DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase III: Natural Gas-Fired Electric Power Generation Infrastructure Analysis an Analysis of Pipeline Capacity Availability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Phase III: Natural Gas-Fired Electric Power Generation Infrastructure Analysis An Analysis of Pipeline Capacity Availability Appendix Gregory L. Peters President, EnVision Energy Solutions [email protected] 804.378.0770 1 Disclaimer: This report was prepared by Gregory L. Peters, President and Principal Consultant of EnVision Energy Solutions, for the benefit of the Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO). This work involves detailed analyses of interstate pipeline daily flow and capacity data; data obtained and compiled by Bentek Energy; and available public information from independent third parties. The appropriate professional diligence has been applied in the preparation of this analysis, using what is believed to be reasonable assumptions. However, since the report also necessarily involves assumptions regarding the future and the accuracy of the data, no warranty is made, expressed or implied. EnVision Energy Solutions is the prime contractor and Bentek Energy is the subcontractor for this analysis. 2 Table of Contents A1 MBA Methodology Details………………………………………………………………………………….6 A1.1 Summary of Pipeline Capacity Availability for Additional Gas-fired Generation....14 A2 Specific Pipeline Overview and Analyses……………………………………………………………18 A2.1 Alliance Pipeline, LP (Segment 1)……..……………………………………………………….…..….18 A2.2 ANR Pipeline Co. (Segments 2, 3, 4) …………..……………………………………………………..21 A2.3 CenterPoint (Enable) MRT (Segment 5)………………………………………………..……………26 A2.4 Great Lakes Transmission (Segment 6)……………………………………………………………….29 A2.5 Guardian Pipeline (Segment 7)...............................................................................31 A2.6 Midwestern Gas Transmission (Segment 8)………….………………………………………..…..33 A2.7 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America (Segments 9 and 10)……………………..……….…..37 A2.8 Northern Border Pipeline Company (Segment 11)…………………..…………………….……42 A2.9 Northern Natural Gas Co. (Segment 12)………………….………………………….……………….45 A2.10 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co (Segment 13)……………………………………………….……48 A2.11 Rockies Express Pipeline (Segment 14)……………..…………………………………………….….50 A2.12 Texas Gas Transmission (Segment 15)……………………………………..…………………….……53 A2.13 Trunkline Gas Company (Segment 16)…………………………………………………………….…..57 A2.14 Viking Gas Transmission (Segment 17)……………………………………………………………..…60 A2.15 WBI Energy Transmission (Segment 18)………………………………………..………………..…..62 A2.16 Contributions and Comments by the Natural Gas Industry and EPSA to the Phase I and II Analyses………………………………………………………………………………..……….65 List of Figures Figure A2-1: Alliance System Map Figure A2-2: ANR Outage Map Pipeline Segments Figure A2-3: Power Plants on ANR Figure A2-4: CenterPoint (Enable) MRT System Map Figure A2-5: CenterPoint (Enable) MRT Inflows and Outflows Figure A2-6: CEGT MRT Receipts within MISO Figure A2-7: Great Lakes Gas Transmission System Map Figure A2-8: Guardian Pipeline Map Figure A2-9: Midwestern Pipeline System Map Figure A2-10: Midwestern Multiple Interconnection Flow Options 3 Figure A2-11: Midwestern Northbound and Southbound Flow Customers Figure A2-12: NGPL System System Map Figure A2-13: NGPL System Assets Map Figure A2-14: Northern Border System Capacity Map Figure A2-15: Northern Natural Gas System Map Figure A2-16: Northern Natural Line Constraints Figure A2-17: PEPL System Map Figure A2-18: REX Gas System Map Figure A2-19: Texas Gas Transmission System Map Figure A2-20: Texas Gas Transmission Capacity Flow Patterns Figure A2-21: Trunkline Gas Company System Map Figure A2-22: Trunkline Capacity Flow Patterns Figure A2-23: Viking System Map Figure A2-24: WBI Energy System Map Figure A2-25: Dakota Pipeline System Map List of Tables Table A1.1-1: MWs for CCs and CTs allocated to pipelines and LDCs Table A1.1-2: LDCs with Embedded Units and Requirements Allocation Table A1.1-3: Base Demand Case CC and CT Requirements by Pipeline Table A1.1-4: High Demand Case CC and CT Requirements by Pipeline Table A2-1: Alliance: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-2: Alliance: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-3: ANR SE-C: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-4: ANR SE-C: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-5: ANR N IL–WI: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-6: ANR N IL–WI: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-7: ANR N IL-MI: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-8: ANR N IL-MI: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-9: MRT: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-10: MRT: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-11: GLGT: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-12: GLGT: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-13: Guardian: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-14: Guardian: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-15: Midwestern: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-16: