Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the TransCanada Corporation 2017 Third Quarter Results Conference Call. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Mr. David Moneta, Vice President-Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Mr. Moneta.

Thanks very much and good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to TransCanada's 2017 third quarter conference call. With me today are Russ Girling, President and Chief Executive Officer; Donald Marchand, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Karl Johannson, President of Canada and Mexico Natural Gas Pipelines and Energy; Stan Chapman, President U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines; Paul Miller, President, Liquids Pipelines; and Glenn Menuz, Vice President and Controller. Russ and Don will begin today with some opening comments on our financial results and certain other company developments. A copy of the slide presentation that will accompany their remarks is available on our website at transcanada.com. It can be found in the Investors section under the heading, Events. Following their prepared remarks, we will take questions from the investment community. If you are a member of the media, please contact Mark Cooper or Grady Semmens following this call and they would be happy to address your questions. In order to provide everyone from the investment community with an equal opportunity to participate, we ask that you limit yourself to two questions. If you have additional questions, please reenter the queue. Also, we ask that you focus your questions on our industry, our corporate strategy, recent developments and key elements of our financial performance. If you have detailed questions relating to some of our smaller operations or your detailed financial models, Stuart and I would be pleased to discuss them with you following the call. Before Russ begins, I'd like to remind you that our remarks today will include forward-looking statements that are subject to important risks and uncertainties. For more information on these risks and uncertainties, please see the reports filed by TransCanada with Canadian Securities Regulators and with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. And finally, I'd also like to point out that during this presentation, we'll refer to measures such as comparable earnings, comparable earnings per share, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization or EBITDA, comparable funds generated from operations and comparable distributable cash flow. These and certain other comparable measures are considered to be non-GAAP measures. As a result, they may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other entities. They are used to provide you with additional information on TransCanada's operating performance, liquidity and our ability to generate funds to finance our operations. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Russ.

Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. And thank you very much for joining us today. As highlighted in our quarterly report to shareholders released earlier today, our portfolio of high quality, low risk energy infrastructure asset continues to perform very, very well. Evidence of this can be seen in our solid third quarter financial results, which continue to support our Board of Directors decision earlier this year to increase our quarterly dividend to CAD 0.625 per share, that equates to a CAD 2.50 per share on an annual basis, and represents a 10.6% increase over the dividend we paid in 2016. During the quarter, we also continued to advance our CAD 24 billion near-term capital program. This portfolio is commercially secured and regulated projects remains largely on time and on budget. To help fund our capital program in third quarter we raised a CAD 1 billion to the offering of 10 year and 30 year medium term notes on very compelling terms. In addition in October we recovered our development cost associated with our Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project and we agreed to sell our Ontario solar assets. The combined proceeds from those two transactions of approximately CAD 1.1 billion will be used to fund a portion of our capital program and for general corporate purposes thereby reducing the need for external capital including common equity. Finally, we continue to advance certain other strategic initiatives such as our long term fixed price arrangements that will enhance the predictability and stability of our earnings and cash flow while providing our natural gas pipeline customers with cost effective service to premium markets across North America. I will catch on each of those developments in the next few slides, beginning with the brief review of our financial results. Excluding certain specific items, comparable…

Thanks Russell and good morning everyone. As outlined in our quarterly report to shareholders issued earlier today, we have reported net income attributable to common shares in the third quarter of $612 million or $0.70 per share compared to a net loss of $135 million or $0.17 per share for the same period in 2016. Per share amounts reflect the dilutive effect of having issued 60 million common shares in November 2016 plus additional shares through the dividend reinvestment program this year. Third quarter results included an additional $12 million after tax net loss on sales of the US Northeast power generation assets related to closing adjustments and after tax charge of $30 million for integration related costs associated with the acquisition of Columbia and an $8 million after tax charge related to the maintenance of Keystone XL assets. We are now largely complete on integration related charges with respect to the Columbia acquisition. Third quarter 2016 included a $656 million after tax Raymond’s would get goodwill impairment charge and after tax charge of $67 million related to costs associated with the acquisition of Columbia recognition of $28 million of income tax recoveries resulting from a third party sale of Keystone XL project assets and $9 million after tax charge related to Keystone XL maintenance and liquidation costs and $3 million of after-tax cost related to the sale of our US Northeast power business. All of these specific items as well as unrealized gains and losses from changes in risk management activities are excluded from comparable earnings. Comparable earnings for third quarter 2917 declined by $8 million or $0.08 per share to $614 million or $0.70 per share, largely due to the monetisation of our US Northeast power generation assets in second quarter 2017 as well as the dilutive impact…

Thanks Don. Just a reminder before I turn it over to the conference coordinator for questions from the investment community, we ask that you limit yourself two questions and if you have any additional questions, we would ask that you please re-enter the queue. With that, I will turn it back to the conference coordinator.

