[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62428-62430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29642]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP85-221-060, et al.]
Frontier Gas Storage Company, et al. Natural Gas Certificate
Filings
November 28, 1995
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the
Commission:
1. Frontier Gas Storage Company
[Docket No. CP85-221-060]
Take notice that on November 21, 1995, Frontier Gas Storage Company
(Frontier), c/o Reid & Priest, Market Square, 701 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004, in compliance with provisions
of the Commission's February 13, 1985, Order in Docket No. CP82-487-
000, et al., submitted an executed Service Agreement under Rate
Schedule LVS-1 providing for the possible sale of up to a daily
quantity of 50,000 MMBtu, not to exceed 5 Bcf of Frontier's gas storage
inventory on an ``as metered'' basis to Prairielands Energy Marketing,
Inc., for term ending October 31, 1996.
Under Subpart (b) of Ordering Paragraph (F) of the Commission's
February 13, 1985, Order, Frontier is ``authorized to commence the sale
of its inventory under such an executed service agreement fourteen days
after filing the agreement with the Commission, and may continue making
such sale unless the Commission issues an order either requiring
Frontier to stop selling and setting the matter for hearing or
permitting the sale to continue and establishing other procedures for
resolving the matter.''
Comment date: 10 days after publication of this notice in the
Federal Register, in accordance with the first paragraph of Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
2. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation
[Docket No. CP96-42-000]
Take notice that on November 3, 1995, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York, 14203,
filed in Docket No. CP96-42-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(b)
of the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to partially abandon
a storage service to Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company (Fitchburg)
under Rate Schedule SS-1 and Yankee Gas Services Company (Yankee) under
Rate Schedule SS-2. all as more fully set forth in the application on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Specifically, National requests authorization, effective April 1,
1996, to partially abandon service to Yankee by reducing its annual SS-
2 contract entitlement from 1.5 Bcf to 820,200 Mcf and to partially
abandon service to Fitchburg by reducing its annual SS-1 contract
entitlement from $300,000 Mcf to 60,000 Mcf.
Comment date: December 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
3. Seahawk Shoreline System
[Docket No. CP96-73-000]
Take notice that on November 17, 1995, Seahawk Shoreline System
(Seahawk), having its principal offices at 200 Westlake Park Boulevard,
Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77079, filed a petition requesting that the
Commission disclaim jurisdiction over certain of Seahawk's natural gas
gathering facilities under Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
Seahawk states that the facilities which are the subject of the
petition (formerly known as the Seagull Shoreline System) are located
entirely within the State of Texas and its state waters, gathering both
gas and associated liquids in a two-phase flow from production
platforms in the Matagorda Island Area, offshore Texas. Seahawk further
states that it is currently classified as an intrastate pipeline.
Seahawk states that based on its current status as an intrastate
pipeline, it performs transportation under Section 311(a)(2) of the
Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA).
[[Page 62429]]
Seahawk contends that the Commission and the courts have
reexamined, modified and more clearly delineated the requirements for
determining whether a facility qualifies for a gathering exemption from
Commission jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the NGA. The result of
these recent actions was the development and implementation of the
``modified primary function'' test. Seahawk avers that the facilities
comprising its system meet this test and therefore, are not subject to
Commission jurisdiction. Moreover, Seahawk states that disclaiming
jurisdiction over its facilities is consistent with the Commission's
regulatory and statutory objectives under the NGA and the NGPA.
Comment date: December 21, 1995, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
4. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company and Northern Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-75-000]
Take notice that on November 17, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West
Virginia 25314-1599, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia
Gulf), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West Virginia 25314-
1599, and Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), 1111 South 103rd
Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000 (jointly as the Companies), filed in
Docket No. CP96-75-000 a joint application pursuant to Section 7(b) of
the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon exchange
services which were once required for the exchange of offshore
Louisiana gas, which was authorized in Docket Nos. CP76-191, CP77-649,
CP77-657 and CP80-204, all as more fully set forth in the application
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
Specifically, the Companies are seeking abandonment authority for
the following rate schedules:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket No. Order date Company Rate schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP76-191........................... Jan. 4, 1978............... Columbia................... X-68
CP76-191........................... ......do................... Columbia Gulf.............. X-48
CP76-191........................... ......do................... Northern................... X-57
CP77-657........................... Jan. 2, 1979............... Columbia................... X-81
CP77-657........................... ......do................... Columbia Gulf.............. X-60
CP77-649........................... ......do................... Northern................... X-74
CP80-204........................... June 12, 1980.............. Columbia................... X-95
CP80-204........................... ......do................... Columbia Gulf.............. X-73
CP80-204........................... ......do................... Northern................... X-105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Companies state that both Columbia and Northern purchased gas
from Exxon Corporation (Exxon) at Block 332, Eugene Island Area,
offshore Louisiana, and that Columbia Gulf received the gas for
Columbia's account at an existing receipt point on Exxon's production
platform at Eugene Island Block 314. The Companies state that Northern
was unable to take delivery of its Eugene Island Block gas, and the
exchange certificated under Docket No. CP76-191 provided for Columbia
and Columbia Gulf to take delivery of Northern's gas from Exxon for
delayed redelivery to Northern. The Companies state that all gas was on
an Mcf-for-Mcf basis. The Companies state when Northern was unable to
take the gas into its own system, repayment was effected out of
Columbia's share of the gas produced from the Exxon wells.
