Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by, and welcome to the Plains All American and PAA Natural Gas Fourth Quarter Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Also, I would like to welcome to the Plains All American Pipeline and PAA Natural Gas Storage Fourth Quarter and Year End 2010 Results Conference Call. During today's call, in addition to reviewing the results of the prior period, the participants will provide forward-looking comments on the partnerships, outlook for future, which may include words such as believe, estimate, expect, anticipate or other words that indicate a forward view. The partnership intends to avail themselves of a Safe Harbor precept that encourage companies to provide this type of information and directs you to the risks and warnings set forth in Plains All American Pipeline and PAA Natural Gas Storage most recently filed prospectus 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, as applicable and other current and future filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Throughout the call, participants may reference the company's by their respective New York Stock Exchange ticker symbol PAA for Plains All American Pipeline and PNG for PAA Natural Gas Storage. In addition, the partnerships encourage you to visit their website at www.paalp.com and www.pnglp.com and in particular, the section entitled non-GAAP Reconciliation, which presents certain commonly used non-GAAP financial measures such as EBIT and EBITDA, which may be used here in the prepared remarks or in the Q&A session. This section of the website also reconciles the non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable partnership reported financial information. Any reference during today's call to adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income and the like is a reference to the financial measures, excluding the effect of selected items impacting comparability. Also, for PAA, all references to net income are reference to net income attributable to Plains. Today's conference call will be chaired by Greg L. Armstrong, Chairman and CEO of PAA and PNG. Also, participating in the call are Harry Pefanis, President and COO of PAA and Vice Chairman of PNG; Dean Liollio, President of PNG; and Al Swanson, CFO of PAA and PNG. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Greg Armstrong. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Caroline. Good morning, and welcome to everyone. In addition to Harry, Dean and Al, we also have several other members of our management team available for the question-and-answer session including Roy Lamoreaux, Director of Investor Relations. This is the first full year that we will have both PAA and PNG as public entities, and I wanted to take the opportunity to let you know that Dan Bach will be joining our Investor Relations effort as Manager, Investor Relations reporting to Roy. Dan has been with PAA since 2004 and he is very familiar with each of our segments and the drivers behind PAA's and PNG's results as his primary role has been planning and forecasting. As a reminder, the slide presentation we will be referring to in this call is available on our websites at www.paalp.com and www.pnglp.com. We have a lot of information to cover today with respect to PAA's fourth quarter results, our overall performance for the full year of 2010 and our guidance for the full year and first quarter of 2011. We will also cover similar information for PAA Natural Gas Storage or PNG as we refer to it, which is a majority owned and controlled subsidiary of PAA. On balance, I think you will find the information for both entities very much on the positive side, both with respect to fourth quarter performance and 2011 outlook. Plains All American closed out 2010 with very strong performance exceeding the high end of PAA's fourth quarter adjusted EBITDA guidance by $22 million or $35 million above the midpoint of the guidance range. Combined with the solid performance delivered in the first nine months of the year, PAA's full year performance also exceeded the high end of the guidance we provided on February 10, 2010, by…

Thanks, Greg. I'll now review our fourth quarter operating results compared to the midpoint of our guidance issued on November 3, 2010, discuss the operational assumptions used to generate our guidance for 2011 and discuss our expansion capital program and acquisition activities. Dean will cover the PNG-specific information in a moment. As shown on Slide 6, adjusted segment profit of $322 million for our fourth quarter compared favorably to the midpoint of our guidance. Adjusted segment profit for the Transportation segment was $138 million or $0.50 per barrel. The segment profit was a little below $141 million guidance midpoint, but was within the guidance range we provided in November. Volumes for the segment were 2,995,000 barrels per day, just slightly lower than the 3,025,000 barrels per day in our guidance. Adjusted segment profit for the Facilities segment was $75 million or $0.35 per barrel, which total was about $4 million above the midpoint of our guidance. Primary drivers for the overperformance were lower operating expenses and favorable performance at PNG, which Dean will discuss in a few minutes. Segment capacity was 72 million barrels per month, which was in line with our guidance. Adjusted segment profit for the Supply and Logistics segment was $109 million or approximately $1.49 per barrel. The segment profit was about $33 million above the midpoint of our guidance. The overperformance in this segment is largely attributable to a combination of: one, increased crude oil arbitrage opportunities captured during the quarter; and then secondly, higher-than-forecasted LPG margins, which were primarily due to inventory costing and weather-related opportunities. With respect to our volumes, crude oil lease gathering purchases and waterborne foreign crude oil imports were a little above our guidance while LPG volumes were a little lower than forecasted in guidance, primarily due to lower demand. I…

