Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And welcome to the Enbridge Incorporated and Enbridge Income Fund Holdings, 2016 First Quarter Financial Results Conference Call. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Adam McKnight, Director of Investor Relations. You may begin.

Thank you, Richard. Good morning. And welcome to Enbridge Inc. and Enbridge Income Fund Holdings Inc. joint 2016 first quarter earnings call. With me this morning are Al Monaco, President and CEO; John Whelen, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Guy Jarvis, President, Liquids Pipelines; Perry Schuldhaus, President, Enbridge Income Fund; Wanda Opheim, Senior Vice President and Finance; and Chris Johnston, Vice President and Controller. This call is webcast and I encourage those listening on the phone to view the support slides, which are available on our website. A replay and broadcast of the call will be available later today and a transcript will be posted to our website shortly thereafter. Additionally, we'll be posting two supplemental financial packages to our website. The first is an update to the package we introduced on April 22, which provides the quarterly information for the 2015 results. We'll also post the first quarter supplemental package. You can expect this version to be released following our earnings calls going forward. The Q&A format will be the same as always. We'll take questions from the analyst community first, and then invite questions from the media. I would ask that you wait until the end of the call to queue up for questions and please limit questions, two per person, then re-enter the queue if you have additional queries. An Investor Relations team will be available after the call for any follow-up questions that you might have. Before we begin, I'd like to point out that we will refer to forward-looking information in connection with Enbridge and the subject matter of today's call. By its nature, this information contains forecast, assumptions, and expectations about future outcomes, so we remind you that it's subject to the risks and uncertainties affecting every business, including ours. This slide includes a summary of the significant factors and risks that could affect Enbridge or could affect future outcomes for Enbridge, which are discussed more fully in our public disclosure filings available on both the SEDAR and EDGAR systems. And with that, I'll now turn the call over to Al Monaco.

Thank you, Adam. Good morning, everyone. We should be on the slide with the agenda on it for today's call. Given the situation in Northern Alberta, I'm going to start with that topic. We'll then go back and cover a few highlights for the quarter and what's going on in the business. John will take you through the results and provide our usual funding update. He'll also cover the results of Enbridge Income Fund. So moving to slide four, first, some general comments about the wildfires. Obviously, this has been a very challenging time for Alberta and our industry. There's been nothing short of a heroic effort by those fighting the fires, first responders and thousands of citizens helping others especially those that have been displaced. And it's been great to see the support from across Canada. We have many Enbridge people who live and work in and around Fort Mc. They and their families are safe. And I'm proud of how the rest of our staff rallied around them. Our approach to these difficult events is the same as always. We really have three priorities. The first one has been to ensure the safety of our people, the community and the environment. As our assets are critical infrastructure, we then focus on making sure those assets are protected. In this case, that involved close coordination with the provincial, government and the agencies. Finally, we make a careful assessment of operability and detailed planning to effect restart of our operations. That means frequent discussions with customers and the regulator. So, let's move on to slide five for the status. A bit of background first, because of the danger from the fire itself in upstream production outages, we undertook a controlled shutdown of our regional oil sands pipes on May 4.…

Okay. Thanks, John. Just before we go to questions, slide 21 reiterates our secured growth outlook which hasn't changed. The outlook is driven by growth in the existing assets and the CAD 26 billion in mostly organic projects. Based on that secured program, ACFFO is expected to grow at an average CAGR of 12% to 14% through 2019. The outlook supports strong, stable dividend growth as well of 10% to 12% on average through that period, and that's while maintaining a conservative dividend payout, which I think is a key differentiator. So a strong outlook from our secured program. In addition to that, as we've discussed in the past and most recently at Enbridge Day, we see a lot of opportunities in front of us and any new investments above the secured projects would drive an incremental growth. So to sum up on slide 22, first coming back to Northern Alberta, we continue to be focused on safety as the first priority. We're making progress on the restart of the regional systems in support of our customers. On the quarter, a good start to the year, as John said, right where we expected to be, reflection of the strength of our assets and that CAD 8 billion to CAD 9 billion capital we put into to service last year. And I think we're making very good progress on the remaining CAD 17 billion. John noted the capital raise that's CAD 3 billion in equity, which further bolsters our financial position and gives us some flexibility as we move forward. ACFFO and dividend growth outlook through 2019 are intact. We've made good progress on our priority to extend and diversify growth, and we talked about the offshore wind development opportunities. So, with that part of the segment of the call here concluded, we'll now move to the Q&A. Operator?

