Good day and welcome to the Sempra Energy Second Quarter Earnings Results Conference Call. As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Rick Vaccari. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and welcome to Sempra Energy's second quarter 2015 financial presentation. A live webcast to this teleconference and slide presentation is available on our website under the Investors section. With us today are several members of our management team: Mark Snell, President; Joe Householder, Chief Financial Officer; Martha Wyrsch, General Counsel; Trevor Mihalik, Chief Accounting Officer; Dennis Arriola, Chief Executive Officer of SoCalGas; Steve Davis, President of SDG&E; and Octávio Simões, President of Sempra LNG. Before starting, I would like to remind everyone that we'll be discussing forward-looking statements on this call within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially from those discussed today. The factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially are discussed in the company's most recent 10-K and 10-Q. It's important to note that all of the earnings per share amounts in our presentation are shown on a diluted basis and that we will be discussing certain non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to the presentation slides that accompany this call and to Table A in our second quarter 2015 earnings press release for a reconciliation to GAAP measures. I'd also like to note that the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation speak only as of today, August 4, 2015, and the company does not assume any obligation to update or revise any of these forward-looking statements in the future. With that, please turn to slide four, and let me hand the call over to Mark.

Thanks, Rick. To start off, I want to mention that Debbie is not joining us today. She had a medical issue with her left eye that required attention and treatment this morning. She apologizes for not being able to make the call, but we all realized health issues come first. I'll be filling in for her today. And so now, we'll get on with the call. Our financial performance for the second quarter was very strong. Earlier this morning, we reported second quarter adjusted earnings of $260 million or $1.03 per share. As you may recall, these figures include the impact from applying seasonality to the SoCalGas revenues in 2015. While this change does not affect full-year earnings for SoCalGas that results in almost all of their earnings being reported in the first quarter and fourth quarter of the year. Specifically, the impact from seasonality was $48 million of lower earnings this quarter, and $65 million of higher earnings year-to-date. Given our solid financial results in both the first quarter and second quarter, we are on track to achieve our 2015 adjusted earning guidance. Today, I'd also like to emphasize that just six months into the first year of our current five-year plan, we have already secured by new projects that are additional to the base plan we presented at the March Analyst Conference. At U.S. gas and power, we have added two new solar projects at our Mesquite facility in Arizona, this adds to the Black Oak Getty wind project we announced last quarter. In Mexico, IEnova was awarded another CFE pipeline project in July. And last week, IEnova agreed to purchase PEMEX's 50% equity interest in IEnova-PEMEX joint venture. In addition, we're working on the steps needed to advance our potential LNG projects, which could extend growth beyond…

Thank you, Mark. Earlier this morning, we reported second quarter earnings of $295 million or $1.17 per share. On an adjusted basis, we reported second quarter earnings of $260 million or $1.03 per share. Second quarter earnings in 2014 were $269 million or $1.08 per share. Adjusted earnings this quarter exclude two items first we recorded a $36 million after-tax gain on the sale of the remaining block of the Mesquite Power Plant. Second as I noted last quarter, we are adjusting earnings for expenses relating to the development of our pre-proposed LNG liquefaction projects. While our cash expenditures have been consistent with cost for the LNG development activities, we've undertaken thus far we have recorded $1 million of after-tax expense in the second quarter of 2015. This number reflects the fact that certain costs are being capitalized and certain other costs are being shared with our Cameron joint venture partners and PEMEX. I also wanted to note that compared with the same period of last year, second quarter earnings now reflect the impact of seasonality in SoCalGas revenues. As Mark mentioned earlier, this impact resulted in $48 million of lower earnings this quarter and $65 million of higher earnings year-to-date. Looking to the third quarter please be aware that we could report a loss for SoCalGas due to seasonality. You can refer to the appendix for additional detail where we illustrate 2014 SoCalGas earnings at seasonality and revenues been applied. As the appendix shows third quarter 2014 earnings would have reflected a loss in the third quarter. So there was no impact on a full year basis. Overall, we are on track to achieving our 2015 adjusted earnings guidance given the strong financial performance we've had year-to-date. Finally, before proceeding, I want to mention that we expect to report…

[Operator Instructions] And we will take our first question from Michael Weinstein with UBS.

Hey, good afternoon.

Hi, Mike.

It's Julien here.

