Kirk,
This is really dangerous... having a marketing guy talk to you about engineering matters.  However, since we've recently worked with our other power plants to get them up and running, the data is still pretty fresh.  If I'm speaking out of school here, my operations and/or engineering buddies will be quick to correct me.

At the proposed take-off point to your Big Sandy Project, flowing gas on TW is in the range of 850 - 900 psig.  We provide a minimum of 800 psig to the LDC's connected with us at the California border. 

Therefore, for purposes of your take-away lateral pipeline design, I'd say that 800 psig is probably a pretty good target number.  However, I must stress that the 800 psig is a flowing gas number, and would surely be impacted by how the gas is taken.  That is to say that TW may provide the 800 psig pressure if and only if all of the downstream operators folllow their schedules for delivery.  For example, none of our new power plants can simply ramp-up without giving TW ample notice of start-up and scheduling an appropriate quantity of gas.

We can get into more detail regarding the requirements for operating the Big Sandy delivery point and scheduling gas on TW to meet the plant's requirements at a later date.  Suffice it to say that a plant the size of the Big Sandy project presents some unique operating challenges to TW.   TW has but 1.1 Bcf/d of gas flowing westward.  Directly-connected gas turbines can quickly deplete TW's linepack.  However, that being said, we will do our best to work with Big Sandy as well as our other power plant partners to try and meet the loading requirements of the facilities.

My gas control coordinator is about go on his honeymoon during the middle 2 weeks of May.  We should think about having our meeting after he returns (after May 25?) so that we have not only our engineers, but the proper operations and gas control personnel present also.  Check you calendar and let me know what dates might work for you guys.

Thanks,
Jeff

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Kirk Ketcherside <igi@nctimes.net>@ENRON [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Kirk+20Ketcherside+20+3Cigi+40nctimes+2Enet+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, May 01, 2001 1:02 PM
To:	Fawcett, Jeffery
Cc:	Tim
Subject:	Big Sandy Project pressure information

Jeff,
As a follow-up to my phone mail message of last Friday, I wanted to
verify for Tim's work, what the expected minimum inlet pressure would be
off of your pipeline, delivered into our proposed Project line (at the
proposed interconnect).

This information plays directly into the current engineering work that
he is leading.

Per your good suggestion, I also want to schedule a meeting to be held
in the next couple of weeks, in efforts to further our Project
interconnect discussion.

