[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 199 (Monday, October 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53602-53605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25529]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-706-000, et al.]
El Paso Natural Gas Company, et al.; Natural Gas Certificate
Filings
October 6, 1995.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. El Paso Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP95-706-000]
Take notice that on August 23, 1995, as supplemented on September
27, 1995, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso), Post Office Box 1492,
El Paso, Texas 79978, filed in Docket No. CP95-706-000, a request
pursuant to Section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) for authorization to modify, then
operate the existing Llano Grama Ridge Receipt Point, located in Lea
County, New Mexico, as a bidirectional receipt/delivery point, under
the authorization issued in Docket No. CP82-435-000 pursuant to Section
7 of the Natural Gas Act. It is stated that this conversion will permit
El Paso to deliver gas to, as well as continue to receive gas from,
Llano, Inc. (Llano), all as more fully set forth in the request which
is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
El Paso states that Llano now desires to receive gas for either
redelivery to end-users or, in certain instances, redelivery into
facilities of another interstate pipeline company. Accordingly, El Paso
requests authorization to modify and then operate the Llano Grama Ridge
Receipt Point as a bidirectional receipt/delivery point to be
designated as the Llano Grama Ridge Meter Station.
El Paso states that the estimate cost of the proposed facilities is
$28,900 and that Llano has agreed to reimburse El Paso for the involved
costs. It is stated that the proposed quantity to be transported on a
firm basis to the Llano Grama Ridge Meter Station is estimated to be
18,250,000 Mcf annually, or an average of 50,000 Mcf daily.
El Paso states: (i) operation of the Llano Grama Ridge Meter
Station in bidirectional service is not prohibited by El Paso's
existing tariff; and (ii) gas volumes will be delivered pursuant to
transportation arrangements between El Paso and any shipper desiring El
Paso to make deliveries on a shipper's behalf at this meter station. El
Paso asserts that it has sufficient capacity to deliver the requested
gas volumes without detriment or disadvantage to El Paso's other
customers.
[[Page 53603]]
Comment date: November 20, 1995 in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
2. CNG Transmission Corporation
[Docket Nos. CP93-200-004, CP95-32-001 and CP95-245-001]
Take notice that on October 3, 1995, CNG Transmission Corporation
(CNG), 445 West Main Street, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26302-2450 filed
amendments to applications for abandonment authority to sell certain
gathering facilities in West Virginia to Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation
(Cabot) in Docket No. CP93-200-000 and CP95-32-000. CNG states that Big
Sandy Gas Company (Big Sandy), an affiliate of Cabot which would have
been receiving and operating the gathering facilities, also filed
requests for a declaratory order for non-jurisdictional status of the
gathering facilities in Docket Nos. CP93-198-000 and CP95-46,
respectively.
CNG states that it also filed for abandonment authority to sell
certain gathering facilities in central West Virginia to Parker &
Parsley Gas Processing Company (Parker & Parsley) in docket No. CP95-
254-000. It is stated that Parker & Parsley also filed a request for a
declaratory order for non-jurisdictional status of the gathering
facilities in Docket No. CP95-244-000.
It is stated that Cabot and CNG have attempted unsuccessfully to
resolve pricing issues concerning the Cabot sales, with CNG terminating
letters of intent between the parties, effective October 1, 1995. CNG
states that, due to a change by Parker & Parsley in its Appalachian
operations, CNG has also elected to terminate the purchase and sale
agreement between CNG and Parker & Parsley. However, CNG states that it
has entered into a letter of intent with Eastern States Oil & Gas, Inc.
(Eastern) to sell Eastern the same gathering facilities being sold to
Cabot and Parker & Parsley. It is stated that a definitive Purchase and
Sale Agreement will be signed in the near future.
Additionally, CNG states that Exhibit Y in the above-referenced
dockets have been supplemented to reflect the accounting entries for
the new purchaser and depreciation as of December 31, 1995. CNG
contends that the result of the combined sale is a decrease in the
stranded costs incurred by CNG in disposing of the three largest sales
by $1,500,000 through increased proceeds and with the effect of
depreciation through December 31, 1995.
In response to the Commission's request to file a default contract,
CNG states that Eastern is beginning its negotiations with the
producers and shippers on the facilities including the Independent Oil
& Gas Association of West Virginia (IOGA). CNG states that it has
agreed to sell and Eastern has agreed to purchase the facilities
subject to the Commission's default contract requirements regarding
rates and fuel loss. It is stated that the sale to Eastern is based on
the default gathering rates which are anticipated to be in effect
beginning January 1996, as provided in CNG's rate settlement before the
Commission in Docket No. RP94-96-000.
CNG anticipates that a default contract can be filed with the
Commission in the near future that will be acceptable to most producers
and shippers which Eastern and IOGA have agreed upon. CNG understands
that Big Sandy and Parker & Parsley will be filing pleadings in their
respective dockets reflecting these changed circumstances and Eastern
will also file in these dockets to be substituted as petitioner.
