OCT 5, 2020 | USD 15

International Petroleum News and Technology | www.ogj.com

PIPELINE
ECONOMICS

SEISMIC GAS-RESPONSE IMPROVEMENT

SMART GAS-LIFT UNLOCKS VALUE
GAS PLANT ADAPTS TO FEED CHANGE
US REFINERS EMBRACING RENEWABLES

201005OGJC1-C5.indd 1 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 Still think Ultrasonic Cleaning is Expensive?
Think again! is less expensive than Wash Pad Hydroblasting.
Why else would publish that we are“Twice as Fast at Half the Cost”?

It’s simple - they compared an Apple to an Apple!

VS

Washpad
Hydroblasting
26 Days 100 Exchange TAR Proposal 13 Days
Wash Pad Cost/ Day Item Description
Ultrasonic Equipment Included
$265,460 $10,250 Bundle Blaster’s & Pumps (2) Included
$484,380 $18,630 IBC’s & Pumps (3) Included
$119,600 $4,600 Mni-Arm, Wands & Pumps (3) Included
$115,736 $4,451 Consumable (Tips, PPE, etc.) Included
Estim ting

$447,824 $17,224 Hydroblasting Operators (19) Included

ate
blas

$57,728 $2,220 Hydroblasting Supervisors & PM’s (2) Included

$31,500 $1,211 Hydroblasting Safety (1) Included
Hydro

$1,522,228
$105,248 $4,048 Plant Personnel (4) Included
$162,448 $6,248 Riggers (8) Included
$353,600 $13,600 Crane (1) Included
$133,286 $5,126 Water Supply Included
$399,859 $15,379 Wastewater Treatment Included
$182,000 $4,800 Solid Waste Disposal Included
$200,200 $7,700 Vac Trucks (7) Included
$162,500 $6,250 Power & Fuel Included
$39,000 $1,500 Misc. Costs Included
Total
T l Cost Guaranteed
nte Fixed
ed Price
$3,260,369
9 $1,589,400

info@cleanasnew.com www.cleanasnew.com 832-271-2666

201005OGJC1-C5.indd 2
201005OGJ_CleanAsNewRev 1 10/1/20
9/22/20 11:10 AM
8:51 AM
 CONTENTS
Oct. 5, 2020 Volume 118.10

GENERAL INTEREST SPECIAL REPORT

PIPELINE ECONOMICS
API: US petroleum demand continued
to increase in August Liquids pipeline
12 operators’ net incomes
increase 23.5%
Devon, WPX agree to merge Christopher E. Smith
13
42
PGNiG to acquire Shell unit interests in
two North Sea fields Oil and Gas Pipeline
14 Tables

US onshore oil production set to 54

gradually decline after August peak
14

Fed Dallas Energy Survey: Contraction

continues, but moderated
16

Phillips 66 advances planned

maintenance at Alliance refinery
Robert Brelsford
16

Gazprom advancing Power of Siberia 2

gas pipeline
Christopher E. Smith
17

REGULAR FEATURES
NEWSLETTER 4
JOURNALLY SPEAKING 10
OCT 5, 2020 | USD 15

International Petroleum News and Technology | www.ogj.com
PIPELINE
ECONOMICS
SEISMIC GAS-RESPONSE IMPROVEMENT
SMART GAS-LIFT UNLOCKS VALUE
GAS PLANT ADAPTS TO FEED CHANGE
US REFINERS EMBRACING RENEWABLES
COVER EDITORIAL 11
Spectra Energy Corp. hired Michels Corp. to STATISTICS 60
provide horizontal direction drilling (HDD) for CALENDAR 63
its New Jersey-New York Expansion Project.
Michels completed nine HDDs in the NY-NJ
MARKET CONNECTION 64
metropolitan area, including an 8,100-ft, ADVERTISERS INDEX 64
30-in. diameter drill. The estimated cost for
US pipeline construction projects and the
health of FERC-regulated pipeline companies

are both analyzed in OGJ’s annual Pipeline

Economics special report (p. 42). Photo from
Michels.

201005OGJ001-003.indd 1 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 MULTIPHASE FLOW REGIMES FIG. 2

Bubbly Slug Churn

27 32

TECHNOLOGY...

EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT DRILLING & PRODUCTION PROCESSING TRANSPORTATION

FluidWispy
replacement
annular Smart
Annular gas lift unlocks
Mist North Morecambe Liquids pipeline
modeling increases value in shared well-pad onshore terminal adapts operators’ net incomes
reservoir seismic gas comparison to changing feedstock increase 23.5%
response Paul Mundig Martin Heywood Christopher E. Smith
Muhammad Rizwan Mughal 27 Matthew Uhe 42
Gulraiz Akhter Tobias Eckardt
Anees Ahmad Bangash Margaret Greene Oil and Gas Pipeline
18 Ray Racher Tables
Roger Wyatt 54
32

US refiners accelerate
transition to renewable
fuels production
Robert Brelsford
38

38

201005OGJ001-003.indd 2 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 ADVERTISING SALES
US Sales
OGJ ®

Mike Moss, (713) 963-6221, mmoss@endeavorb2b.com

Stan Terry, (254) 339-4849, sterry@endeavorb2b.com
Grace Jordan, (713) 963-6291, ggiddings@endeavorb2b.com In Houston Editorial Offices

Canada Vice President and Group Publisher Oil & Gas Journal
Stan Terry, (254) 339-4849, sterry@endeavorb2b.com Paul Westervelt, pwestervelt@endeavorb2b. 10300 Town Park Drive, Ste. S1000
com Houston, TX 77072
Tel 713.621.9720; Fax 713.963.6285
Mexico / Central America Editor-in-Chief Christopher E. Smith, www.ogj.com
Mike Moss, (713) 963-6221, mmoss@endeavorb2b.com
chriss@endeavorb2b.com
South America Managing Editor, News Mikaila Adams, Corporate Officers
Grace Jordan, (713) 963-6291, ggiddings@endeavorb2b.com madams@endeavorb2b.com
Managing Editor, Economics Conglin Xu, Chief Executive Officer
France / Belgium / Spain / Portugal / cxu@endeavorb2b.com Chris Ferrell
Downstream Technology Editor Robert Brelsford, Chief Revenue Officer/Chief Marketing Officer
Southern Switzerland / Monaco rbrelsford@endeavorb2b.com June Griffin
Stefy Picoitti Thompson, Tel +33 (0) 6 21 23 67 02, Fax
Upstream Technology Editor Alex Procyk, Chief Financial Officer
+33 (0) 4 89 81 99 82, stefaniat@endeavorb2b.com.
aprocyk@endeavorb2b.com William Nurthen
Germany / Austria / Northern Switzerland / Editorial Assistant Vannetta Dibbles, Chief Operating Officer
vdibbles@endeavorb2b.com Patrick Raines
Eastern Europe / Russia / Former Soviet Union Chief Administrative and Legal Officer
Sicking Industrial Marketing, Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 16,
In Tulsa Tracy Kane
59872, Freienohl, Germany. Tel: 49(0)2903.3385.70,
Executive Vice President Key Accounts
Fax: 49(0)2903.3385.82; E-mail: asicking@endeavorb2b.
com. www.sicking.de <http://www.sicking.de> Andreas
Statistics Editor Laura Bell, Scott Bieda
lbell@endeavorb2b.com Executive Vice President Special Projects
Sicking
Senior Art Director Clark Bell, Kristine Russell
Italy cbell@endeavorb2b.com
Ferruccio and Filippo Silvera, 24 20127 Milano Italy; Senior Illustrator Mike Reeder
Tel:+02.28.46 716; E-mail: info@silvera.it Production Manager Shirley Gamboa Subscriber Service

China / Singapore / Korea / Japan / Asia Pacific In Washington PO Box 3258, Northbrook, IL 60065-3258
Michael Yee, 19 Tanglin Road #05-20, Tanglin Shopping Tel: 1-847-559-7598
Center, Singapore 247909, Republic of Singapore; Tel: 65 OGJ Washington Correspondent Alan Kovski, Email: OGJ@omeda.com
9616.8080, Fax: 65.6734.0655; E-mail: yfyee@singnet. akovski@endeavorb2b.com
com.sg Audience Development Manager
Editorial Advisory Board Emily Martin
United Kingdom / Scandinavia / Denmark /
The Netherlands / Middle East Michelle Michot Foss Center for Energy Stud-
Graham Hoyle, 10 Springfield Close, Cross, Axbridge, ies, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice Custom Article Reprints
Somerset BS26 2FE, Phone: +44 1934 733871 Mobile: University Stan Terry, 254-339-4849,
+44 7927 889916, ghoyle@endeavorb2b.com or ghms@ Michael Lynch Strategic Energy & Economic sterry@endeavorb2b.com
btinternet.com Research Inc., Amherst, Mass.
Tom Miesner Pipeline Knowledge & Development,
OGJ Reprints Houston Corporate Headquarters
Stan Terry, (254) 339-4849, sterry@endeavorb2b.com Kent Perry Gas Technology Institute, Des Plaines, Endeavor Business Media
Ill. 331 54th Ave N., Nashville, TN 37209
Custom Publishing Ignacio Quintero III Chevron Nigeria Ltd., Houston
Roy Markum, Vice-President/Custom Publishing, rmar- John Thorogood Drilling Global Consultant LLP,
kum@endeavorb2b.com, Phone: 713-963-6220, Insch, Scotland
Fax: 713-963-6228 Steve Tobias NearFX, Houston
Shree Vikas ConocoPhillips Co., Houston
Marketing Solutions Colin Woodward Woodward International Ltd.,
If you need help creating your print ad, digital media
Durham, UK
banner ads, websites or other branding efforts, please
contact the OGJ sales representative listed above.

Oil & Gas Journal

10300 Town Park Drive, Ste. S1000, Houston, TX 77072 Member Alliance for Audited Media & American
www.ogj.com Business Media

Oil & Gas Journal® (ISSN 0030-1388, print; 1944-9151, digital / USPS 405-760) is published 12x per year - monthly the first Monday of each month
in print and other Mondays in digital form by Endeavor Business Media, LLC, 1233 Janesville Avenue, Fort Atkinson WI 53538. Periodicals postage
paid at Fort Atkinson, WI 53538 and at additional mailing offices. SUBSCRIPTION PRICES: in the US: 1 year $112; Canada: 1 year $122; all other
countries: 1 year $173. Digital Premium, worldwide: 1 year $89. Single copies are $15 each. Discounts are available for group subscriptions and
2-year or 3-year terms. Inquire within to: OGJ@omeda.com for additional rates. Send payments to: Oil & Gas Journal, PO Box 3258, Northbrook, IL
60065-3258. These rates apply only to individuals holding responsible positions in the petroleum industry. Publisher reserves the right to refuse
non-qualified subscriptions. POSTMASTER: Send address corrections to Oil & Gas Journal, P.O. Box 3258, Northbrook, IL 60065-3258, USA. Oil &
Gas Journal and OGJ is a registered trademark. ©Endeavor Business Media, LLC 2020. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited. We make portions of our subscriber list available to carefully screened companies that offer products and services that
may be important for your work. If you do not want to receive those offers and/or information via direct mail, please let us know by contacting us at
List Services Oil & Gas Journal, 7666 S. 61st Street, Ste. 230, Tulsa OK, 74133. Printed in the USA. GST No. 126813153. Publications Mail Agreement
no. 40612608.

201005OGJ001-003.indd 3 10/1/20 11:10 AM


OGJ ®
Newsletter International News
for oil and gas professionals
GENERAL INTEREST Q U IC K TA K E S
Trump extends drilling moratorium
President Trump extended a drilling moratorium to federal wa-
ters off the coast of North Carolina with a decision issued Sept.
25 under authority of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The moratorium will run 10 years, from July 1, 2022, to June
30, 2032. It is an extension of a moratorium covering the east-
ern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coasts of Florida, Georgia,
and South Carolina.
Originally the moratorium applied only to the eastern Gulf of
Mexico and was scheduled to expire June 30, 2022, but in early
September Trump added another decade to its length and ex-
panded it to the South Atlantic coast (OGJ Online, Sept. 8, 2020).
Trump did not offer an explanation for his North Carolina de-
cision, but Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) mentioned the moratorium
5 days earlier in a video statement posted to his Senate website.
“This morning, I spoke with President Trump, and I asked
him to extend the offshore drilling moratorium to North Caro-
lina. I’m pleased to announce the president will be doing just
that,” Tillis said Sept. 21.
Tillis is in a race for reelection, with polls suggesting he
and his Democratic challenger, Cal Cunningham, are running
neck-and-neck. Trump also has to worry about winning North
Carolina in his own reelection bid.
Trade associations representing the oil and gas industry re-
leased statements expressing their disappointment.
The decision “takes thousands of new jobs and critical rev-
enue for states off the table at a time when the economy is strug-
gling,” said Lem Smith, vice-president of upstream policy at the
American Petroleum Institute.
Moratoriums lead to “outsourcing of energy production and
economic growth as countries such as Russia happily wait in the
wings to make up our domestic energy supply gap,” said Erik
Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association.
Petrobras seeks operatorship of Foz Do Amazonas
assets
Petrobras agreed to acquire operatorship and working interest
in five exploration blocks in the Foz Do Amazonas basin from
Total E&P do Brazil Ltda. The deal will see Total exit blocks
FZA-M-57, FZA-M-86, FZA-M-88, FZA-M-125, and FZA-
4 Oil & Gas Journal
201005OGJ004-009.indd 4
Oct. 5, 2020
For up-to-the-minute news,
visit www.ogjonline.com
M-127, which lie in ultradeep waters 120 km offshore Brazil.
Earlier in September, Total said it had resigned operatorship
in Foz do Amazonas basin and had notified block partners in
August (OGJ Online, Sept. 8, 2020).
The five blocks were acquired in the National Petroleum,
Natural Gas, and Biofuels Agency’s (ANP) 11th bidding round
by a consortium operated by Total (40%), in partnership with
Petrobras (30%) and BP Energy do Brasil Ltda. (30%).
Petrobras intends to increase its stake to up to 70%, depend-
ing on the preemptive right of BP.
Closing of the proposed transaction is subject to the regula-
tory agencies’ approval.
NPD approves Tor II startup
ConocoPhillips gained approval for startup of Tor II facilities
in the southern North Sea from the Norwegian Petroleum Di-
rectorate. The operator expects startup to begin in this year’s
fourth quarter.
Tor, discovered in 1970, lies 13 km northeast of Ekofisk field
in 70 m of water with a reservoir depth of 3,200 m. The field
mainly lies on Block 2/4 in production license 018, but a small
part extends into Block 2/5 in PL 006. It produced from 1978
to 2015. Oil and gas was produced from fractured chalk of Late
Cretaceous age in the Tor formation and of early Paleocene age
in the Ekofisk formation. At shutdown, only 20% of the re-
sources in place had been produced.
A plan for development and operation (PDO) for new de-
velopment of the field, Tor II, was submitted in July 2019, and
approved by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy in the fall
(OGJ Online, July 1, 2019).
Tor II comprises two new subsea templates to be installed on
Tor field about 1 km west of the original Tor platform, with no
connection to the shut-in facilities. Eight new production wells
will be drilled and connected by pipeline to existing risers at
the Ekofisk complex, about 13 km away. Resource potential for
the Tor II project is 60-70 MMboe.
ConocoPhillips is operator with an 30.66% interest. P ​ art-
ners are Total, Var Energi, Equinor, and Petoro.
BOEM, BSEE to research potential policy changes
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) aim
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 When an explosion strikes,
your last line of defense is the
door you’re standing behind.

Our blast resistant door assembly was independently tested and proven to meet
ASTM F2247-03 Door Response Damage Category 1 (undamaged) and Category
2 (damaged but operable) as well as the process industry’s PIP STC 01018 Blast
Resistant Building Design Criteria.

And we don’t stop there. Our project experts will

provide complimentary shop drawings
customized to your project’s
specifications and will oversee
proper installation.

For more information, visit

www.assaabloydss.com/blast

Ceco Door | Corbin Russwin | Curries | SARGENT

Copyright © 2020 ASSA ABLOY Inc. All rights reser ved.

201005OGJ004-009.indd 15
200907OGJ_AssaAbloy 10/1/20
8/25/20 11:10 AM
3:45 PM
 ICE BRENT / NYMEX LIGHT SWEET CRUDE
¢/gal US INDUSTRY SCOREBOARD — 10/5
42.50
42.00
41.50 4 wk. 4 wk. avg. Change, YTD YTD avg. Change,
41.00 Latest week 9/18 average year ago1 % average1 year ago1 %
40.50 Product supplied, 1,000 b/d
40.00
39.50 Motor gasoline 8,542 9,391 (9.0) 8,097 9,375 (13.6)
39.00 Distillate 3,600 3,923 (8.2) 3,611 4,001 (9.7)
Sept. 23 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. 28 Sept. 29 Jet fuel 921 1,700 (45.8) 1,066 1,764 (39.6)
Residual 235 385 (39.0) 239 297 (19.5)
Other products 4,483 5,734 (21.8) 5,110 5,353 (4.5)
TOTAL PRODUCT SUPPLIED 17,781 21,133 (15.9) 18,123 20,790 (12.8)
WTI CUSHING / BRENT SPOT Supply, 1,000 b/d
¢/gal
Crude production 10,325 12,425 (16.9) 11,766 12,152 (3.2)
42.00
NGL production 5,084 4,827 5.3 5,023 4,671 7.5
41.50 Crude imports 5,125 6,764 (24.2) 6,023 7,009 (14.1)
41.00 Product imports 1,960 2,086 (6.0) 1,960 2,297 (14.7)
40.50 Other supply2 1,981 2,865 (30.9) 1,921 2,588 (25.8)
40.00 TOTAL SUPPLY 24,475 28,967 (15.5) 26,693 28,717 (7.0)
39.50 Net product imports (2,715) (3,066) — (3,048) (2,808) —
39.00
Refining, 1,000 b/d
38.00
Sept. 23 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. 28 Sept. 29
Crude runs to stills 13,376 16,722 (20.0) 14,455 16,646 (13.2)
Input to crude stills 13,930 17,134 (18.7) 14,929 17,012 (12.2)
% utilization 74.8 91.0 — 79.2 90.5 —
NYMEX NATURAL GAS / SPOT GAS - HENRY HUB Latest Previous Same week Change,
$/MMbtu Latest week 9/18 week week1 Change year ago1 Change %
3.000 Stocks, 1,000 bbl
2.800
2.600 Crude oil 494,406 496,045 (1,639) 419,538 74,868 17.8
2.400
Motor gasoline 227,499 231,524 (4,025) 230,204 (2,705) (1.2)
Distillate 175,942 179,306 (3,364) 133,685 42,257 31.6
2.200 Jet fuel–kerosine 39,025 39,085 (60) 45,453 (6,428) (14.1)
2.000 Residual 33,253 33,359 (106) 29,526 3,727 12.6
1.800
Stock cover (days)3 Change, % Change, %
1.600
Sept. 23 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. 28 Sept. 291
Crude 37.0 36.2 2.2 24.2 52.9
Motor gasoline 26.6 26.6 0.0 24.1 10.4
Distillate 48.9 49.8 (1.8) 34.5 41.7
ICE GAS OIL / NYMEX ULSD HEATING OIL2 Propane 92.2 87.2 5.7 100.7 (8.4)
¢/gal Futures prices4 9/25 Change Change Change,%
113.00
111.00
109.00 Light sweet crude ($/bbl) 39.88 39.56 0.32 59.31 (19.43) (32.8)
107.00 Natural gas, $/MMbtu 2.04 2.21 (0.17) 2.61 (0.58) (22.1)
105.00
103.00
1
Based on revised figures. 2Includes other liquids, refinery processing gain, and unaccounted for crude oil. 3Stocks divided by aver-
101.00
age daily product supplied for the prior 4 weeks. 4Weekly average of daily closing futures prices.
Source: US Energy Information Administration, Wall Street Journal
99.00
Sept. 23 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. 28 Sept. 29

BAKER HUGHES INTERNATIONAL RIG COUNT: TOTAL WORLD / TOTAL ONSHORE / TOTAL OFFSHORE
2,400
PROPANE - MT. BELVIEU / BUTANE - MT. BELVIEU 2,100
$/bbl
64.50 1,800
64.00
1,500
63.50
63.00 1,200
52.00 1,049
51.00 900 850
50.00 200
199
49.00 Aug. 19 Sept. 19 Oct. 19 Nov. 19 Dec. 19 Jan. 20 Feb. 20 Mar. 20 Apr. 20 May 20 Jun. 20 Jul. 20 Aug. 20
Sept. 23 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. 28 Sept. 291
Note: Monthly average count

NYMEX GASOLINE (RBOB)3/ NY SPOT GASOLINE4 BAKER HUGHES RIG COUNT: US / CANADA
1,100
¢/gal 1,000
130.00 900 860
128.00 800
126.00 700
124.00 600
500
122.00
400
120.00 261
300
118.00 200 127
116.00 100 71
Sept. 23 Sept. 24 Sept. 25 Sept. 28 Sept. 291
0
1Not 2Ultra-low 3Reformulated
available sulfer diesel gasoline blendstock for 7/19/19 8/2/19 8/16/19 8/30/19 9/13/19 9/27/19 7/17 /20 7/31/20 8/14/20 8/28/20 9/11/20 9/25/20
oxygen blending 4Nonoxygenated regular unleaded 7/12/19 7/26/19 8/9/19 8/23/19 9/6/19 9/20/19 7/10/20 7/24/20 8/7/20 8/21/20 9/4/20 9/18/20
Note: End of week average count

6 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ004-009.indd 6 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 to advance new research into whether certain policy changes
could help increase oil and gas production from deepwater in-
frastructure already in place in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM).
The study will examine specific economic parameters used
by BOEM and BSEE for new and high-cost technologies like
extended-reach subsea tiebacks. Implementation of these pa-
rameters could minimize stranded or left behind hydrocarbon
resources. This research would apply to developments that
might connect to deepwater facilities that have additional pro-
duction capacity.
Deepwater production, which comes from depths greater
than 200 m, accounts for 92% of total GoM offshore oil produc-
tion, and 14% of all domestic oil produced in the US. In 2019,
facilities in deepwater GoM averaged a record-breaking 1.7 mil-
lion b/d of oil.
About 4 out of 5 deepwater facilities are producing less than
50% of their daily oil production capacity, based on a 3-year av-
erage of daily production rates. BOEM and BSEE identified con-
tingent resources that exist 30-60 miles from existing facilities.
This research will identify any difficulties that new technologi-
cal advances may face, that could potentially hinder production
and project economics.
EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT Q U IC K TA K E S
Petrobras finds hydrocarbons in southern Campos
basin
Petrobras identified hydrocarbons in the first exploratory well
of Block C-M-657 in the southern portion of the Campos basin
offshore Brazil. Well 1-BRSA-1376D-RJS (Naru) is about 308
km from Rio de Janeiro in 2,892 m of water.
The well verified presence of hydrocarbons in carbonate
reservoirs of the presalt section. Well data will be analyzed to
better assess the potential and direct exploratory activities in
the area.
Block C-M-657 was acquired in March 2018 during the
National Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels Agency’s (ANP)
15th bidding round. Petrobras is operator with 30%. Partners
are ExxonMobil 40% and Equinor 30%.
Strike begins new appraisal program at West Erregulla
The 50-50 joint venture of Strike Energy Ltd. and Warrego En-
ergy Ltd. began the first of three new appraisal wells on West
Erregulla gas field onshore North Perth basin permit EP469.
West Erregulla-3 spudded Sept. 21. It will be followed im-
mediately by Nos. 4 and 5.
Strike, as operator, said all three wells will be drilled to
depths of about 5,000 m.
West Erregulla-3 is designed to determine the continuation
of the commercial gas accumulation in the northern fault block,
while West Erregulla-4 and -5 will appraise the reservoir distri-
bution in the central fault block.
The wells will be cored and logged before being flow tested
and, if successful, completed as future producers across the
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 20207
201005OGJ004-009.indd 7
Kingia-High Cliff reservoirs for the proposed Phase 1 field de-
velopment.
The Wagina reservoir gas discovery in West Erregulla-2 also
will be appraised during the West Erregulla-4 and -5 drilling
program.
The JV made the three-reservoir West Erregulla discovery
drilling West Erregulla-2 in August-September 2019.
Strike and Warrego still aim to bring West Erregulla Phase
1 development on stream during first-half 2022 via a 50 tera-
joules/day processing plant and connecting pipeline to the
nearby Dampier-Bunbury trunkline.
Empire spuds Carpentaria-1 in Beetaloo basin
Empire Energy Group Ltd. has spudded its Carpentaria-1 well
in permit EP187, Beetaloo subbasin, Northern Territory, Aus-
tralia.
The news follows the Sept. 22 report that Origin Energy be-
gan fracturing its Kyalla-117 well near Daly Waters (OGJ On-
line, Sept. 22, 2020).
Empire holds 100% interest in EP187 and plans to drill the
Carpentaria wildcat to a depth of about 2,900 m.
The company plans to evaluate the two unconventional
shale targets—Velkerri and Kyalla—which which have been
independently assessed to hold an estimated prospective re-
source of 2.4 tcf of gas equivalent in the permit.
Drilling and evaluation is expected to take 40 days.
The well design allows for suspension and future re-entry,
fracture stimulation, and flow testing which the company ex-
pects to begin in second-quarter 2021.
DRILLING & PRODUCTION Q U IC K TA K E S
CNOOC starts production at Jinzhou 25-1
CNOOC Ltd. commenced production at Jinzhou 25-1 oilfield
6/11 in central Liaodong Bay, Bohai Sea. Average water depth
at the site is 22.5 m.
A total of 19 production wells and 10 water injection wells are
planned. Peak production of 16,500 bo/d is expected in 2023.
One eight-legged wellhead platform was built in connection
with the project, which connects to existing facilities at Jinzhou
25- and Jinzhou 25-1S oilfields.
The project is one of 10 the operator expected to put on
stream this year as part of a plan to steadily increase its oil and
gas reserves and production through 2022.
CNOOC holds 100% interest in Jinzhou 25-1 oilfield 6/11.
Husky commissions third deepwater gas field
offshore China
Husky Energy commissioned Liuhua 29-1 field, Block 29/26,
in the South China Sea. It is China’s first deepwater gas field
development with about 1,300 m water depth. First gas is ex-
pected in early November.
Tied into existing infrastructure at Liwan, Liuhua 29-1 is
the third field in the Liwan gas project, 300 km southeast of the
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, that also includes
Liwan 3-1 and Liuhua 34-2 fields (OGJ Online, Mar. 31, 2014;
Dec. 15, 2014).
The seven-well project was completed safely, ahead of sched-
ule, and $100 million below budget, the company said.
In total, the Liwan gas project is expected to deliver around
$950 million (Husky working interest) from operations in
2021. Liuhua 29-1 alone is expected to generate $1.3 billion in
funds from operations for Husky over the next decade.
Year-to-date total production from Liwan 3-1 and Liuhua
34-2 is about 390 MMcfd of natural gas and 16,000 b/d of as-
sociated liquids. Total production in 2021 is expected to be 450
MMcfd and 17,500 b/d liquids.
Husky Oil China, a subsidiary of Husky Energy, holds 75%
interest in Liuhua 29-1. China National Oil Corp. (CNOOC)
owns the remaining 25%. Husky is operator of the deepwater
infrastructure of the Liwan gas project while CNOOC operates
the shallow water infrastructure.
Norway production decreased in August, NPD says
Norway’s daily liquids production averaged 2.019 million b/d
in August, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate reported. Nor-
way’s daily liquids production averaged 2.062 million b/d in July.
On Apr. 29, the government decided to implement a cut in
Norwegian oil production. The production figures for oil in Au-
gust include this cut of 134,000 b/d in the second half of 2020.
Oil production in August is 0.2% lower than the NPD’s forecast,
and 0.1% below the forecast so far this year.
The average daily liquids production in August included
1.722 million b/o, 270 000 bbl of NGL, and 26,000 bbl of con-
densate.
The update takes the authorities’ oil production regulation
into account, as well as delayed start-up of fields under devel-
opment and oil production in the first quarter.
The total petroleum production for the first 8 months of the
year is about 153.6 million standard cu m oil equivalents.
Wellesley drills dry hole in North Sea PL 829
Wellesley Petroleum AS drilled a dry hole in North Sea produc-
tion license 829, about 75 km north of Gjøa field and 60 km
northwest of Florø in 211 m of water.
The objective of well 6204/11-3, the first in the license, was
to prove petroleum in reservoir rocks in the Lower Cretaceous
(Åsgard formation). The well was drilled by the Borgland Dol-
phin drilling facility to a vertical depth of 1,290 m subsea and
was terminated in basement rock.
No reservoir rocks were encountered. About 30 m of aquif-
erous sandstone was encountered in underlying Jurassic rocks
with moderate to very good reservoir quality, but the well is
dry. Although the well was not formation-tested, data acquisi-
tion was undertaken. The well has been plugged and the Bor-
gland Dolphin is headed to Kvina Shipyard in Fedafjorden.
Wellesley Petroleum is operator (60%) with partners Equi-
nor (20%) and Petoro AS (20%).
8 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ004-009.indd 8
PROCESSING Q U IC K TA K E S
Hengli starts up new PSA units at Dalian complex
Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Co. Ltd. (HPDC) has commis-
sioned seven new pressure swing adsorption (PSA) units from
Honeywell UOP LLC to supply high-purity hydrogen at its
20-million tonnes/year (tpy) crude-to-paraxylene integrated re-
fining and petrochemical complex in Hengli Petrochemical In-
dustrial Park (HPIP) at Changxing Island Harbor Industrial Zone
in Dalian, Liaoning Province, China (OGJ Online, July 11, 2019).
HPDC will use the new Honeywell UOP Polybed PSA units
to produce about 1.4 million cu m/hr high-purity hydrogen in
its downstream hydrotreating operations to help produce die-
sel, gasoline, and jet fuel, as well as to create feedstock for pet-
rochemical products, the service provider said on Sept. 21.
Alongside technology licensing, Honeywell UOP also pro-
vided services, equipment, catalysts, and adsorbents for the skid-
mounted PSA units, which use proprietary UOP adsorbents to
remove impurities at high pressure from hydrogen-containing
process streams, allowing hydrogen to be recovered and upgrad-
ed to more than 99.9% purity to meet refining needs.
Startup of the new PSA units follows HPDC’s commission-
ing of a new 300,000-tpy STRATCO alkylation unit—based on
technology from E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. subsidiary Du-
Pont Clean Technologies—at the Dalian complex in July (OGJ
Online, July 24, 2020).
HPDC previously engaged Honeywell UOP to provide its
proprietary Callidus advanced flares and low-nitrogen oxides
(NOx) burner technology to help reduce NOx emissions at the
Dalian integrated complex (OGJ Online, July 18, 2018).
Equatorial Guinea advances Punta Europa refinery
Equatorial Guinea is moving forward with its previously an-
nounced plan to build a modular crude oil refinery in Punta
Europa, Malabo, on Bioko Island.
VFuels LLC, Houston, has completed execution of a feasibil-
ity study for construction of the proposed refinery project, which
will cost between $55-76 million, Equatorial Guinea’s Ministry of
Mines and Hydrocarbons (MMH) said via a Sept. 19 release from
the Equatorial Guinea Press and Information Office.
With the feasibility study now completed, MMH said at the
time that “within the next few weeks” it will begin talks with
interested investors in hopes of signing a heads of agreement for
the project in December 2020.
Based on the current timeline and pending selection of in-
vestors, the government of Equatorial Guinea—which also will
hold interest in the project as well as provide fiscal incentives for
interested partners—plans to reach final investment decision on
the project during first-quarter 2021, according to MMH.
To be operated by strategic partner Marathon Oil Co., the
planned Punta Europa refinery will process 5,000-10,000 b/d
of raw condensate from Alba and Alen fields and be implement-
ed in two phases, the first of which will last 20-24 months, fol-
lowed by a second 33-36-month phase, MMH said.
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 The refining project comes as part of MMH’s initiative of
the Year of Investment 2020, which is seeking investments for
a modular refinery and storage tanks in the continental region,
as well as promotion of other projects derived from methanol,
among others.
Alongside enabling Equatorial Guinea to reduce its depen-
dence on refined product imports, the proposed Punta Europa
modular refinery project also will help avoid a reduction in the
republic’s exchange reserves as well as provide higher-quality
fuels to regional consumers produced from that domestic pro-
duction, according to MMH.
Citgo, Phillips 66 advance post-Laura repairs
Citgo Petroleum Corp. remains on schedule for an October re-
start of its 425,000-b/d refining complex in Lake Charles, La.,
following damages to the refinery resulting from high winds
caused by Hurricane Laura’s Aug. 27 landfall along the US Gulf
Coast in southwestern Louisiana.
As power gradually is restored to the area, Citgo continues
to make critical repairs at the Lake Charles refinery, the opera-
tor said on Sept. 23.
Specifically, partial power has been restored to two of the
three refinery substations, and with repairs to damaged refin-
ery equipment progressing well, the refinery remains on track
for a phased restart of operations with all units returned to ser-
vice by mid to late-October, Citgo said.
The operator previously said that, while the refinery fared
well overall, the complex sustained major damage to most of
its cooling towers, minor damage to noncritical tanks, and a
large amount of unidentified miscellaneous damage requiring
noncritical repairs (OGJ Online, Sept. 11, 2020).
Power supplied via generators at its terminals enabled Cit-
go’s Lake Charles refinery rack to resume supply of ultra-low
sulfur diesel (ULSD) to regional customers on Sept. 8.
As of Sept. 14, fellow regional refiner Phillips 66 said it ex-
pected its 249,000-b/d Lake Charles refining complex in West-
lake, La., to become operational within 2 weeks pending resto-
ration of reliable electricity.
While unidentified repairs required at the site will take at
least 3 months, Phillips 66 confirmed the refinery could remain
in operation while work is under way.
Hurricane Laura made landfall near Cameron, La., at 1:00
a.m. CST on Aug. 27 as a Category 4 storm with maximum
sustained winds of 150 mph and a minimum central pressure
of 938 mb, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s National Hurricane Center for the Atlantic re-
gion.
TRANSPORTATION Q U IC K TA K E S
Qatar Petroleum orders compression for LNG
Qatar Petroleum has ordered 12 main refrigerant compressors
(MRC) from Baker Hughes Co. for use in the LNG production
segment of Qatar Petroleum’s North Field East (NFE) project,
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 20209
201005OGJ004-009.indd 9
being executed by Qatargas. The MRC will be used as part of
four LNG trains adding 33 million tonnes/year (tpy) of liquefac-
tion capacity, increasing Qatar’s total LNG production capacity
to 110 million tpy.
Each MRC train will consist of three Frame 9E DLN Ultra
Low NOx gas turbines and six centrifugal compressors for a
total scope of supply of 12 gas turbines to drive 24 centrifu-
gal compressors. Packaging, manufacturing, and testing of the
gas turbine-compressor trains will take place at Baker Hughes’
plants in Florence and Massa, Italy.
Qatar Petroleum expects to produce first gas from NFE by
end 2025. The second phase of the North Field LNG expansion
project, North Field South, will further increase Qatar’s LNG
production capacity to 126 million tpy.
The company began development drilling for NFE earlier
this year, spudding the first of 80 development wells from eight
wellhead platforms (OGJ Online, Apr. 15, 2020).
Harvest Ingleside pipeline shipping to Moda center
Harvest Midstream Co. commissioned two connections be-
tween Harvest’s Ingleside pipeline and Moda Midstream. The
first connection provides shippers access from the Harvest
Ingleside pipeline to Moda Midstream LLC’s Ingleside Energy
Center in Ingleside, Tex. The second connection is a bi-direc-
tion connection between the Harvest Ingleside pipeline and
Moda Midstream’s Taft terminal in Taft, Tex. The bi-directional
capability allows Moda’s Taft terminal to receive crude volumes
from the Ingleside pipeline and also deliver volumes to the In-
gleside pipeline.
Harvest noted completion of the 24-mile, 24-in. OD pipeline
in June (OGJ Online, June 23, 2020). It will ship as much as
380,000 b/d supplied by existing Harvest Eagle Ford pipeline
systems. Full operations of Harvest’s Midway terminal were ex-
pected to begin Oct. 1.
Byron Energy completes SM58-59 pipelay
Byron Energy Ltd.’s South Marsh Island Block 58 and 59 oil and
natural gas pipeline installation has been completed offshore
Louisiana by Chet Morrison Contractors LLC.
Morrison installed 11.5 miles of 3-, 4-, 6- and 8-in. OD
pipeline in water depths of 140 ft. Installation included burial,
risers, tie-ins, mitigation of crossings, pigging, hydrostatic test-
ing, and commissioning. Morrison’s CM-15 lay barge complet-
ed installation.
The company coordinated with export pipeline operators
to install hot tap tie-ins to their transmission lines. This was
performed using diving support vessel (DSV) Kelly Morrison,
while DSV Joanne Morrison provided both saturation and sur-
face diving support for riser clamp, pipeline tie-in, and various
dive operations.
Byron Energy earlier this year installed its nine-slot South
Marsh Island 58 G (SM58 G) production platform. SM58 G
has a designed production capacity of 8,000 b/d of oil and 80
MMcfd of gas (OGJ Online, June 11, 2020).
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 JOURNALLY SPEAKING
Keeping it together
The oil and gas industry rises to its challenges
like few others. Whether something needs to be
expanded, accelerated, contained, remediated, or
just plain figured out, the answer has rarely, if ever,
been “we can’t do that,” even if it’s never been done
before. Time pressure? All the better. We’ve got oth-
er things we need to figure out anyway.
Among the many positive side-effects of this
sort of approach is the collaboration it can foster.
Sometimes fierce competition yields the best re-
sults; no less so in oil and gas than any other busi-
ness. At other times, however, the most effective
CHRISTOPHER E. SMITH
way forward is together.
Editor-in-Chief The on-going coronavirus (COVID-19) pan-
demic has forced the rethinking of just about ev-
ery process that requires people coming together
in person. Industry conferences and association
meetings are among the activities most heavily
impacted, with almost all such events either can-
celled or moved to a virtual platform. Education
has also had to retool its approach. As I write, my
daughter is in the next room attending school on-
line.
Earlier this year, the Pipeliners Young Pro-
fessionals (PYP) of Houston, an offshoot of the
Pipeliners Association of Houston (PAH), recog-
nized the need for its members to continue their
professional education despite COVID-19. Many
members of both organizations had already taken
pipeline technology courses from the University of
Texas at Austin’s Petroleum Extension (PETEX) in
Houston, prompting PYP-PAH to contact PETEX
about the possibility of converting the courses into
an online format.
In late 2019, PETEX began creating an online
version of its Pipeline Technology-Design course
(the first of three, also including Pipeline Technol-
ogy-Operations, and Pipeline Technology-Mainte-
nance), making it available to PAH members July
1, 2020, through the PETEX learning manage-
ment system. PAH subject matter experts helped
develop and review the content with PETEX. The
two organizations plan to discuss providing the
second and third installments of the series soon.
10 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ010-011.indd 10
Dr. Eric Roe, executive director of PETEX and
assistant dean for continuing engineering educa-
tion at the Cockrell School of Engineering said
“there is no better way to ensure industry success
than a skilled and knowledgeable workforce. In-
dustry associations have always looked for ways to
make sure their members and member companies
have the tools to succeed.”
Brandy Roberts, PAH past president said “we
see tons of value just by being able to partner with
PETEX, because it will draw the attention of the
younger professionals to want to join our asso-
ciation, which in turn will likely secure our or-
ganization’s future.” She also pointed out that the
knowledge they gain strengthens the industry as
a whole.
Ties that bind
I’ve taken PETEX courses and been a member of
PAH for 15 years. At my very first association meet-
ing I met Tom Miesner, then former president of
Conoco Pipe Line Co. and now founder of Pipe-
line Knowledge & Development (PKD). Pipeline
Knowledge, from which I’ve also taken classes, of-
fers a variety of instructor-led virtual training pro-
grams, covering everything from construction to
control-room operations.
This is how the act of connecting works; people
come together through their various organizations
to not just do business but to learn from one an-
other. People who are students in one room can be
teachers in the next.
Executives, educators, journalists, engineers,
sales people; there isn’t an enterprise on earth
that doesn’t need or provide one of these kinds
of people. Groups like PAH bring them together.
Organizations such as PETEX and PKD provide
them the sort of ongoing interdisciplinary training
they need to continue to progress in their careers.
There will be a time when we’re all together
again. Until then, take advantage of the services
being provided by these organizations and others
like them, both to maintain the contacts you’ve
developed and continue to develop yourself.
10/1/20 11:10 AM

