Pembina Pipeline Corp. Ordinary Shares (Canada)

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to Pembina Pipeline Corporation's third quarter 2020 results conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there'll be a question and answer session. To ask a question during this session, you'll need to press star one on your telephone. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. If you require any further assistance, please press star zero. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speakers today, Scott Burrows, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Thank you. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Pemina's conference call and webcast to review highlights from the third quarter of 2020. I'm Scott Burrows, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On the call with me today are Mick Dilger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Jason Boone, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Pipeline, Jaret Sprott, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Facilities, and Stu Taylor, Senior Vice President, Marketing and New Ventures and Corporate Development Officer. I'd like to remind you that some of the comments made today may be forward-looking in nature and are based on Pemina's current expectations, estimates, judgments and projections. Forward-looking statements we may express or imply today are subject to risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations. Further, some of the information provided refers to non-GAAP measures. To learn more about these forward-looking statements and non-GAAP measures, please see the company's management discussion and analysis dated November 5, 2020, for the period ended September 30, 2020, which is available online at Pemlin.com and on both CDAR and EDGAR. Before we discuss the third quarter results, I'd like to first turn things over to Mick to make some opening remarks. Mick, over to you.

Thanks, Scott. Good morning, everyone, and hope you and your families are doing well. Once again, I'm really pleased with the corridor, particularly in our assets, asset-based businesses, the pipelines and facilities, which once again displayed the resilience of Pemina's business and the underlying strategy we've been executing for more than a decade. Our focus on integration across the value chain began over 10 years ago and has been extended many times through both construction and acquisition. Along with the integration came greater diversification of customers, commodities, and currencies, and we have become a stronger and more diversified company. We are proud of our resilience and the fact that Pemina expects 2020 adjusted EBITDA to remain within the company's original guidance range, albeit near the lower end of that range. While this guidance was provided almost one full year ago, and despite all that has happened in the world to both the energy sector and our business, We still expect to be about 95% of the midpoint of that original range. That's a strong testament not only to our business model, but to the strength of our customers and the commitment of our employees who are tasked with delivering over $100 million of cost savings. And we've operated these assets safely and reliably through this challenging year. Looking ahead, we see positive signs. Consolidation amongst Canadian energy companies is beginning to occur. and we'll strengthen our customer base. We're hopeful that an effective COVID-19 vaccine will be broadly available in 2021 and we expect a balancing of oil supply and demand by 2022 and all which those statements entail. Pemina remains well positioned to deliver tremendous shareholder value by sticking to the same basic principle we have used in the past, meaning we will focus on our four stakeholders, customers, Investors, Communities, and Employees. We'll continue to prudently allocate capital to the projects that provide competitive returns, improve our customers' profitability, and make Pamina better. We'll also continue to fund stable and growing dividend in the future. With that, I'll pass it back to Scott.