Thanks, Harry. In my part of the call, I will address PAA Natural Gas Storage's fourth quarter operating and financial results, provide an update on PNG's expansion and acquisition activities and share a few comments about PNG's guidance for 2011 and the first quarter of 2011. Yesterday, we reported fourth quarter adjusted EBITDA and adjusted net income of $15.9 million and $11.3 million, respectively. Such results came in above the high end of our guidance, due primarily to better-than-forecasted hub services performance and higher fuel and oil sales revenue. These results are summarized on Slide 11. I'm also pleased to report that PNG's 2010 capital program was completed on time and under budget, importantly delivering the targeted working gas capacity on schedule. Overall, our capital program came in approximately 10% under budget due to lower expenditures on base gas as well as some execution efficiencies and timing refinements. At Pine Prairie, leaching operations continue at Cavern Well #4, and we currently estimate we have created approximately 6.8 Bcf of working gas capacity. We remain on track to bring Cavern Well #4 into service in the second quarter of 2011 at approximately 7 to 7.5 Bcf of working gas capacity. Leaching operations on Cavern Well #5 are ongoing and, including opportunistic Fill/Dewater activities, we expect to bring approximately 10 Bcf of working gas capacity into service in the second quarter of 2012. Just a few more comments about Pine Prairie. In January 2011, the CME Group, owner of the New York Mercantile Exchange or NYMEX, announced the introduction of three new natural gas futures contract for physical delivery at Pine Prairie. The contract began trading in February on the NYMEX floor and electronically to CME Globex and will be available for clearing services through CME Clearport. While it may take time…

Thanks, Dean. During my portion of the call, I will discuss the capitalization, liquidity levels and recent financing activities for both PAA and PNG, and also provide comments on PAA's guidance for the full year and first quarter of 2011. As summarized on Slide 17, PAA exited the year and is beginning 2011 with solid capitalization, approximately $1.4 billion of committed liquidity and credit metrics in line with our targets. In recognition of both an upward shift in acquisition multiple and longer lead times for realization of synergies and commencement of cash flow from expansion projects, we have refined PAA's financial growth strategy slightly. As refined, our credit metrics now reflect a debt-to-EBITDA ratio that will average within an approximate target range of approximately 3.5x to 4.0x. Previously, we were targeting a 3.5x based on current debt and forward EBITDA. We have also increased our target to fund at least 55% of our growth capital with equity or retain cash flow. This was previously 50%. The committed to liquidity I mentioned include approximately $140 million of availability under the PNG revolver, as well as the full $500 million of available liquidity under PAA's 364-day revolving credit facility that we entered into during January 2011. At December 31, PAA's adjusted long-term debt-to-capitalization ratio was 48% and our adjusted total debt-to-capitalization ratio was 57%. Excluding the $466 million of notes used to fund inventory, our adjusted long-term debt balances was approximately $4.2 billion. The total debt ratio includes $1.8 billion of debt that supports our hedged inventory, associated accounts receivable and associated margin. This debt is essentially self-liquidating from the cash proceeds when we sell the inventory and collect the receivables. For reference, our short-term hedged inventory at December 31, 2010, was comprised of approximately 21 million barrels equivalent with an aggregate…

Thanks, Al. We are very pleased with PAA's performance in 2010. At the beginning of last year, PAA publicly established four goals for the year. Specifically, these goals were to: deliver baseline offering and financial performance in line with guidance; successfully execute our 2010 capital program and set the stage for growth in 2011 and beyond; continue to pursue strategic and accretive acquisitions; and lastly, increase our annualized distribution level to $3.80 per unit by November 2010. As covered throughout today's discussion and summarized on Slide 21, PAA met or exceeded each of these four goals delivering the performance above the high end of the guidance, executing the 2010 capital program on time and on or under budget, successfully making strategic and accretive acquisitions and increasing the distribution to $3.80 per unit on an annual basis. During 2010, we increased our distribution paid by 3.7% over distributions paid in 2009, while generating a healthy distribution coverage ratio of 111%. Slide 22 summarizes our public goals for 2011, which are very similar to our 2010 goals. These goals include: deliver baseline operating and financial performance in line with our 2011 guidance; successfully execute our 2011 capital program and set the stage for continued growth in 2012 and beyond; continue to pursue strategic and accretive acquisitions; and lastly, increase our November 2011 annualized distribution level by approximately 4% to 5% over the November 2010 distribution level. Longer term, we continue to target to achieve average annual distribution growth within the 3% to 5% range. The foundation of our growth outlook for the next several years of a fairly extensive inventory of organic growth projects which will be augmented by our acquisition activities. Our distribution growth goal for 2011 is clearly in the middle to upper-end of that long-term range. Slide 23 provides…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Michael Blum from Wells Fargo.