Midwestern: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-17: NGPL SE: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-18: NGPL SE: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-19: NGPL Amarillo: Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-20: NGPL Amarillo: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-21: Northern Border Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-22: Northern Border: High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-23: Northern Natural Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity 4 Table A2-24: Northern Natural High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-25: PEPL Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-26: PEPL High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-27: REX Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-28: REX High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-29: TGT Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-30: TGT High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-31: Trunkline Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-32: Trunkline High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-33: Viking Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-34: Viking High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-35: WBI Base Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity Table A2-36: WBI High Demand Case Days of Unavailable IT Capacity 5 A1 MBA Methodology Details The details of MISO and Bentek methodologies are explained in the main body of the Report. Explained below are the details of how the Modified Backcast Analysis (MBA) allocated MWs for combined cycle units (CCs) and combustion turbine units (CTs) to pipelines and LDCs and how these MWs gas requirements were allocated to the pipelines in the Base and High Demand Case CC and CT gas Cases. The Phase III MBA uses the same methodology as Phase I and II to simulate the impact on pipeline capacity of embedded generation and incremental generation requirements. MISO, through the use of its models, provided the inputs to determine individual unit fuel burns that were applied to historical pipeline flow data. This determines adequacy of natural gas infrastructure to serve projected demand on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis. The MBA is a screening analysis of the pipelines’ main line capacity into their market areas in the MISO region. This is a high-level “screening” analysis or “snapshot” of MISO-region pipelines’ main line capacity based on publically-available data at major interconnections into each pipeline’s market area and is intended to serve as an indicator of capacity availability into the pipelines’ MISO market areas. This Analysis tests the impact of increased natural gas demand on actual historic pipeline flowing volumes and capacity requirements due to a potential 12.6 GW (12K scenario) of coal-to-gas conversions operating at expected and maximum capacity factors. This Analysis is not intended to be a detailed market-area engineering analysis that uses sophisticated flow modeling and other types of transient flow analyses that analyzes each detailed market area pipeline segment’s operational inter- dependencies down to the detailed pipe sizes and pressures at the power plant delivery point levels as it would require access to the pipelines’ proprietary data and information. From a modeling perspective, the Analyses are based on what may be more accurately described as a “Modified-Backcast Scenario Technique” analytical approach based the pipelines’ forward-haul main line capacity using location-specific actual historical flow data into the MISO region. 6 The benefits of the MBA Approach also include: Reveals the number of days in which pipeline capacity would have been insufficient without year-round firm transportation arrangements for the gas pipeline capacity requirements. Identifies seasonal pipeline throughput trends to determine impacts of shifts in macroeconomic variables such as supply location, demands, etc. Establishes a baseline to provide insight to changes in pipeline flow patterns impacted by macroeconomic variables. Provides perspective on the relative strengths of one pipeline to another based on competition, new entrants and sourcing shifts. Reveals how similarly-situated pipelines’ throughput changes due to such factors as changing capacity from competing pipelines. Uses actual nomination flow data from each respective pipeline’s electronic bulletin board or “EBB” data and historical actual maximum flowing capacity data as compiled by Bentek Energy. Application of real-life data and experiences over an extended period 2005 -2013 to evaluate impacts and determine insights to pipelines supply and demand dynamics. This Analysis applied MISO’ s gas delivery requirements for the period 2013-2032 for existing units and the incremental, forecasted gas-fired requirements under 12,000 MW coal-to-gas retirement scenarios. The embedded requirements and the incremental 12,000 MW requirements were converted to Dekatherm gas requirements and applied to historic actual flows and compared to the respective pipeline’s daily maximum flow design capabilities.
Recommended publications
  • Pipeline Authority Annual Report 2018

