Good afternoon. My name is Rachel and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the fourth quarter 2009 earnings call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers’ remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator instructions) I would now like to turn the call over to Lynn Elsenhans, Chairman and CEO of Sunoco. Ma’am, you may begin.

Thank you, Rachel. Thank you and good evening, everyone. Welcome to Sunoco’s quarterly conference call. We will be discussing the company’s fourth quarter earnings that we reported this afternoon. With me today are Brian MacDonald, our Chief Financial Officer, and Clare McGrory, our Manager of Investor Relations. I will start by taking on a few introductory comments and then Brian will address business results and comment on our overall financial position. As part of today’s call, I direct you to our website, www.sunocoinc.com, where we have posted a number of presentation slides, which may provide a useful reference as we go through the remarks. For purposes of facilitating a good discussion, I also refer you to the Safe Harbor statement as referenced in slide number two of the slide package and as included in this afternoon’s earnings release and Form 10-Q filing. So let’s begin. As shown on slide four and five, we reported a quarterly net loss, excluding special items, of $31 million or $0.27 a share. For the year, Sunoco reported a loss, excluding special items, of $37 million or $0.32 a share. The challenging market environment had continued to impact our volumes and our margins in both the petroleum and the chemical businesses. The fourth quarter refining benchmark margins worsened from the previous quarter and the rising crude oil prices during the quarter also negatively impacted our margins. However, in this difficult environment, the company continued to take aggressive actions to address those issues within our control. Our non-refining businesses earned $127 million in the fourth quarter, as we managed to produce strong earnings as a result of good execution and a sharp focus on cost. Retail marketing earned $21 million as rising feedstock prices put pressure on retail gasoline margins, but Logistics earned $22 million with…

Thanks, Lynn. First let me comment on quarterly net income attributable to Sunoco shareholders and our special items. We reported net income of $26 million attributable to SUN shareholders in Q4, which included $57 million of net favorable special items, as detailed in our earnings release and on slide six. We incurred a $19 million provision for costs associated with MTBE litigation as well as additional charges associated with the business improvement initiative and the Eagle Point shutdown. These charges were offset by a $21 million favorable adjustment to the gain related to the divestment of the discontinued Tulsa operations as well as a $55 million gain from the liquidation of LIFO inventories in connection with the shutdown of the Eagle Point refinery. Before addressing some specifics regarding our operating performance, our quarterly results, particularly for refining, generally reflect the continuation of market weakness as crack spreads deteriorated further from the third quarter, especially in the mid-continent region. Our non-refining operations, however, continued to make positive contributions and we continue to aggressively take actions to improve our cost structure as well as our financial position for the future. Regarding Q4 business unit results, I direct you to slide seven. Starting with refining and supply, we had a loss there of $135 million in Q4, as gasoline margins deteriorated significantly from the prior quarter and the mid-continent margins in particular were very weak. Operationally, crude unit utilization across the system in Q4 was 84%. With respect to Q4 margin realizations, I refer you to slide eight and nine for more detail on the refining system crude costs and product differentials versus our benchmark. Our margin realizations were challenged in Q4 by lower overall benchmark margins as well as rising crude cost and volatility in prices. While most of the factors that…

(Operator instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Jeff Dietert with Simmons. Jeff Dietert – Simmons & Company: Good evening.

Hi, Jeff. Jeff Dietert – Simmons & Company: If my notes are correct, your previous Coke guidance was $215 million of net income for 2010. Hopefully I didn’t miss an iteration there. But could you talk about the pieces that contributed to the lower guidance?

Yes. I think, Jeff, the Middletown plant started off. It’s gotten pushed back. We have some coal price changes from the way the coal blends work for our Jewell operation. So those are the primary reasons. We also have a little bit more I would call an investment in terms of business development capabilities for us to go after business outside of the United States. And we also have some investments that we are going to make in technology as we kind of look to the next phase of growth for the business. Jeff Dietert – Simmons & Company: Okay. Could you split the difference between the major components? What was the coal price impact on the lower guidance and what’s the impact of higher expenses or higher spending on the reduced guidance?

No. I think, Jeff, what I would say is that, broadly speaking, we have – we have Granite City coming up to operation this year. And that’s clearly a plus for the business. And now I would say the coal price impact is sort of an offset to that. And so I think you can kind of walk from the income this year less the tax credit to the guidance that we are giving. And kind of – those are really the two big items with some additional investment around the business development activities and technology. Jeff Dietert – Simmons & Company: Is there some kind of metric we can use for coal price to factor in the influence in changes of coal prices on EBITDA and net income?