Thanks, Mick. Similar to last quarter, the major factors impacting the third quarter relative to the same period in the prior year were the positive impact of the kinder acquisition offset by the impact of COVID-19 and the decline in commodity prices. Adjusted EBITDA in the quarter was $796 million, an 8% increase compared to the same period last year. The increase was due to the contribution from new assets following the kinder acquisition. These positive contributions were partially offset by lower margins on crude oil and NGL sales in the marketing business, as well as lower contributions from Allianz due to lower interruptible volumes and a lower contribution from Oxable, both largely due to lower NGL margins and a narrow ACO to Chicago price spread, which reduced revenue. Third quarter earnings of $318 million were down 14% over the same period last year, largely due to lower contribution from marketing. These declines were somewhat offset by the contribution of additional assets from the Kinder acquisition and lower G&A and other expense. Total revenue volumes during the third quarter were over 3.4 million DOE per day, consistent with the same period in 2019 and up slightly when compared to the second quarter of 2020. On a physical basis, activity levels have stabilized and are beginning to improve. Pemina's conventional pipeline business Physical volumes in July and August were consistent with levels seen at the end of the second quarter of this year, or roughly 8% below first quarter levels and well above the lows experienced in April and early May. We saw physical volumes decline in September due to operators electing to perform routine maintenance and turnaround activities, which is typical in the third quarter, as well as extended unplanned outages at third-party facilities. October, physical volumes recovered and increased to levels slightly above those seen in July and August. Subsequent to the quarter, we were pleased to bring into service new fractionation and terminating facilities at our Empress facility. This project was placed into service on time and on budget and adds approximately 30,000 barrels per day of propane plus fractionation capacity, enabling Pemina to optimize propane marketing from the facility between eastern and western markets. This project, along with DuVernay 2 and the Phase 6 Peace Pipeline expansion brought into service earlier this year, are part of the roughly $1.5 billion capital program that we continue to deliver in 2020. The company is advancing the construction of DuVernay 3, which is scheduled to come into service before year-end, and the Prince Rupert Propane Export Terminal, our first project to provide global market access, which we expect to complete in the first quarter of next year. We continue to evaluate our portfolio of deferred projects and with the Phase 7 Peace Pipeline expansion in particular, engineering work is ongoing and focused on optimizing the scope of the project to meet customers' needs and future transportation requirements in the basin. As a result of this work, estimated project costs are trending materially lower. Phase 7 and other deferred projects, including CKPC's PDHPP facility and the conditions under which they may be restarted continue to be evaluated within the context of our customers' futures plans and ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and resulting Global Economic Outlook. Finally, we continue to assemble a multi-year inventory of development opportunities. The scale, breadth and diversification of our business inherently affords us a strong suite of greenfield, brownfield, optimization and new market development opportunities. These opportunities range in size from $100 million to several billion dollars and have risk-adjusted rates of returns consistent with Pemina's track record. For the timeline is not certain, we are diligently advancing a number of opportunities. Turning to the outlook for the full year, with three-quarters of results behind us, the company has narrowed its guidance range and expects to generate adjusted EBITDA of $3.25 billion to $3.3 billion in 2020. The primary drivers of the range include the results of the crude oil and NGL marketing business, the level of interruptible volumes, Timing and completion of typical fourth quarter integrity and maintenance expense spending as well as the company's share price specifically relating to the impact on share-based incentive compensation. Assumed in this guidance are the previously discussed reductions in operating and general administration expenses, which we now expect to be in the range of $150 million, exceeding our original target by approximately 50%. A significant portion of these savings are expected to be sustainable. In his opening comments, Mick spoke about the resilience of Pemina's business, which was achieved by building an integrated value chain, diversifying across commodities, customers, and currencies, and developing reliable and predictable asset revenue streams. Equally important has been our unwavering commitment to Pemina's financial guardrails. Pemina's underlying business is highly contracted with approximately 95% of 2020 adjusted EBITDA supported by long-term fee-based contracts including approximately 72% coming from cost of service or take or pay contracts with no volume or price risk. Approximately 75% of our credit exposure is with investment grade and split rated counterparty or with counterparty secured by letters of credit. Direct commodity exposure in Pemina's business is limited to our marketing business and we are not reliant on this to fund our dividend. As we have maintained a strong balance sheet and have been recently affirmed as BBB by both S&P and DBRS with the outlook or trend maintained is stable. It is worth noting that Pemina is among a select group within the energy infrastructure sector that has not suffered a negative ratings action over the past five years. In addition, at the end of the third quarter, available liquidity totaled $2.5 billion. We will exit 2020 in a strong financial position with the ability to fund the next wave of future growth, pay down debt, or return capital to shareholders. With that, I'll turn things over to Mick for some closing comments.

Thanks, Scott. Good job. With so much political and economic uncertainty amidst the ongoing pandemic, the overall industry sentiment remains understandably cautious. Yet as we approach the end of 2020 and prepare for 2021, we remain optimistic.

