DOCSLIB.ORG

Energy Pioneer Natural Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Energy Pioneer Natural Resources Krause Fund Research Fall 2018 Pioneer Natural Resources Energy (NYSE: PXD) Recommendation: SELL November 11, 2018 Current Price $159.82 Analysts Target Price $147-$152 Andrew Ball [email protected] Cost Control and Impressive Regional Growth Samuel Bries [email protected] Already Factored into PXD Price Adam Goedken [email protected] Gregory Hensley Investment Positives [email protected] • Pioneer operates with low costs in Western Texas. Company Overview Currently, their oil and gas production costs are 17% of revenues, 5% lower than those of their main competitor in the Permian Basin, Concho. Pioneer Natural Resources is an upstream energy company that operates by exploring and producing oil, natural gas • The company is becoming a pure play – divesting in their liquids (NGLs), and other gases. Pioneer uses fracking to least profitable regions will raise their overall profit. Pioneer plans extract oil from shale fields and natural gas from methane to move more operations to the Permian Basin, a fast-growing layers. Pioneer is based in Irving, Texas and is in the process region where they benefit from greater profit margins. of becoming a pure play firm in the Permian Basin, located in Western Texas. By divesting from assets outside of the Permian Basin, Pioneer expects to reduce companywide costs • Q1-Q3 2018 reports suggest large revenue gains in this fiscal and focus on their lucrative operations in the Permian Basin. year, with oil futures suggesting Pioneer will face a more favorable oil price outlook from 2019-2020. Stock Performance Highlights 52-week High $213.40 Investment Negatives 52-week Low $140.54 Beta Value 0.71 • DCF/EP analysis suggests favorable news about the company Average Daily Volume 1.589 m and optimistic estimates about revenue growth and cost savings are already priced into PXD stock. Share Highlights • Pioneer is sensitive to oil price risk, and currently future Market Capitalization $27.233 b curves project a decrease in oil prices after 2019, dropping to Shares Outstanding 170.4 m $60.06 in 2022 (from a forecasted $62.32 in 2019). Actual oil EPS (2017) $4.86 price can also differ greatly from futures estimates. P/E Ratio 14.18 Dividend Yield 0.22% Dividend Payout Ratio 4% One Year Stock Performance PXD one year stock performance relative to the S&P 500 Index Company Performance Highlights and the U.S Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund ROA 4.9% ROE 8% Sales $5.455 b Financial Ratios Current Ratio 1.41 Debt to Equity 0.26 Source: Wall Street Journal1 1 | P a g e Healthy domestic growth will be a positive for energy companies Executive Summary in the U.S. The U.S. economy grew at 4.2% and 3.5% in the second and third quarter, respectively, in 2018, a large increase from 3.1% and 3.2% growth in the second and third quarter of As of November 11, 2018, our University of Iowa Krause Fund 2017. Strong consumer and business spending are the two primary analyst team recommends a SELL rating for Pioneer Natural factors that have helped drive the strong economic growth in the Resources. Pioneer has been reducing costs and maximizing past two quarters.3 According to the Federal Reserve Bank of revenue by capitalizing on growth opportunities in the Permian Atlanta, U.S GDP growth is expected to be 2.9% in the fourth Basin. However, Pioneer’s success is largely dependent on the quarter of 2018.4 price of oil. While we believe the macroeconomic environment will be favorable for oil and gas exploration and production Figure 2 companies in the future, there is still a high level of uncertainty in the oil price marketplace. The United States’ move toward greater energy independence does not negate the influence of OPEC on oil supply and demand. Oil price risk—evidenced by a slight decline in oil futures by 2020 and projected in our models—led us to view Pioneer Natural Resources as an overvalued stock. Macroeconomic Outlook World Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 3 Source: FRED Economic Data Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one of the key indicators of economic development that influences the demand for oil and In the next year, we predict that U.S real GDP growth will grow other energy resources. Economic expansion occurs when the at a rate of 3.0%, a 70-basis-point increase from an annualized demand for goods and services increase. In an economic growth rate of 2.3% from 2017. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of expansion, sales of products for which oil and natural gas are 2017 has contributed to large corporate profits and business inputs increase, and consumers are less frugal with their energy investment in the last year. The Commerce Department noted that consumption. Businesses look to grow, requiring more energy after-tax profits across the U.S rose 16.1% in the 2nd quarter from 5 consumption than before. Consequently, real GDP growth causes the previous year, the largest year-over-year gain in six years. As demand for energy resources causes oil prices to rise, driving a result, per-share earnings for companies in the S&P 500 rose revenue growth. Figure 1 shows a correlation between economic 24.8% over the second quarter of 2017. growth and oil demand and consumption. Figure 3 Figure 1 Source: Wall Street Journal5 In addition to rising corporate profits and business investment, metrics such as consumer confidence, rising personal incomes, a strong