[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62428-62430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29642]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP85-221-060, et al.]


Frontier Gas Storage Company, et al. Natural Gas Certificate 
Filings

November 28, 1995
    Take notice that the following filings have been made with the 
Commission:

1. Frontier Gas Storage Company

[Docket No. CP85-221-060]

    Take notice that on November 21, 1995, Frontier Gas Storage Company 
(Frontier), c/o Reid & Priest, Market Square, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., 
N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004, in compliance with provisions 
of the Commission's February 13, 1985, Order in Docket No. CP82-487-
000, et al., submitted an executed Service Agreement under Rate 
Schedule LVS-1 providing for the possible sale of up to a daily 
quantity of 50,000 MMBtu, not to exceed 5 Bcf of Frontier's gas storage 
inventory on an ``as metered'' basis to Prairielands Energy Marketing, 
Inc., for term ending October 31, 1996.
    Under Subpart (b) of Ordering Paragraph (F) of the Commission's 
February 13, 1985, Order, Frontier is ``authorized to commence the sale 
of its inventory under such an executed service agreement fourteen days 
after filing the agreement with the Commission, and may continue making 
such sale unless the Commission issues an order either requiring 
Frontier to stop selling and setting the matter for hearing or 
permitting the sale to continue and establishing other procedures for 
resolving the matter.''
    Comment date: 10 days after publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register, in accordance with the first paragraph of Standard 
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

2. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation

[Docket No. CP96-42-000]

    Take notice that on November 3, 1995, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York, 14203, 
filed in Docket No. CP96-42-000 an application pursuant to Section 7(b) 
of the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to partially abandon 
a storage service to Fitchburg Gas and Electric Company (Fitchburg) 
under Rate Schedule SS-1 and Yankee Gas Services Company (Yankee) under 
Rate Schedule SS-2. all as more fully set forth in the application on 
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specifically, National requests authorization, effective April 1, 
1996, to partially abandon service to Yankee by reducing its annual SS-
2 contract entitlement from 1.5 Bcf to 820,200 Mcf and to partially 
abandon service to Fitchburg by reducing its annual SS-1 contract 
entitlement from $300,000 Mcf to 60,000 Mcf.
    Comment date: December 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

3. Seahawk Shoreline System

[Docket No. CP96-73-000]

    Take notice that on November 17, 1995, Seahawk Shoreline System 
(Seahawk), having its principal offices at 200 Westlake Park Boulevard, 
Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77079, filed a petition requesting that the 
Commission disclaim jurisdiction over certain of Seahawk's natural gas 
gathering facilities under Section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
    Seahawk states that the facilities which are the subject of the 
petition (formerly known as the Seagull Shoreline System) are located 
entirely within the State of Texas and its state waters, gathering both 
gas and associated liquids in a two-phase flow from production 
platforms in the Matagorda Island Area, offshore Texas. Seahawk further 
states that it is currently classified as an intrastate pipeline. 
Seahawk states that based on its current status as an intrastate 
pipeline, it performs transportation under Section 311(a)(2) of the 
Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA).

[[Page 62429]]

    Seahawk contends that the Commission and the courts have 
reexamined, modified and more clearly delineated the requirements for 
determining whether a facility qualifies for a gathering exemption from 
Commission jurisdiction under Section 1(b) of the NGA. The result of 
these recent actions was the development and implementation of the 
``modified primary function'' test. Seahawk avers that the facilities 
comprising its system meet this test and therefore, are not subject to 
Commission jurisdiction. Moreover, Seahawk states that disclaiming 
jurisdiction over its facilities is consistent with the Commission's 
regulatory and statutory objectives under the NGA and the NGPA.
    Comment date: December 21, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

4. Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company and Northern Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP96-75-000]

