Welcome to the Teekay Corporation’s Fourth Quarter and Fiscal 2011 Earnings Results Conference Call. During the call, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. Afterwards, you will be invited to participate in a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this call is being recorded. Now, for opening remarks and introductions, I would like to turn the call over to Mr. Peter Evensen, Teekay’s President and Chief Executive Officer. Please go ahead, sir.

Before Mr. Evensen begins, I would like to direct all participants to our website, at www.teekay.com, where you will find a copy of the fourth quarter and fiscal 2011 earnings presentation. Mr. Evensen and Mr. Lok will review this presentation during today’s conference call. Please allow me to remind you that our discussion today contains forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from results projected by those forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to materially differ from those in the forward-looking statements is contained in the fourth quarter and fiscal 2011 earnings release and earnings presentation, available on our website. I will now turn the call over to Mr. Evensen to begin.

Thank you, Dave. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for Teekay Corporation’s fourth quarter and fiscal 2011 earnings call. I’m joined this morning by our CFO, Vince Lok; and for the Q&A session, we also have our Group Controller, Brian Fortier, and our Chief Strategy Officer, Kenneth Hvid. During our call today, I’ll be walking through our fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011 earnings presentation, which can be found on our newly redesigned website, at www.teekay.com. Beginning on slide three of the presentation, I will briefly review some recent highlights for Teekay Corporation and our publicly traded three daughter companies. Our investments in fixed-rate businesses and efforts to improve profitability in our existing fleet are showing progress. For the fourth quarter of 2011, Teekay Corporation generated a consolidated $190 million of cash flow from vessel operations, or CFVO, an increase of approximately 21% from fourth quarter of 2010. I’m also pleased to report that after 10 consecutive quarters of reported adjusted net losses, for the fourth quarter of 2011, Teekay Corporation is reporting a profit, albeit a modest one. On a consolidated basis, we reported adjusted net income of $1.6 million or $0.02 per share compared to a consolidated net loss of $0.58 per share in the third quarter. I caution everyone that our reported adjusted net income for the fourth quarter should not be considered a run rate as our positive contributions that we receive under fixed-rate contract in the fourth quarter that make it atypical compared to the other three quarters. A large contributor to our fourth quarter results was the $35 million of additional cash flow we received based on certain annual production and oil price revenue components of the Foinaven FPSO contract, which are recognized annually in the fourth quarter. Although, Foinaven cash…

Thanks, Peter, and good morning, everyone. Starting with 14, I will review our consolidated results for the quarter. As we do each quarter, in order to present the results on a comparative basis, we have shown an adjusted Q4 income statement against an adjusted Q3 income statement. Later on, I will also provide our outlook for the first quarter. Net revenues increased by 44 million, mainly due to a $35 million incremental cash flow relating to the Foinaven FPSO contract. As previously noted in our third quarter conference call, this amount is recognized typically in the fourth quarter of each year since it is based on various annual operational measures, oil production levels and the average oil price for the year. In addition, the acquisition of the two Sevan FPSO units at the end of November increased revenues by approximately 13 million. These increases were partially offset by a reduction in revenues from our fixed rate conventional tanker upon the expiration of in-the-money time charters and 23 off hire days on the Banff FPSO unit. Vessel operating expenses were consistent with the prior quarter as the increases associated with the acquisition of the two Sevan FPSO units were offset by net reduction is costs associated with the rest of our fleet. Time charter hire expense was consistent with Q3 as a redelivery of the in-chartered vessels in Q3 and Q4 were offset by an overall increase in spot in-chartering of shuttle tanker. Depreciation and amortization increased by 3 million due to the acquisition of the Sevan FPSO units and the recent delivery of two LPG vessels partially offset by the impact of the vessel write-downs incurred in Q3. G&A expenses were 51 million, which was in line with our expectations for the quarter. While not included in the adjusted income…