We will now take questions from the analyst community. For everyone's benefit, please limit yourselves to one question and related follow-up as appropriate, and return to the queue for additional lines of questioning. And our first question comes from Mr. Paul Lechem from CIBC. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning.

Just wondering with the volume growth you've seen on the Mainline and the Lakehead System, where are you at this point in time versus your capacity to make further increase from here?

Yes. Paul, it's Guy. So right now our situation is we're apportioned on heavies, as you know. We're tending to continue to have some room on our system on the light side. So within the current capacities and constraints, we're working hard to try and come up with a few crude slates that would allow us to relieve some of that heavy apportionment and get it moving into the lighter side of the system. There's three things specifically we're looking at right now. They're all in an early development stage, which we hope might allow us to eke more capacity out of the existing system. Looking forward, really, the next opportunity for more capacity on the Mainline in terms of additions would be post the completion of the Line 3 replacement. And so we are talking out towards the end of this decade before there's anything further there.

Okay. So looking beyond the impact of the wildfires on Q2 volumes, how much further upside in terms of throughput could we expect in the back half of the year?

Well, let me just step back. We have a process. We can't just pick a crude and put it on a different pipeline. We have to go through our own internal processes largely from an integrity and an operability perspective. Once we've satisfied ourselves with that, we need to engage our regulator about what we're doing. And as always, you have to have customers that can make that product available on the supply end of the pipe and refiners who can take it on the downstream. And so these processes don't move as fast as I think we would like them to have happened. So it's still too difficult to predict what we might be able to do in the back half of the year and when.

I think just to clarify, I don't think we have any major planned expansions on the Mainline System. I think Guy's comments earlier, though, were right on because right now we're seeing a buildup of inventory, and to the extent we can use some of our light capacity to try and clear that out, I think that's where the capability comes in rather than a raw increase in capacity, Paul.

Thank you. Our next question in line comes from Mr. David Galison from Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone.

Hello.

So I guess I had a couple of questions on the wind acquisition. So considering that the PPAs are in place and I guess how far along these projects are, I'm just wondering what is behind the projects not having final investment decision yet?

Okay. Well, essentially, it has to do with the final estimation of costs. So as you can imagine with such large projects, there's a number of things you go through to determine what the cost estimate is, and so we're just in the process of going through that and we expect to get to the first FID decision in early 2017. I will say that through this process of finalizing the cost that also includes what we refer to as derisking the project, so we'll get fixed quotes on various aspects or packages, we call them, for offshore wind projects. And so those in most cases will be binding, and that will help us get greater clarity in what that final estimate will be. So it's a combination of getting more resiliency to the cost estimate, getting final binding bids on packages, and really that's what the process we're in at least on the first FID decision coming up for Q1 2017.

Okay. And then just on the funding, so it looks like it's CAD 800 million of equity required for, I guess, the first batch. Does that assume 60% debt funding? John K. Whelen - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Well, our capitalization, you're not far off at the end of the day if you look at our model of capitalization. It is around 60% debt overall. Keeping in mind that we're not raising debt dollar for dollar in a capital markets to fund that, I think that's the point of the slide here. There's a tremendous amount of internally generated cash flow and internally generated equity that will be built up in the business. But, yes, if you're looking at our capital structure, we target in that 60% to 65% debt-to-capital range.