Thank you. We will now take questions from the telephone line. [Operator Instructions] Thank you for your patience. Our first question is from Linda Ezergailis with TD. Please go ahead.

Thank you. I have a question about the main line, I don't know if this will be, maybe addressed at your upcoming Investor Day but I'm just curious to know if you have any preliminary thoughts on how your long term fixed price service is going? Is it unfolding as expected how might this influence in any way perhaps a resetting of tolls for 2018 or post-2020 as contemplated potentially a couple years back might be required?

I can answer our TSP right now. As a November 1st, it started we have, not all contracts started this year some will start next year and thereafter so we had a but little less than one 1.3 BCF a day as scheduled into our system for the start this year, if things went well I see that if you day over day from October 31st to November 1st, we saw an incremental or 700 million on our system but the full 1.3 moved because other contracts have fallen off and had not renewed. So I consider it to be a full incremental 1.3 on our system. I think that it is well, it is clear to a large surplus up our system which I think has been good for the mainline, the mainline right now today is operating full, we have capacity on that mainline is about 3.8 BCF a day, a 3.8 BCF a day is moving along, over that systems, so the western system is full. Total contracts on the system still remain about 8 BCF a day when you take into account all the shorter contracts and to other contract in eastern triangle contract so the mainline is operating quite well. What impact it would have on, I am setting a visuals, well we have to go to the board for 2018 to 2022, we are right now just finishing up some discussions whether [indiscernible] receive if we can get a settlement but we are preparing ourselves to file those tolls before the end of the year. So any tolls that we do file will be adjudicated early next year, I think a very high level I can't go into specific details but we have a chain might it over last three years quite a surplus…

Got it. If I can then maybe turn to Key XL, so one hand you are still analyzing the open season results but on the other hand you have said that you anticipate commercial support be substantially similar to the initial projects so is that fair to say based on what you are seeing in terms of the submissions that you pretty much have the volumes that you need but that obviously there is some conditions or other things that you need to work through?

Yes Robert, it's Paul Miller here. Your comment is accurate, we do have various conditions attached to. The interest that we are working through those to fully understand what they mean that will take us till the end of the month but we are quite encouraged by the results we have seen.

Okay but in terms of the conditions or generally none of which seem to be onerous to you?

I believe the conditions are manageable. Yes.

Okay, that's great. Thank you.

Thanks Robert.

Thank you. Our next question is from Jeremy Tonet with JP Morgan. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Congratulations on the Key XL result as you described them there. Was just wanted turnover to the wind down of U.S. power contracts and I was wondering if you might be able to share a bit more color with regards to the duration in ratability kind of the cash flow there or should we just kind of expect volatility in results until those expire?

So, it's Karl. I guess I could talk a little bit about kind of how we are winding down, what remains of the start is we still are a buff there, when I look kind of the earnings that we are expecting out of the book and all the credit that we put for those earnings and the book, we are looking about CAD 200 million I think that will come back to us probably substantially all of it 95% of it within next few years, of course, weighted to the front end as we went down that book. We are still in discussions trying to sell what remains the book so maybe we can get a wind down little early. Today we have not concluded anything but we still are in discussion so it might come a little earlier than that if we are able to sell all of it or pieces of it on that but I would say about 95% of it we will see before qualifying.

That's helpful. Thank you and then peeping over to the financing side and listed a number of options that you guys have there as far as how you approach it. It seems like with this most recent asset sale you are able to kind of get quite a nice price tag there so just wondering what are the - are there other opportunities like that and if you could just help prioritize for us how you think about the different mechanisms because when I look at TCP I don't think they get a full that type of evaluation assets. Maybe you could just help me think through how these things stack up?