Thank you, Vince. Your finance and accounting teams have certainly been busy. To conclude, while we are pleased to report a modest net profit for the fourth quarter, we still have more work ahead to achieve our objective of returning to profitability on a run rate basis without being helped by the tanker market. In 2011 we made good progress toward this goal toward our, with our substantial investments in our fixed rate businesses which enhanced the profitability of our existing asset base. However, we are not out of the woods yet with respect to weak conventional tanker rates which we expect to continue to be a drag on our profitability through much of 2012 and possibly into 2013 and our focus on the current fiscal year would be to integrate our recent Sevan and Maersk transactions and successfully execute on our existing offshore projects and profitability initiatives and rebuild our balance sheet and liquidity for future growth. Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Justin Yagerman of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Thanks, guys. My first question is on dividends and how you are thinking about cash flow distribution here. And obviously, a decent amount of project cash start flowing through both of the Parent and at the daughter level. And I wanted to see how we should think about that progression as we move through the year with potential expected something on the dividend this quarter and want to understand the thought processes as all of this comes on?

Well, up at Teekay Corporation, we’ve had a stable dividend. But as I said, we’ve been reporting net losses over the last 10 quarters. So we’ve elected as we’d done during the past downturns to just maintain our stable dividend. It’s up to the board to look at it at each quarter, but I don’t anticipate we would adjust that up word until we return to a run rate profitability. We don’t have excess capital right now. In terms of the daughter companies, we are very transparent in how we look at it. As we make acquisitions, we always look what’s its effect is on the dividends. In offshore and the gas side, we continue as we make more acquisitions, we pass -- we always want to increase the distribution or dividends at the MLP, and we expect to continue to raise them this year as we’ve talked about, because we have a lot of growth coming into the MLP in 2013. And certainly, there’s a lot more visible growth on offshore side than there is on the LNG site. On the tanker side, I think it’s wonderful that Teekay tankers have been able to pay a dividend throughout this whole downturns, which is pretty amazing when you see in other tanker competitors having to cut or have negative cash flow. But again, it’s a transparent dividend policy. We have to earn our dividend. And what is great is that Teekay tankers has been earning its dividend, i.e. with its tactical strategy it’s been able to maintain positive cash flow. So now it has capital to grow.

That is all fair. I guess maybe my thought process was more along the lines of the daughters -- at least the MLP daughters see long contracted cash flow and that comes up to the parent level that some of that would have more of an impact on distribution of the parent level.

Well I think, ultimately that it will, but we have to get through that. Our incharter fleet at Teekay Corporation has been generating negative cash flow, so we have had that as a headwind compared to the tailwind which has been a positive that may increase in distributions that we get from our daughter companies.

That is....

To balance that out, we haven’t had enough surplus cash flow which we have in appendix D of our earnings statement. So I haven’t seen enough positive cash flow in order to change the dividend.

Okay. That’s fair. Curious on the LNG projects. Obviously, that’s become a hotter sector over the last several quarters. Are the return characteristics changing at all as you look there? And maybe you could remind us where they have been as you’ve been doing projects and how you think about that on the LNG side.

Well, the whole question has been what we call the curve of LNG rates when you compare it out spot to time charter. It’s good huge backwardation. In other words, we have 130, 140,000 at three years. Some people have been able to do short-term charters about 150,000. But then when it moves into the 15-year level, it hasn’t really changed that much. And that’s because people are looking at long-term outsourcing deals, so then you move yourself back down into an $80,000 per day in environment, so the question is, are you going to take more risks by chartering your ships short term and then incurring that rollover risk or not? The good news, and this is true for our offshore units as well as our LNG units, is we are able to re-charter the ships much higher today than what we were able to do in the past, so we are actually looking for opportunities to roll over our unit. So for example, the Arctic and polar and the Maersk Methane we were able to get much higher rates. But the market is staying with the backwardation curve that that won’t last forever.

And some of that pie and some of that is question over demand I would assume.

There was just -- because of distance -- because all of the gas suddenly had to go to a much longer distance, it was coming into the U.S. or into Europe, but when the arbitrage opened up with Asia being much higher than any spare gas went on a longer distances, we suddenly need to double the amount of vessels that you would need if you are going to move gas to Asia, so that quickly resulted in rate. So, people were willing to pay 150,000 because they were getting as much as a $10 change in the price of the cargo, so -- on cubic foot basis. They were willing to pay whatever it took in order to get gas. The market seems to have softened in the last few weeks. Some vessels that were put on subjects, the charters didn’t ultimately take those ships. So, it’s an evolving area. We’re comfortable with our more stable, I would call it low volatility, low beta (ph) business that we have on the LNG side. It ticks along, we’re able to make acquisitions, and we expect we will get more organic projects as this whole liquefaction moves up. The problem right now is there isn’t enough gas, and so the arbitrage opens up -- I mean, so the arbitrage remains there. And we have to remember that the oil market is a global market where as the gas market is very regionalized.