Number one. You sort of touched on this, but can you talk a little bit more about how the current spread between WTI and Brent is impacting your business or do you expect it to impact your business either to the positive or to the negative?

I think the impact would be less foreign crude moves into the U.S. Gulf Coast. We've got that segment of our business, we've got offsetting factors that's offset by more production in the U.S. that feeds to our U.S.-based pipeline systems and terminals.

Michael, I think Al touched on it when he talked about the guidance for next year. We've actually forecasted lower foreign volumes in 2011 because of that.

Now there's sort of an upswing here now in organic expansion around some of these new oil shale plays. Are you seeing any upward pricing pressure as it relates to materials or getting crudes or anything of that nature? Do you expect to see that?

The answer is yes and yes. I think it's probably regional right now in terms of the pressures, but Michael, it's always happened every time you have a boom, service company calls go up. It gets hard to find more and more labor that has the skill sets, and therefore, you end up paying the premium for those that do and they pull up the whole wage scale. So the answer is yes, we do expect to see that happen.

Have you already baked that expectation into your CapEx budget?

Pretty much. I certainly can't forecast all of those dynamics as you put together capital program over a 12- to 18-month period, but we certainly try to. We're somewhat taking care of it, a little bit not so much in the capital forecast, but in our return expectations, I think we've got built in there the room for some slippage so that we make sure we still make a good return.

And then just last question I guess for Al, can you just walk through -- maybe I missed this -- but can you walk through the thought process of now targeting kind of a 55% equity financing versus 50%?

Yes. And it's a little bit of when you look at kind of what we're seeing with acquisition multiples being one that 50-50 technically works when you're closer to 7x to 8x. And so we are looking at and now we have looked at a target, but then we really look at the actual cash flow from the asset we're acquiring and try to balance it to it, and what we're finding is that we really need to be at that 55%. And again, that's how we view at least that much. And so really what we've done is changed our target to equal what our practice has been.

Michael, effectively, what's happened when we set our goals several years in certain of our metrics, a lot of our capital projects we might start in January and February, and they're kicking in cash flow by the second half of the year, a lot of our projects right now, they still have what I call short lead times relative to the multi-year, multibillion dollar projects. But we looked at, for example, 2011, I think if we took out all the capital program that we're planning on spending $550 million, I think the impact on 2011 was less than 2% or 3% of EBITDA. And so what that means is you just got a longer lead time on your balance sheet for some of these calls. And so I think it's prudent for us to do two things. One was to adjust the amount of equity and cash flow we're going to use to fund that so that we keep the right profile from a credit standpoint, and then the other metric that Al mentioned that we're moving to is widening that band out from 3.5% to 4%, which is really an acknowledgment of reality. We've been running about 3.8%. If we stop spending, we'll go back down to about 3.5% pretty quick. But we don't think we're going to stop spending. And if anything, we think our projects are having a little bit longer lead times. So it's just a recognition of the reality of the market. And if the right agencies are listening, I just want to make sure they know that we're doing all the prudent things.

Our next question comes from the line of Darren Horowitz from Raymond James. Darren Horowitz - Raymond James & Associates: Greg, a quick question for you as it relates to what's going on in West Texas. A lot of the producers there are moving crude to St. James, and obviously, there's large differential between WTI and the Louisiana Suite. How do you all think about expanding St. James storage and take away capacity to get a lot more of their product to Patoka. As you mentioned, it seems like the wide price in differentials by grade are probably going to remain, and it would appear to me that, that would be an excellent supply in Logistics opportunity to capitalize on that regional arbitrage?

I don't think you can move West Texas crude to St. James, not unless you put it on a barge.

Physically, it's not really moving any volume in that direction. You got rail or barge I guess only to get it there. Darren Horowitz - Raymond James & Associates: So is it then most of the crude that's foreign import crude or any opportunity for some of the Cushing crudes since it's so full on a capacity basis coming down?

