US Energy Logistics / Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) Upgrade to Overweight (from Market Weight) December 2, 2016

Transcription

1 US Energy Logistics / Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) Upgrade to Overweight (from Market Weight) December 2, 2016 RESEARCH ANALYSTS John D. Edwards, CFA (713) john.edwards@credit-suisse.com Dylan Nassano (212) dylan.nassano@credit-suisse.com Bhavesh Lodaya (212) bhavesh.lodaya@credit-suisse.com DISCLOSURE APPENDIX AT THE BACK OF THIS REPORT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES, ANALYST CERTIFICATIONS, LEGAL ENTITY DISCLOSURE AND THE STATUS OF NON-US ANALYSTS. US Disclosure: Credit Suisse does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the Firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.

2 Distribution Growth Upgrading MLPs/U.S. Energy Infrastructure to Overweight Commodity Prices to Rise with Announced OPEC Production Cut We are raising our outlook for the US Energy Infrastructure / Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) sector to Overweight (from Market Weight). Attractive Valuation: Sector Total Return Outlook of ~18-29% vs. a relatively expensive S&P 500 with a return outlook of 5 to 7% (per CS forecasts). Expect higher multiples vs. past based on ~40% cost savings in oil services Price Tail Winds Following OPEC Production Cut to Improve Volumes on Midstream Positive Boost Expected from Easing of Federal Permitting Requirements Under incoming Trump Administration 20x 18x 16x 14x 12x 10x 8x 6x 4x 2x 0x Estimated 12-mo Total Return by Yield and Distribution Growth AMZX Yield Next 12 months 6.00% 6.25% 6.50% 6.75% 7.00% 7.25% 7.50% 3.0% 35.1% 30.0% 25.3% 21.0% 16.9% 13.1% 9.6% 4.0% 36.4% 31.3% 26.5% 22.1% 18.0% 14.2% 10.7% 5.0% 37.7% 32.5% 27.7% 23.3% 19.1% 15.3% 11.7% 6.0% 39.0% 33.7% 28.9% 24.4% 20.2% 16.4% 12.7% 7.0% 40.3% 35.0% 30.1% 25.6% 21.3% 17.4% 13.8% 8.0% 41.6% 36.2% 31.3% 26.7% 22.5% 18.5% 14.8% Current 17.5x 17.4x 14.3x 11.2x S&P Fwd PE Average +1 Std Dev -1 Std Dev As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Credit Suisse estimates 1

3 MLPs Have Significant Correlation to Crude Below $50/bbl EV/EBTIDA 15x 14x 13x 12x 11x 10x 9x 8x 7x 6x EV / NTM EBITDA - MLP Sector vs. Crude Sector Current 10.1x Sector Average 11.3x Crude $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 MLP valuations showed resiliency until crude fell below $50/bbl. Efficiency improvements suggest multiples should rise back to the x range if crude rises back to the $55-$65 level Excludes Upstream and Other MLPs Sector Median (NTM EBITDA est) Average Crude (WTI $/Bbl) 14% 12% 10% 8% AMZX Yield vs Crude (Crude Decline Jun 2014 to date) y = e x R² = MLP yields have traded within a range of 5-7% when crude is >$50/bbl 6% 4% 2% 0% $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 2

4 Changes to Target Prices We have increased target prices for 7 names under coverage Valuation Methodology Ticker Old TP New TP $ Change % Change Rating 2017 EV/EBITDA Multiple 2017 P/DCF Multiple Discount Rate 3-Year Distribution CAGR ENLC $17 $18 +$1 6% UNDERPERFORM 13.0x 16.0x 10% 4% KMI $26 $28 +$2 8% OUTPERFORM 13.5x 12.5x 9% 32% OKE $49 $54 +$5 10% NEUTRAL 13.0x 13.0x 9% 11% OKS $43 $45 +$2 5% NEUTRAL 13.0x 12.5x 9% 3% PAA $32 $35 +$3 9% NEUTRAL 15.0x 15.0x 9% -1% PAGP $35 $37 +$2 7% NEUTRAL NA NA NA NA TRGP $51 $57 +$6 12% NEUTRAL 12.0x 12.0x 9% 2% As of 12/1/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Credit Suisse estimates 3

5 2017 Outlook for MLPs Natural Gas Demand, OPEC Cuts, Crude Volume Recovery, Lower tax rates, Easier Permitting Natural Gas Demand to Trend Higher: Long term trends are for tail winds on natural gas consumption and consequently infrastructure: (1) fuel switching in power generation from coal to natural gas (2) use of natural gas as a transportation fuel (3) natural gas exports in the form of LNG (4) demand growth from 10 steam crackers being placed in service by 2019 which also include incremental ethane consumption of ~700,000 bbl/d, reducing rejection of ethane and shrinking the available gas supply. OPEC production cut agreement, a positive: Coming out of the Nov 30 meeting, OPEC agreed to limit production to compared to the ~33.7mm being produced recently. Based on the work of our energy economist, Jan Stuart, the deal to reduce supply by 1.2Mb/d, to 32.5mm bpd means prices are more likely to trend toward his bullish scenario. (Oil Sense: OPEC Adds to Its History ) Crude Volume Recovery: Volume is skewed toward the Permian -- ~500,000 bpd growth expected in 2017 and volumes should ~double from 2mmbpd to 4mmbpd by MVC contracting has led to competition for barrels, driving down rates and pushing meaningful cash flow contribution from recovering volumes out to 2018 however. Lower Corporate Tax Rates/Tax Reform could prompt restructurings: the incoming Trump administration has indicated it would push for 15% corporate tax rates to help US economic growth. MLPs with GPs could find that they would face a lower cost of capital paying 15% taxes then paying IDRs prompting a wave of restructurings. Regulatory Permitting Likely to Ease at the Federal Level: Keystone XL likely receives a Presidential permit and DAPL receives its easement from the US Army Corp of Engineers. But State-level requirements could remain challenging. 4

6 2017 Outlook for MLPs (cont d) Lower cap ex vs 16 but rising 2H, Consolidation, Distribution Growth Modestly Higher CapEx likely to fall to $36B: We currently expect MLP growth capital spend to fall by ~8% y/y to $36B in 2017, which is down 18% from 2014 s $44B, the peak of the capex super cycle. This number could move higher assuming crude production shows sign of sustainable increase in 2H17 heading into M&A/ Consolidation: The $63+B merger of SE/ENB marks the 4 th major combination in a little over 1 year involving infrastructure players and 7 th if we count simplification buy-ins. Consolidation in the sector should continue, particularly for those MLPs lacking sponsorship from refiners and producers. Distribution Growth Modestly Higher in 17: With crude prices bottoming in early 2016, management teams faced a shift in market perception of distribution policy versus balance sheet fundamentals. Those that needed to cut or suspend growth did so in order to focus on reducing leverage and building coverage resulting median growth ~5%. Now that most houses appear to be in order, we expect distribution growth to increase though to be conservative we continue to assume ~4-6% in 2017 over