    Pipeline Authority Annual Report 2018

    North Dakota Pipeline Authority Annual Report July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 Industrial Commission of North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, Chairman Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring North Dakota Pipeline Authority Annual Report July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 Overview At the request of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, the Sixtieth Legislature passed House Bill 1128 authorizing the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. It was signed into law on April 11, 2007. The statutory mission of the Pipeline Authority is “to diversify and expand the North Dakota economy by facilitating development of pipeline facilities to support the production, transportation, and utilization of North Dakota energy-related commodities, thereby increasing employment, stimulating economic activity, augmenting sources of tax revenue, fostering economic stability and improving the State’s economy”. As established by the Legislature, the Pipeline Authority is a builder of last resort, meaning private business would have the first opportunity to invest in and/or build additional needed pipeline infrastructure. By law, the Pipeline Authority membership is comprised of the members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission. Upon the recommendation of the Oil and Gas Research Council, the Industrial Commission authorized the expenditure of up to $325,000 during the 2017-2019 biennium for the Pipeline Authority with funding being made available from the Oil and Gas Research Fund. On August 1, 2008 the Industrial Commission named Justin J. Kringstad, an engineering consultant, to serve as Director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. The North Dakota Pipeline Authority Director works closely with Lynn Helms, Department of Mineral Resources Director, Ron Ness, North Dakota Petroleum Council President and Karlene Fine, Industrial Commission Executive Director.
  • ABOUT PIPELINES OUR ENERGY CONNECTIONS the Facts About Pipelines

    ABOUT PIPELINES OUR ENERGY CONNECTIONS the Facts About Pipelines

    ABOUT PIPELINES OUR ENERGY CONNECTIONS THE facts ABOUT PIPELINES This fact book is designed to provide easy access to information about the transmission pipeline industry in Canada. The facts are developed using CEPA member data or sourced from third parties. For more information about pipelines visit aboutpipelines.com. An electronic version of this fact book is available at aboutpipelines.com, and printed copies can be obtained by contacting [email protected]. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) CEPA’s members represents Canada’s transmission pipeline companies transport around who operate more than 115,000 kilometres of 97 per cent of pipeline in Canada. CEPA’s mission is to enhance Canada’s daily the operating excellence, business environment and natural gas and recognized responsibility of the Canadian energy transmission pipeline industry through leadership and onshore crude credible engagement between member companies, oil production. governments, the public and stakeholders. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Canada’s Pipeline Network .................................1 2. Pipeline Design and Standards .........................6 3. Safety and the Environment ..............................7 4. The Regulatory Landscape ...............................11 5. Fuelling Strong Economic ................................13 and Community Growth 6. The Future of Canada’s Pipelines ................13 Unless otherwise indicated, all photos used in this fact book are courtesy of CEPA member companies. CANADA’S PIPELINE % of the energy used for NETWORK transportation in Canada comes 94 from petroleum products. The Importance of • More than half the homes in Canada are Canada’s Pipelines heated by furnaces that burn natural gas. • Many pharmaceuticals, chemicals, oils, Oil and gas products are an important part lubricants and plastics incorporate of our daily lives.
  • Canadian Pipeline Transportation System Energy Market Assessment