Apparent reversal
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 11
201005OGJ010-011.indd 11
On Sept. 8, 2020, President Donald J. Trump vis-
ited Jupiter, Fla., to announce he would extend the
ban on Outer Continental Shelf mineral leasing
along the state’s coasts as well as those of Geor-
gia and South Carolina. Three weeks later Pres.
Trump added North Carolina to the order. The
current ban, covering the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
(EGOM) was to expire July 1, 2022. Pres. Trump’s
action would extend it through June 30, 2032 and
expand its geographic scope.
In making the order, Trump cited 1953 Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act Section 43 U.S.C.
1341(a), which states that “the President of the
United States, may, from time to time withdraw
from disposition, any of the unleased lands of the
Outer Continental Shelf.” The 2006 Gulf of Mexi-
co Energy Security Act, signed into law by George
W. Bush, established the current EGOM ban.
The American Petroleum Institute decried ex-
tension of the moratorium as “the wrong approach
at the wrong time,” citing hundreds of thousands
of potential jobs, US energy security, and billions
of potential dollars lost from state coffers. The
National Offshore Industries Association said,
“limiting access to our offshore energy resources
only shortchanges America and dulls our national
outlook.”
Pres. Trump generally has acted as an ally of
the oil and gas industry, offering royalty reduc-
tions and lease suspensions to producers operat-
ing on public lands, reversing the previous ad-
ministration’s ban on Arctic oil and gas leasing,
and as recently as 2 years ago proposing a sweep-
ing expansion of drilling is US waters, when the
US Department of the Interior proposed a 2019-
24 US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas
leasing program which would have made more
than 90% of the nation’s federal offshore acreage
available. By contrast, the 2017-22 program en-
acted late in the Obama administration put 94%
of the OCS off-limits to oil and gas activity.
EDITORIAL
Making it permanent?
Congressman Francis Rooney (Fla.– R) last year
introduced H.R. 205 to make permanent the
moratorium on drilling in the EGOM east of the
Military Mission Line (MML), which demarks a
training area. The bill passed the House in Sep-
tember 2019 by a 248-180 vote. Rooney has since
lobbied the Trump administration regarding the
need to keep offshore drilling from being “a po-
tential danger to our economy, ecology, and mili-
tary readiness,” according to a statement issued
after Trump’s order, and called on the Senate to
“realize what the House of Representatives and
President Trump realize — that Florida needs to
be protected from offshore drilling — and to con-
vert this executive order into formal legislation
like H.R. 205 so that it cannot be easily reversed
by a future administration.”
But this isn’t likely to happen. Nor should the
country’s energy companies spend too much time
handwringing regarding the apparent reversal and
what it means regarding Trump’s view of the industry.
Look no further for evidence than the similarly
timed decision to deny retroactive biofuels waivers
to US refiners. The waivers had been introduced
to help mitigate the cost of blending requirements
to smaller refiners and Trump had roughly qua-
drupled the number of exemptions granted, with
units of some of the country’s largest oil compa-
nies among the recipients.
These actions have more in common than a
seeming reversal of course by a President who has
long touted his desire for the US to achieve en-
ergy dominance: they woo voters in states Trump
needs to win to remain President, only potentially
undermining him in states he’s likely to carry such
as Texas and Louisiana.
So, rest easy oil and gas. Pres. Trump is still act-
ing on your behalf. He just needs to get reelected to
continue to do so. At which point he can roll back
the orders as easily as he put them forward.
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 GENERAL INTEREST
API: US petroleum demand
continued to increase in August
US petroleum demand increased in August, and supply de-
creased, while Gulf Coast refineries, petrochemical plants,
and export terminals coped with seasonal disruptions due
to Hurricane Laura, according to American Petroleum Insti-
tute data.
Crude oil and refined product exports increased during
the month, while imports fell. Together these fundamentals
contributed to lower crude oil stocks (but higher refined
product inventories) and higher prices against an economic
backdrop that has broadly improved.
Demand
US petroleum demand, as measured by total domestic petro-
leum deliveries, was 18.3 million b/d in August. This reflect-
ed a 0.2% increase from July but a decrease of 13.6% (2.9
million b/d) below August 2019 levels. The rebound since
April has amounted to 3.6 million b/d so far with motor
gasoline accounting for 82% of the recovery from the CO-
VID-19 pandemic.
Consumer gasoline demand, measured by motor gasoline
deliveries, was 8.8 million b/d in August. This was a month-
ly increase of 1.5% (0.1 million b/d) but remained 10.4% (1.0
million b/d) below year-ago levels.
Although gasoline demand rose from July, the deficit ver-
sus year-ago levels appeared wider due to lower-than-nor-
mal summer driving seasonality. Low gasoline prices have
continued to support demand. The US average conventional
gasoline price held steady at $2.27/gal in August, down by
16.1% ($0.44/gal) from August 2019, according to AAA.
In August, distillate deliveries of 3.7 million b/d rose by
4.2% from July but were down by 8.1% y/y (0.3 million b/d).
This was consistent with DAT iQ industry trendlines show-
ing increased spot trucking loads.
Jet fuel deliveries of 1.0 million b/d in August fell by 1.5%
m/m and remained down by 46.4% from August 2019 – the
most adversely impacted fuel due to the COVID-19 pandem-
ic. The relatively slow recovery in jet fuel deliveries has been
consistent with weakened reported flight activity and pas-
senger demand per Flightradar24 and TSA.
Deliveries of residual fuel oil, which is used in electric
power production, space heating, industrial applications
and as a marine bunker fuel, fell to 0.3 million b/d in Au-
gust. This marked a decrease of 24.6% m/m and 10.6% y/y,
respectively, consistent with weak industrial activity and
12 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ012-017.indd 12
lower marine demand due to IMO 2020 implementation
compounded by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Macroeconomy
The Institute for Supply Management’s Purchasing Managers
Index (PMI) came in with a reading of 56.0 in August. Index
values above 50.0 suggest an expansion. Production and new
orders rose. Export sales grew, raw materials inventories de-
creased, and prices increased. Among the 18 manufacturing
industries covered, 15 reported expansions in August.
Furthermore, consumer sentiment continued its im-
provement while remaining at historically weak levels in
August per the University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment
index. Since a reading of 101.0 in February, the index fell as
low as 71.8 in April and rebounded to 74.1 in August. The
survey noted that consumers were slightly more optimistic
about future economic and personal finance expectations.
However, the survey also indicated a continued weakness
in buying conditions — even with low interest rates — and
highlighted a need for additional fiscal policies.
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
non-farm payrolls increased by 1.4 million, and the unem-
ployment rate fell to 8.4% in August from 10.2% in July, in-
dicating a resumption of economic activity along with recov-
ery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Supply
In August, US crude oil production was 10.5 million b/d,
a decrease of 1.4% (0.1 million b/d) from revised July data
amid less drilling activity. Oil-directed drilling activity (178
rigs in August) fell to its lowest levels since November 2001
per Baker Hughes. However, drilling productivity rose to re-
cord highs among most producing basins per the US Energy
Information Administration (EIA).
Similarly, US natural gas liquids (NGLs) decreased by
2.6% m/m (0.1 million b/d) to 4.7 million b/d. Natural gas
related NGLs production has held up relatively well through
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trade
Following 3 months of petroleum net imports, the US re-
turned to being a net exporter in August by a small margin.
Specifically, the US imported 7.5 million b/d of crude oil and
petroleum products in August — a decrease of 5.3% m/m
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 (0.4 million b/d) from July, with EIA weekly data suggest-
ing that imports from Saudi Arabia fell to their lowest levels
since 2010.
By contrast, US exports of crude oil and refined products
totaled 7.8 million b/d, implying US petroleum net exports
of 0.3 million b/d in August. Gross exports rose by 2.0% (0.2
million b/d) from July but were down by 7.5% (0.6 million b/d)
compared with August 2019. Within the exports, 4.8 million
b/d was refined products, which increased by 1.9% m/m, and
the remaining 3.0 million b/d was crude oil, an increase of 0.1
million b/d m/m to a record for the month of August.
Refining, inventories
US refinery throughput of 14.8 million b/d implied a capac-
ity utilization rate of 79.6% in August. Refinery throughput
decreased by 0.5% m/m while capacity utilization rose by
1.0 percentage point, as operable crude distillation unit ca-
pacity decreased in August. About 13% of US refining capac-
ity was temporarily shut-in due to Hurricane Laura affecting
the Gulf Coast.
US total petroleum inventories, including crude oil and
refined products but excluding the Strategic Petroleum Re-
serve were 1.46 billion bbl in August. This was the high-
est month on record since 1956, increasing 0.2% from July
and, notably, 13.2% since the onset of COVID-19 in March.
Within the total, crude oil stocks of 502.8 million fell by
3.3% m/m and stand 6.6% m/m below the record in March
2017.
Devon, WPX agree
to merge
Devon Energy Corp. and WPX Energy Inc. agreed to com-
bine in a $2.56 billion all-stock deal. The combine, to be
named Devon Energy, will hold significant exposure to the
Delaware subbasin of the Permian, as well as operations in
various liquids-focused US resource plays with production
of 277,000 b/d.
Under the terms of the agreement, WPX shareholders
will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.5165 shares of Devon
common stock for each share of WPX common stock owned.
The exchange ratio, together with closing prices for Devon
and WPX Sept. 25, results in an enterprise value for the
combine of $12 billion. Upon completion, Devon sharehold-
ers will own 57% of the combine and WPX shareholders will
own 43%.
The transaction, which is expected to close in first-quar-
ter 2021, has been approved by the boards of directors of
both companies. Funds managed by EnCap Investments
LP own some 27% of the outstanding shares of WPX and
have entered into a support agreement to vote in favor of the
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 13
201005OGJ012-017.indd 13
transaction. Closing is subject to customary closing condi-
tions, including approvals by Devon and WPX shareholders.
Following the merger, the board of directors will consist
of 12 members, 7 directors from Devon and 5 from WPX
including the lead independent director. Dave Hager will be
appointed executive chairman of the board, and Rick Mun-
crief will be named president and chief executive officer.
Analysts’ comments
“Consolidation has long been considered one of the key cata-
lysts for improving sentiment for the (US shale) sector, and
while the recent strategy shift for the majors has made the
prospect of gobbling up the independents at a premium less
likely, this transaction certainly sets the bar for the industry
to set a more relevant course on its own. We think this trans-
action answers the call for the sector to identify scale syner-
gies, eliminate costs and improve visibility on capital return,
and while the deal does come as a surprise in the current de-
pressed oil price environment, we ultimately think the trans-
action will be positively received,” said Simmons Energy.
The deal is the first upstream corporate merger of over
$1 billion since Chevron’s blockbuster $13 billion agreement
to buy Noble last July, noted Andrew Dittmar, senior M&A
analyst, Enverus.
“This deal represents the form of shale company consoli-
dation that many across the industry have been looking for.
You have two E&Ps with complimentary positions agreeing
to an equity exchange at little-to-no premium. The selling
point for investors is that the larger combined company will
have the scale and efficiencies to navigate a challenging price
environment and generate free cash flow for its investors,”
Dittmar said.
“The Delaware basin in the Permian is the key overlap-
ping region for the two companies and combined their posi-
tion will amount to about 400,000 net acres. Both compa-
nies bring quality assets in the play to the table, with the
deal having the added bonus for Devon of decreasing reli-
ance on federal lands at a time the outlook for future drilling
has some question marks,” Dittmar continued.
Such a move by Devon has been expected by Wood
Mackenzie for some time, said Alex Beeker, principal ana-
lyst, corporate upstream, Wood Mackenzie. “With $1.5 bil-
lion in cash on its balance sheet (albeit earmarked for debt
reduction), Devon is on a relatively strong financial footing.
But Devon has been shrinking fast since its disposal pro-
gram started in earnest about two years ago. The company’s
net production is down 40% since 2018,” he said.
“A WPX and Devon tie-up makes sense operationally.
We like the diversification WPX brings, particularly mature
Bakken production. We do expect the combined budget –
if the deal closes – to be less than the sum of the parts, so
Devon’s cash flow should improve. WPX has a shallower un-
derlying base decline rate than Devon,” he said.
In the current spending environment, Beeker said, “fund-
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 GENERAL INTEREST
ing all the parts of a diverse portfolio will prove tough,” and
there could be divestment candidates. “We struggle to see
Devon funding much more of its joint venture in the STACK.
The Eagle Ford is in managed decline. With some selec-
tive trimming, a new portfolio could actually mimic that of
EOG’s with assets in the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Delaware, and
Powder River,” he said.
PGNiG to acquire Shell
unit interests in two
North Sea fields
PGNiG Upstream Norway (PUN) has agreed to acquire A/S
Norske Shell’s interests in Equinor-operated North Sea fields
Kvitebjørn and Valemon.
Gas produced from the fields will be sent to Poland after
the Baltic Pipe link is launched.
Following the transaction, PUN will hold all of Shell’s
6.45% interest in Kvitebjørn field as well as its 3.225% inter-
est in Valemon field. The company also will acquire a stake
in the infrastructure used to transport hydrocarbons pro-
duced from the fields.
Target gas output in 2020 from the fields attributable to
the interests acquired from Shell represents 70% of PUN’s
current production volume in Norway, resulting in an im-
mediate increase of the company’s gas production. In 2021
production is expected to be nearly 30% above the previ-
ous forecast, having grown by almost a half compared with
PUN’s gas output in 2019. According PGNiG’s estimates, in
2023–2028 (after the Baltic Pipe launch), the two fields will
deliver about 0.2 bcm of gas/year to the company.
Kvitebjørn, in the northern part of the North Sea with wa-
ter depth of 190 m, was discovered in 1994. It produces gas
and condensate from Middle Jurassic sandstone in the Brent
group. Secondary reservoirs are in the Lower Jurassic Cook
formation and Upper Triassic Statfjord group. The reservoirs
lie at a depth of 4,000 m and initially had high pressure and
high temperature. The reservoir quality is good. The plan for
development and operation (PDO) was approved in 2000. The
field has been in production since 2004 using a fixed platform
with fully integrated drilling modules. The extracted gas is
sent via a subsea pipeline to the Kollsnes terminal, while the
condensate is transported via a branch of Troll Oil Pipeline II
to the Mongstad terminal.
Valemon, immediately west of Kvitebjørn in water depth
of 135 m, was discovered in 1985. It produces gas and con-
densate from Lower Jurassic sandstone in the Cook forma-
tion and Middle Jurassic sandstone in the Brent group. The
deposit has a complex structure with many fault blocks. The
reservoirs lie at a depth of 3,900-4,200 m and have high
14 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ012-017.indd 14
temperature and high pressure. Its PDO was approved in
2011 and production began in 2015. The field has been de-
veloped by means of a fixed platform with a simplified hy-
drocarbon separation process, operated remotely from land.
Its condensate and gas output is carried via a pipeline to
Kvitebjørn field, and then via a subsea pipeline to the Mong-
stad processing terminal.
The deal is subject to approval by Norwegian petroleum
and tax authorities.
US onshore oil production set to
gradually decline after August
peak
Oil production from the US Lower 48 states, excluding the
Gulf of Mexico, peaked at 9.2 million b/d in August follow-
ing back-to-back increases since June. The climb helped
push the nationwide total above 11 million b/d and is likely
to keep it above that mark for the rest of the year, according
to Rystad Energy estimates.
A gradual decline in Lower 48 output may nevertheless
set in from September as onshore drilling remains below the
level required to maintain production in nearly all US oil ba-
sins, despite a robust fracturing exercise where operators are
bringing on line their inventory of drilled but uncompleted
(DUC) wells. Rystad Energy projects US onshore production
to start rising again in second-half 2021.
Preliminary well production data for July has been re-
ported for most major oil and gas producing states. After re-
covering by around 540,000 b/d in June, oil volumes for the
Lower 48 states excluding GoM seemingly posted a second
monthly increase of more than 400,000 b/d in July. Rystad
Energy estimates an additional rise of 230,000 b/d in August
from the same regions, which would take the total for the
month to a peak of 9.2 million b/d.
Production from the GoM and Alaska increased 160,000-
170,000 b/d in July. The nationwide total likely surpassed
11 million b/d in July and it could remain above that level
through the remainder of the year. Based on updated July
data, US dry gas production increased by about 550 MMcfd
between June and July and is expected to average around 90
bcfd in the year’s second half.
Fracturing activity rebounded sharply in July, driven by
the Permian basin. After holding stable in August, the in-
dustry delivered another sequential increase in September.
According to Rystad Energy estimates, about 650 fracturing
operations were started in September. Operators are bring-
ing DUC completions forward, taking advantage of low oil-
field services costs in the spot market, as the WTI strip rose
to the mid-$40/bbl range weeks ago.
Oil production in the Williston basin – North Dakota and
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 GENERAL INTEREST

Montana combined – increased by 170,000 b/d in July, rais- tion from a DUC-supported completion program to a normal
ing the basin total to almost 1.1 million b/d. Most shut-ins operations mode.
were restored by end July, though select wells will exhibit “We have revised our dry gas production forecast for
full production potential in August data. 2021 up by 500 MMcfd, with the most significant contribu-
Texas oil production increased by 125,000 b/d and New tion coming from a more resilient base decline in gas basins.
Mexico added 60,000 b/d in July.
The July recovery was not limit-
ed to the Permian basin. South
Texas’s Eagle Ford also contrib-
uted as curtailed volumes were
reactivated. Thousands of strip-
per wells in Texas remained in-
active as of July, but these wells
account only for a marginal
share of the statewide total.
Each major state in the Rock-
ies — Colorado, Wyoming, and
Utah — posted production in-
creases, with the total of the
three increasing 25,000-30,000
b/d in July. Pennsylvanian gas
production posted a gain of
about 600 MMcfd in July, but to-
tal dry gas output from some of
the core gas regions, such as Ap-
palachia, Louisiana, and the rest
of Texas still saw a sequential de-
cline as regions outside of Penn-
sylvania remained in decline. ACHIEVE THE PERFECT
Oil production from Alaska rose
by 80,000 b/d and by 85,000 b/d
in the Gulf of Mexico in July.
INJECTION RATE WITH A
“We still anticipate US oil
output to average at 10.82 mil-
lion b/d in 2021. A gradual de-
SMART GAS LIFT
cline is expected in the first half We combined our most intelligent technologies to
of the year, followed by a recov- create the SMART Gas Lift that uses full automation
ery in the fourth quarter. The to continuously achieve the perfect injection rate and
outlook for the Lower 48 states, maximum well performance.
excluding Gulf of Mexico, has
been revised up by 90,000 b/d
• MAINTAIN STABLE UNLOADING OF WELL AT ALL TIMES
for the second half of next year, Keep injection rate constant during high line pressure
as we start hearing about mod-
est increases in the oil rig count • CONTROL AND AUTOMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS
before the end of this year,” said User can control compressor injection rates from web-interface
Artem Abramov, Rystad Energy’s
• PROTECT PRODUCTION STREAMS FROM IMPACTS
head of shale research. SMART gas lift mitigates lost production due to line pressure changes
This uptick will be limited to
a handful of producers without a
significant DUC inventory. Most Learn more at flogistix.com
producers with a large number
of DUCs plan to increase rig ac- (405) 536.0000 | info@flogistix.com | www.flogistix.com
tivity only in the first half of next
year to allow for a smooth transi-

201005OGJ_Flogistix 1 9/23/20 1:09 PM

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 15

201005OGJ012-017.indd 15 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 GENERAL INTEREST
In the Appalachia region there are still significant numbers
of older wells that produce at restricted rates, and these wells
might make a positive contribution of up to 600–700 MMcfd
to base production in the next three to four quarters.”
Even with additional supply of 500 MMcfd in 2021 com-
pared to the previous outlook, the US domestic gas market
is still heading toward a structural supply deficit, with the
possibility of stronger domestic gas prices if the global gas
market recovers further.
Fed Dallas Energy Survey:
Contraction continues, but
moderated
Activity in the oil and gas sector declined modestly in third-
quarter 2020, according to oil and gas executives respond-
ing to the Dallas Fed Energy Survey. Data were collected on
Sept. 9-17, and 166 energy firms responded. Of the respon-
dents, 112 were exploration and production firms and 54
were oilfield services firms.
The business activity index—the survey’s broadest mea-
sure of conditions facing Eleventh District energy firms—re-
mained in negative territory but improved from -66.1 in the
second quarter to -6.6 in the third quarter, suggesting that
the pace of the contraction has significantly lessened.
Production indexes rose significantly but remained nega-
tive, suggesting a moderation in production declines. Ac-
cording to exploration and production (E&P) executives, the
oil production index rose from -62.6 in the second quarter
to -15.4 in the third. The natural gas production index in-
creased 38 points to -10.1.
The index for capital expenditures for E&P firms in-
creased from -66.1 in the second quarter to -16.4 in the
third, indicating a less-severe reduction in capital spending.
This means that expenditures are declining but not as much
as before. Additionally, the index for capital expenditures for
oilfield services firms increased from -73.5 to -35.1.
Conditions among oilfield services firms continued to de-
teriorate, albeit at a slower rate. The equipment utilization
index jumped 50 points to -18.9 in the third quarter, imply-
ing utilization declined but at a much slower pace than over
the prior quarter. The operating margins index increased
from -68.6 to -30.8. The index of prices received for services
also remained in negative territory but moved up, from -64.7
to -26.4. Firms found some relief as the input costs contin-
ued to decline; the index was -9.5 this quarter.
Labor-related indicators fell again, but at a more mod-
est pace than last quarter. The aggregate employment index
posted a sixth consecutive negative reading but moved up
from -46.1 to -18.1. Additionally, the index of aggregate em-
ployee hours worked increased from -47.0 to -15.3. The in-
16 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ012-017.indd 16
dex for aggregate wages and benefits remained in negative
territory but rose from -41.7 to -19.4.
The company outlook index returned to barely positive
territory in the third quarter, coming in at 1.9. The near-
zero reading indicates the outlook remained relatively un-
changed, a stabilization from the sharp deterioration seen
over the prior two quarters. Additionally, fewer firms noted
rising uncertainty this quarter than last, and the aggregate
uncertainty index fell 19 points to 17.2.
On average, respondents expect a West Texas Interme-
diate (WTI) oil price of $43.27/bbl by year-end 2020, with
responses ranging from $30 to $60/bbl. Survey participants
expect Henry Hub natural gas prices to be $2.55/MMbtu by
yearend. For reference, WTI spot prices averaged $38.47/bbl
during the survey collection period, and Henry Hub spot
prices averaged $2.05/MMbtu.
Phillips 66 advances planned
maintenance at Alliance refinery
Robert Brelsford
Downstream Technology Editor
Phillips 66 is bringing forward planned maintenance activi-
ties at its 255,000-b/d Alliance refinery on the Mississippi
River in Belle Chasse, Plaquemines Parish, La., about 25
miles southeast of New Orleans, following the refinery’s safe
and orderly shutdown ahead of Hurricane Sally.
The Alliance refinery is preparing to begin scheduled
maintenance work during which time most plant operations
will remain offline to ensure safe execution of work activities,
Phillips 66 said Sept. 16.
Details regarding specific units involved in the planned
maintenance event and the exact duration of the work, how-
ever, are considered proprietary, the operator added.
Phillips 66, which completed shutdown activities at the
site per its emergency response plan on Sept. 14, confirmed
Hurricane Sally had no direct impact to operations at the Al-
liance refinery.
Hurricane Sally made landfall near Gulf Shores, Ala., at
about 4:45 a.m. CST on Sept. 16 as a Category 2 storm with
maximum sustained winds of 105 mph and a minimum cen-
tral pressure of 965 mb, according to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Hur-
ricane Center in Miami.
As of 4:00 p.m. CST on Sept. 16, NOAA said Sally—since
downgraded to tropical-storm status with maximum sus-
tained winds decreasing to near 60 mph and an estimated
minimum central pressure of 990 mb—was moving north-
east at 7 mph, causing historic and catastrophic flooding to
unfold along and just inland from west of Tallahassee, Fla.,
to Mobile, Ala., as well as life-threatening storm surge along
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 GENERAL INTEREST

portions of the coastline of the western Florida Panhandle,
including Pensacola Bay.
Emergency shutdown of its Alliance refinery follows Phil-
lips 66’s shuttering of its 249,000-b/d Lake Charles refining
complex in Westlake, La., in late August ahead of Hurricane
Laura, which made landfall along the US Gulf Coast near Cam-
eron, La., at 1:00 a.m. CST on Aug. 27 as a Category 4 storm
with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph and a minimum
central pressure of 938 mb (OGJ Online, Sept. 1, 2020).
As of Sept. 9, Phillips 66 said it was continuing to make
necessary repairs and initial preparations at Lake Charles
refining complex for a proposed restart—contingent upon
access to reliable electricity and other regional utilities—in
the coming weeks (OGJ Online, Sept. 11, 2020).
Gazprom advancing Power of
Siberia 2 gas pipeline
Christopher E. Smith
Editor-in-Chief
drafting its next 5-year program for gas supply and gas infra-
structure expansion, which it says will include “67 constitu-
ent entities of the Russian Federation.” The company plans to
build 24,400 km of line by 2025, providing 3,632 localities
with gas and reaching a gas penetration rate of 74.7%.
Miller also suggested that Putin consider appointing Gaz-
prom as a single operator of programs for future gas supply
and gas infrastructure expansion. Gazprom would perform
all construction of gas pipeline branches, building both in-
ter-settlement gas pipelines and intra-settlement gas pipe-
lines to individual land plots and households, the latter of
which Russian constituent entities currently execute. Putin
responded that he would instruct the government to address
the issue jointly with Gazprom.
Gazprom reported a 5% increase in gas supplies to Rus-
sian consumers between July 2020 and August 2020 and
12% growth in export volumes over the same period. It said
shipments to Europe in August 2020 exceeded 16.3 billion
cu m, comparable to same period a year earlier. The com-
pany predicted that total 2020 shipments to Europe would
be among the five highest yet recorded.

Gazprom chairman Alexey Miller told

Russian president Vladimir Putin in a
working meeting that design and survey
work on the 50 billion cu m/year Power “Over 99 Years of SAFE and RELIABLE
of Siberia 2 natural gas pipeline is con- Pipeline and Facilities Construction”
tinuing as anticipated. Work on the line,
which would deliver gas to western Chi-
na via Mongolia, began earlier this year
(OGJ Online, Mar. 30, 2020). Prepara-
tions to begin the line’s Mongolian sec-
tion have also begun.
Miller held a video call with Mongo-
lian prime minister Ukhnaagiin Khurel-
sukh to sign a letter of intent establishing
a special-purpose company to conduct a
feasibility study for the gas pipeline route
and choose the best option. The company
expects results of the study to be avail-
able as early as first-quarter 2021.
Gazprom says the project will expand
gas infrastructure in Eastern Siberia and
the Transbaikal Territory and create Pipeline Construction
a new export corridor for delivering gas Gas Compressor Stations
Pump Stations
from Yamal to Asian markets.
Gas / Oil Separation Facilities HOUSTON HEADQUARTERS ANCHORAGE DIVISION
The company is also expanding its Metering or Mainline Valve Stations 24275 Katy Freeway 301 W. Northern Lights Blvd.
domestic distribution network, building Petrochemical Plant Facilities Suite 500 Suite 300
Katy, TX 77494 Anchorage, AK 99503
2,350 km of gas pipeline bringing gas to Electrical Power Generation Plants Ph: 713.780.7500 Ph: 907.278.4400
319 localities over the course of 2020. It
says that by the end of the year 71.4% of www.pricegregory.com
Russia will have access to natural gas.
Gazprom is nearing completion of

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 17

200504OGJ_PriceGregory 1 2/13/20 4:36 PM

201005OGJ012-017.indd 17 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

Fluid replacement modeling increases

reservoir seismic gas response
Muhammad Rizwan Mughal
Gulraiz Akhter
Anees Ahmad Bangash
Quaid-i-Azam University
Islamabad, Pakistan
EXPLORATION &
DEVELOPMENT
Analysis of reservoir seismic response
with respect to fluid saturation for Lower
ROCK PROPERTIES Table 1
Material Shear modulus, Bulk modulus, r, g/cu cm
Goru gas zones in Sawan gas field is carried out through fluid gigapascal gigapascal
replacement modeling (FRM) to determine overall lateral ex-
tent of gas accumulation. Noticeable changes were observed Solid; quartz 44.0 37.000 2.65

in reservoir rock properties using FRM. Amplitude variation Gas 0.0 0.038 0.15

with offset (AVO) response indicated that the reservoir gas Fluid; water, brine 0.0 2.560 1.00

sand exhibits a typical Class IV signature. Colored inversion

to image acoustic impedance (AI) of the targeted reservoir
sand body before and after FRM showed more stratigraphic bon expression in seismic data is AVO. AVO works by vary-
traps with probable gas sands than initially expected. Seis- ing amplitude (increase or decrease) with offset and can be
mic reinterpretation in terms of AVO analysis will help pre- related to reservoir pore fluid content and rock physical prop-
dict gas reservoir classification not only for the study region erties.7-9 AVO reflection dependence on offset is based on the
but also in other South Asian regions with similar geological effect of upper and lower parts of an interface with different
conditions. physical properties on seismic amplitudes at the boundaries.
FRM has significant impact on seismic studies because it The amplitude anomalies of various rock-fluid properties are
allows the interpreter to generate seismic responses for reser- functions of ρeff, incident angle of seismic waves, and Vp and
voirs with varying fluid conditions.1-3 In FRM, reservoir pore Vs wave velocities.10 Zoeppritz equations are widely used to
fluids are replaced from known satura-
tion to new saturation levels, and new
theoretical acoustic parameters are AVO CLASSES FROM CROSSPLOT FIG. 1
calculated. Rock physics is required
0.20
for better understanding of how elas-
tic properties such as compressional 0.16
velocity (Vp), shear velocity (Vs), effec- 0.12
tive density (ρeff ), and impedance vary 0.08
AVO gradient, GA

with FRM.4 Rock physics also plays a 0.04 Class IV

vital role in highlighting variations in
0.00
reservoir properties with changes in
seismic properties by upscaling res- –0.04 Ba
ckg
rou
ervoir variables. For example, rock
5
–0.08 nd
tre
bulk modulus has large sensitivity to nd
–0.12
fluid saturation, and it is possible to Class III Class II Class I
–0.16
model seismic properties in the reser-
–0.20
voir based on these parameters using –0.20 –0.16 –0.12 –0.08 –0.04 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
Gassmann’s equations. 6
AVO intercept, Ro
One reliable indicator of hydrocar-

18 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ018-026.indd 18 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 SAWAN GAS FIELD STUDY AREA FIG. 2
East-west, m
Definitions
488,000 489,500 491,000 492,500 494,000 AI = acoustic (P) impedance
86
0 α = Biot-Willis coefficient
84
82
0
2,988,900 AVO = amplitude-versus-offset analysis
0
80
78
0 Cij = stiffness matrix coefficients
0
76
0
Sawan-08 DT = sonic log response
74 2,987,400
72
0 Sawan-14 FRM = fluid replacement modeling
0

North-south, m
70
0
Sawan-07 GA = Gradient of incident angle
Sawan 68
66
0
2,985,900 GR = gamma ray log response
0 Sawan-01
Study area HTI = horizontal symmetry isotropic
Sindh
Province transverse fractures
0
02
1,

Kd = rock dry frame bulk modulus

0
2,984,400
00
1,

0
98

Kf = pore fluid bulk modulus

0
0 Miles 186
96

Scale = 1:50,000
0
Km = rock matrix bulk modulus
94

0 Km 300
0
2,982,900
92

0 m 2,000
Ks = rock fluid saturated bulk modulus
0
90

μ = rock shear modulus

μs = rock shear modulus at saturated
condition
STUDY AREA STRATIGRAPHIC CHART FIG. 3
RC = reflectivity coefficient
Reservoir potential ρf = fluid density
Oil, gas
Age Stratigraphy Lithology Fields ρm = matrix density
shows
Source Caprock Reservoir ρeff = saturated rock bulk density
Upper Goru MB. Φ = porosity
R(θ) = reflectivity at interface
Cretaceous

Shale
Goru formation
Upper

Lower Goru MB.

interval Ro = intercept at incident angle

D interval TWT = seismic wave two-way travel time
C interval* Sawan, Mari
Latif
θ = incident angle of reflection
Miano, Rehmat Vp = compressional velocity
B interval
Cretaceous

Kadanwari
Vs = shear velocity
A interval
Lower

ZN = normal fracture compliance

Sembar ZT = transverse fracture compliance

Jurassic Chiltan
*C-sand interval is principal gas-producing reservoir zone.

study AVO response and to describe relations between reflect- understanding.12-15 The simplified form of the incident angle,
ed, transmitted, and refracted compressed and shear waves for using various assumptions, is given by Equation 1.
both isotropic and anisotropic media.11 A number of linear- Rutherford and Williams classified AVO curve responses
ized approximations have been given by geoscientists due to into sectors (Fig. 1) which define gas reservoirs as Class I (high
the complex form of Zoeppritz equations and lack of intuitive acoustic impedance, AI), Class II (AI near to shale), and Class
III (lower AI than the overlying shales).16 Castagna, et al, in-
troduced Class IV for where the normal reflection coefficient
ROCK PROPERTIES Table 2 is negative and becomes more positive while offset increases
Well Vp, m/sec Vs, m/sec r, g/cu cm fe, % with negative intercept (Ro) and positive gradient (GA).8
Fractures are natural features of reservoirs caused by
Sawan-01 3,815 2,115 2.49 15.0
3,194 1,577 2.35 physical diagenesis or rock deformation and can be trans-
Sawan-07 3,604 2,358 2.17 14.2 versely isotropic with horizontal symmetry (HTI) or azi-
4,552 2,582 2.51 muthal anisotropic due to vertical open fractures in the rock
Sawan-08 4,137 2,504 2.22 14.0 unit. Amplitude and travel time of seismic waves are affected
3,364 2,104 2.51
Sawan-14 4,032 2,467 2.53 8.5
when travelling through fractured zones. Since elastic prop-
4,093 2,370 2.54 erties vary at different azimuths in an HTI medium, primary
wave reflection coefficients will also differ when incident