Well, I think what's going to happen is we haven't talked about all of pipeline projects that we have on the drawing board. But some things that have to happen to move more crude into an area that’s bought by all of us. The pipeline infrastructure coming out of West Texas, the only pipeline that can source crude out of West Texas and get it into a market that competes with LOS mid-dollar pipeline. That pipeline's been full for quite some time. So you can't actually move from West Texas over that leak and also, basin, Ozark bring it over into the Wood River area. But Ozark has some limitations as well. So that's really a lot of thoughts are as how to get crude that used to move up a different corridor into an area that can source LOS type crudes. Darren Horowitz - Raymond James & Associates: Along the same lines, how are you thinking about Eagle Ford crude getting over to St. James?

Let me say this. We've got a $550 million capital program that does not include solutions to that, but we're working hard to try and make that $550 million bigger.

I think rail's going to be the shorter answer. The short term, there might be some rail move from the Eagle Ford to St. James but don't think that's really a solution. Darren Horowitz - Raymond James & Associates: Switching gears. Dean, over to you. Just a quick comment on the spread environment between a lot of the outcast prices and the futures curve, and I fully appreciate that you all want to comment on specific Cavern pricing but how do you think about, from a big picture perspective, balancing the duration of contracts versus price? As you look to your new contracts going over, I recognize there's only 10% or 15% of capacity that's exposed in the near term. So it's really more of a question for your 2012 outlook when you have 25% of the capacity rolling off?

That's a good question, Darren. I'll try and be as specific as I can for you. I mean, when we talk to customers, depending on the type of customer, they each have their model and they're looking at their prices. I think what we see right now, spread's one component of it, but it's really how much flexibility do they want, how many times. We're seeing a little bit -- a lot of the customers wanting to go a little bit less on turn and a little bit less on the flexibility or the number of turns. So the volumes there, as we talk to them, it really gets down to what each particular customer desires. But generally, as the trend, that's what we're seeing out there right now. Darren Horowitz - Raymond James & Associates: Just a big picture question. This builds off your comments about the potential for Pine Prairie to be a major marketing hub. As you all think about integrating the Southern Pines assets and the basal gas processing plant, how do you think longer term about leveraging that footprint to capture more value across the entire natural gas supply chain?

Well, I think you hit all the components. The key to Pine Prairie and what makes it attractive to do the things you alluded to is the huge interconnects that we have going across flexibility of moving the supply all over. To that aspect, big picture, clearly, Southern Pines is a great asset, particularly to market demand in the Southeast. Pine Prairie where it sits has market demand but great access to really all of the supply components of the industry right now. And then as we look out, we certainly have our eyes on storage and other market areas that we currently are not in. So from a big picture, when you put it all together and as we go forward, we'll look at leveraging those together, just on the points you mentioned.

The next question comes from the line of Brian Zarahn from Barclays Capital.

You're expanding your base and pipe, can you talk about what you're seeing in the Permian? And if it's possible to give a little more color on what opportunities you see to increase takeaway capacity in the region?

There's a lot of activity, as you certainly know in the Permian Basin. We currently have takeaway capacity on Basin. Basin is not full, but we are looking forward. And as we see increasing production, and we're trying to start to get out ahead of the curve and make sure that Basin have enough takeaway capacity. The Basin project has 50,000 barrels a day. Like I said, Basin is currently not at full capacity. We also have another pipeline system. Based on the pipeline, we were about 120,000 barrels a day, 100,000 to 120,000 barrels a day. It has capacity, so we're looking at alternatives that de-bottleneck the connecting carriers to increase movement out of Permian Basin as well. We've got a number of projects we're looking at in West Texas to expand pipelines, connect to our existing infrastructure. We think we're very well situated; we have that asset presence in the Permian Basin and certainly expect to spend a fair amount of capital there this year.

And turning to the recently announced Shafter expansion project, do you see other near-term opportunities with Occi?

We think there are opportunities to expand relationships or opportunities with Occi, yes.

Clearly, Brian, we get the question probably every other quarter, at least, we're having good dialogue. Obviously, they made a bigger vote of confidence here recently by increasing their interest. But when you stand back and look at their footprint in California, you look at our footprint, West Texas and now on the Rockies and then the Bakken area, I think there are opportunities as we go forward for us to do what we would do normally with the entire producing community, but perhaps be able to also accommodate a very large player that clearly has a significant amount of financial firepower and has shown to be a very savvy investor. So hopefully, this is the first of many opportunities yet to come.