Thank you.
Kirk




Jeffery.Fawcett@enron.com wrote:
>
> Kirk,
> Great to hear that the project is moving forward.  I think TW feels it's
> emotionally vested at this point!  I will ask the Facility Planning folks
> to get started on providing a more detailed "budget quality" estimate of
> the cost to construct the interconnect and metering station.  With recent
> changes in FERC regulations concerning pregranted authority to construct
> delivery points, TW can immediately proceed to build without the
> complication of a FERC prior notice filing as was required in the past.
>
> Therefore, the only limiting factor at this point is the time it takes to
> put together the estimate, as well as the documentation we'll need in order
> to implement a new delivery point on the system.  To this end, I see the
> following documents:
>
>      1.  Letter Agreement authorizing TW to open a work order to proceed
> with the budget quality estimate.  This will involve a commitment by Big
> Sandy to reimburse TW for the cost of the engineering if Big Sandy
> ultimately pulls out of the project.
>      2.  A Facilities Construction and Operating Agreement providing for
> the reimbursement by Big Sandy for TW's construction of the tap and/or
> metering station.  This agreement would also provide for TW's operation of
> the metering station if Big Sandy elects to it to TW specification in order
> to avoid the CIAC.
>      3.  An Operator Balancing Agreement (OBA), a standard tariff form
> agreement defining the role of Big Sandy as delivery point operator as well
> as the disposition of any volumetric imbalances that may accrue during the
> month.
>
> >From a timeline standpoint, we can be in the position to get these
> documents completed within a relatively short time (30 - 60 days?)
> depending on whether there are any sticking points in our negotiations.  By
> the way, the only agreement that may take some time to work through is no.
> 2 on the list, although with our recent experience in hooking up other
> plants on the system this past year, we've already done a lot of the
> "lawyering" spade work.
>
> Not that I'm especially found of meetings, but it's been a while since
> we've met to discuss the physical requirements of the facilities.
> Moreover, we've got some new people in our Facility Planning and
> Engineering and Construction groups who would benefit from meeting their
> counter parties on the project side.  May I suggest a face-to-face meeting
> where I can bring our planners and engineers to meet with their counter
> parties to kick off this project?  We can meet anywhere its convenient for
> you guys.
>
> I look forward to working with you on this project.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>    From:   Kirk Ketcherside <igi@nctimes.net>@ENRON
>              [mailto:IMCEANOTES-Kirk+20Ketcherside+20+3Cigi+40nctimes+2Enet+3E+40ENRON@ENRON.com]
>
>    Sent:   Wednesday, March 28, 2001 12:31 PM
>    To:     Fawcett, Jeffery
>    Subject:  Re: Big Sandy Project
>
>    Jeff-
>    Well it has been a few weeks since we last discussed the Big Sandy
>    Project, and I want to move forward based on our last
>    conversation/e-mail.
>
>    Specifically, I would like to formalize a more detailed interconnect
>    (MSA/tap) study and associated cost estimate for Big Sandy.  I also want
>    to obtain from you a timeline, including all the necessary
>    documents/agreements, based on a projected Big Sandy online date of
>    8/1/03.
>
>    At this point, I am recommending that the Project look to TW for most if
>    not all of its' natural gas requirements, and thus, the pressure
>    integration issue is not relevant.
>    We are simply looking for a TW tap with mainline pressure, and a TW
>    constructed MSA.
>    I understand the CIAC issue, and as such, the Project may elect to
>    construct the MSA per TW specs, to mitigate the tax implications.
>
>    Please let me know what additional information require to support this
>    activity.
>    Thank you in advance for your efforts in bringing this project to
>    commercialization.
>
>    Kirk
>
>    Jeffery.Fawcett@enron.com wrote:
>    >
>    > You betcha.  We look forward to working with you on this project.
>    Talk to
>    > you next week.
>    >
>    > Kirk Ketcherside <igi@nctimes.net> on 02/09/2001 01:04:00 PM
>    >
>    > To:   Jeffery.Fawcett@enron.com
>    > cc:
>    >
>    > Subject:  Re: Big Sandy Project
>    >
>    > Thanks Jeff for your prompt response.
>    > I just got back in the office today.
>    > I will contact you early next week to discuss our next steps.
>    > Have a great weekend.
>    > Kirk
>    >
>    > Jeffery.Fawcett@enron.com wrote:
>    > >
>    > > Kirk,
>    > > We've put together a quick estimate of the cost to install the
>    > interconnect
>    > > and measurement facilities off Transwestern.  The estimate was based
>    on
>    > the
>    > > original operating conditions of Phase 1 (80 MMcf/d) and Phase 2
>    (120
>    > > MMcf/d) given to us early in discussions with George Briden.  The
>    subject
>    > > facilities will include a 16" tie-in to both TW 30" mainlines (a
>    > redundancy
>    > > feature, allowing continued use of one line if the other line is
>    > > temporarily taken out of service for maintenance or is the subject
>    of
>    > some
>    > > type of failure), mainline valves, turbine meter, gallagher flow
>    > > conditioner, telemetry, flow control, etc.  The order of magnitude
>    > (+/-30%)
>    > > estimated cost is $416,700.
>    > >
>    > > Not knowing your design and proposed schematic showing joint
>    operations
>    > > with El Paso and/or Southern Trails, this estimate does not include
>    a
>    > > pressure control and/or pressure let down equipment.   Consequently,
>    the
>    > > project will have to control pressure in the lateral system.   As
>    you
>    > know,
>    > > it's operationally problematic to design for both pressure and flow
>    > control
>    > > into a common header system accepting deliveries from multiple
>    pipelines
>    > > operating at different pressures.   However, Transwestern will be
>    > amenable
>    > > to working with the project and the other interstate pipelines to
>    > optimize
>    > > the ultimate design of all metering and lateral pipeline facilities.
>    > >
>    > > Also, the $416K estimate does not include any build up for income
>    tax.
>    > If
>    > > the project reimburses Transwestern for the cost of Transwestern
>    > > constructing the interconnect and metering station, Transwestern
>    will
>    > > recognize a taxable event.  Use approx. 30% as an effective
>    corporate tax
>    > > rate for purposes of calculating the price build-up.   As a means to
>    > avoid
>    > > the tax consequence, Transwestern is agreeable to the idea of the
>    project
>    > > building the metering station to Transwestern's specifications, with
>    > > Transwestern operating the facilities under an Operating Agreement.
>    We
>    > can
>    > > discuss these structuring questions as the project develops and we
>    get to
>    > > the point of executing project documents for the provisioning of
>    service
>    > to
>    > > the project.
>    > >
>    > > Our facility planners and I are available to answer questions for
>    you.
>    > > Please give me a call.
>    > >
>    > > Kirk Ketcherside <igi@nctimes.net> on 02/02/2001 01:14:51 PM
>    > >
>    > > To:   jfawcet@enron.com
>    > > cc:
>    > >
>    > > Subject:  follow-up to our conversation
>    > >
>    > > Jeff-
>    > > Nice visiting with you regarding the Big Sandy project.
>    > > I will look forward to seeing your new interconnect proposal next
>    week.
>    > > As for my particulars, in addition to my email address herein,
>    please
>    > > see the following:
>    > >
>    > > Kirk Ketcherside
>    > > IGI Resources, Inc.
>    > > 7241 Sanderling Court
>    > > Carlsbad, CA 92009
>    > >
>    > > 760/918-0001 Office phone
>    > > 760/918-0003 Office fax
>    > >
>    > > Thanks and have nice weekend.
>    > > Kirk