    Canadian Pipeline Transportation System Energy Market Assessment

    National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication peut être reproduit à des fins personnelles, éducatives et/ou sans but lucratif, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais et sans autre permission de l’Office national de l’énergie, pourvu qu’une diligence raisonnable soit exercée afin d’assurer l’exactitude de l’information reproduite, que l’Office national de l’énergie soit mentionné comme organisme source et que la reproduction ne soit présentée ni comme une version officielle ni comme une copie ayant été faite en collaboration avec l’Office national de l’énergie ou avec son consentement.
  • The Development of Market Centers and Electronic Trading in Natural Gas Markets

    The Development of Market Centers and Electronic Trading in Natural Gas Markets

    Office of Economic Policy Discussion Paper 99-01 The Development of Market Centers and Electronic Trading in Natural Gas Markets Stewart Holmes Office of Economic Policy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission June 1999 Office of Economic Policy Discussion Papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate comment and criticism. The analyses and conclusions are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of other members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff, any individual Commissioner, or the Commission itself. Introduction The decade of the 1990s has seen the significant development of market centers and the introduction of electronic gas trading in natural gas markets. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the growth and current status of market centers and electronic gas trading. Almost all market center development and all electronic trading activity has occurred since Order No 636. Market centers are important to natural gas markets for several reasons. They facilitate gas trading and transportation, and they help provide the liquidity needed to make electronic gas trading a growing force in current-day natural gas markets. Market centers also reduce transactions costs by making it easier for buyers and sellers to do business with one another. Thus, market centers have supported and can continue to promote the Commission's goal of improved short-term and long-term gas markets. For a recent discussion of this goal, see the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry in Dockets RM98-10-000 and RM98-12-000, respectively. The text of the paper is organized into separate sections on market centers and electronic gas trading.
  • Sources Subject to Michigan's Renewable Operating Permit Program - Sorted by Name

    Sources Subject to Michigan's Renewable Operating Permit Program - Sorted by Name

    Sources Subject to Michigan's Renewable Operating Permit Program - Sorted by Name SRN SOURCE NAME COUNTY DISTRICT B4197 AAR Cadillac Manufacturing Wexford Cadillac A2402 Access Business Group Kent Grand Rapids N5814 ACM (Asama Coldwater Manufacturing) Branch Kalamazoo N1784 Ada Cogen Limited Partnership Kent Grand Rapids N2369 Adrian Landfill Lenawee Jackson N2688 Advanced Disposal Services Arbor Hills Landfill Washtenaw Jackson N6515 Advanced Fibermolding Osceola Cadillac B4252 AEP Cook Nuclear Plant Berrien Kalamazoo B5830 Ajax Metal Processing Wayne Detroit A8640 AK Steel (formerly Severstal-Dearborn) Wayne Detroit N0802 Albar Industries Lapeer Lansing B1677 Allnex USA Inc. Kalamazoo Kalamazoo P0317 Ameresco Woodland Meadows Wayne Detroit B8570 Andersons Albion Ethanol Calhoun Kalamazoo N5574 ANR Pipeline Company - Hamilton Compressor Station Allegan Kalamazoo N5586 ANR Pipeline Company - Lincoln Compressor Station Clare BayCity B8337 ANR Pipeline Company - Muttonville Compressor Station Macomb Warren B3721 ANR Pipeline Company - Reed City Compressor Station Osceola Cadillac N5578 ANR Pipeline Company - Winfield Compressor Station Montcalm Grand Rapids B7220 ANR Pipeline Company - Woolfolk Compressor Station Mecosta Grand Rapids N5575 ANR Pipeline Company - Bridgman Compressor Station Berrien Kalamazoo B7390 ANR Pipeline Company - Central Charlton Compressor Station Otsego Gaylord N5576 ANR Pipeline Company - Goodwell Compressor Station Newaygo Grand Rapids B7219 ANR Storage Company - South Chester Compressor Station Otsego Gaylord
  • ANR Pipeline Company Houston, Texas 77002