That’s fair. That’s good color. Thanks. Last question and I will turn it over to someone else. Obviously, the reconstruction or the repairs that are being done, you said you expected to go back on contract I think in 2013. Is there any way, shape, or form that the charter would be able to get nag on that contract and get out of it in the meantime, or is that kind of a rock solid contract where because this is majority, you expect it to resume. And I guess not even expected, is there a way for them to get out of the contract, we’ve seen in the past with other assets?

Well, we have spoken about -- well, the good news is that contract was our least profitable contracts. So, if we were -- if it was not too returned to the field, which I don’t see happening, then we could reemploy it and it would be more profitable to us. But the charterer has said that they want to resume production on the damp oilfields, so we have to put in place repairs to the subsea. And so basically, what happens because it’s the North Sea, you lose a season. So, that’s why we have to wait until the weather window opens in the beginning of ‘13 before we reattach.

That’s fair. Thanks so much for the color. Appreciate the time, as always.

Thank you. The next question comes from Michael Webber of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Hey, good morning, guys. How are you?

Fine. However, you?

Good, good. A number of questions for you. First, I wanted to start with your tanker fleet and the potential for a drop-down there at TNK. Obviously, a lot of liquidity at TNK that just did equity raise. And I know there are multiple parties involved here, but if you could maybe give a little color about how you think about that. I think Vince mentioned the headwind of those, cause, put on your some of the port’s valuations. If you could talk about the timing and the scale of potential drop-down, that would be helpful.

Teekay has been very transparent over the fact that we’ve been dropping down all of our assets on an upstairs at Teekay parent, because we think that is detracting from the – or adding to the discount we have between some of the parts value in our stock price. So as we move assets down, we think that we will reduce that discount. So the good news is TNK has now raised money and is in a position to make acquisition. Teekay has to make it decision on whether it wants to sell right now in the trough of the market or not. So we need – we have a willing buyer, and we have a willing seller. We’ll have to see if there is a price that works. But I want to emphasize that there is a very independent system going on here. In other words, Teekay Tankers has to decide where it wants to invest, and Teekay’s Corporation has to sell and maximize all of the values that it has.

Sure, sure. That takes a lot of sense. I guess, moving to the offshore site. And you just talked a little bit about the dam (ph). Can you quantify what those repair costs would be? I know they are covered by insurance. And maybe there is a historical presence in terms of I guess lag, in terms of recognition there?

We’re still doing the survey work and the amount of repairs is going to depend upon how would the field gets put back online, so we’re not in a position to tell you exactly what the total bill is going to be.

Fair enough. If memory serves, I think that advance, I think, you talk about potentially renegotiating that at the low market rate I believe in 2014 and in your release, we see I think 2018 termination period for that contract . Is this – it was always toward the backend of your dropdown schedule, but did this change the way that that they kind of fix in, and would you guys still look at resign there and negotiate their rate in 2012. Maybe just a little bit of color about how that – maybe how that contract is structured and how that changes?

Well, it’s actually an existing contract, so it isn’t a renegotiation. It’s actually the fact that it’s – we get a pickup in rate after the end of 2014.

Okay.

So I guess the right question, which you were going to ask next is, has losing one year, does the whole end of 2014 move? And the answer is no. We’ll, guess it pick up at the end of 2014. So in a way you, I guess, you could say, we’ll get the extra cash flow from Steve. The year we lose in 2012 will get at 2018 at a higher rate.

Okay. All right. So you’re going to make a little money on that. That’s helpful.

Change the fact that – it doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t change the fact that we’re going to lose some cash flow this year.

Right, right. Fair enough. And you mentioned in your deck that you guys had renegotiated the rate with for Petrojarl that was kind of entertain – is there some kind of time slot as advance in terms have drop down, does that change where that falls in the drop-down schedule? Maybe you could give a little bit color in terms of how those renegotiations went and where that ate is?