The final question is just given the incident at Bluewater and the recent incident at a competitor facility in Mont Belvieu, just rolling it in together with other sort of high media attention energy incidences for pipelines and other spills. Can you talk about what you're doing to you review all your integrity of your assets and any broader impacts on costs going forward and all this increase, this recent events increased regulatory scrutiny?

I think the question of regulatory scrutiny or increased regulatory scrutiny is not a question. I think it's just a fact. It is there and it's going to be there. I don't know that we, "do anything different" because we've been for several years and we've been disclosing in our 10-Ks and other areas that we've been well ahead I think of what we think industry or regulatory demands are going to be, whether they're required by jurisdictional pipes or non-jurisdictional. And do we basically -- we were trying really hard before do we try even harder? I think the answer is absolutely, but it's not a major step change for us because we were already pretty intense on that. I think we have estimated cash here we spent -- hereby looks at maintenance capital, we expensed a tremendous amount through our P&L activity. We spent on routine maintenance and upgrade and integrity management well over $100 million, I believe. So Brian, we're pretty aggressive in that area to try to be ahead of the curve. I don't think if you take each incident and you try to relate them, you can't really. But as you say, if it starts happening enough, you just get tremendous increase and focus, and that's not just a question, that's an answer.

The next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet from UBS.

I just want to touch on some of the earlier questions I guess. In regards to the gas processing project that you guys spoke of, do you see other opportunities to do similar types of projects around your current asset base in the future?

I think there's certainly some. Yes, I think what we have right now when we bought CV MAX two years ago. What we got is we got a group of people that really, really know processing inside and out and efficiency. And I think there's a tremendous opportunity with all of the drilling that's going on in some remote areas to basically find ways to optimize the extraction of value from the whole value chain by building very quick efficient plants. I think this plant that we're building there is worth $150 million a day. And its efficiency, I think, is almost unparalleled. And I think with the liquids differential relative to gas today and what's likely to continue to happen, I think there will be a significant numbers of opportunities there, and within our organization, what we referred to as CV MAX, which is the Hellion subsidiary they say a lot of opportunities to be able to take home multiple projects if they were out on their own, which they were at one point in time, it was all project financing stuff. So we're starting to see an increased velocity of that over time.

In regards to 2011 guidance, it seems with the LPG volumes in the Facilities segment appears to be decreasing year-on-year while in the Supply and Logistics segment, the LPG volumes look to be increasing. Could you give a little color on what's driving this?

On LPG, a part of it is just a function of trying to predict what you think weather's going to be, and in some cases, Jeremy, from year-to-year, we'll back out volumes that we think are low margins. And so, if the margins improve, you may see the volumes come back. Part of the way we communicate with the market is we don't think we're not making enough money and there's a negotiation, and sometimes, they have to see it actually pull back to realize that they need you. So I don't think there's any particular trend there in LPG that would let you think we're de-emphasizing that. And on the Supply and Logistics, I think, the overall volume increase you're seeing is just a matter of activity that's going on out there in drilling.

The processing in the facility side is primarily the asset out in Bakersfield, and it does have a component as it relates to kind of just the whole refining sector out in California. But it's a very small part of the overall LPG business.

Next question comes from the line of Gabe Moreen from Bank of America.

I hate to harp on California again, but I'll do it and see if I can fish for some volume guidance on line, 632,000 it seems like that is trough, so you're not expecting much growth in 2011. Is that just a question of timing? Or is that something where, I guess, the volume growth that everyone expects out there in California could be going elsewhere?

I don't exactly how much volume growth that California has experienced. It's been a little, but there's also been declining offshore volumes too, so you got to look at increasing onshore volumes with declining offshore volumes when you're looking at what's actually going to move on the pipeline from Bakersfield even north to San Francisco or south to L.A. I think our view is that probably volume south into L.A. are going to be at the same level that they're at right now, but I'm not expecting a whole lot of increase or decrease.

Moving on to Michael's earlier question about capital cost inflation and the indication that you're considering several large capital projects on the pipeline side. Historically, you've talked about anything about your discrete projects, capital costs overruns and any one of those won't really blow up your budget per se since it's all a bunch of discrete projects. You're talking about managing I guess the risks on the larger projects whether you're going to see the need to JV with people or just in terms of I guess laying off the risk on shippers?