7 2017 Outlook for MLPs (cont d) Stock Recommendations Antero Midstream (AM): One of the strongest growth rates in the sector for the next 3 years without the need to issue any equity. Risk is sponsor dependence and possible private equity need to exit. Boardwalk Pipeline Partners (BWP): We believe contract roll fears over blown particularly given a number of proposals to bring gas to the Gulf Crossing origination point. Modeling step up and resumption of distribution growth beginning in 2018 based on our forecast of reaching targeted leverage metrics. Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI): With recent receipt of Canadian Federal approval of its US$5.1B (C$6.8B) Transmountain project with no added conditions, the only remaining hurdle from an approval standpoint is meeting 2 of the 5 BC provincial conditions which the BC government has said the project is very close to meeting. We ultimately expect KMI to invite JV partners, reducing its capital commitments, improving its balance sheet and improving returns. OPEC production cuts will also help its CO2 division as prices roll higher. Continuing to model resumption of dividend growth beginning 2H18. EQT Midstream (EQM): Highest rated MLP per our proprietary health score analysis. Primarily levered to infrastructure growth in the Marcellus shale play with long term, fee based contracts. 20%+ 3-yr distribution CAGR with upside from rising Utica volumes. Low leverage and no direct commodity exposure. Tallgrass Energy Partners (TEP) is levered primarily to natural gas and is a long term drop down story of additional interests in Rockies Express Pipeline. Over 80% take or pay contracts. Main risk is contract roll-offs in 2019 but we think management ultimately is successful in extending the contract rolls at Pony Express. Top distribution grower (over 20%) next few years. 6

8 CS Coverage Summary of Rating / TP / TR Outlook CS Coverage Total Return Potential: ~28% (median) NTM Total Returns MLP Rating 01-Dec-16 Annual Current Mkt Fwd 2-Yr Close Value Price Target NTM Dist Distribution Distribution Yield Price ($MM) CAGR Total Return ETP O $33.22 $ % 18,027 $50 $ % 63% EQM O $71.32 $ % 5,850 $109 $ % 58% PSXP O $45.14 $ % 4,663 $68 $ % 56% WNRL N $20.70 $ % 1,260 $29 $ % 49% SMLP O $22.05 $ % 1,622 $30 $ % 47% SUN N $23.75 $ % 2,659 $31 $ % 44% AM O $28.78 $ % 5,103 $40 $ % 43% EQGP O $24.43 $ % 6,502 $34 $ % 42% VLP O $40.08 $ % 2,700 $55 $ % 42% EPD O $25.46 $ % 53,573 $34 $ % 40% TEP O $46.20 $ % 3,370 $61 $ % 40% MPLX O $32.00 $ % 11,510 $42 $ % 38% GPP O $18.00 $ % 572 $23 $ % 37% BWP O $17.07 $ % 4,273 $23 $ % 37% PBFX N $18.90 $ % 789 $24 $ % 37% BPL N $62.71 $ % 8,793 $79 $ % 34% VTTI N $17.50 $ % 815 $22 $ % 34% KMI O $21.49 $ % 47,974 $28 $ % 33% ENLK N $17.23 $ % 5,856 $21 $ % 31% LNG O $41.29 $ % 9,703 $54 $0.00 NA 31% ETE O $16.31 $ % 17,076 $20 $ % 30% TEGP O $24.22 $ % 3,808 $30 $ % 29% TLLP N $47.16 $ % 4,913 $57 $ % 29% CNNX N $21.44 $ % 1,251 $26 $ % 27% CQP O $29.00 $ % 9,698 $35 $ % 27% GEL N $33.93 $ % 4,002 $40 $ % 26% MEP U $6.00 $ % 277 $6 $ % 24% APLP O $15.86 $ % 952 $18 $ % 21% SPH U $27.96 $ % 1,700 $30 $ % 20% WES N $55.68 $ % 8,097 $62 $ % 18% TRGP N $51.86 $ % 9,378 $57 $ % 17% WPZ N $35.59 $ % 21,789 $38 $ % 16% OKS N $41.65 $ % 11,905 $45 $ % 16% ENBL N $15.80 $ % 6,831 $17 $ % 16% PAA N $32.32 $ % 13,347 $35 $ % 15% CQH N $21.65 $ % 5,016 $24 $ % 13% PAGP N $34.81 $ % 8,395 $37 $ % 13% DPM N $33.94 $ % 3,895 $35 $ % 12% MMP U $69.15 $ % 15,751 $74 $ % 12% NS U $47.55 $ % 3,732 $48 $ % 10% CPPL O $17.20 $ % 1,731 $18 $ % 10% WGP N $42.61 $ % 9,328 $43 $ % 5% OKE N $54.42 $ % 11,457 $54 $ % 4% ENLC U $18.35 $ % 3,304 $18 $ % 4% NSH U $26.40 $ % 1,133 $25 $ % 3% APU U $45.01 $ % 4,183 $40 $ % (3%) Notes: Denotes a top pick for the next 12 months Median 28% Average 27% CNP U $23.80 $ % 10,250 $25 $ % 10% NI U $21.71 $ % 7,007 $25 $0.68 NA 18% As of 12/1/16; Source: RAVE, Credit Suisse estimates 7

9 CS Interpretation of OPEC Deal On Wednesday, OPEC members announced a deal to reduce supply by 1.2 Mb/d to a nominal 32.5 Mb/d. Iran and Iraq were both able to settle their differences over output levels, with Iran agreeing to a cap of Mb/d and Iraq cutting 210 kb/d to Mb/d. We believe the deal to be a bullish sign and anticipate prices to move toward the green bullish scenario outlined in the bottom left chart. CS now estimates a ~0.8 Mb/d stock draw in H rather than prior estimates of a small build. Please see the recent note published by the CS Economics and Strategy team for more in-depth analysis. Moving toward the green track, WTI ($/b) Source: Credit Suisse Research CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC 8

10 OPEC Scenarios have big implications for the midstream As illustrated in the bottom left chart, the current CS economic outlook calls for steep global stock draws, averaging ~1Mb/d in H The bottom right chart outlines the CS crude production forecast for the cutting group. As a whole, the expected production cut from OPEC members plus non-opec members is expected to reduce production by ~1.2Mb/d from total Q3 averages. Cuts from OPEC are expected to account for ~900kb/d of production cuts. Please see the recent note published by the CS Economics and Strategy team for more in-depth analysis. OPEC scenarios, implications for 2017 stock changes Outlook for cutting producers in H CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC Source: Credit Suisse Research 9