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 19

201005OGJ018-026.indd 19 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

on an HTI boundary. Rüger Equations

EQUATIONS
showed that the azimuthal
variation of reflection coef- R (θ) = Ro + GAsin2 θ (1)
ficients in HTI media can '
be accommodated by Equa- #$%& !(' )*
"
tion 1.17 18 The gradient, K! = K" + $ ɸ &'ɸ $!
% (2)
+ , % -
$% $" $(
GA, in Equation 1 is com- "

prised of GAiso (i.e. azimuth- Kd is a function of porosity using the empirical relation proposed
al invariable) and GAani (i.e. by Murphy et al.32 Km is calculated with Voigt–Reuss–Hill average
anisotropic contribution),
multiplied by the normal
methods, and Kf is estimated using Wood’s equation.33
direction of fracture strike
and azimuthal angle be- Gassmann equation for isotropic condition is:
tween the seismic ray path K ! = K " + α. M (3a)
with squared cosine.
FRM is a widely used where α is the Biot-Willis coefficient:34
'
technique based on applica- α = 1 − '! (3b)
"
tion of Gassmann’s equation
and calculates new theoreti- and
'"
cal acoustic parameters (i.e. M= $ $) (3c)
moduli, densities, and veloc- &$% ! )%ɸ+$% -
$" $%
ities) by changing pore fluid
from in situ, initial satura-
tion to new saturation levels.
Saturated rock anisotropy stiffness matrix:
"45
Reservoir seismic response C01!23 = C01 + α0 α1 M i, j = 1, … … 6 (4)
in different pore fluid condi- "45
tions is estimated and com- where C01 is the dry frame stiffness matrix and Biot’s coefficient is:
pared with seismic param- ∑-*.& 8!+,
eters. The effect of fracture α6 = 1 − 9')
*"
(5a)
density and water saturation For anisotropic medium, m = 1,2, and 3, and a4 = a5= a6 = 0.
is analyzed on reflection co-
efficient and reflectivity (RC) For isotropic medium, Biot’s coefficient from Equation 5a is:
'
data as a function of incident α6 = α = 1 − ! (5b)
' "
angle (q), with azimuth for
the gas-bearing sand interval M is the pore space modulus:
in the reservoir. '"
M = $∗! $)
(6)
#$% *%ɸ+$% -
$" $%
Study area
Sawan gas field (Fig. 2) lies with
$ "45
in Middle Indus basin be- K ∗" = ∑90<$ ∑90<$ C01 (7)
;
tween 24º-28º N latitude
Where K ∗! is effective dry bulk modulus.
and 66º E longitude near
Pakistan’s eastern border.19
Sawan was discovered in Compressional, shear velocities are:
the Thar desert and is con- '0 ,(?/9)µ
sidered the most significant V= =3 (8)
B1%%
hydrocarbon (gas) bearing µ
region between 3,000 and VC =3B 0 (9)
1%%
3,500-m depth.20 The study
area is bounded by Sargodha where ρeff is effective bulk density of any saturated rock:
and Mari-Kandkot highs in ρDEE = (1 − ϕ) ρ6 + ϕ ρE (10)
the north, Jacobabad-Khair- where ρm, ρf represents matrix and fluid densities, respectively.
pur high in the south, In-
dian Shield in the east, and

20 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ018-026.indd 20 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

GAMMA-RAY WELL-LOG CORRELATIONS FIG. 4

fold and thrust belts of Kirthar and Su-
leiman in the west.21 22 Structural traps
Sawan-01 Sawan-07 Sawan-08 Sawan-14 were developed by uplifting Khairpur’s
MD, m Sand MD, m MD, m MD, m
GR, API* GR, API GR, API GR, API
Shale 0.0 150.0 0.0 150.0 0.0 150.0 0.0 150.0 High, placing the non-reservoir qual-
3,250 3,250 3,240 ity Lower Goru depositional system
3,240
3,260 3,260 3,250 into the reservoir-quality structural and
C-sand
stratigraphic traps.23 These reservoir
3,260
3,260
3,270 3,270 intervals developed during sea-level
3,280
3,270 low-stand system tracts in deltaic ma-
3,280
3,280 rine environments. Shale and siltstone
3,280 3,290 3,290 deposited at the top of distal sediments
3,290
3,300
when they detached from previous
3,300 3,300
3,300
C-sand
interval
high-stand system tracts.24
3,310
3,310 3,310 Goru has reservoir quality sand
3,320
intervals and beneath are cretaceous
3,320
3,320 3,320 black shales in the Sembar formation
3,330
3,330
3,330
which act as the major hydrocarbon
3,340 3,340 source rock in the study region.25
3,340
3,340
3,350
Sembar is thermally matured and
Base 3,350 deeply buried on the west side of In-
3,360 3,350 3,360
dus basin where it is more than 260 m
3,360
3,360 3,370 thick.26 It is shallower and less mature
3,380 3,370
3,280
towards the eastern edge of the basin.
3,370
A large part of the Cretaceous system
3,380 3,290
is relatively stable because orogenic
*API standard gamma ray unit. movement did not affect the deltaic sys-
tem.27 The Sembar-Goru formation se-
quence has various progrades, passing
from shallow distal to proximal facies.28
The composition of the upper side
of Lower Goru is mainly shale, whereas
the lower part is medium-to-coarse-
SAWAN-01 LOGS, CROSSPLOTS FIG. 5 grained sandstones with thin layers of
MD, m GR, API Vp, m/sec
FRM
Vs, m/sec
FRM
ρ, g/cu cm
FRM
limestone and shale. The subordinate
0.0 150.0
Sand
2,000
in situ
8,000 1,000 3,500 2.0 3.0
3,000 in situ 2.70 portion of the reservoir interval can be
Shale 2,000 8,000 1,000 3,500 2.0 3.0 2.65
3,230 2,500 2.60
classified into distinct sand intervals: A,
2.55 B, C, and D (Fig. 3). Petrographically,
ρ, g/cu cm
Vs, m/sec

3,240 2,000 2.50

3,250
C-sand
1,500
2.45 A and B intervals have mostly quartz-
2.40
2.35
rich arenites whereas major portions of
3,260 1,000
2.30 D-interval consist of black shales. The
3,270 500 2.25
C-sand interval mostly comprises pore-
3,280
lining iron chlorite cement and par-
2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

3,290
Vp, m/sec tially altered volcanic rock fragments.29
C-sand
3,300
interval The C-sand intervals can be classified
3,000 FRM 2.70
3,310
2.65
as sublitharenites, lithic arkoses, and
3,320 2,500 2.60 litharenites, whereas other diagenetic
2.55
ρ, g/cu cm

components include carbonates, glau-

Vs, m/sec

3,330 2,000 2.50

3,340 1,500
2.45
2.40
conite quartz cement, and chlorite ce-
3,350 1,000
2.35 ment.30 C-sand covers main gas reser-
2.30
3,360
Base
500 2.25
voirs in the research area, with high
porosity of about 16% within 3,000-
3,370
3,500 m. Upper Goru consists of reser-
2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

3,380
Vp, m/sec voir transgressive shales, siltstones and
marl, which act as a regional seal.31

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 21

201005OGJ018-026.indd 21 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

RESERVOIR C SAND PROPERTY CHANGES Table 3

Well Vp Vp Change, % VS VS Change, % r r Change, %
in situ, m/sec FRM, m/sec in situ, m/sec FRM, m/sec in situ, m/sec FRM, m/sec

Sawan-01 3,974.2 3,907.4 1.7 2,298 2,327 -1.2 2.43 2.37 2.5
Sawan- 02 4,060.3 3,968.4 2.3 2,525 2,558 -1.3 2.45 2.39 2.4

Dataset, methods RESERVOIR SHALE ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE Table 4

Well Vp, m/sec Vs, m/sec r, g/cu cm
Three-dimensional post-stack seismic and wireline log
data from four exploration wells (Sawan-01, Sawan-07, Sawan-01 4,430.2 2,622.5 2.65
Sawan-08, and Sawan-14) provided the basis for this study. Sawan-08 4,629.4 2,674.4 2.68
Wireline logs include sonic, gamma ray (GR), density (r),
resistivity, neutron porosity, density porosity, and 3D post-
stack seismic data to characterize and analyze reservoir seis-
mic response due to FRM effects.
RESERVOIR SHALE REFLECTIVITY Table 5
In situ C-sand FRM C-sand
Well Ro GA Ro GA
Effective elastic properties Sawan-01 -0.085 0.151 -0.116 0.177
Incorporating Gassmann’s equations for isotropic cases pro- Sawan-08 -0.108 0.063 -0.135 0.064
vided a relationship between bulk modulus of fluid satu-
rated porous rock (K s), bulk modulus of dry frame (Kd), bulk
modulus of rock matrix (Km), porosity (ϕ), and bulk mod-
ulus of pore fluid (K f ), allowing observation of changes in water saturation levels. Rock physics cross-plots (Vp versus
elastic properties caused by fluid replacement. Equation 2 Vs) delineate effects of FRM and lithology. The Greenberg–
shows the typical form of the Gassmann equation. The equa- Castagna sandstone trend-line (Fig. 1) was used for lithol-
tion for isotropic conditions can be written as Equations 3a- ogy discrimination.35
c, also called the pore space modulus. A saturated stiffness
matrix instead of bulk modulus expresses rock anisotropy FRM in fractured medium
from the Gassmann relation, and an additional fluid effect RC data as a function of incident angle (q) with azimuth
term is added in the dry stiffness matrix with Equations allowed analysis of of the effects of fracture density and
4-7. The latter equations help execute
anisotropic fluid substitution when
fluid properties, background solid SAWAN-08 LOGS, CROSSPLOTS FIG. 6

(matrix), and anisotropic dry stiffness MD, m GR, API Vp, m/sec Vs, m/sec ρ, g/cu cm
FRM FRM FRM
0.0 150.0 3,250
values are known. Sand
2,000
in situ
8,000 1,000 3,500 2.0 3.0
2.80
Shale 2,000 8,000 1,000 3,500 2.0 3.0 in situ
When matrix, fluid elastic con- 3,000
2.70
3,260
stants, and densities are known, 2,750 2.60

ρ, g/cu cm
Vs, m/sec

C-sand
area velocities as a function of reser- 3,270 2,500
2.50

2.40
voir properties can be predicted from 3,280 2,250
2.30
Equations 8-10.
2,000 2.20
3,290

FRM in isotropic media 3,300

1,750
2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

Reservoir pore fluids change velocity Vp, m/sec

3,310 C-sand
and density seismic properties when interval 3,250
their saturation levels change in FRM. 3,320 2.80
3,000 FRM 2.70
FRM was performed on the C-sand 2.60
3,330
Vs, m/sec

ρ, g/cu cm

reservoir of Sawan-01 and 08 wells 2,750 2.50

2.40
based on application of Gassmann’s 3,340 2,500
2.30
equations as described above. The 3,350
2,250 2.20
2.21
initial water saturation levels in 2,000 2.00
Sawan-01 and Sawan-08 are 46% and 3,360 Base
1,750
51%, respectively. FRM was calculated
2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

3,370
for pure sandstones to measure sensi- Vp, m/sec
tivity at modeled 80% gas and 20%

22 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ018-026.indd 22 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

GAS SATURATION ON C-SAND REFLECTIVITY FIG. 7 water saturation in the C-sand interval. This investigation
also was carried out for Sawan-01 and Sawan-08. Back-
0.75
in situ ground dry-rock properties Vp, Vs, and r were calculated
FRM Sawan-01 from Gassmann dry rock modeling. Effective porosity val-
0.50
ues came from Sawan well petrophysical analysis. Isotro-
0.25 pic background properties were added with fracture com-
pliances (i.e. ZT and ZN) to make the medium HTI using
GA

0.00 Hudson’s approach.36 37 Two main cases were analyzed for

–0.25
fracture density: Case 1, low fracture density (0.05), with C1ij
first order correction typically used for small fracture densi-
–0.50 ties (< 0.1), and Case-2, high fracture density (0.15), with
second-order C2ij correction.
–0.75 Fluid substitution’s effect on RC also was analyzed for
0.75
both fracture density cases. The top shale was introduced
Sawan-01
Sawan-08
0.50 as the isotropic layer over the modeled HTI medium of the
C-sand interval. For simplification, the shale layer was con-
0.25 sidered as an isotropic overburden without considering
fluid substitution, keeping focus on the primary objective
GA

0.00 to document changes in reflectivity response of azimuth-

–0.25
al-anisotropy-related reservoir model properties from fluid
substitution. Reservoir modeling was carried out for C-sand
–0.50 intervals with average dry porous rock matrix properties
(Table 1), along with overburden shale (Table 2). The mod-
–0.75 els comprised a single set of vertical fractures which were
0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 –0.25 –0.50 –0.75
Ro
aligned, making the HTI medium symmetrical. The value
for the aspect ratio (i.e. short axis of the crack ellipsoid di-
vided by the long axis length) is 0.1, which represents stiff
pores in quartz dominated sandstone layers with 90° obser-
vation azimuth.

Seismic, well-log parameters

AI, IN SITU VS. FRM An integrated method established re-
FIG. 8
lationships between wells and 3D seis-
East-west, thousand m
mic for identification of stratigraphic
00

00

00

00

00

00

Inline 713*
surfaces. The key horizons of interest
9,0

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0
48

49

49

49

49

49

900 905 910 915 920 925 930 935 940 945 950
(i.e. Lower Goru, Top, Base of C-sand)
1,800 2,983
are marked based on strong reflection
North-south, thousand m

2,984
1,900 continuity. The reservoir C-sand inter-
08
TWT, ms

2,985 14
2,000 07 val was premapped for spatial distri-
2,986
2,100 01 bution in the subsurface by well-log
2,987 12,000
correlation (Fig. 4). For qualitative
AI, m/sec × g/cu cm

2,200 11,500
2,988 11,000
2,300 10,500 analysis, gamma ray logs are used
2,989 10,000
9,500 to understand lithology discrimina-
9,000
8,500 tion within the reservoir, which are
1,800 2,983 8,000
mostly alternating sand and shale.
North-south, thousand m

2,984
1,900 Shale volume comes from the logs.
2,985 08
TWT, ms

14
2,000 07 Colored inversion was performed us-
2,986
2,100 01 ing Sawan-08 to properly image P-im-
2,987
2,200 pedance of the targeted reservoir sand
2,988
2,300
body before and after FRM. The in-
2,989
verted P-impedance volumes were ex-
00

00

00

00

00

00

tracted at a constant 45-ms time slice

9,0

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0
48

49

49

49

49

49

*2D cross-sectional display along inline No. 713 covering the crosslines (XL) passing through Sawan-08 well. East-west, thousand m below the C-sand top horizon, lying
within the reservoir zone’s depth.

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 23

201005OGJ018-026.indd 23 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

Gas saturation effect SAWAN-01 REFLECTIVITY VS. INCIDENT ANGLE FIG. 9

The GR log responses in Fig. 5-6 illus-
0.20 Sawan-01
trate sandstone in the C-sand interval.
In situ and FRM derived Vp, Vs, and 0.15 Sw = 0%, HTI
r responses are shown on the logs in Sw = 0%, Iso
0.10

Reflectivity
Sw = 100%, HTI
black vs. red, respectively. FRM effects
0.05 Sw = 100%, Iso
on reservoir rock properties can be ob- Near
served in Vp versus Vs cross-plots. FRM 0.00 Far
datapoints are shifted towards lower Low fracture density
–0.05
values for Vp and slightly higher val-
ues for Vs from in situ measurements. –0.10
Shear modulus is independent of fluid 0.20 Sawan-01
type and saturation, therefore the in- 0.15 Sw = 0%, HTI
crease in Vs is due to change in rock Sw = 0%, Iso
0.10
density after applying FRM. Moreover, Reflectivity Sw = 100%, HTI
Sw = 100%, Iso
variations in rock properties after FRM 0.05
Near
are more prominent towards lower val- 0.00 Far
ues as compared with in situ condition High fracture density
in both wells. Average changes in sand –0.05
elastic properties for in situ and after –0.10
FRM application for both wells are list- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Θ*
ed in Table 3. *Polar incident angle at 90° observation azimuth, 0.1 aspect ratio
Average calculated velocities and
densities for shale and underlying
reservoir sand allowed AVO response
SAWAN-08 REFLECTIVITY VS. INCIDENT ANGLE FIG. 10
calculation in situ and with FRM ap-
plication for a gas-saturated reservoir. 0.125 Sawan-08
Overlaying shale acoustic impedance 0.100 Sw = 0%, HTI
is higher than either well (Table 4), re- Sw = 0%, Iso
0.075
Reflectivity

sulting in negative reflectivity in both Sw = 100%, HTI

wells. Hydrocarbon (gas) present in 0.050 Sw = 100%, Iso
Near
the reservoir strongly influences seis- 0.025 Far
mic parameters, and a cross-plot of Ro Low fracture density
and GA for 50 samples (Fig. 7) shows 0.000
that the top C-sand interface (in situ -0.025
and FRM) has negative Ro and posi- 0.150 Sawan-08
tive GA. Thus, this is a gas anomaly as 0.125 Sw = 0%, HTI
seen in Sector II of Fig. 1 and indicates 0.100 Sw = 0%, Iso
a Class IV reservoir in the study area.
Reflectivity

Sw = 100%, HTI
0.075 Sw = 100%, Iso
There is much overlap in gradient di-
0.050 Near
rection between in situ C-sand and
Far
FRM C-sand, however, cross-plotting 0.025 High fracture density
shows deviation of FRM C-sand from 0.000
background trend. The change in Ro
-0.025
and GA in both the wells is listed in 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Table 5. Θ*
*Polar incident angle at 90° observation azimuth, 0.1 aspect ratio

Colored inversion analysis

The AI volume, along with the corresponding vertical seis-
mic section, generated through colored inversion in situ and
after FRM shows that AI decreases after FRM and suggests
further lateral extent of hydrocarbon bearing zones (Fig. 8).
Sawan-01, Sawan-07, and Sawan-08 are in low AI zones,
however, Sawan-14 is situated where AI is relatively high,
corresponding to its comparatively small gas production and
indicating that the well is not in an ideal location. Interpre-
tation of the results suggests that the study region has more
stratigraphic traps with probable gas sands than initially ex-
pected, and this approach can help further predict hydrocar-
bon bearing sand channels.

24 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ018-026.indd 24 10/1/20 11:10 AM


HTI media fracture density
Figs. 9-10 show reflection coefficient responses with 0%
(dry) and 100% (wet) water saturation levels for Sawan-01
and Sawan-08, with respect to polar incident angle. Cas-
es 1 and 2 (low and high fracture density, respectively)
were examined in each well with either isotropic (iso) or
anisotropic (HTI) fractures. Increased water saturation
increased the magnitude of RC data curves in Sawan-01.
Anisotropic AVO gradient estimations showed higher val-
ues for wet than dry cases. High fracture density increases
RC compared with low fracture density.38 The differences
in the magnitude of isotropic and anisotropic RC curves is
more pronounced at far angles for Case 1 and near-to-far
angles for Case 2. Azimuthal variations of RC are higher
with saturation.
Amplitude of HTI angle-dependent RC curves obtained
for Sawan-08 increase with water saturation, and almost
flatten with low fracture density. AVO gradient also in-
creases for 100% water saturation compared to dry con-
ditions. Like Sawan-01, the magnitude of anisotropic RC
curves increases for high fracture density. The difference in
magnitude of isotropic and anisotropic RC curves is more
pronounced at far angles for Case 1 with an almost oppo-
site trend that changes the behavior of AVO gradient, while
in Case 2, the difference and gap in both curves signifi-
cantly increases from near to far angle with a nearly oppo-
site trend at far offset.
Changes in anisotropic AVO gradients between 100% sat-
urated and dry states are similar for low- and high-fracture
density cases of HTI media unlike anisotropic RC curves,
which increase with fracture density. Both AVO gradients
and RC curves increase with saturation of the porous HTI
medium. Therefore, saturation effects have more influence
on anisotropic parameters than fracture density.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Directorate General of
Petroleum Concessions, Pakistan, for the release of 3D seis-
mic and well log data.
References
1. Smith, T. M., Sondergeld, C. H., and Rai, C. S., “Gassmann fluid sub-
stitutions: A Tutorial.” Geophysics, Vol. 68, No. 2, March-April 2003,
pp. 430-440.
2. Rizwan, M., Akhter, G., Mustafa, A., Nisar, U. B., and Ashfaq, K.,
“Amplitude versus offset (AVO) modelling and analysis for quantitative
interpretation of porosity and saturation: A case study for Sawan gas
field, middle Indus basin, Pakistan,” Geofísica Internacional, Vol. 57,
No.2, April 2018, pp.151-160.
3. Su, Y., Tao, Y., Wang, T., Chen, G., and Li, J., “AVO attributes inter-
pretation and identification of lithological traps by prestack elastic
parameters inversion – A case study in K Block, South Turgay Basin,”
80th Annual International Meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysi-
cists, Expanded Abstracts, April 2010, pp. 439 – 444.
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 25
201005OGJ018-026.indd 25
TECHNOLOGY
4. Grana, D., Pirrone, M., and Mukerji, T., “Quantitative log interpretation
and uncertainty propagation of petrophysical properties and facies
classification from rock-physics modeling and formation evaluation
analysis,” Geophysics, Vol. 77, May-June 2012, pp. 45–63.
5. Avseth, P., Mukerji, T., and Mavko, G., “Quantitative Seismic Interpre-
tation: Applying Rock Physics Tools to Reduce Interpretation Risk,”
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.
6. Gassmann, F., “Elastic waves through a packing of spheres,” Geo-
physics, Vol. 16, May 1951, pp. 673–685.
7. Batzle, M.L., Han, D.H., and Hofmann, R., “Optimal hydrocarbon
indicators,” Society of Exploration Geologists, Tulsa, Okla., SEG Tech-
nical program expanded abstracts, 2001, pp. 1697–1700.
8. Castagna, J.R., Swan, H.W., and Foster, D.J., “Framework for AVO
gradient and intercept interpretation,” Geophysics, Vol. 63, No. 3,
May-June 1998, pp. 948–956.
9. Ostrander, W.J., “Plane-wave reflection coefficients for gas sands
at non normal angles of incidence,” Geophysics, Vol. 49, No. 10,
October 1984, pp. 1637–1648.
10. Mavko, G., Mukerji, T., and Dvorkin, J., “The Rock Physics Hand-
book; Tools for Seismic Analysis of Porous Media,” Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2009.
11. Zoeppritz, K., “On the Reflection and Propagation of Seismic Waves,”
Göttinger Nachrichten, Vol. IIb, 1919, pp. 66–84.
12. Gray, D., Goodway, W., and Chen, T., “Bridging the gap: using AVO
to detect changes in fundamental elastic constants,” Society of Explo-
ration Geologists, Tulsa, Okla., SEG Technical program expanded
abstracts, 1999, pp. 852-855.
13. Fatti, J.L., Vail, P.J., Smith, G.C., Strauss, P.J., and Levitt, P.R.,
“Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: a 3-D
seismic case history using the geostack technique,” Geophysics, Vol.
59, No. 9, September 1994, pp. 1362–1376.
14. Shuey, R.T. “A simplification of the Zoeppritz equations,” Geophysics,
Vol. 50, No. 4, April 1985, pp. 609–614.
15. Aki, K., and Richards, P.G., “Quantitative seismology: theory and
methods.” W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1980, pp. 558-932.
16. Rutherford, S. and Williams, R., “Amplitude-versus-offset variations
in gas sands,” Journal of Geophysics, Vol. 54, No. 6, June 1989, pp.
680–688.
17. Rüger, A., “Variation of P-wave reflectivity with offset and azimuth
in anisotropic media,” Geophysics, Vol. 63, No. 3, June 1998, pp.
935–947.
18. Rüger, A., “Reflection coefficients and azimuthal AVO analysis in
anisotropic media,” Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Okla.,
Geophysical Monograph Series, No. 10, 2002.
19. Zaigham, N. and Mallick, K., “Prospect of hydrocarbon associ-
ated with fossil-rift structures of the southern Indus Basin, Paki-
stan,” AAPG Bulletin 2000, Vol. 84, No. 11, November 2000, pp.
1833–1848.
20. Ahmed, A.R., Ahmad, M., and Rehman, A., “Comparison of Core/Log
and Well Test Permeabilities – A Closer Look ‘Sawan Tight Sands’,”
SPE-142836-MS, SPE/PAPG Annual Technical Conference, Islam-
abad, Pakistan, Nov. 10-11, 2010.
21. Afzal, J., Kuffner, T., Rahman, A., and Ibrahim, M., “Seismic and well-
log based sequence stratigraphy of the early Cretaceous, Lower Goru
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 TECHNOLOGY

“C” sand of the Sawan gas field, middle Indus Platform, Pakistan,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 88, No. 2,
Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference, Islam- September 1980. pp. 371–384.
abad, Pakistan, Nov. 17-18, 2009. 37. Hudson, J., “Wave speeds and attenuation of elastic waves in mate-
22. Kadri, I. B., “Petroleum Geology of Pakistan: Pakistan Petroleum rial containing cracks,” Geophysics Journal International, Vol. 64, No.
Limited,” Graphic Publishers, Karachi, Pakistan, 1995. 1, January 1981, pp. 133–150.
23. Ahmad, N. and Chaudhry, S., “Kadanwari Gas Field, Pakistan: a 38. Anwer, H.M., Alves, T.M., Ali, A., and Zubair,, “Effects of sand-shale
disappointment turns into an attractive development opportunity,” anisotropy on amplitude variation with angle (AVA) modelling: The
Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 8, No. 4, December 2002, pp. 307–316. Sawan gas field (Pakistan) as a key case-study for South Asia’s
24. Ahmad, N., Fink, P., and Sturrock, S., “Sequence stratigraphy as pre- sedimentary basins,” Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, Vol. 147, No.
dictive tool in lower Goru fairway, Lower and Middle Indus Platform, 1, October 2017, pp. 516–531.
Pakistan,” PAPG-SPE Annual Technical Conference, Islamabad, Paki-
stan, Oct. 8-9, 2004. The authors
25. Ali, A., Alves, T.M., Saad, F.A., Ullah, M., Toqeer, M., and Hussain, Muhammad Rizwan Mughal (rizwan.mughal@
M., “Resource potential of gas reservoirs in South Pakistan and comsats.edu.pk) has been working as a re-
adjacent Indian subcontinent revealed by post-stack inversion tech- search associate at COMSATS University, Islam-
niques,” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Vol. 49, abad, since 2014. He holds an MS in geophysics
January 2018, pp. 41–55. (2011) and is a PhD candidate at Quaid-i-Azam
26. Wandrey, C.J., Law, B.E., and Shah, H.A., “Sembar Goru/Ghazij com- University (QAU), Islamabad. He is a member of
posite total petroleum system Indus and Sulaiman-Kirthar geologic Society of Exploration Geophysicists and Paki-
Provinces, Pakistan and India,” US Geological Survey, Geological stan Association of Petroleum Geoscientists.
Survey Bulletin 2208-C, 2004.
27. Abbas, S.T., Mirza, K., and Arif, S.J., “Lower Goru Formation-3D Gulraiz Akhter (agulraiz@qau.edu.pk) is a pro-
Modeling and Petrophysical Interpretation of Sawan Gas Field, Lower fessor at QAU, Islamabad. He has also served
Indus Basin, Pakistan,” The Nucleus, Pakistan, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2015, as chairman, department of earth sciences,
pp. 138–145. QAU. He holds an MS in Geophysics (1984) and
28. Khalid, P., Qayyum, F., and Yasin, Q., “Data-Driven sequence stratig- a PhD from QAU. He is a member of Pakistan
raphy of the cretaceous depositional system, Punjab Platform, Paki- Geophysical Network (PGN).
stan,” Surveys in Geophysics Vol. 35, May 2014, pp. 1065–1088.
29. Azeem, T., Yanchun, W., Khalid, P., Xueqing, L., Yuan, F., and Lifang, Anees Ahmad Bangash (bangash@qau.edu.pk)
C., “An application of seismic attributes analysis for mapping of gas has been an assistant professor in the depart-
bearing sand zones in the Sawan gas field Pakistan,” Acta Geodae- ment of earth sciences at QAU since 2000. He
tica et Geophysica, Vol. 51, No. 4, December 2016, pp. 723-744. holds an MS in geophysics (1995) and a PhD in
30. Munir. K., Iqbal. M.A., Farid. A., and Shabih. S.M., “Mapping the pro- geophysics (2017) from QAU. He is a member
ductive sands of Lower Goru Formation by using seismic stratigraphy of PGN.
and rock physical studies in Sawan area, southern Pakistan: A case
study,” Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology,
Vol. 1, No. 1, May 2011, pp. 33–42.
31. Berger, A., Gier, S., and Krois. P., “Porosity-preserving chlorite ce-
ments in shallow-marine volcaniclastic sandstones: evidence from
cretaceous sandstones of the Sawan gas field, Pakistan,” American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 93, No. 5, March
2009, pp. 595–615.
32. Murphy, W., Reischer, A., and Hsu, K. “Modulus decomposition of
compressional and shear velocities in sand bodies,” Geophysics, Vol.
58, No. 2, February 1993, PP. 227-239.
33. Wood, A. B., “A textbook of sound,” G. Bell and sons, London, 1941.
34. Biot, M. A. and Willis, D. G., “The elastic coefficients of the theory
of consolidation,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 24, 1957, pp.
594–601.
35. Greenberg, M. L. and Castagna, J. P., “Shear‐wave velocity estima-
tion in porous rocks: theoretical formulation, preliminary verification
and applications,” Geophysical Prospecting, Vol. 40, No. 2, February
1992, pp. 195-209.
36. Hudson, J., “Overall properties of a cracked solid,” Mathematical

26 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ018-026.indd 26 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

Smart gas lift unlocks value in

shared well-pad comparison
Paul Mundig
Flogistix
Oklahoma City, Okla.

Smart gas lift solves stable unloading

UNSTABLE GAS LIFT 90-DAY LOST VALUE Table
problems by providing an integrated skid DRILLING & Runtime loss
which includes its own programmable PRODUCTION
logic controller (PLC) for an integrat- Downtime difference, hr 68
ed suction control valve, and an engine P50 rate, bo/d 258
P50 rate, bo/hr 10.75
speed controller which communicates with its own injec-
Runtime difference, % 2
tion meter. The machine can respond to dynamic source- Total oil loss, bbl 968
gas conditions to maintain injection rate. Most importantly, Oil price, $ 43
it maintains injection above the minimum rate required to Total runtime loss, $ -41,624
keep the well unloaded, avoiding heading flow.
Unstable unloading loss

Background Stable average rate, bo/d 276

Gas lift operations have grown with increasing gas-liquid ra- Unstable average rate, bo/d 258
tios (GLR) in unconventional wells. Gas lift effectively handles Difference, bo/d 18
variable GLR and is largely impervious to solids such as sand Optimization difference, % 7
Daily oil value loss, $ -774
and plug parts. It is, however, not as efficient as a mechani- Cumulative 90-day loss, $ -69,660
cal pump for drawing a well down. Gas lift injection rates are Total loss, $ -111,284
typically set based on static design models, modified based
on well performance, and statically set again until they are
reviewed at some future time. This assumes that equipment
responsible for injection will maintain constant rate.
Most small individual-well gas-lift
compressors are less than 225 hp. De-
pending on manufacturing date, these PRESSURE GRADIENT VS. INJECTION FIG. 1
units have a range of reliability heavily
influenced by seasonal weather. Most
small compressors built in the last 20
Production pressure gradient, psi/ft

years have Murphy-type gauges, but Injection rate

too low to
without control automation. When- overcome Ideal injection
ever surface conditions change, opera- gravity rate, minimum Injection rate
tors and compression service company total pressure too high,
technicians actively maintain correct gradient increasing
Total
injection rates, but this drains key field pressure friction pressure
personnel tasked with troubleshooting gradient
issues in order of priority on large oil Hydrostatic
gradient
production leases. Friction
A smart gas-lift compressor that gradient
maintains proper injection rate and al-
lows for remote control adds value in Injection gas flow rate, mscfd
four areas:

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 27

201005OGJ027-031.indd 27 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

• Increasing runtime from newly built self-monitoring
and self-reporting machinery.
•  Freeing up field personnel by allowing compressors to
adjust themselves.
•  Automatically adjusting rate to account for changes in
line pressure.
•  Increasing stable unloading by maintaining injection
rate regardless of dynamic field conditions.
This article focuses on value derived from the last point.
at a small range inside standard 27/8-in. and 23/8-in. pipe.
Although annular flow is the most efficient, it is difficult
to achieve in most oil wells. Churn flow, with oscillating
motions of the liquid film efficiently carrying liquids to sur-
face, is more practical for liquids removal.
With annular flow, about 5-10% of liquid is held up inside
MULTIPHASE FLOW REGIMES FIG. 2

Inability to maintain injection

A well that is down for less than 12 hrs may build a static liq-
uid column equal to its bottom hole pressure (bhp) and subse-
quently log itself off. Therefore, it is imperative that production
issues are addressed in a timely manner. However, this may
be impossible when wells are far from the field office and non-
automated compression equipment requires on site diagnosis
before taking corrective action. If insufficient gas is available to
reduce fluid gradient, the well will slug and load up. Bubbly Slug Churn
A suction control valve with a high-pressure setpoint is
common practice for sourcing gas to a compressor, but the
valve cannot regulate a standard, consistent suction pres-
sure into the compressor below this setpoint. Given varying
suction pressure, the corresponding varying compressed gas
volume will lead to erratic injection, possibly less than stable
unloading requires.

Stable unloading
Gas lift is designed to lighten the fluid column to an ideal
gradient from the lowest possible injection point where the Wispy annular Annular Mist
well can unload fluid to surface with the highest possible
drawdown (Fig. 1). Injecting gas greater than this amount can
lead to increased friction and backpressure inside the produc- PRESSURE TRAVERSE, FLOW REGIMES FIG. 3

tion string. Conversely, injecting less than ideal gas volume

results in a high gradient which cannot overcome the hydro-
static head. Overinjecting is preferable to underinjecting and
is why a consistent daily supply of injection gas is critical.
Discrepancies between models and well tests in lift-gas per- Annular
formance curves are often most pronounced at low injection
rates, which is the region where accuracy is most needed.
For horizontals, multiphase flow instabilities become Churn
Vertical depth

more pronounced once the well has transitioned from frac-

ture dominated flow to matrix dominated flow. In most
Pressure traverse
cases this occurs 3-9 months after initial production. Pro- Slug
duction curves tend to flatten during this period, known as
tail production, and water cut increases as reservoir pressure
decreases due to relative permeability effects. Bubble
Annular flow is the most efficient flow regime to produce
these wells, in which the superficial gas velocity carries liq-
Single phase
uid to surface in the form of film and droplets (Fig. 2). If gas
rate increases further, the regime transitions to mist flow,
which comes with much higher frictional losses. Pressure
Slug-flow is the regime wells fall into on the path to loading
up. Between slug and annular flow is churn flow which occurs

28 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ027-031.indd 28 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

the pipe. Churn flow regimes have liquid holdup of 15-30%.
Due to high GLR, horizontal oil wells most naturally unload
with churn flow (in vertical) and pseudo slug flow (in hori-
zontal) after being brought on production.
Various multiphase flow regimes may exist along an oil
well from surface to bottom caused by release of solution
STABLE, UNSTABLE WELL PRODUCTION
500
450
400
350
Oil production, b/d
gas and subsequent gas expansion as pressure drops (Fig.
3). With slug flow, liquid holdup may reach 40-50% inside
pipe. Further slippage past slug flow creates bubble flow
with 70-80% liquid holdup, during which bubbles ascend
through a liquid column. Below that point, an oil well has
a single-phase fluid column with gas in solution which puts
backpressure on the formation.
Drawing a well down as far as possi-
FIG. 4 ble requires proper amounts of injection
gas to ensure annular or churn flow on
Unstable compression well bottom. Below this amount a well be-
Stable compression well gins to load and exhibit heading flow
as a single-phase hydrostatic liquid col-
umn rises and casing pressure builds.
Rising pressure causes the check valve

to close on injection-operated gas-lift

300 valves, further building casing and tub-
ing pressure and causing more liquid
250
fallback until the well becomes static
200 with no flow. Subsequently, a period of
casing pressure buildup is required to
150 reopen the valve.
When the valve reopens, injection
100
gas blows through the valve and light-
50 ens the fluid column enough to produce
a big column of fluid to the surface. The
0 well then loads up and repeats the pro-
1/1/2019
1/5/2019
1/9/2019
1/13/2019
1/17/2019
1/21/2019
1/25/2019
1/29/2019
2/2/2019
2/6/2019
2/10/2019
2/14/2019
2/18/2019
2/22/2019
2/26/2019
3/2/2019
3/6/2019
3/10/2019
3/14/2019
3/18/2019
3/22/2019
3/26/2019
3/30/2019

cess. The difference between continu-

ously producing a well in churn or slug
flow and intermittently in heading flow
is the ability to keep BHP constant. Un-
der churn or slug flow conditions, BHP
STABLE, UNSTABLE SURFACE CASING PRESSURE FIG. 5 remains flat as drawdown is constant.
1,200 300 Under heading flow, BHP builds, re-
ducing inflow from the reservoir.