I think you'd see a combination of all of the above. I think joint ventures are very difficult to do. There are a few limited companies out there that we'd probably consider doing joint ventures with. And certainly, Gabe, there has been some preliminary discussions in different areas as people evaluate all potential alternatives to try and come up with the best answer. With respect to when you talk about larger pipeline projects, again, we're not talking about multibillion, multiyear projects. We're probably talking about more things that are in the $300 million, maybe as much as $400 million range and stuff that would take probably, Harry?

18 to 24 months.

18 to 24 months. So there's some exposure there, Gabe, but not of the magnitude perhaps that we've seen on some of these other projects when you had two- to three-year construction periods. A couple of billion dollars numbers have turned into a couple of billion dollars plus numbers. I don't think we're facing that. And in almost all the case, we were talking about something big enough there. We are talking about some participation protection in our execution risk on that. You can't lay out 100% of it, but you want to make sure you don't fix your revenues then have all your cost flow and end up having your margin eroded.

JVs are probably more in the context of opportunities where they're synergistic; they make sense as opposed to trying to lay off some of our capital exposure or risks.

In terms of the guidance on profit per barrel at Supply and Logistics for the first quarter being I think $0.98 versus up $0.49 you realize in the fourth quarter given that, if anything, differentials and contangos are even better in the first quarter thus far. In the fourth year, is LPG opportunities or is it that it's just not March 31 yet?

Well, we had some unique opportunities in the fourth quarter. Obviously, if we did know they were going to transpire, our guidance would've been higher. They were non-repeating where you're able to put some crude in the inventory because differentials do a lot. Look at what happened in Canada. Differentials got wide, came in, got wide again. So velocity and some of the volume we had in tankage both in the U.S. and Canada that isn't necessarily repetitive. And when you put that gain against the metrics in the volume category, it adds a lot of margin. Like I said, that's not necessarily repeatable, but we're definitely try to capture those opportunities when they arise.

Under promise, over perform.

Our next question comes from the line of Ross Payne from Wells Fargo.

On this new leverage range that you put out there, is it safe to say too, though, that if you do a large acquisition of some sort that it can't go above that range, but that's your long-term goal to get back to that range, correct?

Yes, Ross. Clearly, we would tip above for -- our intent would be to bring it back down in a fairly quick timeframe. But again, we aren't trying to set an absolute ceiling. Our intent will be there to run within that range, and as like Greg mentioned earlier, clearly, if we stop growing, we'll probably gravitate towards the lower end of it. But when we're in growth mode, we'll be more in the midpoint, which is what we've been running.

Ross, we run our models, and again part of this is trying to make sure that we communicate what we're going to do and then do it and not have a metric out there that we're constantly not getting to and have people think that it's not real. If we quit spending our growth capital tomorrow and we couldn't make an acquisitions, we'll be at 3.5% and go sub-3.5% pretty quick. But what we've seen now as we've institutionalized the aggregate level of acquisitions, it's probably in the $300 million to $500 million year range and our capital program building up. And that comes with tremendous economics, but it's always on a delayed basis. And so we felt like it was appropriate to boost the amount of equity that we're funding those projects with, then also to recognize that as you pointed out, as we do those, it's going to put us closer to the 3.8%, 3.9% possibly a 4% number. And so we just recognize that as a range. And the wording that we've used for our policy is that we will average within that range. Clearly, if we go outside of it, you're going to see us hustle in pretty quick. We don't want to jeopardize the upward momentum we have on our rating. We think we're at least one click, if not two clicks below where we need to be. And this is basically a way of acknowledging that we're still going to maintain discipline even as we continue to build the company. And so I'm hopeful that this is viewed very much as a positive recognition where we see some of our peers, our other competitors, they may have a target but they're never there, and it seems that you have basically one or two, realistic.

Your next question comes from the line of John Edwards from Morgan Keegan & Company. John Edwards - Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.: Just with all the unusually cold weather we've been having, I'm just curious what impacts you're seeing to natural gas storage pricing, if any?

John, at least when you look at it right now, I think today, it's supposed to be the coldest day across the nation on average. Next week, you're going to have the warmest day this winter on the nation. I think when you look out there, you're not seeing the front end move up. Actually, it's moving at the opposite direction. So as far as the pricing you're seeing, it seems to be going, people are anticipating I guess supply be strong. And as far as right now what's going on a lot is coming out of storage. But as far as pricing, it's kind of holding where you can look at the screen and see it's in the low $4 range.