    ANR Pipeline Company Houston, Texas 77002

    App # 202000097 TransCanada US Pipelines USGO Integrity Services Department 700 Louisiana St. ANR Pipeline Company Houston, Texas 77002 May 27, 2020 Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy – Air Quality Division Cadillac District – Cadillac Office (Northwest Lower Peninsula) 120 W Chapin Street Cadillac, MI 49601-2158 Re: Rule 215(3) Notification of Off-Permit Change ANR Pipeline Company – Reed City Compressor Station Reed City, MI State Registration Number (SRN): B3721 Dear Sir or Madam, Enclosed is the R 336.1215(3) (Rule 215) Notification of Off-Permit Change for ANR Pipeline Company for the Reed City Compressor Station. The Renewable Operating Permit (ROP) No. MI-ROP-B3721-2014a for the Reed City Compressor Station expired February 6, 2019. As required under Section A.35 of the Reed City Station ROP, ANR has submitted a permit renewal application 6 months prior to expiration of the permit or August 6, 2018; therefore, the station continues to operate under this ROP. This change, anticipated to take place in June 2020, is for replacement of the two (2) existing emergency generators, EURC019 rated at 355 hp and EURC020 rated at 475 hp with one (1) new emergency generator, EURC064, rated at 1,114 hp. The new emergency generator, EURC064 is exempt from the requirement to obtain a Permit-to- Install (PTI) under R 336.1278 and R 336.1285(2)(9), which exempts internal combustion engines with heat input less than 10 MMBtu/hr from obtaining a PTI. The facility is currently subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules incorporated under R 336.1119, however this change does not trigger major modification applicability.
  • Canadian Mainline Sales and Marketing

    Canadian Mainline Sales and Marketing

    Fort Nelson ALBERTA H U D S O N B AY Fort St. John Canadian Mainline Gordondale Sales and Marketing Fort McMurray Grande Prairie SASKATCHEWAN MANITOBA Edmonton NGTL J A M TransGas ONTARIO E S B L A K A E Y W I N N R I E TransGas Centra P Union Nipigon V E I G R Saskatoon Calstock Empress Centrat MDA E Suffield SSDA SSDA WDA WDA Union C N Foothills Pipelines Liebenthal Centram NDA E ALL R T Shackleton NDA (Alberta) Richmond W Bayhurst A BURS MDA L Alberta/B.C. Calgary Success QUEBEC 2 Herbert T CABRI Tunis Power S 5 HERBERT SteelmanGrand Coulee ng Cranbrook 9 CARON NDA 13 Welwyn 391 REGINA TransCanada Canadian Mainline GRENFELL Medicine 17 AY OCK Hat Swift Current 21 MOOSOMIN Lethbridge Moose Welwyn RAPID CITY AGE CALST Kingsgate 392 25 HEARST Jaw Regina RT KLOTZLAKE MATTICE Gros Cacouna NEW 30 GERALDTON 88 PO 86 KAPUSKASING LA PRAIRIE VERMILION B JELLICOE 84 92 P. E . I . KENORA YDEN 80 95 BRUNSWICK Foothills Pipeline B.C. 34 DR Moosomin ALCON LAKE 52 77 393 ILE DES CHENES F 49 Hearst Cochrane Winnipeg SPRUCE 55 45 IGNACE Kapuskasing Energir NDA 41 RTIN 394 Brandon 43 NIPIGON 58 MA 99 Dryden EAGLEHEAD Kenora 75 Iroquois Sa CANADA 60 UPSALA 102 Falls Energir EDA 69 ALLS 1 Spruce 62 Larslan 105 Québec City U.S.A. Nipigon Union Fredericton 2 1 POTTER Saint John Emerson #1 68 Halifax 3 Emerson #2 107 EDA Enbridge RAMORE TransQuebec & Maritimes Pipeline (Viking) (GLGT) Thunder Bay SMOOTH ROCK F 110 EDA LACHENAIE ST.
  • About Pipelines Our Energy Connections the Facts About Pipelines