Yes it’s Don here. In terms of further assets sales it's pretty high quality portfolio that we have left here. But we are open minded in terms of further portfolio management here. The way we look at this couple of criteria whole versus market value strategic positioning and tax consequence is a big thing as well. If we sell something and pay a big cash tax bill it makes us certainly less compelling to us. As we look at the stack here, top to bottom senior debt within the A grade credit metrics that we are targeting here probably room for another hybrid issue in the next 12 to 18 months here of some size to branch to 14%, 15% of capital structure on the sustained basis there. The drip plan will continue running through this and then will use the ATM as necessary to balance off the credit metric targets, at the same time being cognizant of growing share count here. Pipe LP’s business is usual. There has been no fundamental change in how we view that vehicle. That remains a key financing alternative for us going forward. It does have to compete with our alternate capital sources including asset sales here. So it will be fluid depending how ebbs and flows of everything from LP market conditions to business results, capital plans and alike, but what you have seen this year is probably a preview of how we are going to do things going forward we have done year-to-date about 1.5 billion of senior debt, 3.5 billion of hybrids. We did the hybrids we did an LP drop. We have some recoveries on peer GT, we had 800 million from the drip and just north of CAD 5 billion of asset sales, so long way to way of saying it’s all the above strategy here but everything is in play.

That's all helpful. Thank you very much.

Thanks Jeremy.

Thank you. Our next question is from Ben Pham from BMO Capital Markets (Canada). Please go ahead.

Thanks. I wanted to go back to the Keystone XL and you mentioned have been season taken a month to analyze the debt and Nebraska approval process around the same time frame and there are some questions about timing post that what you need to do and I just wanted to check in and end of November is there anything left there on that sale side of things for either making up a decision?

Ben, it's Paul Miller here. So we still have a lot of work to do on both of those events. We are still working through the bid conditions and that will take some time. We anticipate the Nebraska PSC approval here by the end of the month and it will take us some time to review the decision by the PSC. So I think we left those two events play out and that will give us greater visibility into our investment, final investment decision.

Let me just add Ben. There is certainly urgency on the part of our shippers to come to conclusion sooner or rather than later but as Paul said, there is still some data that we don't have in yet that they will go into decision making but they are the pushes currently from our shipper group to move sooner rather than later.

And then my follow up on that you mentioned some of the conditions imposed by shippers you think is manageable. Are you able to share those conditions, are they mainly driven by external events that shippers have to manage or is it more negotiation without the structure of the contract or the poll is being discussed at the moment?

Yes. The way the open season works is, we provide the contract and the terms and conditions of the contract to the marketplace and that's where the shippers bid into. So there is no movement or negotiations around that. It's just unique situations for different shippers that they have to navigate and work with us to help navigate that. So it really is lot of mechanical logistical but all are very unique teach shipper.

Okay. I think that's helpful. Thank you.

Thanks Ben.

Thank you. Our next question is from [indiscernible] with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Regarding the sales of your Canadian solar asset, how do you think about sort of the positioning of the Canadian business, power business relative to other opportunities in your portfolio?

Well this is Karl. Maybe I will speak to that. We still have actually pretty high quality power portfolio within TransCanada. So I see the sale of solar as an opportunity to recycle some capital which doesn't mean we are not going to recycle capital elsewhere. We have done it both with our natural gas pipeline, through the LP and we have done it through selling parts to the prior business. But certainly we have a big long term commitment to the Bruce Power to refurbish that with our partners and we have a very large plant going into the billion plus dollar plant. The structure right now is happening, so I would say that we look at our Canadian power business as a key and core aspect of our business going forward. It doesn't mean to say that we won’t recycle some other assets in its overtime but I do believe it’s a still pretty high quality business that we intend to hold on to and to grow overtime.

