P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1852
Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 18 ) II-A-1 8

Docket Number: 

# A-86-0 3

Printed 11/19/2008 2:38:54

PM Sheet 18 of 101P. 2 

# H-&&-03 

# U-R-& 

# w
JACKFAU-85-322- 5

BUTAN ESUPPLIERS : A

N IND^^>^|^PQCK^ D ANALYSIS OFTH EIMPACT S OFDECREASED MARKE T PRICE S CAUSE D B Y GASOLIN

EVOLATILIT

Y CONTRO L

FINA LREPOR T Wor k Assignmen t

#1 6 Contrac t No

. 68-03-324 4

Submitte dto : U.S

. ENVIRONMENTA

LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y Offic e o f Mobil e Source s An nArbor , Michigan4810 5

Februar y 198 8



# JAC KFAUCET TASSOCIATE S

730 0 PEAR L STREE T• SUIT E 20 0
BETHESDA , MARYLAN D 208 1 4 (301)961-880 0TABL E O F CONTENT S P. 3

CHAPTE R PAG E

INTRODUCTIO N AN D SUMMAR Y 1

INDUSTR Y PROFIL E 7
SUPPL Y 7
DEMAN D 1 9
PRIC E 2 8

TH E EFFEC T O F A MARKE T PRIC E REDUCTIO N ON BUTAN E SUPPLIER S 3 4
ANALYTICA L APPROAC H 3 5
SUMMARY 4 4
RATE S O F RETUR N I N THE REFININ G INDUSTRY
... . 4 8
SURVE Y O F PERFORMANC E MEASURE S COMMONL Y EMPLOYE D 4 8
ANALYSI S OF TH E INDUSTR Y B Y REPRESENTATIV E SAMPLE S 5 0
PRESENTATIO N O F THE DAT A 5 1

TH E TYPICA L ECONOMI C LIFE O F REFINERY PROCESSIN G EQUIPMEN T 6 9

APPENDI X A : SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATIO N
. 7 2P. 4