Hey Julien, how are you?

Hey, not too bad. Thank you. I suppose first question here out of the gates, obviously the IEnova is a pleasant development but curious, you're providing a bridge loan but ultimately how are you thinking about your ownership stake in IEnova pro forma for the latest deal, but probably more strategically, how are you thinking about that down the line as you think about the 80%-ish you're on today?

Well, I'm going to let Joe handle that question in detail, but let me just say off the bat that we are expecting to finance this at the IEnova level and even if we don't participate in this thing and I'll let Joe explain what we're thinking there but even if we didn't, it would still be accretive to us but Joe why don't you give some more details on that.

Yeah. Thanks, Mark and hi Julien. Yeah, this is very important and we're studying the issue. We really like this deal and so we would like to participate in the deal. We are looking at, what the market is going to be like over the next couple of months. We've got a lot of confidence from the banks we've worked with on this transaction. And I think our current view is, we will participate in the equity offering. We know that a number of our IEnova investors want to have more liquidity. So, we've said all along that if we have a large project this would enable us to go back out to the equity markets. And so we're going to have an equity offering I believe, we will participate. What I'm currently thinking is, we have a dividend coming later this week from IEnova. It will come to our Mexican Holding company. And I think, we'll use that cash plus some other cash to participate in the offering. We haven't decided the firm amount yet, we want to see how the shares are doing and how the market is, but we definitely will participate, and as Mark said, this is going to be accretive either way.

Great. Excellent. Turning to the LNG story. Curious, you mentioned on the slides here for instance one trains or two trains at Cameron. I suppose, as it relates to the project, what's your confidence level, as it relates to one trains or two trains? And, then secondly, in terms of conversations, are you still expecting that you passively acknowledge to the Street one way or another perhaps by 4Q or 1Q next year a decision. I mean, I know, you indicate FID by second half of 2016, but just wanted to be very clear about your communication intentions?

Well, with respect to trains four and trains five, we have this partnership that owns a facility, we own 50% and our partners own the other 50%. Currently through trains one, trains two, trains three our partners have all of the capacity. With respect to trains four and trains five, we have a right, Sempra has the right to 50% of that capacity, we're highly confident that we're going to be able to market that capacity and we're actively doing that now. And therefore we know that at least one of the trains will go, whether our partners decide to market that extra capacity or not is entirely up to them and we don't control that, but - Octávio, if you would like to comment on any of that that maybe fill in. Octávio Simões: Sure. I think Mark covered the big topics and that is that the ownership has decided to go forward with the expansion. We have 50% of that expansion capacity roughly 4 million tons, the remaining partners have 4 million tons as well. What they're doing with their capacity, it depends whether they want to put it in the market, if it fits in their portfolio or not, we are actively pursuing it, we're encouraged by all the things we are finding in our current negotiations. And so at the end of the day, I think the slide reflects that we'll go back and say, okay, Sempra is taking on the 4 million tons that we are allotted to, if our partners say no that means that probably then one just one train will be built since there was agreement by everybody, if they market their capacity then we would have the two trains. We are permitting both trains from both the FERC and DOE.

I'd add on Mark. Just to be clear, so everybody is clear on the call. The fourth train would be owned by the joint venture, so it'd be 50-50 ownership. But Octávio was right, we would have the capacity. Octávio Simões: That's right, Joe.

Okay.

And just to be extra clear about this, I apologize. So this would be - you would obviously still need to go and remarket your respective ownership, but I supposed at this point in time you're indicating that you intend at least move forward on train 4, is that an incremental?

Yeah, what we would - I mean obviously we would not move forward if we haven't sold the capacity forward, but we're in the process of that marketing effort right now and we're pretty confident that we'll get that done.

Okay. Thank you. I'll let it be.

And we will take our next question from Neel Mitra with Tudor, Pickering.

Hi. Good afternoon.

Hi, Neel.

A question on the PEMEX acquisition. Now that you have a larger stake in Mexico, especially with the pipes, are you seeing additional synergies or lateral opportunities from owning a larger stake in Mexico?

