and the pipeline through to Mexico. Have you all talked about the timing and your ownership interest in that projects or can you please?

Certainly we can talk about the timing, in fact as we sit here and listen to conversations how exciting it is from ETP’s perspective on all these projects from Bakken, from Marcellus and Utica, and we’re very excited about our business South to Mexico. We began flowing here recently, the first project in South Texas being next two projects that we will work on, we expect the FERC to come on, or really both of them to come on in the first quarter of 2017, and we are finalizing the negotiations and everything is on track to that timeline.

And is there any residual, how do we think about any residual volume benefit in the Intrastate System from this and Nueces Crossover and the other pipeline projects you have going into Mexico?

That’s probably, even more exciting part of those projects and that probably most of you all know, we’ve built out a pretty hefty Intrastate system of which a lot of capacity has been available over the last two or three years because of decline in different areas and this is going to really help us fully utilize that, albeit in a different hydraulic direction, but we see significant upstream benefits for transporting by probably mid to late 2017, an additional 3 plus Bcf through our Intrastate System to complete these projects.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Thanks John.

Thank you. The next question is from Schneur Gershuni of UBS. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning guys.

Hey, Schneur.

Most of my questions have been asked and answered, but just kind of wanted to come back to, I guess, the buyback for a second here and sort of think about it in a different context. Early last year there was some discussion about creating somewhat of an up sea structure. Assuming everything closes RGP’s currency that disappears at this point. Is there any thought to renewing the interest in the up sea structure? Could the buyback of the units be held in treasury and support the evolution towards an up sea structure? Just wondering if you can sort of talk about that a little bit?

As far as the buyback is concerned could we use it for alternative the units that we retired for alternative uses? Absolutely. The up sea was a structure that we, I want to say, analyze is probably the best word. Last year spent a lot of time thinking about it. And we should have shelved for various sundry reasons, so I think look – could that be somewhere in the crystal ball. The boss needs to tell us what he wants to do at any particular point in time. So, I think but right now it is not on our immediate game plan.

Yeah, but however I would say that I think it hoops us. There will be opportunities that will come our way, that we will most certainly need to find a way to integrate a sea corporation in our partnership structure. As you guys know we have done this time and time again, but it creates complexity and it is always a challenge from a tax perspective. Having a sea corp currency that resides within the family is a smart thing for us to do. So I think you will see something coming out of us this year.

Just a follow-up question and I have realized in your responses to some of the other questions that it is hard to sort of calculate the benefits for Regency at this point right now and you kind of want to close the transaction first and so forth. But when we think longer term about ETP's, I guess, distribution CAGR over the next, let's say, three years is it fair to conclude that that CAGR has probably gone up by couple 100 basis points kind of as a result of putting the two entities together?

Schneur, this is Martin. I think it is a combination of a lot of things. We spent the last five years riding the ship. Back in 2013 we resumed distribution rate growth. We did it methodically given that we are trading back into the water. I think when you see not only the ETP Regency merger and Kelcy talked about the commercial synergies that we see from that and a lot of the benefit of combining these assets. When you tack-on what we built on Lone Star, you tack-on the Eagle Ford, the Permian, you tack-on Bakken and Rover that gives us significant amount of confidence that our distribution rate growth will continue given these assets come online, you sprinkle that with M&A and that are substantially fee baked in nature that we get that benefit. And then by the way we've got a retail platform that just get in our ballpark right now. All that combined gives us the confidence of continuing our distribution rate growth.

And one final question with the – I guess, there was an amendment towards Regency and ETP merger agreement. Does it sort of shifted to all stock now so therefore you just require a Regency vote or do you need both Regency and ETP vote on a go-forward basis?

So, Schneur, there were two things with the amendment; one was the modification in the structure to what's called a forward subsidiary merger, a triangular merger that's what I call it. But it allowed Regency to be a subsidiary of ETP and it gave us more flexibility as we thought about. The debt covenants going forward, the flexibility within ETP without we recognize and understand the debt of Regency will continue – will be guaranteed by ETP, we will have the investment grade rating much like ETP but it gave us more flexibility. As a result of transaction structure we now no longer need an ETP unitholder vote so the only vote we need is for Regency and of the Regency unit it is a simple majority and almost 25% of the units are held by ETP and ETE and we under the merger agreement have agreed to vote in favor of the transaction. That's one aspect, the second aspect was we converted the $0.32 was about $133 million based on about 410 million units for Regency outstanding. We convert that from cash to units, those ETP units. Those ETP units will be priced as of prior to closing, but it now meant that there was no cash in the transaction, there is an all unit transaction.

Great. Thank you very much for the clarification and good luck, guys.

Thanks, Schneur.