Yeah. Well, we had – this was on an evergreen contract, so we were actually – as I said a few minutes ago, it’s actually worthwhile for us to get our existing FPSO units back, because we can re-contract them at higher rate.

Sure.

So although we got – so what – so we got two things out of the renegotiation. We got higher rate, which is the $80 million we talked about. We also got a definite time limit that the units going to be on station, which would be about 2014. Therefore, we are now in the position we can go, get new employment for it at a higher rate. So we’re actually more excited about the fact that we have the chance to reapply it at higher rate. This is a Norwegian offshore compliant unit and its one of the few that is existing. So your alternative, as I talked about the FPSO contracts is to employ a new building. So it compares very favorably in the 2014 window in order to get new employment.

Okay. That’s very helpful. On the Voyager, and I know you guys gave a lot of information on this in your deck on your entire fleet. But can you give an update or touch on, I guess, how those upgrades are going and whether or not they’re on schedule. It actually looks like they’re still been moving actually ahead of schedule. And whether or not in terms of how we should think of that and terms of drop downs. Whether or not that’s a Q4 or whether that could kind of lead into early Q1 obviously it’s a little bit early but any color there would be helpful.

Yes, its Kenneth here, essentially what we’ve done after we stepped in sort of other areas that we put an oversight team for the execution project teams of Sevan. And we have already started some of the commissioning work. And it’s on schedule basically to sail away sometime in July. So we’re probably on schedule and we’re very comparable with the budget we put out. So that means that the sale only in July will bring us into Q3, it could be early Q4 when we have oil and potential dropdown.

Okay. All right. That’s very helpful. The last question, is kind of tied to, you mentioned this earlier on the dividends. But you guys have always tied in some ways kind of tie your dividends to the fact that you are generating losses and apparently you want to see the business turned around before you would start hiking the dividend. With the potential for a large scale tanker drop down at least some time over the near to intermediate term. How should we think about that going forward, I guess, kind of in a post-tanker environment where as some of those headwinds have been wiped away and it’s clearly tied to your other cash flows.

Well, when we have excess capital, there’s two ways to deal with it. One, is to do share repurchases and that’s something we look at and have used when we’re at a discount – a meaningful discount to our some of the parts. And that in a way is what we see as a real value creation. And the dividend is something we see based on a consistency. We’re the type of company that when we increase our dividend we don’t intend to reduce it. And so we have to be sure that we have enough stable cash flows, which I think we will going forward. But we still have to get through this deleveraging that Vince talked about. And we have to realize on all of these projects before we’re going to reconsider that. And that involves getting Teekay back to run rate profitability and then the cash flow and the dividends will take care of themselves.

Fair enough. Actually just one more question for me. Obviously, its a big project for you guys, it’s a little bit down the road. And I know you guys have talked in the past about securing a JV partner for that project. Any update on timing there or should we expect something comes on later on.

You should expect something later on.

Okay. Great. All right. That’s all I’ve got. Thanks for the time, guys.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from Gregory Lewis of Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Yes. Thank you and good morning.

Hey, Greg.

Hi. I guess, my first question is, it looks like net revenues in the offshore segment, it looks like they ticked down in the fourth quarter. And I was just trying to sort of back into why that was happening. I mean, my understanding was that typically the shuttle business tends to get a little bit better in the fourth quarter versus the third quarter was that decline slowly from the loss of the demand in December?

I think if you are looking at the shuttle revenues, you might recall that in the third quarter we had a very strong shuttle third quarter. We had a lot of special projects. So it was unusually strong for the shuttle tanker fleet in the third quarter, so I guess when you’re comparing Q3 to Q4, you do see a slight reduction in the shuttle tanker revenues, but of course we’ve had higher revenues in the FPSO sector mainly due to foreign hit in revenue.

Okay. And then another operational question, when I look at time-charter expense, I mean, you guys have been pretty adamant that you expect – I mean, and you can see in the fleet that the number of vessels on chart are actually going down, but I guess I want to know why in the fourth quarter versus the third quarter charter higher expense went up, is that just more of a timing and accounting issue?

Yeah, if you look at our adjusted income statement, it’s actually flat.

I mean, shouldn’t it be going down there?