Thank you. Our next question in line comes from Ms. Linda Ezergailis from TD Securities. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning.

And congratulations on a strong quarter.

Thank you.

Just a follow-up to David's question on your wind farm, I mean I don't totally understand offshore wind construction, but it looks like they have a good chance of getting to positive FID, especially given the project anchor sponsor. I'm just wondering, if I look at your financing plans, how would that change assuming all three projects get to positive FID realizing that some of this construction goes beyond 2019?

Well, I'll make a quick comment and then I'll pass it to John for that. I think you're right in your observation that most of the factors, I think, are moving in a positive direction. We talked about the cost estimate. But also on the regulatory front and as we said earlier, the commercial construct here is very tightened and certainly in line with what we like. So I would say, most of it is lining up for good opportunity to FID those projects at a very high level. So, John, what's your thought on that? John K. Whelen - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Not too much further to add. They are very strong commercial constructs at the end of the day. They are very financeable projects. The preference of our partner and our preference in this particular case would be to go to non-recourse debt financing, and actually we're reasonably well-advanced with that, but it is key, obviously, that we do get through FID. As Al said, there are cost estimates to be completed and so on and so forth. So, it would be, I think, premature if you will to look too far forward with respect to the funding, although we'll be keeping it in mind and as those projects start to come closer to an FID and a fruition, we'll start to layer that into our plan. They would, kind of, fall into that pending category, if you will, that we have up there, it's for projects that are close to fruition. But you'll see a significant component of the capital cost is planned to be raised through non-recourse debt funding.

Okay. So, if we assume maybe, just as a follow-up, around 40% equity funding, and I don't know if it warrants less or more than that, would it be reasonable to assume maybe around two-thirds of that would come through 2019? Or should I be thinking of that differently? For wind.

Well, let me see, just in terms of the timeline, if we FID'd the first project in Q1 2017, it's likely a three-year total build. So, I would say – I mean, John, you can comment. But, you're not looking at big equity requirements from this at least until 2018, 2019, and that's going to depend on, obviously, how we want to, actually, fund the capital. John K. Whelen - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: That's right. I think, you're pretty close, Al. I think, 2018 and 2019 is when the equity requirement would start to roll-in. And I think, you're probably maybe a little thick on your equity ratio, Linda, as you go forward. The contracts are pretty air-tight, the appealing part of these contracts is, you're substantially immunized from fluctuations in wind resource, as well as fluctuations in prices. So, they are highly financeable contracts.

Great. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. Our next question on line comes from Mr. Ben Pham from BMO. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good morning.

Hello.

Hi. I wanted to follow-up on the French offshore win and it seems like you're getting in a little bit earlier than the Rampion project on the risk curve. And is this project return, is it higher than Rampion? And how does the returns compare to your existing portfolio?

Yeah. It's Al, Ben. First of all, I think, you're partially right on your observations. Strictly speaking, it is in earlier development; however, I would say though that we're far along on most of the aspects of the project, and frankly, that's what attracted us to it. If you can invest this kind of capital including the pre-FID cost we're going to spend and that's the investment that we noted in the release, and you can get access to projects that are this far advanced, we think that provides a lot of optionality and a lot of upside potential for us without actually committing us to the projects at this stage. So, we think in terms of moving up in the development cycle, if you will, this is a very low-risk way to do that. When we look at the returns of these projects, given the tightness of the contracts that John referred to, it lines right up with where we expect the rest of the business to be, so typically the low double-digit equity return profile that we have and target. And remember, you got to look at the risk side of the equation as well. So given the contracts, we think that will be very attractive. Now, having said that, we don't know yet because it's, as you know, dependent on the final capital cost estimate in each of the projects.

Okay. Thanks for that and the contract looks pretty good there. And I'm wondering also perhaps some commentary on your targets in the Green business. And it seems like if you FID these three, then you're almost doubling your business in renewable power and you seem to have some pretty bullish comments on that segment and the market going forward as well. So, is that doubling of renewable capacity, is that a stale target for you guys now or is it not, and maybe you're looking at some other opportunities maybe in natural gas and focusing on that more going forward?