Thank you. The next question is from Ross Payne of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

How are you doing guys? Two quick questions; number one, what are your thoughts with the recent volatility in crude around the retail marketing profits that we may experience in Q1? And second of all, what is the total debt number at the end of the fourth quarter? Thank you.

Hey, Ross, this is Martin. I'll answer the second question first. Our total debt on a consolidated basis was $19.3 billion. That includes not only ETP debt, but also SXL and Sunoco LP. With respect to the first question, unfortunately Bob has to – his Sunoco call, but I'd say that we started off strong with respect to retail margins. Obviously, we've seen a little bit of volatility over the last several weeks. We have a very diversified business now when you combine the Sunoco legacy system with the previously known Susser system and operations is around the south. So, we expect another strong quarter coming up for retail business. And Bob and his team has done a great job managing the operations as we continue to see volatility in the space.

Great. Thanks so much, Martin.

You bet.

Thank you. The next question is from Helen Ryoo of Barclays. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning. So, Jamie, you made earlier comments about your expectation of this weak price environment, for long time and that you see this little bunch in a life time opportunity. I mean, one could argue that energy transfer as a family is probably set – has a most flexible structure to buy any type of Midstream assets. And if we see it once in a type – once in a lifetime opportunity, then this will probably be a good time for you to do deals. But my question is should we expect you to use the individual – the LPs being used as the acquisition currency or first right deal maybe you would consider something at the ETE level but then if you don't – you end up not doing enough. Is there something else you could do at the ETE level like getting an IRS ruling on being able to issue more ETE units to make that possible? Could you maybe share some thoughts around that?

Thanks, Helen. Wow, there is a lot in that question. As far as structure of deals, we have done deals down at the LPs, you know, Sunoco was done with ETT, Southern Union was done at ETE, Susser was done at ETP. So we are pretty flexible. We will go where we think this make sense from a compatibility, from a strategic standpoint and where we've got the – what we think is we are offering the right overall consideration for the seller and they are happy to take that consideration. So I think we are flexible where we would go. I think you've certainly heard from us before that only I would say in certain circumstances and they are very limited there would be willingness for us to do something at ETE. We recognize that that may some point come about and we do not take that off the table, but it is also a currency that is extremely highly valued given Kelcy's ownership and given how we think about the overall value proposition. So I think you've got flexibility on one side, on the second side we certainly would roll it out. Is there something else we can do? You asked about the IRS ruling, we have been working on that. So I think we will – you'll probably see something over the course of the next 6 to 9 months that you'll have some statement in one of our public filings that indicate that we have navigated through that channel.

That's very helpful. Thank you. And then just some quick follow-ups on the Rover project with the Vector deal what's the updated CapEx, total CapEx and the EBITDA expectation?

This is Mackie. The overall CapEx right now has been reduced in the range of about 3.6 to 3.8 kind of range low to high 5s. I don't believe we've disclosed any EBITDA or any revenue numbers that come out of that project.

Okay. So out of that 3.6 to 3.8 you guys would be putting in 65%. And I think in the past you considered doing some project finance and I guess that's off the table this will be all coming out of the Energy Transfer?

Helen, this is Martin. So, in terms of project level financing that still remains in place. Our intention is to project finance at the Rover level for various reasons. But that will be something that we'll do and we'll look at an optimal structure so that we put the right amount of debt in there and then the equity portion will obviously come from our 55% ownership and then AE–Midco is 35% share.

Great. And then one last one, on the Bakken project you talked about potentially increasing the capacity to 570,000 and in your own discussion with some shippers what should we expect in terms of timing and how does – is there bit of more sort of CapEx needed to bring it up to 570,000 and what would be the return. Any changes in return if you were to bring it up to that level?

Helen, this is Mackie again. As I mentioned earlier, all the projects we have is certainly one of the most exciting projects and the R&D of the collapse in oil prices actually has been a significant benefit to that project, primarily because to the pipelines that were proposed kind of go in east or really having trouble getting their project off the ground and one other large pipeline project that was in the work for some period of time has been abandoned. So, we couldn't be more excited about this project and about fully selling the max capacity of up to 570,000 a day. We do have ongoing negotiations with several different producers, shippers that are in the net capacity and we are confident that once we bring that on in 2016 that we will be at that 570,000 barrels a day level. The incremental capital is insignificant when related to the additional revenues involved with adding that additional 120,000 barrels a day.

Okay. That's very helpful. Thanks.

Thanks, Helen.

Thank you. The next question is from Michael Blum with Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Just one quick question from me. As related to the buyback can you just remind us or talk about where are you comfortable or what are the outer limits leverage at ETE and should we think of that as a gating factor on the buyback program?