Yeah, we had a $2.7 million early termination fee that we paid in the fourth quarter and that was to terminate one of the in-charters to the third party early so that there was a present value savings there. And we also had to in-charter some additional shuttle tankers in the fourth quarter just due to the high utilization of the shuttle fleet and the few dried dockings as well. So that’s sort of a temporary thing for the shuttle fleet. And in the first quarter as I mentioned we’re expecting that in-charter expense to come down about 7 to 9 million as we continue to redeliver the conventional fleet. And we are not expecting to need to spot in-charter any shuttle tankers in the first quarter.

Okay, perfect. And then just one last question and you guys commented on – briefly touched on what’s going on in the LNG market I mean just when we think about Teekay’s position, I mean you guys are project manager you won long-term contracts, are you getting inquiries now from customers that are actually -- I mean, they are looking at the high LNG market rate, are you sort of starting to see projects for seven, 10, 12, 15-year LNG long-term contracts, is that something that Teekay is sort of actively pursuing at this point?

Yes, we are seeing more activity. But as I said the -- we think that right now there is a lot of people ordering spot LNG’s with the prospect of getting them. We are in more of the build to suite camp but we’re competing on FSO new projects and we are competing on some conventional tenders that are out there. And but we think that long-term the market probably is moving toward shorter duration contracts. So I would say our contracts that we had 20, 25 years, the market is probably moving down into a 5 to 15-year window as you are looking at it. And the market has to digest what the effect is of some of these spot ships. The last time this happened, the spot ships were basically either in lay up or they were making $20,000 a day. So I think our -- if you will, our (inaudible) just pick along build project by project. We are very comfortable with that low beta strategy, but we did elect on the methane to charter it out at 130,000 a day rather than charter it out longer-term at 80,000 to 90,000, because the rates were just so good. And it was a good quality charter, and so we are very happy with that. But I think that we’ll have to see. There’s a lot of different moving parts right now. And it really has to come down to this Fukushima affect going forward. I was in Norway about two weeks ago, and they are really excited about what’s going on there. The equity analysts had put up numbers to what I think are pretty extraordinary. They are assuming the market is going to be 180,000 for the next three years. We are definitely not in that camp.

And just to that point, Peter, I mean, you mentioned that you were looking at a contractor of about 80,000. Is the duration on that, is that what seven, eight, nine, 10 years?

Yes for 10 to 15 years.

Okay, perfect.

So the market is -- actually is heavily backward dated. And so you have to look and see demand/supplies. But as I said, the charters are making so much money on their arbitrage now that they will pay basically whatever money it takes in order to charter a ship. But if that closes a little and/or more ships come, then you will quickly see that backwardation change.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from Justine Fisher of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Good morning.

Hey, Justine.

So just a question on the drop-down of remaining assets to the daughter companies. Is the argument that the value for unsecured bonds in that case is just the value of the combined DP interest and equity interest in the daughter’s?

That’s right, but we anticipate we can replace the assets that we have upstairs with new asset that we are looking at that are not LNG or offshore or tankers.

What would be not -- what kind of assets would be not LNG or offshore or tankers?

For example, we have been public about the fact that we are looking at some wind farm installation vessels that would generate longer-term higher IRR than some of these existing.

So the bondholders at Teekay Corp. should be aware that I guess maybe the assets that they are the closest to would be sort of not necessarily the traditional shipping assets that they are used to, there are probably some waterborne assets because that Teekay’s specialty, but maybe not the traditional shipping assets.

That’s true, although -- yes, that is true, but we also have FPSOs like (inaudible). And so I anticipate that we will continue to own some fixed asset of the Teekay. However, they won’t be as much exposed to market cycles and they will also be higher return than some of our other existing asset. As Teekay moves, we showed a slide about different things that Sevan can move to. So we get a lot of requests for other types of projects. I see a lot of scope for Teekay to move into some of these higher margin, higher growth areas. So those don’t fall specifically when the FPSO shuttle tanker, LNG, and banker realm. I won’t be drawn on exactly what those are, Justine, but I think that the bondholders will be pleased with how we are moving to higher margin assets.

Okay. And then the last question on that front is that I suspect that the parent company would issue in order to pursue those transactions probably on a secure basis, not on an unsecured basis.

That all depends, that all depends.