### US T O F EXHIBIT

S
EXHIBI T p 

### AG E

2- 1 BUTAN

E SUPPLY , 1982-198 4 8 2- 2 BUTAN

E PRODUCTIO

N FRO M NATURAL GA S 1 0 2- 3 U.S
. PRODUCTIO N O F BUTANES AS A FUNCTIO N O F NATURA

L GA S PRODUCTIO

N 1 1 2- 4 U.S
. REFINER Y PROCESSIN

G AN D BUTAN

E YIELD S
.. . 17 2- 5 MARKETE D REFINER

Y BUTAN

E 1 8 2- 6 U.S
. CONSUMPTIO N O F BUTANES 2 0 2- 7 U.S
. CONSUMPTIO N O F BUTANES I

N GASOLIN

E 2

2 2- 8 U.S
. EXPORT S O F BUTAN

E AN D NATURAL GA

S LIQUID S 29 2- 9 U.S
. UNI

T SALE S VALU E FO Rn-BUTANE AN

D ISOBUTAN

E 32 2-1 0 U.S
. MARKE T PRICES FO

RBUTANES 3 3

3- 1 198 6 BUTAN E SALE S B Y COMPAN

Y 36 3- 2 EFFECT O F REVENUE

S O F A BUTAN

E PRIC E REDUCTIO

N 3 9 3- 3 LOS

S O F REVENUE

S B Y NUMBE

RO F COMPANIE

S AN D PERCEN T O F TOTA L BUTAN

E PRODUCTIO

N FRO M A 10 , 20 , AN

D 3 0 PERCENT PRIC

E REDUCTIO

N
... . 43 3- 4 198 6 PRODUCTIO N O F BUTANES B

Y TH E TO P3 0 PRODUCER

S B Y COMPAN

Y CLASSIFICATIO

N 4 5

4- 1 COMPARISO N O F TH E COMPANIES CONSTITUTIN G TH E AP I AN D TH E EI A SAMPLES 52 4- 2 DOMESTI C REFINER

Y CONFIGURATIO

N FO REI A COMPANIE

S AN D FO RTH E DOMESTI

C INDUSTR

Y (198 0 an d 1985 ) 5 3 4- 3 OI

L COMPAN

Y NE T INCOM

E A S A PERCENTAG

E O F STOCKHOLDERS ' EQUIT Y (Afte rTax , 1968-1986 )
.. . 5 4 4- 4 OI

L COMPAN

Y RATE S O F RETUR

N (Ne tIncome/Stock
holders ' Equity) 55 4- 5 OI

L COMPAN

Y NE T INCOM

E AS A PERCENTAG

E O F AVERAG E TOTA L ASSET S (1968-1986 ) 5 6

nP. 5



### LIS T O F EXHIBIT

S - (continued )
EXHIBI T PAG E

4- 6 OI

L COMPAN

Y RATE S O F RETUR

N (Ne tIncome/Averag e Tota l Assets ) 5 7 

### 4- 7 NOMINA L AN D DEFLATE D RETUR NO NSTOCKHOLDERS '

EQUIT Y —Leading Oi

l Companie s 59 4- 8 PERFORMANC E PROFILE

S O F MAJO RENERG

Y PRODUCERS , 1977-198 5 6 0

4- 9 OI

L COMPAN

Y RATE S O F RETURN, 1977-198 5 (Income / Shareholders ' Equity) 6 1 4-1 0 OI

L COMPAN

Y RATE S O F RETURN, 1977-198 5 (Income / Tota l Assets ) 6 2 4-1 1 OI

L COMPAN

Y RATE S O F RETURN, 1977-198 5 (Income / Ne tInvestmen ti

n Place ) 6 3 4-1 2 OI

L COMPAN

Y RATE S O F RETURN, B

Y SEGMEN

T (Ne tIncome/Ne tInvestmen ti n Place ) 66 4-1 3 OI

L COMPAN

Y RATE S O F RETURN, 1977-198 5 (Compariso n
o f 4 EI A Measures ) 6 7

A- l GAS PROCESSIN G COMPANIE

S AN D PLANTS : 198 6 CAPACIT

Y AN D PRODUCT S 7 3 A- 2 GAS PROCESSIN G COMPANIES : CAPACITY , 198 6 PRODUCTIO

N AN D REVENUE

S 93 A- 3 SOURCES O F INFORMATIO

N USE D I N DETERMININ

G SUPPL Y O F AN D PRICES O

F NATURA

L GAS LIQUIDS
. 102

mP. 6



### CHAPTE R1

INTRODUCTIO

N AN D SUMMAR

Y

Thi s report

present s aprofil e o

f butan e supplier s anda

n analysi s o

f th e effect s o

n ope n market supplier s o

f areductio n i

n th e pric e o f

butane s attribute dt o potentia l change s i n gasoline volatility control

. Th e analysi s examine s th e effect s o f decrease s i

n th e marke t pric e o f butane s resultin g fro

mreduce dblending o

f butan e i n gasolin e i

n order t o contro l gasolin e Rei dVapo r Pressure (RVP

) durin g summe

r months

. Sinc e along-run adjustment

t o reduce dbutan e demandma y affec t capita l investmen t

i n th e refinin g industry , a

n examinatio n o

f th e rat e of

retur n o n investmen t

a s wel l a s th e economi c lif e o f majo r processin g equipment

i s als o included

.
Th e report include s th e following :

• A n overvie w o

f th e domesti c butan e market , includin g detaile d description s o

f butan e supply , demand , andpricin g dynamics

.

• A n analysi s o

f th e effec t

o f decrease drevenue s fro mbutane s o

n companie s tha t

ow n natura l ga s processin g plants

.

• A n examinatio n o

f rat e o f retur n o n investmen t

o f th e refinin g industry

.

• A n examinatio n o

f th e economi c lif

e o f majo r processin g equipment

i n th e refinin g industry

.
Th e revenu e analysi s was undertake n fo r thre e pric e levels , representin g awholesal e butan e pric e decreas e o

f 10 , 2 0 and3 0 percen t o f 198 6 pric e levels

.
I n summary , th e analysi s indicate s ver y littl e effec t

o n tota l revenue s fo

r most natura l ga s liquid s (NGL

) producer s becaus e mos t NG Lplant s ar e owne

db y ver y larg e corporation s wherei n tota l butan e revenue s represen t aver y smal l portio n o

f tota l
revenue
. Th

e exten t o f ownershi p o f NG Lproducer s (ope

n marke t butan e producers ) by larg e companie s i s understate di n thi s analysi s becaus e partia l ownershi p o f NG Lplant s b y large r companie s was not

identified

. Moreover , becaus e 198 6 pric e level s fo rP. 7



### butane s wer

e ver y low , th e effec t

o n revenue s o

f a1 0 t o 3 0 percen t

pric e reductio n relate dt o RV

Pcontro l will b e muc

hles s tha

n th e effec t

o f recen t pric e reduction s evidence dbetwee n 198 5 an d198 6 attributabl e t o agenera l fal l i n th e price s o