11 MLP 2017 Total Return Outlook 6.75% Target Yield on the AMZX and 4-6% Distribution Growth Implies ~24% Total Return US10 Yr Distribution Growth Distribution Growth Crude Prices to Rise to ~$60/bbl from the OPEC cut meaning AMZX Yield likely falls below 7% Yield Spread by AMZX Target Yield and US-10 year AMZX Yield Next 12 months 6.00% 6.25% 6.50% 6.75% 7.00% 7.25% 7.50% 1.50% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 5.50% 5.75% 6.00% 1.75% 4.25% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 5.50% 5.75% 2.00% 4.00% 4.25% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 5.50% 2.25% 3.75% 4.00% 4.25% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 5.25% 2.50% 3.50% 3.75% 4.00% 4.25% 4.50% 4.75% 5.00% 2.75% 3.25% 3.50% 3.75% 4.00% 4.25% 4.50% 4.75% 3.00% 3.00% 3.25% 3.50% 3.75% 4.00% 4.25% 4.50% 3.25% 2.75% 3.00% 3.25% 3.50% 3.75% 4.00% 4.25% 3.50% 2.50% 2.75% 3.00% 3.25% 3.50% 3.75% 4.00% Target AMZX by distribution growth and yield AMZX Yield next 12 months 6.00% 6.25% 6.50% 6.75% 7.00% 7.25% 7.50% 3.0% 1, , , , , , , % 1, , , , , , , % 1, , , , , , , % 1, , , , , , , % 1, , , , , , , % 1, , , , , , ,436.0 Estimated 12-mo Total Return by Yield and Distribution Growth AMZX Yield Next 12 months 6.00% 6.25% 6.50% 6.75% 7.00% 7.25% 7.50% 3.0% 35.1% 30.0% 25.3% 21.0% 16.9% 13.1% 9.6% 4.0% 36.4% 31.3% 26.5% 22.1% 18.0% 14.2% 10.7% 5.0% 37.7% 32.5% 27.7% 23.3% 19.1% 15.3% 11.7% 6.0% 39.0% 33.7% 28.9% 24.4% 20.2% 16.4% 12.7% 7.0% 40.3% 35.0% 30.1% 25.6% 21.3% 17.4% 13.8% 8.0% 41.6% 36.2% 31.3% 26.7% 22.5% 18.5% 14.8% Source: CS estimates and company data AMZ Yield Regressing WTI with AMZ Yield $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 $60 $65 Crude decline (Jun Feb 2009) 12.0% 11.7% 11.4% 11.1% 10.9% 10.6% 10.3% Crude recovery (Feb Apr 2011) 11.9% 11.2% 10.6% 10.1% 9.5% 9.0% 8.5% Crude sideways (Apr Jun 2014) 8.1% 7.9% 7.7% 7.5% 7.3% 7.1% 7.0% Jan 2011 to date 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.4% 7.2% 7.1% 6.9% Latest Crude decline (Jun 2014 to date) 8.1% 7.8% 7.5% 7.2% 6.9% 6.6% 6.4% Jan 2015 to date 9.0% 8.2% 7.4% 6.8% 6.2% 5.6% 5.1% Jan 2016 to date 9.0% 8.2% 7.5% 6.8% 6.2% 5.6% 5.1% In the chart above we regressed WTI crude with AMZ yield, under different crude price movement scenarios. For our base case Alerian yield forecast, we apply a mix of the regression results since January 2011 and the current crude decline cycle since June Assuming WTI moves to the $45-60/Bbl range over the next twelve months, we would expect the Alerian MLP Index to trade in the 6.75% to 7.25% range. Applying the % yield target to our 4-6% distribution growth target for the space over the same period, indicates 14-25% NTM total returns (left chart). 10

12 Permitting and Regulatory Risks Likely Ease in 2017 While we believe the new administration will be more accommodating towards midstream infrastructure investments, not all pending projects will be favorably impacted. Projects which have faced executive pushback will likely be reexamined (Keystone XL) and/or built (DAPL). Projects in which state regulators are the primary obstacle to completion (Constitution, Mariner East II) still face headwinds. Project Company Type Capacity Permitting/Approval Process Expected Completion DAPL ETP Crude Oil 570,000bpd Pending further review by US Army Corps of Engineers End of 2016/Early 2017 Rover ETP Natural Gas 3.25bcf/day FERC autorization expected 4Q16 Mid-2017 Atlantic Sunrise WPZ Natural Gas 1.7bcf/day FERC decision expected late 2016/early 2017 Late 2017 Consititution WPZ Natural Gas.7bcf/day FERC Approved, New York Department of Enviromental Conservation denied the projects Water Quality Certification on 4/22/16 2H2017 PennEast SEP Natural Gas.65bcf/day FERC environmental review to be issued 2/17/17, federal authorization decision deadline due 3/18/17 2H2018 Mariner East II SXL NGL 345,000bpd Pennsylvania DEP Permit pending 3Q17 Keystone XL TRP Crude Oil 830,000bpd Currently challenging President Obama's denial of the required presidential permit N/A Access Northeast SEP Natural Gas.9bcf/day Pre-filing process underway Nov Trans Mountain Expansion KMI Crude Oil Increases from 300,000bpd to 890,000bpd Received approval from Canada's National Energy Board on 5/19/16, final approval decision will be made by the Canadian Government by 12/19/16 3Q19 Source: CS estimates and company data 11

13 MLPs EV/EBITDA vs. Crude on the way up and on the way down 14x EV / NTM EBITDA - MLP Sector (Dec '08 - Jun '14) vs. Crude $140 13x 12x 11x 10x 11.2x $120 $100 $80 $60 Suggests x multiple at $90-$100 crude Discounting a crude fall 9x $40 8x $20 7x $0 Excludes Upstream and Other MLPs Sector Median Average +1 StDev -1 StDev Crude 16x 15x 14x 13x 12x 11x 10x 9x 8x EV / NTM EBITDA - MLP Sector (Jun '14 - Jan '16) vs. Crude 12.4x $120 $110 $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 Suggests multiple of 9-10x at $40 crude Discounting a crude recovery Excludes Upstream and Other MLPs Sector Median Average +1 StDev -1 StDev Crude As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 12

14 P/DCF 2014 Saw an Inversion of the MLP to Crude Valuation Relationship If crude were to again fall below $40/bbl we would expect MLPs to trade in the 8-10x P/DCF range vs. current ~12x P / TTM DCF Median (CS Coverage - LPs only) vs. Crude 24x $120 20x 16x 12x 8x 4x $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 P/DCF (TTM) Crude (End of week WTI/Bbl) 24x 20x 16x 12x 8x 4x P / TTM DCF Median (CS Coverage - LPs only) vs. Natural Gas $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 P/DCF (TTM) NatGas (End of week HH/MMBtu) As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 13

15 AMZX US 10 Year Yield We forecast the AMZX US 10 year yield spread to tighten to bps which would imply a 18-29% total return over the next twelve months # of Tranches Avg Return for AMZX for each tranche Spread = 504 bps as of 11/30/ % 59.8% 42.8% 28.6% % 25.4% 29.6% 13.5% 10.2%8.6% 10.7% 15.4%18.1% % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% The left chart shows the average 12- month forward return for the AMZX for a given yield between the MLP benchmark and the US 10yr Treasury. Going back to 1/1/1996 sorting into 50 bps tranches we calculated an average return for the AMZX over the next 12 months. The larger the yield spread, the better the AMZX does over the next 12 months. Yield Spread Tranche 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% AMZ Yield Since Inception ( TD) 10 Yr Avg = 6.93% 5 Yr Avg = 6.51% Current Yield = 7.43% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Cushing Yield Since Inception ( TD) 10 Yr Avg = 6.76% 5 Yr Avg = 6.43% Current Yield = 6.87% As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 14