1,000 250 Oklahoma case study

Production installed a smart gas lift
unit for one well on a two-well pad in
800 200
Casing pressure, psi

southern Oklahoma. The other well

Line pressure, psi

had its own nonautomated reciprocat-

600 150 ing compressor. The compressors were
Feb. 18 event
Jan. 16 event

Feb. 6 event

Mar. 1 event

pulling from the same gas supply.

Analysis of daily production trends
400 100 monitored data for significant changes
in flow rates. Cumulative production
could not be used since the two wells
200 50 came online at different times and had
Unstable compression casing pressure
Stable compression casing pressure different reservoir deliverability. Casing
Well pad line pressure
pressures were compared to indicate
0 0
whether the wells were maintaining
1/1/2019
1/5/2019
1/9/2019
1/13/2019
1/17/2019
1/21/2019
1/25/2019
1/29/2019
2/2/2019
2/6/2019
2/10/2019
2/14/2019
2/18/2019
2/22/2019
2/26/2019
3/2/2019
3/6/2019
3/10/2019
3/14/2019
3/18/2019
3/22/2019
3/26/2019
3/30/2019

constant BHP. Fig. 4 shows oil produc-

tion from Jan. 1, 2019, to Mar. 31, 2019,
and Fig. 5 shows casing and line pres-

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 29

201005OGJ027-031.indd 29 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

sure for both wells over this period. SMART GAS-LIFT PRODUCTION FIG. 6
Line pressure is nearly identical for
Stable well production histogram
the two wells and averaged 85 psi, but 60
there were nine events over a 3-month 54
period during which line pressure rose 50
above 100 psi for as long as several
days. High line pressure impacts wells 40
by increasing backpressure, decreas-

Days
ing drawdown and production. The 30
smart gas-lift well (stable compres-
sion) quickly returned to trend versus 20
15
the gas-lifted well on nonautomated 10
compression (unstable compression). 10 7
Another observable difference is large 3
0 0 1
swings in daily oil rates in the unsta- 0
0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 300-350 350-400
ble compression well, ranging from 4 Production, b/d
to 450 bo/d.
Low line pressure events, below
trend, happened about six times over
the 3 months, often followed by a high CONVENTIONAL GAS LIFT PRODUCTION FIG. 7
line pressure event. The low line events
on Jan. 16, Feb. 6, Feb. 18, and Mar. 1 30
meaningfully impacted the well on non-
automated compression. The event on 25
25
Jan. 16 caused the well to load up. The
well exhibited 7 days of heading behav- 20
20
ior as it was loading up, building pres-
Days

sure on the casing and then blowing to 15

surface. This can be seen in both the oil
10 10
production rate and casing pressure. 10
The second low line pressure event 7 7
on Feb. 6 caused the well to load up, 5 4
3
4
as observed by a drop followed by an
immediate increase in casing pressure 0
0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 250-300 300-350 350-400 400-450
as fluid built up in the tubing. It took
Production, b/d
the well 4 days to reduce casing pres-
sure to valve operating pressure. The
low line pressure event on Feb. 18 also STABLE, UNSTABLE PROBABILITY FIG. 8
took 4 days for the well to reduce un-
1.2
loading casing pressure back to prior
trend. The low line pressure event
1.0
on Mar. 1 caused severe heading and
Cumulative probability

slugging behavior that lasted 10 days

0.8 18 b/d
before the well stabilized and unload-
improvement
ed from lower valves. The well using
0.6
smart gas lift stayed unloaded after
these events, with relatively stable cas-
0.4
ing pressure.
Smart well stable unloading
Figs. 6-7 show histograms of daily
0.2 Unstable well unloading
oil production and illustrate the erratic
Unstable well becoming stable
behavior in the nonautomated injec-
0
tion unit during upset compared with
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
the smart unit. Production is split into Production, b/d
50-bbl bins. In Fig. 6, smart gas-lift

30 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ027-031.indd 30 10/1/20 11:10 AM


daily production numbers are around
150-200 bo/d, while the next most
populated bins are 100-150 and 200-
250 bo/d. Fifty-four days of produc-
tion are within the mean, representing
60% of production time. The next two
closest bins represent 28% of the time.
In total, about 88% of daily production
falls within one bin of the mean.
In Fig. 7, the histogram of the well
gas lifted with nonautomated com-
pression shows that the 250-300 bo/d
mean bin has only five more daily oc-
currences than the 300-350 bo/d bin.
The third highest bin is 150-200 bo/d
at 12 occurrences, followed by a tie
between 200-250 bo/d and 350-400
bo/d. Fifty-five days of production,
representing 60% of time, falls within
one bin of the mean as compared to
88% for smart gas lift.
The 50-bo/d bin size is relative-
ly large compared with daily average
production, however, and a cumula-
tive probability plot can provide finer
analysis (Fig. 8).
The smart gas-lift production curve
(orange) shows a tighter production dis-
tribution than the nonautomated com-
pressor. For the latter, production is
between 170 and 350 bo/d for 60% of
the time, a broad range indicative of un-
stable unloading brought on by head-
ing flow from insufficient gas injection
rates. The smart gas-lifted production
lies in a narrower range between 125
and 200 bo/d for 60% of the time.
The production potential of the non-
automated compressor well, had it been
equipped with a smart system, was es-
timated by redistributing daily produc-
tion percentages to match the shape of
the histogram of the smart gas-lift com-
pressor well. It represents the unstable
well unloading like the stable smart gas
lift system. The results of this histo-
gram are plotted on Fig. 8 and show a
tighter rate spread. With daily produc-
tion following a more stable unloading
pattern, the mean moves from 258 to
276 bo/d, a net 18 bo/d increase.
Besides the ability to unload the
well in a more stable fashion, compres-
sor run time was 2% better with the
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 31
200203OGJ_RajantCorp 1 1/27/20
201005OGJ027-031.indd 31
TECHNOLOGY
smart unit. Cumulative difference be-
tween both runtime and average daily
oil production are summarized in Ta-
ble 1, including losses that could have
potentially been recovered had a smart
THE SMART
gas-lift unit been used. In 3 months,
$111,284 was potentially lost without
NETWORK
a smart gas-lift compressor controlling to Future-Proof Production
rate.
Why choose Rajant Kinetic Mesh®
Bibliography to support your oil & gas
Avest, D. and Oudeman, P., “A Dy- applications?
namic Simulator to Analyze and Rem-
edy Gas Lift Problems,” SPE 30639, Ruggedized, fully mobile
SPE Annual Technical Conference and network intelligently
Exhibition. Dallas, Tex., Oct. 22-25, self-optimizes in real time
1995.
Campos, M., Lima, M., Teixeira, A., Multi-radio, multi-frequency
Moreira, C., Stender, A., Von Meien, redundancy ensures
application performance
O., and Quaresma, B., “Advanced Con-
trol for Gas-Lift Well Optimization,”
Supports real-time
OTC-28108, SPE Offshore Technology monitoring, analytics,
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Oct. 24- & M2M communications
26, 2017.
Guner, M., Pereyra E., Sarica C., and
Torres C., “An Experimental Study of
Low Liquid Loading in Inclined Pipes
from 90° to 45°,” SPE-173631, SPE Pro-
duction and Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Okla., Mar. 1-5, 2015.
Jansen, B., Dalsmo, M., Nokle-
berg, L., Havre, K., Kristiansen, V.,
and Lemetayer, P., “Automatic Control
of Unstable Gas Lifted Wells,” SPE-
56832, SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition. Houston, Tex.,
Oct. 3-6, 1999.
Kaasa, G., Alstad, V., Zhou, J., and
Aamo, O., “Nonlinear Model-Based
Control of Unstable Wells. Modeling,
Identification and Control,” MIC Jour-
nal, Vol. 28, No. 3, July 2007, pp. 69-79.
The author
Paul Mundig (pmund-
ing@Flogistix.com) is vice
president of petroleum
engineering at Flogistix
LP. He holds a BS in
petroleum engineering
(2003) from the Univer-
sity of Oklahoma and has a professional
Schedule a demo at
engineering certification. He is a member rajant.com/oil
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
4:40 PM
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 TECHNOLOGY

North Morecambe onshore terminal

adapts to changing feedstock
Martin Heywood
Spirit Energy Ltd.
Lancaster, UK

Matthew Uhe ing plant operation, detailed understanding of complex mul-

Spirit Energy Ltd. PROCESSING ticomponent adsorption processes, and the BASF adsorbent
Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, UK technology.
This article discusses the technologies and plant configu-
Tobias Eckardt ration supporting North Morecambe terminal’s gas process-
BASF Catalysts Germany GMBH ing operations and also presents a brief overview of new de-
Nienburg, Germany hydration technology offerings BASF developed based on its
collaboration at the North Morecambe site.
Margaret Greene
BASF Corp. Gas treatment by adsorption
Iselin, NJ BASF’s hydrocarbon recovery unit (HRU) technology for the
simultaneous removal of hydrocarbon and water (H2O) from
Ray Racher natural gas is based on the properties of its proprietary Sor-
BASF Corp. bead, a specialty alumino-silica gel adsorbent with a pore
Baton Rouge, La. structure tailored to the adsorption of hydrocarbons such
as C6+, benzene-toluene-xylene (BTX), and mercaptans. Sor-
Roger Wyatt bead adsorbent is manufactured in a unique oil-drop pro-
BASF SE cess that allows control over internal structure of the beads.
Birmingham, UK The adsorbent’s homogenous structure, which eliminates
particle-to-particle binding prevalent with other adsorbent
products such as activated alumina or molecular sieves, is
In 1994, British Gas PLC commis-
sioned a natural gas processing plant
at the North Morecambe onshore ter- NORTH MORECAMBE TERMINAL PROCESS-DESIGN FIG. 1
minal at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria,
UK, based on a novel combination of Sulfinol Sulfuric
existing technologies using adsorbents Feed gas
D plant acid plant
from BASF Corp. to achieve gas speci- from Rivers
fications for cryogenic processing and terminal

transportation via UK’s National Trans-

BASF
mission System (NTS) to National Grid OASE
PLC’s gas network. AGRU Sorbead Molecular
Train 1 HRU, sieve
Subsequently held by Centrica PLC dewpoint dehydration MRU, Cyclonic
Coalescer filter, catch NRU
and now operated by Spirit Energy Ltd., Feed gas
control; unit, 1 bed box
2 beds 2 beds To grid
the North Morecambe terminal has op- from North BASF
erated for 25 years despite changes to Morecambe OASE
field AGRU Mist Heavy H2O Mercury Dust N2
composition of feed gas delivered to the Train 2 hydrocarbons,
site. The success of the complex ter- H2O
minal since its commissioning results CO2, H2S
from a robust initial design and ongo-

32 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ032-037.indd 32 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 key to performance under adverse process conditions. This livery into the national grid. Alongside a hydrocarbon dew-
uniformity provides high crush-strength and attrition-resis- point control system upstream of the cryogenic N2-removal
tant properties. process, the plant also would need an H2O-polishing dehy-
HRU operation uses multiple towers simultaneously, each dration unit between the hydrocarbon dewpoint control sys-
in a different stage of the process. While one or more towers tem and cryogenic section to reduce H2O dewpoint of gas to
is in adsorption mode, one or two towers are in regeneration, cryogenic specification since N2 removal requires cryogenic
which involves a first step of heating followed by a second temperatures (OGJ, July 6, 2015, p. 100).
cooling step. Feed gas is commonly used as regeneration gas After evaluating capital and operational costs—and tak-
that is then recycled to the tower in adsorption. Contami- ing into account reliability and environmental consider-
nates are removed as liquids from the system regeneration ations—British Gas selected BASF adsorption technology
gas during cooling via a condenser, while the separated re- and adsorbent materials for design of the terminal’s H2O
generation gas is recycled to the feed side of the adsorption and hydrocarbon dewpoint control system (Sorbead HRU),
unit. The short-cycle, dynamic-adsorption technology can its deep dehydration system (molecular sieve), as well as its
be adjusted for specific adsorbent mass and cycle time so two-trained CO2 and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) removal system
that the desired contaminant is removed. (BASF OASE acid gas removal units, AGRU).1
While hydrocarbon removal technology requires short
cycle times, adsorptive dehydration processes can achieve Plant configuration
long-cycle operations. In the short-cycle HRU process, ad- The heart of North Morecambe terminal’s gas conditioning
sorbents are often cycled 10,000 times or more between process is the sequential two-stage adsorption design con-
changeouts, and the regeneration gas is a wet, heated feed- sisting of the HRU and molecular sieve dehydration unit that
gas generating a hydrothermally severe environment during enable gas specifications required for cryogenic processing.
heating. The short-cycle process is more demanding on the Fig. 1 shows the simplified process design of North More-
adsorbent materials. cambe terminal’s main gas treatment train as commissioned
in 1994.
Terminal development study After arriving at the terminal and passing through the
Between 1985 and 1990, Brit-
ish Gas carried out a study to
select the optimum process
technology for a greenfield
onshore gas processing ter-
minal in Barrow-in-Furness
designed to treat gas contain-
ing high concentrations of
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitro-
gen (N2), hydrocarbons, and
H2O produced from North
Morecambe gas field devel-
opment in the East Irish Sea
off Northwest England, about
26 km west of Blackpool in
water depts of around 20 m.
Based on gas composition,
British Gas established upon
inception that a portion of gas
to be processed at the pro-
posed North Morecambe ter-
minal would need cryogenic
processing for N2 removal
to meet the NTS’ Wobbe in-
dex (WI) number (the ratio
between calorific value and Commissioned in 1994, Spirit Energy Ltd.’s North Morecambe onshore terminal at Barrow-in-Fur-
the square foot of gas density ness, Cumbria, UK, uses a unique process configuration combined with adsorbents from BASF
relative to air under ambient Corp. to achieve gas specifications for cryogenic processing and transportation into the UK’s
conditions) required for de- national grid. Photo from Costain Group PLC.

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 33

201005OGJ032-037.indd 33 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY
OASE AGRU for removal of CO2 and HRU PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
other acid gas components, feed gas
enters the HRU, which simultaneously
removes any remaining heavy hydro-
carbons and H2O in a single step. While Feed gas
a portion of this gas achieves sales
specification and is sent directly to the
grid, some volumes require cryogenic
processing for N2 removal to meet the
WI requirement. This gas moves to the
downstream molecular sieve dehydra-
tion unit to reduce its H2O dewpoint
to cryogenic specifications. Following
Bed on
water removal, the gas passes through
adsorption
the mercury removal unit (MRU) and
N2-removal unit (NRU) before delivery
to the grid.
This sequential adsorption-stage
design has yielded many benefits for
the plant, including extending the life
of the molecular sieve dehydration bed
to more than 15 years. During an ad-
sorbent changeout in 2014, BASF and
terminal operations staff concluded
the molecular sieve—after 19 years in
service—could have lasted much lon-
ger.2
HRU design
North Morecambe terminal’s Sorbead HRU is designed to re-
move 90% of H2O and selectively remove C7+ hydrocarbons
from saturated gas simultaneously to achieve a criconden-
therm (CHDP) of -10˚ C. The HRU achieves this CHDP—the
highest temperature at any pressure at which a gas will be-
gin to condense and hydrocarbon liquids form (e.g., maxi-
mum dewpoint)—using a two-tower unit, with one tower
in adsorption and the other in thermal regeneration (Fig.
2). The regeneration gas is a fraction of feed gas taken from
the adsorption gas, passed through a heater, and then sent
downflow through the bed on regeneration. The hot, satu-
rated gas is passed through a cooler-heat exchanger followed
by a condensed liquids separator. Effluent regeneration gas
is then reblended with adsorber feed gas to prevent loss of
regeneration gas. After the adsorbent bed is heated to 270˚
C., incoming regeneration gas at ambient temperature is
passed via a bypass around the heater to cool the Sorbead to
ambient temperature in preparation for the next adsorption
period on the freshly regenerated adsorbent. This process
removes H2O to less than 30 ppmv, requiring the molecular
sieve dehydration unit as an H2O polisher to meet the cryo-
genic NRU inlet specification.
Feed gas composition changes
Initially designed to process sulfurless gas from North
34 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ032-037.indd 34
FIG. 2
Regeneration
gas heater
Bed on
regeneration Regeneration
gas separator
Methanol
Regeneration Condensate
gas cooler
Treated gas
Dust filters
Morecambe field, North Morecambe terminal still process-
es 100% of gas feedstock through its original Sorbead HRU
unit. The terminal, however, also now treats gas production
from a mixture of fields, including Spirit Energy’s South
Morecambe and Rhyl fields, as well as increased volumes of
sour gas (containing higher concentrations of H2S, CO2, N2,
and mercaptans) produced at Chrysaor Resources (Irish Sea)
Ltd.-owned Millom, Dalton, and Calder fields that it receives
from Chrysaor Holdings Ltd.’s nearby Rivers terminal.
In addition to gas field composition variation, H2O con-
tent of feed gas also varies but is mostly independent of feed
gas sources, as H2O content depends on temperature of gas
leaving the amine CO2 removal unit.
Over the course of the Sorbead HRU’s operating lifetime,
unit performance has been controlled by the adsorbent’s
gradual decay in adsorption capacity. As a result, predictions
of future adsorbent performance for changes in gas compo-
sition are generally based on current performance. Spirit
Energy terminal operations staff regularly monitor current
performance to assist BASF in subsequent performance pre-
dictions.
Methanol considerations
Methanol (MeOH), used as a hydrate inhibitor in gas pro-
cessing operations, is also an impurity present in feed gas
that affects North Morecambe terminal’s Sorbead HRU per-
formance. Hydrate formation is a challenge, particularly in
10/1/20 11:10 AM

winter, when the air cooler is exposed to low ambient air
temperatures. These conditions induce hydrate formation,
causing blockages in the gas cooler. To reduce hydrate for-
mation, terminal operations add MeOH to the stream in two
locations, first at the sealine and again at the regeneration
gas circuit. Because of high-H2O concentrations in hot gas at
the cooler inlet during regeneration, MeOH is added into gas
upstream of the cooler.
Addition of methanol in the gas treatment process re-
sults in excess MeOH in regeneration gas, and consequently,
high-MeOH content in feed gas to the HRU. Since effluent
regeneration gas is recycled to the inlet gas, the resulting
adsorption inlet gas contains high, transient concentrations
of gas-phase MeOH, which is subsequently readsorbed with
H2O onto Sorbead adsorbent.
During an adsorption cycle, species that adsorb more
strongly to the bed will displace other components that
adsorb less strongly. The process is designed to switch to
regeneration when C7+ hydrocarbons reach the end of the
bed. At the end of the adsorption period, C7- hydrocarbons
are about to break through while lighter hydrocarbons have
been displaced and exited the bed. At the point of C7 break-
through, C8+ hydrocarbons are fully adsorbed. Successful
operation of the North Morecambe plant in meeting the
required hydrocarbon dewpoint depends on the sufficient
removal of C7+ components and initiating the regeneration
cycle before breakthrough. Since MeOH shows a similar ad-
sorption profile to H2O, it impacts available bed capacity for
H2O and hydrocarbon adsorption.
BASF and terminal operations performed theoretical
studies to investigate the terminal system’s ability to achieve
hydrocarbon dewpoint when MeOH is present. Fig. 3 pres-
ents results of these adsorption studies.
The studies considered an H2O and hydrocarbon adsorp-
tion profile in the bed at the end of the adsorption cycle.
END-CYCLE H2O, HYDROCARBON ADSORPTION PROFILE*
Component concentration
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance across bed, %
*Based on BASF adsorption studies of North Morecambe terminal system’s ability to achieve hydrocarbon dewpoint with methanol
inhibitor present.
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 35
201005OGJ032-037.indd 35
TECHNOLOGY
Solid lines represent a scenario with MeOH in the feed gas,
while the dotted line shows the amount of the bed used
when only H2O is present. Conclusions from this analysis
suggest that, in the presence of MeOH (solid blue line), a
larger portion of the top of the bed is used for adsorption,
leaving less of the bed available for adsorption of C7 (red
line) and C8+ (orange line) hydrocarbons. The initial pla-
teau indicates the equilibrium zone, followed by the mass-
transfer zone where adsorption takes place. H2O and MeOH
are removed preferentially and adsorbed on the bed’s upper
section. Hydrocarbon adsorption takes place in the lower,
water-free zone. Due to presence of MeOH, there is a smaller
portion of the bed available compared with an absence of
MeOH (dotted blue line). This lower portion of the bed con-
trols hydrocarbon dewpoint and overall performance of the
adsorber unit. Depending on the level of MeOH in the feed,
North Morecambe operations can adjust operations to maxi-
mize plant efficiency by extending or shortening adsorption
times to achieve the same hydrocarbon dewpoint.
In addition to impacting bed adsorption capacity, excess
MeOH in feed can lead to formation of dimethyl ether (DME).
DME formation is the condensation reaction of two MeOH
molecules (2 H3COH = H3COCH3 + H2O). This equilibrium
reaction is driven to the right by continuous adsorptive re-
moval of H2O on the bed, resulting in formation of more
DME. This DME is removed from the bed during regenera-
tion and is contained in the separated condensate, reduc-
ing the quality and value of condensate when reselling. The
operation staff’s knowledge and understanding of MeOH’s
impact on the adsorption process allows terminal operators
to mitigate these effects and optimize plant performance.
Mercaptans removal
New feeds to the North Morcambe terminal exhibited the
presence of various mercaptans that the Sorbead unit can re-
move along with heavy hydrocarbons
and H2O.
FIG. 3
Under certain conditions, however,
tert butyl mercaptan (TBM) can react
C7 in the adsorption bed to form H2S.
C8+
This increased concentration of H2S
H2O
must be considered when designing a
H2O, MeOH
unit, and adsorption cycle times and
regeneration settings must be decided
accordingly.
In one instance when a new feed
was delivered to the North Morecambe
terminal, operators experienced spikes
of H2S in the outlet stream. Upon in-
vestigation, operators discovered the
60 70 80 90 100 new stream contained TBM, which
was reacting to form H2S under regen-
eration. Once the team identified TBM
in the stream and understood its con-
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 TECHNOLOGY
centration, gas treatment experts from North Morecambe
and BASF cooperated to identify a solution.
Under atmospheric pressure, TBM, in the presence of a
catalyst, breaks down at elevated temperatures of 330° C.
With a pressure of about 75 barg during a regeneration and
a temperature of only 270° C. on the bed inlet, some decom-
position of TBM, and therefore formation of H2S, is still pos-
sible (2 C4H10SH = C8H18S + H2S).
The solution was to control the rate of temperature rise
during regeneration, which kept H2S total concentration be-
low the pipeline specification.
Operational performance, lifetime
Hydrocarbon dewpoint control is achieved by selective re-
moval of C6+ hydrocarbons.
Fig. 4 shows a set of breakthrough curves of individual
natural gas components during adsorption.
The normalized graphs show the ratio of the outlet divid-
ed by the inlet concentration. The outlet profiles show the
typical increase of hydrocarbon concentration over time,
rising from a low outlet value to a value above the inlet con-
centration. The displacement of adsorbed lower molecular-
weight hydrocarbons by higher molecular-weight compo-
nents causes this concentration ratio of > 1. Besides partial
pressure of individual gas components, molecule polarity
and boiling point are mechanisms controlling competitive
hydrocarbon adsorption on a Sorbead bed.
Fig. 4 illustrates a displacement only based on hydro-
carbon chain length; C5 is adsorbed first, then displaced by
C6. The longer chain-length hydrocarbons are adsorbed se-
quentially and follow this same pattern. Hydrocarbon dew-
point control depends on the adsorption cycle time, which
is switched to regeneration before breakthrough of C7+ hy-
drocarbons.
H 2O adsorbs preferentially over most hydrocarbons and,
GAS COMPONENT BREAKTHROUGH CURVES DURING ADSORPTION*
1.4
1.2
Concentration ratio
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Adsorption time
Inlet
C8
*Graphs are normalized, showing ratio of outlet vs. inlet concentrations of individual gas components.
36 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ032-037.indd 36
as such, H 2O concentration in feed gas impacts remaining
available bed capacity for hydrocarbon adsorption to con-
trol dewpoint. The saturated water content of gas leaving
the amine CO2-removal unit is controlled by the exit gas
temperature and can reach 2,000 ppmv. The HRU’s duty
is to adjust the H2O and hydrocarbon dewpoint to the re-
quired pipeline transport specification. BASF technologists
and North Morecambe operations staff anticipated the HRU
could achieve a much lower water dewpoint than required.
The team executed a detailed on-site analysis to measure
H 2O outlet concentrations and discovered the treated gas
only contained 15-20 ppmv of H 2O.
The HRU reliably produced low H 2O levels across the
entire bed lifetime of 5+ years. Plant operations used this
knowledge to adjust adsorption cycle times in the down-
stream molecular sieve dehydration unit. This adsorption
unit is required to reach very low H 2O concentrations (<
0.1 ppmv) necessary for liquefaction and nitrogen rejection.
With an adsorption time of several days and a low-pressure
regeneration system using dry nitrogen, the bed lifetime of
the molecular sieve treater can exceed 15 years.
The effect of the upstream Sorbead HRU on the molecu-
lar sieve polisher’s bed performance cannot be overstated.
By producing a very lean and dry gas, the risks of coking,
retrograde condensation of hydrocarbons, or regeneration
reflux in the downstream molecular sieve treater—all main
causes of molecular sieve-bed aging—are essentially elimi-
nated. The extremely long bed lifetime achieved at North
Morecambe terminal is an important lesson learned that
can be applied both to future plant designs and upgrades to
existing operations.
Next steps
The North Morecambe terminal’s sequential adsorption-
stage plant design points to implications for worldwide
gas processing operations. Flexibility
of the Sorbead HRU has enabled op-
FIG. 4
timum utilization of the terminal as
new gas compositions have been in-
troduced, and long-term success of
the combination of different adsor-
bents has given confidence to allow
for developments in dehydration tech-
nology.
North Morecambe terminal’s se-
quential-adsorption unit design of
an HRU followed by a dehydration
unit serves as the conceptual basis for
Durasorb Dehy units, which are de-
signed to provide natural gas proces-
sors—particularly LNG plants—with
C5 C6 C7 more reliable dehydration service by
C9 C10 combining Sorbead HRU know-how
with molecular sieve materials. Sor-
10/1/20 11:10 AM

bead HRU design software enables calculation of absorbent
performance in all parts of the dehydration vessel, allowing
BASF technologists to design a combination bed resistant to
regeneration reflux and retrograde condensation. The com-
bination-bed design increases performance and lifetime of
adsorbent beds.
BASF has already completed installation of the technol-
ogy in an African LNG plant, with results indicating the
technology’s effectiveness in extending its dehydration
unit’s life.3
References
1. Mayer, M., and Crowe, T., “The North Morecambe Onshore Terminal,”
GPA Europe Meeting: Production and Processing Difficult or Marginal
Fields, London, Sept. 28, 1995.
2. Eckardt, T., Wolf, E., Dolan, W.B., Wyatt, R., “Innovation in Materials
Development for LNG Dehydration,” 19th International Conference on
Liquified Natural Gas, Shanghai, Apr. 5, 2019.
3. Greene, M., Pan, P., Eckardt, T., “Increased Dehydration Bed-Life
Reduces Turnaround Costs and Eliminates Unplanned Shutdown:
NGL and LNG Gas Plant Durasorb Case Studies,” BASF Corp.,
2020. https://catalysts.basf.com/files/literature-library/Greene-BASF-
Paper-2020.pdf
The authors
Martin Heywood (martin.heywood@spirit-energy.
com) is engineering lead at Spirit Energy Ltd. in
Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, UK, where he man-
ages a multidisciplined team in the projects and
engineering department. He joined Centrica PLC.
(now Spirit Energy) in 2005 as a field process
engineer at Barrow gas terminal in Barrow-in-
Furness, UK. Heywood holds a BS (2000) with honors in chemi-
cal and process engineering from the University of Newcastle-
upon-Tyne, UK. A Lean Six Sigma Green Belt, he is a chartered
engineer and fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, UK.
Matthew Uhe (matthew.uhe@spirit-energy.com)
is a principal process engineer at Spirit Energy
Ltd. in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, UK, where
he provides technical oversight on operations
and projects. After emigrating to the UK in 2013
following work as a process engineer in Aus-
tralia’s energy industry, he joined Centrica PLC
(now Spirit Energy) as an operations-focused process engineer
supporting safe and efficient production activities. Uhe holds a
BS (2009) with honors in chemical engineering from Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia. A Lean Six Sigma Green Belt,
he is a chartered engineer and member of the Institution of
Chemical Engineers, UK.
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 37
201005OGJ032-037.indd 37
TECHNOLOGY
Tobias Eckardt (tobias.eckardt@basf.com) is
global technology manager for natural gas treat-
ment and purification at BASF Catalysts Germany
GMBH in Nienburg, Germany, where he also
serves as key expert for natural gas applications
on a global team of adsorption specialists. He
previously held roles with the company in product
development before gradually assuming increased managerial
responsibilities. Eckardt holds a PhD (2005) in organic chemistry
from the University of Cologne, Germany.
Margaret (Peg) Greene (margaret.greene@basf.
com) is global market manager for adsorption
solutions for natural gas at BASF Corp. in Iselin,
NJ, where she works with her global team to
bring new products to market and support BASF
customers. After holding multiple positions
throughout the company through the BASF lead-
ership development program, she secured a role in the catalysts
division as a technology manager before moving into her current
role. Greene holds a PhD (2013) in chemistry from the University
of California, Irvine.
Ray Racher is former global marketing manager
for natural gas adsorbents at BASF Corp. in Baton
Rouge, La., where he also previously served as
global business manager for alumina and silica
adsorbents. Before joining BASF in 2007, he held
positions in technical and product management
with Alcoa Corp. Racher holds a BSc (1977) in
ceramic engineering from the University of Sheffield, UK. He is
currently retired.
Roger Wyatt is a former senior consultant for
BASF SE in Elmdon Heath, West Midlands, UK,
where, as part of the adsorbents solutions group,
he was involved in designing adsorption units for
natural gas treatment. Before joining BASF, he
worked on naphtha reforming pilot plant studies
for more than 40 years at British Gas PLC’s Mid-
lands Research Station. A chartered engineer in the UK, Wyatt
holds a BSc (1965) in fuel science from Leeds University, UK.
He retired in 2020.
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 TECHNOLOGY
US refiners accelerate transition
to renewable fuels production
Robert Brelsford
Downstream Technology Editor
Reduced demand for finished petroleum
products as a result of the coronavirus
PROCESSING
(COVID-19) pandemic, alongside busi-
ness strategies increasingly aimed at en-
suring long-term operational competi-
tiveness by reducing costs of compliance with federal and
state low-carbon fuel regulations, are encouraging US con-
ventional refiners to accelerate investments in renewable fu-
els production.
During the last year, operators have announced a series
of projects to add renewable fuels capacity to their portfo-
lios either through conversion and modification of existing
manufacturing assets or construction of grassroots plants.
This article presents an overview of recently proposed re-
newables projects, both planned and already under way, by
US refiners.
Major overhauls, modifications
In mid-August 2020, Phillips 66 announced plans to per-
manently cease processing crude oil at the 120,000-b/d Ro-
deo, Calif., portion of its San Francisco refining complex,
and convert the plant into a renewable fuels refinery as part
of an investment strategy in the operator’s energy transition
to ensure long-term viability and competitiveness (OGJ On-
line, Aug. 13, 2020).
Known as Rodeo Renewed, the proposed $750-800-mil-
lion project will involve construction of new pretreatment
units as well as repurposing of existing hydrocracking units
to enable production of 680 million gal/year of renewable
diesel, renewable gasoline, and sustainable jet fuel for the
California market from a feedstock of cooking oil, fats,
greases, and soybean oils delivered from global sources via
the plant’s flexible logistics network of marine and rail ter-
minals. Combined with production of renewable fuels from
an unidentified project also in development, the converted
Rodeo plant, once fully operational, would produce more
than 800 million gal/year (50,000 b/d) of renewable fuels,
making it the world’s largest plant of its kind.
Alongside the Rodeo conversion project, Phillips 66 said
it also will shutter the Rodeo carbon plant and 44,500-b/d
Santa Maria refining site in Arroyo Grande, Calif.—which
38 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ038-041.indd 38
converts heavy crude oil into high-quality feedstock for
further processing into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel at the
Rodeo refinery—in 2023, with an associated 200 miles of
crude pipelines also to be taken out of service in phases
starting in 2023.
Following reconfiguration, Phillips 66’s San Francisco refin-
ing complex—which consists of the Rodeo plant and the Santa
Maria refinery—would no longer produce fuels from crude oil,
resulting in anticipated 50% and 75% reductions in greenhouse
gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide emissions, respectively.
The project also would enable Phillips 66 to generate
credits under the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS), which is designed to reduce GHG emissions and
decrease petroleum dependence in the state’s transportation
sector by encouraging use of cleaner low-carbon fuels and
incentivizing production of those fuels. Already adopted by
Canada and Oregon, and under consideration by 10 other
US states—the LCFS mandates a 20% reduction in carbon
intensity (CI) of transportation fuels by 2030 compared with
the regulation’s 2010 baseline year.
“We believe the world will require a mix of fuels to meet
the growing need for affordable energy, and the renewable
fuels from Rodeo Renewed will be an important part of that
mix,” said Greg Garland, Phillip 66’s chairman and chief ex-
ecutive officer.
Phillips 66 is securing permits and completing its environ-
mental impact report on the proposed Rodeo Renewed proj-
ect, with an already submitted land-use permit application
to be open for public comment during spring-summer 2021.
Conversion of the Rodeo refinery’s existing diesel hydrotreat-
er—now under way—is scheduled to be completed by mid-
2021, with final investment decision on the entire Rodeo Re-
newed conversion project due sometime in first-quarter 2022.
If approved by Contra Costa County officials and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District, Phillips 66 said it ex-
pects renewable fuels production to begin first-quarter 2024.
The proposed Martinez renewables project follows Phil-
lips 66 and Renewable Energy Group Inc.’s (REG) cancella-
tion earlier this year of a joint project to build a 250-million
gal/year diesel plant in Ferndale, Wash., due to permitting
delays and uncertainties (OGJ Online, Jan. 21, 2020). The
plant—which would have been built adjacent to Phillips
66’s 105,000-b/d Ferndale refinery to access the site’s exist-
ing infrastructure, including tank storage, a dock, and rail
and truck rack access—was to be equipped with REG’s pro-
10/1/20 11:10 AM

