Welcome to the quarterly earnings conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. During the Q&A session, if you'd like to ask a question, you may press star one on your phone. Today's call is being recorded. If you have any objections, please disconnect at this time. I'll now turn the call over to Mr. Rich Kinder, Executive Chairman of Kinder Morgan. Thank you. You may begin. Thank you, Chad. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you, as we always do, that KMI's earnings released today in this call include forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as well as certain non-GAAP financial measures. Before making any investment decisions, we strongly encourage you to read our full disclosures on forward-looking statements and use of non-GAAP financial measures set forth at the end of our earnings release, as well as review our latest filings with the SEC for important material assumptions, expectations, and risk factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated and described in such forward-looking statements. On several of these investor calls, I've expressed my view and that of other leaders and experts in our industry about the potential for extraordinary growth in the demand for natural gas in America and abroad. This optimistic view of the market and its favorable impact on the growth and prosperity of midstream energy companies like Kinder Morgan was embraced during the last year or so by a significant number of investors and analysts. That view seemed to accelerate with the perceived opportunity for natural gas to fuel AI and data centers. Recently, that optimistic view has been questioned by some on a couple of different grounds. First, in the aftermath of the DeepSeek announcement, it seemed to some critics that growth in gas demand for data centers and electric power in general was too optimistic. Secondly, the announcement of expanded tariffs by the Trump administration inspired others to question whether this would result in less demand for U.S. LNG, thereby reducing the amount of feed gas required in this country. Let me try to put all of this in perspective by detailing how we view the drivers of natural gas demand growth over the rest of this decade. Let's start with some history as prologue to the future. In 2005, U.S. demand for natural gas was approximately 60 BCF a day. In 2024, that demand was almost 109 BCF a day, an increase of roughly 80%. That's pretty astounding growth over that 20-year span. Now, let's look at the future growth between now and the end of this decade, with all due deference to Mark Twain's famous quip that making predictions is very difficult, especially if they concern the future. Most estimates of growth between now and 2030 range between 20 and 28 BCF a day, and our internal projections also fall in that range. The overwhelming driver of that growth is increased LNG export demand. We estimate that growth to be somewhere around 16 BCF a day, with the great bulk of that coming from facilities already under construction or that have been FID. To FID a project means it is supported by long-term contracts with creditworthy entities; otherwise, these facilities simply could not be financed. I might add parenthetically that our contracts with LNG export facilities are also supported by long-term contracts. Notwithstanding those facts, the naysayers argue that a trade war with China will lead to a diminution in need for U.S. LNG. In response, let me mention two countervailing factors. First, China has not imported any U.S. LNG since February, and yet feed gas demand is setting records, averaging 15.5 BCF a day in the first quarter and approaching 17 BCF a day on several recent days. Secondly, our view is that any loss of the Chinese market will be more than offset by the efforts of governments in the EU and Asia to increase the imports of U.S. LNG, to reduce trade imbalances, and put themselves in a better negotiating position with regard to U.S. tariffs. South Korea and Indonesia, for example, are already in specific discussions on that strategy. Regarding the EU, we believe Europe's apparent and oft-stated reluctance to ever again allow Russia to be the dominant supplier of natural gas to Europe will obviously increase its use of U.S. LNG. Based on all these factors, we remain very bullish on growth in U.S. LNG exports. Now, in addition to growth in LNG feed gas demand, we see nice upticks in exports to Mexico, power demand driven in part by the surge in AI and data centers and residential commercial use. Anecdotally, the new projects we have announced at Kinder Morgan over the last couple of quarters are supported in large part by long-term contracts with utilities in the Southeastern U.S., an indication of the need for more gas to feed electric generation. The point of all this detail is to put into perspective the drivers of demand for the product we transport so that any intelligent investor can make a reasoned assessment of the natural gas market for the rest of this decade and not be whipsawed by the perceived ups and downs of just one or two facets of the growth story. In truth, that growth is supported, we believe, by an array of factors that reflect the strength of natural gas as