Just to augment Karl’s response the power business remains a very important part of your portfolio. And what we still appear in the last two months is 2% of our portfolio. 76 MW wasn't a large component of other portfolio, we retained 6200 MW of operating assets with the addition of Napanee here coming into 2018 that business will still be generating a billion dollars of EBITDA for us. Looking forward we believe that billions of dollars of new investment is required in the energy business where they have the power business going forward to both convert the system from a higher carbon intensity to lower carbon intensity for a more natural gas, more renewable and in our case potentially more molecular in places like Ontario but as well with transmission, distribution as system needs to be built to accommodate those news resources and to replace an aging infrastructure system. So we literally see billions of dollars of opportunities ahead. And those opportunities will compete for capital in the future from our growing cash flow from our asset base. So it remains important to us, remain in the business as Karl said, as we have done with all of our businesses we will look to surface value where possible recycle that capital to higher returns if possible. The wins of which we look at all of things is through a per share return basis for our shareholders and that’s the way that we will continue to move forward and it’s always component of our portfolio for 20 plus years and will continue to be for the future.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks Paul.

Thank you. Our next question is from Theodore Durbin of Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Just on Keystone, so we recently had announcement that the owners of cap-line are playing too reverse that in a few years and I wonder if that's changed the nature of the conversation around the competition and the ability to get heavy crude down to the gulf coast?

Ted, it's Paul Miller here. It has not, cap line reversal is near the marketplace there, looking for non-binding interest rate access as a different market so it really hasn't had any impact on our activities around Keystone XL or any of our operating activities.

Okay. And then, if I can just on the quarter itself if we look at the liquids results, you were up year-over-year but actually if I can tick down a little bit for second quarter we would have thought you would have maybe taken advantage of some of the widening in WTI brand to move more market, like maybe you can just talk about the dynamics there and the ability to drive more revenue on market link given that widening spread?

Sure. So we saw the spread widening here really into October more than September and so we saw reduced activity particularly on marketing business in the third quarter. And slightly reduced flows on market link relative to the second quarter. In the fourth quarter however, we have seen market activity pick up considerably and we see flows probably in the 500,000 barrel per day range on market length. We have launched an open season on market length with the higher differentials parties have approached us with the goal to maybe terming out some space on market length. So we have launched that open season I think it runs for about a month and I would anticipate seeing higher activity in Q4.

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

You are welcome.

Thank you. Our next question is from Robert Catellier with CIBC World Markets, Inc. please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. I wanted you to address the echo price situation for minute. As you know there has been periods of very low echo prices in recent months, so in your option what is the industry have to do to mitigate this risk overtime and then your answer can be please address the various stakeholders groups including infrastructure companies, shippers as well as regulators?

Yes Robert it's Karl. So maybe that's very repeat question so I will try to answer them in a reasonable amount of time here. And let me start by talking about kind of, in my view kind of dynamics that are going on here and how infrastructure relates those that dynamics. I think it's important to recognize that NGTL and TransCanada, NGTL specifically and TransCanada generally are partners with the producers in the WCSB. We have in NGTL, we have already 1.5 billion invested, net invested into asset with we have 7.1 billion dollar structuring program right now. And in that structuring program this November, for this November 1, we put 30 odd, 30 different projects in the service to both create new, receipt capacity on NGTL and to create more delivery capacity on NGTL. What we wanted to be, just to be plain spoken here what we are saying on this system right now and this is the net system echo whatever you want to call it, is we see more supply staying in net or echo than we see market. And that is causing supply and supply competition for the sales and that is causing extreme amount of volatility. Now I know lot of people are out there complaining about kind of maintenance cuts or cuts for installing the capacity or use of cutting IT before FT but I think when you actually step back for a second you take a look at it, it all comes down to there is no local supply than multiple demand. And this is causing some gas competition which is causing extreme volatility as people are fighting for those internal markets. What you will find right now with this is that you will level to or moderate someone with the cold weather…

Yes. Thank you for that very fulsome answer. I do have one more question for Don. You have articulated very clearly your financing strategy for existing projects the current slate, if you’re successful with Keystone XL is there one or two items in the immediate slate of financing options that's more attractive to the fund that project?

Couple of comments should kiosk, I’ll proceed we do have much of the long lead time items in inventory already so that's just one thing to bear in mind here -- is already in house here. By the time we would marshal up and get construction going here, the bulk of the spend on cash would be in 2019-2020 timeframe which actually dovetails quite nicely with much of our CAD 24 billion near term program being completed and those assets starting to cash flow. So this is probably more of a 2019-2020 financing story with that aster is that cash flow would be ramping considerably in that timeframe.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks Russ.

Thank you. Our next question is from Robert Hope with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good morning. Just keeping on the Keystone XL theme just want to get a sense of what volume you are targeting and then whether or not the return on the project would be including existing capital or would it be on new capital?

