1 / 10

Water Pipeline Concept

Water Pipeline Concept. Brian Jeffries Executive Director February 20, 2007. Project costs recovered from users Mainline transmission line, one million barrel per day capacity Disposition by either injection or delivery a another water body

paulward
Download Presentation

Water Pipeline Concept

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Water Pipeline Concept Brian Jeffries Executive Director February 20, 2007

  2. Project costs recovered from users • Mainline transmission line, one million barrel per day capacity • Disposition by either injection or delivery a another water body • Disposition of treating residue to extent treating required

  3. Data: WOGCC historical, CBM task force forecast

  4. Why is WPA Exploring This? • Asked to do so by CBM Task Force • Consistent with WPA desire to foster infrastructure • Concept of multi-user system not currently being advanced by others • Attempting to settle the question of need versus alternative solutions

  5. Where From and Where to?

  6. How Have We Proceeded? • Very preliminary design yielded forecast capital and operating costs • Simple rate analysis using a ten year life, estimated costs of capital, fully subscribed project and estimated inflation yielded a ballpark ten year level rate of roughly $0.30 per barrel • Tested rate and concept with a variety of potential producer subscribers

  7. Reactions From Producers • Ball park rate did not disqualify the idea • Raised eyebrows over estimated treating costs • Concern over in-service date as it relates to project life and attendant rate implications • Could attribute a “regulatory certainty” value to project

  8. What Next? • Non-binding open season to collect quantity, water quality and input location data • Collate responses to determine a project fitting the demand can yield a rate close to proposed rates • If a project continues to appear feasible, fund more comprehensive engineering

  9. After that? • Confirm/revise rates • Reconcile ownership issue • Conduct binding subscription period • Confirm or cancel project

  10. Contacts Wyoming Pipeline Authority Brian Jeffries – Executive Director b57.jeffries@comcast.net Colby Drechsel – Associate Director cdrechsel@qwest.net

More Related