You know that's a good question. So, you're right. If it all gets sanctioned then we'd make a pretty big dent on what we have said is our general objective, although it's hard to put specific numbers on it. It'd be nice to double our capacity within the next few years here, so this would make a big dent in it for sure. I'm not sure it's stale, whether or not we exceed that going forward is really going to depend on the number of projects. Now, from what we've seen in the European offshore area there's many projects that are in development that we'd have opportunities to look at, but again we'd be pretty prudent as to what we would take on just given what we have here and what's out there and how strong it is. So, to get the second part of the equation, I think that's a good observation, too. We've made good progress on building out the inventory of gas opportunities, good progress here on renewables, probably a little bit more emphasis on natural gas going forward would be our preference.

Thank you. Our next question on line comes from Mr. Andrew Kuske from Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Andrew Kuske - Credit Suisse Securities (Canada), Inc: Thank you. Good morning. Obviously, over the years you've had a lot of growth on the Liquids network just because of the asset connectivity in the basin. And so that network effect has been very positive, but obviously given the situation of the wild fires, it also highlights maybe a little bit the concentration risk around having a lot of connectivity and a lot assets in one area. So, how do you think about that balancing act of obviously the positivity of having a good network versus just the concentration risks?

Yeah. Good observation, Andrew. I mean, we think about that all the time in terms of our plan and how it's rolling out over the next three years or four years, and the amount of growth and earnings that we have from each of the businesses. And you're right, we're weighted to Liquids at this point. But going back to the slide we showed in the deck there, we are very, very happy with the strength of the Liquids business and there will be more opportunities there. There's three or four that we're looking at right now within the Liquids business. So, a very strong business. It's going to be around for a long time and we're excited to have more opportunities in it. I think in terms of the concentration issues, it's such a competitive position that we have as you saw and in terms of what the supply source is, in terms of what the downstream markets are, we're very, very comfortable with it. Having said that, as we've talked about in the past, does make sense to maybe put a little bit more emphasis on the other areas, natural gas and generation. As we generate a lot of cash out of Liquids business, certainly makes sense to redeploy some of that into other areas to perhaps have a little bit more balance. Andrew Kuske - Credit Suisse Securities (Canada), Inc: I appreciate that. And so, as you start to build out the other platforms, and they're admittedly getting a decent size at this stage in time, what attributes are you really looking for, whether it's in terms of geography to promote that network connectivity that gives you possibly a multiplier on growth on a longer-term basis as you're seeing on the Liquids side of things?

Yeah. So, I would say, generally speaking, well, there's two things. First of all, commercially and from a value proposition point of view, I think you know it, just as well as anyone else, it's got to have that value proposition that we're happy with. Can we generate a return versus risk profile that is consistent with how we've always delivered value at Enbridge? So, we need to keep to that principle, first of all. And if we can't reach that principle, then I guess we have to look at other things to do with all of this cash flow that we're going to have and lots of options there. But more generally, it really comes down to the fundamentals. And one thing you mentioned is how we look at this integration. For us, on the natural gas side, certainly, we've been, and most companies are focused on basins and moving supply out of basins and that's been the mainstay. Going forward, to us it makes sense to have a downstream market connectivity right to end-use markets. I think, one thing that we've concluded is that we really do have to be tied to the consumer. And a great example of that is in our gas utility and how we build up our gas pipeline business with that strong anchored position in the gas utility. So, getting to end markets and being connected there, we think is likely the best way to go fundamentally in the gas business going forward.

Thank you. Our next question on line comes from Mr. Robert Kwan from RBC Capital. Please go ahead.

