PSX
#It's all planned maintenance.
We typically don't go into where because we feel like it disadvantages our commercial folks when we do that.
But it's going to be a heavy year for us in 2017.
We try to do five-year turnaround cycles, and what's happening, they're just kind of lining up and then you ---+ of course you have regulatory targets you have to hit in terms of bringing assets out of service for inspection, et cetera.
So I think we're going to ---+ 2016 was about where we were in 2015.
We're going to be a little bit higher in 2017 in terms of total turnaround cost.
The first quarter, it's a big lift for us, and you can see that in the core path we give you in terms of op rates.
Just a real quick comment on that.
That's on the refining side.
It's probably around four of those major turnarounds going on around our system.
Chemicals as well has a heavy turnaround schedule, one in the US and one in the Middle East joint venture.
That's why that operating rate's guided lower in chemicals as well.
It's not demand-driven.
It's really the turnaround that drives the chemicals outlook.
There's good demand for storage right now, as you might guess.
So we've done those projects.
We're also in the process of really going through an engineering project to get our dock rate utilization up, to go from [300,000 to 600,000].
That's particularly important for crude.
And so that's a project that would come on here in the next 12 to 18 months, to be able to do that.
As we step back, I think that, that's going to continue to be a benefit as producers look for options beyond just domestic consumption but also to tie into those export markets.
That capacity ---+ we're limited on that, <UNK>.
We're going to de-bottleneck that piece as part of our de-bottleneck plan at Beaumont and the master plan that we have.
On the export.
Hello, <UNK>.
Demand was really good.
We ramped up in the fourth quarter.
You've seen that really around industry data.
So I think it's still there.
I think Latin American refining system on the clean products side has continued to have issues, and that's created an opportunity.
That continues ---+ we still feel bullish in terms of the export side on the clean products.
We really haven't given guidance on exactly how much.
You should expect it will be in-line with our desire to have a strong, secure, growing, and competitive dividend.
We'll look at all those things when we make the decision around the dividend later this year.
Good.
Thank you.
<UNK>, this is <UNK>.
The Secondary Products line is simply a function of the delta between your crude cost and the non-clean products.
So the 15% or so of non-clean production, which typically doesn't track with crude to the same extent.
So as a rule of thumb, as crude prices increase, then the losses on Secondary Products on a per-barrel basis will increase, and that will hurt capture.
You see the opposite apply when crude prices decline.
That drag on capture tends to be reduced.
In the other you have a whole series of items that can actually go in either direction relative to overall capture.
So you've got the RINs expenses is recorded there.
The freight costs for outbound product is in there.
Any of these product differentials ---+ so when we talk about the actual realized product price versus the marker, then that will manifest itself in that part of the calculation.
Well, I think seasonally, <UNK>, you see that this is a weaker driving time.
If you're looking sequentially over, say, the third quarter, you do see an impact.
If you look at year-ago, we continue to see on the same-store growth in that.
I think that our anticipation is as you get back now into the spring and the driving season, that you should begin to see that.
But still, gasoline to us ---+ we had good growth as an industry.
We saw it in our chains.
This year we would expect some gasoline growth as well but probably not as strong as we start to ---+ the impact of pricing and vehicle miles driven, et cetera, begin to saturate.
We're still thinking it's there.
What's interesting, maybe as an aside, is that we're seeing a pickup in distillate on the transportation side, which is I think very important to help bring some strength back into that market, too.
Good morning, <UNK>.
I think that a $3 billion run rate is something we're comfortable with.
And that's $1 billion-ish of sustaining capital and $2 billion of growth capital.
And we think we can get done what we need to get done within those boundaries.
As we think about the hierarchy of how we allocate cash, the first thing is sustaining capital.
That's $1.1 billion or so.
The next goes to our dividend, and that's $1.3 billion.
We'll grow that every year going forward.
Then we think about our investable opportunities and the returns that we can generate from those investable opportunities versus what we think the returns we can generate by buying our shares back can.
We've got a natural tension there, but there's kind of a competition there for that.
And at this point in time, I don't think we see anything different from the guidance we've given in terms of the 60/40 allocation of reinvesting in the business versus distributions back to our shareholders.
Great.
Thank you.
How you doing this morning.
This is <UNK>.
You're exactly right.
The delta there is driven by the hedges that are in place at DCP, which mean from an earning standpoint, you're not going to see the same ---+ as much upside or downside to changes in commodity prices.
And so there's hedges on NGLs and crude, if I've got those details right in my mind.
Of course, the accounting drives it to be not always quite intuitive because the hedges are in place through the end of 2017.
So at the end of each quarter, you're marking those future volumes through the end of the year.
So there may or may not be an offset relative to the gain on the physical versus the paper that you're hedging out through the end of the year.
Obviously as you progress through the year, that effect is muted somewhat.
You can think about the total equity link that we have at the new DCP enterprise ---+ we probably hedged a third of that or so.
That's right.
About 30%.
The other thing is that LLC used to be 100% or 50/50 owned with ---+ and now it's down ---+ the ownership percentage is effectively 38%.
So there's some of that commodity exposure now that's moved into that piece of that, along with the hedge effects.
No, I'm not aware of any ---+ no, not aware of anything there.
I believe that's correct.
Take care.
Good morning, <UNK>.
Okay, so the capital ---+ I think the beauty of a second frac is you can leverage some of the infrastructure you've put in place.
I think our view is the next increment of capital will be lower because you've got all the utilities and some of the caverns, et cetera, pipes in place, and we planned for that.
So that's a beneficial incremental project.
And then in terms of when we could do that, as <UNK> mentioned earlier, we're seeing a lot of NGL looking at the [deramp] or the ramp-up on Sand Hills and the Permian, so producers are beginning to ask that.
I think we're looking to develop that.
Ultimately you look at the Permian, the Eagle Ford, and the recovery that we're seeing in the Mid-Continent as well, and you believe that there's going to be a need for the fractionation.
So the timing we'd like to have, we'd say maybe later this year, but it's one we're always going to keep on the front burner as we develop that.
But we don't want to do that until we're contracted around that.
Well, the current frac is owned by the partners.
And so I think they are getting much bigger.
They're doing a CapEx spend today that's over $400 million.
And so it's getting into a point where they can do that.
It may be a bit early on that, <UNK>, depending on the timing.
But ultimately we'd like to move as much of the Midstream spend into PSXP that it makes sense to do and they can manage.
So I think getting bigger, they've already taken on significant amount of our consolidated capital budget already.
No, I think it's post-2018.
I think the soonest you see FID, based on engineering and where we are working at the CPChem level, that would likely become now 2019, 2020 decision on FID.
Fundamentally, as you look at these, these are major turnarounds, <UNK>, so it's roughly going to approximate that utilization that we guided to.
I said sequentially, you see a decline but year-on-year, same period, you've seen the growth.
We have seen decline sequentially in January, as you would expect from a seasonal input.
No, we still ---+ from our system, our view is that we still see a small increase in the gasoline through our same stores year-on-year.
1%.
Pretty small, but still.
Take care, <UNK>.