Yes. I mean, we’ve generally given guidance – this is Clare, Jeff. We’ve generally given guidance that every $25 change in our contracted coal price results in a $25 million to $30 million impact on net income. Now keep in mind, we contract our coal prices. So you are not going to necessarily be able to track that exactly with the spot market. So that’s our guidance on the Jewell contract. Jeff Dietert – Simmons & Company: Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Gilman with Benchmark Company. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Good afternoon or good evening, Lynn and Brian and Clare.

Hi, Mark. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Couple things. What was magic about selling 2.2 million units of the limited partnership interest in SXL? And if understand that the issue is you want to retain control and leave that discussion for another time through the GP, why not a bigger number?

I think, Mark, we kind of put it in the context of a number of other things that we were doing, which are in the release, as well as some of the tax planning that we were also doing in the combination of all these things, as well as what we thought would be a good market size transition leaving flexibility for Sunoco Logistics to go to the market in the future if they have attractive acquisition opportunities. So I think it was really a balance of a series of things. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Okay. One other one if I could. The second half, the refining system had cash losses. Can you give us a better idea and maybe focus on the fourth quarter where the loss is being focused? Is Toledo losing money on a cash basis, is the Northeast system losing money on a cash basis, both?

Yes. I would say, Mark, in particular in the fourth quarter, I mean, Toledo was very weak. I mean, the margins were just terrible, unprecedented, as you know, for Toledo. Our expense basis in Toledo is higher than it is in the Northeast. And so we had a disproportionate impact in – of Toledo in Q4 versus Q3. So that’s a big part of what’s going on in Q4. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Okay. Let me just sneak one more in. Why would you stock for the pension contribution?

Yes, that’s – you know, there is a number of things there. First of all, there is an immediate cash tax benefit of putting in the stock. So if you think about it – if you put stock in at – I'll use $27, which was the calc I did before today’s market, you basically get a 35% tax deduction for that on a cash basis. So in essence, you are selling stock at $36 or a 35% premium. Secondarily, we wanted to fund the pension plan. Even though we are funding it in this year, it actually goes on last year’s tax return. And as you probably know, there is a one-time election to do tax carry-backs to five years. So we get to carry back the loss of this deduction on the pension for five years. I think the third reason would be that if you think about it, this is an unfunded liability of the company. So we think there is good value in our stock. And so by putting the stock in the pension plan, the value that we think can be generated with the stock effectively accretes to the current shareholders as opposed to selling stock on a secondary basis. So when we kind of looked at all of this and the tax part of this, improving some of our credit metrics as well as the ability to effectively issue stock at a 35% premium, we thought it was a good way – it was a good way to improve the pension funding and the balance sheet, generate some positive cash, and allow the value that we think we can create in our stock to accrete to the current shareholders. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Okay. Thanks. Brian.

Thanks, Mark.

Your next question comes from the line of Evan Calio with Morgan Stanley. Evan Calio – Morgan Stanley: Hey, good evening and thanks for taking my call.

Hi, Evan. Evan Calio – Morgan Stanley: Just a question on the use of cash with the growing cash in the balance sheet with more cash on the come year. I mean, do you see there is really a cash buffer until refining margins improve and thereafter similar to your pension contribution, consider stock buybacks, (inaudible) no acquisitions here?

Yes. I would say, Evan, a couple things. I mean, first, we’ve got a lot of cash coming, but we haven’t received it yet. So the chemical sales need to close. Secondarily, we don’t have the cash from the IDR reset yet. That won’t happen until there is a debt issuance from Sunoco Logistics. That cash needs to come first for sure. I think, as you said, a lot of this cash, we will use it as a buffer to ride through the refining down-cycle here. We had at year-end about $300 million of commercial paper outstanding short-term debt. So this will allow us to kind of wind down some of the short-term debt. But fundamentally, we wanted to put cash on the balance sheet, to kind of ride through the cycles, strengthen the balance sheet, and give us financial flexibility. There could be some interesting acquisitions for us to do out there in the growth parts of the business. We don’t have anything specific to talk about, but we wouldn’t want to say that we are not going to do any acquisitions, but we would be doing them in our growth – in the growth areas of our business and not necessarily in refining. And then I think once we get through the – once we get through the refining down-cycle, then we will be thinking about our cash a little more broadly. I think the other piece of this, as you probably saw, our Board approved our Q1 dividend today. And we had to cut our dividend or we chose to cut our dividend back in October. But I think with the actions we’ve taken today and when we took our dividend cutback in October, we did it with a mind of having a dividend that we thought could be sustainable through the down-cycle. And we continue to believe that, especially after the actions that we’ve taken and announced over the last few days. Evan Calio – Morgan Stanley: My second question – thank you. My second question, on the chemical sale, was (inaudible) in the phenol assets pretty much buyer-driven? And if so, is that an asset you might look to sell at a later date if and when phenol margins improve? And then a little tag on just kind of what tax rate that we should use in that $190 million pretax loss in cash?

