Message-ID: <3656547.1075844102825.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 07:14:00 -0700 (PDT) From: kevin.hyatt@enron.com To: market.team@enron.com Subject: San Juan Efficiencies Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Kevin Hyatt X-To: Market Team X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Michelle_Lokay_Dec2000_June2001_1\Notes Folders\Tw-commercial group X-Origin: LOKAY-M X-FileName: mlokay.nsf 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.