an important source of energy for years to come. With that, I'll turn it over to Kim. Okay. Thanks, Rich. We had a good quarter. The financial results, which David will take you through, are essentially in line with our expectations. For the year, we currently expect to exceed budget by at least the contribution from the Outrigger acquisition. Our natural gas performance versus budget is very strong. In the first quarter, we saw record natural gas demand, with demand in the market growing by 6.8 billion cu ft a day, driven by a 10% increase in residential and commercial demand and a 15% increase in LNG demand. Future natural gas fundamentals continue to be strong, with demand expected to grow between now and 2030, as Rich just took you through. I would add that even if a portion of the roughly $7 trillion in new U.S. investment the administration has announced occurs, we believe that would drive demand that is not currently captured in projections. During the quarter, we added approximately $900 million to our project backlog, taking the backlog to $8.8 billion after adjusting for the projects placed in service. Of the $900 million, over 70% is primarily focused on serving power demand. The largest project, Bridge, is a $430 million extension of our Elba Express Pipeline supported by a 30-year contract. It will deliver about 325 million cu ft a day into South Carolina to primarily serve increased power demand and is easily expandable to over a BCF a day. Of course, there's been a lot of attention paid to tariffs. At this point, we do not believe that the tariffs will have a significant impact on project economics. For our new large project, Mississippi Crossing, South System Expansion 4, Trident, GCX, and Bridge, that together comprise approximately two-thirds of our backlog, we currently estimate the impact of tariffs to be roughly 1% of project cost. We've worked to mitigate the potential impact by pre-ordering certain equipment, negotiating caps on tariff impact, and securing domestic steel and mill capacity. For these projects, we've locked in the cost of the finished steel pipe, and less than 10% is exposed to tariffs. In addition, to the extent we get some permitting release, there may be the opportunity to bring these projects or portions of the project in service earlier than planned, helping to offset any impact of tariffs. From an operations perspective, we're still in the process of evaluating the impact of tariffs. We do not expect it to be material to 2025, but the uncertainty of tariffs, along with commodity prices, did cause us to be a little bit more conservative in communicating our outlook for the year at this point. During the quarter, we closed on the previously announced $640 million acquisition of the Bakken Gathering and Processing System, which nicely complements our existing assets in that basin. When you look at the results for the quarter, there is not much impact from this acquisition, given that we only owned it for 45 days and all the transaction costs were expensed in the quarter. It is performing in line with our expectations. Despite the volatility in the market, we have a very resilient business. Almost two-thirds of the EBITDA is generated from take-or-pay contracts. Roughly 30% is fee-based or hedged, with only 5% of our EBITDA exposed to commodity prices. We expect to continue to generate nice cash flow and fund our attractive backlog of projects, which are substantially backed by long-term contracts from creditworthy entities while maintaining a strong balance sheet. Finally, on management succession, Tom Martin has announced his intention to retire in January 2026, at which time he will assume an advisory role to the board of directors and to the Office of the Chairman. In that role, he will continue to help the company execute on our tremendous backlog of natural gas projects. At that time, Dax Sanders, who many of you already know, will succeed Tom as president. Dax is currently president of the products business segment and has a thorough understanding of the company, having been here for approximately 23 years and served in a variety of different roles. Tom and Dax will start the transition process in August, at which time Mike Garthwaite will become President of Products Pipeline. This is the plan we contemplated and prepared for in our succession planning. With that, I'll turn it over to Tom to give you more details on the business performance for the quarter. Thanks, Kim. Starting with the natural gas business unit, transport volumes were up 3% in the quarter versus the first quarter of 2024, with new peak day volume records set on four of our five largest pipeline systems due to the confluence of all the major demand drivers, that is, residential, commercial, power, and LNG during prolonged cold weather in our major market areas in Texas, Louisiana, the Midwest, and the East. Natural gas gathering volumes were down 6% in the quarter compared to the first quarter of 2024, driven primarily by lower Haynesville production. Sequential total gathering volumes were down 2%. Our producer customers are still ramping back up after the lower gas prices in Q2 through Q4 of 2024. For the full year, we expect our gathering volumes to average 