16 Yield Vs. Distribution Growth -LPs 5% Distribution Growth Implies a Current Yield of ~8.5% Current Yield WES, MMP, EPD, PAA, BPL, ENBL and OKS appear to trade more expensive relative to the space on a yield basis as investors are willing to pay a premium for stability and coverage. WNRL, PBFX and TEP are relatively cheap as dropdown stories have fallen out of favor given their reliance on equity financing. 16% 14% SUN 12% ETP 10% WPZ ENLK DPM GPP PBFX NS 8% ENBL OKS GEL 6% BPL PAA EPD 4% 2% VTTI WNRL TLLP WES CQP MMP MPLX TEP CPPL CNNX EQM y = x R² = PSXP VLP AM 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Forecasted 2YR CAGR for Distributions As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 15

17 Yield Vs. Distribution Growth - GPs 5% Distribution Growth Implies a Current Yield of ~6.5% Current Yield NSH, ETE, ENLC and PAGP appear to trade more expensive relative to the space on a yield basis. 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% NSH y = x R² = % 6.0% 5.0% ENLC PAGP ETE 4.0% 3.0% OKE WGP TEGP 2.0% EQGP 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Forecasted 2YR CAGR for Distributions As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 16

18 Leverage Leverage Coverage Vs. Leverage & WACC Vs. Leverage We consider names with lower leverage and higher coverage/lower WACC as more stable Leverage Vs Coverage (2016) 5.5x 5.0x 4.5x 4.0x 3.5x 3.0x 2.5x 2.0x PAA APU MEP TLLP TRGP EPD BPL WPZ SMLP OKS ENLK GEL DPM PSXP ENBL MMP MPLX TEP PBFX VTTI WES WNRL GPP y = x R² = AM VLP 1.5x EQM CNNX 1.0x 0.6x 0.7x 0.8x 0.9x 1.0x 1.1x 1.2x 1.3x 1.4x 1.5x 1.6x 1.7x 1.8x 1.9x 2.0x Coverage Leverage Vs WACC (2016) 5.5x 5.0x 4.5x 4.0x 3.5x 3.0x 2.5x 2.0x 1.5x 1.0x 0.5x VLP AM CNNX MMP EPD APLP PSXP EQM VTTI TRGP GEL BPL ENBL PAA MPLX NS WES PBFX MEP APU SMLP WNRL TEP GPP OKS ENLK TLLP DPM SPH WPZ y = x R² = x 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% WACC (LP+GP) As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Credit Suisse estimates 17

19 GP Splits Names further along in the GP splits are more likely to restructure in the coming years. GP take implies actual amount of cash paid out by LP. GP Take % 40% 35% 30% 30% 31% 31% 32% 32% 34% 34% 33% 28% 28% 39% 25% 20% 15% 13% 13% 13% 12% 21% 21% 22%23% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 6% 7% 7% GP Take % 40% 35% 30% 43% 39% 40% 36% 37% 37% 34% 34% 31% 31% 32% 32% 28% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 4% 8% 23% 20% 21% 15% 15% 15% 16% 18% 12% 13% As of 11/25/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 18