f al l hydrocarbon products

. Thus , agenera l recovery i n th e pric e o

f hydrocarbo n product s t o 1985 level s couldmor

e than offse t

pric e decline s attributabl e t o RV Pcontrol

. Alternatively , arelativ e declin e i n th e pric e o

f butane s fro

m198 6 level s woul

dimpl y tha t productio n o

f butane s fo

r ope n marke t sale s migh

t b e uneconomic

.
Th e poo r performanc e o

f th e industr

y i n 198 6 ma

y hav e force dsome NG

Lprocessor s
out o f business

. I

n 1985 , ther e were 86

2 NG Lplant s identified , compare dt o 81 0 i n th e 198 6 survey
. N

o specifi c informatio n i s availabl e o n th e plant s tha t

droppe dout

o f survey , but

possibl e cause s include : (1 ) closure o f obsolete plants , (2) prematur e closure
o f plant s tha t

wer e approachin g obsolescence , (3 ) change s i n ownership tha t

resulte din th e plant no t respondin g i

n 1986 , (4) closure o

r mothballin g o

f plan t due t o poo

r economi c conditions

. Becaus e man y plant s didchang e ownership anddistinc t geographi c plan t

identifictio n i s no t

possibl e fo

r man y plants , conclusiv e identificatio n
o f plant s tha t

wer e no t identifie di

n th e 198 6 surve y woul db e tediou s an

dtim e consuming

. Identificatio n o f thes e plant s was no t

undertake n i

n thi s report

.
Determinin g th e relativ e pric e declin e i n butan e i

n conjunctio n wit

hagenera l recovery i n th e pric e o

f hydrocarbon s woul

db e difficult

. Comple

x modelling woul

db e require d t o formulate scenario s o

f thi s type

. It

woul db e necessar

y t o estimat e th e exten t t o whic hth e pric e o

f butane s relie s o

n thei r valu e a s ageneri c hydrocarbon , i.e. , wha t i s th e petrochemica l floo

r price , an dth e exten t

t o whic hth e pric e o

f butane s hav e been bidu p base do

n th e premiumassociate dwit hthei r valu e a s ahig

hoctan e gasolin e component

. Complicatin g thi s issu e i s th e fac t tha t decrease dblendin g o

f n-butane s
ma y resul t i n increase dus e o

f isobutan e a s agasolin e component a s wel l a s othe r components , e.g. , MTBE

, tha t can b e produce dfro

mbutane s i

n combinatio n wit

hothe r components

. Sinc e b

y intentiona l isomerizatio n n-butan e can b e converte dt o isobutane , som

e hav e speculate dtha t

th e increase dvalu e associate dwit hisobutan e resultin g fro

mdecrease dus e o

f n-butan e ma

y ultimatel y leav e th e supplier s o f butan e i n approximatel y th e same revenu e position

. Ttii s analysi s was no t undertake n i

n th e
curen t researc heffort

. Moreover , i t shouldb e note dtha t

unles s ownership o

f processin g plant s chang e dramatically , th e effec t o f arelativ e decreas e i

n th e valu e o

f butane s i n combinatio n wit

ha n increas e i

n th e marke t

valu e o f othe r product s woul

dP. 8



### have les s effec t

tha n th e decreas e examine di n th e report , whic

hindicate dth e centag e e 

### ff e 

### c t

o n revenue s wit

hal l othe r

produc t value s remainin g constant

. Beyon dth e short-termpric e reductio n i n butane s tha t

ma y occur fro mRV Pcontro l (decrease ddemandfo

r butanes) , amuc

hmor e dynami c respons e i s t o b e expected

. The refining industr

y an dth e natura l ga s liquid s industr y utiliz e complex configuration s o f machiner y an dequipment

wherein th e productio n configuration s largel y resul t fro mth e particular produc t demandevidence di

n th e marke t

a t an y poin t i n time

. For

anumbe r
o f reason s including legall y mandate dlea dphasedown , th e industr y ha s adjuste dit s productio n capability t o enhanc e th e productio n o f n-butan e becaus e o

f it s hig hvalu e a s
adirec t additiv e i

n gasoline

. Th

e longer run productio n adjustment t o adecrease dus e
o f n-butan e a s adirec t

additiv e t o gasolin e will tak e severa l paths

. First , producer s o f n-butan e will loo

k fo r othe r market s fo

r thei r product , o

f whic hther e ar e several

. I

n 1986 , 4 1 million barrel s o f butan e were imported , including 24. 7 million barrel s o f n
butane