Roughly half of our Calgary staff have now returned to the office.

As we refocus our efforts on the growing business, the in-person collaboration amongst our teams, which has been the key ingredient to our success, has returned. In early December, we are looking forward to providing a fulsome business update, including the latest status of each of the company's currently deferred capital projects, as well as our 2021 outlook, capital budget, and funding plan. Finally, with growing attention on ESG issues, we are looking forward to the release of our next sustainability report in the coming weeks. The 2020 version of this report will again provide A comprehensive perspective on commitment to all of our stakeholders. And in this report, we'll also be significantly enhancing our disclosure, particularly in the areas of environment and employee diversity. As always, we thank all of you, all of you shareholders who have literally stuck with us through this difficult time. With that, we'll wrap things up. Operator, please go ahead and open the line for questions.

Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press the found key. Our first question comes from Jeremy Toney from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. Hi, Jeremy. I just wanted to start off with consolidation in general here and wondering If you could talk a bit more as far as producer consolidation, what that means for Pembina, what you've learned now versus what you knew before, and also, I guess, in the midstream sector as well, what do you think happens with regards to consolidation and how does that impact Pembina there?

I'll start and then I'll turn it over to Scott or others. Generally, in the past, let's take a longer timeframe, say the last 10 years, consolidation has helped Pembina. In the depths of March and April, I think investors were worried about some of the weaker players out there, and they're starting to be consolidated and become stronger players. The recent Tourmaline example, I think, is is an excellent one where two of our less strong customers will be consolidated into an industry leader, which helps not just with credit, but also capability in tougher times. So we welcome it. We think it's good for the areas in which we operate and it's good for credit. In terms of your second question, Midstream Consolidation. Pemina has been a consolidator over the years, but in Canada, that's a rare thing. It happens very slowly. I expect in the U.S. to see much more consolidation than in Canada. I think Canada has much greater, on average, much greater balance sheet strength. Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Arnold, Christopher Scherman, Eva Bishop, Jason Metcalf

Your next question comes from Linda Ezregelis from TD Securities. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you. Just building on Jeremy's question with respect to how, I guess, North America might consolidate, might there be an opportunity for Pemina to extend into the U.S. and maybe find some opportunities to either do more with the hydrocarbons you have as has been your successful strategy so far or actually extend into other markets and basins given some of the weakness that your US peers have?

Linda, that's a great question and I'm going to answer it as best I can right now, but realize things change. Again, taking a longer term perspective, let's go back to 2015. We kind of sensed, you know, advantage U.S. in that timeframe, and we wanted to start to march the value chain into the U.S., and the result was the Verison acquisition, which was done to diversify into nat gas away from just liquids, but also to up our U.S. exposure. As we look forward, and I'm not trying to predict the election, but as we look forward, You know, the relative environments of Canada and the U.S., assuming a Biden win, we think it's advantage Canada, particularly as we develop egress. So whether it's the Shell LNG, Trans Mountain, you know, our export terminal, AltaGas's export terminal, You know, we get egress. We think that the best markets in the world will be non North American markets in the future. And I don't mean the next five years. I do think we'll have a robust and North American market. But beyond that, you know, if you're looking 20 years, we think the Asian Indian market is going to be the place to be. and we're the closest to that. And we have and produce some of the cleanest hydrocarbon, most ethical hydrocarbons in the world as a base. And so we now think it's Advantage Canada. That doesn't mean we're never going to look in the US. Of course we will. We have assets there. But we're most comfortable, I think, with our capital allocation in Canada in the next number of years.

Thank you. And maybe just as a follow-on, recognizing that the Alberta government is promoting petrochemical investments in the province, I'm wondering how that might influence the relative attractiveness of that opportunity versus others. And maybe we can also hear your updated views on and many more. Thank you. Thank you.