Yes, I mean, in fact we're seeing two things. One, on the cost side, with us acquiring a 100% of the pipes that we're in the JV. We believe we can integrate those with the other pipes that we own and we'll definitely get some synergies out of that that would be in addition to the earnings accretion that we've so far forecasted. So we think if there is additional upside just in the operational synergies that we can achieve. But then secondly, all of the pipeline infrastructure that we're building now, we've to this point, only marketed it to the original customer that ask for it to be built mainly CFE or PEMEX. But these are open access pipes and we are announced - into market extra capacity to other users and we've just actually started working on that and we're seeing some success and getting that. So we do think there is additional upside to come from marketing additional capacity either that exist currently or that we can create through compression and we are pretty excited about that. We think that there is a growth opportunity there.

And what would be the timeline for recognizing some of the possible lateral projects? When can we first hear about it?

Well, I guess, you'll first hear about it when they are announced, but for the most part, I think we're working on some of these right now and some will be probably completed before year-end.

Okay. Great. And Joe you had two good quarters. Can you say where you are within the guidance range at this point? Are you at the high end or are you in the middle? Can you comment on that?

We are not going to narrow the range or talk about where we are in the guidance. You can see the year-to-date results are really strong, you can't double those because SoCalGas is $65 million ahead on the seasonality. So that will come back and then we have a few items that are in the earnings year-to-date that won't repeat. So we feel really good about where we are, but we're not going to narrow it at this point.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

And we'll take our next question from Steve Fleishman with Wolfe Research.

Yeah, hi. I've got a few questions. First, on the two new solar projects. Can you give us any sense of the earnings benefit to those?

We are not disclosing the benefits precisely, but they're 100 megawatts and 150 megawatts projects and there are consistent returns with what we've had in the past.

Okay. And then secondly just on the MLP, which I know you can't talk about. Can you just remind when we did - when you did your base plan, my recollection is that you did not kind of assume the MLP in your financing plan.

That's correct.

At your Analyst Day.

That's correct.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yeah.

Okay. And just is there any way to give any color on kind of how to think about that strategy just given current market conditions?

The thing is we just cannot comment on the MLP at all. I just - I apologize, but that just the way the rules are and so we really can't talk about it. We'll talk about that when we do the marketing for the MLP.

Okay. And I get that. And then finally just back that you know of the $0.05 to $0.10 of accretion on the different years, that's whether you take stock or not, are related to this deal, that range is still pretty good either way, sort of the equation.

Yes. I'll let Joe.

Yes. It's pretty close. I mean we've evaluated this as we've been working on this deal for a few months and actually whether we borrow money or whether we issue equity, it hardly has any impact and so the only thing that moves jut slightly is whether we participate but again it's going to be accretive either way, but I think we will - you will see us participate to some degree.

Okay. And then one question on Cameron 4 and Cameron 5. So you can control of 4 million tons of one train. You're only going to go forward with yours if you sign long-term contracts, I assume.

Correct.

Okay. The partners have this other 4 million tons, can you - is there any way that if you kind of see the market that you could kind of take that over as well if you wanted to or is it really in their hands what to do with that?

It's really in their hands. I mean I suppose something could be worked out but we have other projects too that we're developing and are part of our portfolio. So we have to evaluate it in relation to those just as they will.

Okay. But it sounds like your conviction on moving forward what you control seems quite high.

I think you could say that it is very high, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

And we will take our next question from Greg Gordon with Evercore ISI.

Hey, guys. Steve just asked my question, so I'm good. Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, Greg.

Thanks, Greg.

And we will go next to Michael Dandurand with Goldman Sachs.

Hi, guys. Good afternoon.

Hi, Michael.

Hi.

Just to - and first of all thank -appreciate the additional color on LNG, and with particular to Cameron. I just have a follow-up there as it relates to the Port Arthur. Can you just talk a little bit about what we should be looking forward there and how things are going with Woodside now involved?

Well, I'll start and then I'll let Octávio comment on this as well, but we have an MOU with Woodside to look at the feasibility of the project. We're progressing on it. We've had lots of meetings. We're starting some of the technical analysis and starting some of the marketing of the trains. It's an excellent site. It looks like it's very promising as moving forward and I would say their commitment to it is very strong. And Octávio, do you want to give any other color on that? Octávio Simões: I think you've covered the process. I would just add part of the attractiveness of Port Arthur is that it appeals to customers that may want to have equity as part of their supply strategy. It allows us and Woodside to look at options to really make Port Arthur a very low cost supplier in the LNG market, which for us is key for the success of any project out of the U.S. exports of LNG. So it's - plus this is going extremely well. There is a lot of similar objectives between us Woodside, and you're likely to see some announcements as that relationship grows and as the project continues to go forward.