5% above 2024, but 2% below our 2025 budget. We anticipate gathering volumes will grow over the balance of 2025, given the higher price environment, producer conversations and plans, and the need for increased production to meet storage refill demand and LNG demand growth that is ramping up throughout the year. Looking forward, we continue to see significant incremental project opportunities across our natural gas pipeline network to expand our transport and storage capabilities in support of the growing natural gas market. In our products pipeline segment, refined products volumes were up 2%. Crude and condensate volumes were up 4% in the quarter compared to the first quarter of 2024. For the full year 2025, refined product volumes are forecasted to be up about 2% higher than 2024, but flat with budget. In March 2025, KMI placed its approximately $17 million Florida Jet Fuel expansion project into service to enhance jet fuel deliveries to the Orlando, Florida market. The expansion creates a continuous jet fuel system that increases pipeline transportation capacity into the Orlando International Airport, providing a faster return-to-service solution following hurricane-related power outages. The project is fully contracted with ten-year commitments from the Orlando Airline Consortium. In our terminals business segment, our liquids lease capacity remains high at 94%. The refining cracks and blending margins have softened. They remain supportive of strong rates and utilization at our key hubs at the Houston Ship Channel and New York Harbor. Our Jones Act tanker fleet is fully leased today, 97% leased through 2025, and 94% leased through 2026, assuming likely options are exercised. We have opportunistically chartered a significant percentage of the fleet at higher market rates and extended the average length of firm contract commitments to four years. The CO2 segment experienced slightly lower oil production volumes, about 1%, 5% higher NGL volumes, and 7% lower CO2 volumes in the quarter versus the first quarter of 2024. For the full year 2025, oil volumes are forecasted to be 1% below 2024, but 2% above budget. In March 2025, KMI placed its Autumn Hills RNG facility into service. The plant's capacity of 0.8 BCF of RNG annually now brings KMI's total RNG capacity up to 6.9 BCF per year. With that, I'll turn it over to David Michels. All right. Thank you, Tom. For the quarter, we're declaring a dividend of $29.25 per share, which is $1.17 per share annualized and 2% up from last year's dividend. During the first quarter, we generated net income attributable to KMI of $717 million, down 4% from the first quarter of last year. We generated EPS of $0.32, down $0.01 from last year. Much of that decline is attributable to unfavorable mark-to-market on hedges that have not yet settled, and we treat as certain items. On an adjusted net income basis, which excludes those certain items, we generated $766 million and adjusted EPS of $0.34, up 1% and flat from last year, respectively. This quarter, growth was driven by greater contributions from our natural gas terminals and CO2 businesses. Our main growth drivers were contributions from our Texas Intrastate Natural Gas System, attractive capacity sales, and park and loan services on our interstate natural gas assets, greater renewable natural gas production, and higher contributions from our Jones Act tankers. I would note that some of the natural gas agreements we entered into during the first quarter extend beyond the first quarter and therefore will add contributions during the remainder of the year. These were offset by lower gathering and processing volumes, as Tom mentioned, the impact from our planned splitter facility turnaround, and lower RIN pricing in our renewable natural gas businesses. Moving on to our balance sheet, we ended the quarter with $32.8 billion of net debt and 4.1x net debt to adjusted EBITDA, which is in the middle of our leverage target range of three and a half to four and a half times. The 4.1x only includes a month and a half of EBITDA from our Outrigger, but it includes all of the acquisition funding. That metric will decline, will improve as we add more quarters of the Outrigger contribution. Our net debt increased by just over $1 billion from the beginning of the year, and here's a high-level reconciliation of that change. We had a working capital use of about a little bit more than $300 million. That working capital deficit is made up of interest expense payments and typical first quarter payments of bonus and property tax. We generated cash flow from operations of $1.16 billion. We paid dividends of $650 million. We expended $770 million of total CapEx. We closed on the Outrigger acquisition, which was approximately $650 million, and we posted collateral for some of our natural gas hedges of about $90 million, which gets you close to the $1 billion dollar increase in net debt for the year. For the full year, as Kim mentioned, while it's still early in the year, we expect to exceed budget by at least the contribution from the Outrigger acquisition. As disclosed in our full year budget, our budgeted adjusted EBITDA growth was 4%. Just including the Outrigger acquisition, our EBITDA growth would increase