Good morning. To start on funding and how you've addressed the funding needs through 2017, and I guess, the messaging after you hit the CAD 2.2 billion of it, the ENB level was that you were fully funded through 2017, and then ENF goes and issues the roughly CAD 600 million. So, just wondering how we think about that ENF piece, is that extending the horizon or I guess the phrase you used today more than sufficient through the end of 2017 or do we think about it as dry powder whether that's for acquisitions or, say, unsecured projects that are becoming more visible over and above the CAD 800 million of pending investments that you've highlighted? John K. Whelen - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: Robert. It's John. I would characterize it as flexibility at the end of the day. I mean, we took on some incremental funding more than we typically would in one bite partly to mitigate risk in a capital market that was pretty choppy at the end of the day, but also to create some flexibility to pursue opportunities when and if they should arise. So, taking down new equity at ENF isn't counter to that at the end of the day. We've always wanted the ENF vehicle to fund an increasing portion of that core investment that it now has in our Liquids mainline system and all those growth projects. So, that's entirely in line at the end of the day. If you look at sort of the lens at the outset of this year, there were a number of unknowns out there, and we felt comfortable taking down a fair amount of funding at Enbridge knowing that there is a number of different ways we could put that funding to use. So, if you look forward, capital markets get choppy again we really have put ourselves in a good position for funding out the secured growth program, which Al pointed out, drives a very attractive earnings and cash flow in its own right. But as we go forward and we see opportunities to invest, if we also see opportunities clearly they will come with the capital that we need to raise for them. Then we'll put ourselves in a pretty good position. So, I'd say it's really all about flexibility at the end of the day.

Yeah. I mean, I've just a kind of point to add on there. I think your point is good because what we've seen here illustrates, I think, the levers that we can pull. So, when we did the equity at the Enbridge level, it gave us satisfaction that we could clear all the equity requirement through 2017. Then, we had the flexibility and opportunity to sort of take another pull at the lever at the income fund level. So, strictly speaking, I guess, it does provide the dry powder in this case. So, I think, the flexibility is being illustrated quite well with these two deals.

Understood. And if I can just finish, looking at Enbridge Energy Partners or just kind of the U.S. side in general. You've got the commentary in the MD&A that you don't see dropdowns as being attractive in the current market environment. I'm just wondering, does that commentary include Eastern Access take backs, and I guess, with that, have you looked at or are thinking about other, kind of, more creative financing alternatives for EEP? And I don't know if this wraps up in kind of the Midcoast review, but maybe elevating Midcoast up to the ENB levels consideration to help facilitate a dropdown into EEP.

Well, let's see, there's a lot in that question. Let me start with the Eastern Access part of it. And, that one is perhaps a little bit unique because it's a call that EEP has at essentially book value. So, if you think about it, it's an immediate injection of very stable cash. So, that's a pretty good opportunity, I would say, to further bolster EEP, and obviously subject to financing. But, that's not a huge amount of financing involved. In terms of your question around MEP, and I think you used the term elevating it or something like that, I think, it's probably just too early to tell on that, Robert, to be honest with you. The business is obviously under pressure there. It's a small part of Enbridge overall. But I think, the team there has done a pretty good job in the last year of managing the cost structure, managing their capital, investment requirements in light of what is a very dramatic turn down in the drilling cycle, as you know, in the Gulf Coast onshore. So, I think, we're just going to have to wait and see. We're going to be pretty diligent and prudent about this review and that's what we're working right now. So, I don't want to speculate on what might happen until we complete that review.

And that's great. Thank you very much.

Okay, Robert.

Thank you. Our next question on line comes from Mr. Steven Paget from FirstEnergy Capital. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good morning. One of the weaknesses in offshore wind is that you can't test the waters by doing a small project. You have to go big. So you've clearly benefited from the experience of other movers in the sector. However, starting small probably remains the Enbridge way when testing new technology, but could you please confirm if that's the case and do you have small interest in the potential technologies of the future such as hydrogen and electrical power storage?