Marathon Petroleum Corp. is considering a project to strategically reposition its now permanently idled 161,000-b/d refinery in Marti-
nez, Calif., into a 48,000-b/d renewable diesel production plant. Photo from MPC.
prietary BioSynfining technology for production of renew-
able diesel fuel, with planned feedstocks to include a mix
of waste fats, oils, and greases, including regionally sourced
vegetable oils, animal fats, and used cooking oil.
Marathon Petroleum Corp. (MPC) also revealed in Au-
gust 2020 its decision to permanently idle crude oil pro-
cessing at its 161,000-b/d refinery in Martinez, Calif., and
27,000-b/d refinery in Gallup, NM, as part of the operator’s
strategy to strengthen its competitiveness amid decreased
product demand caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (OGJ
Online, Aug. 10, 2020).
In addition to immediate plans to convert the Martinez
site into a terminal, MPC said it is evaluating strategic repo-
sitioning of the refinery into a 48,000-b/d renewable diesel
plant, aligning with LCFS objectives as well as MPC’s own
GHG-reduction targets.
Despite cost-cutting measures due to COVID-19, MPC
also confirmed in August that construction remains ongoing
at the operator’s previously announced project to convert its
former 19,000-b/d refinery in Dickinson, ND, into a 12,000-
b/d, 100% renewable diesel refinery (OGJ Online, Dec. 20,
2019). Still on schedule to be completed in late 2020, the
biorefinery will use a feedstock of corn, soybean oil, and
other organically derived feed to produce LCFS-compliant
renewable diesel that will be sold into the California market.
In late 2019, MPC secured WorleyParsons Ltd. to deliver de-
tailed engineering services and procure equipment for the
proposed conversion.
In June 2020, HollyFrontier Corp. announced it will per-
manently cease crude processing activities at its 52,000-b/d
refinery in Cheyenne, Wyo., and convert the plant into a re-
newable diesel refinery by 2022 as part of the operator’s in-
creased focus on expanding and integrating its renewables
business (OGJ Online, June 2, 2020). Approved by the com-
Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 39
201005OGJ038-041.indd 39
TECHNOLOGY
pany’s board of directors on May 29, the proposed Cheyenne
conversion project will involve repurposing the refinery’s cur-
rent footprint and a portion of its existing assets to enable pro-
duction of 90 million gal/year (6,000 b/d) of renewable diesel.
According to the current project timeline, HollyFron-
tier—which started winding down traditional petroleum
refining operations at the Cheyenne refinery on Aug. 3 to
begin work on converting certain unidentified units and
hardware at the site for renewable diesel production—said
in its Aug. 6 earnings report for second-quarter 2020 that
the renewable diesel units (RDU) remain on schedule for
completion during first-quarter 2022.
HollyFrontier’s decision to proceed with the conversion
project—which will cost between $125-175 million—was
primarily based on expectations that future free cash flow
generation in Cheyenne would be challenged due to lower
gross margins resulting from economic impacts of the CO-
VID-19 pandemic, weaker crude prices, forecast uncompeti-
tive operating and maintenance costs, and the anticipated
loss of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s small re-
finery exemption. The project is also part of the operator’s
broader plan to spend $650-750 million between 2019-22
to make the renewables segment a larger part of its financial
and operational future.
In addition to announcing the Cheyenne conversion, Hol-
lyFrontier also said it will build a pretreatment unit (PTU) at its
100,000-b/d Navajo refinery in Artesia, NM, where construc-
tion is set to begin on a new 120-125 million-gal/year (about
9,000 b/d) RDU to be operated by HollyFrontier subsidiary Ar-
tesia Renewable Diesel Co. LLC (OGJ Online, Mar. 23, 2020).
Designed to increase flexibility and upgrading of renewable
feedstock by treating degummed and unrefined soybean oil,
bleachable fancy tallow, and distillers corn oil, the proposed
PTU—due for completion in first-half 2022 at a cost of $175-
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 TECHNOLOGY
225 million—will cover about 80% of HollyFrontier’s total
feedstock requirements for its renewable diesel plants.
Based on current market conditions, HollyFrontier will
have combined capacity to produce more than 200 million
gal/year of renewable diesel to help meet demand for low-car-
bon fuels. The company will also be able to cover the cost
of its annual EPA-regulated renewable identification num-
bers (RIN) purchase obligation under EPA’s Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) following startup of the Cheyenne conver-
sion project and $350-million Artesia RDU, which likewise is
scheduled for commissioning first-quarter 2022.
HollyFrontier said expansion and integration of its renew-
ables operations also will help the company’s long-term com-
petitiveness by increasing its ability to comply with and ben-
efit from expanding federal, state, and global requirements
and incentives in the renewables sector, including California’s
LCFS as well as the US Department of Energy’s biodiesel mix-
ture excise and biodiesel production and blending tax credits.
In its Aug. 4 earnings call for second-quarter 2020, CVR
Energy Inc. told investors its board of directors has authorized
engineering studies and preparation of final cost estimates for
a project that would convert an existing hydrocracker at sub-
sidiary Wynnewood Refining Co. LLC’s (WRC) 74,500-b/d
refinery in Wynnewood, Okla., to allow for production of re-
newable diesel.
Designed to take advantage of excess hydrogen capacity
at the site and help offset rising costs of RIN compliance, the
proposed $100-million project—including tanks, a rail ter-
minal, and a staging facility—would enable 6,000-7,000-b/d
of renewable diesel production using a primary feedstock of
readily available, extremely low-CI refined soybean oil from
Washington, said David L. Lamp, CVR Energy’s chief execu-
tive officer and president.
Based on CVR Energy’s plan to expedite the project to take
advantage of the biodiesel mixture excise tax credit—which,
through Dec. 31, 2022, would ensure a $1/gal federal income
tax credit for each gallon of biodiesel produced from soybean oil
feedstock—the company would pay off the entire initial invest-
ment in about 18 months. It would also be positioned to make
provisions for other additions and revamps to allow processing
of virtually any renewable feedstock, according to Lamp.
With final investment decision (FID) on the project sched-
uled by end-September 2020, renewable diesel production
from the proposed hydrocracker conversion—which would
retain the unit’s flexibility to return to conventional hydrocar-
bon processing should economics support doing so—could
begin as soon as June 30, 2021, Lamp said.
Alongside the hydrocracker conversion project, Lamp said
CVR Energy also is evaluating a $50-million investment at
Wynnewood involving a potential revamp of the refinery’s ex-
isting diesel hydrotreater that would enable the unit to regain
about 9,000 b/d of crude processing capacity as well as equip
it to produce renewable diesel. Without disclosing further
details, Lamp said FID on the diesel hydrotreater revamp—
40 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ038-041.indd 40
which depends on further improvements in crack spreads—
likely would be delayed until about third-quarter 2021. If ap-
proved, however, the project could be completed as soon as
third-quarter 2022, according to Lamp.
Back on the US West Coast, Global Clean Energy Holdings
Inc. (GCEH) in June 2020 let a contract to Haldor Topsoe AS to
provide process technology for GCEH’s previously announced
plan to convert its recently purchased 70,000-b/d Bakersfield,
Calif., refinery into a 15,000-b/d renewable diesel plant (OGJ
Online, June 9, 2020). Haldor Topsoe will license its propri-
etary HydroFlex renewable fuel technology as well as supply
basic engineering, proprietary equipment, and catalysts for
the refinery revamp, which—once completed—will enable re-
newable diesel production from both proprietary camelina oil
and traditional biofuel feedstocks. Fuel production from the
retooled refinery will meet California LCFS, as well as comply
with ASTM D975 diesel specifications, resulting in major re-
ductions of carbon dioxide emissions due to its lower CI.
Alongside processing GCEH’s patented fallow-land variet-
ies of camelina—which, traditionally grown in rotation with
wheat, is cultivated as an alternative to leaving land fallow
to avoid displacing or competing with food crops—the Hy-
droFlex unit will process a slate of additional nonpetroleum
renewable feedstocks, such as used cooking oil, soybean oil,
and distillers’ corn oil.
The contract award—the value of which was not dis-
closed—follows GCEH’s May 7 purchase of the idled Ba-
kersfield refinery from Delek US Holdings Inc. subsidiary
Alon Bakersfield Property Inc. for $40 million. With the for-
mer oil refinery already equipped with a large portion of the
equipment needed for production of renewable diesel, the
conversion project will involve a full turnaround and refur-
bishment of existing equipment to enable production from
renewable feedstocks.
Now under way and scheduled to take 18-20 months to
complete, the revamp and conversion project will be exe-
cuted primarily by local trade unions through Primoris Ser-
vices Corp. subsidiary ARB Inc., which is serving as engi-
neering, procurement, and construction contractor. Due for
startup in late 2021, the revamped refinery will not process
petroleum of any kind.
Greenfield construction
Upon completing sale of subsidiary Equilon Enterprises LLC’s
(dba Shell Oil Products US) 157,000-b/d dual-coking refinery
and integrated logistics assets at Martinez, Calif., to PBF En-
ergy Inc. in early February 2020, Royal Dutch Shell PLC said
the two companies are jointly moving forward with their plan
to review feasibility of building a renewable diesel project in-
volving repurposing of existing idled equipment at the Marti-
nez refinery to create a renewable fuels production plant (OGJ
Online, Feb. 3, 2020; June 12, 2019).
While further details of the grassroots Martinez renewables
project have yet to be revealed, Shell—which plans to main-
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 TECHNOLOGY

tain a large presence in California with continued investments edible bionutrients such as animal fats, used cooking oil,
in its upstream and new energies businesses—said that by and inedible corn oil into renewable diesel both compatible
2025 it expects to have ongoing investments in a smaller, core with petroleum-based diesel and transportable via pipe-
set of refineries, a key advantage of which will come from fur- line—Valero said it expects margins to be supported by ex-
ther integration with Shell trading hubs and from producing panded renewable fuel mandates and carbon pricing.
more chemicals and other products
resilient in a lower-carbon future.
At the US Gulf Coast, Valero
Energy Corp. subsidiary Diamond
Alternative Energy LLC and part-
ner Darling Ingredients Inc. in late

Read better.
2019 began advanced engineering
and development cost review for
what will become the first renew-

Do better.
able diesel plant in Texas (OGJ On-
line, Sept. 9, 2019).
To be built in Port Arthur, Tex.,
near Valero’s existing 395,000-b/d
refinery and operated by the com-
panies’ 50-50 joint venture, Dia- Curated news, technology, and
mond Green Diesel Holdings LLC,
the proposed plant would have de- market analysis - guiding
sign capacity to produce 400 mil-
lion gal/year of renewable diesel
business decisions
and 40 million gal/year of renew-
able naphtha. FID on the project is
and spurring
due in 2021. innovation.
Earlier in 2019, the partners
confirmed they would invest a
combined $1.1 billion to expand
Diamond Green Diesel’s existing
275-million gal/year renewable
YOUR SPECIAL
diesel refinery in Norco, La. (OGJ SUBSCRIPTION OFFER:
Online, Apr. 25, 2019).
Now under way, the 400 mil-
lion-gal/year expansion of the re-
finery—already North America’s
SAVE $30
largest renewable diesel plant—will
increase renewable diesel produc-
tion to about 675 million gal/year
to make it the second-largest plant
of its kind in the world (OGJ On-
Visit us at
line, May 6, 2019). Scheduled to be
completed in late 2021, the project
www.ogj.com
involves construction of a second subscribe
renewable diesel plant and renew-
able naphtha finishing installation and use priority
(Train 2) adjacent to the Diamond
Green Diesel refinery’s existing code SAVE30 to claim
Train 1.
Addressing the $550-million this exclusive discount.
investment in its portion of the
Diamond Green Diesel refinery—
which will process edible and in-

200306OGJ_Save30Sub12i 1 3/6/20 11:23 AM

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 41

201005OGJ038-041.indd 41 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY
Liquids pipeline operators’ net
incomes increase 23.5%
Christopher E. Smith
Editor-in-Chief
US oil pipeline operators’ revenues and
profits both posted large increases in 2019,
outperforming the natural gas segment. TRANSPORTATION
Net incomes increased more than 23.5%.
Revenues rose for the fourteenth time in as
many years, up more than 15% from 2018.
Natural gas pipeline operators’ revenues
and net incomes grew more modestly in
2019. Revenues were up for a third straight
year, while profits rose 3.5% to reach an all-
time high of nearly $10.8 billion. Pipeline SPECIAL
constructions costs jumped 75% from 2018, REPORT
led by a near doubling in the price of labor.
Details
The rise in oil pipeline profits as compared with revenues
caused earnings as a percent of revenue to climb to more
than 60%. Natural gas pipeline operators’ net incomes as a
share of revenue by comparison were relatively steady at just
above 38% (Fig. 1).
Proposed new-build natural gas mileage was up from
2019’s announced build, despite the higher construction
IN THIS REPORT . . .
Pipeline revenues, incomes—2019
US pipeline costs
US pipeline costs:
estimated vs. actual
US compressor construction costs
US compressor costs:
estimated vs. actual
42 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020
201005OGJ042-053.indd 42
costs. Compression construction costs rose by nearly 25%,
but planned additions more than doubled even so, approach-
ing 680,000 hp.
Dramatic increases in all land pipeline construction cost
areas combined for overall costs more than 75% higher than
what was estimated in 2019. Miscellaneous costs grew to
$2 million/mile from $1.3 million/mile, while estimated la-
bor costs led the upward charge, increasing to $4.2 million/
mile from $2.2 million. Material costs also nearly doubled, to
roughly $1.2 million/mile. The roughly $3.5-million increase
in total estimated $/mile land pipeline construction costs
moved them to $8.1 million per mile, 75% more than 2019.
Actual land pipeline construction costs for projects
completed in the 12 months ending June 30, 2020, were
roughly $7 million/mile (85%) more than estimated costs.
Labor costs alone were almost $6 million/mile more than
estimates. Actual compressor station costs were slightly less
than estimated costs for projects with final cost filings filed
by June 30, 2020.
US pipeline data
At the end of this article, two large tables (beginning on p. ??)
US interstate mileage
Investment in US oil pipelines
10 years of land construction costs
Top 10 interstate oil lines
Top 10 interstate gas lines
Oil pipeline companies
Gas pipeline companies
10/1/20 11:10 AM
 TOP 10 US INTERSTATE OIL PIPELINE COMPANIES—2019
Trunkline traffic, Net income,
Company Mileage Company million bbl-miles Company $1,000

Magellan Pipeline Co. LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,669 Colonial Pipeline Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 846,792 Sunoco Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,596,689
Mid-America Pipeline Co. LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,915 Enbridge Energy LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 809,816 Plains Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,574,805
Plains Pipeline LP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,617 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP . . . . . 222,580 Lone Star NGL Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943,026
Sunoco Pipeline LP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,066 Dakota Access LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215,847 Enbridge Energy LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 899,383
Colonial Pipeline Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,587 Plains Pipeline LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194,260 Permian Express Partners LLC . . . . . . . . . . 879,752
Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,258 Lone Star NGL Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . 160,481 TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP . . . . . . . 765,508
Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co. LLC. . . . . . . 4,743 Oryx Southern Delaware Oil Gathering and Transport LLC . 159,927 Dakota Access LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716,103
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,350 Plantation Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,605 Seaway Crude Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640,699
Enbridge Energy LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,194 Magellan Pipeline Co. LP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,734 Enterprise Crude Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . 461,319
NuStar Logistics LP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,985 Energy Transfer Crude Oil Co. LLC. . . . . . 125,025 Magellan Pipeline Co. LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415,312

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,384 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,001,067 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,892,596
Part of all companies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.58% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.12% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.96%

Top 10 totals-2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,892 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,872,375 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7,246,8648

Source: US FERC Form 6: Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies, Dec. 31, 2019.

TOP 10 US INTERSTATE GAS PIPELINE COMPANIES—2019

Transmission Volumes moved Net income,
Company* mileage Company* for fee, MMcf Company* $1,000

Northern Natural Gas Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,672 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.. . . . 5,638,557 Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . 823,514
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,761 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . 4,028,560 Trancontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC . . . . . . 758,419
El Paso Natural Gas Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,217 Texas Eastern Transmission LP. . . . . . . . . 4,028,298 Columbia Gas Transmission LLC. . . . . . . . . . . 680,973
Columbia Gas Transmission LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,896 ANR Pipeline Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,437,164 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 665,136
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.. . . . . . . . . . . 9,558 Columbia Gas Transmission LLC. . . . . . . . 2,371,496 Texas Eastern Transmission LP. . . . . . . . . . . . 510,152
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America. . . . . . . . . . . . 9,013 El Paso Natural Gas Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,249,555 Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG LP . . . . . . . 371,359
ANR Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,882 Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America. . . . . 2,097,744 Florida Gas Transmission Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343,027
Texas Eastern Transmission LP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,835 Rockies Express Pipeline LLC. . . . . . . . . . 1,497,495 El Paso Natural Gas Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302,788
Southern Natural Gas Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,818 Northern Natural Gas Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,492,309 Rockies Express Pipeline LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . 284,417
Gulf South Pipeline Co. LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,340 Gulf South Pipeline Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,336,242 Northern Natural Gas Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273,858
Total 95,992 27,177,420 $5,013,643

Part of majors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.75% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.71%

Part of all companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.37% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.92% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.66%
––––––– ––––––––– –––––––––––
Total—2018 Top 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96,537 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,404,293 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,443,603

*All FERC-classified as “major.”

Source: US FERC Forms 2 & 2A: annual reports for natural-gas companies, Dec. 31, 2019

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PERFORMANCE FIG. 1 offer a variety of data for US oil and gas
Operating revenues pipeline companies: revenue, income,
45 volumes transported, miles operated,
and investments in physical plants.
30 These data are gathered from annual
$ billion

reports filed with FERC by regulated

15 oil and natural gas pipeline companies
for the previous calendar year.
0
Data are also gathered from peri-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 odic filings with FERC by those regu-
Net incomes lated natural gas pipeline companies
seeking FERC approval to expand ca-
10
9 pacity. OGJ keeps a record of these fil-
8 ings for each 12-month period ending
7 June 30.
$ billion

6
5 Combined, these data allow an
4 analysis of the US regulated interstate
3
2 pipeline system.
1 •  Annual reports. Companies that
0 FERC classifies as involved in the in-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
terstate movement of oil or natural gas
Source: US FERC Forms 2 and 2A, gas pipeline company reports
for a fee are jurisdictional to FERC,

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 43

201005OGJ042-053.indd 43 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

must apply to FERC for approval of transportation rates, and
therefore must file a FERC annual report: Form 2 or 2A,
respectively, for major or nonmajor natural gas pipelines;
Form 6 for oil (crude or product) pipelines.
The distinction between “major” and “nonmajor” is de-
fined by FERC and appears as a note at the end of the table
listing all FERC-regulated natural gas pipeline companies
for 2019 at the end of this article.
The deadline to file these reports each year is in April. For
a variety of reasons, companies often miss that deadline and
apply for extensions, but eventually file an annual report.
That deadline and the numerous delayed filings explain why
publication of this OGJ report on pipeline economics occurs
later in each year. Earlier publication would exclude many
companies’ information.
•  Periodic reports. When a FERC-regulated natural gas
pipeline company wants to modify its system, it must apply
for a “certificate of public convenience and necessity.” This
filing must explain in detail the planned construction, jus-
tify it, and––except in certain instances—specify what the
company estimates construction will cost.
Not all applications are approved. Not all that are ap-
proved are built. But assuming a company receives its cer-
tificate and builds its infrastructure, it must—again, with
some exceptions—report back to FERC how its original cost
estimates compared with what it spent.
OGJ monitors these filings from July 1 to June 30 each
year, collecting them, and analyzing their numbers.
Reporting changes
The number of companies required to file annual reports
with FERC may change from year-to-year, with some com-
panies becoming jurisdictional, others
nonjurisdictional, and still others merg-
ing or being consolidated out of exis-
tence. Such changes require care be taken
in comparing annual US petroleum and
natural gas pipeline statistics.
Only major gas pipelines are required SPECIAL
US INTERSTATE PIPELINE MILEAGE
Table 1
–––––––––––– Miles –––––––––––
Year Gas1 2 Oil Total
2010 190,305 147,524 337,829
2011 192,203 149,571 341,774
2012 191,195 151,912 343,107
2013 189,087 152,016 341,103
2014 189,366 160,521 349,887
2015 188,105 164,801 352,906
2016 187,264 166,321 353,585
2017 187,559 168,813 356,372
2018 189,968 171,736 361,704
2019 189,141 173,886 363,027
1.
FERC-defined major gas pipelines only; transmission
mileage. See GAS COMPANIES table for definition of
major and nonmajor companies and details of 2018 27,321,482 10,554,601
companies reporting mileage for 2019.
2.
Revised from initial publication.
Source: US FERC annual reports: Form 6,
oil pipelines; Form 2, gas pipelines.
to file miles operated in a given year. The other companies
may indicate miles operated but are not specifically required
to do so.
Reports for 2019 show an decrease in FERC-defined ma-
jor gas pipeline companies: 98 companies of 180 filing, from
100 of 180 for 2018.
FERC made a change to reporting requirements in 1995
for both crude oil and petroleum products pipelines. Exempt
from requirements to prepare and file a Form 6 were those
pipelines with operating revenues at or less than $350,000
for each of the 3 preceding calendar years. These companies
must now file only an “Annual Cost of Service Based Analy-
sis Schedule,” which provides only total annual cost of ser-
vice, actual operating revenues, and total throughput in both
deliveries and barrel-miles.
In 1996 major natural gas pipeline companies were no lon-
ger required to report miles of gathering and storage systems
separately from transmission. Thus, total miles operated for
gas pipelines consist almost entirely of transmission mileage.
FERC-regulated major natural gas pipeline mileage
shrank in 2019 (Table 1), final data showing a decrease of
827 miles, or 0.44%. Oil mileage by contrast surged 1.29%,
adding 2,150 miles.
Rankings; activity
Natural gas pipeline companies in 2019 saw operating rev-
enues rise $949 million or roughly 3.5% from 2018, a more
moderate increase than occurred the year before. Net in-
come’s growth was even more moderate, rising $190 million
(1.8%) after a 68% increase in 2019.
Oil pipeline earnings were stronger, rising $3.3 billion
(23.5%), the fourth consecutive year of net income growth
following a sharp decline in 2015. Revenues rose $3.9 billion
or 15% (Table 2).
Crude deliveries for 2019 increased by nearly 673 million
bbl or 5%, while product deliveries rose just 95 million bbl
(1.1%).
OGJ uses the FERC annual report data to rank the Top
10 pipeline companies in three categories (miles operated,
REPORT trunkline traffic, and operating income) for oil pipeline com-
PIPELINE COMPANY REVENUES, INCOMES Table 2
––––––––––––––– Gas ––––––––––––––––– –––––––––––––––– Oil –––––––––––––––
Operating Net income, Operating Net income,
revenues, $1,000 $1,000 revenues, $1,000 $1,000
2010 19,790,011 5,210,388 11,219,154 4,582,285
2011 20,545,763 4,888,125 12,562,252 6,109,055
2012 20,969,959 4,764,796 14,007,060 6,423,112
2013 21,273,449 4,302,305 15,733,837 6,980,508
2014 24,514,239 4,776,194 19,281,113 9,572,871
2015 24,093,370 5,417,841 22,019,267 6,688,711
2016 22,137,130 5,029,261 23,099,914 10,542,077
2017 23,276,168 6,287,577 25,426,615 13,856,077
29,035,122 16,521,544
2019 28,270,482 10,774,960 32,894,592 19,780,159
Source: US FERC annual reports (Forms 2, 2A, and 6) by regulated interstate natural gas and oil pipeline companies.

44 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ042-053.indd 44 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

INVESTMENT IN OIL PIPELINES—2019 Table 3

–––––––––––––––––––––––– Company and investment, $––––––––––––––––––––––––
A B C D E Total, $ %

CRUDE OIL PIPELINES

Land 62,111,324 120,398 6,388 6,969,615 5,730,126 74,937,851 0.48%
Right of way 462,862,876 945,777 300,181 61,484,077 11,355,832 536,948,743 3.44%
Line pipe 3,151,330,520 23,369,478 7,158,890 136,695,088 53,591,403 3,372,145,379 21.62%
Line pipe fittings 210,888,682 1,579,699 1,739,503 41,582,450 39,952,379 295,742,713 1.90%
Pipeline construction 4,886,804,428 66,625,564 9,416,243 705,486,301 139,140,169 5,807,472,705 37.24%
Buildings 280,522,734 5,525,869 2,360,703 46,509,765 21,461,458 356,380,529 2.28%
Boilers — — — — — — 0.00%
Pumping equipment 431,942,367 11,139,394 9,749,060 105,281,909 16,028,470 574,141,200 3.68%
Machine tools and machinery — — — 62,950 — 62,950 0.00%
Other station equipment 2,750,014,503 33,979,066 8,394,707 633,136,423 155,590,008 3,581,114,707 22.96%
Oil tanks 649,025,815 12,287,387 — 143,102,562 27,214,797 831,630,561 5.33%
Delivery facilities — — — (40,919) — (40,919) 0.00%
Communication systems 17,901,893 1,234,476 — 1,707,695 1,037,296 21,881,360 0.14%
Office furniture and equipment 32,816,098 507,431 1,223,581 4,220,597 252,541 39,020,248 0.25%
Vehicles and other work equip. 80,432,484 1,488,891 437,297 9,238,758 — 91,597,430 0.59%
Other property 9,990,692 3,757,968 — — — 13,748,660 0.09%

Total investment-2019 $13,026,644,416 $162,561,398 $40,786,553 $1,895,437,271 $471,354,479 $15,596,784,117 100.00%

Total carrier property—2019 $14,900,813,765 $177,279,638 $42,893,564 $1,981,189,562 $539,090,525
Total investment-2018 $12,784,608,684 $159,463,980 $40,786,991 $1,820,868,323 $442,181,930 $15,247,909,908

PRODUCT PIPELINES
Land 7,787,802 7,483,977 1,139,188 5,125,615 18,318,074 39,854,656 0.41%
Right of way — 26,803,104 66,159,130 12,313,378 147,623,562 252,899,174 2.58%
Line pipe 412,303,945 95,485,938 689,351,515 108,200,027 360,981,505 1,666,322,930 16.98%
Line pipe fittings 180,410,397 78,449,908 105,004,810 9,006,548 121,812,234 494,683,897 5.04%
Pipeline construction 1,478,881,799 329,844,973 749,207,726 156,447,919 724,732,692 3,439,115,109 35.05%
Buildings 67,644,572 19,208,578 15,573,974 21,076,520 77,259,507 200,763,151 2.05%
Boilers — — — — — — 0.00%
Pumping equipment 140,371,769 47,720,122 253,178,900 35,573,705 95,677,779 572,522,275 5.83%
Machine tools and machinery — — — — — — 0.00%
Other station equipment 681,757,500 211,965,244 162,789,858 174,295,949 473,392,327 1,704,200,878 17.37%
Oil tanks 299,925,978 127,332,685 8,492,987 60,210,198 390,373,689 886,335,537 9.03%
Delivery facilities — — 12,104,864 33,766,249 227,003,546 272,874,659 2.78%
Communication systems 9,224,265 2,023,931 4,193,480 6,060,228 43,663,058 65,164,962 0.66%
Office furniture and equipment 60,394,479 2,406,311 38,086,304 6,036,054 3,636,676 110,559,824 1.13%
Vehicles and other work equip. 23,693,292 3,287,057 19,228,914 9,856,435 16,835,469 72,901,167 0.74%
Other property 3,659,940 — 31,014,969 — — 34,674,909 0.35%

Total investment-2019 $3,366,055,738 $952,011,828 $2,155,526,619 $637,968,825 $2,701,310,118 $9,812,873,128 100.00%

Total carrier property—2019 $3,409,527,893 $960,116,435 $2,167,104,090 $655,121,927 $3,106,360,524
Total investment-2018 $3,231,707,727 $931,500,216 $2,127,038,192 $610,469,554 $2,595,464,578 $9,496,180,267
Sources: US FERC Forms 6, Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies, Dec. 31, 2018, and 2019.

panies and three categories (miles operated, gas transported But also, because these companies comprise such a large
for others, and net income) for natural gas pipeline companies. portion of their respective groups, the listings provide snap-
Positions in these rankings shift year to year, reflecting shots of overall industry trends and events.
normal fluctuations in companies’ activities and fortunes. For instance, earnings for the Top 10 oil pipeline com-
panies rose 22.7% compared with the
19.7% overall increase, suggesting that
OIL PIPELINE INVESTMENT FIG. 2
the upswing was led by the larger op-
Crude oil Products erators. The Top 10 companies’ share
Line pipe
Pipeline of the segment’s total earnings grew
Line pipe Pipeline construction
construction and fittings accordingly, standing at 45% vs. the
and fittings 35.05%
37.24% 22.02% 44% share of earnings held in 2018.
23.52%
Net income as a portion of natural
Land and
ROW
gas pipeline operating revenues eased
Land and to 38% in 2019, still the second high-
3.92% ROW
2.98% est level in more than 12 years. The
Misc.* percentage of income as operating rev-
1.07% Misc.*
5.67% enues for oil pipelines climbed to 60%,
the highest ever.
Pump station Pump station Net income as a portion of gas-plant
and equipment and equipment investment was steady at 5.3%. Net in-
34.26% 34.28% come as a portion of investment in oil
*Generally includes delivery systems, communications, office furniture and equipment, vehicles and other work equipment, and other property.
Source: US oil pipeline company annual reports (Form 6) to FERC for 2019.
pipeline carrier property reached 14.3%,
eclipsing 2018’s recent high of 13.5%.

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 45

201005OGJ042-053.indd 45 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

US PIPELINE COSTS, ESTIMATED Table 4

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– $ –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Size, Length, ROW &
in. Location1 miles Material Labor Misc.2 damages Total $/mile

LAND PIPELINES
12 Pennsylvania (lat.) 0.40 89,151 421,484 219,708 10,000 740,343 1,850,858

20 Pennsylvania (L) 29.50 14,000,359 75,444,605 33,812,677 5,723,371 128,981,012 4,372,238
Mississippi (lat.) 3.40 2,098,010 8,222,940 1,894,788 693,900 12,909,638 3,796,952
New Jersey 1.55 1,733,738 16,053,073 17,489,953 6,508,227 41,784,991 26,958,059
Louisiana (lat.) 0.20 350,340 4,382,824 3,020,968 100,000 7,854,132 39,270,660

24 North Dakota 61.90 51,925,981 124,540,311 33,063,795 11,594,449 221,124,536 3,572,287
Nebraska (L) 4.20 3,619,620 10,482,304 4,571,735 794,457 19,468,116 4,635,266
Pennsylvania (L) 1.40 759,003 4,142,022 1,771,034 190,000 6,862,059 4,901,471
North Dakota 0.30 868,301 113,191 11,791,014 40,500 12,813,006 42,710,020

30 New Mexico (lat.) 16.30 15,379,106 22,636,490 12,256,591 2,905,500 53,177,687 3,262,435
West Virginia /R/ 1.13 3,369,126 16,300,000 18,052,801 508,500 38,230,427 33,832,236
Pennsylvania (L) 0.80 1,856,082 4,807,760 7,597,317 2,130,971 16,392,130 20,490,163
West Virginia /R/ 0.74 2,227,285 10,500,000 17,113,028 696,540 30,536,853 41,266,018

30, 42 New Mexico-Texas 116.60 138,610,816 141,794,247 96,435,953 27,780,250 404,621,266 3,470,165

36 Pennsylvania-NJ 116.00 122,440,824 698,552,221 221,128,847 117,487,646 1,159,609,538 9,996,634
Pennsylvania3 68.00 69,932,300 345,040,755 196,838,845 60,402,690 672,214,590 9,885,509
Pennsylvania (L) 8.70 7,849,381 35,515,942 23,423,182 2,385,389 69,173,894 7,951,022

42 Pennsylvania 3.60 3,108,110 32,627,293 29,710,677 2,133,931 67,580,011 18,772,225
–––––––– –––––––––––––– –––––––––––––– –––––––––––––– –––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– –––––––––––

  Total projects--land 366.72 $440,217,533 $1,551,577,462 $730,192,913 $242,086,321 $2,964,074,229 $8,082,663

  Total land-2019 report 246.11 $170,178,687 $552,037,221 $318,561,946 $93,313,681 $1,134,091,535 $4,608,068

OFFSHORE PIPELINES

  Total projects--offshore — — — — — — —
  TOTAL--ALL PROJECTS 366.72 $440,217,533 $1,551,577,462 $730,192,913 $242,086,321 $2,964,074,229 $8,082,663
  2019-REPORT TOTAL, ALL PROJECTS 246.11 $170,178,687 $552,037,221 $318,561,946 $93,313,681 $1,134,091,535 $4,608,068

¹L = loop; R = replacement; lat. = lateral.

2
Generally includes surveys, engineering, supervision, interest, administration, overheads, contingencies, allowances for funds used during construction (AFUDC),
and FERC fees.
3
This project is Phase 1 of the project listed above. Separate cost estimates were filed for each. Duplicate miles were removed from this table.
Source: US FERC construction-permit applications, July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020.

US COMPRESSOR-CONSTRUCTION COSTS, ESTIMATED Table 5

Equipment
Location Horsepower material Labor Land Misc.1 Total $/hp
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– $ –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Mississippi 5,000 10,721,768 22,998,975 596,000 2,563,334 36,880,077 7,376

New York2 12,000 19,269,868 19,319,536 — 31,547,527 70,136,931 5,845
New York2 12,000 18,697,023 19,288,904 — 31,184,205 69,170,132 5,764
Pennsylvania 15,165 25,797,864 20,384,500 75,000 18,967,940 65,225,304 4,301
Louisiana
3
15,370 16,251,172 18,072,550 500,000 31,089,252 65,912,974 4,288
Maine2 15,900 26,666,115 29,665,428 872,420 47,516,022 104,719,985 6,586
Nebraska2 15,900 14,100,000 9,200,000 40,000 6,390,000 29,730,000 1,870
Mississippi 22,220 24,335,599 19,906,838 526,400 18,573,081 63,341,918 2,851
Pennsylvania 22,220 36,892,008 18,627,552 200,000 14,116,952 69,836,512 3,143
Louisiana 23,470 26,585,594 27,980,229 1,275,368 51,252,375 107,093,566 4,563
Connecticut2 24,000 40,055,699 27,316,913 — 44,641,479 112,014,091 4,667
North Dakota 26,250 38,769,500 9,668,700 455,000 10,802,946 59,696,146 2,274
Louisiana 30,000 28,898,961 24,585,047 788,093 39,896,393 94,168,494 3,139
Pennsylvania 31,800 37,228,835 35,280,744 999,000 8,679,134 82,187,713 2,585
Pennsylvania 31,871 35,874,105 27,784,698 1,206,700 27,635,181 92,500,684 2,902
Arizona2 31,900 29,569,927 27,694,263 — 28,915,573 86,179,763 2,702
Pennsylvania 2
33,871 28,990,879 16,966,161 21,800 20,420,422 66,399,262 1,960
Pennsylvania3 36,200 34,888,193 26,612,400 50,000 44,713,229 106,263,822 2,935
Pennsylvania4 58,930 41,817,510 34,120,666 1,213,800 31,043,535 108,195,511 1,836
Louisiana 95,700 66,111,072 34,620,918 69,796 40,174,319 140,976,105 1,473
Texas-Louisiana 120,000 141,523,000 85,171,000 1,253,000 186,905,000 414,852,000 3,457
––––––––– –––––––––––––– –––––––––––––– –––––––––––– –––––––––––––– –––––––––––––– ––––––
Total, land projects 679,767 $743,044,692 $555,266,022 $10,142,377 $737,027,899 $2,045,480,990 $3,009
2019-report total,land projects 291,703 $299,799,566 $197,929,551 $1,944,005 $208,415,824 $708,088,946 $2,427

TOTAL, ALL PROJECTS 679,767 $743,044,692 $555,266,022 $10,142,377 $737,027,899 $2,045,480,990 $3,009
2019-report total, all projects 291,703 $299,799,566 $197,929,551 $1,944,005 $208,415,824 $708,088,946 $2,427

1
Generally includes surveys, engineering, supervision, interest, administration, freight, taxes, overheads, contingencies, allowances for funds used during construction (AFUDC), and FERC fees.
2
Addition. 3Replacement. 4Two locations: one greenfield, one 12,000-hp uprate of existing.
Source: US FERC construction-permit applications, July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020

46 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ042-053.indd 46 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

Major and nonmajor natural gas pipelines in 2019 reported tems and expenditures (Table 3). In 2003, we added the base
total gas-plant investment of roughly $206 billion, the highest carrier-property investment to allow for comparisons among
level ever, up from $197 billion in 2018, $171 billion in 2017, the anonymous companies.
$158.5 billion in 2016, $158 billon in 2015, $152 billion in The five crude oil pipeline companies in 2019 increased
2014, about $147 billion in 2013, more than $142 billion in their overall investment in carrier property by almost $349
2012, $139 billion in 2011, and $125 billion in 2010. million (2.3%), slowing from the previous year and lagging
Investment in oil pipeline carrier property continued to the overall segment. All companies but one increased invest-
surge in 2019, surpassing $138 billion, nearly triple the val- ment in carrier property, the outlier reducing its investment
ues seen just 10 years before. Carrier property in 2018 to- by just $438.
taled $122 billion, up from $112 billion in 2017 and $99.5 The five products pipeline companies, by contrast, saw
billion in 2016, after reaching $93 billion in 2015, nearly their overall investment in carrier property accelerate in
$85 billion in 2014, $68 billion in 2013, topping $54 billion 2019, adding more than $317 million, or 3.3%.
in 2012, hitting roughly $49 billion in 2011, more than $45 Comparisons of data in Table 3 with previous years must
billion in 2010, and roughly $42 billion in 2009. be done with caution as mergers, acquisitions, and sales can
OGJ for many years has tracked carrier-property invest- make comparisons with previous years’ data difficult.
ment by five crude oil pipeline and five products pipeline Fig. 2 illustrates how investments in the crude oil and
companies chosen as representative in terms of physical sys- products pipeline companies were divided.