The Companies state that the exchange certificated under Docket
Nos. CP77-657 and CP77-649 provided for Northern to deliver gas to
Columbia Gulf for the account of Columbia at the outlet side of Sea
Robin Pipeline Company's measurement facilities near Erath, Louisiana
and the outlet side of Columbia Gulf's measurement facilities at the
Blue Water offshore pipeline system near Egan, Louisiana. The Companies
state that Columbia delivered gas to Northern or to Trunkline Gas
Company (Trunkline) for Northern's account at an interconnection
between Columbia Gulf and Trunkline near Egan, Louisiana. The Companies
state that construction of the interconnection was paid for by Northern
and maintained and operated by Columbia Gulf for Northern's account.
The Companies state that all exchanges of gas were on an Mcf-for-Mcf
basis.
The Companies state that Columbia purchased gas from Exxon in
Vermilion Area Block 372, offshore Louisiana and Northern purchased gas
from Texasgulf, Inc., West Cameron Area Block 405, offshore Louisiana.
The Companies state that the exchange certificated under Docket No.
CP80-204 provided for Columbia to deliver up to 20,000 Mcf/d of its
Vermilion Block 372 gas to Northern at the producer platform in
Vermilion Area Block 372, and for Northern to deliver up to 20,000 Mcf/
d of its West Cameron Block 405 gas via Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America, to Columbia Gulf at existing facilities located on producer
platforms in West Cameron Area Blocks 616/630, offshore Louisiana. The
Companies state that the exchange of gas was on an equivalent Btu
basis.
The Companies submit that the proposed abandonments are required by
the present and future public convenience and necessity, as they will
eliminate exchange services no longer needed and will permit the
Companies to cancel their corresponding Volume II Rate Schedules.
Comment date: December 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.
5. Koch Gateway Pipeline Company
[Docket No. CP96-78-000]
Take notice that on November 20, 1995, Koch Gateway Pipeline
Company (Koch Gateway), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed
in Docket No. CP96-78-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and
157.211(a)(2) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) (18 CFR 157.205, and 157.211) for authorization to construct and
install a four-inch delivery tap through which Koch Gateway will make
natural gas deliveries to Shell Oil Company's St. Rose Refinery, under
Koch Gateway's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-000,
all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
Koch Gateway proposes to construct and install a four-inch delivery
tap and meter station on its Baton Rouge-New Orleans line, Index 270,
in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The total proposed
[[Page 62430]]
estimated deliveries for these facilities is 5,000 Mcf daily with a
peak day estimate of 10,000 Mcf per day. Koch Gateway proposes to make
natural gas deliveries under its ITS Rate Schedule. Koch Gateway
further states that the service would not have an impact on its
curtailment plan because the proposed service is interruptible in
nature.
Koch Gateway further states that the estimated cost of the proposed
facilities is $29,200. It is stated that Shell would reimburse Koch
Gateway for the cost of the construction of the facilities.
Comment date: January 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
6. Williams Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-80-000]
Take notice that on November 21, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company
(WNG), One Williams Center, P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed
in Docket No. CP96-80-000, a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and
157.216(b) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.205 and 157.216(b)) for authorization to abandon, by
reclaim, measuring and appurtenant facilities originally installed for
the delivery of sales gas to (1) Missouri Gas Energy in Jasper County,
Missouri; (2) Childress Mine and Quarry in Jasper County, Missouri; (3)
Sabreliner Corp. in Newton County, Missouri; and (4) NEO Hospital in
Craig County, Oklahoma, 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 states that all of the affected customers have agreed to the
reclaim of the facilities. WNG further states the total estimated
reclaim costs are $5,460 with an estimated salvage value of $0.
WNG states it has sent a copy of this filing to the Missouri Public
Service Commission and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Comment date: January 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.
7. Williams Natural Gas Company
[Docket No. CP96-82-000]
Take notice that on November 22, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No. CP96-
82-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205, 157.212 and 157.216 of the
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205,
157.212 and 157.216) for authorization to relocate and install new
metering and appurtenant facilities for Farmland Industries, Inc.
(Farmland) and to abandon by sale to Farmland the old meter and
regulator settings and approximately 515 feet of 8-inch lateral
pipeline all located in Douglas County, Kansas, under WNG's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000 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.
WNG states the facilities were installed in 1963 to deliver sales
gas to Farmland and do not currently meet the standard design
specifications established by the American National Standards Institute
and the American Petroleum Institute.
WNG states that it proposes to install a dual run 8-inch meter
setting and appurtenant facilities approximately 400 feet north of the
existing facilities. WNG states that installing the facilities at the
new location will remove them from beneath high voltage power lines,
and that the new metering facilities will be in compliance with
established industry standards. WNG also states that the new location
will eliminate the need for WNG employees to pass through Farmland's
security to access WNG's facilities.
WNG states the current volume of gas flowing through the facilities
is 78.5 MMcf on a peak day and 17,000 MMcf annually. WNG states that it
does not anticipate any change in volume as a result of the proposed
replacement.
WNG estimates the construction cost of its proposal to be $150,660.
WNG states that since the meter and regulator settings and the pipeline
will be sold in place to Farmland, there is no reclaim cost associated
with this project.
WNG submits that this proposal will not significantly affect a
sensitive environmental area.
Comment date: January 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard
Paragraph G 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, DC
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
the 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 Sec. 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 therefore,
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. 95-29642 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