CNG also requests that the response date for filing a default
contract be extended to November 1, 1995. CNG states that Big Sandy has
authorized CNG to file on its behalf this response to the Commission's
letter dated August 30, 1995 in Docket No. CP93-200-000 and CP93-198-
000.
Comment date: October 27, 1995 in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
3. Mountain Fuel Supply Company v. Prima Exploration, Inc., BTA Oil
Producers, and NGC Energy Resources, Limited Partnership
[Docket No. CP95-784-000]
Take notice that on September 28, 1995, Mountain Fuel Supply
Company (Mountain Fuel), 180 East First South Street, Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111 filed with the Commission in Docket CP95-784-000 a complaint
against Prima Exploration, Inc. (Prima), 7800 East Union Avenue,
Denver, Colorado 80237, BTA Oil Producers, (BTA) 104 South Pecos,
Midland, Texas 79701, and NGC Energy Resources, Limited Partnership,
13430 Northwest Freeway, Suite 1200, Houston 77040-6095 (NER). Mountain
Fuel states that its complaint is based on Prima's failure to comply
with the Commission's order in Docket No. CP93-702-000 1
authorizing Prima to withdraw and deliver to Mountain Fuel its storage
gas at the Bridger Lake Field in Summit County, Utah and Uinta County,
Wyoming. Mountain Fuel also states that its complaint against BTA and
NER is based on their acquisition from Prima of the certificated
storage facilities and operation of the facilities to provide
certificated service to Mountain Fuel without first having obtained the
necessary authorization from the Commission. Mountain Fuel further
states that neither Prima, BTA nor NER have made an effort to comply
with the requirements of the order in Docket No. CP93-702-000 to return
Mountain Fuel's storage gas in a timely manner.
\1\ Phillips Petroleum Company and Prima Exploration, Inc., et
al., 69 FERC 61,050 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain Fuel requests that the Commission issue an order (i)
directing Prima, or BTA and NER, as the case may be to withdraw and
deliver the balance of Mountain Fuel's gas at Bridger Lake by October,
13, 1996, (ii) ordering Prima, or BTA and NER, as the case may be, to
purchase and deliver to Mountain Fuel at withdrawal rates in accordance
with the 1992 letter agreement, the gas they cannot redeliver pursuant
to the 1994 order, and (iii) providing Mountain Fuel any other relief
the Commission deems appropriate.
Comment date: November 6, 1995 in accordance with the first
paragraph of Standard Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
4. ANR Pipeline Company
[Docket No. CP95-788-000]
Take notice that on September 28, 1995, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR),
500 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243, filed in Docket No.
CP95-788-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas
Act for authorization to abandon a natural gas exchange service between
ANR and Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL), all as more fully set
forth in the application on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
ANR proposes to abandon the service which was authorized by the
Commission in Docket No. CP81-13-000, and carried out under the terms
of an agreement dated June 27, 1980, and on file as Rate Schedule X-113
of ANR's FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 2. It is stated that
Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line (MichWisc), ANR's predecessor, was
authorized to deliver up to 3,000 Mcf of gas per day for UNOCAL for
maximum periods of 3 days per exchange transaction at a point near
ANR's Creole Meter Station, located offshore Louisiana. It is stated
that UNOCAL was authorized to redeliver equivalent quantities of gas to
MichWisc at the same point.
It is stated that in a letter dated September 20, 1993, ANR
notified UNOCAL of its intent to terminate the service. It is asserted
that the purpose of the service was to facilitate the recovery
[[Page 53604]]
of UNOCAL's oil reserves, which are now fully depleted. It is further
asserted that UNOCAL has signed ANR's letter to indicate its agreement
with ANR's request for abandonment.
Comment date: October 27, 1995 in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
5. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company
[Docket No. CP96-4-000]
Take notice that on October 3, 1995, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf), P.O. Box 683, Houston, Texas 77001, filed in
Docket No. CP96-4-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and
157.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18
CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to modify an existing receipt
point and establish an additional delivery point to Delta Natural Gas
Company, Inc., (Delta) in Madison County, Kentucky, under Columbia
Gulf's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-496 pursuant to
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
Columbia Gulf requests authorization to make certain modifications
to its existing Speedwell receipt point and establish a delivery point
for firm transportation service. Columbia Gulf states that it would
provide the service pursuant to its Blanket Certificate issued in
Docket No. CP83-496 under existing authorized rate schedules and within
certificate entitlements, as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Estimated
daily annual
Customer Rate schedule quantity quantity
(Dth) (Dth)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta................. Firm Transportation 4,000 1,460,000
Service (FTS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Gulf states that the modifications to the existing
Speedwell point of receipt, which will be established as a delivery
point, has been requested by Delta for additional firm transportation
service to be utilized for its system supply. Columbia Gulf adds that
the additional transportation service to be provided through the new
point of delivery will be firm transportation service under Columbia
Gulf's Rate Schedule FTS.