Construction costs
PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION COSTS—ESTIMATED FIG. 3 Applications to FERC by regulated interstate natural gas
Materials pipeline companies to modify certain systems must, except
14.85% Labor
52.35% in certain instances, provide estimated costs of these modi-
ROW and fications in varying degrees of detail.
damages Tracking the mileage and compression horsepower ap-
8.17% plied for and the estimated costs can indicate levels of con-
struction activity over 2-4 years. Tables 4 and 5 show com-
panies’ estimates during the period July 1, 2019, to June 30,
2020, for what it will cost to construct a pipeline or install
new or additional compression.
These tables cover a variety of locations, pipeline sizes,
Misc.*
and compressor-horsepower ratings.
24.63% Not all projects proposed are approved. And not all proj-
ects approved are eventually built.
*Generally includes surveying, engineering, supervision, administration and overhead, interest,
contingencies and allowances for funds used during construction (AFUDC), and regulatory filing fees.
•  Roughly 367 miles of pipeline were proposed for land
Source: US FERC construction permit filings, July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020 construction in the 12 months ending June 30, 2020, with
no offshore work submitted. The land
level was up from the roughly 246
LABOR, MATERIAL COST COMPONENTS—10 YEARS FIG. 4
miles proposed for land construction
100 in 2019, but still well below the rough-
ly 545 miles proposed for land con-
90
struction in 2018, much less than the
Land construction costs (est.), %

80 nearly 2,500 miles proposed for land

70 construction in 2017 and the 2,192
60 miles proposed for land construction
in 2016.
50
Labor • New or additional compression
40 proposed by the end of June 2020
30 measured nearly 680,000 hp, up
20 sharply from the 292,000 hp proposed
Material with the same timing in 2019 and the
10
287,000 hp proposed the year before.
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
The proposed horsepower additions
Source: US FERC
were in the same general range as the
nearly 600,000 hp proposed in 2017

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 47

201005OGJ042-053.indd 47 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

10 YEARS OF LAND CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1 Table 6

Size Year ROW Material Labor Misc. Total Low High
––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Average cost, $/mile –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ––––– Range, $/mile –––––

8 in. 2020 — — — — — — —
2019 78,862 149,545 1,295,701 518,210 2,042,3192 — —
2018 — — — — — — —
2017 709,817 666,069 693,958 6,613,320 8,683,074 7,410,053 44,433,750
2016 — — — — — — —
2015 55,289 153,115 603,317 179,045 990,765 766,056 1,273,258
2014 17,717 608,268 119,685 988,189 1,733,8582 — —
2013 71,443 188,261 69,541 1,533,654 1,862,899 1,762,637 4,246,500
2012 — — — — — — —
2011 — 132,884 917,910 582,952 1,633,7462 — —

12 in. 2020 25,000 222,878 1,053,710 549,270 1,850,8582 — —
2019 1,316,170 341,381 3,446,960 3,640,034 8,744,5452 — —
2018 868,252 334,758 3,068,470 1,739,933 6,010,7122 — —
2017 94,368 187,543 1,338,551 736,541 2,357,0032 — —
2016 68,779 188,942 737,056 438,626 1,433,403 1,278,571 1,579,170
2015 469,849 278,164 1,837,630 1,365,782 3,951,424 2,900,135 4,928,073
2014 772,578 721,073 4,777,695 4,263,874 10,535,2212 — —
2013 64,313 319,004 784,464 380,252 1,548,033 — — 2

2012 75,246 213,859 612,119 419,950 1,321,1732 — —

2011 — — — — — — —

16 in. 2020 — — — — — — —
2019 473,437 524,995 2,642,109 1,464,195 5,104,736 2,326,729 5,944,189
2018 82,364 1,769,980 5,282,562 8,599,804 15,734,710 13,237,381 18,731,540
2017 66,012 305,167 35,116 890,797 1,297,093 1,278,464 5,384,618
2016 267,288 415,979 1,937,269 1,473,663 4,094,1992 — —
2015 357,891 380,604 1,395,814 2,180,469 4,314,779 3,175,990 14,996,594
2014 574,745 483,528 2,911,085 2,807,562 6,776,920 6,471,863 7,325,147
2013 81,810 286,739 533,749 636,324 1,538,623 1,005,653 5,882,153
2012 126,033 302,558 748,967 302,760 1,480,318 — — 2

2011 278,231 305,235 1,004,152 1,328,691 2,916,309 2,007,514 3,885,413

20 in. 2020 375,916 524,746 3,004,428 1,622,464 5,527,555 3,796,952 39,270,660
2019 — — — — — — —
2018 — — — — — — —
2017 66,012 305,167 35,116 890,797 1,297,093 1,278,464 5,384,618
2016 199,333 329,680 2,728,127 1,740,590 4,997,730 4,457,245 5,142,998
2015 324,055 425,218 985,093 1,689,816 3,424,182 2,476,789 6,049,136
2014 473,329 632,417 2,264,767 2,142,928 5,513,441 2,723,642 11,975,448
2013 103,333 338,025 998,560 701,317 2,141,2352 — —
2012 8,941 275,292 69,647 1,349,884 1,703,765 — —
2

2011 97,553 402,232 1,208,048 816,998 2,524,831 1,773,309 7,970,976

24 in. 2020 186,127 843,258 2,054,245 755,127 3,838,757 3,572,287 42,710,020
2019 353,891 510,646 2,071,964 938,882 3,875,382 2,598,600 5,185,794
2018 — — — — — — —
2017 221,066 410,260 1,744,603 1,266,854 3,642,783 3,261,501 47,517,130
2016 134,000 337,650 2,021,810 836,247 3,329,7072 — —
2015 157,746 633,298 1,930,386 1,006,423 3,727,853 1,877,375 9,056,833
2014 231,155 523,863 1,516,691 1,075,740 3,347,449 1,469,338 6,181,322
2013 73,560 623,116 805,886 912,622 2,415,184 1,922,659 4,681,258
2012 181,741 701,303 1,910,324 1,143,928 3,937,296 2,254,386 4,481,436
2011 283,312 409,840 1,603,609 1,482,417 3,779,177 1,873,984 11,877,953

30 in. 2020 329,020 1,203,563 2,859,475 2,900,355 7,292,414 3,262,435 41,266,018
2019 245,636 770,481 1,959,445 853,372 3,828,934 2,767,825 37,839,440
2018 131,238 2,643,994 2,350,931 2,397,837 7,524,000 — —
2

2017 389,275 1,863,154 9,297,531 4,586,425 16,136,384 5,671,184 51,829,163

2016 736,129 920,316 4,919,086 3,406,645 9,982,176 6,779,317 11,935,160
2015 658,419 977,539 3,792,172 2,457,962 7,886,092 6,684,118 13,416,935
2014 268,605 690,850 2,155,315 2,036,710 5,151,482 4,600,017 8,873,792
2013 — — — — — — —
2012 290,807 1,020,108 3,218,952 3,242,493 7,772,360 6,356,657 35,732,500
2011 390,263 745,675 3,648,578 2,276,889 7,061,405 6,384,345 7,177,507

36 in. 2020 935,525 1,039,037 5,599,942 2,290,560 9,865,065 7,951,022 9,996,634
2019 575,463 3,885,084 8,259,378 8,528,694 21,249,6192 — —
2018 325,846 900,526 4,148,081 5,050,925 10,425,377 2,572,550 12,742,659
2017 206,164 1,419,298 498,489 2,261,868 4,385,818 2,943,694 30,527,602
2016 504,104 895,253 3,301,095 2,763,844 7,464,296 4,408,216 12,488,572
2015 1,083,005 1,130,531 2,010,998 2,181,621 6,406,155 5,411,030 16,151,288
2014 —3 1,106,103 3,061,029 1,683,401 5,760,613 346,243 5,876,636
2013 93,529 1,400,946 2,182,912 1,938,652 5,616,040 3,461,864 79,188,232
2012 —- — — — — — —
2011 519,369 937,500 2,864,358 3,059,234 7,380,462 7,072,552 7,848,259

1
Estimates; based on FERC construction-permit applications for a 12-month period ending June 30 of each year. 2Only one project proposed during this period for
this diameter. 3 One of the projects of this diameter did not list ROW as a discrete category.

48 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ042-053.indd 48 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

US PIPELINE COSTS: ESTIMATED VS. ACTUAL, 2019-20 1 Table 7

Length, ROW &
2
Size, in. Location miles Materials Labor Misc. damages Total $/mile
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– $ –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Land pipelines

6 Pennsylvania 5.80
Estimated 992,244 875,664 1,572,207 100,000 3,540,115 610,365
Actual 1,609,566 2,681,071 1,800,821 -- 6,091,458 1,050,251

6 Minnesota (L) 1.60
Estimated 238,502 1,462,952 841,193 125,790 2,668,437 1,667,773
Actual 208,500 1,260,121 1,222,800 163,186 2,854,607 1,784,129

8 Minnesota (L) 4.20
Estimated 628,091 5,441,944 2,176,484 331,219 8,577,738 2,042,319
Actual 805,867 5,069,951 2,067,701 422,378 8,365,897 1,991,880

12 Pennsylvania 14.40
Estimated 2,700,622 19,275,134 10,606,188 1,358,900 33,940,844 2,357,003
Actual 2,656,825 20,163,204 5,915,019 1,313,894 30,048,942 2,086,732

16 Minnesota (lat.) 12.00
Estimated 4,382,636 14,796,213 5,212,860 3,529,036 27,920,745 2,326,729
Actual 4,112,584 26,035,546 6,866,568 2,279,963 39,294,661 3,274,555

16 Louisiana 0.30
Estimated 351,000 64,500 3,535,400 20,300 3,971,200 13,237,333
Actual 2,003,100 225,900 4,859,000 1,300 7,089,300 23,631,000

20 Washington (lat.)/R/ 5.85
Estimated 2,544,966 21,729,253 15,633,858 5,302,932 45,211,009 7,728,378
Actual 4,986,855 40,567,790 12,440,837 7,482,506 65,477,988 11,192,818

20 Louisiana (lat.) 0.72
Estimated 1,373,592 3,685,664 2,520,516 -- 7,579,772 10,527,461
Actual 557,926 1,532,871 2,887,752 97,093 5,075,642 7,049,503

20, 30 Pennsylvania 7.25
Estimated 8,133,000 34,760,000 17,701,771 1,200,000 61,794,771 8,523,417
Actual 3,895,858 17,393,633 12,405,762 2,004,221 35,699,474 4,924,065

24 Minnesota (lat.) 10.20
Estimated 7,117,827 21,776,741 7,387,239 3,700,000 39,981,807 3,919,785
Actual 7,683,176 27,806,404 8,544,394 3,089,498 47,123,472 4,619,948

24 Minnesota (L) 2.70
Estimated 2,718,622 7,210,228 3,261,307 811,488 14,001,645 5,185,794
Actual 2,441,514 5,149,690 2,078,412 715,006 10,384,622 3,846,156

24, 30, 36 West Virginia 170.90
Estimated 124,422,852 814,408,049 533,288,314 96,276,251 1,568,395,466 9,177,270
Actual 155,584,754 2,202,742,033 634,289,857 141,707,653 3,134,324,297 18,340,107

30 Texas (lat.) 0.50
Estimated 1,073,683 1,280,204 2,043,079 203,089 4,600,055 9,200,110
Actual 1,301,158 1,989,104 1,400,325 185,144 4,875,731 9,751,462

30 Washington /R/ 0.32
Estimated 663,400 11,722,595 3,894,072 305,264 16,585,331 51,829,159
Actual 385,075 16,068,238 3,578,626 243,786 20,275,725 63,361,641

36 Ohio (L) 4.40
Estimated 3,694,111 14,568,330 14,413,735 4,958,710 37,634,886 8,553,383
Actual 2,875,623 32,920,300 15,299,626 7,037,339 58,132,888 13,212,020

Total land, miles 241.14
Estimated 161,035,148 973,057,471 624,088,223 118,222,979 1,876,403,821 $7,781,388
Actual 191,108,381 2,401,605,856 715,657,500 166,742,967 3,475,114,704 $14,411,191

Total, miles 241.14
Estimated $161,035,148 $973,057,471 $624,088,223 $118,222,979 $1,876,403,821 $7,781,388
Actual $191,108,381 $2,401,605,856 $715,657,500 $166,742,967 $ 3,475,114,704 $14,411,191
1
Actual cost data must be filed within 6 months following final hydrostatic test of pipeline. Not all projects proposed (estimated costs) are built (actual costs). L = loop, lat. = lateral, R =
replacement. 2Generally includes surveys, engr., supvervision, interest, freight, taxes, administration and overheads, contingencies, allowances for funds used during construction (afudc), and
regulatory fees. Source: US FERC; for completed-project costs filed between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, under CFR Section 157.20(c)(4).

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 7, 2019 49

201005OGJ042-053.indd 49 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

but still nowhere near the 2.2 million hp proposed in 2016. COMPRESSOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS—ESTIMATED1 FIG. 5
Putting the increased US gas pipeline construction in
perspective, Table 4 lists 18 land-pipeline “spreads,” or mile- Misc.2 Equipment
age segments, and 0 marine projects, compared with: 36.03% and
material
•  18 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Oct. 7, 2019, p. 46). 36.33%
•  11 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Oct. 1, 2018, p. 60).
•  27 land and 1 marine projects (OGJ, Oct. 2, 2017, p. 71).
•  33 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Sept. 5, 2016, p. 89).
•  46 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Sept. 7, 2015, p. 114).
•  31 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Sept. 1, 2014, p. 122).
•  26 land and 2 marine projects (OGJ, Sept. 2, 2013, p. 117).
•  11 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Sept. 3, 2012, p. 118). Land
•  31 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Sept. 5, 2011, p. 97). 0.50%
Labor
•  8 land and 0 marine projects (OGJ, Nov. 1, 2010, p. 108). 27.15%
Only two of the spreads in 2020 measured 100 miles or 1Onshore only. 2Generally includes surveying, engineering, supervision, administration and overhead, interest,
more, the longest proposed project being 116.6 miles for a contingencies and allowances for funds used during construction (AFUDC), and regulatory filing fees.
Source: US FERC construction permit filings, July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020
project serving the Permian basin in New Mexico and Texas.
For the 12 months ending June 30, 2020, the 18 land
projects filed would cost an estimated $3 billion, compared
with the 18 land projects for $1.1 billion proposed a year ear- ESTIMATED, ACTUAL COST TRENDS—10 YEARS* FIG. 6
lier which featured fewer miles and lower labor costs. 14,400
These statistics cover only FERC-regulated pipelines. 14,000
Many other pipeline construction projects were announced 13,600
in the 12 months ending June 30, 2020, but were outside 13,200
FERC’s jurisdiction. 12,800
12,400
Estimated $/mile costs for new projects as
12,000
filed by operators with FERC jumped year-
11,600
on-year. For proposed onshore US gas pipe- 11,200
line projects in 2019-20 the average cost was 10,800
$8.1 million/mile. In 2018-19 the average 10,400
cost was $4.6 million/mile, down sharply SPECIAL 10,000
from the $9.95 million/mile average esti- REPORT 9,600
9,200
mates from 2017-18. The 2020 and 2018 fig-
Costs, $1,000/mile

8,800
ures are the highest costs recorded.
8,400
8,000
Cost components 7,600
Variations over time in the four major categories of pipe- 7,200
line construction costs—material, labor, miscellaneous, and 6,800
right-of-way (ROW)—can also suggest trends within each 6,400
6,000
group.
5,600
Materials can include line pipe, pipe coating, and cathod- 5,200
ic protection. 4,800
“Miscellaneous” costs generally cover surveying, engi- 4,400
neering, supervision, contingencies, telecommunications 4,000
equipment, freight, taxes, allowances for funds used during 3,600 Actual
construction (AFUDC), administration and overheads, and 3,200

regulatory filing fees. 2,800 Estimated

2,400
ROW costs include obtaining rights-of-way and allowing 2,000
for damages. 1,600
For the 18 spreads filed for in 2019-20, cost-per-mile 1,200
projects rose in all categories. They fell in all categories ex- 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
cept ROW in 2018-19. In 2011 miscellaneous charges passed
material to become the second most expensive cost category *Land and offshore pipeline construction as of June 30 of each year for the previous 12 months.
Source: US FERC
and in 2017 they passed labor costs to become the most ex-

50 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ042-053.indd 50 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

US COMPRESSOR-STATION COSTS: ESTIMATED VS. ACTUAL, 2019-20 1 Table 8

Location Size, hp Materials Labor Misc.2 Land Total $/hp
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Cost, $ –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Virginia3 7,000
Estimated 232,104 1,102,883 127,285 — 1,462,272 209
Actual 243,813 2,195,018 365,867 — 2,804,698 401

Ohio3 9,400
Estimated 13,198,344 13,001,377 22,287,386 123,703 48,610,810 5,171
Actual 10,937,214 19,301,432 12,834,658 283,149 43,356,453 4,612

Louisiana 10,000
Estimated 15,376,000 530,900 27,723,800 20,000 43,650,700 4,365
Actual 18,443,900 621,800 25,001,900 7,500 44,075,100 4,408

Minnesota 11,153
Estimated 12,027,000 10,085,000 4,944,000 315,000 27,371,000 2,454
Actual 11,368,403 11,991,910 3,593,237 1,013,472 27,967,022 2,508

Texas 12,500
Estimated 21,264,509 15,619,132 40,011,302 1,504,332 78,399,275 6,272
Actual 20,479,274 23,667,769 27,020,757 1,567,381 72,735,181 5,819

Minnesota3 15,900
Estimated 14,985,000 10,860,000 6,236,000 150,000 32,231,000 2,027
Actual 13,487,463 11,923,295 4,189,051 87,634 29,687,443 1,867

Minnesota3 15,900
Estimated 16,841,475 10,709,824 5,487,944 200,000 33,239,243 2,091
Actual 13,825,639 13,895,251 4,170,583 117,157 32,008,630 2,013

New Jersey4 17,200
Estimated 12,019,146 10,421,852 17,963,546 664,895 41,069,439 2,388
Actual 11,917,204 18,131,206 13,364,142 628,425 44,040,977 2,561

Ohio 18,800
Estimated 27,193,732 20,671,489 35,787,486 1,727,796 85,380,503 4,542
Actual 26,447,009 27,771,886 19,999,372 2,893,830 77,112,097 4,102

Maryland 24,000
Estimated 9,127,450 17,100,061 11,454,631 — 37,682,142 1,570
Actual 9,197,848 16,934,201 12,150,849 — 38,282,898 1,595

Pennsylvania4 31,800
Estimated 45,260,000 31,745,000 30,427,286 2,321,000 109,753,286 3,451
Actual 33,118,652 32,886,300 22,139,611 3,817,518 91,962,081 2,892

West Virginia6 228,100
Estimated 190,376,269 115,926,988 147,300,463 3,655,603 457,259,323 2,005
Actual 196,525,544 172,164,234 83,985,486 4,037,840 456,713,104 2,002
–––––––
Total 401,753
Estimated $377,901,029 $257,774,506 $349,751,129 $10,682,329 $996,108,993 $2,479
Actual $365,991,963 $351,484,302 $228,815,513 $14,453,906 $960,745,684 $2,391
1
Actual cost data must be filed within 6 months following commissioning of installed compression equipment. Not all projects proposed (estimated costs) are built
(actual costs). 2Generally includes surveys, engr., supervision, interest, freight, taxes, administration and overheads, contingencies, allowances for funds used during
construction (AFUDC), and FERC fees. 3Addition. 4Replacement. 5Half addition, half new; two sites. Costs not broken out in filing. 6Part new, part addition; multiple
sites. Costs not broken out in filing.
Source: US FERC; for completed-project costs filed between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, under CFR Section 157.20(c)(4).

pensive category of all. For the past 2 years, however, labor
moved back to the top:
•  Material—$1,200,419/mile, up from $691,474/mile for
2018-19.
•  Labor—$4,230,959/mile, up sharply from $2,243,051/
mile for 2018-19.
• Miscellaneous—$1,991,146/mile, higher than the
$1,294,388/mile estimated cost for 2018-19.
•  ROW and damages—$660,139/mile, up from
$379,154/mile for 2018-19.
The reversal of labor and miscellaneous costs’ rankings
has been driven by continued high demand for labor at the
same time that proposed projects have gotten smaller, the lat-
ter shrinking the amount operators feel they need to set aside
for contingencies.
Table 4 lists proposed pipelines in order of increasing
size (OD) and decreasing lengths within each size.
The average cost-per-mile for the projects rarely shows
clear-cut trends related to either length or geographic area.
In general, however, the cost-per-mile within a given diame-
ter decreases as the number of miles rises. Lines built nearer
populated areas also tend to have higher unit costs.
Additionally, road, highway, river, or channel crossings
and marshy or rocky terrain each strongly affect pipeline
construction costs.
Fig. 3, derived from Table 4, shows the cost-component
splits for pipeline construction.
Labor is the most expensive category and the most vol-
atile. Labor’s portion of estimated costs for land pipelines
rose to a recent high of 52.4% in 2020, from 48.7% in 2019,

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 51

201005OGJ042-053.indd 51 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 TECHNOLOGY

40.6% in 2018, 35.8% in 2017, 47% in COMPONENT COSTS: ESTIMATED VS. ACTUAL1 FIG. 7
2016, 37.8% in 2015, 42.4% in 2014,
Pipelines 9,959
Compressors
38.8% in 2013, 44.6% in 2012, 44.3% 10,000 1,000
941
in 2011, and 44.5% in 2010. Material 4,000
4,035 911
875
900 871
costs for land pipelines, meanwhile,
were generally flat from the year be- 3,500 800
fore at 14.9% of total cost, from 15%
2,968 700
in 2019, 13.1% in 2018, 22.4% in 2017, 3,000 642

Costs, $1,000/mile
13% in 2016, 19.3% in 2015, 13.6% in 2,588 600 570

Costs, $/hp
2,500
2014, 23.2% in 2013, 16% in 2012, and
500
14.5% in 2011. 2,000
Fig. 4 plots a 10-year comparison of 400
land-construction unit costs for mate- 1,500
300
rial and labor.
1,000
Fig. 5 shows the cost split for land 793 200
668 691
compressor stations based on data in 500
490
100
Table 5. 27 36
Table 6 lists 10 years of unit land- 0
Materials Labor Misc.2 ROW
0
Materials Labor Misc.2 Land
construction costs for natural gas pipe-
line with diameters ranging from 8 to Estimated Actual
36 in. The table’s data consist of es- 1Onshore only. For construction cost filings made before July 1, 2019 . 2 Generally includes surveying, engineering, supervision, administration and overhead,
interest, contingencies and allowances for funds used during construction (AFUDC), and regulatory filing fees.
timated costs filed under CP dockets Source: US FERC

with FERC, the same data shown in

Tables 4 and 5.
Table 6 shows that the average cost
per mile for any given diameter may
fluctuate year-to-year as projects’ costs
are affected by geographic location,
terrain, population density, and other
factors. SPECIAL
REPORT
Completed projects’ costs
In most instances, a natural gas pipe-
line company must file with FERC what it ended up spend-
ing on an approved and built project. This filing must oc-
cur within 6 months after a pipeline’s successful hydrostatic
testing or a compressor’s being put in service.
Fig. 6 shows 10 years of estimated vs. actual costs on
cost-per-mile bases for project totals.
Tables 7 and 8 show actual costs for pipeline and com-
pressor projects reported to FERC during the 12 months
ending June 30, 2020. Fig. 7, for the same period, depicts
how total actual costs ($/mile) for each category compare
with estimated costs.
Actual costs for pipeline construction were almost
$7-million/mile more than estimated costs for the same
projects. The bulk of this difference came in labor costs,
which were roughly $6 million/mile (147%) more than pro-
jected for the 12 months ending June 30, 2020. All other
listed costs were also greater than estimated.
One pipeline project completed in the 2019-20 window
reported more than $2 billion in labor costs alone. Moun-
taineer Xpress, developed as part of TC Energy’s Columbia
Gas Transmission system, laid 170.9 miles of 24-, 30-, and
36-in. OD pipe in West Virginia at an overall cost of more
than $3.1 billion, including labor costs greater than $2.2
billion. Total estimated cost had been $1.6 billion.
Some projects listed in Table 7 may have been proposed
and even approved much earlier than the 1-year survey pe-
riod. Others may have been filed for, approved, and built
during the survey period.
If a project was reported in construction spreads in its
initial filing, that’s how projects are broken out in Table 7.
Completed projects’ cost data, however, are typically report-
ed to FERC for an entire filing, usually but not always sepa-
rating pipeline from compressor-station (or metering site)
costs and lumping various diameters together.
The 12 months ending June 30, 2020, saw more than
400,000 hp completed, roughly 41% less than the year be-
fore. Actual compression costs of $2,391/hp were 3.5% lower
than estimates, with lower miscellaneous costs outstripping
labor costs which were more than 36% more than what ini-
tially had been filed (Table 8).

52 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ042-053.indd 52 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 Looking for a new way
to promote your company?
Look no further than PennWell custom publishing
We provide high quality work from the leading publisher of the oil & gas industry. Put our expertise
to work — use our first class writers, designers and photographers to create your own publication.

Our capabilities include:

Custom publications covering significant oil and
gas project developments Foster
Custom company and technology profiles relationships
Document your with both current
within Oil & Gas Journal
company’s growth and new
Custom high-level book projects for company
and history customers
milestones or other needs
Custom marketing solutions to reach sales and
brand awareness objectives
Management of a company’s in-house publication
Capture your company’s history
Editorial development, management, and ad sales and highlight milestones
for association publications
Custom market and product research

Corporate Profiles History Books

the world’s natural resource

F. Jay Schempf

Let us do the work for you!

Contact Roy Markum, VP Custom Publishing
at roym@pennwell.com, 713.963.6220 for details.

201005OGJ042-053.indd1 53
PENcus_petro_160414 10/1/20 10:29
4/14/16 11:10 AM
AM
 oil pipelines
–––––––––––– Miles of pipeline –––––––––––– –––– Deliveries, 1,000 bbl –––– –––– Total trunkline traffic, –––– ––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 ––––––––––
––––––– Trunk ––––––– –––– million bbl–miles –––– Carrier Property Operating
Company Gathering Crude Products Total Crude Products Total Crude Products Total property change revenue Income

54
3 Bear Delaware Operating-NM LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 — — 209 — — — — — — 101,288 69,394 4,733 -7,252
Alpine Transportation Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 35 — 35 23,318 — 23,318 808 — 808 99,960 -3,056 15,155 1,057
American Panther LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 90 — 108 2,605 — 2,605 48 — 48 16,594 1,614 2,723 4,061
Andeavor Gathering 1 LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 60 — 77 — 4,465 4,465 — 268 268 14,989 -12,026 11,637 50,390
Andeavor Logistics Rio Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 114 — 114 32,091 — 32,091 2,385 — 2,385 161,957 38,140 28,982 20,627

201005OGJ054-059.indd 54
Arrowhead Gulf Coast Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 252 — 252 1,485 — 1,485 68 — 68 328,833 10,043 48,056 26,919
Arrowhead Louisiana Gathering LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 — — 27 — — — — — — 18,832 916 9,809 4,917
Arrowhead Offshore Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 48 — 48 5,291 — 5,291 126 — 126 40,246 29 5,623 1,514
Bakken Pipeline Co. LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 64 — 64 30,141 — 30,141 1,944 — 1,944 118,913 64 28,789 16,141
Baton Rouge Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 30 30 — 15,728 15,728 — 472 472 14,900 — 3,183 1,855
Bayou Bridge Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 212 — 212 97,911 — 97,911 9,988 — 9,988 752,715 42,024 116,327 88,654
Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,133 878 80 3,091 55,717 935 56,652 11,439 72 11,511 256,098 15,724 122,001 33,510
Bengal Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 158 158 — 188,989 188,989 — 11,494 11,494 235,353 8,219 76,870 48,117
Beta Crude Connector LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 16 — 16 2,538 — 2,538 13 — 13 22,338 22,338 1,486 -2,802
Bighorn DevCo LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — 19,099 -856 7,068 3,740
Black Bear Liquids LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 41 41 — 371 371 — 15 15 30,744 — 6,508 4,530
Black Lake Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 23,274 23,274 — 7,285 7,285 58,450 -56 14,328 5,588
Blue Racer NGL Pipelines LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 73 73 — 13,713 13,713 — 481 481 254,339 17,314 23,151 5,635
BOE Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 40 — 40 — — — — — — 24,347 396 2,516 -749
BP Midstream Partners LP Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 54 244 298 134,610 26,559 161,169 2,334 5,530 7,864 103,935 -4,035 128,463 168,287
BP Oil Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 3,314 — 3,314 1,654 — 1,654 — -11,153 34 177
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 800 — 800 67,836 — 67,836 54,691 — 54,691 — — 324,201 -219
BP Pipelines (North America) Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,702 2,190 3,892 43,846 106,551 150,397 21,859 9,852 31,711 539,091 20,036 192,309 136,252
Bridger Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,423 493 — 1,916 75,065 — 75,065 8,778 — 8,778 590,262 54,158 225,716 94,430
BridgeTex Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 408 — 408 156,278 — 156,278 67,809 — 67,809 885,707 1,947 430,161 294,519
Buckeye Linden Pipe Line Co. LLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 20,531 20,531 — 100 100 — — 5,916 -2,545
Buckeye Pipe Line Co. LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 2,750 2,750 — 327,620 327,620 — 31,921 31,921 1,878,279 729,490 383,862 159,521
Buckeye Pipe Line Transportation LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,319 1,319 — 76,260 76,260 — 10,132 10,132 618,183 346,206 87,058 16,236
Butte Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 364 — 364 35,229 — 35,229 10,485 — 10,485 56,392 4,515 43,087 16,224
Cactus II Pipeline LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 452 — 452 76,194 — 76,194 35,310 — 35,310 1,019,659 455,805 93,326 73,414
Caddo Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 81 — 81 17,214 — 17,214 1,206 — 1,206 125,596 135 17,501 11,370
Caliber Bear Den Interconnect LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6 — 6 — — — — — — 11,221 3 1,766 789
Caliber North Dakota LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Calnev Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 558 558 — 41,489 41,489 — 9,651 9,651 348,330 6,444 69,745 41,943
CCPS Transportation LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 581 — 581 60,251 — 60,251 33,880 — 33,880 495,691 14,303 112,085 26,246
CCR Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 12 — 12 613 — 613 4 — 4 27,799 17,188 62 -1,008
Cenex Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 684 684 — 17,223 17,223 — 5,093 5,093 250,155 88,715 29,601 10,534
Centurion Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,048 1,839 — 2,887 191,494 — 191,494 28,301 — 28,301 697,774 55,545 261,542 124,524
Centurion SENM Gathering LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 — — 74 — — — — — — 112,542 10,882 33,291 11,662
Chaparral Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 906 906 — 61,417 61,417 — 25,694 25,694 236,358 2,100 135,342 93,967
Chevron Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 587 7 622 97,416 — 97,416 3,068 — 3,068 495,038 40,098 111,432 61,305
Cheyenne Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 87 — 87 33,929 — 33,929 1,703 — 1,703 74,154 6,553 13,799 8,750
Chicap Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 234 — 234 56,117 — 56,117 2,833 — 2,833 97,995 3,049 27,934 8,206
Chisholm Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 185 185 — 3,535 3,535 — 650 650 24,014 — 1,796 906
Citgo Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 64 — 64 — — — 84 — 84 70,797 3,048 91,893 65,739
Citgo Products Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 108 108 — 5,487 5,487 — 593 593 55,413 6,143 26,843 13,921
Collins Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 124 124 — 29,200 29,200 — 3,696 3,696 37,637 10,964 8,936 1,424
Colonial Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 5,587 5,587 — 958,294 958,294 — 846,792 846,792 3,409,528 79,751 1,385,607 404,681
Conoco Offshore Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 183 — 183 — — — — — — — — 2,875 2,580
ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska Inc.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . — 819 — 819 76,192 — 76,192 59,913 — 59,913 — — 383,339 -14,215
Cypress Interstate Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 104 104 — 16,830 16,830 — 1,756 1,756 40,023 154 13,977 10,232
Dakota Access LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,172 — 1,172 206,515 — 206,515 215,847 — 215,847 4,095,199 42,924 1,003,254 716,103
Dakota Energy Connection LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 — — 21 — — — — — — 19,190 16 1,813 -161
DCP Sand Hills Interstate Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 727 727 — 19,338 19,338 — 29,116 29,116 31,390 — 61,670 13,854
DCP Southern Hills Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 951 951 — 51,232 51,232 — 46,723 46,723 1,040,230 41,900 182,455 119,151
DCP Wattenberg Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 — 410 498 — 8,157 8,157 — 4,233 4,233 71,239 26,095 17,230 7,741
Delaware Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 23 23 — 25,052 25,052 — 579 579 24,075 268 13,935 10,448
Diamond Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 449 — 449 60,034 — 60,034 27,018 — 27,018 934,028 7,542 127,568 92,312
Dixie Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,312 1,312 — 52,401 52,401 — 18,958 18,958 214,346 20,506 88,837 31,942
DJ South Gathering LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 29 — 29 — — — — — — 122,439 103,605 1,440 46
DryTrails Midstream Energy LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — 2,133 — 107 -109
El Dorado Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 28 — 28 18,735 3,069 21,804 525 743 1,268 4,424 31 12,011 5,910
Enable Bakken Crude Services LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 — — 179 — — — — — — 267,231 9,888 31,391 13,283
Enbridge Energy LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 4,194 — 4,194 1,034,158 — 1,034,158 809,816 — 809,816 14,900,814 575,654 2,129,983 899,383
Enbridge Pipelines (FSP) LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 594 — 594 167,017 — 167,017 99,571 — 99,571 2,855,679 20,313 679,359 111,549
Enbridge Pipelines (Southern Lights) LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 817 — 817 51,160 — 51,160 41,681 — 41,681 1,533,022 12,648 201,011 63,741
Enbridge Pipelines (Toledo) Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 148 — 148 37,323 — 37,323 2,733 — 2,733 283,072 3,983 50,183 5,686
Enbridge Storage (Patoka) LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — 5,677 353 202 126
Enbridge Transportation (IL-OK) LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 447 — 447 266 — 266 — — 1,799 -3,519
Endicott Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 — — 43 5,388 — 5,388 116 — 116 69,891 -1 8,940 -1,006
Energy Transfer Crude Oil Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 744 — 744 168,309 — 168,309 125,025 — 125,025 765,298 12,362 266,109 193,517
Energy XXI Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — 1,347 — 862 -1,040
EnLink Crude Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 250 — 250 18,083 — 18,083 1,225 — 1,225 161,597 13,107 22,413 11,869
EnLink Delaware Crude Pipeline LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 45 — 65 8,175 — 8,175 343 — 343 58,237 50,185 6,326 1,205
EnLink NGL Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 237 237 — 59,809 59,809 — 12,135 12,135 300,440 36,951 190,176 155,273
Enterprise Crude Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2,337 — 2,337 1,341,992 — 1,341,992 16,066 — 16,066 2,506,669 -318,100 735,804 461,319
Enterprise Interstate Crude LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,665 — 1,665 149,831 — 149,831 7,829 — 7,829 877,126 877,126 144,440 105,763

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

Enterprise Lou-Tex NGL Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 205 205 — 35,663 35,663 — 7,330 7,330 119,862 534 59,545 44,845
Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 4,743 4,743 — 286,447 286,447 — 122,300 122,300 3,627,533 68,320 775,675 380,321
EPIC Crude Pipeline LP (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 96 — 96 26,470 — 26,470 15,370 — 15,370 1,665,197 1,665,197 39,325 -51,844

10/1/20 11:10 AM
oil pipelines (CONTINUED)
–––––––––––– Miles of pipeline –––––––––––– –––– Deliveries, 1,000 bbl –––– –––– Total trunkline traffic, –––– ––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 ––––––––––
 oil pipelines (CONTINUED)
–––––––––––– Miles of pipeline –––––––––––– –––– Deliveries, 1,000 bbl –––– –––– Total trunkline traffic, –––– ––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 ––––––––––
––––––– Trunk ––––––– –––– million bbl–miles –––– Carrier Property Operating
Company Gathering Crude Products Total Crude Products Total Crude Products Total property change revenue Income
EPIC Y-Grade Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 470 — 470 — 38,908 38,908 — 3,978 3,978 1,268,276 615,148 78,764 38,053
EPL Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Epping Transmission Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 14 — 14 39 — 39 1 — 1 11,329 3 41 692
ETP Crude LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 261 — 426 57,947 — 57,947 3,207 — 3,207 368,364 66,946 60,436 18,831
Explorer Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,829 1,829 — 232,343 232,343 — 124,519 124,519 960,116 14,253 434,034 191,139
Express Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 514 — 514 90,292 — 90,292 37,383 — 37,383 516,392 10,275 198,913 117,179