John, if I may just comment and this kind of goes back to Darren Horowitz' question too, when you look at our leasing decisions, I think we’ve given ourselves with our profile leases that we have relative to total capacity, a lot of times to be patient. I think time is on our side for the following reasons. I think as we've seen this cold snaps come through here, any facility can operate probably in the milk toast kind of market. What we're seeing right now is we've had draws of up to 1.3 Bcf per day for several days. That's really hard on facility, and our goal if you recall from a couple of conference calls ago was to be in a position to never have to tell our customers no. Yes is the answer we want to give them. We think we're seeing and some of the competing facilities where they may have perhaps established the nameplate that may be above their actual physical capacity. And so I think when it comes to time for renewals, one of the things that's going to happen in the next 24 months is that people are going to say, well, you may tell me that I can do, but if you force majeure, you have some operating limitation on me. It doesn't do any good to have this horsepower and not being able to use it. So ultimately, right now, our goal is to try and make sure we never have to tell our customers no and that we meet our obligations. And we've done that. At Pine Prairie, we intend to do the same philosophy. At Southern Pines, we had to try and make sure we do that. And even with Bluewater, as we've had the challenges we have there, clearly, we didn't expect that but we've been able to meet all of those obligations and we want to continue to do that. So I think ultimately, just like we have at Cushing, I think in Cushing, we have the most versatile, the most high-performance facility up there and I think if you gave anybody equal pricing, they'd say, I want to be at Plains Cushing terminal. I think ultimately, what we want to do is have the ability to have unequal pricing in the markets that are more challenging.

Your next question comes from the line of Barrett Blaschke from RBC Capital Markets.

Just kind of a quick question as you see the Bakken continue to play, to build up and Keystone and then eventually Keystone excel to come on, how does that affect your ability to adjust your prices at Cushing and how did that affect your growth plans?

In our storage terminals?

Yes.

I think, Keystone and Keystone Excel are both positives. We're connected to Keystone. We're the only terminal connected to Keystone. The more volume that comes down Keystone means more volume to our terminal. So whether it's Canadian or Bakken type of crude, at our terminal at Cushing, I think it's beneficial.

The next question comes from the line of Michael Cerasoli from Goldman Sachs.

Can you perhaps define your Bakken opportunity set? And the only reason I asked is, correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't seen the identified projects from you guys in the region. Maybe just an update on your potential Bakken pipeline project?

We have a couple of things going on in the Bakken. Nexen had a pipeline that was a Robinson-like pipeline. There's a little expansion in that pipeline going on, it should be completed first quarter. We've got our Bakken project that we have announced. We're still pushing forward on it. We're just not at the stage where we're ready to say here's the capital commitment. We've got all the pieces put together. There are some moving parts to that but certainly something that we expect to put some capital in that area.

Michael, I missed your question is, is it in the budget. The answer is no. It's not. It is one that we hope to with additional priority on some of the discussions we're having and some commitments. I would hope by the time we get done with 2011, we're not talking about a $550 million capital program but something north of $657 million, $700 million, $750 million kind of range, which would reflect either the Bakken or some other projects that we're working on. These are just ones that we have real high confidence level that we're going to execute and can give our investors enough comfort that they're going to say a great 2010 as a very solid, if not great, 2011 and set up 2012. If we start adding these other projects to it, we're going to basically be reinforcing 2012 and push it into '13, which is what every MLP's dream is, is to have visibility of controlling of your own destiny through distribution growth without having to rely on somebody else selling on assets. If you take those all, stack it up and you put acquisitions on top of it, we feel pretty compelled. It's a pretty compelling story.

Is the obstacle that’s securing these projects -- because there's just a lot of other infrastructure projects out there now with the TransCanada, the Enbridge or is it more just making sure everything kind of gets in place? I guess it's more just a negotiating thing at this point?

Yes, there's always a bid and ask, and then there's always some chatter about what this project is good or better, is it slightly inferior to other projects. And I'd say, you're correct. It's a little bit of everything. If there's a bid and ask, and there's also other projects that may come about. But if they don't come about, then ours looks like it's a great certainty. I mean, one things about our project that we really like is by the time we pull the trigger, by the time we put it in service, it's a very definable period. It's not going to be the total solution. I think our total volume capacity is at the 50,000 to 70,000 barrels a day. But if somebody waits three months too late, they'll be wishing that they've committed early because those differentials will blow way the heck out.

And then my final question is just on asset acquisitions. Is the expectation that you'll stay in your comfort zone, could we see you guys move up and down the chain in any sort of way, both on the gas side and the oil side?