Okay. And I also have a question on the impairment charge that you guys took and I think that that from my perspective, not enough companies have taken those sorts of charges just given the decline in asset values that we’ve seen and if anything the decline in asset lives that should affect depreciation rates. So Vince, can you talk a bit more about the motivations behind that impairment charge? Was it that your accountant saying, look, we know that spot asset values are down and we think that people will scratch their vessels earlier, so you got to reduce the useful life, or what were some of the conversations behind that because I think its, actually I applaud it and I think that it should be taken by more companies?

Yes, the write-downs in the fourth quarter are all very much related to our older vessels and that’s in our shuttle fleet and our conventional fleet. And so a few of those write-downs relate to our decision recently to sell a couple of those vessels. So therefore, you have to then mark to market those vessels and sell for sale. In the shuttle cases, there is an intended change in use as, for example, we are holding onto some of the older shuttle tankers for FSO projects. Even though there’s going to be long-term value created as part of using those assets in FSO projects, whenever you have a changing in use from a shuttle tanker to an FSO as an example, you still need to mark the market that asset because it is change in use. So it’s some particular circumstances that gave rise to those impairments. It’s really related to the older ships and intended use. When you look at the modern fleets, under U.S. GAAP it’s in on discounted cash flow test. So if you look at, for example, a five-year-old ship obviously has 20 years of remaining life. And usually that passes the test under U.S. GAAP for impairment purposes. So you haven’t enough remaining in life. And you don’t have that on an older ship, especially if you intend to sell that over the next year.

Okay. So it was more the use of the vessels and not necessarily the argument that high supplies leading industry participants to scrap vessels at 18, 19 years as opposed to 24, 25 years. So that’s kind of changing what one would expect the license fund going to be?

No, but obviously the impairments are impacted by the drop in asset values.

Okay. Great. Thank you guys, so much for the color.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next question comes from Michael Webber of Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Sorry it’s been a long call, so I’m going to jump on I wanted to follow-up on the tanker drop downs, actually. Peter, you mentioned in your answer that you’ve got a willing buyer that you guys just need to determine whether or not you guys are willing seller in this market on your own tanker fleet. As a company, when do you guys anticipate coming to that decision? Tanker assets have been moving over for quite a while. How do you guys think about it internally? When do you guys think you will come to some sort of decisions?

I don’t think I will be drawing on a timetable for that, but as I said earlier, Teekay will maximize its values in terms of selling it. And Teekay doesn’t have to sell. It is an aspiration, but if Teekay believes that the market is going to improve, and as we said, we think it’s a softer market in 2012 and then we will start to get a tick up. So Teekay will do, what we always do, whether we are buying or selling, we run our cash flows and figure out whether we want to sell. And then, of course, you have to say, what are you going to do with the money? So that is – so we always look at what the opportunity cost is of that. But if you tune in 45 minutes, you will hear Bruce Chan talk about what Teekay tankers plans to do with the money.

I think Bruce will probably get some similar questions. I appreciate it. Thank you.

I do too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) The next question comes from John Fusek of GCA. Please go ahead. John Fusek – GCA: Just a question on upcoming financing on business slide, just on the pack, just 300 million, 350 million. How much more than that if any, do you have to do this year?

Those are the remaining unfinanced projects. And again, these are till heavy shipyard payments, so we have time to get these in process. As I said, we’ve completed pretty much all of the financings we need for our commitments, and that shown in the $1.6 billion of financing we completed. John Fusek – GCA: Yeah.

And so really -- it’s really the remaining ones kind of FPSO and BG shuttle tankers which are in Teekay Offshore. So that’s the remaining amount for our committed CapEx at this point in time. John Fusek – GCA: Just the BG shuttle tankers in Teekay Offshore and not in Teekay Corp.

That’s right. John Fusek – GCA: And those would be secured financings presumably?

That’s right. John Fusek – GCA: Okay. Thank you.

They all have long-term contracts, so we’re confident we will be able to finance. John Fusek – GCA: Sure. Okay.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) There are no further questions at this time.

Okay. Well, I apologize for the length of the call, but I think that’s reflective of the high amount of activity that we have. Both -- I thought it was good that we could talk about 2011, what we’ve invested in, but also how we have financed it. And we look forward to reporting to you next quarter. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the conference call for today. You may now disconnect your line, and have a great day.