I think we ran – on the chemical sale process, I mean, we ran a pretty extensive process. It took 13 months, as you know. We look to sell the whole business. We had interest in – we had some interest in the whole business, we had more interest in the polypropylene business, and a little bit of interest in the phenol business on its own. As we look at what we thought was the best option for us, it was to sell the polypropylene business in the way we did. We didn’t think the value that we could receive for phenol was appropriate for us to sell the business. And so at this time, we are – we’ve taken the phenol business off of the market, and we are going to operate it. We will do some things around the edges to take some costs out and run it better, now that we have a clear view of it being in our portfolio. But that’s really how we ended up with selling the polypropylene business as the best option. Now, turning to your question on the tax rate, on the sale of the chemical business, it is a stock sale and so it has some – it has some tax losses associated with it. From a book perspective, I would – I'm not sure exactly what to tell you at this point in time until we work through it. But more importantly, from a cash – from a cash tax perspective, there is some benefit to it and we will realize that over time. Evan Calio – Morgan Stanley: Great. Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Arjun Murti with Goldman Sachs. Arjun Murti – Goldman Sachs: Questions related to cash flow. Beyond the Eagle Point inventories, can we expect any more additional inventory cash flow to come in, be the sale of chemicals or from refining in the first quarter or first half of this year?

I think, Arjun, on the inventory side, there is some additional inventory to come out of the system related to Eagle Point. It won’t necessarily come out in Q1 or come out through the rest of the year and more towards the end of the year. In Q1, we have two turnarounds getting started. So we may see some pressure on inventory going up, as we may see both [ph] on some inventory for the turnarounds. But I think fundamentally, as you look through the year, we should see some inventory improvement absent some other reason. But our current plan is to get the rest of the Eagle Point inventory out over the year. Arjun Murti – Goldman Sachs: And your chemicals proceeds, did that contemplate inventory sales as well or is that an additional amount that you can get it?

There is – as part of the chemical sale, as part of the $350 million, there is a piece of that, which is normal working capital that’s in the business and there will be a traditional working capital adjustment at the time of the close related to that. Arjun Murti – Goldman Sachs: That’s great. And then just a final one. In light of the changes you made to your pension and healthcare plans and then in light of the $200 million contribution, can you comment on where you are from an under-funded status post the $200 million of contribution?

At year-end, our largest pension plan was unfunded by approximately $320 million. So absent other changes in the plan with the $200 million contribution, that would leave us in our largest plan about $120 million under-funded. Our funded status is sort of in the mid – or will be in sort of the mid-90s range. And so we feel very good about – very good about getting that liability frozen from the changes we made in terms of freezing additional service in the plan. And now the actions that we’ve taken to fund, we feel pretty good about that as a future – what future capital calls may come from the pension in the future. Arjun Murti – Goldman Sachs: And anything on the healthcare side?

Yes. We froze our eligibility for healthcare as well. I think – I mean, between that pension and the healthcare, the respective freezes lost about $95 million of the – both of those liabilities together, roughly half of each of them. So the – the healthcare liability, the cash piece of that is roughly $35 million a year. That’s the kind of cash piece. On a present value basis, the liability is roughly $300 million. And what you will see there is the cash piece won’t really grow – won't shrink very much over the next few years. But if you go out maybe three, four years, it starts to really have asymptotic decline or more exponential decline because people are kind of rolling up, new people are coming on. So the cash dynamics around the healthcare plan – or the retiree healthcare plan really start to pay off kind of going out three, four years. Arjun Murti – Goldman Sachs: That’s very helpful. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Arjun.

Thanks, Arjun.