I can make a couple of definitive statements. You will not see us on the refinery. And on the gas side, I think right now, as Dean said, we've got so much on our plate. All we have to do right now to achieve success is just to execute. So we'll look at acquisitions. We've been very selective. Our focus right now, Michael, is on incremental storage opportunities. I think if you ask me in 10 years from now and we look back, what does PNG look like? I think we're probably going to own some long shipping pipelines. But you really can't force those opportunities yet to be able to react to it. We've put ourselves in position with a pure gas vehicle and with what we think are going to be the familiar storage facilities the U.S. and therefore should have a low risk growth and a low cost of capital to be able to compete for those pipeline opportunities when they do come up. We could not have PAA without taking the step simply because we wouldn't have the synergies and we wouldn't have the cost of capital. So if you're asking me about the next 12 to 18 months, I'd probably say, you might be disappointed if you expect us to make a pipeline acquisition on that. If you ask me, if we don't make one in the next 10 years, I'm going to be disappointed.

The next question comes from the line of Selman Akyol from Stifel, Nicolaus. Selman Akyol - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: As it relates to the segment profit per barrel in Facilities in your guidance there, can you talk a little bit about the pricing environment you're seeing there?

It's trimming up a little bit. Part of it is asset mix as we bring on -- we're converting obviously some of our gas storage into a BOE equivalent and it's transferring pretty positively. Part of it is we do have some leases that are being renewed at higher rates. And part of it is some of the new construction we've done, we've tried to tie it to a regular return and it's attractive there as well. So it's not any one element. It's just a combination of things, but they're all pretty solid fundamental. Selman Akyol - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: And then when you see people renewing, are they wanting to renew for longer terms as well?

We've been pushing for longer-term renewals. We certainly think there is some risk in certain areas of an overbuild. Our business is no different than anybody else's. Inevitably, it goes in cycles, and so we've been pushing. I think in Cushing, we're longer term. We've got probably 90%, Harry, leased up there, and anywhere from three to seven-year leases and maybe a little bit longer in a couple of areas. Selman Akyol - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Turning to PNG and you can just help me understand the dynamics on the storage related cost. It looks like they're coming down in 2011 despite having certainly more capacity?

Selman, what we have right now, and I mentioned a little bit in the script is the expansion we're getting, our Caverns are down there drilled. We're in the leaching mode, very efficient. Greg's talked about it previously with the leaching facility at Pine Prairie and then through smugging over at Southern Pines, we'll be able to add that incremental capacity at a very low cost. So that's what's driving those numbers down. The drilling exposure, those costs are really all done. It's more about just leaching out the caverns now.

I think Dean was addressing our operated assets and our owned assets when he was referring to that. If you're referring to the storage-related costs that are on the P&L, our storage costs, those are third-party costs. And part of that is the function -- we leased at Bluewater, for example, some third party lease. I think we actually have less volume that we're leasing there. And so part of that is just simply the decrease there. And then part of it is when we really are active in using those facility, we pay incremental or ancillary costs just like people pay us when they use ours. And so we don't always forecast those because those are really market opportunities. And when you incur those costs, you have incremental margins. So it's a combination of less third-party leases at facilities that we don't own and then just a lower projected level of activity because we don't know what's actually going to happen until we get there. Selman Akyol - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: I guess you got 100% of your capacity lease for first quarter. And then as you look out, you still have 10% to 15%. Is that was we should think in terms of the opportunity for the optimization group?

The answer is yes, that's the inventory that we have to work with today. Part of that is a function of back to the bid ask. If the answer is, the bids that we get to lease that are not what we think we can make on our own that we're going to keep that. If the answer is somebody comes in and makes us an attractive offer and we say look, we'll just build more. And that's exactly what we've done at Cushing. We've been chasing that animal for a while trying to get John VonBerg and his group to have some more lease because we've leased it at an attractive rate. Every time we get something else built, they'd lease it. We would hope to get into that situation at Pine Prairie and Southern Pines and other areas. But yes, right now that's the total inventory we have to work with. And I think we're actually targeting to have ultimately, we'd like to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 Bcf in their hands, and that can move a little bit up, a little bit now. But again it's going to be a function of market factors.

And there's no further questions in queue. Please continue.

Thanks again to everybody for joining us on the call, and again, we truly do appreciate your support and trust in investing in PAA and PNG. Thank you.

That does conclude our conference for today. We thank you for your participation and for using AT&T Executive Teleconference Service. You may now disconnect.