Yeah. And I would just add to that. I think it's important just to keep in mind that our projects, both in the Gulf and ECO as well, we are positioning them as at the very low end of the cost curve for LNG worldwide. And so we think they will be very competitive, but that doesn't - we have other Gulf Coast facilities that obviously compete with that. But in general, our facilities and the others in the Gulf region in particular, are some of the lowest cost providers of LNG that out there. And therefore they're very likely to get lifted over time. Octávio Simões: Mike, if I may just add. One of the key elements for any buyer of LNG in the world is the reliability and the creditability of the developer. And so, we think Sempra is very well positioned with our track record, clearly Woodside is very well positioned given their track record. And so that in itself is an advantage because we'll be offering technology that's conventional that the buyers are used, that's reliable and with all kinds of the guarantees that they expect from a project of this size.

Got it. It's very helpful. So, in less of an emphasis on the spot market, if I'm hearing that correctly?

Yes.

Got it. And then just as far as, we've seen a bit of a deterioration in the midstream arena, and I appreciate that you can't discuss the MLP directly. But just as far as the broader landscape for midstream assets out there. Are you seeing anything more attractive just from an M&A standpoint.

Well, obviously we do see some attractive M&A opportunities. We just executed on one last week. So we think that - we think that we did a very good deal last weekend and we're really happy with it. So obviously with the way the landscape has been, it could be that M&A opportunities become more viable. But it's still - there still a pretty good cost advantage to developing your own projects as opposed to train to buy them in the marketplace. We see that both - we see that both in the midstream area and also in the renewables area as well, to the extent that we continue to develop our own backlog of projects, that's a much more profitable avenue for us and we're fortunate to have a pretty good backlog of projects to work on. So I think we're very well positioned for growth and growth at the lower end of the cost curve as opposed to somebody that's trying to it through acquisition.

Got it. Very helpful. I mean the only other one I have is just on Mexico with the recent project win there. Does that help your upcoming bid with the project in August here, I'm going to put you this name, the Samalayuca.

Yeah, it does. We believe the project that we just won is kind of a large header system, which will benefit us and being able to control the costs on the next project bid that's coming up. And so I don't want to go into all the details of why that is. But we do think it gives us a little bit of an advantage and we're hoping to see some success there.

Okay. Got it. Thanks for the time. I appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you.

And we will go next to Matt Tucker with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Hey, guys. Congrats on nice quarter and on the IEnova transaction. I just wanted to ask about that. PEMEX and IEnova highlighted the remaining JV as a platform for future product development. Just talk about little bit the opportunities you see going forward with PEMEX. And also is this model - something you could see PEMEX wanting to repeat i.e. develop and construct their project in a JV and then sell their interest?

Yeah, look, I think it's a healthy development for us in the sense that PEMEX is recognizing this transaction. They repeatedly refer to it as a monetization as opposed to a sale, because they see this opportunity to build these projects that they need to have done and then once they're built, they can monetize them through a sale to us and then start on the next project and we see that or obviously we think that that's a very exciting opportunity for us. And we were very happy that they wanted to stay into this partnership arrangement with the pipeline that's currently under construction and then the considered new projects in that. So I think we do think - we are looking at this as a source of future projects. We think it's a good model for us, it's worked well in the past. And I think the thing that that PEMEX appreciates is that they have now worked with us on these projects over the years. They've had good results, we've built good projects, they've come in pretty much on time and on budget and I think they see us as a really good partner that they can count on to deliver for them. And so that's something that we - obviously we pride ourselves on and we think that is going to lead to more projects in the future.

Mark, I'd add on to that. And, Matt, I think you guys don't always see this, but Mark and I sit on the IEnova board and so we were just down there last week and we were with Debbie and we met with PEMEX and other government agencies. And it's really important, we have a very interactive ongoing relationship with IEnova. And I just want to make sure you guys all understand that.

Okay, great. And just on the California facilities, the GRCs mentioned they're going well. Can you just update us on any kind of key or contentious issues that are emerging as the process goes on. And I believe at the Analyst Day when you came out your longer term guidance, you had assumed no rate increase resulting from the GRCs, any update on how you're thinking about that assumption?

