Message-ID: <14864700.1075861339002.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 08:17:46 -0800 (PST)
From: m..tholt@enron.com
To: jay.reitmeyer@enron.com, frank.ermis@enron.com, p..south@enron.com
Subject: FW: Western Frontier Project
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-From: Tholt, Jane M. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JTHOLT>
X-To: Reitmeyer, Jay </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jreitme>, Ermis, Frank </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Fermis>, South, Steven P. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ssouth>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \FERMIS (Non-Privileged)\Ermis, Frank\Inbox
X-Origin: Ermis-F
X-FileName: FERMIS (Non-Privileged).pst



 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Cantrell, Rebecca W.  
Sent:	Thursday, November 08, 2001 1:28 PM
To:	Miller, Stephanie; Tholt, Jane M.; Shively, Hunter S.; Lucci, Paul T.
Subject:	Western Frontier Project

The FERC notice on this project has been issued and comments are due by November 21.  Do we have any interests that would warrant more than a plain intervention?  Let me know if you want a copy of the original filing, with maps, etc.

INSIDE FERC-October 29, 2001
WILLIAMS PUTS MEAT ON THE BONES OF WESTERN FRONTIER PROJECT DESIGN
Touting a need for more pipeline capacity linking the "prolific" supply basins of the central Rockies
and increasingly hungry Mid-Continent markets, The Williams Cos. Inc. last week took the next step by
filing for authorization to build and operate the Western Frontier project.
The sponsor has in hand four negotiated-rate deals for long-term service covering roughly two-thirds
of the 540,000 Dt/day of project design capacity, it told FERC in an Oct. 24 certificate application
(CP02-11). Williams wants to have the $366 million project up and running by Nov. 1, 2003; it
asked the commission to issue a final certificate by Dec. 11, 2002, so that it can commence construction
by the following April.
Williams unveiled initial plans for Western Frontier early last summer (IF, 9 July, 14) and held an open
season in June and July. To carry gas from the Power River, Big Horn, Wind River and Green River basins
- estimated to hold 173 Tcf of potential and recoverable reserves - the new 30-inch-diameter mainline
would run 398 miles, starting at the Cheyenne Hub and ending at an interconnection with the system of
affiliate Williams Gas Pipelines Central Inc. in Beaver County, Okla. Characterizing the Cheyenne Hub as
"a liquid point of supply," Williams asserted that "presently, supply capability to the hub has outpaced
transportation capacity away from the hub to market areas due to insufficient pipeline infrastructure."
Along the way, the Western Frontier mainline would make another interconnection with Williams
Central as well as with Northern Natural Gas Co., ANR Pipeline Co., Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America
and Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co., "thus providing multiple avenues for gas produced in the central
Rockies to be transported throughout the Mid-Continent using the existing pipeline grid."
To "further enhance its supply options," the sponsor wants to build a 9.7-mile lateral from the
mainline to the Wattenberg gas processing plant east of Denver to tap the Denver-Julesberg basin. Rounding
out the project design are two new compressor stations, the 10,000-horsepower Chalk Bluff station to
be constructed at the Cheyenne Hub and the 20,000-hp Denver station to be built in Adams County, Colo.
Following the open season, Williams hammered out precedent agreements with Marathon Oil Co.
(75,000 Dt/day), Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Co. (200,000 Dt/day), Utilicorp United Inc.
(15,000 Dt/day) and Entergy Power Generation Corp. (75,000 Dt/day). The initial term for the deals is 10
years, except for Marathon which committed to a five-year term with an option to extend it an additional
two years, said the application.
"Other shippers have expressed serious interest for the remaining capacity on Western Frontier, and
active negotiations are moving forward with these potential shippers," said the application, adding that
Williams was "confident . . . that the remaining capacity will be committed in the upcoming months."
With the addition of compression, the project could "facilitate relatively inexpensive expansions to
accommodate future market growth," the sponsor told FERC. And that may well be necessary, it continued,
pointing to "stagnant to declining supply" in the Mid-Continent basins coupled with "projected demand
increases." As in many areas of the country, "much of the anticipated demand increase is attributed to
installation and operation of . . . gas-fired electrical generation," it said. The 11,439 Mw of "active winter
generating capacity" in the combined service areas of Western Frontier and Williams Central is expected to
more than double by 2004, said Williams.
The application seeks negotiated rate authority for the project operator, Western Frontier Pipeline
Co. LLC, and approval of initial recourse rates. The maximum daily reservation rate under schedule FTS
would be 35?/Dt for contract demand in Zone 1 and 79.4?/Dt in Zone 2.
Under the negotiated deals reached with the four "anchor" shippers, Utilicorp and Entergy would pay a
combined reservation and commodity rate of 25?/Dt at a 100% load factor for Zone 1 service to the
Williams Central Hugoton station in Kansas, while WEM&T would pay a combined rate of 30?/Dt for
Zone 2 transportation to the Williams Central system in Oklahoma and Marathon would pay 32?/Dt under
the shorter contract for Zone 2 service to interconnects with ANR, Panhandle and Williams Central in
Oklahoma. All transportation would originate at the Cheyenne Hub.