labor market, and a jobless rate of 3.7%, have encouraged greater consumer and business consumption that has driven economic expansion. Figure 4 shows the U.S. Consumer Confidence level directed by the Conference Board Consumer Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration2 Confidence, which current levels show at 98.3.6 Given that consumer confidence is measured based on household surveys of Domestic Growth Outlook consumers’ opinions on current conditions and future 2 | P a g e expectations of the economy, we expect this trend to continue. Figure 6 Given these metrics, we expect U.S. GDP to grow at 3.00% for the foreseeable future. Figure 4 Source: International Monetary Fund8 With an expected 3.7% world GDP growth rate for 2018 and Source: Trading Economics6 2019, increased activity in the international marketplace will be a significant driver for energy demand and consumption. Energy International Growth Outlook demand and consumption will not only come from larger economies such as China and India, but also emerging market and For our analysis of the international marketplace, we consider developing countries benefiting from overall world growth, and a China and India to be the main foreign drivers for energy positive rotation in the global business cycle.9 resources. China and India together contribute nearly 50% of global oil demand.7 Figure 5, below, shows world oil demand Figure 7 growth by year, showing China and India’s dominance for the demand of oil. Figure 5 Source: International Monetary Fund8 Interest Rates Source: International Energy Agency7 Interest rates are a key economic variable to consider as they are one of the major determinants of a firm's cost of debt. Rising The International Monetary Fund has projected global GDP to interest rates lead to higher borrowing costs, as investors require grow at 3.7% for 2018 and 2019, with China and India’s GDP a higher return for riskier investments taken by the firm. The 10- expected growth rates to be 6.20% and 7.70%, respectively.8 As Treasury Yield (3.186%) was used as the risk-free rate to calculate China and India continue to expand their economies and the cost of debt in our valuation. Figure 8 shows that the 10- international footprint, they will use more oil, which will drive oil Treasury yield has been rising steadily over the past year with oil demand and consumption higher. Future curves project that oil prices. Due to the recent hikes in the federal funds rate, we expect prices will reach $60.06 in 2022. the rate to reach 4.00% by 2020 to trump rising inflation. 3 | P a g e Figure 8 0.3 million barrels per day in quarter 3 of 2018, its largest production amount in over a year. Figure 10 Source: FRED Economics Data10 As of September of 2018, Federal Reserve officials have raised interest rates for the third time this year and have reaffirmed their outlook for further rate hates into 2019.11 The federal funds rate currently stands at 2.25%, a 25-basis-point increase in September from its last rate of 2.00%. Figure 9 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration12 In 2017, world oil production rose by 0.6 million b/d, below average for the second consecutive year. Production fell in the Middle East (-250,000 b/d) and South & Central America (- 240,000 Kb/d), but this was outweighed by growth in North America (820.00 b/d), specifically the U.S. (690,000 b/d).13 Figure 11 Source: Bloomberg11 Oil exploration and production companies are often highly leveraged, as they look to expand their operations by acquiring more reserves. As the federal funds rate is projected to increase 3 times during 2019, firms with a low cost of debt that have a history of paying back their lenders are able to maneuver better in this environment. Energy Commodities Supply & Demand Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration14 For energy commodities, supply and demand is the definitive Figure 11 provides the growth U.S. production of crude oil, driver of price. Oil and gas prices fluctuate due to supply and showing a steep increase since the financial crisis of 2008.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enterprise Products Partners Lp
    ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L . P. ANALYST DAY March 4, 2021 Forward-Looking Statements This presentation contains forward-looking statements based on the beliefs of the company, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to our management team (including information published by third parties). When used in this presentation, words such as “anticipate,” “project,” “expect,” “plan,” “seek,” “goal,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “intend,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “will,” “believe,” “may,” “scheduled,” “potential” and similar expressions and statements regarding our plans and objectives for future operations, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Although management believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of their dates. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expected, including insufficient cash from operations, adverse market conditions, governmental regulations, the possibility that tax or other costs or difficulties related thereto will be greater than expected, the impact of competition and other risk factors discussed in our latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements attributable to Enterprise or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained herein, in such filings and in our future periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Except as required by law, we do not intend to update or revise our forward- looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • February 14, 2006