Your next question comes from the line of Paul Cheng with Barclays Capital. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Hey, guys.

Hi, Paul. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Two questions. One, on the Coke, Brian, can you maybe tell us about what is the estimated coal price that you use for 2010 estimate comparing to 2009? And also to Lynn, if you will be help us in the Logistics on a pro forma basis after assuming a sales of 2.2 million units? And also the GP incentive-wide change, what is the fourth quarter earnings would be on a pro forma basis? And second question would be a number – a balance sheet item. Wondering if you have your inventory market value in excess of the book value and also that if I try to deconsolidate the Sunoco Logistics from your balance sheet, what is the working capital and long-term debt? Thank you.

Paul, that was about five questions. You broke the two-time rule. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Well, I guess five parts of the two questions.

Okay. So on the call – Paul, we really can’t give you a coal – an average coal price or coal price year-over-year. Basically what happened is a lot of the coal that we use in – the coal we use in Jewell is basically priced up – a market-weighted price. And it has a lag effect to it. So as we went through ’09, if you will, we were the beneficiaries of relatively high coal prices in ’08. As we sort of exit ’09 and come into ’10, there is a lag effect that we are incurring. And so the guidance that we give is pretty consistent with that. And as you saw this year, the guidance that we gave had a fairly small range of variability around it even though we had a lot of volatility in coal prices through the year. In terms of your question on Sunoco Logistics, we will still continue to hold 33% of the LP units after we sold the 2.2 million units, including the GP. And then on the – Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: No, I mean – Brian, what I mean is that if I look at your fourth quarter earnings for the Logistics, and that’s – as we thought you report [ph] 22 million. I’m saying that if it is on a pro forma basis, assume all this activity have been full [ph] in the fourth quarter, what that 222 million is going to be? Is that 18 million, 17 million, what’s that number?

I’ll have to do the math for you, Paul. Let me try to answer it maybe a little bit different way. In terms of the GP distributions that we expect based upon current distributions, we are effectively giving up about 15 million approximately of GP distributions in 2010 because of the IDR reset. And then we will continue to receive the LP distributions for the new number of units that we received.

And then you can probably do the math on the LP percentage.

Yes. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: And you say 15 million, right?

15 million over the year, yes. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Right. Does that go fully into – 100% into bottom line or –?

Yes. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Okay.

And then working capital over market value –

The value there, Paul, is 2.7 million. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Okay. Thank you, Clare.

The market value versus the book.

And then the net debt – the net debt, Paul – Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: No, no. The working capital for the Sunoco Logistics and also the long-term debt.

Okay. I can give you the debt. The net debt is $900 million roughly for Sunoco Logistics and $1.2 billion for SUN net debt Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Right. Do you have – what is the long-term component?

Not in front of me, but we’ll get back – we can get it for you. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Do you have the working capital on? Is that something that we can get about the Sunoco Logistics?

We can get that for you.

Yes, we can get it. We don’t have it right in front of us. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Paul.

Your next question comes from the line of Paul Sankey with Deutsche Bank. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: Hi, good evening, everyone.

Hi, Paul. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: Lynn, when you announced the Eagle Point shutdown, I think you made statements as to the potential of the company to maintain its profitability regardless of the environment. Just given the time that’s past and what we’ve seen since then, I wanted – is that where you are at now? Do you believe that you can resist all environments? And could we infer from that that your disposal and shutdown program is more or less complete?

Two different questions there. One of the things that happened in the fourth quarter is margins were down. So when we made the statement, it was at the kind of margins that we saw at the time. And when we took the actions at Eagle Point, we were trying to increase the utilization and essentially make the same amount of barrels at the two locations instead of three, eliminating the cost of the third location. And that all of that we thought in the margins at the time would put us in a position that was essentially breakeven. And we are making progress toward basically making those goals. So getting the utilization and stripping the cost out. So I’d say we are on track to meet that, but the – it's really dependent on just how the environment shakes out. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: But the environment’s better sense was when you made the announcements, right?

It is right now today. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: But you’re just not convinced it’s going to stay that way or won’t get worse [ph] again?

I think what we have decided is we need to be prudent to say what actions should we be taking and – or taken in order to withstand a downturn. Will it get worse? I won’t speculate on that. I think the market dynamic is such that if you see the actions that people in the industry got if things get worse is more likely to be more rationalization. And that rationalization would tend to – the marketplace would work and the margins would tend to come back up. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: Sure. But if we look back at the statement, it’s actually – as far as you are concerned, you’ve delivered to the best of your knowledge, if we had the same margins that we had back then, you would now be – you would now be profitable versus previously you weren’t.