. However , simpl e assumption s tha t associat e adecreas e i

n U.S

. demandwit

ha decreas e i n import s t o th e U.S

. shouldb e avoided

. Estimatin g th e effec t o f adecreas e i n U.S

. demando

n import s woul

drequir e a

n analysi s o

f th e relativ e transportatio n cost s o f domesticall y producedresourc e compare dt o importe d(primaril y fro mCanada) imports , th e contractua l agreement s relate dt o thes e import s an dth e sourc e o

f th e ra w natura l ga s fro

mwhic hth e butan e product s ar e produced

. I n som e case s U.S

. natura l gas processin g plant s export ra w NG Lfor conversio n t o produc t

b y Canadia n processors
. Analysi s o

f specifi c contractua l agreement s relate dt o th e potentia l substitutio n o f surplu s domesti c demandfo r importe dproduct s was no t undertake n i

n th e report

.
Also , intentiona l conversio n o f n-butan e t o isobutan e couldenabl e n-butan e stock s t o compete wit

himport s o

f isobutane

. Additionally , n-butan e i s asubstitut e feedstoc k i n
man y processe s an

doften ca

n b e usedi

n plac e o f naptha , ethylen e co-products , and other natura l ga s liquids

. Th e valu e of

butane s i

n thes e application s will affec t th e decision-makin g o

f producer s an

dth e amount

o f butan e producer s choos e t o mak e availabl e i n th e marke t

place

.
T o th e exten t

tha t additional market s d

o no t offe r th e desire drevenue s fro mbutan e production , it s productio n efficienc y a t refinerie s will decreas e (o r a t leas t slow it s rat e
o f increase ) becaus e refiner s wil l ceas e t o striv e fo r mor e efficien t

butan e extractio n processes
. Refinerie s wil l adjus t thei r productio n processe s t o reflec t th e reductio n i

n value o f n-butan e a s agasoline additive

. Natura l ga s processin g plant s produc e butane sP. 9



### a s they conver

t ra w (wet) ga s int o acleane r (processed ) natura l ga s tha t i s preferre db

y end-user s o

f natura l gas
. Whil

e unprocesse dnatura l ga s (wet gas ) ca n b e consumed directl y a s fuel , today' s marke t require s natura l ga s t o be move dthroughpipeline s an

d therefore processing i s necessary t o reduc e hazard s o f condensatio n an

dreduc e Bt

u conten t to contractua l pipelin e levels

. Thus , natura l ga s liquid s includin g virtuall y al l butane s wil

l continu e t o b e remove dfro mra w natura l ga s t o satisf y pipelin e requirements

. However, lackin g amarke t pric e tha t

i s attractiv e t o refiners , butan e productio n a t

refinerie s ma

y decreas e over

time

.
Tw o important

concept s relate dt o th e ope n marke t butan e supplier s surface dduring th e conduct

o f thi s research

. First , whe n ownership o

f butan e productio n facilitie s i s examined , i t

i s clear tha t th e "ope n market " designatio n o

f butan e sale s by natura l ga s processor s i s inappropriate

. Mos t o f th e butan e productio n capacit y fro mnatura l ga s processing i s owne

db y larg e oi l companies

. I

n combinatio n wit

hth e knowledg e tha t

9 5 percen t o f butan e consumptio n i s by refineries , th e concep t of open marke t

sale s i s vague at best

. Moreover , i

n additio n t o plant s tha t

ar e wholl

y ownedb

y oi l companies , alarg e numbe

r o f th e remainin g plant s ar e owne di n part b y oi l companies

. I

n th e tota l butan e suppl

y spectrum , oi l companie s contro l th e 7 4 percen t o f U.S

. productio n tha t take s plac e a t

refinerie s an

dow n mor e than half

o f th e remainin g 26 percen t o f butane s producedfro

mnatura l ga s liquids

. Simpl e arithmeti c indicate s tha t th e oi l industr

y control s (owns) upward s o f 9 0 percen t o f U.S

. production , coincidentall y approximatel y equal t o refiner

y share o f consumption

.
The secondimportant

concep t relate s t o th e pric e o

f butanes

. Th

e valu e o f butane s i s tie dt o other

hydrocarbon s throug hit s valu e a s a n additiv e t o motor

gasolin e an

dit s valu e a s areplacement

feedstoc k

for th e othe r

hydrocarbo n products

. It i s tie dt o th e valu e o f natura l ga s becaus e (1 ) i t i s aby-produc t