    Enterprise Products Partners, Enterprise GP Holdings and TEPPCO Partners Reorganize Boards of Directors of General Partners February 14, 2006 HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 14, 2006--The general partners of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. "Enterprise" (NYSE:EPD), Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. "Enterprise GP" (NYSE:EPE) and TEPPCO Partners, L.P. "TEPPCO" (NYSE:TPP) have announced the reorganization of their respective boards of directors effective immediately. Enterprise Products Partners: Enterprise Products GP, LLC, the general partner of Enterprise, has announced the election of Stephen L. Baum, Richard H. Bachmann, Michael A. Creel, Dr. Ralph S. Cunningham and W. Randall Fowler as directors and the resignations of O. S. "Dub" Andras, W. Matt Ralls and Richard S. Snell from its board of directors. Enterprise GP Holdings: Upon their resignations from the board of Enterprise Products GP LLC, Mr. Andras and Mr. Ralls were elected as directors to the board of EPE Holdings, LLC, the general partner of Enterprise GP. In addition to Mr. Andras and Mr. Ralls, Mr. Bachmann, Mr. Fowler and Robert G. Phillips were also elected to the board of directors of the general partner of Enterprise GP. TEPPCO Partners: Mr. Snell was elected to the board of Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC, the general partner of TEPPCO, effective January 6, 2006. Effective February 13, 2006, Mr. Snell resigned from the board of Enterprise Products GP LLC. In addition to Mr. Snell's prior election, Mr. Bachmann, Mr. Creel and Mr. Fowler were also elected to the board of directors of TEPPCO. "I am pleased to add Steve Baum to the Enterprise board.
    [Show full text]
  • ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 16, 2009 ENTERPRISE GP HOLDINGS L.P. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 1-32610 13-4297064 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (Commission File Number) (I.R.S. Employer Incorporation or Organization) Identification No.) 1100 Louisiana, 10th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (Address of Principal Executive Offices, including Zip Code) (713) 381-6500 (Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: ¨ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ¨ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure. On April 21, 2009, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE:EPD) and TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (NYSE:TPP) issued press releases regarding their dissociation, or exit from, the Texas Offshore Port System partnership. Copies of the press releases are furnished herewith as Exhibits 99.1 and 99.2. In addition, Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. (the “Parent Company”) issued a press release regarding this matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise/Enbridge Proceeding Reaffirms Existing Market-Based Rate Methodology but Modifies Requirement to Show Good Alternatives in Terms of Cost
    H. Enterprise/Enbridge Proceeding Reaffirms Existing Market-Based Rate Methodology but Modifies Requirement To Show Good Alternatives in Terms of Cost Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. and Enbridge Inc. (Enterprise/Enbridge) announced their intention to reverse the flow on their existing crude oil pipeline, the Seaway pipeline, to provide transportation from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast.568 Enterprise/Enbridge requested market-based rates as the initial rate on the reversed pipeline.569 The product market was defined in the application as the “transportation of crude oil.”570 Enterprise/Enbridge provided that the origin market and alternative competitors existed in Oklahoma, Kansas, Northwest Texas, as well as the production areas in Western Canada and the Permian Basin that would use the pipeline.571 Enterprise/Enbridge defined the destination market as either the entire Gulf Coast refining area or the more narrowly tailored Houston to Lake Charles area.572 Within weeks of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Mobil, in May 2012, the Commission denied the market-based rate application of Enterprise/Enbridge based on the inability to calculate the required netback cost to determine good alternatives. The inability was caused by the absence of a competitive price to benchmark the threshold price increase component of the netback analysis. The Commission thereafter, however, granted rehearing and reopened the record sua sponte to more fully consider the implications of the Mobil decision. On rehearing, the Commission reaffirmed its basic methodology for analyzing whether a pipeline should be permitted to charge market-based rates, i.e., the product and geographic markets are defined and then certain factors reflective of the pipeline’s market power in those defined markets are assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Refiners Don't Care If Keystone Gets Built Railroads and Rival Pipeline Firms Are Making the Keystone Pipeline Less Necessary