20 Current Yield Dist. Coverage Ratio Leverage Dist. Growth MLP Health Scorecard Rank Examining MLPs to determine which have the greatest financial health We scored and ranked MLPs based on their health, taking into consideration both quantitative and qualitative metrics we believe MLP investors should focus on MLP Current Liquidity Capex + Acquisitions ($MM) NTM CAPEX as Distrib. Coverage Leverage Distribution Growth Comdty Contract Invt Health TR 2017 Ticker Yield ($MM) NTM Est 2017E 2018E % of Liquidity 2016E 2017E 2018E 2016E 2017E 2018E 2016E 2017E 2018E Exposure Quality Grade Score Upside P/DCF EQM 4.4% 1, ,293 79% 1.47x 1.31x 1.12x 1.6x 2.4x 3.6x 21% 20% 17% Lower Above Avg Y % 15.1x VLP 3.6% % 1.89x 1.46x 1.30x 2.1x 2.3x 2.6x 25% 25% 21% Lower Above Avg % 16.1x WES 6.0% 1, ,084 1,100 62% 1.22x 1.24x 1.11x 2.9x 3.2x 3.3x 10% 9% 9% Lower Above Avg Y % 12.9x MMP 4.7% 1, % 1.22x 1.22x 1.22x 3.4x 3.7x 3.8x 10% 9% 9% Lower Above Avg Y % 15.7x PSXP 4.5% 736 2,941 2,301 2, % 1.30x 1.41x 1.29x 5.1x 3.8x 3.7x 25% 22% 20% Lower Above Avg Y % 13.1x EPD 6.3% 3,946 4,271 3,000 3, % 1.26x 1.23x 1.25x 4.6x 4.5x 4.4x 5% 6% 6% Lower Above Avg Y % 12.1x AM 3.5% 1, % 1.73x 1.59x 1.50x 2.3x 2.4x 2.5x 30% 28% 24% In-line Below Avg % 15.8x KMI 2.3% 5,012 2,754 3,000 4,000 55% 4.04x 4.24x 2.94x 5.4x 5.2x 5.2x -69% 0% 53% In-line Above Avg Y % 10.1x WNRL 8.0% % 1.03x 1.15x 1.12x 2.4x 2.8x 3.2x 12% 11% 11% Lower Average % 10.4x CNNX 4.7% % 1.55x 1.59x 1.36x 1.6x 1.5x 2.1x 15% 15% 16% In-line Below Avg % 12.2x TEP 6.5% % 1.22x 1.03x 1.00x 3.4x 3.3x 3.7x 31% 20% 17% Lower Average % 12.3x GPP 9.1% % 1.16x 1.24x 1.20x 2.1x 1.7x 1.5x 3% 5% 5% Lower Above Avg % 8.3x BPL 7.7% 1,694 1, % 1.15x 1.20x 1.18x 4.4x 3.9x 3.7x 4% 4% 4% Lower Above Avg Y % 10.2x VTTI 7.3% % 1.02x 1.06x 1.04x 3.5x 3.9x 4.6x 13% 10% 8% Lower Average % 9.1x BWP 2.3% 1, % 4.96x 5.61x 1.52x 4.6x 3.8x 3.4x 0% 0% 300% In-line Below Avg Y % 7.6x SMLP 10.4% % 1.26x 1.36x 1.39x 4.3x 3.7x 3.1x 1% 1% 6% Lower Average % 7.3x PBFX 9.1% % 1.29x 1.27x 1.24x 3.8x 3.4x 3.3x 14% 9% 6% Lower Below Avg % 9.3x SUN 13.9% % 1.08x 1.09x 1.33x 6.5x 5.5x 4.1x 14% 0% 3% Lower Above Avg % 7.0x MPLX 6.4% 2,532 3,465 4,670 5, % 1.18x 1.10x 1.08x 3.1x 3.6x 3.6x 13% 13% 13% In-line Below Avg Y % 12.4x OKS 7.6% 1, % 1.10x 1.12x 1.13x 4.2x 3.9x 3.8x 0% 1% 5% In-line Average Y % 11.7x ENLK 9.1% 1,424 1,061 1,028 1,032 74% 1.01x 1.01x 1.04x 4.1x 4.2x 4.4x 1% 0% 3% Lower Below Avg Y % 10.9x TLLP 7.1% 1,932 1,644 1, % 1.09x 1.07x 1.10x 4.7x 4.5x 4.3x 17% 13% 9% In-line Average % 11.4x APU 8.4% % 0.83x 1.04x 1.03x 4.8x 4.2x 4.1x 3% 3% 3% In-line Average 0.0-3% 11.2x ETP 12.7% 2,552 4,262 2,250 1, % 0.84x 1.04x 1.03x 5.0x 4.4x 4.0x 1% 0% 0% Lower Average Y (0.5) 63% 7.4x GEL 8.1% % 1.17x 1.17x 1.21x 5.9x 5.5x 5.3x 10% 5% 5% In-line Average (0.5) 26% 9.9x PAA 8.7% 2,505 1, % 0.80x 1.03x 1.12x 5.1x 4.8x 4.4x -10% 0% 5% In-line Average Y (0.5) 15% 14.2x ENBL 8.1% 1, % 1.18x 1.07x 1.20x 3.8x 4.3x 3.9x 1% 0% 4% Higher Average Y (0.5) 16% 11.6x SPH 12.7% % 0.61x 0.91x 1.06x 5.6x 4.5x 4.0x 0% 0% 0% In-line Average (1.0) 20% 8.6x TRGP 7.0% 1, % 1.05x 1.20x 1.24x 4.3x 3.6x 3.5x 3% 0% 3% Higher Average (1.0) 17% 10.8x NS 9.2% % 1.05x 1.05x 1.11x 5.1x 5.8x 5.4x 0% 0% 0% In-line Average (1.0) 10% 10.3x APLP 7.2% % 2.45x 2.03x 2.10x 5.3x 5.2x 4.9x -50% 0% 2% In-line Below Avg (1.0) 21% 6.8x DPM 9.2% 1, % 1.10x 1.06x 1.10x 3.9x 3.9x 3.7x 0% 0% 0% Higher Below Avg Y (1.5) 12% 10.7x MEP 23.8% % 1.00x 1.00x ERR: NU 48.5x 39.2x 37.1x 1% 0% #VALUE! Higher Average (2.5) 24% 4.1x WPZ 9.6% 2,369 2,772 3,665 2, % 1.02x 1.00x 1.12x 4.3x 4.6x 4.2x 0% 0% 0% Higher Average Y (2.5) 16% 10.3x Note: 1. Analysis excludes General Partners and Restricted names. We use the most recent reported data (3Q16) for all boxes. Median % 10.7x 2. Our base parameter ranges are mostly driven by metric median and 1 standard deviation on either side. 3. Liquidity is defined as cash available + availability on revolver as of end of 3Q16. We then layer addl.in equity/debt issuances (if used to pay down revolver) Health Score Ranking Methodology Median 7.7% Median 68.7% 2017 Median 1.16x 2017 Median 3.91x 2017 Median 3.5% Stdev 3.9% NTM Stdev 88.3% Stdev 0.93x Stdev 6.14x Stdev 8.3% Low High % of Base case 100.0% CAPEX as Low High Low High Low High 3.73% 11.59% Liquidity 0.2x 2.1x 3.41x 4.41x -4.8% 11.8% 3.0% 13.0% 100% 160% 1.00x 1.25x 3.25x 4.50x 0.0% 14.0% 0 Point 3.0% 13.0% 0 Point 100% 160% 0 Point 1.00x 1.25x 0 Point 3.3x 4.5x 0 Point 0.0% 14.0% -1 Point > 13.0% -1 Point > 160% +1 Point > 1.25x -1 Point > 4.5x +1 Point > 14.0% +1 Point < 3.0% +1 Point < 100% -1 Point < 1.00x +1 Point < 3.3x -1 Point < 0.0% 2nd Level Scoring 2nd Level Scoring Alerian 5-yr Avg 6.5% MLP doesn't lose 1pt on 2016 Outlook (Med) 5.0% -0.5 Point > 6.5% 0 Point liquidity (Level 1 score) if it +0.5 Point > 5.0% +0.5 Point < 6.5% gains 1pt on leverage -0.5 Point < 5.0% Lower is better Lower is better Higher is better Lower is better Higher is better 2nd Level Scoring Lower +1 Point In-line 0 Point Higher -1 Point Above Avg +1 Point Average 0 Point Below Avg -1 Point Yes +0.5 Point No 0 Point As of 12/1/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Credit Suisse estimates 19

21 Price/DCF LP Unit (centered at median) MLP Health Scorecard We prefer MLPs lying in the upper right quadrants, representing a high health score combined with high valuation upside NTM Total Return Potential (centered at median) 4x MEP Health Score to 2017 Price/DCF LP unit 70% Health Score to NTM Total Return Potential 6x 8x 10x 12x 14x 16x WPZ APLP SUN ETP SMLP BWP GPP SPH PBFX VTTI KMI GEL NS BPL DPM WNRL TRGP ENLK TLLP APU ENBL OKS MPLX CNNX EPD TEP PSXP PAA AM WES MMP VLP EQM 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% MEP WPZ ETP SUN MPLX ENLK TLLP GEL SPH APLP TRGP ENBL DPM NS PAA APU PSXP WNRL SMLP TEP PBFX BWP GPP VTTI BPL OKS CNNX KMI AM EPD MMP VLP WES EQM 18x (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Health Score (centered at median) -10% (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Health Score (centered at median) As of 12/1/2016, source: Company data, Credit Suisse estimates 20

22 MLP Capital Expenditures 2014 was the Peak of US Infrastructure Super-cycle Buildout We expect growth capital spend to fall by ~8% y/y in 2017 Our expected annual capital spend of ~$36mm in 2017 is down ~18% from peak spend of $43.9mm in This number could move higher as 2017 capital spend guidance is released, assuming OPEC reaches a deal and cheating is not overly rampant. Estimated Capital Spend by Sub-Sector CapEx $Bn $50 10% CAGR in Ca pex ( E) Mkt Cap $Bn $600 $45 $40 $35 $336 $470 $518 $397 $426 $500 $400 $30 $283 $25 $229 $300 $20 $15 $10 $107 $141 $86.5 $146 $200 $100 $5 $ E 2017E 2018E $0 Natural Gas Pipelines Liquids Infrastructure Gathering & Processing Upstream Shipping Propane Coal Others MLP Total Market Cap As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 21

23 Permian Basin Leads U.S. Shale Production Growth More Oil Per Rig; Production To Rig Count Relationship Has Inversed Driven by large efficiencies in drilling, higher IP rates and lower costs, the $100/Bbl price of crude in the past could equate to ~$60/Bbl price today. Per CS forecasts and assuming a $60/Bbl WTI price, US production by 2025 is estimated to rise to ~13MMBbl/d, of which Permian alone would account for ~4.5MMBbl/d. As of September 2016, Permian produced ~550Bbl/d per rig, with ~200 active rigs. In stark comparison to 2015 s peak of ~575 active Permian rigs and production of ~200Bbl/d per rig. Bottom Line: Midstream players such as PAA, WES, TRGP, WNRL and SXL with Permian assets are expected to benefit from increased production and basis spreads increasing over the next 2-3 years. As of 11/25/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg 22