In terms of hydrogen, it's early days for us. I mean, clearly, we have infrastructure that can be used in that development, but it really is early days for us. We think it's a number of years away and we are studying it. In fact, we have a presentation to our senior management, I think, next week on hydrogen and how we can participate. But, Stu, any additional thoughts?

No, I mean, we're watching it closely, Linda, and are excited about what that opportunity may develop into with respect to Pemina itself and the industry in general. We're quite positive, and I think our efforts in some of our work on the petrochemical side and export We're getting lots of contact and they're excited to be recognized and have conversations with future opportunities that may present itself.

Thank you. I'll jump back in the queue.

Your next question comes from Matt Taylor from Two Door Pickering Holt. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thanks for taking my questions here, guys. Can you speak to conversations you're having with customers? It seems physical volumes seem to be slowly recovering here, but more importantly on new projects. More to come in December, obviously, but is there some caution here that you're seeing with customers? And is it fair to say that you'll be prudent about adding new projects that match customers' willingness to backstop that CapEx with contracts?

I'm going to start and then Jason, I'm sure you're eager to respond to that. You know, we're unwavering really on how we do projects. And because of that, we slow down in the pandemic. And when the market is supporting us and we have adequate financial backstopping from the right kind of customers, then we will restart and we'll talk more about that in December. But we are literally following the Pembina playbook You know, follow the guardrails, you know, decent rates of return, good counterparty credits, good geology, all those things. And, you know, and, you know, we'd love to to grow fast as we have over the last 10 years. But that is just has not been in the cards since so since we had this kind of double pandemic. But as as things resume, we'll be ready. We'll actually be more ready for What I perceive will be a return to normal than we've ever been because for the first time in a decade, we've been able to measure twice and cut once in project readiness. So, Jason, maybe a bit of color on what you're seeing on the ground.

Sure. Thanks, Mick. So, Matt, we've actually canvassed all of our customers, particularly on Peace Pipeline and the corridor. and determine what their needs were and had a number of discussions with customers who need to make changes around their contracts and things like that. Relative to what Mick was saying, we were trying to make sure that we weren't building assets that customers didn't need as we were going through that process. We've gotten a lot of positive indications from our customers in terms of their continued need for capacity on our assets. There's continued growth in certain areas that we're continuing to pursue, so there's some optimism around those things. And I would say it also gave us time, as Mick pointed out, to look at the project and determine how to right-size it. Since 2013, we've been building pretty rapidly, just trying to keep up with our producer expansion. This time, we actually get to go through and do a lot of assessments on exactly what we need and plan it. Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Scott Burrows C.F.A. We have seen volumes recovering. September and August are typically turnaround season and the summer is generally, you know, break up and slow drilling season. We're starting to see, albeit very slow recovery and drilling in the basin, we are seeing volume ramp up. Facilities came back from turnaround very strong and we've seen consistent volume growth on both the The LVP and the HVP side of the system. The HVP has been performing very strong across the board, actually staying relatively close to what our expectations were when we set our budget. We're seeing things growing back closer to what we expected to see at this time of year. We're about level with what we were at this time last year. with every week and every day going by, seeing the volumes continue to grow. The counter to that, I would say, is the Drayton area. I think we've seen some of our other midstream peers talking about that area. It's a bit slow. It's a little behind the curve in terms of recovery, but we're starting to have discussions down there as well.

That's great. Thanks for that color there. And then, if you could then, could you just slot Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Arnold, Christopher Scherman, Eva Bishop, Jason Metcalf Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth

Well, Matt, obviously we're still working through our budget and the project backlog, but your question is a valid one. You know, as we sit here today, and I think we've said this a couple times, if none of the projects come back, we're obviously going to have significant free cash flow available. If we bring some of the projects back, we'll have a little bit less, obviously. And then if we bring them all back, we'll need all that free cash flow for the project. So those are kind of the goalposts about what we're thinking about. But in the scenarios where we are generating free cash flow, certainly when we think about how we funded the business, We've funded it typically 50-50 debt equity over the last decade or so. And so when we think about redeployment of capital, our starting point really is to think about redeploying it back 50-50. So potentially 50% of the free cash flow will go to debt repayment, 50% will go to share buybacks. Now, that all depends obviously on a couple of factors. Thank you for joining us today. Certainly we see value in our own shares as we feel they're being underappreciated.