    U.S. Refiners Don't Care if Keystone Gets Built Railroads and Rival Pipeline Firms Are Making the Keystone Pipeline Less Necessary. By Ben Lefebvre Sept. 4, 2013 U.S. companies that refine oil increasingly doubt that the controversial Keystone XL pipeline expansion will ever be built, and now they don't particularly care. Railroads are carrying soaring amounts of crude from Canada down to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast, reducing the need for the TransCanada Corp.TRP.T +0.46% project, which is still awaiting approval from the U.S. government after two years of delays. Meanwhile, a rival pipeline company, Enbridge Inc., ENB.T -0.09% is expanding existing pipes to carry Canadian crude south—and it doesn't need federal permission because it's using existing pipeline rights of way. In addition, so much oil is sloshing around the U.S. from its own wells that refiners don't need lots more heavy crude from the north to keep busy. "Keystone XL has been back-burnered for so long that any relevant parties have been able to make plans as though the project never even existed in the first place," says Sam Margolin, an analyst at Cowen & Co. TransCanada designed the proposed conduit to ship 830,000 barrels a day of heavy crude from western Canada, as well as lighter-grade oil from North Dakota shale fields, to the U.S. refining complex along the Gulf of Mexico. The cross-border Keystone project, billed as a way to reduce heavy oil imports from Venezuela and Mexico, requires a permit from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise and Enbridge Announce Completion of Seaway Pipeline Reversal
    ENTERPRISE AND ENBRIDGE ANNOUNCE COMPLETION OF SEAWAY PIPELINE REVERSAL Houston, Texas and Calgary, Alberta (May 17, 2012) – Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE: EPD) and Enbridge Inc. (NYSE/TSX:ENB) today announced that modifications to the Seaway crude oil pipeline allowing it to transport crude oil from Cushing, Oklahoma to the U.S. Gulf Coast have been completed. The pipeline is in the process of being commissioned, and the first flows of crude oil into the line are expected to begin this weekend. The reversal of the 500-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline, which had been in northbound service since 1995, provides North American producers with the infrastructure needed to access more than 4 million barrels per day (“BPD”) of Gulf Coast refinery demand. The reversal will initially provide 150,000 BPD of capacity, which is expected to increase to more than 400,000 BPD in the first quarter of 2013 with additional modifications and increased pumping capabilities. Seaway Crude Pipeline Company LLC is a 50/50 joint venture owned by affiliates of Enterprise Products Partners and Enbridge Inc. In addition to the pipeline that transports crude oil from Cushing to the Gulf Coast, the Seaway system is comprised of a terminal and distribution network originating in Texas City, Texas, which serves refineries locally and in the Houston area. The Seaway system also includes dock facilities at Freeport and Texas City. For additional information, please visit www.seawaypipeline.com. Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is one of the largest publicly traded partnerships and a leading North American provider of midstream energy services to producers and consumers of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil, refined products and petrochemicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Products Partners L.P
    Cover 4/12/2000 1:34 PM Page cvr1 Enterprise Products Partners L.P. 1999 Annual Report Cover 4/12/2000 1:34 PM Page cvr2 Company Profile Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships with an enterprise value of approximately $2 billion. Enterprise is a leading integrated provider of processing, fractionation, storage, transportation and terminalling services to producers and consumers of natural gas liquids (“NGLs”) and other liquid hydrocarbons. The Company’s assets are geographically focused on the United States’ Gulf Coast, which accounts for approximately 55 percent of domestic NGL production and 75 percent of domestic NGL demand. Financial Highlights Amounts in 000s except per unit amounts 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 Income Statement Data: Total revenues $ 1,346,456 $ 754,573 $ 1,035,963 $ 1,015,262 $ 802,354 Gross operating margin (1) $ 179,195 $ 99,627 $ 128,710 $ 137,937 $ 104,774 Operating income $ 132,351 $ 50,473 $ 75,680 $ 84,668 $ 61,845 Income before extraordinary charge and minority interest $ 121,521 $ 37,355 $ 52,690 $ 61,427 $ 35,137 Extraordinary charge on early extinguishment of debt $ — $ (27,176) $ — $ — $ — Net Income $ 120,295 $ 10,077 $ 52,163 $ 60,813 $ 34,786 Basic Earnings per Unit Income before extraordinary item and minority interest per unit $ 1.80 $ 0.62 $ 0.95 $ 1.11 $ 0.63 Net income per unit $ 1.79 $ 0.17 $ 0.94 $ 1.10 $ 0.63 Number of units used for basic calculation 66,710.4 60,124.4 54,962.8 54,962.8 54,962.8 Diluted Earnings per Unit Income before
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Products Partners Signs Long-Term Agreements to Provide Midstream Services in the Eagle Ford Shale