Hey Rob it's Paul Miller here. When we had launched Keystone XL previously we had contracts of about 500,000 barrels per day and we would be looking to target something similar and this would be long term 20 years contract. And consistent with all of our large project we looked underpinned Keystone XL with this 20 year contracts and we look to target, hope it returns on our total capital.

Alright. That is helpful. Excellent and then just finally getting back on to the NGTL system, you have announced projects year-to-date but we still do need some capital to connect and pull the gas conversions as well from other expansions. Just want to get a sense of behind the scenes or what do you think a run rate level investment at the NGTL would be for the next couple of years?

You know that's a good question. Now let me answer it this way. We need two investments to happen on the NGTL. Number one is we still have the queue of customers wanting to get on the system for receipt services and that queue is sitting at and it's been lot of times I’ve looked at it, so I will just stop kind of approximately here. But this is approximately billing gas is sitting. They are sitting in the queue right now waiting for us to come and propose buybacks. I also am mindful of that conversation that I have just had with Robert on kind of what is the solution to the oversupply and the net system. And then we are looking right now and we will probably be holding some sort of open season or some sort of special interest for the delivery capacity to go along with that. So we can not only bring on billing cubic feet of new receipt but tie in some delivery service. So delivery service on the NGTL to get to the use case for example is about 4.8 billion cubic feet a day. When you take a look at the math right now it is fully utilized. We are between going into the mainline which is now 3.8 and going down much on northern border which is about 1.3, we are fully utilized as a matter of fact we are using stories to make up the difference on that. So we need to do both. So what is that come down to for dollar amount, I hate to come out and give the numbers in dollar because it really depends where it is and what we are doing. I could be orders of magnitudes maybe I will just say is that we have bcf a day receipts on it and I would argue that we are here actually I will not argue I can tell you argue looking to find a bcf a day more delivering capacity and more capacity downstream say on GTN and or the mainline. So I will give you the volume numbers that kind of look in at that and then we can we will talk about capital as I get contractual forward in, I get better engineering or what that looks like.

That's helpful. Thank you.

Thanks Rob.

Thank you. Our next question is from Tom Abrams with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead.

Thank you and thank you for your patience hanging there with us today. I want to look at slide 17, you call some principal variances for the different segments. Just wanted to ask a couple questions on those. First is in pipelines. How the size of the Columbia gas pension plan item and if that's always going to be third quarter item or if it's something that you trued up and particularly this year to minimize charges in the future?

Yes. It's Glenn here. Normally we would just expect pension costs as everybody does. In the case of permit they have unique aspect of their last rate that says it will only expense engine cost as refunded and this is our normal funding for the year. We just didn't have any funding last year as part of the - as it was transitioning. So it's one time thing that you are seeing and we will continue with normal finding going forward on this.

Yes. Order magnitude probably a penny and penny and a half this quarter.

Okay. And question on B is on the entry, pipeline Grand Rapids entry service what was magnitude of that and I am assuming since this was mid august based at least more than maybe at least doubles I the fourth quarter only the ramp behind that?

Hi Tom it's Paul Miller here. Grand Rapids contributed about half a penny in Q3 and I would anticipate probably a penny and half in Q4.

Great. And then question two is the amount in the air and Leach XPress cost increases $700 million between the two of them is pretty big. I know you have got back in the future but it just a lot of capital. What happened there? Can you elaborate and why are you confident that that's not going to continue to happen?

Yes this is Stan, thanks for the opportunity to opine on that. Cost estimates for Mountaineer particularly had been revised due to increased construction costs mainly tied to the high demand for resources in the region in 2018. So it just as an example across the Appalachian region across all the projects that are being built, this is going to be over 100 pipelines spread which is an all time peak high for the region and that demand for resources is what's driving the increase cost as we lock in our costs with our contractor. I should point out however that we do have a cost sharing mechanism with our customers whereby 50% of the cost are shared equally between us and the customers up to a pre-defined cap which will minimize the impact to our project returns overall. So we have incorporated. We have lessons learned from our Leach XPress project which we have been constructing for this past summer and are comfortable that the CAD 600 million represents a large part that all of the cost increases with respect to the Mountaineer express project.

Great. I appreciate it guys. Thanks a lot.