Okay. The answer to the last part is yes, we do have some investments in that area because I think, as you're pointing out, I think it's going to be key to the future, so that's that part. But I want to go back to the initial premise around the technology. We actually don't see a lot of difference here, Steven, in terms of the technology around offshore wind. I will agree with you that these projects are going to be large subject to our ability to sanction them. But really it's the same technology as we've worked with and the whole industry has worked with onshore for years. And the only real complication here, you have to remember this is not like putting pipelines in the deep Gulf of Mexico waters where you have 7,000 feet of water to deal with before you get to the floor, these are really 20 meters or 30 meters generally. So, the real issues in offshore wind have to do with foundations and making sure that those are solid and you have the right equipment for it. And this, as I said earlier, this isn't new either. There's 90 offshore projects in Europe. The most important thing I believe has to do with the supply chain. I think if you went back 10 years, 15 years ago it was a pretty infant business in terms of companies that could supply this kind of equipment and knowhow. That's totally changed. Supply chain now is well-developed for this. So, I actually don't see lot of technology risk. I mean, if anything the technology around wind farms generally has improved considerably and the size of them, I mean, the ones that we're talking about for this particular project, are in the 6 megawatt range and if you go back to the first wind farm we undertook in Saskatchewan, the SunBridge project was 0.6 of a megawatt. So, the size here and the ability of that scale to improve cost and improve overall capacity is pretty striking, and that's what's led to the competitiveness. So probably a long answer, but to us, there's not a lot of technology risk here.

Thank you.

And your last analyst question comes from the line of Mr. Ted Durbin from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Thanks. Just a point of clarification on the wind. Is the $4.5 billion was that just your 50% share, or is that 100% of the capital cost? John K. Whelen - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: It's the 50% share. Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Okay. So, $9 billion for that amount of capacity sounds a bit expensive relative to maybe some competing fuels versus I guess – is there a regulatory approval or other things that you need to move forward on FID for these?

Well, first of all your observation is right. I mean, if you look at the levelized cost of energy across the spectrum, offshore wind is not the cheapest. But the second part of your question is, no, the contracts are, as we said, with EDF. That's the off-taker and so they're firmly committed. And so I think that's sort of the bottom line, Ted, on the contracts. Is that what you're getting at or... Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Yeah. That's exactly what I'm getting at. The contracts are what they are, they don't need regulatory approval. Is there a tax overlay or anything on the returns that they're dependent on?

No, no. We haven't assumed any additional tax benefits other than what we would normally do for this kind of a project. Theodore Durbin - Goldman Sachs & Co.: And then in terms of once the projects are up and running, recycling the cash back home, would there be any issues there as they start to give out free cash flow?

No. I'm looking over to Wanda. Do you see anything on that front, Wanda?

No. Under our structure, no, we see no issue bringing the cash back to Canada.

Yeah. You're talking about repatriation. No, I don't think there's any – there's nothing we've experienced on that in the past.

Thank you. At this time, we would like to invite members of the media to join the queue for questions. We have a question online from Julie Gordon from Reuters. Please go ahead.

Hi there. Thanks for taking the question. I'm just wondering if you could give us a bit of an update on Northern Gateway. And what, if any, changes you might need to make in order to get support from First Nations and other stakeholders, particularly the Northern British Columbia?

Well, I have to say that recent progress on Northern Gateway has been positive. In terms of additional support, let me just start with the fact that over the last several months, we've actually increased the number of First Nations who support the project and, incidentally, will be owners in the project of up to 31 First Nations, so that's very important. In terms of changes, I would say the most impactful one has been the galvanization of these 31 First Nations and their support for the project. They're going to be owners and one of the changes that will come about is they'll be bigger owners. So, at this point, we are hoping that they'll be one-third owners in the project with us. So, if you step back from that, this will be quite a change in how these types of projects are configured with First Nations and Métis communities, at least in this specific situation. So, a significant ownership, obviously, that comes with governance and we're quite pleased with that development. In terms of other support, obviously some support, traditional support on the coast itself is going to be important for the project to move forward.