to 5%. Our adjusted EPS growth would still remain at an attractive 10%, and we're also expecting to still end the year with net debt to adjusted EBITDA of 3.8x. Most of our 2025 budgeted growth comes from expansion projects. Now that we're more than a quarter into the year, we can say we're on target to place the vast majority of these expansion projects in service on time and on budget or with only minor variances. The largest expansion contributions come from our Evangeline Pass Expansion Project, which is on track to come online this summer, and multiple projects on our Texas Intrastate system, the largest of which include our South Texas to Houston project, which is near completion, and a couple of additional projects that have already been placed into service, including our Webb County and Central Texas expansion. We are off to a good start to the year. We are on track to put our expansion projects in service. We are experiencing favorable performance across our businesses and have sanctioned additional projects that will drive growth well into the future. Finally, based on investor feedback, we do not plan to host a regular Investor Day Presentation in person going forward. Like we did this year, we will continue to publish an annual company update, which will include our budget for the year, but will not host the presentation in person. We will also maintain our objective to provide great transparency to and extensive engagement with our investors. With that, I'll turn it back to Kim for Q&A. Okay. Chad, if you'll come back on, we will take questions. Yes. The phone lines are now open for questions. If you would like to ask a question over the phone, please press star one and record your name. To withdraw your question, press star two. The first question in the queue is from Michael Blum with Wells Fargo. Your line is now open. Thanks. Good afternoon, everyone. I wanted to start talking about the potential additional gas pipeline investments that you are looking at with utilities and data centers. How would you characterize the pace of discussions with customers, I guess, since the last earnings call? Michael, this is Sital. Yes. One, I think as it pertains to data centers, there's still, as we try to determine kind of the sites, specific locations that they're looking at, where it's still evolving. As it pertains to the utilities that are supporting some of these data centers, as you can see, we're actively pursuing opportunities to provide supply to ultimately feed these upcoming data centers. I would say the activity level is pretty strong. There's a lot of competition out there across the network. We feel like we're positioned well. As we talk about Bridge into South Carolina, this is just kind of step one. The platform for growth has been established, and we see some incremental opportunities around power and potentially data centers there as we've got the straw put in. I'll just add a couple of things to that. One, if you look at the additions to the backlog, this quarter has set approximately 70%, but those are related to power. Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between what's data center related and what's power because the power could be going to a data center. I'll also say, if you look at our total backlog, like 50% of the projects in our overall backlog are related to power. Where we have seen, I think, the most concrete activity to date on data centers has been largely the regulated utilities so far. There are lots of discussions going on, as Sital said. A lot of those discussions are happening across the Southern United States, and that's an area where we are particularly well positioned. Thanks for all that. That was really helpful. Maybe if I could just drill down on one particular area or region. Can you provide an update on any progress in Arizona regarding either an expansion of EPNG or a Greenfield project or just how you see that area developing? Thanks. Sure, Michael. One, we see a need out in the Desert Southwest, Arizona included. We have been pursuing both brownfield and greenfield opportunities. We're trying to look at that. Obviously, we're in a competitive situation here. As we get any progress here from a customer standpoint, we'll make those announcements at the time. I can tell you there is interest, and we do see a need out west, especially the state of Arizona. Chad, we'll take the next question. Yes. The next question is from Jeremy Tonet with J.P. Morgan. Your line is open. Hi. