FYI, 
kh

--------------------- Forwarded by Ronald Matthews/ET&S/Enron on 10/05/2000 
12:59 PM ---------------------------
To: Steven Harris/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, John R Keller/OTS/Enron@Enron, 
terry.galassini@enron.com, Randy Rice/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Rich 
Jolly/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, David Roensch/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Team 
San-Juan/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, dadolfs@enron.com, Steven January/ET&S/Enron@ENRON
cc:  

Subject: San Juan Efficiencies

All of the studies results to date show the up and down swings of the 
pipeline efficiency.  We have proved that the pipeline can handle 850 MMcf/d 
plus.  However, it has not been tested since the mainline hasn't moved 1090 
MMcf/d yet after Gallup's installation.  Granted it appears that the San Juan 
lateral has some form of irregularity in efficiency along part of the lateral 
and that issue is still under investigation.  Once the lab tests are 
completed we can better determine the next course of action.  Until then we 
still believe that the pipeline is capable of transporting 850 MMcf/d on the 
San Juan lateral at the same time move 1090 MMcf/d to California even though 
the suction pressure to the Gallup station is not as high as it's design.  
Unfortunately we can't test this theory at the worst possible time until next 
summer.  

Several other issues need to be addressed such as the transport of retained 
fuel and increased throughput on the mainline.  Transporting retained fuel is 
highly improbable because Gallup's compressor can only handle a maximum of 
870 MMcf/d at best under good conditions.  EE&CC provided a compressor 
capable of compressing the design volume only with no retained fuel.  
Therefore if we can solve the inlet pressure problem we can compress up  to 
870 which would basically transport the retained fuel.  Until then Gallup can 
only compress as much as possible over the 850 MMcf/d when conditions 
permit.  Increased mainline throughput West of Thoreau based on a higher 
discharge pressure from Gallup is not possible.  Even though the electric 
motor can develop more horsepower than needed, the compressor was designed 
for 850 MMcf/d at 950 psig discharge.  Therefore the unit can not increase 
it's discharge from the design pressure of 950 psig to 970 psig to allow 
increased firm transportation west.

As for the San Juan Lateral pipeline efficiency, we have experienced a powder 
substance in the lateral both times it was pigged.  We don't know the source 
and a good guess is "San Juan Basin".  If that's the case, we need to find a 
way to keep the lateral clean after a good cleaning process has been done.  
What is El Paso doing if they have the same problem?  It's a touchy subject 
to ask them.  If they don't have a problem (or won't admit it) t hen knowing 
we do could be bad for TW.

Even though this was not apart of the main subject, there have been some 
questions regarding if the mainline efficiency has changed (upward) from any 
pigging activities this year.  The only pigging performed was smart pigging 
between Station #4 & #5 for an incroachment issue.  This had no impact on 
efficiencies west to California.  However, Compression Services is actively 
working with Operations to implement recommendations made by Gary Choquette 
(Omaha Facility Planning Team)  for units at Stations 1 & 2 . Once completed 
over the next few weeks, this should improve unit performance and more 
specifically minimize fuel use.  This could have an overall on the system's 
efficiency  but not specifically the pipeline.