Jesse Arenivas: Yeah, well, look, as we said, we’ll be very disciplined in our approach. We like the last two M&A deals we did. They are low multiples with a lot of optionality in the right basins, a consolidation place and we’ve done very well with. We’ve been able to cut cost out, relocate compression and options, future options on other facilities to relocate. So we like those. You’re right, it’s cooled off a bit. We don’t feel like we need to do anything. We’ve got the CCS growth ahead of us. So we’ll be very diligent, look for the right synergistic bolt-on. And that’s about all I’ve got.
Spiro Dounis : All right. That’s it for me. Thanks for the time, guys.
Operator: Thank you. Next question is coming from Praneeth Satish from Wells Fargo. Your line is now live.
Praneeth Satish: Thanks. Good morning. So I see in the slide deck, that there’s you’re estimating a five times EBITDA multiple on CCS opportunities, I guess beyond the initial Exxon agreement. Maybe if you could just kind of elaborate conceptually on how you came up with that multiple? Do you expect all deals to kind of at least be this good? How much variability is there from deal to deal in terms of economics? And then is that kind of — is that a year one multiple, or like the Exxon deal where it might take some time to get to peak returns?
Ben Lamb : Yeah, hi Praneeth it’s Ben. So first, as to how we arrived at that multiple, we looked at the projects that we have in development today, not only with Exxon, but with all the other counterparties that we’ve talked about, and honestly a couple of parties that we haven’t been able to talk about publicly, and came up with a concrete business case that we showed our Board of Directors for how that business could develop. And the endpoint was a little above $300 million in EBITDA in 2030, at an average investment multiple of five times right, which implies total capital of $1.5 billion. So there are real projects that have been scoped by our engineering team. They’re not all the same. Some of them have more elements of brownfield repurposing, like the ExxonMobil project has.
Some have more elements of new build. And so they’re not all each individually five times projects, but across the entire portfolio, that’s the average that we expect to see. And it’s not so much a year one multiple, is the way we see the business evolving between now and 2030.
Praneeth Satish: Got it, that’s helpful. And I wanted to just touch on CapEx, maybe this is nitpicking, but you reiterated the CapEx range for the year, but not the midpoint. Should we kind of assume that you’re still tracking to be at the midpoint or are you trending towards the lower high end of the range? Just what are kind the puts and takes that we should consider for the balance here on CapEx?
Ben Lamb: Yeah, we’re trending toward the higher end of the range. And we talked about that in the second quarter call. We’ve had a little bit of pull forward in the Permian, in particular, into the fourth quarter out of early next year. That’s not even new for the quarter. That was the case into 2Q. So we’re going to be a little bit on the high end of the range on CapEx at the midpoint is our current expectations for adjusted EBITDA, which lands us within the range on FCFAD.
Praneeth Satish: All right. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. Our next question is coming from Gabe Moreen from Mizuho Securities. Your line is now live.
Gabe Moreen : Good morning, everyone. I think you noted getting aggressive with 24 hedges. At this juncture, can you just speak to kind of how much you’ve had, maybe levels and how they might compare to hedging levels for this year in ‘23?