Great. Thanks for the call there. That's it for me.

Your next question comes from Ben Pham from BMO. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, thanks. Good morning. On asset sales, anything to update us? I didn't see much in the package on that.

Scott, you want to address that?

Yes. So we continue to work through two asset packages, and that's about all we can say there. Ben will probably provide a little more color and should have a little more clarity with our December update.

And maybe just more of a detailed question on your exhibit on deferred revenues on makeup rights and Recognized Revenue. Is the expectation heading to Q4 that you're going to see that balance get closer to zero, similar to last year?

Yeah, for the most part, those are 12 months make up, right, Ben? So that's a fair assumption, yes.

Okay, so when you say 12 months, I assume like as you go Your next question comes from Rob Hope from Scotiabank. Please go ahead, your line is open.

Good morning everyone. I just want to get a sense of how you're thinking about contract roles at Alliance given the dynamics on the base and including potentially a little bit of a delay in LNG Canada as well as any update on Ruby.

Maybe Jason you can talk about Alliance role and then Scott over to you after.

Sure. Hi Rob. I think the basis between Alberta and Chicago has been a bit challenged, as we're all aware, in 2020. I think we have seen some of the interruptible volumes a little bit lower than we had seen in the past, but we're starting to see a strengthening in that basis between Alberta and Chicago at the moment. Especially in the winter. So a lot of our capacity that came available this year, we've been able to do seasonal sales to keep the pipeline at high utilization. So optimistic there. You know, we have, you know, a few towards the end of 2021, the pipeline is still highly contracted. and we're currently working with customers both in Alberta and the Bakken to determine their needs for egress. We do think it's in a challenging environment at the moment, but we do think things are looking positive and there's some certain areas where we do think there's opportunity to be able to bring gas onto that pipeline on a term basis. We've had some smaller successes recently in Alberta, terming up some volume there. and then on Ruby, similar story in terms of re-contracting. The basis between Opal and Malin is very narrow. It's making it quite difficult for Ruby to attract volumes. We still have the PG&E contract there that goes on for a number of years. We're working with our partner, Kinder Morgan, on assessing some options there. The California market for gas is a bit challenged with a lot of renewables and things like that coming on in California, so we're looking at opportunities to use some of the advantages that Ruby has as a low-carbon pipeline to be able to access some of the California market there. Scott, did you want to add anything to that?

No, Jason. I think you covered it. All right. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Patrick Kenny from National Bank Financial. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hey, guys. Appreciate the update on the frac spread hedges into next year, but just looking more specifically at the propane inventory from the summer that you'll be looking to flush out this winter, can you just confirm what percentage Scott Burrows C.F.A. Scott Burrows C.F.A.

In terms of our propane sales, we're largely sold on a forward basis. We still expect based on our current sales program to exit March as we typically do with little to no propane in storage. I'm not going to disclose the specific amount, Pat, but what I can say is A high percent, 75% or higher is already sold on a forward basis. So we feel confident about our forward sales profile. As it relates to 2021, based on the current forward strip that we typically use to run our budget, we are seeing slightly higher NGL prices. C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, C.F.A. and then Crude Oil. Again, the strip is slightly higher than where 2020 is tracked, but the key to us is the differentials, and the differentials largely are the same as what we saw in 2020. So as we sit here today, absent volatility or movement in prices, we see kind of margins forecasted to be roughly the same in 2021 as we see in 2020.

Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Arnold, Christopher Scherman, Eva Bishop, Jason Metcalf C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott

I think from a conventional pipeline basis and a gas services and a fractionation, I don't think we see any degradation in tools.