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Maybe pick it up in Arizona if we could and the potential for expansion for the west. Just wondering, the docket that was opened in February, the natural gas infrastructure and storage docket that the Vice Chair opened, are you expecting anything specific out of there that will inform your views as far as timing and sizing of expansion further west? Just as you look even further out, I think that their ECO2 could be on the horizon, and we'll need to source gas as well. It seems like EPNG would be in play there. Just wondering, those two dynamics, any thoughts you could share? I am going to keep it broad just because we are in a very competitive situation. The overall demand we see coming, right? I think really both the docket you are talking about and through our conversations with our customers point to the need for incremental capacity needs. You mentioned ECA. That is a longer-term play possibly, but all of that bodes to the need for incremental capacity and how we get there. Ultimately, we decide it by our customers and the contracts that they sign. Yeah. Let me just make a couple of points overall. I mean, look, there's the potential for data center development in Arizona. I think the Arizona utilities need more power, especially with all the population migration from California and other places into Arizona. I think Mexico has a couple of power plants on the other side of the border that they're going to need natural gas for, and you've got the LNG potential off the west coast. There are a lot of good demand factors. Our pipeline EPNG is full, and I think to do something out there, you would have to plenty. It is a nice opportunity, and the demand drivers that are present that we're talking about here on the west are what we're seeing broadly across our whole network. One more thing to add, it is not necessarily just a greenfield opportunity, right? There are significant—we are looking at brownfield opportunities, smaller expansions that may make sense to unlock incremental capacity into the basin. Got it. That's very helpful there. Just a higher-level macro question if I could. We've seen WTI dip toward 60 and briefly below 60 here, and concerns with regard to potential economic weakness ahead, as Rich talked about in the opening comments there. Just wondering, as far as your conversations with your producer customers, any change in tone there, such as if WTI does step down into the 50s and stays there for a while in basins that have liquid-driven economics? If you think that there could be changes in producer activity there and how that could impact KMI, although it's a smaller part of the business. Yeah. I mean, our gathering business, I think, is roughly 8% of our overall business. If you look at it to date, I think it's too early to make any calls. The conversations that we have had with our producers, they haven't made any changes. I'd say if you look at our gathering assets, you've got the Bakken, which is oil-based, but GORs are going up. Obviously, one of our largest positions is also in the Haynesville. There, that's a dry natural gas play. I'd say that the conversations there with our customers, as Tom alluded to earlier, have been more bullish, where what they're talking about is potentially adding rigs beyond what we expected previously. That'll take time, and we won't see that benefit for later in the year. I'd say the natural gas side has been, I think, stronger than the conversations have been stronger than what we were originally expecting. Yeah. I guess to add one more comment to that, when you think about our geographic basins that we have our gathering systems in, most of our acreage is in kind of the connections that we're on with tier one acreage. If you go back to when we were in COVID, I think we withstood the storm pretty well from a price standpoint, even in our liquid plays. The natural offset, as Kim was mentioning, is the dry gas plays when that happens. What we do see is we do see gas demand increasing. If the associated gas kind of tapers off a little bit, even though we didn't see that, we actually saw GORs increase when crude fell off. We'll see a pickup in the Haynesville and the dry gas Eagle Ford plays because the demand has to be met. Got it. Thank you for that. The next question in the queue is from Manav Gupta with UBS. Your line is open. Good afternoon. My question here is a little bit, energy equities in general have started pricing in a little bit of a recession. You touch a lot of end markets, whether it's gas or refined products, even jet fuel. In your system, are you seeing any early signs of recessionary demand? Or what we see in the market is just volatility. The underlying demand in your system is holding up pretty well. I mean, I'd say a couple of things on that. So far, I think we're holding up pretty well. Refined product volumes in the quarter were up 2%. We saw strong natural gas demand. I think we're going to continue to see strong natural gas demand and growing natural gas demand over the course of the year because a lot of what is driving that is going to be the export LNG. Those volumes are coming on, and a lot of those have take-or-pay contracts associated with them. I think you're going to see an uptick in gas demand over the course of the year. As Tom said, we've got to refill storage. One, I think we're too early. And two, I think when you look at natural gas, which is 60% of our business, I think there's some different factors that you really have to consider there than just U.S. recessionary pressures that drive that demand. Thank you. My quick follow-up here is, can we get some more details about this new Bridge project that you added to the backlog? The reason I'm asking is last year you announced the Mississippi Crossing project, and within one month, you ended up upsizing the project. What's the possibility of you upsizing this Bridge project? Thank you. Look, the possibilities are