Thanks Tom.

Thank you. Our next question is from Faisel Khan with Citigroup. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thanks for taking my question here. I just wanted to figure out how you guys are seeking about your revenue requirement, hinder your cares how they might change U.S. pipelines under a lower corporate tax rate and if you could remind also sort of what happened with the revenue requirement in Canada for some of the regulated pipes ten years ago when the corporate tax rate came down. Just help us understand how things could change or may not change at all?

Faisel, this is Stan, I will start another jump into the extent necessary. With respect to rate cases, we do not have any immediate rate case obligations. The first two would be Columbia and ANR in 19 and 20. So absent one, the tax plan being finalized is currently yes, and then absent FERC requiring pipeline to come in, in some sort of a special proceeding to address rate reductions those tax changes would just be incorporated into the future rate cases.

It's Don here. On the Canadian side income taxes are full through on a cash basis and that's always been the case. So any interest rates, sorry any tax rate increases or decreases would be reflected in rates effectively immediately.

Okay. Got you and then just on current rate cases on the GLGT rate case is there a time when you have to go in for your next rate case and then stuck on the northern border side and if you can talk about the settlement that thing offered there?

Yes. With respect to great lakes there is a five year comeback provision however, there is not a more [indiscernible] I’m founding in rate cases sooner should we need to do so. In the aggregate that great lakes represent the about 27% rate reduction but that will largely be offset by increased revenues associated with the long term fixed price field as well as removal of the revenue sharing cap. So net:net on great Lake, so we don't see material changes in cash flows. The Northern Border right case is not yet public. We are actually drafting that right now. The rate reduction there is much more smaller. You can think of that in terms of a upper single-digit rate reduction but again, given some other parts to settlement we do not see material impact to cash flows of revenues in that proceeding either.

Great, thanks for the time guys. I appreciate it.

Thanks Faisel.

Thank you. Our next question is from Joe Gemino with Morningstar. Please go ahead.

Great. Thank you. Looking at maintenance capital for the quarter, can you explain why it went up from the previous quarter and is this kind of the run rate to look at going forward?

It's Don here. I will start and Mike is going to jump in as well. There is a seasonality aspect to maintenance capital as I mentioned in my remarks it is concentrated particularly in the U.S. in months where gas flows are lower. So that will be recurring phenomena there. But effectively there is two major trends here. One maintenance capital has been trending upward as the gas system gets tighter and tighter and more money is required for the liability. And the second trend this is actually positive for us because maintenance capital has always been the case in Canada but increasingly so in the United States is recoverable, it's to factor a growth capital that we will earn a return on and on. So I will give a little more granularity on Investor Day in terms of that but those are the two major trends right now.

Great, thank you.

Thanks very much, Joe.

Thank you. Our next question is a follow up question from Jeremy Tonet with J.P. Morgan. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Just want to be real quick here and you guys were quite successful in scooping on Columbia what appear to be just the right time in the U.S. market. It sees that MLP market is quite a level of distress for some players out there. So just wondering if you can provide any high level thoughts as far as opportunities to further expand your position in the U.S. given the need of some players there to kind of migrate their balance sheet towards metrics more similar to yours? Thanks.

I think Jeremy as we’ve always said, I mean, we’re a chalk a block full right now with things to do and places to allocate our capital. That said there are certain aspects and positions in the marketplace that we covered and we continue to watch them and if there is an opportunity to act we will do that. As Don mentioned we’ve several levers and the reasons for maintaining our strong financial position and natural flexibility is to be able to act when opportunities do arrive. But usually what we’re hunting is the crown jewels of these portfolios and that there usually the last thing to be sold out of those, so I sort of round about to answer your question is, we’re always interested, we’ve the capacity to act, but it’s very rare that these opportunities arise. But if they do we will be prepared to act upon them.

Sounds good.

Thanks Jeremy.

Thank you. There are no further questions registered. At this time I would like to turn the meeting back over to you Mr. Moneta.

Thanks very much. And thanks to all of you for participating this morning. We very much appreciate your interest in TransCanada, we look forward to seeing many of you again later in the month as part of our Investor Day. Again, thanks very much and have a great day. Bye for now.

Thank you. The conference has now ended. Please disconnect your lines at this time and we thank you for your participation.