Okay, perfect. Last one for me, Scott. Just going back to your comments around share buybacks and the uses of potentially some excess cash here until your growth is secured. I know you've taken a look at the math before behind trying to Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Arnold, Christopher Scherman, Jason Metcalf

Yeah, Pat, I think we're always looking at what those options are. You know, from a common perspective, you know, if you look at the yield of buying out of PREP compared to the yield of buying out our common plus, you know, assuming that, you know, we're going to get back to growing the dividend at some point, it still makes sense, we believe, from a cost to capital if you have a spare dollar to buy back a share versus buy back Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Arnold, Christopher Scherman, Eva Bishop, Jason Metcalf

Hey, good morning, guys. I just want to follow up the capital allocation questions a little bit here. And just to clarify what you said previously, I appreciate the logic and the 50-50 funding leading to how you might deploy cash flow, free cash flow, some to repayment of debt and some to returning to shareholders. I just want to clarify, in 2020, we haven't seen a dividend increase other than the one related to Kendra Morgan. Closing and then pointed to a very high yield right now in the current dividend. So does that suggest that there's a chance that we'll go another year without a dividend increase or can you still stomach one even though the yield is high in 2021 with a view more towards long term?

We're studying that, obviously. We'd love to keep the streak going, but at some point, Rob, it doesn't make sense either when you're yielding 9%. When I do conferences, I always ask who I'm talking to what they would do. I'm going to ask you what you would do here. It's a difficult question to answer. On one hand, you want to keep the streak alive. On the other hand, no one's appreciating what you're paying them now, so why would you pay them more? You can redeploy that capital into projects. So what would you do?

Well, it's a good question. That's why I'm asking, but obviously it's a pretty circular discussion. But I would say capital next to your people It is the most precious thing you have. So, you know, 9% is just a lot, not just in isolation, but relative to the spreads and fixed income and other options you have in front of you. You know, and timing is really a matter of trivia, I guess. You could always raise the dividend more later when that's a more attractive choice. So that's kind of where I see it. The other part of it, though, of course, is your dividend yield now is not really anomalous versus the U.S. peer group. But at the same time, they're not raising either.

So it's a challenging one.

I mean, steady, consistent dividend growth probably gets the best value over time. But, you know, there's a line in the sand for everyone, and maybe you've crossed it.

Yeah, and there you have it.

You're arguing both sides of it, and you can see our dilemma as well. I mean, there's no doubt. I can give you assurance that Pembina is going to maintain its dividend, and we do want to grow it over time. It's a hard question right now in this unusual trough. It becomes clearer I think as the world returns to normal. And certainly, I mean, our payout ratio is, I think it's, you know, 60 or sub 60%. We certainly could do it. I just don't know if that's really what the shareholders would want us to do. So a very challenging question. And the good news is we have many months to noodle on it before we get to that time of the year where we have to make that decision.

So thanks for the question.

Yeah, and on that last point, I mean, there's no doubt you have the money, but just because they have it doesn't mean you want to, you know, you still want to do the best you can with it. So just on that, just to follow that up, as you're well aware, there's been a lot of conversation in the market recently about terminal values. So I'm wondering how that's filtering into how you look at capital allocation, specifically You know, obviously the return thresholds and knowing that those compete with share buybacks, but also is it having any impact on screening out certain asset classes or otherwise accelerating sales in other asset classes just to tighten up the AST profile?

You know, we hear that argument. Honestly, it doesn't impact our thinking. We're pretty confident the world's going to need the services we provide for decades to come, for longer than many of our assets will physically last. Our view of terminal value is the life of these assets. We don't see laying down any of our infrastructure because there's no demand for for the products. We look at the OPEC and the EIA and others who suggest that we're not at peak hydrocarbon yet. Even if we were to get there the next decade, it's a long, long, long tail. And particularly Western Canada has fought hard to get West Coast egress. and we'll have that in an enhanced form here in the next two or three years and that'll make that tail much, much longer even if North America is a demand flat environment.