24 Permian Basin Takeaway Capacity ~3,300 Mbpd of Permian takeaway capacity available assuming potential expansions Current Planned Q Current Major Permian Crude Pipeline Takeaway Operator Origin Destination Pipeline Capacity (BOPD) Plains Permian Cushing Basin 450,000 Oxy Permian Cushing Centurion 75,000 Sunoco Permian GC West Texas Gulf 400,000 Kinder Morgan Permian El Paso Wink 120,000 Magellan Permian GC Longhorn 275,000 Magellan Permian GC BridgeTex 300,000 Plains Permian Corpus Cactus 330,000 Sunoco Permian GC Permian Express II 300,000 Permian Regional refining capacity 400,000 Total 2,650,000 Potential & Planned Permian Crude Pipeline Expansions Operator Origin Destination Pipeline Additional Capacity (BOPD) Enterprise Midland GC Midland to Sealy 300,000 TransCanada Permian Cushing Gulf Coast 130,000 Magellan Permian GC BridgeTex 100,000 Enterprise Midland GC Midland to Sealy 150,000 Total Potential & Planned Expansions Total Potential Capacity 680,000 3,330,000 Cushing to Gulf Coast Pipeline Takeaway Operator Origin Destination Pipeline Capacity (BOPD) Enbridge/Enterprise Cushing GC Seaway 850,000 Transcanada Cushing GC Gulf Coast 700,000 Source: Pioneer Natural Resources, PAA investor presentation 23

25 MLPs Outperformed Broader Market in 2016 The AMZX outperformed the S&P 500 following commodity prices bottoming in 1Q16. Yields have returned to a more normalized range, though they remain slightly above longer term averages. YTD total returns on the AMZX index at ~13% and ~23% for Cushing MLP index through Nov 30 CS Coverage Best to Worst Performers MLP YTD TR MLP YTD TR OKE 131% EQGP 20% CNNX 128% TEP 19% TRGP 105% CQP 18% ENBL 86% NI 15% TEGP 57% EEP 14% PAA 51%.AMZX 13% DPM 50% ENLK 13% OKS 49% ETP 11% PAGP 48% LNG 11% KMI 47% MMP 7% APU 42% EPD 6% APLP 40% CPPL 3% WPZ 40% BPL 2% CNP 35% TLLP 0% NSH 35% GEL 0% BWP 35% EQM -1% AM 30% PBFX -4% SMLP 30% SXL -5% SPH 30% SEP -7% NS 30% WNRL -9% ENLC 28% VTTI -9% ETE 27% MPLX -13% CQH 25% VLP -20% WES 24% PSXP -23% WMB 23% MEP -24% WGP 22% SUN -32% GPP 21% 2016 Performance by Subsector 11/30/ YTD Change Coal GP Gath.&Pr. Propane MLP HoldCo Shipping MLPXTR Other Pipelines AMZEX SPMLPT AMZX S&P500 Upstream -22.1% AMZX vs. S&P 500 Returns (w/w) 43.8% 34.9% 33.8% 25.8% 24.0% 22.7% 21.2% 17.0% 16.7% 16.2% 13.3% 9.8% 124.4% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% Median return Propane; Average all others Source: CS estimates and company data, prices as of 11/30/

26 MLP and Commodity Market Update Weekly MLPs and Commodity Update Value % Change 52 Week 11/30/16 11/23/16 10/31/16 9/30/16 12/31/15 11/30/15 WoW November 4Q16TD 3Q16 YTD 2015 YoY High Low Alerian MLP Index AMZ (Price Return) % 1.2% -4.1% -0.8% 4.5% -36.9% 0.7% AMZX (Total Return) 1, , , , , , % 2.3% -2.3% 1.1% 13.3% -32.6% 9.3% 1, Alerian MLP Equal Weight Index AMZE (Price Return) % 0.5% -3.7% 1.7% 6.8% -42.0% -2.3% AMZEX (Total Return) % 1.8% -1.9% 3.7% 16.7% -37.2% 6.8% Cushing MLP Index MLPX (Price Return) % 0.9% -3.4% 1.4% 12.3% -41.9% 4.2% MLPXTR (Total Return) % 2.1% -1.6% 3.2% 22.7% -38.0% 14.0% S&P 500 Index SPX (Price Return) 2, , , , , , % 3.4% 1.4% 3.3% 7.6% -0.7% 5.7% 2, ,829.1 SPXT (Total Return) 4, , , , , , % 3.7% 1.8% 3.9% 9.8% 1.4% 8.1% 4, ,429.0 S&P MLP Index SPMLP (Price Return) 1, , , , , , % 2.2% -3.3% 1.1% 7.2% -39.1% 0.5% 1, ,072.9 SPMLPT (Total Return) 4, , , , , , % 3.4% -1.5% 2.9% 16.2% -35.1% 9.0% 4, ,791.1 US 10yr Treasury Yield 2.39% 2.37% 1.83% 1.59% 2.29% 2.21% % 1.36% WTI Crude Oil Futures ($/Bbl) $49.44 $47.96 $46.86 $48.24 $37.04 $ % 5.5% 2.5% -0.2% 33.5% -30.5% 18.7% $51.60 $26.21 NatGas Futures ($/MMBtu) $3.35 $3.03 $3.03 $2.91 $2.34 $ % 10.8% 15.3% -0.6% 43.4% -19.1% 50.0% $3.35 $1.64 Ethane - Mt. Belvieu ($/Gal) $0.23 $0.21 $0.23 $0.22 $0.15 $ % -1.1% 1.1% -3.8% 48.4% -23.2% 27.5% $0.26 $0.13 Propane - Mt. Belvieu ($/Gal) $0.58 $0.54 $0.56 $0.54 $0.39 $ % 2.7% 6.0% 5.8% 47.0% -21.7% 34.5% $0.61 $0.30 MLP Yields Spread vs. 10Yr MLP Yields AMZX AMZEX MLPX US 10Yr AMZX AMZEX MLPX Last Week 11/30/ % 7.45% 6.87% 2.39% 5.04% 5.06% 4.48% Prior Week 11/23/ % 7.42% 6.82% 2.37% 5.04% 5.05% 4.45% Last Month 10/31/ % 7.55% 6.95% 1.83% 5.69% 5.71% 5.11% Last Year 12/31/ % 10.03% 10.12% 2.29% 6.07% 7.75% 7.83% 5 Yr Average 6.51% 7.60% 6.44% 2.11% 4.40% 5.49% 4.33% Current vs 5 Yr Avg 0.92% -0.15% 0.43% 0.27% 0.65% -0.42% 0.15% 10 Yr Average 6.94% 7.66% 6.77% 2.82% 4.11% 4.84% 3.94% Current vs 10 Yr Avg 0.49% -0.21% 0.10% -0.44% 0.93% 0.23% 0.54% All-time High Yield 15.25% 17.76% 15.44% Date 11/21/08 12/24/08 2/11/16 All-time Low Yield 5.14% 4.83% 4.63% Date 08/29/14 07/20/07 08/29/14 As of 11/30/16; Source: RAVE, Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, Credit Suisse estimates 25