I think, Paul, what we said was where margins were at the time, which were kind of around $5 when we announced Eagle Point that we wanted to drive our cost structure to be around cash breakeven at those kinds of $4.50 to $5 margins that existed around the time. Clearly margins got worst in Q4 and better here in January. We are still executing – Eagle Point is down. The people are gone. Eagle Point – the Eagle Point costs are substantially out of our system. The second piece of this is moving the volume over to our two assets here in Philadelphia and running those assets and capturing all of that volume and getting all the operational efficiencies of getting that higher volume and throughput. I mean, quite frankly, we are still working on that, and as I said in my opening remarks, we had some operating issues in late December and going into January. So I think everything that we said we would get when we closed Eagle Point, we are still committing to get. And but we are still working through actually capturing it. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: Yes, I understand that. So – that's fine. I get it. Just to get into the weeds a little bit on SXL, the Incentive Distribution Rights that you’ve given up, is that some sort of cap on the GP split or could you just clarify what that is in terms of the structure of the general partner’s payout?

Basically the general partner has Incentive Distribution Rights that basically pay out even though it’s – the equity is, say, 2%, we get the disproportionate amount of the cash flows. And then the cash, we found ourselves in a position that as the distributions grow, we were getting 50% of them. And so – so that creates some business issues for Sunoco Logistics around their cost of capital and the cost of issuing new equity and growing. And so it’s quite common with general partnerships in MLPs that when you get into what are known as the high splits or up into the 50% incremental distribution level as we were, there would be a restructuring of the distribution rights. And so really what we did, Paul, is we took down – we basically took down our distribution rights. We got paid – we will get paid a very nice piece of cash for that. But we did not give up our rights for those distributions to grow back up. So over time, as Sunoco Logistics grow and we think it continues to grow and there is lots of good opportunities there, our distributions will grow back up into the 50% level and we could do a transaction like this again or a different flavor of this type of transaction. So I think it’s really two-fold. One, to help Sunoco Logistics with their cost of capital and their access to the market. And then secondarily, I think it really demonstrates the underlying value of Sunoco’s ownership in the GP. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: Yes. And you answered the question, which was – I didn’t know whether you were actually just capped out now at a given level or whether you were going to re-grow again in the future.

We have not capped out and we will grow back in the high split [ph] over time. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: And haven’t been asked yet, so the traditional demand question is my last one. Just what do you think through your very big retail network in terms of any kind of growth, any kind of product mix? Thanks.

I’d say we’ve seen a slight improvement in volumes, but – I’d call it slight. Paul Sankey – Deutsche Bank: Okay. Thanks a lot.

Your next question comes from the line of Blake Fernandez with Howard Weil. Blake Fernandez – Howard Weil: Good evening, everyone. Brian, I think this question maybe for you, but it’s regarding CapEx. I think the number of $840 million, of which $280 million looks like growth. And I’m trying to confirm, if the $560 million would be considered kind of a base or a maintenance capital number going forward, and if so, is there any flexibility with that number?

I think there is some flexibility with that number. I think that’s our plan now. It will change a little bit on the chemical side, assuming we close the sale. And then around the edges, we’ll continue to focus on capital and how we can cut cost and defer. But that’s basically the forecast for now. Blake Fernandez – Howard Weil: Okay. And then I noticed in the refining CapEx, there was about $30 million of income improvement. Can you tell us what that comprises?

That is – Blake, that’s the – our biofuels acquisition that we acquired in 2009 that we are expected to finish up to have running by midyear. Blake Fernandez – Howard Weil: Okay, great. Okay. (inaudible) for me. Thanks.

Thanks, Blake.

Your next question will come from the line of Faisel Khan with Citigroup. Faisel Khan – Citigroup: Good evening. It’s Faisel.

Hey, Faisel. Faisel Khan – Citigroup: How are you doing? Thanks. On the realization that you guys reported in the quarter, it seems like your capture rates went down. And I think you noted that your Toledo operation was much weaker in the quarter compared to the third quarter. So I’m just trying to figure out – in the Northeast, you actually – your capture rates actually improved sequentially quarter-over-quarter or were they roughly the same or how did that transpire?