Yeah, I'm going to turn this over to Dennis to give you the details. So let me just make one quick point which is - at the analyst conference and in the plan, what we assumed with respect to the GRC was just normal attrition, but I think that was just a conservative assumption to - for the planning purposes, but I think Dennis can give you some more detail on that.

Thanks, Mark. Hi, Matt. Yeah, as Mark said in his opening comments. Things are going well. We finished our evidentiary hearings two days ahead of schedule and we're happy with the overall pace of the filings. Our witnesses from both SoCalGas and SDG&E did a great job of explaining the overall merits and details of both of our filings. And we're really optimistic that we're going to receive constructive decisions for both companies. We can't obviously disclose anything related to any settlement discussions if we're in them. But what we can tell you, is given the strong show in that we had in our evidentiary hearings and the fact that, our filings are consistent with the priorities of the PUC which are around safety, reliability and customer service. We feel really good about potential constructive discussions with intervening parties. As it pertains to the plan that Mark talked about, you're right, what we just assumed was that, our existing attrition rates of 2.75% for both SoCalGas and SDG&E, would continue from a planning perspective but obviously we've asked for more that supports our filings. And, so far, the ORA in their reply have come back and said that, they would be looking for 3.5% attrition increases in 2017 and 2018 or both SoCalGas and SDG&E. So, having said all that, we feel really good about where we're at this point.

Great.

Steven, do you have any comment on that?

No, I really have nothing more to add. But, again as Dennis pointed out, we concluded our regulatory hearings and we feel very confident in the outcome of those hearings and we look forward to construct a dialogue with parties going forward.

All right. Thanks. And, then just one on the LNG side, I thought it was great that you can have the visibility to target the FID on the Cameron expansion. Any sense you can gives us for - do you have targets yet for FIDs on ECA or Port Arthur or can you give us a sense for maybe how far behind they are right now?

I'll let [ph] Trevor address that.

Sure. Port Arthur we're probably looking at something in the late 2017, late 2018 timeframe for FID. It does take - it does require a different permitting process, it's environmental impact same as opposed to environmental assessment which takes longer. And obviously we don't have the benefit or the luxury of just a continuation of the existing EPC contract and contractor at Cameron. So that will process with a limitation to bid and what not, will take longer. So late 2017, 2018 timeframe is what we're thinking about Port Arthur. For Costa Azul as we're putting all the key elements in place from regulatory standpoint and from a commercial standpoint that might be a little later than that or at the same timeframe frankly on that one, I'm not confident enough at this point to make a prognostic as to the FID timeframe. One of the things with respect to ECA is a lot of the regulations are still being developed. So we're not really sure exactly how to go about that process. I mean we've been working with the Mexican government on developing the regulations for LNG exports. So we're still - so to give you a firm date would be really quite difficult, but it is probably more in the Port Arthur timeframe than it is in the trains four and five timeframe.

Okay. That's really helpful. Thanks again.

Okay.

And we'll take our next question from Faisel Khan with Citigroup.

Hey, Faisel.

Hey, good afternoon. Just on the PEMEX, the accretion you guys discussed in your slide from $0.05 to $0.10. So, I guess all I've got so far in that JV is in terms of projects that you're working on are expanding with a JV is the ethane pipeline. So what else is going to sort of drive that joint venture from $0.05 to $0.10? I'm assuming loss from [indiscernible]. That's still in the JV and the same ownership presenters so that doesn't change anything that's going on there. Well, I will let Joe address the EPS numbers.

Hey, Faisel. So, most of it is the ethane project coming online but then in addition to that Mark talked a little bit about some of the synergies that we see and in an addition all the cash flow from the business would be accumulating and paying down debt or being available to provide some earnings and that's what's really driving the few cents additional as we go through the time period, but the bulk of it is ethane.

Okay. That's a pretty big uptick in earnings just from the ethane project. What's the stats of these lines in the JV, are they running at full capacity or are they - is there a room to grow that having to spend much capital?

Yeah, actually as I mentioned earlier there's two things that we really didn't put into the EPS guidance, one was the efficiencies that we think we can get from running a whole system together, that's one. And then the two, there is either additional capacity in the lines or capacity that could be added relatively and expensively with compression and we're in the process of marketing some of that capacity to other users. So, other LDCs, power plants and those kinds of things and so we do think that there is upside there. We haven't put that - we haven't calculated that into our EPS estimates of accretion, but there is certainly other things that we think we can get.