    About Pipelines Our Energy Connections the Facts About Pipelines

    OUR ENERGY CONNECTIONS ENERGY OUR ABOUT PIPELINES ABOUT Contact Us Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Tel: 403.221.8777 [email protected] aboutpipelines.com @aboutpipelines http://facebook.com/aboutpipelines Statistics Pipeline inside pocket inside IMPORTANT THE FACTS ABOUT PIPELINES This fact book is designed to provide easy access to information about the transmission pipeline industry in Canada. The facts are developed using CEPA member data or sourced from third parties. For more information about pipelines visit aboutpipelines.com. An electronic version of this fact book is available at aboutpipelines.com, and printed copies can be obtained by contacting [email protected]. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) CEPA’s members represents Canada’s transmission pipeline companies transport around who operate 115,000 kilometres of pipeline in 97 per cent of Canada. CEPA’s mission is to enhance the operating Canada’s daily excellence, business environment and recognized natural gas and responsibility of the Canadian energy transmission pipeline industry through leadership and credible onshore crude engagement between member companies, oil production. governments, the public and stakeholders. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Canada’s Pipeline Network .................................1 2. Types of Pipelines ......................................................3 3. The Regulatory Landscape ..................................5 4. Building and Operating Pipelines....................6 5. CEPA Integrity First® Program ......................12 6. The History of Our Pipelines ..........................13 Unless otherwise indicated, all photos used in this fact book are courtesy of CEPA member companies. CANADA’S PIPELINE % of the energy used for NETWORK transportation in Canada comes 94 from refined petroleum products. The Importance of • More than half the homes in Canada are Canada’s Pipelines heated by furnaces that burn natural gas.
  • Canadian Energy Research Institute

    Canadian Energy Research Institute

    Canadian Energy Research Institute Capacity of the Western Canada Natural Gas Pipeline System SUMMARY REPORT – VOLUME 2 Peter H. Howard P.Eng David McColl Dinara Millington Paul R. Kralovic Study No. 113 – Summary Report Volume 2 ISBN No. 1-896091-81-4 Purchased by the State of Alaska January 2008 Relevant • Independent • Objective CAPACITY OF THE WESTERN CANADA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SYSTEM SUMMARY REPORT VOLUME 2 ii Capacity of the Western Canada Natural Gas Pipeline System Copyright © Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2008 Sections of this study may be reproduced in magazine and newspapers with acknowledgement to the Canadian Energy Research Institute ISBN 1-896091-81-4 Authors: Peter Howard David McColl Dinara Millington Paul R. Kralovic CANADIAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE #150, 3512 – 33 STREET NW CALGARY, ALBERTA CANADA T2L A6 TELEPHONE: (403) 282-1231 January 2008 Printed in Canada January 2008 Canadian Energy Research Institute iii The Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) is a cooperative research organization established by government and industry parties in 1975. Our mission is to produce relevant, independent, objective economic research and education in energy and environmental issues to benefit business, government, and the public. The sponsors of the Institute are Natural Resources Canada; the Alberta Department of Energy; the Private Sector Sponsors of the Canadian Energy Research Institute (composed of more than one hundred corporate members from the energy production, transportation, marketing, distribution, and consuming sectors in Canada and abroad and the financial community); the University of Calgary; the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board; the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines; the Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; Alberta Research Council; and the Alberta Utilities Consumer Advocate.
  • Legal Principles Surrounding the New Canadian and American Arctic Energy Debate