Michael, it is a very good question and the short answer is absolutely. You know we've been very open, transparent and communicative with the rating agencies and we've always said S&P and Moody's we look at sort of four times, no more than four times debt-to-EBITDA on a standalone basis at the ETE level. So will always be a constraint. We, obviously, recognize and I think most of the analysts did as well that there was a big jump in cash flows from '14 to '15 they will roll up in subsidies and various other things that most people were factoring in. And then obviously you have the increasing cash flow from Regency. So it is certainly – you should be very mindful of it because we are and we have committed the agencies that we won't basically breach that threshold and we will – will have to live within those guidepost to give this plenty of flexibility.

Thank you. The next question is from Brian Lasky of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Follow-up for Jamie, in terms of the Lake Charles just with the EPC arrangement – your arrangement with the BG is financing. Is there anything from a timing perspective that has kind of an end date to it? Is there any kind of expiration or anything that we need to worry about if the project should get pushed behind kind of beginning of 2016?

Well, typically on the EPC arrangement just like any of our projects that we undertake or anybody undertakes we have large capital projects where you undertake on a turnkey basis meaning you are shifting the risk, if you will, over the EPC contractor. They normally put a specific date of which the price that they are proposing is good before in fact they get a reopener, and that’s supplied certainly across the board the other LNG projects that had been done in the U.S. Right now we’re working through it. I mean you can always just work through these things and obviously the deflationary environment around this, both on capital and resources and human resources meaning is probably working to our advantage. The deferment and delay of a lot of other large capital projects is probably going to work to our advantage, so there is nothing out there that is concerning or troubling from our standpoint as far as working to what is now an extended schedule.

Got it. That makes sense. And then sort of from an financing perspective and then an agreement with BG perspective, that’s obviously there is no timing contingencies there, correct?

Correct.

Then in terms of following up on Helen's question, do you think the appetite or the willingness of ETP to engage in M&A has changed post the RGP, how would you characterize that?

Do you want to take that Kel?

Yeah. Our appetite is strong, very strong. We are looking at a lot of things, we’re studying this very carefully, for people on this call, this is going to sound odd to you, almost sadistic, but I was disappointed to see a rebound in crude prices that I believe is temporary. I was excited to see who might be more vulnerable if we saw this market continue a downward trend and stay there a little bit longer, I know that sounds odd, but this will when wealth is created – during these times, I do think that will occur. And we are carefully a lot of different scenarios, there are varying partnerships that exist out there that are well-run, great assets, but let’s face it, commodity price downturns are more impactful to those particular assets maybe than they are to the family of Energy Transfer. We fully intend to capitalize on that, I think it’s a little early. However we’re not seeing any bargains right now, but we do think they’re coming. And we remain open-minded to use the ETE currency, but it’s going to need to be a pretty special deal for us to do that.

But you’re still kind of comfortable using the ETP currency, you don’t think kind of the circumstances that could have changed there meaningfully from a M&A appetite perspective since doing the RGP deal?

No, no, no. I don’t think so at all. Mackie is constantly, I promise he’s got 10 opportunities in his mind right now, when one plus one equals more than two, guaranteed and it’s all commercial driven, all hydraulic, all fuel, all coverage, all efficiencies, they are there. And we have – the family has proven that there is a growth opportunity for peak we will execute upon on that and if there are IDR subsidies required to make that deal happen we will do that. So cost of capital is not an issue for ETP, and it will continue to grow and M&A is very much part of that growth – that approach.

Perfect. Thanks Kelcy. And then just one last question, Jamie, how do you kind of think about the buyback relative to potentially increasing your distribution whether it be a step up or a trajectory change over time there, and where do you kind of see yourself getting the most bang for the buck at these kind of levels, absent kind of M&A entering the picture, how do you think about that?

Brian, we look at the return on capital in two respects, I suppose buying back units if you asked Kelcy or myself today would be without a doubt the most compelling use of our liquidity and capital. There would be not a shadow of a doubt. We are being very I think systematic in how we thought about our distributions, we’ll continue to be systematic about that and we will – I think we’re not going to have one at the expense of the other, I think the two could work in tandem, but this is going to be a conversation that is -- that will be played out to be candid over the next four, six plus months, we’ve got to close the transaction. First we got to see how what happens around us, we got to see the environment in which we are, we got to see how ETP, ETE’s unit price is performing. There are so many uncertainties, but it’s nice to know that we've got, I think a pretty attractive situation unit that we are – we will be able to capitalize on.

I agree. Perfect, thank you very much guys.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to Mr. Salinas for any closing remarks.

Great. Again, thank you this morning for your time and attention. And everybody have a great day.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time and thank you for your participation.