Okay, got it. Makes sense. And then just on Port Arthur so the sort of relationship here are talking about with the Woodside Petroleum. So, I guess what's the timeline in terms of when you guys decide whether you're going to go forward with the joint venture and I guess therefore market the asset together or what are you guys thinking about it right now. What is the...

Well, we're actually starting - we are marketing the asset right now, but I'll let Trevor give a little more detail.

Yeah. Let me be clear, on the marketing side of the asset clearly, we would not have engaged and pursued if we didn't find the interest so it's expert oriented. As we look through what the project now will be structured, then if it is with [indiscernible] side which obviously we hope and are confident it will be, then we together will have to develop the marketing strategy for the asset. So, that's on the marketing side. As far as, what we expect to see going forward, it's really going to be a continuation of the same process. We're looking at the feasibility. We're looking at the economics. There are hurdles that we will have to go through to make sure we go to the next stage. Are we confident we can put together a project that's low cost as it has to be? Are we confident that we can do all of the regulatory permits in all of the local issues we have to deal with? So, those things will be a hurdle that, we will be overcoming. We're confident we can, but it's tough to give you a timeframe at this point it's very specific. I think, you will see some developments between now and at the end of the year, but I wouldn't want to commit at this point as to what those developments are.

And, finally you may have missed it on the question before, but we did discuss that we're talking about FID with that project with Port Arthur sort of late 2017 all the way into late 2018 sort of that time - probably in the 2018 timeframe.

Okay, understood. Then just on the Cameron expansion just in terms of lowering the cost of the - or providing a sort of lower cost and expansion from the economies of scale. Where do you guys think, that is right now? Especially since you've seen steel cost come down and we've seen, I mean, what - like on a percentage basis like versus what you guys have outlined for this one versus what you're thinking about the expansion, is there any color you can provide on that? Thanks.

Well, there is a color I could but won't. Look right now, we think we have a very competitive project. We think our costs are some of the lowest in the region. We're marketing that to our advantage and I really don't want to give any more details in that.

Okay. Got it. Fair enough. Thanks for the time. I appreciate it. Okay.

And we will go next to Mark Barnett with Morningstar Financial Research.

Hey, good morning/good afternoon, everyone.

Hey, Mark.

Hey, you've talked a lot about the PEMEX assets and the PEMEX deal, and some of your pipeline projects and upside today. I'm just wondering given what's taken place over the past few months, six months and what not, how are you looking at the attractiveness of the generation sector in Mexico.

Well, the generation clearly has been under stress in the U.S. Prices have been relatively low, but in Mexico there are going to be generation opportunities. On the renewable side, I think they will be quite good, they'll be - and obviously we're well positioned to do that and ESJ can be expanded pretty easily. But on the gas power generation side, and especially with respect to combined cycle plants, there will be opportunities to build those under contracts with CFE, but they haven't really been let that out that much in any kind of volume of [indiscernible] one and what we're - we're going to have to kind of wait and see - to see how that market develops. I think what they're doing in Mexico is actually really pretty smart, which is they're building out the gas network first. They're developing a very active gas market one that both CFE and the private sector will participate in to a great degree, and once if that, they have a robust gas market and a good supply network, then I think you'll start to see them let out the opportunities to build more power plants. But I think they definitely are staging at a little bit, and I think rightly so.

Yeah, it's definitely been a slow process. I just wonder given that you're positioned already to be a fairly large operator of the gas infrastructure, does that give you some kind of a look into where you are competitive position would be, when those kind of biz do you start to show up?

Absolutely, I mean I think we are going to be very well positioned to take advantage of those, and I think - we have every intention of doing that. It's just that they have to meet our criteria for having long-term contracts and being solid investments which we expect them to be. But given our infrastructure and our knowledge of the gas pipeline network in Mexico, I think that we will be well positioned to take advantage of those offerings.

All right. Thanks.

All right. Thank you.

And this concludes our question-and-answer session. I will turn the call back to Mark Snell for closing remarks.

Well, thanks again for joining us today. If you have any follow up questions, please feel free to contact the IR team, and have a great day.