201005OGJ054-059.indd 55
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 1,633 2,581 4,350 342,276 336,260 678,536 37,794 7,614 45,408 1,032,747 517,099 248,250 170,576
Front Range Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 449 449 — 54,532 54,532 — 22,879 22,879 662,572 112,444 130,904 97,751
Frontier Aspen LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 290 — 290 20,211 — 20,211 5,841 — 5,841 111,263 367 22,969 12,169
Frontier Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 3 3 — 5,699 5,699 — 22 22 9,238 — 869 -142
FW GOM Pipeline Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
GEL Offshore Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 71 — 255 3,456 — 3,456 322 — 322 23,601 — 3,702 1,206
GEL Texas Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 25 — 25 19,191 — 19,191 410 — 410 179,818 25 18,695 9,823
Genesis Pipeline USA LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 254 — 385 39,202 18,576 57,778 704 93 797 197,751 18,184 30,134 4,461
Glass Mountain Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
GNB NGL Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 33 33 — — — — — — 27,837 122 3,157 629
Grand Mesa Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,116 — 1,116 45,994 — 45,994 25,480 — 25,480 41,292 — 231,708 161,913
Grand Prix Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 738 738 — — — — 322 322 1,614,599 401,494 110,094 44,444
Hammond Mainline Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 12 12 — 4,671 4,671 — 56 56 11,149 127 2,066 1,310
Hardin Street Holdings LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 95 — 95 33,110 — 33,110 2,431 — 2,431 20,236 5 9,246 2,688
Hawthorn Oil Transportation (North Dakota) Inc. . . . . . . . . — 12 — 12 — — — — — — 9,806 — 105 -816
Heartland Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 49 49 — 5,775 5,775 — 1,698 1,698 13,568 59 7,069 2,888
Hiland Crude LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,586 512 — 2,098 102,811 — 102,811 12,632 — 12,632 1,470,428 57,000 297,482 144,962
Hilcorp Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 29 — 29 264 — 264 7 — 7 990 — — —
Holly Energy Partners - Operating LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 237 1,967 2,967 42,340 61,442 103,782 2,352 11,572 13,924 281,572 763 144,142 277,347
Illinois Extension Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 168 — 168 73,750 — 73,750 12,383 — 12,383 856,752 968 144,071 99,986
IMTT-Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 10 10 — 27,779 27,779 — 204 204 29,079 1,838 2,751 -1,008
Inland Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 351 351 — 56,390 56,390 — 4,150 4,150 85,997 5,244 36,032 9,578
ITC Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 4 4 == 4,723 4,723 — 8 8 46,779 -120 571 -475
Jayhawk Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 702 — 702 41,858 — 41,858 5,880 — 5,880 152,137 3,363 40,019 6,830
JBBR Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 5 — 5 1,628 — 1,628 7 — 7 22,698 5 505 -183
Keystone Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 2,909 2,909 — 730 730 — — 4,828 1,104
Kiantone Pipeline Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 78 — 78 — — — 1,917 — 1,917 25,430 699 98,002 74,100
Kinder Morgan Utopia LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 266 266 — 6,577 6,577 — 1,754 1,754 605,866 7,519 52,102 39,908
Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 423 — 439 52,560 — 52,560 10,469 — 10,469 143,245 1,771 52,565 28,772
Kuparuk Transportation Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 37 — 37 80,332 — 80,332 2,380 — 2,380 224,115 -1,862 26,697 6,248
Lambda Energy Gathering LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 156 — 242 3,477 — 3,477 100 — 100 30,682 -1,448 4,846 51
Legacy Reserves Operating LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Leveret Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 152 152 — 43,143 43,143 — 1,765 1,765 102,813 3,039 14,013 7,214
LM Touchdown Crude 1 LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 — — 14 — — — — — — 6,595 6,595 344 -1,770
LOCAP LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 57 — 57 382,256 — 382,256 21,789 — 21,789 221,294 5,045 49,325 20,097
Lone Star NGL Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 2,116 2,116 — 353,624 353,624 — 160,481 160,481 3,811,812 1,284,684 1,070,857 943,026
Magellan Pipeline Co. LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 256 9,413 9,669 22,329 545,909 568,238 1,799 125,935 127,734 3,106,361 439,796 897,799 415,312
Magnolia Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 77 — 77 15,664 — 15,664 1,206 — 1,206 8,282 — 13,422 8,186
Marathon Pipe Line LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,182 1,801 2,983 678,666 356,247 1,034,913 76,591 25,051 101,642 1,981,190 105,697 714,895 387,028
Marketlink LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 225,396 — 225,396 107,128 — 107,128 266,753 3,412 617,667 268,490
MarkWest Liberty Ethane Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 160 160 — 40,697 40,697 — 2,365 2,365 479,432 132,057 94,795 73,147
MarkWest Liberty NGL Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 178 178 — 73,821 73,821 — 6,636 6,636 659,092 318,555 97,444 51,170
Mars Oil Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 163 — 163 330,958 — 330,958 13,073 — 13,073 302,076 982 277,965 190,000
Maverick Terminals Corpus LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1 1 — 6,832 6,832 — 9 9 8,347 1,726 3,123 9,239
Medallion Delaware Express LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 — — 129 — — — — — — 114,671 28,254 12,121 95
Medallion Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,035 — — 1,035 — — — — — — 935,915 216,282 206,998 128,559
Mid-America Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 7,915 7,915 — 268,639 268,639 — 77,378 77,378 2,167,104 28,506 617,166 392,201
Mid-Con Energy Properties LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 77 — 77 — — — — — — 468 — 699 361
Mid-Valley Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,102 — 1,102 132,247 — 132,247 64,028 — 64,028 177,280 7,146 89,457 33,821
Midway Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 100 — 100 41,222 — 41,222 4,052 — 4,052 49,553 26 20,743 16,059
Milne Point Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 — — 11 9,332 — 9,332 103 — 103 49,514 90 8,119 -2,099
Minnesota Pipe Line Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 975 — 975 — — — 42,464 — 42,464 761,499 145 167,885 85,861
Mobil Eugene Island Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 157 — 157 5,156 — 5,156 813 — 813 9,001 — 14,346 9,262
Mobil Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 103 — 136 97,865 11,189 109,054 2,285 346 2,631 48,781 -3,411 15,028 34,641
MOEM Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 56 — 56 — — — 242 — 242 27,369 119 9,714 5,745
Monarch Oil Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 68 — 105 1,557 — 1,557 67 — 67 25,137 -27,665 1,771 -37,895
MPLX Ozark Pipe Line LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 438 — 438 121,676 — 121,676 53,526 — 53,526 361,747 13,476 141,162 73,838
Muskegon Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 170 170 — 10,147 10,147 — 1,721 1,721 31,022 108 8,399 4,445
Mustang Pipe Line LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 212 — 212 36,504 — 36,504 5,219 — 5,219 77,757 15,771 43,643 24,373
NORCO Pipe Line Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2 253 255 — 8,805 8,805 — 573 573 164,172 56,972 13,582 3,339
North Dakota Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 594 — 594 110,367 — 110,367 30,721 — 30,721 1,058,772 13,674 168,552 76,122
Northstar Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 18 — 18 3,610 — 3,610 63 — 63 81,731 86 5,884 -6,905
Nova Chemicals Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
NST Express LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 — — — — — — 23 — 23 47,221 -3 10,118 4,730
NuStar Logistics LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,122 2,863 3,985 235,962 111,383 347,345 18,027 19,746 37,773 1,307,767 161,425 305,518 103,481
NuStar Permian Transportation and Storage LLC . . . . . . . . — 903 — 903 142,105 — 142,105 12,989 — 12,989 795,203 151,261 174,185 57,643
NuStar Pipeline Operating Partnership LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 2,590 2,590 — 77,239 77,239 — 20,626 20,626 782,917 15,927 179,062 -160,987
Nutaaq Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — 4,799 —
Ohio River Pipe Line LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 519 519 — 74,742 74,742 — 5,994 5,994 358,654 15,106 103,042 66,763
Ohio River Valley Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 — — 209 — — — — — — 53,159 247 3,424 -818
Olympic Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 414 414 — 110,374 110,374 — 19,701 19,701 270,469 2,938 68,565 7,000
ONEOK Arbuckle North Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 56 56 — 61,201 61,201 — 36,170 36,170 82,178 — 197,461 -1,446

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 55

ONEOK Bakken Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 954 954 — 63,307 63,307 — 29,509 29,509 978,875 149,287 252,801 150,248
ONEOK Elk Creek Pipeline LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 870 870 — — — — 3,582 3,582 1,152,326 644,213 50,584 54,543
ONEOK North System LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,669 1,669 — 55,349 55,349 — 12,586 12,586 351,183 11,103 131,904 42,675

10/1/20 11:10 AM
 oil pipelines (CONTINUED)
–––––––––––– Miles of pipeline –––––––––––– –––– Deliveries, 1,000 bbl –––– –––– Total trunkline traffic, –––– ––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 ––––––––––

56
––––––– Trunk ––––––– –––– million bbl–miles –––– Carrier Property Operating
Company Gathering Crude Products Total Crude Products Total Crude Products Total property change revenue Income
ONEOK Southeast Texas NGL Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 20 20 — 27,465 27,465 — 549 549 51,333 1,313 3,810 453
Oryx Delaware Oil Gathering NM LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . 132 — — 132 — — — — — — 158,875 158,875 7,810 362
Oryx Delaware Oil Transport LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 308 — 308 29,270 — 29,270 1,581 — 1,581 554,663 121,815 56,382 22,246
Oryx Southern Delaware Oil Gathering and Transport LLC . . . . 701 — — 701 104,101 — 104,101 159,927 — 159,927 441,145 74,128 179,597 110,141

201005OGJ054-059.indd 56
Osage Pipe Line Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 135 — 135 52,937 — 52,937 7,147 — 7,147 41,899 954 14,267 4,382
Overland Pass Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,041 1,041 — 81,910 81,910 — 34,284 34,284 979,804 4,882 187,595 127,202
Paline Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 375 — 375 30,824 — 30,824 5,733 — 5,733 62,991 1,581 20,574 8,807
Panola Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 242 242 — 18,631 18,631 — 2,485 2,485 209,136 508 26,376 15,743
Parkway Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 142 142 — 27,118 27,118 — 3,810 3,810 275,547 434 24,911 7,997
Pelican Gathering Systems LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 15 — 87 — — — — — — 59,965 7,518 47,313 30,698
Pembina Cochin LLC (formerly Kinder Morgan Cochin LLC) . . . . — — 1,180 1,180 — 33,846 — — 30,560 — 381,703 -11,598 145,504 115,897
Permian Express Partners LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,685 — 1,685 286,189 — 286,189 122,458 — 122,458 1,123,615 48,051 897,994 879,752
Permian Express Terminal LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 27 — 27 123,158 — 123,158 3,022 — 3,022 113,071 17 52,085 43,216
Phillips 66 Carrier LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 1,626 3,134 5,258 266,059 227,137 493,196 23,272 29,748 53,020 1,541,616 200,924 461,879 247,233
Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 923 1,464 2,544 83,322 53,676 136,998 7,271 10,846 18,117 649,370 73,423 178,066 59,436
Phillips 66 Sweeny-Freeport LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 252 252 — 219,975 219,975 — 5,411 5,411 850,572 1,439 103,084 69,039
Pioneer Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 561 561 — 24,010 24,010 — 4,992 4,992 115,264 590 40,731 23,251
Plains LPG Services LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 93 93 — 6,964 6,964 - 71 71 46,061 409 1,921 21,177
Plains Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,056 4,561 — 6,617 1,820,639 — 1,820,639 194,260 — 194,260 5,336,955 264,126 1,437,900 1,574,805
Plains Pipeline Montana LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 108 — 369 5,245 — 5,245 254 — 254 173,734 1,585 11,408 3,973
Plantation Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 3,134 3,134 — 225,614 225,614 — 138,605 138,605 655,122 43,175 302,453 107,604
Platte Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 933 — 936 81,307 — 81,307 41,758 — 41,758 371,947 31,829 136,988 71,655
Platte River Midstream LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 — — 88 — — — — — — 139,754 9,035 25,317 5,995
PMI Services North America Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 66 66 — — — — — — 95,424 1,204 8,022 3,624
Point Arguello Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — 303,677 130 75 42,030
Portland Pipe Line Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 166 — 166 78 — 78 13 — 13 42,893 — 33 -13,282
Powder River Crude Services LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 98 — 130 25,015 — 25,015 1,501 — 1,501 161,654 39,537 12,920 3,259
PRG Pipelines LLC (formerly Powder River
Express LLC and Iron Horse Pipeline LLC) . . . . . . . . . . — 153 — 153 25,618 — 25,618 1,969 — 1,969 211,838 73,133 19,735 2,898
PTE Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 22 — 22 2,175 — 2,175 48 — 48 157,929 1,142 28,431 14,772
Rattler Midstream Operating LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 — — 104 — — — — — — 147,019 82,522 27,206 185,725
Razorback LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — 332 332 30,043 8,069 3,881 7,447
Red Butte Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 480 — 494 10,687 — 10,687 1,081 — 1,081 183,866 555 29,601 -616
Red River Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 361 — 361 18,813 — 18,813 6,254 — 6,254 282,006 282,006 37,894 25,858
Rio Grande Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 249 249 — 2,745 2,745 — 612 612 62,640 561 7,415 2,396
Rocky Mountain Pipeline Montana LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 754 — 754 6,276 — 6,276 1,355 — 1,355 6,389 225 12,235 6,262
Rocky Mountain Pipeline System LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 456 — 487 34,768 — 34,768 1,733 — 1,733 105,723 4,538 20,177 7,418
Sacagawea Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 95 — 95 33,708 — 33,708 1,232 — 1,232 172,267 2,496 29,656 29,008
Saddlehorn Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 630 — 630 56,141 — 56,141 31,390 — 31,390 74,399 3,804 169,744 126,765
SALA Gathering Systems LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 .— .— 154 7,982 13,767 21,749 1,229 220 1,449 67,145 1,780 23,268 11,345
San Mateo Black River Oil Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 37 — 37 5,804 — 5,804 36 — 36 41,692 11,964 5,900 2,274
San Pedro Bay Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 17 — — — — — — — — 9,379 24 3,305 -265
Sanders Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 9 9 — 2,954 2,954 — 27 27 1,934 — 3,172 91
Savage Bakken Connector Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 — — 2 — — — — — — 7,690 -8 2,074 243
SCM Crude LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 — — 571 104 — 104 26 — 26 130,881 130,881 130 -2,104
SCT Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 17 — 17 12,361 — 12,361 210 — 210 10,002 30 6,314 4,535
Seaway Crude Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 416,986 — 416,986 107,343 — 107,343 2,752,204 -220,229 901,158 640,699
Seminole Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,196 1,196 — 71,789 71,789 — 58,456 58,456 587,880 45,295 207,810 20,375
SFPP LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 2,465 2,465 — 429,672 429,672 — 70,749 70,749 1,902,380 8,055 312,367 204,878
Shell Pipeline Co. LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 304 — 304 75,308 70,152 145,460 2,990 338 3,328 699,168 381,539 53,641 294,057
Ship Shoal Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 121 — 121 49,219 — 49,219 3,162 — 3,162 57,696 1,297 26,485 7,994
Sinclair Logistics LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 109 — 109 6,719 — 6,719 732 — 732 8,845 — 6,167 2,037
Skelly-Belvieu Pipeline Co.LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 572 572 — 10,457 10,457 — 5,971 5,971 103,699 342 32,855 20,733
SLC Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 94 — 94 34,403 — 34,403 3,029 — 3,029 165,844 337 28,002 13,838
Sorrento Pipeline Co LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 716 716 — 102,889 102,889 — 4,557 4,557 377,717 218 64,799 37,283
SouthTex 66 Pipeline Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 758 758 — 58,829 58,829 — 12,994 12,994 276,755 12,756 87,656 58,684
SP 49 Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 31 — 31 2,238 — 22,538 65 — 65 38,415 — 3,265 1,343
Spire NGL Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 40 40 — 5,135 5,135 — 103 103 6,358 6 1,588 703
STACK Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Stakeholder Midstream Crude Oil Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . 119 — — 119 — — — — — — 60,343 8,754 11,083 6,686
Stateline Crude LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 58 — 58 15,460 — 15,460 125 — 125 91,134 29,401 7,494 -7
Suncor Energy (USA) Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 346 — 346 19,916 — 19,916 4,362 — 4,362 285,111 5,403 32,387 4,168
Sunoco Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 2,905 2,567 6,066 499,110 365,326 864,436 41,242 41,019 82,261 10,172,583 1,945,103 1,041,735 1,596,689
Sunrise Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 263 — 263 91,217 — 91,217 34,187 — 34,187 — — 147,708 121,275
Tallgrass Pony Express Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 870 — 870 131,201 — 131,201 87,065 — 87,065 1,652,640 82,557 475,507 275,094
Tapstone Midstream LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 — — 20 — — — — — — 33,811 — 361 -56
Targa NGL Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 24 24 — 157,365 157,365 — — — 1,649 — 2,696 8,839
Tesoro High Plains Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 645 — 1,057 70,213 — 70,213 5,077 — 5,077 935,742 330,291 150,618 80,084
Tesoro Logistics Northwest Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 562 1,221 1,797 15,081 34,798 49,879 1,887 8,661 10,548 450,974 -30,914 72,603 27,222
Texas Express Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 592 592 — 70,118 70,118 — 39,989 39,989 1,105,865 76,837 217,303 162,501
Texoma Crude Oil Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 611 — 611 — — — — — — 101,095 101,095 28,464 156
Thunder Creek NGL Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 119 119 — 3,643 3,643 — 434 434 43,177 14,697 11,945 6,143
Total Petrochemicals Pipeline USA Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 14 — 14 — — — 832 — 832 361 — 209 -678
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,923 — 1,923 201,446 — 201,446 222,580 — 222,580 8,395,753 422,073 1,334,751 765,508
Trans Mountain Pipeline (Puget Sound) LLC . . . . . . . . . . . — 64 — 64 74,087 — 74,087 3,071 — 3,071 51,137 251 31,362 56,757
Tri-States NGL Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 168 168 — 20,093 20,093 — 2,967 2,967 184,547 1,817 55,710 39,947

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

UEOM NGL Pipelines LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 16 16 — 7,460 7,460 — 59 59 29,186 3,326 3,133 31,362
UNEV Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 427 427 — 9,000 9,000 — 3,543 3,543 364,540 612 40,533 22,385
USG Wheatland Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 22 — 22 643 — 643 14 — 14 13,624 547 914 -47

10/1/20 11:10 AM
oil pipelines (CONTINUED)
–––––––––––– Miles of pipeline –––––––––––– –––– Deliveries, 1,000 bbl –––– –––– Total trunkline traffic, –––– ––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 ––––––––––
 oil pipelines (CONTINUED)
–––––––––––– Miles of pipeline –––––––––––– –––– Deliveries, 1,000 bbl –––– –––– Total trunkline traffic, –––– ––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 ––––––––––
––––––– Trunk ––––––– –––– million bbl–miles –––– Carrier Property Operating
Company Gathering Crude Products Total Crude Products Total Crude Products Total property change revenue Income
Valero MKS Logistics LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 52 20 72 3,667 15,145 18,812 228 89 317 59,607 15,723 3,833 -1,327
Valero Partners Lucas LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 18 — 18 112,953 — 112,953 1,043 — 1,043 134,203 260 35,741 27,823
Valero Partners PAPS LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 20 20 — 118,990 118,990 — 334 334 106,936 2,199 41,847 31,234
Valero Partners Wynnewood LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 140 30 170 15,068 23,864 38,932 2,116 713 2,829 39,234 4,851 24,798 17,016
Valero Skellytown Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 52 52 — 7,176 7,176 — 131 131 4,692 224 1,773 651
Vantage Pipeline US LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 — — 47 — 11,986 11,986 — 683 683 107,443 -20 18,463 12,104

201005OGJ054-059.indd 57
Victoria Express Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 57 — 57 6,088 — 6,088 341 — 341 31,335 -2 16,828 11,118
Wesco Pipline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 167 — 167 1 — 1 — — — —
West Shore Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 602 602 32,891 115,565 148,456 117 9,542 9,659 165,147 17,216 77,745 33,777
WesTTex 66 Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 644 644 — 7,134 7,134 — 1,728 1,728 48,257 3,946 10,561 9,529
West Texas Gulf Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 582 — 582 134,725 — 134,725 48,708 — 48,708 276,703 34,216 109,647 50,024
West Texas LPG Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 2,911 2,911 — 88,790 88,790 — 45,939 45,939 635,362 156,289 184,850 105,189
Western Refining Conan Gathering LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,654 — — 1,654 — — — — — — 217,180 54,607 39,065 15,454
Western Refining Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 686 — 838 78,418 — 78,418 3,683 — 3,683 635,641 -302,593 111,619 62,638
White Cliffs Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,052 — 1,052 38,293 — 38,293 20,150 — 20,150 710,389 56,813 150,948 97,482
Williams Bayou Ethane Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 4,924 4,924 — 922 922 — — 19,448 -15,300
Williams Ohio Valley Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 50 50 — 13,443 13,443 — 672 672 157,818 529 23,077 9,614
WILPRISE Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 30 30 — 14,337 14,337 — 435 435 25,660 127 6,340 4,100
Wolverine Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 701 701 — 138,094 138,094 — 15,640 15,640 345,187 4,934 126,938 44,144
Wood River Pipe Lines LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,481 1,481 — 66,669 66,669 — 11,994 11,994 584,266 168,414 63,800 20,597
Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 688 688 — 39,361 39,361 — 8,071 8,071 141,607 7,792 38,378 9,031
Zydeco Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 439 — 439 326,984 — 326,984 36,360 — 36,360 511,578 1,129 180,974 85,042

2019 Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,774 62,313 93,839 173,886 13,889,024 8,656,887 22,532,365 3,587,340 $19,780,159
2,552,722 6,109,502 $138,289,279 $16,186,360 $32,894,592
2018 Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,471 61,318 94,951 171,736 13,216,311 8,562,298 21,778,609 3,126,158 $16,521,544
2,429,706 5,555,864 $122,369,726 $10,610,157 $29,035,122
1. Crude and total mileages represent 818 miles of Trans-Alaska Pipeline, operated by Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Anchorage. This figure is included in column total only once to avoid duplication.
Sources: US FERC Form No. 6: Annual Report of Oil Pipelines, Dec. 31, 2019.

GAS PIPELINES
Volumes ––––––––––––––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Transmission trans. for Operating &
system, ––––––– Total compression stations –––––––– others, Gas maintenance Operating Net
Company miles Transmission Other Total MMcf plant Additions expenses revenue income

Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . . . . . . . 1,131 7 — 7 766,393 3,827,689 190,793 91,561 532,085 224,167
Alliance Pipeline LP 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 10 — 10 694,736 1,958,102 192 67,077 284,129 120,038
American Midstream (AlaTenn) LLC . . . . . . . . — — — — 25,168 37,969 1,036 3,167 3,623 1,813
American Midstream (Midla) LLC . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 1,764 75,569 12,600 5,615 4,854 -2,507
ANR Pipeline Co. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,882 45 10 55 2,437,164 4,909,834 226,443 347,005 838,561 236,805
ANR Storage Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 — 3 3 — 185,139 6,055 11,088 19,053 7,836
Arlington Storage Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Bear Creek Storage Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1 1 — 188,502 3,593 8,004 27,304 11,970
Big Sandy Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 1 — 1 18,847 220,358 6,146 5,171 34,346 16,710
Bison Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 — — — — 673,936 57 3,190 32,200 6,391
Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . 30 — — — — 883 — 45 — -79
Blue Lake Gas Storage Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1 1 — 118,496 6,635 2,733 9,341 4,289
Bluewater Gas Storage LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Boardwalk Storage Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Bobcat Gas Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Cadeville Gas Storage LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Caledonia Energy Partners LLC . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Cameron Interstate Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . 39 1 — 1 82,316 329,542 79 5,622 22,966 -377
Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc. . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 6,042 9 827 1,101 —
Central Kentucky Transmission Co. . . . . . . . . . 30 — — — 2,344 1,023 — 75 169 54
Chandeleur Pipe Line Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 — — — 6,426 64,522 7,249 1,015 2,600 -277
Cheniere Corpus Christi Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . 22 1 — 1 354,583 378,379 11,304 13,078 66,116 26,887
Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . . 95 1 — 1 421,673 719,517 1,036 14,502 81,730 36,576
Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . 413 3 — 3 163,083 434,717 3,799 10,189 56,082 22,165
Cimarron River Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 24 — 24 71,994 162,099 — 21,025 24,125 -2,237
Colorado Interstate Gas Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,191 24 5 29 1,249,716 1,494,023 18,774 162,989 369,148 126,317
Columbia Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . 9,896 73 25 98 2,371,496 14,424,966 3,948,544 677,202 2,027,384 680,973
Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . 3,487 22 — 22 972,223 2,763,450 715,404 107,321 291,142 101,106
Coronado Midstream LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Crossroads Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 1 — 1 18,303 39,256 — 2,423 2,631 560
Dauphin Island Gathering Partners1 . . . . . . . . 119 — — — 18,725 127,837 — 2,590 2,875 -4,647
DBM Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 — — — 184,197 28,046 97 1,012 — -1,729
Destin Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 2 — 2 330,381 519,377 530 6,797 58,872 30,127
Discovery Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . 260 — 2 2 192,710 376,786 308 14,857 23,314 3,610
Dominion Energy Carolina Gas Transmission LLC1 1,504 6 — 6 174,656 632,941 25,593 24,611 96,851 37,380
Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG LP1 . . . . . . 137 2 — 2 405,576 5,553,305 101,893 159,259 851,366 371,359
Dominion Energy Overthrust Pipeline LLC1 . . . 261 3 — 3 519,449 465,635 1,414 7,295 71,909 40,126
Dominion Energy Questar Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . 1,888 13 6 19 311,702 1,295,514 29,779 54,075 173,050 86,223

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 57

Dominion Energy Transmission Inc.1 . . . . . . . . 3,632 69 20 89 1,302,224 6,170,546 204,782 255,749 813,141 203,075
DTE Midstream Appalachia LLC . . . . . . . . . . . 14 — — — 14,350 58,186 4,589 975 8,865 3,398

10/1/20 11:10 AM
 GAS PIPELINES (CONTINUED)
Volumes ––––––––––––––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Transmission trans. for Operating &
system, ––––––– Total compression stations –––––––– others, Gas maintenance Operating Net

58
Company miles Transmission Other Total MMcf plant Additions expenses revenue income
East Cheyenne Gas Storage LLC . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
East Tennessee Natural Gas LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . 1,526 21 21 310,646 1,251,642 21,977 54,235 178,005 65,185
Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 498 3 — 3 59,852 506,353 39,332 24,638 72,924 18,240
Egan Hub Storage LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —

201005OGJ054-059.indd 58
El Paso Natural Gas Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,217 54 1 55 2,249,555 3,757,531 97,721 221,783 797,473 302,788
Elba Express Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 3 — 3 155,251 829,741 829 7,868 149,583 87,174
Empire Pipeline Inc.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 1 — 1 214,445 534,112 3,374 15,881 66,961 19,993
Enable Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,870 26 4 30 1,173,302 2,628,762 42,770 196,216 411,051 129,274
Enable Mississippi River Transmission LLC1 . . 1,605 14 2 16 289,009 752,567 15,763 56,490 75,875 12,323
Equitrans LP1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934 7 21 28 1,021,525 1,938,437 174,162 72,490 404,157 205,810
ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
ETC Tiger Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 4 — 4 728,534 1,120,319 6,258 12,541 233,690 169,713
Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . 185 1 — 1 309,033 972,557 159 9,037 167,579 87,716
Florida Gas Transmission Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . 5,362 29 1 30 1,044,813 6,768,377 112,220 131,555 857,643 343,027
Florida Southeast Connection LLC1 . . . . . . . . 170 — — — 113,834 708,370 4,932 3,162 111,335 57,158
Freebird Gas Storage LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Garden Banks Gas Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . 50 — — — 91,219 101,460 749 23,379 10,785 -10,342
Gas Transmission Northwest Corp.1 . . . . . . . . 1,338 13 — 13 998,819 1,869,390 44,122 47,684 234,731 123,612
Golden Pass Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 — — — 667 741,919 — 8,614 71,094 43,985
Golden Triangle Storage Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 38,741 — — — — —
Great Lakes Gas Transmission LP1 . . . . . . . . . 2,115 14 — 14 688,918 2,130,615 35,140 69,698 237,893 111,082
Greylock Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1 — 1 3,899 116,248 29,849 392 2,026 -1,003
Guardian Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 3 — 3 125,664 652,285 463 13,450 72,295 28,016
Gulf Crossing Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . 375 4 — 4 447,830 1,720,848 740 85,026 182,155 28,547
Gulf LNG Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Gulf Shore Energy Partners LP . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Gulf South Pipeline Co. LP1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,340 45 9 54 1,336,242 5,474,335 180,826 170,383 563,128 140,948
Gulf States Tranmission Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 — — — 100 3,182 82 90 2 -287
Gulfstream Natural Gas System LLC1 . . . . . . . 745 3 — 3 442,461 2,024,200 8,440 31,070 280,294 114,534
Hampshire Gas Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 — 1 1 — 52,322 2,967 2,733 7,530 1,953
Hardy Storage Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1 1 — 168,045 1,347 3,067 21,543 8,446
High Island Offshore System LLC . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 489,856 747 13,778 9,332 -10,632
High Point Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . . . . . . . 344 — — — 33,405 253,597 1,801 8,507 8,488 -2,751
Hiland Partners Holding LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Honeoye Storage Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 14,617 136 1,731 4,175 1,592
Horizon Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 — — — 30,074 99,272 311 3,652 12,593 3,596
Iroquois Gas Transmission Systems LP (IPOC agent)1 416 7 — 7 346,467 1,310,465 14,690 28,193 179,615 82,038
Jackson Prairie Underground Storage Project — — 1 1 — 130,148 8,188 8,925 2,370 -8,925
Kaiser-Frontier Midstream LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
1
Kern River Gas Transmission Co. . . . . . . . . . . 1,718 12 — 12 843,616 2,886,039 35,384 49,261 278,303 147,637
Kinder Morgan Illinois Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . 29 — — — 9,025 19,869 — 925 1,836 -19
Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . 138 1 — 1 251,767 1,164,977 12,647 6,018 46,573 711
Kinetica Deepwater Express LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . 197 — — — 132,490 182,588 350 21,680 23,479 -400
Kinetica Energy Express LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,164 — — — 84,607 750,869 1,929 28,759 38,927 1,482
KO Transmission Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 — — — 50,427 90,235 10,514 1,741 9,501 3,371
KPC Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 3 — 3 17,593 89,144 700 5,135 9,866 1,445
LA Storage LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 30,432 — — — — —
Lake Charles LNG Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 1,302,540 1,117 21,070 197,404 143,560
Leaf River Energy Center LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Lucerne Residue Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . 343 7 — 7 98,401 1,168,255 2,034 27,548 164,125 73,022
1
MarkWest New Mexico LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 — — — 53,786 6,208 — 339 1,182 503
MarkWest Pioneer LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2 — 2 188,426 158,937 747 3,015 21,620 14,653
Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . 513 5 — 5 460,909 2,322,370 6,443 29,565 172,025 25,332
Midwestern Gas Transmission Co.1 . . . . . . . . . 404 8 — 8 284,978 328,587 1,660 18,551 42,162 7,790
MIGC Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 8 — 8 21,634 45,898 144 4,216 6,734 1,009
Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 4 — 4 577,485 1,672,581 61,478 17,109 262,716 94,361
Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . 44 — — — 144,803 58,030 — 2,849 12,457 7,043
Mississippi Hub LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
MoGas Pipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 17,577 104,350 356 7,373 15,094 3,241
Mojave Pipeline Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 1 — 1 155,879 250,690 526 3,200 15,828 4,709
Monroe Gas Storage Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
National Fuel Gas Supply Corp.1 . . . . . . . . . . 1,520 20 17 37 613,800 1,724,650 101,450 85,546 222,176 45,619
National Grid LNG LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 67,915 4,027 6,976 8,230 -3,996
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America1 . . . . . . . 9,013 50 11 61 2,097,744 4,481,167 113,430 322,703 763,469 246,400
1
Nautilus Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 — — — 123,573 130,678 1,276 3,038 9,116 4,551
NEXUS Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . 258 3 — 3 404,620 2,547,029 65,431 113,597 285,684 41,009
NGO Transmission Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 4,798 34,848 1,502 3,025 6,308 703
North Baja Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 1 — 1 140,298 203,741 1,850 6,352 41,080 24,228
Northern Border Pipeline Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,411 18 — 18 1,132,415 2,628,922 11,854 59,107 300,221 137,742
Northern Natural Gas Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,672 51 5 56 1,492,309 5,175,761 724,794 338,103 859,971 273,858
Northwest Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,879 43 1 44 856,121 3,605,253 163,633 130,600 444,422 112,196
OkTex Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 1 — 1 47,609 11,496 1,428 1,576 2,226 -26
Ozark Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 4 — 4 20,861 186,558 2,426 6,132 12,016 2,807
Paiute Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898 6 — 6 41,776 289,138 10,813 19,298 44,064 11,809
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. LP1 . . . . . . . 6,336 21 — 21 891,801 2,147,355 63,028 155,874 362,216 823,514

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

Paulsboro Natural Gas Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . — — — — 11,112 — — — — —
Perryville Gas Storage LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
PGPipeline LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 2,993 5,843 — 231 1,338 694

10/1/20 11:10 AM
GAS PIPELINES (CONTINUED)
Volumes ––––––––––––––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––
 GAS PIPELINES (CONTINUED)
Volumes ––––––––––––––––––––––– Fiscal data, $1,000 –––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Transmission trans. for Operating &
system, ––––––– Total compression stations –––––––– others, Gas maintenance Operating Net
Company miles Transmission Other Total MMcf plant Additions expenses revenue income
Pine Needle LNG Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 130,900 766 4,560 13,807 3,219
Pine Prairie Energy Center LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Point Arguello Natural Gas Line Co. . . . . . . . . — — — — 678 150,777 — 1,023 1,111 -2,514
Portland Natural Gas Transmission System1 . . 296 — — — 103,952 498,861 26 9,083 72,595 29,993
Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . 268 3 — 3 159 78,073 142 3,189 144 3,471

201005OGJ054-059.indd 59
Rager Mountain Storage Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Raton Gas Transmission Co. Inc. . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 1,119 1,283 2 1,234 1,217 34
Red River Energy LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Rendevous Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 102,090 — — — — —
RH energytrans LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 — — — — 75,660 75,660 55 803 432
Roberts Ranch Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Rockies Express Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,712 17 5 22 1,497,495 7,726,355 41,863 123,549 927,087 284,417
Rover Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719 10 — 10 795,240 6,640,376 338,891 172,196 770,654 238,436
Ruby Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 4 — 4 288,057 3,736,854 474 22,040 341,658 108,645
1
Sabal Trail Transmission LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 3 — 3 197,284 3,017,450 57,507 75,285 374,639 121,856
Sabine Pipe Line LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 4 — 4 130,618 76,205 345 4,053 5,729 460
Saltville Gas Storage Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 148,735 27,995 8,458 21,651 7,165
Sea Robin Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740 2 — 2 102,094 614,570 1,954 16,853 30,801 -936
SG Resources Mississippi LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Sieritta Gas Pipeline LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 — — — 49,429 175,014 367 1,234 34,762 15,926
Southeast Supply Header LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . 287 3 3 6 373,741 1,284,563 2,868 18,659 108,679 23,517
Southern LNG Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 1,135,470 457,682 25,412 189,150 134,040
Southern Natural Gas Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,818 40 1 41 1,037,567 4,022,987 48,606 208,711 634,606 209,776
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline Inc.1 . . . . 5,627 33 9 42 438,471 1,881,896 170,837 108,442 259,844 67,199
Southwest Gas Storage Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 4 4 — 247,420 3,794 9,178 43,312 25,362
Southwest Gas Transmission Co. LP . . . . . . . 9 — — — 22,730 2,347 9 273 366 7
Spire STL Pipeline LLC (new) . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 — — — 4,636 265,739 265,739 619 3,856 12,611
Spire Storage West LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Stagecoach Pipeline and Storage Co. LLC . . . . 31 — 2 2 504,861 544,483 533 19,109 94,568 43,002
Steckman Ridge LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Stingray Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 — 1 1 6,120 300,234 — 10,580 3,220 -16,665
Tallgrass Interstate Gas Transmission LLC1 . . . 4,580 21 2 23 288,583 730,106 25,245 44,365 103,822 27,237
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,761 83 3 86 4,028,560 9,465,017 186,805 429,692 1,701,581 665,136
Texas Eastern Transmission LP1 . . . . . . . . . . . 8,835 74 6 80 4,028,298 11,616,595 758,860 571,481 1,649,480 510,152
Texas Gas Transmission LLC.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,725 27 7 34 1,234,725 3,521,064 32,578 120,806 454,647 142,327
1
Trailblazer Pipeline Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 3 — 3 337,169 384,579 245 14,263 36,031 12,051
TransColorado Gas Transmission Co.1 . . . . . . . 312 8 — 8 63,154 434,415 1,175 6,621 14,504 -13,020
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC1 . . . . 9,558 60 10 70 5,368,557 16,555,736 900,480 725,521 2,425,683 758,419
Trans-Foreland Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline LP . . . . . . . . . — — — — 95,167 41,876 — 488 6,142 1,217
Transwestern Pipeline Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . 2,614 32 — 32 538,232 2,391,877 9,898 67,461 270,431 112,347
Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Trunkline Gas Co. LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,194 17 1 18 725,937 1,480,241 22,589 50,020 168,073 240,460
Tuscarora Gas Transmission Co. . . . . . . . . . . 305 4 — 4 54,061 207,815 963 5,366 22,003 10,576
UGI LNG Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
UGI Mt. Bethel Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . 13 — — — 13,886 9,546 34 224 529 193
UGI Storage Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 3,606 — — — — —
UGI Sunbury LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 — — — 39,993 151,797 101 2,221 31,344 18,430
USG Pipeline Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 — — — 3,058 5,500 — 465 642 -593
Vector Pipeline LP1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 5 — 5 741,088 891,404 30,295 12,825 106,270 43,614
Venice Gathering System LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 3,871 75,964 — 2,082 2,751 -2,122
Viking Gas Transmission Co.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 8 — 8 122,567 254,566 13,560 16,904 36,256 6,330
WBI Energy Transmission Inc.1 . . . . . . . . . . . 3,506 27 8 35 429,660 770,263 49,146 40,516 118,596 28,254
West Texas Gas Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855 — — — 26,916 211,668 22,648 77,039 96,187 24,495
WestGas InterState Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 — — — 2 724 — 41 148 88
Western Gas Interstate Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 — — — 5,108 10,895 730 867 1,570 211
White River Hub LLC1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 — — — 474,818 58,234 2 1,072 9,771 4,398
WTG Hugoton LP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 1 14 15 28,625 120,341 424 5,184 7,183 -861
Wyckoff Gas Storage Co. LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — —
Wyoming Interstate Co. Ltd.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852 12 — 12 899,527 946,895 2,186 24,864 124,960 52,052
Young Gas Storage Co. Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — 49,453 88 2,638 7,992 2,646
2019 Totals-majors (98) . . . . . . . . . . 189,141 1,300 200 1,500 59,724,821 $198,717,144 $10,825,827 $7,565,035 $27,514,792 $10,507,915
2018 Totals-majors (100) . . . . . . . . . . 189,968 1,283 204 1,487 56,625,301 $191,074,169 $24,371,161 $7,697,714 $26,641,799 $10,245,827
2019 Totals-all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194,427 1,331 224 1,555 61,883,678 $206,349,102 $11,335,911 $7,981,745 $28,270,482 $10,744,960
2018 Totals-all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195,380 1,313 226 1,539 57,824,241 $197,480,548 $24,895,877 $8,109,092 $27,321,482 $10,554,601

1
Major natural gas pipeline companies as defined above (and in FERC Accounting and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Companies, para. 20-011, effective Feb. 2, 1985, beginning with 1984 reporting year).
Beginning with 1996, major companies were required to file mileage for transmission systems only.