o f natura l ga s production , (2 ) i t ha s valu e as areplacement

fuel fo r natura l ga s i

n som e applications , and(3 ) i t

ha s valu e a s
areplacemen t

feedstoc k

fo r othe r by-product s o

f natura l ga s processing

. Th e concep t
o f apetrochemical floo

r pric e fo r butane s i s soun

dtheoretically , but

it s applicatio n i s subjec t t o al l th e risk

inheren t i n predictin g th e worldpric e o f hydrocarbons

. I

n 1985 , th e 199 0 petrochemical floo

r pric e was estimate da t

$20.2 6 per

barrel

. Th

e estimate d pric e fo r butane s i

n 199 0 was $23.0 8 per

barrel

. Thi s analysi s was base do n a198 4

Jac k Faucett Associates , "The Butan e Industry : A n Overvie w andAnalysi s o

f th e Effect s o f Gasolin e Volatilit y Contro l o

n Price s andDemand, " 1985

.P.1 0



### butane s pric e o

f $22.0 0 pe r barre l inflate db

y th e 4.8 8 percen t

growt hrat e expecte dfo

r al l petrochemical feedstocks

. I n fact , th e 198 6 pric e fo r butane s wa

s approximatel y $15.0 0 pe r barrel

. A

t 198 6 prices , natura l ga s liquid s producer s (a s wel l a s man y othe r hydrocarbon produc t

producers ) wer

e squeeze dt o smaller-than-thought-possibl e margins

. Fo

r NG Lproducers , th e margina l operatin g cost s associate dwit hbutan e (an

d other products ) productio n couldscarcel y b e squeeze dfro mth e differenc e betwee n th e pric e paidfo

r ra w natura l ga s an

dth e pric e receive dfo

r butanes

. A

s th e entir e energ y industr y became painfull

y aware , relativ e price s contro l th e valu e o f an y given energ y produc t an dwhe n crud e price s fall , produc t price s d o also

. I f th e relativ e pric e o

f butane s fall s further

fro mRV Pcontrol , i t

i s clea r tha t it s relativ e valu e a s a replacemen t

feedstoc k

will increase

. However , adecreas e i n pric e below it s 198 6 leve l woul dimpl y that , base dupo

n curren t method s o

f assignin g operatin g cost s t o th e butan e products , butan e productio n woul db e uneconomic

. Yet , contractua l pipelin e require

ment s necessitat e th e removal o f som e leve l o f butane s fro

mth e ra w natura l ga s stream

. Thus , even i

f th e value o

f butane s fel l t o les s tha

n th e value o

f unprocesse d gas , ther e i s indicatio n stil l that butan e removal woul

dcontinue

.
I n summary , th e 198 6 pric e o f butane s wa s s o low tha t analyzin g afurther

decreas e relativ e t o competitiv e fuel s i s no t meaningful

. Market

productio n o

f butane s was scarcel y (i

f a t all ) profitabl e i

n 198 6 an dwoul

db e uneconomi c a t

lowe r prices

. However, whil

e butan e productio nma

y no t b e economic , natura l ga s processin g will
most likely continu e an

dinclude removal o

f butanes

. T

o th e exten t

tha t th e relativ e value o f butane s fall , NG

Lproducer s will fin

dth e mos t

efficien t t o marke t

or internall y
us e th e butane s the y must produc e (to proces s ra

w natura l gas ) an

dreconfigure thei r plant s t o produc e th e leas t amount o f butane s possible

.
Interestin g area s o

f study tha t

wer e no t wthin th e limit s o

f thi s researc heffort

include :

• th e amoun

t o f butane s production , b

y refiner s an

dnatura l ga s processors , tha t i s necessary t o thei r

processin g o

f crud e andra

w natura l gas ;

