|
|
Enron Mail |
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Gerald Nemec X-To: Eric Gillaspie X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Gerald_Nemec_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Sent X-Origin: NEMEC-G X-FileName: gnemec.nsf ---------------------- Forwarded by Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT on 12/03/99 04:50 PM --------------------------- Johnnie Williams 12/03/99 12:08 PM To: Gerald Nemec/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Additional East Houston flow studies for the MidCon Texas Interconnect Gerald, Following is additional information about pressure differentials. As I understand it, we are not contractually bound to deliver to Entex through MidCon if we can't get into MidCon. Consequently, charging back third-party costs may not be an option? Steve Schneider (who isn't around right now) is probably the best source for this information. Nonetheless, this does not negate the fact that we might want compensation if over time one or both of these interconnects prove to be useless for a prolonged period of time due to pressure differentials. Let me know what you and Eric find out. In the meantime. Johnnie ---------------------- Forwarded by Johnnie Williams/HOU/ECT on 12/03/99 12:02 PM --------------------------- Jim Schwieger 11/23/99 06:18 AM To: Steve -HPL- Schneider/HOU/ECT@ECT, Johnnie Williams/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Thomas A Martin/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward D Gottlob/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brian Redmond/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Additional East Houston flow studies for the MidCon Texas Interconnect Steve / Johnnie: As stated below in Brads "e" mail the range of deliverability we can expect on the MidCon Texas Interconnects is between a minimum of 75,000 MMBtu/d and the design maximum of 100,000 MMBtu/d. I believe this answers the remaining questions. We have provided what I believe to be overwhelming strategic as well as financial justification to building these interconnects. Now its time to shift into approval and most importantly immediate construction. With the construction of these interconnects I believe there is a high probability of getting a 5 year storage deal done this year. This would greatly reduce HPL's Spread Risk. (which just in the last week has resulted in approximately $3 million in losses). Please let me know why we can't receive approval and begin construction immediately. Please let me know why we would not be able to have operational by January 1, 2000. ---------------------- Forwarded by Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT on 11/23/99 06:02 AM --------------------------- Enron North America Corp. From: Brad Blevins 11/22/99 04:48 PM To: James McKay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Jim Schwieger/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Additional East Houston flow studies for the MidCon Texas Interconnect I have run some additional flow studies for the east side of town to determine HPL's ability to deliver gas to MidCon Texas at the proposed Flagstaff interconnect. With gas leaving Bammel at a reduced pressure of 600 psig, HPL will only be able to deliver 74 MMCFD at around 450 psig to MidCon Texas, assuming the combined Equistar/Destec Channelview delivery is only 60 MMCFD. Increasing the Bammel pressure to 650 psig will only increase the deliverability to 78 MMCFD. Therefore, it would be safe to say that with pressures at Bammel ranging between 600-650 psig, HPL will only be able to deliver around 75 MMCFD to MidCon Texas. One of the main reasons why the deliverability to MidCon Texas only increases by 4 MMCFD with a 50 psig increase in Bammel pressure is that the increased pressure backs off gas to Channelview from the 12" Baytown line. With that gas backed off, more gas must be supplied from the Bammel direction, using up a portion of the additional capacity generated by the increase of 50 psig at Bammel. Making the initial assumption that no gas will flow to Channelview from the 12" (3018) line will only further deteriorate HPL's ability to deliver gas to MidCon Texas.
|