DOCSLIB.ORG

Table 1 Natural Gas Pipeline Points of Entry/Exit and Transporters

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table 1 Natural Gas Pipeline Points of Entry/Exit and Transporters Table 1 Natural Gas Pipeline Points of Entry/Exit and Transporters Corresponding U.S. Point of Canadian/Mexican U.S. Transporter Foreign Transporter Entry/ Exit Point of Entry/Exit Alamo, Texas Reynosa, Tamaulipas Tennessee Gas Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Cardston, Alberta Canadian-Montana Pipeline Babb, Montana EnCana Pipelines Ltd. (Carway) Company Baudette, Minnesota Rainy River, Ontario Centra Minnesota Pipelines Centra Transmission, Inc. St. Stephen, New Maritimes & Northeast Maritimes & Northeast Calais, Maine Brunswick Pipeline U.S. Pipeline Canada Brunswick Pipeline Mexicali, Baja Calexico, California SoCalGas DGN Pipeline California Champlain, New York Napierville, Quebec North Country Gas Pipeline TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Ciudad Juarez, Clint, Texas Samalayuca Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Coahuila Del Rio, Texas Acuña, Coahuila West Texas Gas, Inc. PEMEX Pipeline Windsor, Ontario Detroit, Michigan Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Union Gas Limited (Ojibway) El Paso Natural Gas Douglas, Arizona Naco, Sonora PEMEX Pipeline Company Piedras Negras, West Texas Gas, Inc. PEMEX Pipeline Eagle Pass, Texas Coahuila Reef International Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline TransCanada Kingsgate, British PG&E Gas Transmission Eastport, Idaho Pipelines/Alberta Natural Columbia Northwest Gas/Foothills Westcoast Energy Inc. Pipeline Ciudad Juarez, El Paso, Texas Norteno Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Coahuila Galvan Ranch, Coahuila, Mexico Encinal Gathering, Ltd. PEMEX Pipeline Texas Grand Island, New Chippawa, Ontario Empire State Pipeline TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. York Loomis, Saskatchewan Many Islands Pipe Line Harve, Montana Havre Pipeline (Willow Creek) Company Hidalgo, Texas Reynosa, Tamaulipas Texas Eastern Pipeline PEMEX Pipeline Highgate Springs, Phillipsburg, Quebec Vermont Gas Systems TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Vermont International Falls, Fort Frances, Ontario Centra Minnesota Pipelines Centra Transmission, Inc. Minnesota Marysville, Michigan Sarnia, Ontario Bluewater Pipeline Union Gas Limited Massena, New York Cornwall, Ontario St. Lawrence Gas Company Niagara Gas Transmission Kinder Morgan Border McAllen, Texas Reynosa, Tamaulipas PEMEX Pipeline Pipeline Tennessee Gas Pipeline TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Niagara Falls, New Niagara Falls, Ontario National Fuel Gas Supply York TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Corporation Nogales, Arizona Nogales, Mexico El Paso Natural PEMEX Pipeline Gas Company Great Lakes Gas TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Noyes, Minnesota Emerson, Manitoba Transmission Company Viking Gas Transmission TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Company Table 1 Natural Gas Pipeline Points of Entry/Exit and Transporters Algodones, Baja Ogilby, California North Baja Pipeline Gasaducto Bajanorte California Rosarito, Baja Otay Mesa, California San Diego Gas & Electric Sempra Energy International California Penitas, Texas Arguelles, Tamaulipas El Paso Natural Gas Company PEMEX Pipeline Pittsburg, New Portland Natural Gas TransQuebec & Maritimes East Hereford, Quebec Hampshire Transmission Pipeline Port of Del Bonita, Del Bonita, Alberta Canadian-Montana Pipeline Omimex Resources Inc. Montana (Reagan Field) Company Port of Morgan, Monchy, Saskatchewan Northern Border Pipeline Foothills Pipe Lines, Ltd. Montana Williston Basin Interstate WBI Canadian Pipelines, Portal, North Dakota North Portal, Pipeline Co. Ltd./TransGas Limited Saskatchewan Interenergy Sheffield Interenergy Sheffield Pipeline Processing Company Portal Municipal Gas SaskEnergy Inc.'s Pipeline Rio Bravo, Texas Rio Bravo, Tamaulipas Tennessee Gas Pipeline Gasoducto Del Rio Kinder Morgan Texas Roma, Texas Monterrey, Nuevo Leon PEMEX Pipeline Pipeline Sault Ste. Marie, Sault Ste. Marie, Great Lakes Gas TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Michigan Ontario Transmission Company Sherwood, North Elmore, Saskatchewan Alliance Pipeline U.S. Alliance Pipeline Canada Dakota Great Lakes Gas St. Clair, Michigan Sarnia, Ontario TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Transmission Company St. Clair, Ontario Michigan Consolidated Union Gas Limited Courtright, Ontario Vector U.S. Vector Canada Corunna, Ontario ANR ANR/Link Pipeline Westcoast Energy Inc. Northwest Pipeline Sumas, Washington Huntingdon, British Pipeline Columbia Westcoast Energy Inc. Sumas Pipeline U.S.A. Pipeline Westcoast Energy Inc. Sumas International Pipeline Pipeline Westcoast Energy Inc. Sumas-Cascade Pipeline Pipeline Westcoast Energy Inc. Ferndale Pipeline Pipeline Sweetgrass, Montana Sierra, Alberta Sierra Pipeline Knappen Border Pipeline Waddington, New York Iroquois, Ontario Iroquois Gas Transmission TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. Warroad, Minnesota Sprague, Manitoba Centra Minnesota Pipelines Centra Transmission, Inc. Canadian-Montana Pipeline Whitlash, Montana Aden, Alberta EnCana Pipelines Ltd. Company Yucca Power Plant Algodones, Baja California North Baja Pipeline Gasaducto Bajanorte .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • El Paso Energy Corporation (“El Paso”) and PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) (Collectively The
    ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER TO AID PUBLIC COMMENT I. Introduction The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment from the El Paso Energy Corporation (“El Paso”) and PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) (collectively the “Proposed Respondents”) an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“the Proposed Consent Order”). The Proposed Consent Order remedies the likely anticompetitive effects in the natural gas transportation markets in the Permian Basin production area, the San Antonio – Austin area, and the Matagorda offshore production area. El Paso has also reviewed a proposed draft of complaint (the “Proposed Complaint”) that the Commission contemplates issuing. The Proposed Consent Order is designed to remedy the likely competitive effects arising from the El Paso acquisition of all of the outstanding voting shares of PG&E Gas Transmission Teco, Inc., and PG&E Gas Transmission Texas Corporation, from PG&E (the “Acquisition”). II. Description of the Parties and the Proposed Acquisition El Paso Energy Corporation is an integrated energy company producing, transporting, gathering, processing, and treating natural gas. With over $21 billion in assets, El Paso Energy Corporation is one of the largest integrated natural gas-to-power companies in the world. El Paso Energy not only owns North America's largest natural gas pipeline system, but also has growing operations in merchant energy services, power generation, international project development, gas gathering and processing, and gas and oil production. El Paso has an interest in five pipeline systems in Texas: the Oasis pipeline, running from west Texas, through the San Antonio and Austin areas, to the Katy natural gas trading area (near Houston, Texas); the Channel Pipeline, extending from south Texas to the Houston Ship Channel; the Shoreline and Tomcat gathering systems, carrying gas from the Texas Gulf Coast to other larger transmission pipelines, and the Gulf States Pipeline, which runs from the Texas border to Ruston, Louisiana.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Accomplishments
    EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Accomplishments Introduction stablished in 1993, the Natural Gas STAR Program is a flexible, voluntary partnership that encourages oil and natural gas companies—both domestically and internationally—to adopt proven, cost-effective technologies and practices that Eimprove operational efficiency and reduce methane emissions. Given that methane is the primary component of natural gas and is a potent greenhouse gas—23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2) in trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period—reducing these emissions can result in environmental, economic, and operational benefits. Natural Gas STAR industry partners have operations in all of the major industry sectors—production, gathering and processing, transmission, and distribution—and represent 60 percent of the natural gas industry in the United States, including 19 of the top 25 natural gas production companies. Also, with the launch of Natural Gas STAR International in 2006, the Program expanded to include companies world- wide, significantly increasing opportunities to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations. Today, the Program has more than 130 partner compa- nies and is endorsed by 20 major industry trade associations. This document highlights the methane emissions reductions Natural Gas STAR partners have achieved to date under this important voluntary partnership program. It also highlights a variety of technologies and practices implemented by partners to reduce methane emissions. The following diagram
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. 191 Ibla 80
    TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C. 191 IBLA 80 Decided September 11, 2017 United States Department of the Interior a Office of Hearings and Appeals a Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax) TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C. 2014-266, et al. Decided September 11, 2017 Appeal from orders determining that Outer Continental Shelf pipeline right-of-way grants had expired and ordering that their associated pipelines be decommissioned. 01684, et al. Affirmed. 1. Rights-of-Way: Oil and Gas Pipelines; Oil and Gas: Pipelines; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: Rights-of-Way The Secretary is authorized to grant pipeline rights-of-way through the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for transporting oil, natural gas, or other minerals. However, the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of transporter- operated pipelines on the OCS are subject to standards established by the Department of Transportation (DOT), and regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Where FERC grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity to an OCS pipeline under the Natural Gas Act, it can be abandoned only after authorized to do so by FERC, and if it loses its certificate of public convenience and necessity, such a pipeline can no longer be used to transport gas on the OCS. APPEARANCES: David M. Hunter, Esq. and Tyler J. Rench, Esq., Jones Walker, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana, for the appellant; Eric Andreas, Esq., U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • 171 Ferc ¶ 61,243 United States of America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    171 FERC ¶ 61,243 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Neil Chatterjee, Chairman; Richard Glick, Bernard L. McNamee, and James P. Danly. Betelgeuse Energy, LLC Docket No. RP20-521-000 v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. ORDER ON COMPLAINT (Issued June 18, 2020) On February 13, 2020, Betelgeuse Energy, LLC (Betelgeuse) filed a Complaint objecting to El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.’s (El Paso) rejection of Betelgeuse’s non-conforming bids in two open seasons for capacity under expiring contracts subject to a right of first refusal (ROFR).1 As discussed further below, we deny the Complaint. Background Betelgeuse states that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Spica Energy Holdings, LLC, with its principal place of business in Gainesville, Florida. According to Betelgeuse, it is a newly established entity that was formed “to focus on the development 1 In Order No. 636, the Commission amended its regulations to permit pre-granted abandonment of transportation contracts but permitted customers taking service for one year or more at the maximum rate to continue to receive the historical service upon which they had relied by conditioning such pre-granted abandonment on a ROFR for the existing shipper. Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and Regulation of Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, Order No. 636, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,939 (1992) (cross-referenced at 59 FERC ¶ 61,030); 18 C.F.R. § 284.221(d) (2019). A pipeline may also offer a ROFR to its customers separately on a non-discriminatory basis.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Pipelines in the Southeast US
    Pipelines in the Southeast US: The Backbone of America’s Energy Independence For NASEO - Southeast Region Edward O'Brien Tuesday, April 23, 2019 Technology – New drilling techniques allow more production - Fracking Big Data – Processing and storage solutions and the development of new devices to track a wider array of reservoir, machinery and personnel performance Seismic – Lowered finding costs and allowed exploration for reserves not locatable by other means 3-D Modeling – Better able to recreate oil assets in three dimensions, allowing companies to better map underground caverns and target specific areas rich with What Happened? hydrocarbons How Much Has Changed Since Y2K? US Natural Gas Production (MMCF) US Oil Production (Billion Barrels) 33000 4 31000 3.5 29000 27000 3 25000 2.5 23000 21000 2 19000 17000 1.5 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 How Do Hydrocarbons Move? Pipelines are the safest and most efficient way to hydrocarbons US Highlights: - More than 300,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipeline - More than 2.1 million miles of distribution pipeline - More than 25 Tcf natural gas moved via pipeline in 2017 - 72,000 miles of crude pipelines - 63,000 miles of refined product pipeline - US DOT regulates pipeline safety • Gathering – gather raw natural gas from production wells and transport it to large cross-country transmission pipelines • Transmission – transport natural gas thousands of miles from processing facilities across many parts of the continental United States • Distribution – distribute natural gas to homes and businesses through large distribution lines mains and service lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada's Energy Transmission
    Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines A Special Report Prepared for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association By Angevine Economic Consulting Ltd. April 2016 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Results of I-O Model Simulations A. Impacts from operation of crude oil, natural gas liquids and refined petroleum products transmission pipelines ................................................................................. 1 B. Impacts from operation of natural gas transmission pipelines ................................... 4 C. Impacts from operation of all transmission pipelines………………………………….. 6 D. Impacts of two proposed pipelines ……………………………………………...............7 E. Impact summary……………………………………………………………………….….10 Detailed Methodology…………………………………………………………………….…11 Energy Pipelines Included in the Analysis……………………………………………...12 The Economic Impacts from Operation of Canada’s Energy Transmission Pipelines | April 2016 Introduction This report summarizes key findings obtained from using the current (2010) version of the Statistics Canada Interregional Input/Output (I-O) Model to estimate the economic impacts from operation of the energy transmission pipelines currently operating in Canada as well as from two proposed but not yet approved
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Gas Issues in California
    FYI: Natural Gas Issues in California April 2001 Limits in pipeline and storage capacity threaten to impose an effective ceiling on the amount of natural gas that can get into California, which relies heavily on imported supplies of this energy source to fuel the creation of electricity. Deliberate market manipulation also has been accused of squeezing supplies in the face of rising demand. This paper explores reasons for the wave of price jumps and outlines issues that hinge on the capacity of thousands of miles of pipeline to transport crucial supplies. It also notes other factors, such as patterns in well-drilling, that have played a role in shaping today’s natural gas market. Regional impacts created by these chains of events also are highlighted. We conclude the paper with a series of policy options for addressing these issues. Methods of Delivery and the Rising Use of Natural Gas The way natural gas is delivered to a customer depends on the size of the customer. The largest users of natural gas, called non-core customers by the industry, make their purchases directly from suppliers, marketers and brokers. Some non-core customers take deliveries directly from high-pressure interstate pipelines, bypassing the utility companies that supply other users. Smaller customers – whether residential, commercial, or small industrial users – have the option of procuring natural gas from the utility companies that serve their areas or from suppliers, marketers or brokers. These customers are the core users. Three large and two small investor-owned natural gas utilities do business in California. The big three are Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E).
    [Show full text]
  • Gas Debit/Credit Calculations for Fy 2013
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER GAS DEBIT/CREDIT CALCULATIONS FOR FY 2013 Act Program Cost: 59,361,000 Adj Tot Dtherms: 41,925,103,355 Adj Chg Factor: 0.0014158820 Original Adjusted Company Annual Annual 2013 Company Name Total Charge Charge Debit/Credit Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC (310) 598,453,571 854,467 847,340 -7,127 Alliance Pipeline L.P. (493) 653,476,488 933,028 925,246 -7,782 American Midstream (AlaTenn) LLC (199) 16,875,224 24,094 23,893 -201 American Midstream (Midla) LLC (12451) 44,515,010 63,558 63,028 -530 ANR Pipeline Company (12442) 1,522,401,449 2,173,672 2,155,541 -18,131 ANR Storage Company (36155) 14,861,983 21,220 21,043 -177 Arlington Storage Company, LLC (604) 28,843,723 41,183 40,839 -344 Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. (1332) 28,358,133 40,489 40,152 -337 Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC (002443) 34,577,588 49,370 48,958 -412 Bison Pipeline LLC (302) 12,527,770 17,887 17,738 -149 Black Marlin Pipeline Company (1772) 7,508,118 10,720 10,631 -89 Blue Lake Gas Storage Company (1901) 20,868,502 29,796 29,547 -249 Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC (001154) 45,867,865 65,490 64,943 -547 Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC (14444) 9,048,660 12,920 12,812 -108 Bobcat Gas Storage (11144) 37,108,701 52,983 52,542 -441 Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C. (726) 5,501,232 7,855 7,789 -66 Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC (740) 4,357,002 6,221 6,169 -52 Carolina Gas Transmission Corporation (187) 121,925,357 174,084 172,632 -1,452 Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • QUARTERLY FOCUS: Planned Pipeline Construction Designed To