Okay, thanks a lot for those answers.

Your next question comes from Robert Kwan from RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead, your line is open.

Great, good morning. Just to start on the last call, you alluded to evaluating some of your growth projects and making some decisions over the coming weeks post that call and then potentially restarting some of that growth. So I'm just wondering what changed in the environment that you were expecting but didn't unfold such that everything is still remaining on hold right now?

I think really it was COVID. Robert, I mean, you know, we believed at the time, I think the world did, that we, you know, we understood what was happening and we saw as a result, you know, oil starting to come back and that gas was pretty strong. And so, you know, we had hoped we could speak into the mic on our deferred projects, which is what we're going to do in December. So it was just, Just a little bit of second guessing going on on timing. As Rob was saying, you just have to be very cautious. You have to really be careful with your capital. And so it was just out of an abundance of caution that we decided to continue to evaluate different options.

So is it fair to say then that if nothing materially changes here in the next month, what we should expect in December is really more the framework for how you'd move forward versus sanctioning or I guess a restart of those projects? Is that the intention in December?

Not really, no. Jason mentioned earlier we have consulted now with all of our customers and stakeholders on all of our deferred projects. We expect to give a detailed update on those and we'll do so with more confidence than we would have had compared to the time you're referencing.

And if I can just finish with coming back to the share buybacks. Thanks Scott, you mentioned earlier on the call that it sounds like the decision to go forward with buybacks is going to be a function of how many of these projects come back, i.e. how much cash is left over. And so I'm just kind of wondering though if you turn that around, is it fair when you look at your yield and really that's just the payout that you're probably more like in the mid-teens on a free cash flow or an AFFO yield that all of these projects, their returns are beating that number?

Nick, are you taking that or do you want me to? I'll start. Generally, yes, Robert. We're aware of the marker of our cost of money, and it's a fair question, and we do look at that as a marker. I mean, we can buy our own stock, and we love our upside, and not every project can give you a risk-adjusted rate of return the same way buying back our shares have. The problem with just buying back your shares is it doesn't increase your company's capability. So let's just say, to answer your question, there was a tie. You know, we would always expand our business in a tie because we increase our capability, we increase our customer service, and we increase the leverage and the platform for when things return. And so in a tie, we would choose to deploy Scott Burrows C.F.A. Scott, you want to add something?

No, I think that was well said. It's certainly a marker that we look to, Rob.

That's great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from Schnur Gershuni from UBS. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning, everyone. Glad you're all safe. Sorry for the probably 11th question on buybacks. It was an interesting last question. I was wondering if I can flip it the other way. Have you looked at when you sort of consider the environment that hydrocarbon demand is clearly uncertain right now for at least a period of time until the vaccine arrives and so forth. Have you sort of looked at the same free cash flow yield type of analysis but looked at it more on a time continuum? The NPV of a project usually remains the same NPV. But if you were to delay capital for a year and buy back instead, would that not be a potential optimization strategy that you know you can buy back your shares where they're yielding where they are today, yet still retain the optionality of being able to deploy the CapEx, you know, 12, 18 months from now and who knows where your share price would be at that point. You may not have the same opportunity.

Yeah, that's an interesting idea. I got to think about the math of it, but it seems logical. The part that's missing, though, from that question is your customers. Your customers, the things we're selling, they want to buy and we have contracts. And so they get to say when you have that option for that project. You can't unilaterally delay projects a year when customers Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth, Scott Arnold, Christopher Scherman, Eva Bishop, Jason Metcalf C.K.P.C. or Peace Pipeline and things that are contractually backed. We have to do them when the customer wants them as well.

So that makes perfect sense. Just it was more of a thought. Your results this quarter in your guidance with respect to cost reductions have frankly been pretty impressive. As you've sort of gone through this entire process and you've been kind of on a growth plane and sprinting and you're more in a standing still mode right now, do you see further optimization opportunities and potential cost reductions as well on the opportunity front? Or is kind of the $150 million kind of what we should expect going forward? Or do you think you're in the second or third inning of this exercise?