Source: FERC Forms 2 and 2A for major and nonmajor natural gas pipeline companies. Under criteria established for the 1984 reporting year (OGJ, Nov. 25, 1985, p. 80), major pipeline companies are those whose
combined gas sold for resale and gas transported for a fee exceeded 50 bcf at 14.73 psi (60[degree sign] F.) in each of the 3 previous calendar years. Nonmajors are natural gas pipeline companies not classified as
majors and whose total gas sales of volume transactions exceeded 200 MMcf at l4.73 psi (60° F.) in each of the 3 previous calendar years.

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020 59

10/1/20 11:10 AM
 STATISTICS
Additional analysis of market trends is available
IMPORTS OF CRUDE AND PRODUCTS through OGJ Online, Oil & Gas Journal’s electronic
information source, at http://www.ogj.com.
— Districts 1-4 — — District 5 — ———— Total US ————
9-18 9-11 9-18 9-11 9-18 9-11 9-20*
2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2019
––––––––––––––––––––––––— 1,000 b/d ––––––––––––––––––––––––—
Total motor gasoline.............. 452 599 22 2 474 601 800
  Mo. gas. blending comp..... 311 571 0 0 311 571 792
Distillate................................ 132 109 3 3 135 112 94
Residual...............................
Jet fuel-kerosine...................
199
96
26
131
0
100
11
100
199
196
37
231
159
123
OGJ CRACK SPREAD
9-25-20* 9-27-19* Change Change,
Propane-propylene............... 64 68 46 21 110 89 103 ———–—$/bbl ——–—— %
Other.................................... 809 783 112 141 921 923 1,131
SPOT PRICES
Total products....................... 1,752 1,716 283 278 2,035 1,993 2,410
  Product value 48.90 76.89 (27.99) (36.4)
Total crude............................ 4,411 3,847 757 1,160 5,168 5,007 6,378   Brent crude 40.89 63.15 (22.26) (35.2)
  Crack spread 8.01 13.73 (5.72) (41.6)
Total imports......................... 6,163 5,563 1,040 1,438 7,203 7,001 8,788
FUTURES MARKET PRICES
*Revised. One month
Source: US Energy Information Administration   Product value 48.56 74.44 (25.88) (34.8)
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.   Light sweet crude 39.88 56.95 (17.07) (30.0)
  Crack spread 8.68 17.50 (8.82) (50.4)
Six month
  Product value 52.00 72.69 (20.69) (28.5)
EXPORTS OF CRUDE AND PRODUCTS   Light sweet crude 41.52 54.91 (13.39) (24.4)
–––––––––––––––– Total US ––––––––––––––––   Crack spread 10.48 17.78 (7.30) (41.1)
9-18-20 9-11-20 *9-20-19
––––––––––––––– 1,000 b/d ––––––––––––––– *Average for week ending.
Finished motor gasoline 746 506 805 Source: Oil & Gas Journal
Jet fuel-kerosine 54 59 130 Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.
Distillate 1,128 1,212 1,623
Residual 213 89 34
Propane/propylene 1,039 950 1,040
Other oils 1,793 1,599 1,480
Total products 4,973 4,415 5,112
Total crude 3,022 2,595 2,983
Total exports 7,995 7,010 8,095
NET IMPORTS
Total (793) (9) 693
Products (2,938) (2,422) (2,702)
Crude 2,146 2,413 3,395

*Revised.
Source: Oil & Gas Journal
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.

CRUDE AND PRODUCT STOCKS

—–– Motor gasoline —––
Blending Jet fuel, ————— Fuel oils ————— Propane-
Crude oil Total comp. kerosine Distillate Residual propylene
District ———————————————————————————— 1,000 bbl —————————————————————————
PADD 1...................................... 11,001 59,395 55,525 9,439 63,753 9,589 9,134
PADD 2...................................... 140,534 46,498 39,966 6,594 33,409 1,177 27,445
PADD 3...................................... 265,000 84,211 73,786 13,044 61,523 17,537 55,851
PADD 4...................................... 23,546 7,414 5,575 740 4,150 193 1
5,459
PADD 5...................................... 54,325 29,981 27,400 9,208 13,108 4,756 —

Sept. 18, 2020.......................... 494,406 227,499 202,252 39,025 175,943 33,252 97,889
Sept. 11, 2020........................... 496,043 231,523 207,794 39,085 179,306 33,359 96,141
Sept. 20, 20192.......................... 419,537 230,202 207,653 45,453 133,682 29,525 95,369
1
Includes PADD 5. 2Revised.
Source: US Energy Information Administration
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.

REFINERY REPORT—SEPTEMBER 18, 2020

REFINERY –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– REFINERY OUTPUT –––––––––––––––––––––––––––
–––––– OPERATIONS –––––– Total
Gross Crude oil motor Jet fuel, ––––––– Fuel oils –––––––– Propane-
inputs inputs gasoline kerosine Distillate Residual propylene
District ––––––– 1,000 b/d –––––––– –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1,000 b/d –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

PADD 1............................................... 587 540 2,941 15 174 5 252

PADD 2............................................... 3,299 3,277 2,385 187 963 35 505
PADD 3............................................... 7,325 7,031 2,020 342 2,600 34 1,214
PADD 4............................................... 587 570 300 22 205 11 1
257
PADD 5............................................... 2,133 1,951 1,323 219 528 51 —
Sept. 18, 2020..................................... 13,931 13,369 8,969 785 4,470 136 2,228
Sept. 11, 2020..................................... 14,123 13,487 9,102 809 4,403 201 2,163
Sept. 20, 2019..................................... 16,887 16,513 10,035 1,772 5,000 392 2,247

18,622 Operable capacity 74.8% utilization rate

1
Includes PADD 5. Revised. 2

Source: US Energy Information Administration

Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.

60 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ060-062.indd 60 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 STATISTICS
OGJ GASOLINE PRICES BAKER HUGHES RIG COUNT OGJ PRODUCTION REPORT
1
9-25-20 2
9-27-19
Price Pump Pump 9-25-20 9-27-19 –—— 1,000 b/d —–—
ex tax price* price*
9-23-20 9-23-20 9-25-19 (Crude oil and lease condensate)
Alabama............................................ 0 1 Alabama.................................. 8 13
————— ¢/gal ————— Alaska................................................ 2 8 Alaska..................................... 413 449

Arkansas............................................ 0 0 California................................ 408 453
(Approx. prices for self-service unleaded gasoline) California........................................... 4 15 Colorado.................................. 470 516
Atlanta........................... 143.3 196.2 246.9  Land................................................ 4 15 Florida..................................... 4 5
Baltimore....................... 148.6 203.7 238.3  Offshore........................................... 0 0 Illinois..................................... 19 23
Boston............................ 175.1 220.0 257.6 Colorado............................................. 5 25 Kansas.................................... 73 91
Buffalo........................... 159.6 223.0 257.4 Florida................................................ 0 2 Louisiana................................ 1,310 1,663
Miami............................. 149.4 210.0 239.0 Michigan................................. 10 14
Illinois................................................ 0 1 Mississippi.............................. 37 46
Newark........................... 154.4 214.2 255.0 Indiana.............................................. 1 0 Montana.................................. 46 60
New York........................ 168.6 232.0 267.8 Kansas............................................... 0 0 New Mexico.............................. 921 971
Norfolk........................... 158.3 198.7 242.7 Kentucky............................................ 0 0 North Dakota........................... 889 1,426
Philadelphia................... 141.6 218.7 264.9 Louisiana........................................... 39 56 Ohio......................................... 68 88
Pittsburgh...................... 146.6 223.7 272.6   N. Land............................................ 25 31 Oklahoma................................ 440 604
Wash., DC....................... 177.8 219.7 259.6   S. Inland waters............................... 1 1 Pennsylvania........................... 14 19
  PAD I avg................... 156.7 214.6 254.7   S. Land............................................ 1 2 Texas....................................... 5,225 5,574
Utah........................................ 78 98
 Offshore........................................... 12 22 West Virginia........................... 49 53
Chicago.......................... 194.5 266.6 303.5 Maryland............................................ 0 0 Wyoming.................................. 227 292
Cleveland....................... 160.8 217.7 264.2 Michigan............................................ 0 1 Other states............................ 34 37
Des Moines..................... 154.9 203.8 241.2 Mississippi......................................... 0 3
Detroit............................ 148.0 208.3 266.4 Montana............................................. 1 1  Total 10,743 12,495
Indianapolis................... 140.2 205.2 252.0 Nebraska............................................ 0 0
1
OGJ estimate. 2Revised. Source: Oil & Gas Journal.
Kansas City.................... 159.3 195.1 236.0 New Mexico........................................ 41 109 Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.
Louisville........................ 158.8 203.2 262.3
Memphis........................ 154.3 200.1 237.3
New York............................................
North Dakota......................................
0
9
0
53 US CRUDE PRICES
Milwaukee...................... 144.8 196.1 246.7 Ohio................................................... 6 11 9-25-20
Minn.-St. Paul................ 162.9 209.9 255.4 Oklahoma........................................... 12 66 $/bbl*
Oklahoma City................ 131.7 170.1 229.7 Pennsylvania...................................... 19 36 Alaska-North Slope 27°.......................................... 35.65
Omaha........................... 152.6 201.2 238.6 South Dakota..................................... 0 0 Light Louisiana Sweet............................................ 35.62
St. Louis......................... 173.0 208.8 239.7 Texas.................................................. 113 418 California-Midway Sunset 13°............................... 32.10
Tulsa.............................. 134.8 173.2 227.3  Offshore........................................... 2 0 California-Buena Vista Hills 26°............................ 43.80
Wichita........................... 161.3 203.8 232.7   Inland waters................................... 0 0 Southwest Wyoming Sweet..................................... 33.33
  PAD II avg.................. 155.5 204.2 248.9   Dist. 1.............................................. 2 31 East Texas Sweet.................................................... 34.00
West Texas Sour 34°............................................... 31.75
  Dist. 2.............................................. 8 28 West Texas Intermediate......................................... 36.75
Albuquerque................... 147.6 184.9 252.5   Dist. 3.............................................. 1 12
Birmingham................... 145.4 191.1 228.7 Oklahoma Sweet.................................................... 36.75
  Dist. 4.............................................. 4 11 Texas Upper Gulf Coast.......................................... 30.50
Dallas-Fort Worth........... 146.0 184.4 231.1   Dist. 5.............................................. 0 1 Michigan Sour........................................................ 28.75
Houston.......................... 147.6 186.0 228.5   Dist. 6.............................................. 12 22 Kansas Common.................................................... 35.75
Little Rock...................... 138.2 181.4 230.2   Dist. 7B............................................ 0 7 North Dakota Sweet................................................ 32.25
New Orleans................... 147.5 185.9 228.8   Dist. 7C............................................ 3 26 *Current major refiner’s posted prices except N. Slope lags 2 months.
San Antonio.................... 145.8 184.2 231.8   Dist. 8.............................................. 77 267 40° gravity crude unless differing gravity is shown. Source: Oil & Gas
  PAD III avg................. 145.4 185.4 233.1   Dist. 8A............................................ 4 11 Journal. Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.
  Dist. 9.............................................. 0 1
Cheyenne.......................
Denver............................
172.2
203.8
214.6
244.2
265.1
261.9
  Dist. 10............................................
Utah...................................................
0
0
1
3
WORLD CRUDE PRICES
Salt Lake City................. 190.1 239.6 276.9 $/bbl
West Virginia...................................... 7 16 OPEC reference basket Wkly. avg. 9-25-20 41.47
  PAD IV avg................. 188.7 232.8 268.0 Wyoming............................................ 1 34
Others HI-1........................................ 1 1 – Mo. avg., $/bbl – – Year to date –
Los Angeles.................... 228.6 307.6 393.2 July-20 Aug.-20 2019 2020
Phoenix.......................... 211.8 249.2 286.2   Total US......................................... 261 860
Portland......................... 217.3 272.6 309.9   Total Canada................................. 71 127 Spot crudes
San Diego....................... 206.4 285.4 390.6   Grand total.................................... 332 987 North Sea dated 43.27 44.79 64.78 40.88
San Francisco................ 229.2 308.2 394.3 US oil rigs.......................................... 183 713 Dubai - Fateh 32 43.19 43.89 64.33 41.54
Seattle........................... 215.9 283.7 336.5 US gas rigs........................................ 75 146 Light Louisiana Sweet - USA 42.34 44.08 63.71 40.27
  PAD V avg.................. 218.2 284.5 351.8 Total US offshore................................ 14 24 Mars - USA 41.77 43.77 62.24 38.90
Total US cum. avg. YTD...................... 477 984 Tapis - Malaysia NA NA NA NA
Week’s avg.................... 165.4 217.3 263.8 Urals - Russia 44.28 45.03 65.06 40.89
Aug. avg......................... 165.1 216.9 258.8 West Texas Intermediate - USA 40.75 42.36 57.08 38.15
July avg.......................... 165.6 217.5 263.7 Rotary rigs from spudding in to total depth. OPEC Reference Basket 43.42 45.19 64.63 40.50
2020 to date.................. 165.3 217.1 — Definitions, see OGJ Sept. 18, 2006, p. 46.
Source: Baker Hughes Inc. Differentials
2019 to date.................. 207.7 258.2 — North Sea dated/WTI 2.52 2.43 7.70 2.73
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.
*
Includes state and federal motor fuel taxes and state North Sea dated/LLS 0.93 0.71 1.07 0.61
sales tax. Local governments may impose additional taxes. North Sea dated/Dubai 0.08 0.90 0.45 (0.67)
Source: Oil & Gas Journal. Crude oil futures
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center. NYMEX WTI 40.77 42.39 57.12 38.03
ICE Brent 43.22 45.02 65.05 42.61
DME Oman 43.70 44.41 64.64 42.43
Spread
ICE Brent-NYMEX WTI 2.46 2.63 7.94 4.58

REFINED PRODUCT PRICES IHS PETRODATA RIG COUNT

Source: OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report.
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.

9-18-20 9-18-20   SEPT. 25, 2020

¢/gal ¢/gal Total Marketed Marketed US NATURAL GAS STORAGE1
supply supply Marketed utilization 9-18-20 9-11-20 9-18-19 Change,
Spot market product prices of rigs of rigs contracted rate (%) –——––—— bcf —––——– %
US Gulf of
Motor gasoline No. 2 Distillate   Mexico. . . . . . 62 35 23 65.7 East.................................... 851 825 785 8.4
 (Conventional-regular) Ultra Low sulfur diesel fuel South Midwest.............................. 1,009 983 924 9.2
  New York Harbor.......... 128.80   New York Harbor.......... 117.10   America . . . . 32 30 26 86.7 Mountain............................. 225 221 192 17.2
  Gulf Coast................... 122.00   Gulf Coast................... 110.60 Pacific................................. 312 310 284 9.9
Northwest South Central 1,283 1,276 991 29.5
  Los Angeles................. 118.10 Europe. . . . . 78 65 50 76.9 Salt................................. 349 349 205 70.2
Motor gasoline West Nonsalt........................... 934 927 785 19.0
  (RBOB-regular) Kerosine jet fuel   Africa. . . . . . 51 36 20 55.6
  New York Harbor.......... 129.80   Gulf Coast................... 103.10 Middle Total US.............................. 3,680 3,615 3,176 15.9
  East. . . . . . . 171 156 131 84.0 Change,
No. 2 heating oil Propane Southeast June-20 June-19 %
  New York Harbor.......... 110.30   Mont Belvieu............... 50.90   Asia. . . . . . . 81 64 42 65.6
  Worldwide. . . . 742 610 483 79.2 Total US2............................. 3,133 2,461 27.3
1
Working gas. 2At end of period.
Source: EIA Weekly Petroleum Status Report. Source: IHS Petrodata Source: Energy Information Administration
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center. Data available in Oil & Gas Journal Research Center. Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 202061

201005OGJ060-062.indd 61 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 STATISTICS
PACE REFINING MARGINS WORLDWIDE NGL PRODUCTION
Jun. Jul. Aug. Aug. 6 month Change vs.
2020 2020 2020 2019 Change Change, average previous
——––—––––— $/bbl –––––––––—— % Jun. May — production — —— year —–
2020 2020 2020 2019 Volume
US Gulf Coast ————–—–––— 1,000 b/d ———––———— %
  Composite US Gulf Refinery.............. 4.51 4.48 3.76 11.25 (7.49) (66.6)
  Mars (Coking)................................... 3.37 3.93 2.92 10.31 (7.39) (71.7) Brazil.................................... 136 112 122 97 25 25.2
  Mars (Cracking)................................ 2.33 3.16 2.55 6.05 (3.49) (57.8) Canada................................. 997 916 963 965 (2) (0.2)
  Bonny Light....................................... 2.34 2.54 2.62 6.69 (4.08) (60.9) Mexico.................................. 223 217 227 219 8 3.7
US PADD II United States ....................... 5,197 4,745 5,040 4,733 307 6.5
  Chicago (WTI)................................... 9.21 7.75 6.32 15.39 (9.07) (58.9) Venezuela............................. 94 94 95 128 (33) (25.9)
US East Coast Other Western
  Brass River....................................... 4.31 4.90 4.26 9.04 (4.77) (52.8)  Hemisphere........................ 192 192 199 213 (14) (6.6)
  East Coast Comp.............................. 4.12 4.63 3.68 8.57 (4.89) (57.0)   Western
US West Coast   Hemisphere................... 6,839 6,276 6,645 6,355 290 4.6
  Los Angeles (ANS)............................. 7.29 7.67 9.21 11.10 (1.90) (17.1)
NW Europe Norway.................................. 309 261 299 320 (22) (6.8)
  Rotterdam (Brent)............................. (1.85) (1.68) (2.24) 4.76 (7.00) (147.0) United Kingdom.................... 106 104 100 107 (7) (6.5)
Mediterranean Other Western
  Italy (Urals)....................................... (4.56) (2.50) (2.35) 1.80 (4.15) (230.5)  Europe................................ 3 3 3 5 (2) (43.8)
Far East
  Singapore (Dubai)............................. (1.26) (0.91) (0.97) 4.77 (5.74) (120.3)   Western Europe.............. 418 368 402 433 (31) (7.2)

Source: Jacobs Consultancy Inc. Russia.................................. 701 745 797 814 (18) (2.1)
.Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center. Other FSU............................. 486 489 490 469 21 4.4
Other Eastern
 Europe................................ 8 8 8 8 0 0.0
  Eastern Europe............... 1,195 1,242 1,294 1,291 3 0.3
US NATURAL GAS BALANCE
DEMAND/SUPPLY SCOREBOARD Algeria..................................
Egypt....................................
425
23
422
23
435
23
466
25
(32)
(2)
(6.8)
(6.1)
Libya..................................... 10 10 10 36 (26) (72.2)
Jun. Total YTD Other Africa.......................... 524 524 499 187 312 166.8
Jun. May Jun. 2020–2019 ––– YTD ––– 2020–2019  Africa............................... 982 979 967 714 253 35.4
2020 2020 2019 change 2020 2019 change
——————————— bcf ——————––—————
Saudi Arabia......................... 1,700 1,650 1,856 1,897 (41) (2.2)
DEMAND United Arab Emirates........... 500 454 562 579 (17) (2.9)
 Consumption.................... 2,134 2,070 2,115 19 15,484 15,736 (252) Qatar.................................... 320 320 320 310 10 3.2
  Addition to storage........... 443 522 523 (80) 1,831 1,955 (124) Other ................................... 271 271 274 352 (78) (22.0)
 Exports ............................ 339 395 360 (21) 2,615 2,135 480   Middle East...................... 2,791 2,695 3,012 3,137 (125) (4.0)
  Canada ......................... 67 68 62 5 468 475 (7)
  Mexico ........................... 163 145 156 7 925 885 40 Australia............................... 123 102 112 46 66 145.3
  LNG ............................... 109 182 142 (33) 1,222 775 447 China.................................... 5 5 5 5 0 0.0
  Total demand................... 2,916 2,987 2,998 (82) 19,930 19,826 104 India..................................... 102 103 115 136 (21) (15.3)
Other Asia–Pacific................ 107 105 108 115 (7) (6.4)
SUPPLY  Asia–Pacific.................... 337 315 340 302 38 12.7
  Production (dry gas)......... 2,650 2,715 2,736 (86) 16,742 16,274 468
  Supplemental gas............ 5 5 6 (1) 34 32 2   TOTAL WORLD.................. 12,562 11,875 12,660 12,232 428 3.5
  Storage withdrawal.......... 85 74 92 (7) 1,874 2,192 (318)
 Imports............................. 185 190 201 (16) 1,285 1,392 (107) Totals may not add due to rounding.
  Canada.......................... 180 187 201 (21) 1,251 1,363 (112) Source: Oil & Gas Journal.
  Mexico............................ 0 0 0 (0) 1 1 0 Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.
  LNG................................ 5 3 0 5 33 28 5
  Total supply...................... 2,925 2,984 3,035 (110) 19,935 19,890 45
N. ATURAL GAS IN UNDERGROUND STORAGE OXYGENATES
Jun. May Apr. Jun.
2020 2020 2020 2019 Change Jun. May YTD YTD
—————————— bcf —————————— 2020 2020 Change 2020 2019 Change
———————––—––– 1,000 bbl –––—————————
Base gas 4,389 4,387 4,384 4,375 2,477
Working gas 3,133 2,778 2,333 2,461 672 Fuel ethanol
  Total gas 7,522 7,165 6,717 6,836 3,149  Production................... 25,958 21,098 4,860 157,266 186,361 (29,095)
S. ource: DOE Monthly Energy Review.  Stocks.......................... 19,826 22,247 (2,421) 19,826 22,573 (2,747)
.Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.
MTBE
 Production................... 1,709 1,281 428 7,944 10,126 (2,182)
 Stocks.......................... 0 0 0 0 1,607 (1,607)
S. ource: DOE Petroleum Supply Monthly.
.Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.

US COOLING DEGREE–DAYS

Jun. May Jun. — Total degree days YTD —
2020 2020 2019 % change 2020 2019 % change
New England................................................................. 101 3 65 55.4 105 68 54.4
Middle Atlantic.............................................................. 148 11 113 31.0 159 145 9.7
East North Central........................................................ 188 32 127 48.0 221 175 26.3
West North Central........................................................ 257 37 175 46.9 302 223 35.4
South Atlantic............................................................... 345 166 361 (4.4) 816 909 (10.2)
East South Central........................................................ 298 105 299 (0.3) 495 578 (14.4)
West South Central........................................................ 455 276 436 4.4 1,007 888 13.4
Mountain....................................................................... 262 162 233 12.4 477 352 35.5
Pacific........................................................................... 112 65 116 (3.4) 222 188 18.1
  US average*............................................................ 248 105 227 9.3 466 444 5.0

*Excludes Alaska and Hawaii.

Source: DOE Monthly Energy Review.
Data available at Oil & Gas Journal Research Center.

62 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

201005OGJ060-062.indd 62 10/1/20 11:10 AM

 2020-2021 EVENT CALENDAR
Many events have been rescheduled or cancelled Oil & Gas Exhibition & OilComm Conference www.pboilshow.org/ cil.com/event-events/
due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Oil & Gas Journal Conference (KIOGE), & Exposition, Virtual, 20-22. southamerica-assem-
is updating this page as information becomes Almaty, web site: https:// web site: https://www. blynorthern-edition/
available, but please contact the event’s website kioge.kz/en/ 7-9. oilcomm.com/ 13-15. Society of Petroleum 21-22.
for the most current status. Engineers SPE Virtual
Society of Explora- LNGgc, London, web- Annual Caspian Techni- SPE Symposium:
Denotes new listing or ference, Houston, web tion Geophysicists site: https://informacon- cal Conference, web Caspian Health, Safety,
a change in previously site: https://www.iadc. (SEG) International nect.com/lnggc-london/ site: https://www.spe. Security, Environment
published information. org/event/2020-iadc- Exposition & Annual 13-15. org/events/en/2020/ & Social Responsibil-
contracts-risk-manage- Meeting, Houston, web conference/20ctc/ ity, Virtual, web site:
OCTOBER 2020 ment-conference/ 6-7. site: https://seg.org/ OilComm 2020 Confer- caspian-technical- https://www.spe.
AM/2020/ 11-16. ence & Exposition, Hous- conference 21-22. org/events/en/2020/
Exploration and Kuwait Oil & Gas Con- ton, Tex., web site: www. symposium/20shse/
Production Offshore ference & Exhibition, Flame Virtual Confer- oilcomm.com/ 14-15. During these challenging caspian-health-safety-
Congress Hub EPOCH Kuwait City, web site: ence, Delivered Online times it has never been security-environment-
of Sustainability https://www.cwckuwait. (CET Time), web site: 7th Conjugate Margins more important to keep social-responsibility 22.
International Upstream com/ 6-7. https://informaconnect. Conference 2020, Mar- the Caspian oil and gas
Congress, Online Plat- com/flame-conference/ rakesh, Morocco, web industry connected. Condensate & Naphtha
form, web site: https:// Petroleum Asia Expo the-virtual-platform/ site: https://www.cmc- Forum, Virtual, web site:
oilepoch.com/?utm_ 2020, Kuching, Ma- 12-13. morocco.com/ 14-16. SPE’s Caspian Technical www.condensateforum.
source=media&amp; laysia, web site: www. Conference is adapting com/ 22-23.
utm_medium=oilfiel expohour.com/petro- PetroChemistry & Natural Annual Conference on to a virtual format for the
dtechnology&amp;u leum-asia-expo 6-8. Gas, Prague, Czech Oil, Gas & Petroleum first time and as we head SPE Russian Petroleum
tm_campaign=april20& Republic, web site: http:// Engineering, Rome, into our seventh year, we Technology Confer-
amp;utm_content= Annual Congress & Ex- kindcongress.com/ Italy, web site: www. will bring you the same ence, Virtual, web
calendar 5-6. hibition Nitrogen Syngas congress/petrochemis- mathewsopenaccess. high-quality content and site: https://www.spe.
Russia & CIS, Moscow, try-2020/ 12-13. com/conferences/oil- inclusive learning experi- org/events/en/2020/
International Upstream web site: www.syngas- gas-petroleum-engineer- ence you’d receive from conference/20rptc/
Congress, London, russia.com/ 7-8. Gulf Coast Energy ing/ 19-21. our in-person event. russian-petroleum-
web site: https:// Forum, New Orleans, technology-conference
oilepoch.com/?utm_ Africa Oil Week (AOW LA, web site: www. 2020 Fall Committee on The new format will pro- 26-29.
source=media&amp; Virtual), web site: gulfcoastenergyforum. Petroleum Measurement vide a series of interactive
utm_ medium=oilfie https://www.africa- com 12-14. Standards Meeting, technical content op- Oil & Gas Pipeline
ldtechnology&amp;u oilweek.com/Page/aow- Santa Ana Pueblo, portunities, collaboration Integrity & Data Utiliza-
tm_campaign=april20 virtual 7-8. Society of Petro- New Mexico, web site: experiences including live tion Solutions Mega
&amp;utm_content= leum Engineers SPE https:// www.api.org/ speaker Q&A’s, 1:1 chats Rule Compliance 2020,
calendar 5-6. We are delighted to RussianPetroleum productsand-services/ and group networking Virtual Event, web site:
announce the launch Technology Conference, events/calendar/2020/ lounges. http://www.pipeline-
Society of Petroleum of AOW Virtual, which Moscow, Russia, web fallcopm 19-23. integrity-data-utilization-
Engineers (SPE) Annual will take place 7-8 site: https://www.spe. North America Assem- congress.com/ 27-28.
Technical Conference October 2020. This org/events/en/2020/ The Year in Infrastruc- bly & Dinner, Houston,
& Exhibition, Denver, strategic event will conference/20rptc/rus- ture 2020 Conference, Tex., web site: https:// SPE ATCE 2020, Virtual
web site: www.atce.org/ feature free insight- sian-petroleumtechnolo- Virtual Online, web site: oilandgascouncil. Event, web site: www.
welcome 5-7. ful content streamed gy-conference 12-14. https://yii.bentley.com/ com/event-events/ atce.org/ 27-29.
online, including pio- en 20-21. northamerica-assem-
RefComm Gdansk, neering insights from American Petroleum bly-anddinner/ 21-22. LNG Bunkering Live
Gdansk, Poland, web the industry’s heavy- Institute (API) Stor- Singapore EXPO, Singa- Online Summit, Time
site: https://refiningcom- weights, multi-stake- agemTank Conference pore, web site: https://in- Society of Petroleum Zone: GMT, web site:
munity.com/refcomm- holder strategic conver- & Expo, Nashville, TN, dustrial-transformation. Engineers SPE An- https://www.oilandga-
gdansk-2020/ 5-8. sations, an opportunity web site: https://www. com/ 20-22. nual Caspian Technical siq.com/events-lng-
for delegates joining us api.org/products-and- Conference, Nur-Sultan, bunkeringlive/ 27-29.
PNEC Virtual—Emerg- at Africa Oil Week in services/events/calen- Society of Petroleum Kazakhstan, web
ing Trends in Upstream February 2021 to con- dar/2020/tvp 12-15. Engineers (SPE) Asia site: https://www.spe. Society of Petro-
Oil & Gas Data Manage- nect virtually, and more. Pacific Oil & Gas org/events/en/2020/ leum Engineers SPE
ment & Analytics, web We want to enable the International Associa- Conference & Exhibition conference/20ctc/ International Hydraulic
site: www.pnecconfer- oil and gas industry to tion of Drilling Contrac- (APOGCE), Perth, web caspian-technicalcon- Fracturing Technol-
ences.com/ 6-7. come together and help tors (IADC) International site: www.spe-events. ference 21-22. ogy Conference &
shape the roadmap for Well Control 2020 Con- org/apogce2020 20-22. Exhibition, Muscat,
International Associa- an industry response to ference & Exhibition, South America As- Oman, web site: http://
tion of Drilling Contrac- current challenges. Oslo, web site: https:// Permian Basin Interna- sembly: Northern www.spe-events.org/
tors (IADC) Contracts & www.iadc.org/event/ tional Oil Show (PBIOS), Edition, Miami, web site: intlhydraulicfracturing/
Risk Management Con- Kazakhstan International wc2020/ 13-14. Odessa, Tex., web site: https://oilandgascoun- Homepage 27-29.

Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 202063

201005OGJ063.indd 63 10/1/20 11:11 AM

 MARKET • Employment? HIRE SEE RESULTS—Ask me how!
GRACE GIDDINGS

CONNECTION
WHERE THE INDUSTRY GOES TO CLASSIFY
•
•
Services Offered? ACQUIRE
Equipment/Products/Land? SELL
713-963-6291
ggiddings@endeavorb2b.com
Twitter: @ogjmarket
The Oil & Gas Journal has a circulation of over 100,000 readers and has been the world’s most widely read petroleum publication for over 100 years
P R O DUCT S | E QUIPME NT | E MPL OY ME NT

Offshore Catering The Hardest LUSB

RENT FROM
Safe
Lift

Jobs Available Working

Made in USA

Lift-Rated Bags
THE EXPERTS
Offshore Experience Required
on the Market
IN LIFTING AND
HOISTING
Executive Steward/Campboss
Cooks
UTs (Housekeeper/Janitorial)
Lead Stewards - Increase ROI
Bakers (Pastry Chefs)
- Protect Assets
How to Apply: - Lift Safely
Online: www.essgulf.com
Email: Patricia.hebert@compass-usa.com
- MADE IN USA
VALID TWIC CARD IS
REQUIRED TO APPLY

1-800-688-8442
lastusbag.com

SODEXO IS HIRING Cooks, Bakers, IMMEDIATE SALE:

Housekeeping
CF_EssSup_OGJ_161205 1 & Janitorial Workers
11/17/16 2:31 PM30k GAL1 250 PSI TANK
191202OGJ_TheLastUSBag_CF 11/15/19 1:55 PM

Full benefits package (4) 12K gal 250 PSI TANKS

Must be able to work any shift, day, night
and weekends, holidays during the hitch rotations
(i.e. 28/14, 21/7, 14/7)
TWIC Card required!
Background checks, substance screening,
physical exam also required
Please apply online
http://sodexo.balancetrak.com
EOE/AA/M/F/D/V
ADVERTISERS INDEX
CF_Sodexo_OGJ_180319 1
COMPANY NAME CF_GasCor_OGJ_190204 1
WILL BUY:
90K GAL 100 PSI
TANKS TEST, INSPECT, CERTIFY,
RENT, REPEAT
Gas Corporation of America LGH sets the bar when it comes to
We Buy, Sell & Rent Natural Gas Plants
gascorp@wf.net * www.gas-corp.com * 800-762-6015 equipment safety and reliability.
With vertical and horizontal proof
testing equipment, certified and
experienced technicians on site at each
3/13/18 11:45 AM 1:23 PM of our rental locations and reliable
PAGE
1/8/19

processes in place for each piece of

American Petroleum Institute (API) C3 gear in our fleet, no equipment is safer
or more reliable than equipment rented
Ariel Corp C4
from LGH.
Assa Abloy 5 With 23 North American Rental Centers,
Clean As New C2 the gear you need is
just a phone call away.
Flogistix 15
Price Gregory International, Inc. 17 (800) 878-7305
Rajant Corporation 31 Rentals@RentLGH.com
www.RentLGH.com/OGJ

This index is provided as a service. The publisher does not assume any liability for errors or omission.

64 Oil & Gas Journal | Oct. 5, 2020

200907OGJ_LiftGear_CF 1 8/5/20 1:01 PM

201005OGJ064.indd 64 10/1/20 11:12 AM

 ACCESS
API STANDARDS
WHEREVER YOU ARE

API’s digital subscription service provides the latest updates, references, and comparison
tools to ensure safety, compliance, and interoperability across your organization.
Subscribe to gain access to:

DYNAMIC MULTIPLE HISTORICAL UNLIMITED ANNOTATIONS ADVANCED

REDLINES LANGUAGES STANDARDS USER NOTIFICATIONS
LICENSES

Afifififififififififififififififififififififififififigfifififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififi
•  A fi ff                    1182                                •  A fi fi        fi21                                      
M            f L              ff     G   G  ff      L                  fifi     
•  A fi ff                    fi 1                       •  A fi fi    fififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififififi
M  ff       Afffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffifififififififififififififi fi         

LEARN MORE AT Contact us at Compass@api.org

www.api.org/GetStandards or call us at 1-800-730-0250

201005OGJC1-C5.indd 3 10/1/20 11:10 AM

200803OGJ_API 1 7/23/20 3:30 PM
 ARIEL
TRAINING VIDEOS
Built For The Mechanic
On The Move

Need quick compressor maintenance support? Check out Ariel Training Videos, a series of instructional
videos developed to support both the experienced compressor mechanic and those new to the industry.
Stream or download to your device to view anytime, anywhere.

Visit www.arielcorp.com/Software-Apps/ or download our mobile app

from the App Store or Google Play.

www.arielcorp.com/software-apps

201005OGJC1-C5.indd 14
201005OGJ_ArielCorp 10/1/20 11:17
8/28/20 11:10 AM
AM