    Take notice that on November 17, 1995, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West 
Virginia 25314-1599, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia 
Gulf), 1700 MacCorkle Avenue, S.E., Charleston, West Virginia 25314-
1599, and Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), 1111 South 103rd 
Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000 (jointly as the Companies), filed in 
Docket No. CP96-75-000 a joint application pursuant to Section 7(b) of 
the Natural Gas Act for permission and approval to abandon exchange 
services which were once required for the exchange of offshore 
Louisiana gas, which was authorized in Docket Nos. CP76-191, CP77-649, 
CP77-657 and CP80-204, all as more fully set forth in the application 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Specifically, the Companies are seeking abandonment authority for 
the following rate schedules:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                       Order date                    Company              Rate schedule  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CP76-191...........................  Jan. 4, 1978...............  Columbia...................  X-68             
CP76-191...........................  ......do...................  Columbia Gulf..............  X-48             
CP76-191...........................  ......do...................  Northern...................  X-57             
CP77-657...........................  Jan. 2, 1979...............  Columbia...................  X-81             
CP77-657...........................  ......do...................  Columbia Gulf..............  X-60             
CP77-649...........................  ......do...................  Northern...................  X-74             
CP80-204...........................  June 12, 1980..............  Columbia...................  X-95             
CP80-204...........................  ......do...................  Columbia Gulf..............  X-73             
CP80-204...........................  ......do...................  Northern...................  X-105            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Companies state that both Columbia and Northern purchased gas 
from Exxon Corporation (Exxon) at Block 332, Eugene Island Area, 
offshore Louisiana, and that Columbia Gulf received the gas for 
Columbia's account at an existing receipt point on Exxon's production 
platform at Eugene Island Block 314. The Companies state that Northern 
was unable to take delivery of its Eugene Island Block gas, and the 
exchange certificated under Docket No. CP76-191 provided for Columbia 
and Columbia Gulf to take delivery of Northern's gas from Exxon for 
delayed redelivery to Northern. The Companies state that all gas was on 
an Mcf-for-Mcf basis. The Companies state when Northern was unable to 
take the gas into its own system, repayment was effected out of 
Columbia's share of the gas produced from the Exxon wells.
    The Companies state that the exchange certificated under Docket 
Nos. CP77-657 and CP77-649 provided for Northern to deliver gas to 
Columbia Gulf for the account of Columbia at the outlet side of Sea 
Robin Pipeline Company's measurement facilities near Erath, Louisiana 
and the outlet side of Columbia Gulf's measurement facilities at the 
Blue Water offshore pipeline system near Egan, Louisiana. The Companies 
state that Columbia delivered gas to Northern or to Trunkline Gas 
Company (Trunkline) for Northern's account at an interconnection 
between Columbia Gulf and Trunkline near Egan, Louisiana. The Companies 
state that construction of the interconnection was paid for by Northern 
and maintained and operated by Columbia Gulf for Northern's account. 
The Companies state that all exchanges of gas were on an Mcf-for-Mcf 
basis.
    The Companies state that Columbia purchased gas from Exxon in 
Vermilion Area Block 372, offshore Louisiana and Northern purchased gas 
from Texasgulf, Inc., West Cameron Area Block 405, offshore Louisiana. 
The Companies state that the exchange certificated under Docket No. 
CP80-204 provided for Columbia to deliver up to 20,000 Mcf/d of its 
Vermilion Block 372 gas to Northern at the producer platform in 
Vermilion Area Block 372, and for Northern to deliver up to 20,000 Mcf/
d of its West Cameron Block 405 gas via Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America, to Columbia Gulf at existing facilities located on producer 
platforms in West Cameron Area Blocks 616/630, offshore Louisiana. The 
Companies state that the exchange of gas was on an equivalent Btu 
basis.
    The Companies submit that the proposed abandonments are required by 
the present and future public convenience and necessity, as they will 
eliminate exchange services no longer needed and will permit the 
Companies to cancel their corresponding Volume II Rate Schedules.
    Comment date: December 19, 1995, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph F at the end of this notice.

