Dave, 	Using the numbers we have today and the Pemex volume of 240/day @ $0.25 as we have noted does not get KM to where we would want to be.
I layered on an additional 5 year commitment on the 240/day to cover some of the gap but we were still short of targets.
I then modified the debt term to 20 years which should be acceptable as the project would be supported for that length by the extended term and that covers an additional portion of the gap.
However, we are still short of our target and my calculations indicate a need to have 22/day @ $0.25 starting in year 3 and lasting through year 20 to make up the difference.
In the alternative, a rate of $0.267 with the 20 year term and 20 year debt note also gets us there.
All in all, neither one is that big of a hill to climb so we know what we are looking at.
Mark, 	Could you review from TW's perspective and see if you come up with numbers in the same ball park?

Transpecos
Dave, Using the numbers we have today and the Pemex volume of <NUMBER>/day @ <CUR><NUMBER> as we have noted does not get KM to where we would want to be.
I layered on an additional <NUMBER> year commitment on the <NUMBER>/day to cover some of the gap but we were still short of targets.
I then modified the debt term to <NUMBER> years which should be acceptable as the project would be supported for that length by the extended term and that covers an additional portion of the gap.
However, we are still short of our target and my calculations indicate a need to have <NUMBER>/day @ <CUR><NUMBER> starting in year <NUMBER> and lasting through year <NUMBER> to make up the difference.
In the alternative, a rate of <CUR><NUMBER> with the <NUMBER> year term and <NUMBER> year debt note also gets us there.
All in all, neither one is that big of a hill to climb so we know what we are looking at.
Mark, Could you review from TW's perspective and see if you come up with numbers in the same ball park?
targets modified pemex volume calculations indicate need number year debt climb know length difference alternative rate review tw perspective day cover gap acceptable project supported