great, but I'm not going to comment on the timing. Obviously, our customers are going to dictate when we expand. I will tell you, South Carolina is one of the fastest-growing states that we see out there. Demand is growing from a power side, from a residential need standpoint. Like I said, the opportunity set around potential data centers could be there. I think overall, we feel like we're positioned well for future growth. The platform's there now. This helps us establish the platform once this project's completed. We're excited about the opportunity in South Carolina. Thank you so much. Next question in the queue is from John Mackay with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Hey, team. Thanks for the time. I wanted to pull a couple of these together. I think in the last call, you kind of made the comment of saying, "Hey, we've done a lot of very big project announcements. Maybe the pace of those will slow." I think you showed today that you're still able to add a ton of small to medium-sized ones to keep adding to that backlog. Is this, not to put you on the spot, was this an outsized kind of win, or is this the kind of more regular way kind of backlog additions we could expect to see from here? Yeah. I mean, it's hard to predict, I think, exactly what we're going to be adding to the backlog. But as we've been saying this whole call, I mean, the demand drivers behind the natural gas industry, which is over 60% of our business, are very strong. Whether you look at LNG, and Rich pointed out there that if you look, the LNG demand is expected to double. Most of that is going to be driven by projects that are FID or under construction. He also pointed out that some of these, as we get through tariff negotiations with some of these countries, that them buying natural gas from the U.S. may be a way that they solve the balance of payments with the U.S. Even if you're in a potential trade war with China, there's other demand that could make up for that or actually be greater than what the demand coming out of China would be because, as Rich pointed out, they haven't been taking very much, and the LNG demand's been over 17 BCF, setting a record. I think from the perspective of power and AI, when you look at AI, I think that is going to be in our national security interest to win the AI race. I think you'll continue to see demand for AI. I think also as the cost, Rich talked a little bit about DeepS eek, but I think what you're hearing and what we've heard from a lot of the technology players is as the cost of that technology comes down, we would expect more people to use it. That demand driver is firmly in place. If we get more American manufacturing and investment, I think that'll drive demand growth for natural gas. I think you look at that and you say, "What does your outlook for projects look like?" It continues to be a robust outlook. I will tell you that we've added $900 million on a growth basis to the backlog today. There's another $400 million of projects that our board approved today, roughly $400 million, that we're close to signing contracts. They approved on a contingent basis, and we haven't added to the backlog because we don't add to the backlog until those contracts are signed. I think you can hear that I think we feel, even in the current economic environment where there is a lot of volatility out there, we feel very good about our business and the opportunity stuff that we have in front of us. Yeah. I would just add that we have 70,000 mi of gas pipelines. We move 40% of the gas in America. Beyond that, we're located in the right places. All this LNG feed gas demand, the great bulk of it is along the Gulf Coast. A great part of the electric generation growth is also in the Southeastern United States and along the Gulf Coast. If you just look at where we operate and the size of our operations, I think there's every opportunity to expand our positions. Coming back to Sital's answer a couple of questions ago, the ability to expand off of these expansions that we've already announced is going to be incredible over the next several quarters, we believe. Rich, Kim, I appreciate that. Maybe just one follow-up. Kim, you mentioned permitting relief or reform earlier in the call. Just curious if you could give us kind of latest state of play there. Then specifically, just on maybe a related note, Bridge coming online in 2030, not outside the realm of normal kind of FERC timelines, but maybe if you can tie that into your view on kind of how long it takes to get things permitted now and where that could maybe go if we get some relief. Yeah. I think we've had some conversations with the administration and with the Energy Dominance Council. I think those have all been positive conversations with everybody focused on how do we get these projects in service earlier. You will see that we made a filing with the FERC on Monday of this week. That could accelerate timing on permits by up to five months. We'll have to see what the FERC does with that. I think the administration would be supportive of that. I think you've seen the Corps come out. The St. Louis office announced, put out some preliminary guidance. One of the other Corps offices put out some final guidance, which