Faisel, they actually improved from a rate perspective when margins were terrible, as you saw. But I mean, in the Northeast side, we had better operations in the fourth quarter. So we were able to recognize and see better yield gains. And we also saw some net improvement. But net-net, they were still – we are certainly not happy with them. We would like to see a little bit margin improvement – benchmark margin improvement that will enable us to start to see some of the results from the actions we are taking on the controllable side.

And Faisel, what I would add to that, I mean, I think we – as we said in our last call, we think there is margin capture opportunities here. And as part of our bonus plan for 2010, we actually have margin capture improvements as part of our bonus plan. So this is a pretty important item for us. Faisel Khan – Citigroup: Okay. And then just curious, sequentially quarter-over-quarter what kind of improvements did you guys see in your kind of cost-cutting effort on the refining side?

Sequentially quarter-over-quarter the improvements were significant. Probably quarter-over-quarter it was $100 million or so for the company. So a big portion of that is on the refining side. Faisel Khan – Citigroup: Okay. Got you. And then just one last question, on the pricing differential that you guys realized versus benchmarks, the $1.61 per barrel, how much of that was timing versus transportation?

About $0.50 a barrel in the timing which you could do the math there at quarterly there [ph]. Faisel Khan – Citigroup: Yes, that makes sense. And the rest with transportation?

For the most part, yes. Faisel Khan – Citigroup: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Your next question comes from the line of Paul Cheng with Barclays Capital. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Hey, guys. Lynn, in the past, I think from time to time people asked the question whether you guys have any interest to spin – part of the spin-off (inaudible) into an MLP, any update of your thinking here.

No change from my standard answer, Paul, but it’s – Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Yes, nothing changed there. Okay. Second, I think in your press release you said that your pension contribution is going to have an earning benefit. Brian, how much is that in 2010? Also that in the fourth quarter for your Coke business, is there any income contribution from the Granite City?

Yes, there is. There is contribution from Granite City. And then – Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Can you quantify it, Brian?

No. No, it’s all baked into the overall guidance. And then on the pension side between the freezes in the plan and the funding that we have, we expect about, excluding settlements and curtailments, a reduction in expense of approximately $50 million to $60 million. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: And that’s after tax. So that will be about $30 million to $40 million, right?

Right, right. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: And you said all going to hit in the corporate or how from a reporting standpoint is it going to show up?

No, it will be – it will be allocated out. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: So it’s going to be by segment that everyone would get a piece of the benefit?

Yes. Paul Cheng – Barclays Capital: Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And your last question is a follow-up from Mark Gilman with The Benchmark Company. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Yes, thanks. What have you got in the 2010 Coke earnings guidance for Brazilian dividends, Brian?

I don’t have a – I don’t have a number in front of me, Mark.

That shouldn’t change from our previous guidance that we’ve given. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: I’m not sure I know what that is, Clare. I mean, you had two $6 million dividends. One in the second, one in the fourth. What should we assume, ratable, not-ratable? I don’t know what to do with it.

I’m going to [ph] ignore it and just use our overall guidance. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Touché, point taken. One other clarification. It’s my understanding, and maybe I’m just wrong, that what you show for Logistics earnings in your income statement, given the consolidation of SXL, doesn’t reflect anything in terms of general partner distributions. It reflects your interest in SXL, limited partnership plus general. Is that wrong?

I think that’s correct.

I mean, it’s general, Mark, it should be reflective of the cash that we receive. So I guess it depends on how you look at it. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: In terms of your consolidated earnings, Clare, I don’t think. Does it?

No. The distribution piece shows up on your cash flow statement, but on the earnings statement, it’s just your proportional piece. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Exactly. So if you went from – I guess where were you on the interest in SXL 43% priority to the sale?

33. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Okay. So if you go 43 to 33, all right, a reduction of – I don’t know, it’s late in the day – near 25%. All things being equal, your earnings that you show on the income – in you segment earnings statement for Logistics go down by 25%. Is that right?

Mark, we’ll calculate it for you and make sure we’re right on this. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Yes. My abacus isn’t working at this hour, sorry.

No, no, no, no. But I just want to make sure that we got the accounting right. Mark Gilman – The Benchmark Company: Okay. Thanks, guys.

Sure.

There are no more questions at this time.

Okay. Well, thanks to everyone for joining. And Clare and I will be around for any questions for a little bit and tomorrow as well. Have a good evening.

And that concludes today’s conference call. You may now disconnect.