Okay. And so if I may also ask just about the government, Trudeau has said that there should be no oil tankers in the Great Bear Rainforest. How do you see yourself overcoming that moratorium or getting past that idea that there should not be any oil shipments out of that area?

That's a pretty complicated issue. I can't comment on the legalities of all that and that'll be up for the government to determine. What I can say though is that, getting back to my previous point, with 33 First Nations partners on the project, they're going to have a strong voice here and I've heard them talk about this. And they're clear and they're concerned about the impact of a tanker ban on their communities and the opportunity. So, what we're hoping to see is some engagement and consultation on this issue with First Nations. And I expect that will happen because I think as the federal government has noted, increased engagement with First Nations is going to be pretty important to developing natural resources in Canada.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. Our next question online comes from Ashok Dutta from Platts. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning. Two very quick questions, if I may, please. Somewhere towards the end of 2015 there was a talk of a business plan for a greater footing in the U.S. Gulf Coast, any updates on that please?

Yeah. This is Guy Jarvis. We continue to evaluate that. We've been working on it for a better part of six months or eight months now. I want to go back to them. The message we delivered about that is – our intent there is to try and create again a platform, an opportunity to have a business there. We're really not interested in kind of one-off investments and ending up with a disparate collection of assets. So, we have a plan that's starting to come together that is identifying a series of opportunities which we think, if we secure on some of them, would give us that foundation for what we're looking for. But I would say, there is nothing imminent right now.

Okay. And second is, how has the response been so far on Line 9?

The response has been fantastic. The throughputs have been strong on the line itself. It's also resonated back up through our mainline and into our North Dakota systems. Our volumes out of North Dakota have pretty much been running flat out since Line 9 came into service. And that's manifesting in higher volumes on the Lakehead System as well.

I'll make a broader comment in that. If you step back from this, this has been a very big accomplishment for us, but also ensuring that the refineries in Eastern Canada, the two that are targeted with this line, have access to reliable supply and including Canadian supply and it's about protecting jobs in that area, the 4,000 people and the cluster of petchem businesses that are operating there. So, I think it's been a great outcome not just for us but for the refiners and the broader Canadian context.

Thank you. And our final question comes from Elsie Ross from Daily Oil Bulletin. Please go ahead.

Good morning. I hate to go back to this, but on Northern Gateway, what would it take to sort of start looking at a different location, a different terminus for that project? And is that something – I think it's been sort of hinted, is something you might be looking at?

Well, maybe I'll start, Elsie, by just reiterating that we have an approved project to Kitimat. That's what we're focused on. And remember that it's really the only project out there that actually has a certification today and that's I think quite important. Now, I think what you're pointing out is right in that – you always have to be thinking of other opportunities and ways to sort of cut it. And that's a possibility, we're not really focused 100% on that. We're focused on making sure that we continue to work with First Nations along this route. And in any event, that will be important regardless of the ultimate destination. But as I said, right now, we're focused on Kitimat.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have a follow-up question from Ashok Dutta. Please go ahead.

Hi. Sorry. Thank you. John, you mentioned about the Asian bank showing interest for about CAD 1 billion of funding. Does Asian banks signify anything important? When Northern Gateway is, of course, the context that I'm talking about. You said Asian... John K. Whelen - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: No. I wouldn't I...

...I just wanted to know. Sorry. Go ahead. John K. Whelen - Chief Financial Officer & Executive Vice President: I wouldn't read anything into that whatsoever. We were looking to diversify our sources of term debt funding and the recognized pocket of demand there. So, no, I wouldn't try to drive any links there.

Okay. Thank you.

If there are no further questions, I would now like to turn the call back to Adam McKnight for any closing remarks.

Thank you. We've got no further comments at this time. I'd like to remind everybody that the Investor Relations teams will be available after the call to address any follow-up questions that you might have. Thank you for joining us this morning and have a great day.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.