reduces timeframes. We've had very positive interactions with Parks and with Fish. I think everybody is working in the same direction to try to get these projects in service early. Obviously, if we can get them permitted earlier, then we have to move to the supply chain. I think that will be somewhat of a challenge, but we will be looking at ways to reduce the time that it takes to get these materials onto the right of way. We will be looking at whether, if we cannot get the whole project in service, we can get portions of the project in service early that bring good economic value. I think we have seen very good, we have seen a commitment from the administration to try to expedite the timing on these. I would also say from a deregulation perspective, we have seen good progress. I think the Good Neighbor Rule, as it was drafted, is essentially dead. You've seen the greenhouse gas reporting from the SEC. They've withdrawn their support for that. You have seen other actions out of EPA where they're proposing to get rid of certain regulations. I think all in all, most of what the administration is doing is very positive for our industry. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it. Next question is from Theresa Chen with Barclays. Your line is open. Hello. Thank you for taking my questions. First, congratulations to Tom for his retirement, and also congratulations to Dax and Mike for stepping into their new roles. I'd like to start by asking for an update on your strategy in the Bakken on the heels of the Outrigger acquisition coupled with the upcoming conversion to NGLs. What are the next steps here for Kinder to capture more economic value in that value chain? Hi, Theresa. This is Sital. One, I think the integration of the Outrigger plant has gone very well. We've got it embedded into our operations. I think the next step is looking for operational synergies, like I said, strategically for us. We got a plant north of the river up in the Bakken, which complements our existing footprint. When you couple that with our residue takeaway and now our planned NGL takeaway, we're just looking strategically at further elements of the value chain. That's really what I would say at this point. Obviously, up there, we're in a very competitive situation on the NGL side. I won't comment until we get incremental contracts signed. Needless to say, we're looking at ways to add incremental value and capture more of that full value chain. Did I answer your question? Yes. Or as much as you can at this point. Thank you, Sital. Yeah. Yeah. On the liquid side of things, just looking towards the pending closures of refineries in California with another one announced this morning, how much volumetric exposure or EBITDA could this impact for your California pipeline and terminal assets within the product segment? Yeah. We do not think it will. I mean, the announcement you saw today certainly is not the first announcement on a refinery closure, and it probably will not be the last one. The key to the throughput on our pipelines is the demand at the end of our pipelines. As long as the demand exists there, as long as people in the interior of California, Nevada, and Arizona are driving and flying, that demand will still be there. We think that our pipelines are the safest and most economic way to get that product there. The sources of supply may change. It may not be coming from the same refineries. Other refineries may make up for it. You may have waterborne barrels coming in either from Washington State or Asia. We still think that the product has to get to the end markets, and we're the best choice for it. Thank you. Next question comes from Neal Dingman with Truist Securities. Your line is open. Hey, everyone. Thanks for the time. My first question, folks, is just on M&A specifically. It seems like given you all continue to be focused more on the natural gas demand mega trends, I'm just wondering, would you all consider selling down some energy transition assets to fund these gas initiatives? I guess, look, we like the assets that we own. I think right now, we are fully able to fund our CapEx out of existing cash flow. I do not think selling assets is the best way generally to fund growth. We like the assets. They fit our strategy, and it is not the best way to fund growth. We are going to fund our growth out of cash flow. We have capacity on our balance sheet should we exceed cash flow in an existing year with respect to expansion CapEx. I think also, if we ever wanted partners on something, we could bring in partners on new projects at a very attractive cost of capital. I do not look at selling those assets as being the best choice. No, that makes sense. Kim, just something that you talked about earlier, just you all mentioned the prepared markets, just the turbulent times. I mean, does that give you more, do you think, opportunities to, I do not know, necessarily buy distressed assets? It seems like there are still a lot of smaller deals out there. Does turbulent times like this provide maybe even more opportunities? It could. Here's what I would say. I would say early in turbulence, I would say that people tend to back away from the market a little bit to just let things settle