27 Companies Mentioned (Price as of 01-Dec-2016) AmeriGas Partners, L.P. (APU.N, $45.01) Antero Midstream Partners LP (AM.N, $28.78) Archrock Partners, LP (APLP.OQ, $15.86) Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (BWP.N, $17.07) Buckeye Partners, LP (BPL.N, $62.71) CONE Midstream Partners, LP (CNNX.N, $21.44) CenterPoint Energy Inc (CNP.N, $23.8) Cheniere Energy Partners, LP (CQP.A, $29.0) Cheniere Energy Partners, LP Holdings LLC (CQH.A, $21.65) Cheniere Energy, Inc. (LNG.A, $41.29) Columbia Pipeline Partners, LP (CPPL.N, $17.2) DCP Midstream Partners, LP (DPM.N, $33.94) EQT GP Holdings, LP (EQGP.N, $24.43) EQT Midstream Partners, LP (EQM.N, $71.32) EnLink Midstream (ENLC.N, $18.35, UNDERPERFORM[V], TP $18.0) EnLink Midstream Partners (ENLK.N, $17.23, NEUTRAL[V], TP $21.0) Enable Midstream Partners (ENBL.N, $15.8) Enbridge Energy Partners, LP (EEP.N, $24.06) Energy Transfer Equity, LP (ETE.N, $16.31) Energy Transfer Partners, LP (ETP.N, $33.22) Enterprise Products Partners, LP (EPD.N, $25.46) Genesis Energy, LP (GEL.N, $33.93) Green Plains Partners, LP (GPP.OQ, $18.0) Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI.N, $21.49, OUTPERFORM, TP $28.0) MPLX LP (MPLX.N, $32.0) Magellan Midstream Partners, LP (MMP.N, $69.15) Midcoast Energy Partners, L.P. (MEP.N, $6.0) NiSource Inc. (NI.N, $21.71) NuStar Energy, LP (NS.N, $47.55) NuStar GP Holdings, LLC (NSH.N, $26.4) ONEOK Partners, LP (OKS.N, $41.65, NEUTRAL, TP $45.0) ONEOK, Inc. (OKE.N, $54.42, NEUTRAL[V], TP $54.0) PBF Logistics, LP (PBFX.N, $18.9) Phillips 66 Partners, LP (PSXP.N, $45.14) Plains All American Pipeline, LP (PAA.N, $32.32, NEUTRAL[V], TP $35.0) Plains GP Holdings, LP (PAGP.N, $34.81, NEUTRAL[V], TP $37.0) Spectra Energy Partners, LP (SEP.N, $41.67) Suburban Propane Partners, LP (SPH.N, $27.96) Summit Midstream Partners, LP (SMLP.N, $22.05) Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP (SXL.N, $22.52) Sunoco, LP (SUN.N, $23.75) Tallgrass Energy GP, LP (TEGP.N, $24.22) Tallgrass Energy Partners, L.P. (TEP.N, $46.2) Targa Resources Corp. (TRGP.N, $51.86, NEUTRAL[V], TP $57.0) Tesoro Logistics, LP (TLLP.N, $47.16) VTTI Energy Partners, LP (VTTI.N, $17.5) Valero Energy Partners, LP (VLP.N, $40.08) Western Gas Equity Partners, L.P. (WGP.N, $42.61) Western Gas Partners, LP (WES.N, $55.68) Western Refining Logistics, LP (WNRL.N, $20.7) Williams Partners, LP (WPZ.N, $35.59) Analyst Certification Disclosure Appendix John Edwards, CFA, and Bhavesh Lodaya each certify, with respect to the companies or securities that the individual analyzes, that (1) the views expressed in this report accurately reflect his or her personal views about all of the subject companies and securities and (2) no part of his or her compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this report. 3-Year Price and Rating History for EnLink Midstream (ENLC.N) ENLC.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 25-Mar O * 16-May Aug Nov Jan Feb R 31-Mar O 06-Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Dec Feb Mar N 05-May Aug Sep U * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. O U T PERFO RM REST RI C T ED N EU T RA L U N D ERPERFO RM 3-Year Price and Rating History for EnLink Midstream Partners (ENLK.N) ENLK.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 27-Jan O 03-Mar May Nov Nov R 10-Dec O 18-Dec Feb R 31-Mar O 06-Aug Oct Nov Dec Dec Feb May Jun Aug Sep N * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. O U T PERFO RM REST RI C T ED N EU T RA L

28 3-Year Price and Rating History for Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI.N) 3-Year Price and Rating History for Plains All American Pipeline, LP (PAA.N) KMI.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 04-Dec O 09-Jan Apr Jul Aug Jan Apr Sep R 22-Oct N 26-Oct R 27-Oct N 07-Dec Dec Jan O 17-Mar N 11-Jul Oct O * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. O U T PERFO RM REST RICT ED N EU T RA L 3-Year Price and Rating History for ONEOK Partners, LP (OKS.N) PAA.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 07-Feb O 08-May Aug Aug Dec May Jun Aug Oct Nov N 21-Dec Feb Mar Jul Aug Nov * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. O U T PERFO RM N EU T RA L 3-Year Price and Rating History for Plains GP Holdings, LP (PAGP.N) OKS.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 04-Dec N 26-Feb May Aug Nov Nov O 03-Dec Jan Feb N 07-Aug O 14-Sep Oct N 05-Nov Dec Dec Feb Mar U 05-May N 03-Aug N EU T RA L O U T PERFO RM U N D ERPERFO RM PAGP.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 26-Aug N * 07-Nov O 08-Dec May Jun Aug Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb N 19-Apr May Jul Aug Sep Nov * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. N EU T RA L O U T PERFO RM * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. 3-Year Price and Rating History for ONEOK, Inc. (OKE.N) OKE.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 14-Sep N 05-Nov Dec Dec O 24-Feb N 17-Mar May Aug Sep * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. N EU T RA L O U T PERFO RM