    Enterprise Products Partners Signs Long-Term Agreements to Provide Midstream Services in the Eagle Ford Shale October 25, 2010 HOUSTON, Oct 25, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE:EPD) today announced certain of its subsidiaries have entered into 10-year agreements with each of Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. (NYSE:PXD), Reliance Eagleford Upstream Holding LP and Newpek, LLC (collectively, the "Pioneer JV") under which Enterprise will provide a full scope of midstream energy services to handle liquid-rich natural gas and crude oil production from the Pioneer JV's acreage in the Eagle Ford Shale play in South Texas. The agreements cover a significant portion of the Pioneer JV's expected Eagle Ford Shale production, including commitments for firm natural gas transportation, natural gas processing, natural gas liquid (NGL) fractionation and transportation services and crude oil marketing. "We look forward to putting our experience and assets to work for Pioneer and its partners, who we believe hold one of the most attractive NGL-rich natural gas and crude oil acreage positions in the Eagle Ford Shale," said Michael A. Creel, Enterprise President and Chief Executive Officer. "The flexibility of our existing integrated network, combined with new options that will be available with our assets currently under construction, has positioned Enterprise to provide a tailored solution for meeting the crude oil, natural gas and NGL infrastructure needs of producers in the Eagle Ford Shale." The Pioneer JV's NGL-rich natural gas will initially be processed using Enterprise's existing U.S. Gulf Coast facilities until it can be processed at Enterprise's previously announced natural gas processing plant that is under development in South Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Form 10-K Enterprise Products Partners L.P
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 OR TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from ___ to ___. Commission file number: 1-14323 ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P. (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) DELAWARE 76-0568219 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) Incorporation or Organization) 1100 LOUISIANA STREET, 10th FLOOR, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) (713) 381-6500 (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Each Class Name of Each Exchange On Which Registered Common Units New York Stock Exchange Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None. Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Form 10-K Enterprise Products Partners L.P
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ☑ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 OR ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from ___ to ___. Commission file number: 1-14323 ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P. (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 76-0568219 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002 (Address of Principal Executive Offices, including Zip Code) (713) 381-6500 (Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Title of Each Class Trading Symbol(s) Name of Each Exchange On Which Registered Common Units EPD New York Stock Exchange Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None. Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☑ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☑ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 OR TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from ___ to ___. Commission file number: 1-14323 ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P. (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) DELAWARE 76-0568219 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) Incorporation or Organization) 1100 LOUISIANA STREET, 10th FLOOR, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) (713) 381-6500 (Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Each Class Name of Each Exchange On Which Registered Common Units New York Stock Exchange Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None. Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues
    Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues Paul W. Parfomak Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy Robert Pirog Specialist in Energy Economics Linda Luther Analyst in Environmental Policy Adam Vann Legislative Attorney December 2, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41668 Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues Summary TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would transport oil sands crude from Canada and shale oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska for further delivery to Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline would consist of 875 miles of 36-inch pipe with the capacity to transport 830,000 barrels per day. Because it would cross the Canadian-U.S. border, construction of Keystone XL requires a Presidential Permit from the State Department. A decision to issue or deny a Presidential Permit is based on a determination that a project would serve the national interest, considering potential impacts on the environment, the economy, energy security, foreign policy, and other factors. Environmental impacts are evaluated and documented in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TransCanada originally applied for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2008. The initial proposal included a southern segment from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast. A key issue that arose during the permit review was concern over environmental impacts in the Sand Hills region of Nebraska. This concern led the Nebraska legislature to enact new state pipeline siting requirements that would alter the pipeline route through Nebraska. In January 2012, the State Department concluded that it would not have sufficient information to evaluate an altered pipeline route before a deadline imposed by Congress and denied the permit.
    [Show full text]