out. Over the longer term, if the turbulence causes people to get in trouble, I think that would present opportunity for us over time. Thank you so much. Next question is from Keith Stanley with Wolfe Research. Your line is open. Hi. Good afternoon. Wanted to start this statement and the release on pursuing substantial amount of additional LNG feed gas opportunities. Are you mainly competing to serve new under-construction facilities, or is that redundancy projects for existing LNG? Relatedly, any update on commercial progress on expansion of Trident at some point? Sure. To your first question on the incremental LNG demand, I think it's a combination. We're looking at new to be able to supply new facilities that are looking to FID and some that are very close to FID. We're also looking at folks that are optimizing their existing systems, looking for diversity of supply. It's an all-of-the-above approach. I think we're talking to both sides there. On your latter question in terms of progress, I just want to make sure if you could just repeat the last question. Progress on Trident. Trident, right? Yeah. Progress on Trident. We've made significant strides here. We're close to possibly expanding the scale of the project. Hopefully, here in the next quarter or so, we'll have some positive news to announce. Making good progress there. A lot of interest. When we think about the west to east movements that we've been talking about for some time, it's a continued theme there that we're seeing. Great. Thanks for that. Second one, I just want to try again on the Double H conversion because it's kind of sneaking up on us early next year. Are the contracts you have with customers today to bring NGLs to Guernsey, or do they go further than that? I think you referenced in the prior question wanting to secure incremental contracts. Can you elaborate at all on the strategy there? At the risk of informing the competition, I'm going to pause on the detailed strategy. I will tell you, we are looking at getting molecules to both Conway and Mont Belvieu at a very high level. In terms of trying to garner incremental volumes, I think there's opportunities for us to add to the portfolio in terms of volumes that we move down Double H. That's probably all I'm going to tell you today. I know Theresa tried earlier, but that's it. Understood. Thanks. Next question is from Zack Van Everen with Tudor Pickering Holt. Your line is open. Hi, all. Thanks for taking my question. Maybe going back to the Haynesville, you mentioned growth in 2025 and 2026, and we tend to agree with that statement. Could you just remind us? I know you guys had the projects in 2025 for 340 a day for the Haynesville. Could you remind how much capacity is open once those projects are online for that system? Yeah. When we talk about hydraulic capacity in the Haynesville, if I recall, last January, we were talking, and we were kind of approaching capacity. We were planning on executing some projects in the second and third quarters. Obviously, in the price environment last year, we kind of fell off from a volume standpoint. I can tell you today, we are kind of approaching that same point we are. We have got a little bit of flex in the system. What we see here is that across the summer, I think we're going to be back at capacity in the Haynesville, and we are actually discussing how we get ahead of it once again. I think there's opportunities there for us to put some, once again, very capital-efficient capital in terms of unlocking incremental capacity. We've got to stay close to our producers, and we're obviously going to be very cautious to make sure that we see those volumes coming, and then we'll put in the capacity. Perfect. That makes sense. Maybe moving over to Texas, your announcement on the Tejas Pipeline, pretty low capital spend there. Is there opportunity to upscale that or have other opportunities on your intrastate system within Texas around whether it's power or data center demand? Yeah. Sure. Look, the Houston PowerGen project is an example of kind of what we're trying to pursue. While relatively it may be small in scale compared to everything else we've been talking about, it's a pretty, once again, very capital-efficient project. We just put in our Central Texas Pipeline, right, that they had talked about. We put that into service. That's a 30-inch trunk that basically feeds off of PHP into the Austin area. Obviously, there's a lot of activity in and around that area. We're exploring power opportunities. There's organic growth there. We are also exploring some data center opportunities in that area. I think we are positioned well with the platform. As Rich talked about, you got the straw in there, and then there's ancillaries that we can do on top of that straw. Lots of activity on the intrast ate systems. I think both the Houston PowerGen, the South Texas to Houston, and Central Texas are all examples of very capital-efficient projects that can garner very good opportunities. Got it. Makes sense. I appreciate the time. Absolutely. I'm showing no further questions at this time. Okay. Thank you very much. Have a good evening. This concludes today's call. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at this time.