Columbia Gulf states that Columbia Gulf and Delta have executed an
FTS-1 Service Agreement providing for an FTS Demand Service of 4,000
Dth/d. Columbia Gulf adds that it will receive 4,000 Dth/d for the
account of Delta at Leach, Kentucky from Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia Gas), and that Columbia Gulf will deliver by
backhaul to Delta at the new point of delivery at Speedwell. Columbia
Gulf states that Columbia Gas has revised its GTS service agreement
with Delta to provide 4,000 Dth/d at Leach.
Columbia Gulf states there will be no impact on Columbia Gulf's
existing design day and annual obligations to its customers due to the
nature of the backhaul. Columbia Gulf states that Delta has agreed to
reimburse Columbia Gulf 100% of the cost of the modification, which is
approximately $3,861, including gross-up for income tax purposes.
Columbia Gulf adds that it will contribute approximately $45,000 for
the cost of a filter separator to be installed.
Columbia Gulf states that it will comply with all of the
environmental requirements of Sections 157.206(d) of the Commission's
Regulations prior to the modification of any facilities.
Comment date: November 20, 1995 in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
6. Williams Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-5-000]
Take notice that on October 3, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company
(WNG), One Williams Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74101, filed in Docket No.
CP96-5-000, a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.212(a) and
157.216(b) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.212(a), and 157.216(b)) for authorization to
abandon by reclaim two separate town border meter settings used in the
delivery of gas to Missouri Gas Energy (MGE) and to replace them with a
single dual run meter setting under WNG's blanket authorization issued
in Docket No. CP82-479-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas
Act, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection.
WNG proposes to replace the MGE Cassville/Purdy and Monett single
run meter settings with a dual run 6-inch orifice meter setting at the
present Cassville/Purdy site in Lawrence County, Missouri. WNG asserts
that the projected volume of delivery through the replacement
facilities is not expected to exceed the volume currently delivered.
WNG relates that the reclaim cost is estimated to be $1,000 with a
salvage value of $0. WNG indicates that the estimated cost of
construction is approximately $118,555.
WGN states that this change is not prohibited by an existing tariff
and it has sufficient capacity to accomplish the deliveries specified
without detriment or disadvantage to its other customers. WGN further
states that it has contacted MGE and MGE is agreeable to its proposed
modifications. WNG relates that a copy of this filing was sent to the
Missouri Public Service Commission.
Comment date: November 20, 1995 in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
7. Prima Exploration, Inc., et al., BTA Oil Producers and NGC
Energy Resources, Limited Partnership
[Docket No. CP95-791-000]
Take notice that on September 29, 1995, Prima Exploration, Inc.
(Prima 2), 7800 East Union Avenue, Suite 605, Denver, Colorado
80237, BTA Oil Producers (BTA) and NGC Energy Resources, Limited
Partnership (NGC) 13430 Northwest Freeway, Suite 1200, Houston, Texas
77040 (collectively, BTA/NER) jointly filed in Docket No. CP95-791-000
an application pursuant to Section 7 (b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act
requesting permission and approval for Prima to abandon a storage
service and related facilities in Summit County, Utah and for
authorization for BTA/NER to acquire the facilities and to continue to
provide the storage service, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
\2\ Prima is a joint venture of four independent exploration and
production companies, Prima Exploration, Inc., the operator; Vegas
Production Company; Gunlikson Petroleum, Inc.; and Petroro
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prima states that it is engaged in providing gas storage service
from the Bridger Lake Field in Summit County, Utah for Mountain Fuel
Supply Company (Mountain Fuel) pursuant to a limited jurisdiction
certificate issued in
[[Page 53605]]
Docket No. CP93-702-000.3 Prima relates that it wishes to transfer
its interests in these facilities to BTA/NER and requests permission
and approval to abandon the storage service it provides for Mountain
Fuel and the related facilities by transfer to BTA/NER.
\3\ Phillips Petroleum Company and Prima Exploration, Inc., et
al., 69 FERC 61,050 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTA/NER request authorization to continue to provide the storage
service for Mountain Fuel and to acquire the related facilities. BTA/
NER, noting that the certificate granted to Prima was to expire in two
years, state that it has become apparent that additional time will be
required for the withdrawals and redelivery of storage gas to Mountain
Fuel. BTA/NER ask that the requested certificate expire in five years.
Prima indicates that the related facilities consist of a metering
station, dehydrator and heater, 425 feet of 4-inch lateral pipeline and
a single natural gas injection well located in Summit County, Utah.
Prima also states that no gas has been injected into the facilities
since April of 1984 and less than 0.5 Bcf of working gas remains in
storage.
Comment date: October 27, 1995 in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
Standard Paragraphs
F. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with
reference to said application should on or before the comment date,
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be
considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but
will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a
party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter
finds that a grant of the certificate and/or permission and approval
for the proposed abandonment are required by the public convenience and
necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if
the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is
required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised,
it will be unnecessary for applicant to appear or be represented at the
hearing.
G. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor,
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-25529 Filed 10-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