    North American Gas Trade * North American Gas Trade * North American Gas Trade * North American Gas Trade * North American Gas Trade QUARTERLY FOCUS: Planned Pipeline Construction Designed to Foster Increased Gas Trade Between the United States and Canada INTRODUCTION capacity additions are projected to occur in the Midwestern and Northeastern corridors. Most of As a part of its regulatory oversight the planned capacity additions provide improved responsibilities, the Office of Natural Gas & access to western Canadian supplies; however, Petroleum Import and Export Activities several of the projects are being built to transport (Import/Export Office) performs various analytical Canadian natural gas reserves located offshore studies related to the import and export of natural Nova Scotia from Sable Island. gas. This Quarterly Focus looks at some of the planned pipeline construction projects which, if The Import/Export Office has obtained built, would increase the ability to transport information about these individual projects from additional volumes of natural gas between the various sources, including regulatory filings made United States and Canada. For the most part, these with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed projects are being designed to increase (FERC), Department of Energy (DOE), company the importation of natural gas. A similar review of representatives and Internet Web sites, and various proposed construction projects was the subject of trade journals. The review of proposed projects the Quarterly Focus written for the Quarterly include a number of projects recently announced Report issued in the second quarter of 1996; this by the sponsoring companies which have not report merely updates the status of some of the advanced much beyond the conceptual stage in projects reviewed earlier and examines some of development.
    [Show full text]
  • NYCA Pipeline Congestion and Infrastructure Adequacy Assessment
    NYCA Pipeline Congestion and Infrastructure Adequacy Assessment New York Independent System Operator September, 2013 REDACTED 100 SUMMER STREET, SUITE 3200 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02110 TEL 617-531-2818 FAX 617-531-2826 LIMITATION ON LIABILITY This report has been prepared for NYISO for the sole purpose of assessing the adequacy of the natural gas infrastructure in regard to meeting the fuel delivery needs of gas-fired generation in NYISO. Input parameters to various models are based largely on actual public data from the pipelines and local distribution companies operating in New York State. Findings contained herein depend on the assumptions identified in our report, including the mathematical models used to determine historic congestion levels and flow balances over the study period. Levitan & Associates, Inc. believes these assumptions to be reasonable. However, there is no assurance that any specific set of assumptions associated with new pipeline and storage projects will be encountered. DISCLAIMER This report was prepared by Levitan & Associates, Inc. (LAI) for the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO). The views and conclusions expressed in this study represent those of LAI and do not necessarily represent those of the NYISO. No official endorsement by the NYISO is intended or should be inferred. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Presentation Acquisition of El Paso Corporation October 16, 2011
    Investor Presentation Acquisition of El Paso Corporation October 16, 2011 IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE FILED WITH THE SEC Kinder Morgan, Inc. (“KMI”) plans to file with the SEC a Registration Statement on Form S-4 in connection with the proposed transaction, and KMI and El Paso Corporation (“EP”) plan to file with the SEC and mail to their respective stockholders a Joint Proxy/Information Statement/Prospectus in connection with the proposed transaction. THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND THE JOINT PROXY/INFORMATION STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT KMI, EP, THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION AND RELATED MATTERS. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND THE JOINT PROXY/INFORMATION STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS CAREFULLY WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE. Investors and security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the Registration Statement and the Joint Proxy/Information Statement/Prospectus and other documents filed with the SEC by KMI and EP through the web site maintained by the SEC at www.sec.gov. In addition, investors and security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the Registration Statement and the Joint Proxy/Information Statement/Prospectus by phone, e-mail or written request by contacting the investor relations department of KMI or EP at the following: Kinder Morgan, Inc. El Paso Corporation Address: 500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000 1001 Louisiana Street Houston, Texas 77002 Houston, Texas 77002 Attention: Investor Relations Attention: Investor Relations Phone: (713) 369-9490 (713) 420-5855 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] PARTICIPANTS IN THE SOLICITATION KMI and EP, and their respective directors and executive officers, may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in respect of the proposed transactions contemplated by the merger agreement.
    [Show full text]