    Legal Principles Surrounding the New Canadian and American Arctic Energy Debate

    LEGAL PRINCIPLES SURROUNDING THE NEW CANADIAN AND AMERICAN ARCTIC ENERGY DEBATE Alexander J. Black* "The Arctic trails have their secret tales That would make your blood run cold" ' I. INTRODU~~ION Almost a quarter century ago, great plans were made by Canada and the United States to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the contiguous forty-eight states. However, the project stalled and has only been reinvigorated recently. This article identifies some of the unresolved legal issues surrounding the Alaska Highway gas pipeline project and competing proposals concerning connection to Canada's Mackenzie Delta. My underlying theme is security of supply, a concern that has increased in importance following the act of war by terrorists in New York City on September 11, 2001. These legal issues and business proposals should be reconciled quickly in order to ensure security of supply between Canada and the United States. Both countries share strategic mutual interests. Thus, this article presents a synthesis of the legal issues in an attempt to advance the longstanding comity between our countries through informed and timely decision making. Ultimately, a decision has to be made about the 1977 bilateral international agreement, aimed at transporting natural gas from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska through Canada to the contiguous forty-eight states. The original project was called the Foothills (or Alaska Highway) project by Canadians, while Americans often called it the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS). That acronym, ANGTS, sounds like 'angst', suggesting that some anxiety might exist about the outcome of this complicated project. Indeed this project has caused its share of angst over the past twenty-five years.
  • Certificate Application

    Certificate Application

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ANR PIPELINE COMPANY ) Docket No. CP20-1-000 ABBREVIATED APPLICATION OF ANR PIPELINE COMPANY FOR AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND FOR ABANDONMENT AUTHORITY Pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 717f(b) and 717f(c), as amended, and Subpart A of the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“Commission”), 18 C.F.R. Sections 157.5 et seq., ANR Pipeline Company (“ANR”) hereby submits this abbreviated application (“Application”) for the authority necessary to implement the acquisition and transition of ownership to ANR of certain natural gas storage assets currently leased by ANR from its affiliate, Mid Michigan Gas Storage Company (“Mid Michigan” or “MM”) at the Austin, Goodwell, Lincoln- Freeman, Loreed, and Reed City storage fields (“Leased Fields”), all located in central Michigan (“Transition”).1 The Transition is the result of Mid Michigan’s intent to divest itself of the storage assets it owns and currently leases to ANR at the Leased Fields. 1 Incidental to the leased storage assets at the Leased Fields, the proposed Transition also includes two minor laterals currently leased by ANR from Mid Michigan. These laterals are identified and described in Exhibit T, attached hereto. Specifically, ANR requests authority pursuant to section 7(b) and section 7(c) of the NGA as applicable to 1) amend the applicable certificates of public convenience and necessity to a) abandon the existing lease arrangements with Mid Michigan to remove Mid Michigan as owner and lessor, and b) change ANR from lessee to owner of the subject assets acquired from Mid Michigan, and 2) establish a new interim lease arrangement with Mid Michigan, specific to the Mid Michigan-owned base gas in the Leased Fields.
  • Pipeline Transportation and Underground

    Pipeline Transportation and Underground

    Docket No. RP16-___-000 Exhibit No. ANR-012 Page 1 of 17 Additions to Capacity on the U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Network: 2005 This report examines the amount of new natural gas pipeline capacity added to the U.S. natural gas pipeline system during 2005 and the areas of the country where those additions were concentrated. In addition, it discusses and analyzes proposed natural gas pipeline projects that may be developed between 2006 and 2008 and the market factors supporting these initiatives. Questions or comments on the contents of this article should be directed to James Tobin at [email protected] or (202) 586-4835. The addition to natural gas pipeline capacity in 2005 It appears, however, that 2004 and 2005 may be the bottom exceeded that of 2004 (Figure 1) although fewer miles of of a temporary trough in the natural gas pipeline development pipeline were installed (Figure 2). Miles of new natural gas activity cycle. The current inventory of announced or pipeline (1,152) were 21 percent less than in 2004, even approved natural gas pipeline projects indicates that natural though pipeline capacity grew by 8.2 billion cubic feet per gas pipeline capacity additions could increase significantly day (Bcf/d), a 7-percent increase in capacity additions (see between 2006 and 2008 (Figure 1). Several factors are Box, “Capacity Measures,” p. 4). Indeed, less new natural driving this anticipated growth, particularly the expanding gas pipeline mileage was added in 2005 than in any year development of natural gas production in the Fort Worth during the past decade.1 Basin of east Texas and the Piceance/Unita Basins of western Colorado and eastern Utah, and the need for natural gas Figure 1.