|
|
Enron Mail |
John,
Following up on yesterday, there are two additional considerations. First, with regard to the idea of curtailing gas input at the Topock liquefaction plant, the pipeline bottleneck is actually downstream of the plant, so that wouldn't help. Second, it seems there are more of these "portable pipeline" units floating around than I thought. Besides the inoperable unit in Amarillo, both Transgas (in Massachusetts) and Minnigasco may have at least one. Moreover, PG&E has one at the end of a long lateral line on its system just south of Sacramento. Apparently it uses it mostly to augment linepack. The specs of that unit are about 4 times higher than the Amarillo one: it puts out 400,000 cubic feet/hour (about 9.6 mmcf/d or almost one contract) at 150 psi. As I said yesterday, these units are the only way that you could get gas into the pipeline system in California. This information I got from Jeff Beale, who runs CH-IV, a small-scale LNG consultant. He said that he'd had some similar calls about LNG, and also that he'd be willing to help Enron source equipment if we were really interested in looking further into transporting LNG into California. Assuming that we could get a few "portable pipelines" and some trucks, there are five liquefaction plants that could most conveniently supply LNG: Location Owner Liquefaction Capacity (gal/day) Capacity (mmcf/d) Storage (gal) Storage (mmcf) Topock, AZ ElPaso/ALT 90,000 7.4 100,000 8.2 LaPlata, CO Williams 20,000 1.64 100,000 8.2 Sacramento 57,600 4.72 132,000 10.8 LaBarge, WY Exxon 60,000 4.92 Evanston, WY Amoco 95,000 7.8 100,000 8.2 Totals 26.48 Whether these plants have spare LNG to sell us is another question. The Sacramento plant, which I mentioned yesterday, is supposedly dedicated to providing methane for laboratory purposes. The others may have contracts with LNG fleet owners. I'll check back with you later today about the outcome of your meeting.
|