5. Koch Gateway Pipeline Company

[Docket No. CP96-78-000]

    Take notice that on November 20, 1995, Koch Gateway Pipeline 
Company (Koch Gateway), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed 
in Docket No. CP96-78-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 
157.211(a)(2) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(NGA) (18 CFR 157.205, and 157.211) for authorization to construct and 
install a four-inch delivery tap through which Koch Gateway will make 
natural gas deliveries to Shell Oil Company's St. Rose Refinery, under 
Koch Gateway's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-000, 
all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Koch Gateway proposes to construct and install a four-inch delivery 
tap and meter station on its Baton Rouge-New Orleans line, Index 270, 
in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The total proposed 

[[Page 62430]]
estimated deliveries for these facilities is 5,000 Mcf daily with a 
peak day estimate of 10,000 Mcf per day. Koch Gateway proposes to make 
natural gas deliveries under its ITS Rate Schedule. Koch Gateway 
further states that the service would not have an impact on its 
curtailment plan because the proposed service is interruptible in 
nature.
    Koch Gateway further states that the estimated cost of the proposed 
facilities is $29,200. It is stated that Shell would reimburse Koch 
Gateway for the cost of the construction of the facilities.
    Comment date: January 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

6. Williams Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP96-80-000]

    Take notice that on November 21, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), One Williams Center, P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed 
in Docket No. CP96-80-000, a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 
157.216(b) of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.205 and 157.216(b)) for authorization to abandon, by 
reclaim, measuring and appurtenant facilities originally installed for 
the delivery of sales gas to (1) Missouri Gas Energy in Jasper County, 
Missouri; (2) Childress Mine and Quarry in Jasper County, Missouri; (3) 
Sabreliner Corp. in Newton County, Missouri; and (4) NEO Hospital in 
Craig County, Oklahoma, under WNG's blanket authorization issued in 
Docket No. CP82-479-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas 
Act, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    WNG states that all of the affected customers have agreed to the 
reclaim of the facilities. WNG further states the total estimated 
reclaim costs are $5,460 with an estimated salvage value of $0.
    WNG states it has sent a copy of this filing to the Missouri Public 
Service Commission and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
    Comment date: January 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

7. Williams Natural Gas Company

[Docket No. CP96-82-000]

    Take notice that on November 22, 1995, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No. CP96-
82-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205, 157.212 and 157.216 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.212 and 157.216) for authorization to relocate and install new 
metering and appurtenant facilities for Farmland Industries, Inc. 
(Farmland) and to abandon by sale to Farmland the old meter and 
regulator settings and approximately 515 feet of 8-inch lateral 
pipeline all located in Douglas County, Kansas, under WNG's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    WNG states the facilities were installed in 1963 to deliver sales 
gas to Farmland and do not currently meet the standard design 
specifications established by the American National Standards Institute 
and the American Petroleum Institute.
    WNG states that it proposes to install a dual run 8-inch meter 
setting and appurtenant facilities approximately 400 feet north of the 
existing facilities. WNG states that installing the facilities at the 
new location will remove them from beneath high voltage power lines, 
and that the new metering facilities will be in compliance with 
established industry standards. WNG also states that the new location 
will eliminate the need for WNG employees to pass through Farmland's 
security to access WNG's facilities.
    WNG states the current volume of gas flowing through the facilities 
is 78.5 MMcf on a peak day and 17,000 MMcf annually. WNG states that it 
does not anticipate any change in volume as a result of the proposed 
replacement.
    WNG estimates the construction cost of its proposal to be $150,660. 
WNG states that since the meter and regulator settings and the pipeline 
will be sold in place to Farmland, there is no reclaim cost associated 
with this project.
    WNG submits that this proposal will not significantly affect a 
sensitive environmental area.
    Comment date: January 12, 1996, in accordance with Standard 
Paragraph G at the end of this notice.

Standard Paragraphs

    F. Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said application should on or before the comment date, 
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in accordance with the 
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission will be 
considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken but 
will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a 
party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in 
accordance with the Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be 
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on 
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time 
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter 
finds that a grant of the certificate and/or permission and approval 
for the proposed abandonment are required by the public convenience and 
necessity. If a motion for leave to intervene is timely filed, or if 
the Commission on its own motion believes that a formal hearing is 
required, further notice of such hearing will be duly given.
    Under the procedure herein provided for, unless otherwise advised, 
it will be unnecessary for applicant to appear or be represented at the 
hearing.
    G. Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to 
Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion 
to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29642 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P