You know, the $150 realized some of that was incentive-based comp because, you know, share prices are much lower. So on this side of the phone, we're all going to make less money and as it should be, you know, we don't love that, but it's as it should be when the shareholders aren't doing quite so well, either should the employees. So we accept that. The way I would characterize it is we are exiting 2020 having achieved things, you know, cost savings we're proud of, but I would characterize those as the things that we know how to do. And in the next year, we're going to get some third party help to take us beyond what we know how to do Thank you for joining us today. Deficit. That would be an objective we would have for 21 and 22.

Perfect. Really appreciate the color today, guys. Have yourselves a safe day and a great weekend. Thanks for your question.

Your next question comes from Andrew Kuski from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thanks. Good morning. I promised not to ask a share buyback question. But in relation to the negative sentiment, Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Scott Arnold, Christopher Scherman, Eva Bishop, Jason Metcalf

I'm going to answer that in the two parts. I've never been at Canberra where we have greater embedded value in our asset base. Just consider that we're only operating at about three quarters of capacity and our marketing business is at decade lows right now. So the embedded value that we have is unbelievable. If we add 10% throughput, it's a lot of money. Even if our marketing business reverts to the mean, that's a lot of money without spending a dime. As we think about future projects and the leverage in our pipeline systems of complete segregation, The impact of non-batching to throughput is massive. And as the previous caller mentioned, we're still mid-stride in terms of finding efficiencies. After years of growing, we actually have a time, as I said earlier, to measure twice and cut once and assess. So we have tremendous Scott Burrows C.F.A. Deals and the leverage that can be liberated with partnerships or partial sell downs and those are certainly available to us. We have the quality of asset base to do those in different places and that's on our mind. We're not too excited about issuing equity at these prices, but it is As long as you can buy in a way that's reflective of your share value, you can still do things that make sense. For sure, it's much harder, though. Does that help at all?

That does, and I guess it strikes at the heart of it. Does the OPM, as you called it, if you had OPM, does that allow you to grow, buy back, and possibly do M&A? That tick all the boxes at once and would be massively accretive.

Yeah, and as I said, we're looking at that and, you know, have been for some time and we're intrigued by some of the things others have done.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Your last question comes from Jeremy today from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, thanks for letting me back here. Just wanted to come back. Pick up a bit more on how you see activity trending across basins in your footprint. Could the improvements that you talked about in producer activity, the volumes picking up, as you said, lead to an uptick in EBITDA overall next year? I know it's a pretty early look, but it seems like you'd benefit also from a full year of cost reductions at that point. So just wondering how you feel about that at this point.

Jeremy, I hate to be evasive, but that's really what we're going to talk about in three weeks. So if you kindly just hang on, you'll get the full picture. Suffice to say, volumes are improving on some systems, but on other systems, we're going to enter the year significantly declined from the year Scott Burrows C.F.A. Scott Burrows C.F.A. Scott Burrows C.F.A. Scott Burrows

Scott Burrows C.F.A., Cameron Goldade, Jaret Sprott PEng, Janet Loduca, Stuart Taylor, Allan Charlesworth,

Jeremy, I understand the math you're talking about, but I think at this point, we have no plans whatsoever to cut the dividends and buy back shares.

Got it. Fair enough. I'll stop there. Thank you.

We have no further questions. I would now like to turn the call back over to Mick Bilger, President and Chief Executive Officer for closing remarks.

Thank you, operator. I'm going to leave you with an interesting stat here that we did a bit of work. And given that this is a shareholder stakeholder call, our top 20 shareholders from a year ago still own roughly the same number of shares that they do now. And so I was just delighted to learn that people are sticking Thank you for your participation you may now disconnect.

C.F.A.

& C.F.A.