29 3-Year Price and Rating History for Targa Resources Corp. (TRGP.N) TRGP.N Closing Price Target Price Date (US$) (US$) Rating 09-Jan O 20-Feb Apr May Aug Oct Dec Jan Feb Apr Aug Oct Nov Dec U 26-Feb N 17-Mar Apr Aug Sep Nov * Asterisk signifies initiation or assumption of coverage. O U T PERFO RM U N D ERPERFO RM N EU T RA L The analyst(s) responsible for preparing this research report received Compensation that is based upon various factors including Credit Suisse's total revenues, a portion of which are generated by Credit Suisse's investment banking activities As of December 10, 2012 Analysts stock rating are defined as follows: Outperform (O) : The stock s total return is expected to outperform the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months. Neutral (N) : The stock s total return is expected to be in line with the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months. Underperform (U) : The stock s total return is expected to underperform the relevant benchmark* over the next 12 months. *Relevant benchmark by region: As of 10th December 2012, Japanese ratings are based on a stock s total return relative to the analyst's coverage universe which consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector, with Outperforms representing the most attractiv e, Neutrals the less attractive, and Underperforms the least attractive investment opportunities. As of 2nd October 2012, U.S. and Canadian as well as European ra tings are based on a stock s total return relative to the analyst's coverage universe which consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector, with Outperforms representing the most attractive, Neutrals the less attractive, and Underperforms the least attractive investment opportunities. For Latin American and non-japan Asia stocks, ratings are based on a stock s total return relative to the average total return of the relevant country or regional benchmark; prior to 2nd October 2012 U.S. and Canadian ratings were based on (1) a stock s absolute total return potential to its current share price and (2) the relative attractiveness of a stock s total return potential within an analyst s coverage universe. For Australian and New Zealand stocks, the expected total return (ETR) calculation includes 12 -month rolling dividend yield. An Outperform rating is assigned where an ETR is greater than or equal to 7.5%; Underperform where an ETR less than or equal to 5%. A Neutral may be assigned where the ETR is between - 5% and 15%. The overlapping rating range allows analysts to assign a rating that puts ETR in the context of associated risks. Prior to 18 May 2015, ETR ranges for Outperform and Underperform ratings did not overlap with Neutral thresholds between 15% and 7.5%, which was in operation from 7 July Restricted (R) : In certain circumstances, Credit Suisse policy and/or applicable law and regulations preclude certain types of communications, including an investment recommendation, during the course of Credit Suisse's engagement in an investment banking transaction and in certain other circumstances. Not Rated (NR) : Credit Suisse Equity Research does not have an investment rating or view on the stock or any other securities related to the company at this time. Not Covered (NC) : Credit Suisse Equity Research does not provide ongoing coverage of the company or offer an investment rating or investment view on the equity security of the company or related products. Volatility Indicator [V] : A stock is defined as volatile if the stock price has moved up or down by 20% or more in a month in at least 8 of the past 24 months or the analyst expects significant volatility going forward. Analysts sector weightings are distinct from analysts stock ratings and are based on the analyst s expectations for the fundamentals and/or valuation of the sector* relative to the group s historic fundamentals and/or valuation: Overweight : The analyst s expectation for the sector s fundamentals and/or valuation is favorable over the next 12 months. Market Weight : The analyst s expectation for the sector s fundamentals and/or valuation is neutral over the next 12 months. Underweight : The analyst s expectation for the sector s fundamentals and/or valuation is cautious over the next 12 months. *An analyst s coverage sector consists of all companies covered by the analyst within the relevant sector. An analyst may cover multiple sectors. Credit Suisse's distribution of stock ratings (and banking clients) is: Global Ratings Distribution Rating Versus universe (%) Of which banking clients (%) Outperform/Buy* 44% (63% banking clients) Neutral/Hold* 38% (59% banking clients) Underperform/Sell* 15% (55% banking clients) Restricted 3% *For purposes of the NYSE and NASD ratings distribution disclosure requirements, our stock ratings of Outperfo rm, Neutral, and Underperform most closely correspond to Buy, Hold, and Sell, respectively; however, the meanings are not the same, as our stock ratings are determined on a relati ve basis. (Please refer to definitions above.) An investor's decision to buy or sell a security should be based on investment objectives, current holdings, and other individual factors. Important Global Disclosures Credit Suisse s research reports are made available to clients through our proprietary research portal on CS PLUS. Credit Suisse research products may also be made available through third-party vendors or alternate electronic means as a convenience. Certain research products are only made available through CS PLUS. The services provided by Credit Suisse s analysts to clients may depend on a specific client s preferences regarding the frequency and manner of receiving communications, the client s risk profile and investment, the size and scope of the overall client relationship with the Firm, as well as legal and regulatory constraints. To access all of Credit Suisse s research that you are entitled to receive in the most timely manner, please contact your sales representative or go to Credit Suisse s policy is to update research reports as it deems appropriate, based on developments with the subject company, the sector or the market that may have a material impact on the research views or opinions stated herein. Credit Suisse's policy is only to publish investment research that is impartial, independent, clear, fair and not misleading. For more detail please refer to Credit Suisse's Policies for Managing Conflicts of Interest in connection with Investment Research: Credit Suisse's policy is only to publish investment research that is impartial, independent, clear, fair and not misleading. For more detail please refer to Credit Suisse's Policies for Managing Conflicts of Interest in connection with Investment Research: Target Price and Rating Valuation Methodology and Risks: (12 months) for EnLink Midstream (ENLC.N) Method: Our $18 target price is based on a blend of EV/EBITDA, P/DCF, and 3-stage DDM. Our Underperform rating is based on total return prospects relative to our coverage universe. Risk: Risks to our $18 target price and Underperform rating include capital market volatility, commodity prices, volume declines and increased world oil production. Target Price and Rating Valuation Methodology and Risks: (12 months) for EnLink Midstream Partners (ENLK.N) Method: Our $21 target price is based on an average of EV/EBITDA, P/DCF, and DDM. Our Neutral rating is based on our total return outlook relative to our coverage universe. Risk: Risks to our $21 target price and Neutral rating: Capital markets volatility, commodity prices, volume declines and higher world oil production. Target Price and Rating Valuation Methodology and Risks: (12 months) for Kinder Morgan, Inc. (KMI.N) Method: Our $28 target price is based on a blend of EV/EBITDA, Price/DCF and DDM valuation methods. Our Outperform rating is based on expected total return relative to our coverage. Risk: Risks to our $28 TP and Outperform rating include: Commodity price risk, permitting, leverage, and macro risks. Target Price and Rating Valuation Methodology and Risks: (12 months) for ONEOK Partners, LP (OKS.N) Method: Our $45 target price for OKS is based on a blended valuation between EV/EBITDA, P/DCF and DDM approaches. Our total return outlook supports our Neutral rating relative to our coverage. Risk: Risks to our $45 price target and Neutral rating for OKS are lower demand for natural gas liquids, flat basis differentials between Conway and Mont Belvieu which would hurt its natural gas processing and natural gas liquids segments; a prolonged low commodity price environment which could cause a downturn in drilling activity around OKS assets; and execution risk associated with the company's large capex plans. Target Price and Rating Valuation Methodology and Risks: (12 months) for ONEOK, Inc. (OKE.N) Method: Our $54 TP for OKE is based on a equal-weight of EV/EBITDA, P/DCF valuation and 3-stage DDM. Our total return outlook is in-line with the median for our coverage, supporting our Neutral rating. Risk: Risks to our $54TP and Neutral rating include: 1. Commodity price risk prolonged low commodity prices could cause reduction in drilling and production near OKS assets causing lower margins and throughput on OKS assets. Weak prices for ethane (~43% of the NGL barrel) for the time-frame is probable in our view though upside pressure in 2018 and beyond is probable due to 7 world class steam crackers being placed in service over the time frame. 2. Capital access and cost of capital OKS long-term outlook assumes capital markets access to finance its organic capex. Prolonged higher and increases in the cost of capital could negatively impact OKS long-term growth outlook, and in turn negatively impact our TP and/or our rating on OKS and OKE. Further such prolonged high cost of capital could negatively impact the balance sheet which is stressed with tight coverage and leverage above 4.0x. 3. Rising