• th e cos t

o f modifyin g refinery configuration s t o produc e les s butane s i f marke t productio n o

f butane s i s no t

economic ;P.1 1

• 

### th e respons e b

y owner s o

f natura l ga s processin g plant s (primarily integrate doil companie s an dlarg e oil andga s producers ) t o amarke t pric e fo r n-butan e tha t

i s lowe r tha n th e pric e tha t

i s impute d(b

y owners ) fo r it s production ; an

d

th e increas e i

n productio n o

f butane s a t

refinerie s attributabl e t o lead phasedown

.
Th e remainde

r o f thi s report

i s organize da s follows

. Chapte r 2 provide s a

n industr y profile o f butan e supplier s includin g a n examinatio n o

f supply , demandandprices

. Chapte r 3 identifie s th e supplier s o f butane s b

y compan y an dpresent s th e effec t

o n
revenue s o

f adecreas e i

n th e wholesal e pric e o

f butanes

. Chapter

4 examine s th e rat e
o f retur n i n th e refinin g industr

y an dChapter 5 summarize s informatio n availabl e o n th e economic lif

e o f majo r processin g equipment

. Th e Appendi x include s background material s o

n butan e supplier s andprice

.P.1 2



### CHAPTE R2 :

INDUSTR

Y PROFIL E

2. 1 SUPPLY

Butane s ar e on e of

agrou p of

hydrocarbon s tha t

occur s naturall y incrud e petroleu m
an dnatura l gas
. Butane s ar e produce dintw o ways , eithe r a s aby-produc t

of petroleu m refinery processe s o r

by extractio n fro mnatura l gas
. Refinerie s ar e th e larges t sourc e
o f domesti c butan e supply , accountin g fo r 74 percen t

of domesticall y produce dsuppl y i n 1985

. Most

of th e butan e produce da t refinerie s i s consume dinternall y inth e 2 manufactur e of

gasolin e an dneve r

enter s th e market

. Butane s extracte dfro mnatura l ga s ar e th e primar y sourc e o f markete dbutanes , an daccount.fo r th e remainin g 2 6 percen t o f tota l domesti c suppl y in1985

. Inadditio nt o domesti c production , a significan t

amoun t of butane s ar e imported , primaril y fromCanada

. Importe dbutane s accounte dfo r

approximatel y 6 percen t o f tota l domesti c suppl y inth e Unite dState s i n 198 5 an d198 6 import s wer e 15 8 percen t of th e 198 5 level

. Exhibi t 2- 1 detail s th e quantitie s of

butane s supplie db

y eac ho f

thes e source s ove r

th e pas t

fiv e years
. Th e characteristic s of

eac hsuppl y sourc e ar e examine dinth e followin g sections

.

Natura l Ga s Plan t

Productio n

Th e primar y sourc e of

markete dbutane s inth e Unite dState s i s natura l gas
. Un

processe dnatura l ga s contain s anumbe r o f products , includin g butanes , whic har e
remove dfromth e ga s stream s a t processin g plant s o r

fromra w natura l ga s liqui d 3 stream s a t

fractionatin g facilities

. Natura l ga s liquid s ar e extracte dfro mth e natura l ga s strea mfor

tw o primar y reasons
. First , remova l of thes e liquid s reduce s th e dange r
o f condensatio n i

n ga s transmissio nsystem s an ddecrease s th e Bt u conten t

of th e

"Butanes"

. Chemica l Economic s Handbook , SRI 1987 , p.300.3051A

. 2 

### Becaus e mos t

refiner y butan e i s consume db y th e producers , statistic s detailin g productio n andconsumptio n a t refinerie s ar e no t

generall y available

. Dat aonrefiner y productio nandconsumptio n include dinthi s repor t ar e base do

nestimate s mad e b y industry source s a s cited

. 3 Availabl e dat ao

n th e operatio n of

fractionator s i s incomplete

. I nthi s study , parallelin g th e technique s use db

y th e Departmen t

o f Energy , butan e productio ni s assigne dt o th e NG Lplan t t o avoi ddouble-counting

.EXHIBI T 2-1 : BUTAN E SUPPLY , 1982-198 4 (millio n bbls )

198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 198 6

o o Suppl y Ga s Plant s Refinerie s Tota l Domesti c Imports Tota l Suppl y n

77. 3 114. 6
191. 9 21. 5 213. 4 IS O

39. 8 153. 3
193. 1

193. 1 Tota l 117. 1 267. 9
385. 0 21. 5
406. 5 2 9

6 6

5
10 0 n 78. 1 116. 4
194. 5 17. 4
211. 9 is o

36. 4 154. 4
190. 8

— 190. 8 Tota l 114. 5 270. 9
385. 4 17. 4
402. 8 2 8

6 7

5
10 0 n 74. 3 118. 6
192. 9 13. 5
206. 4 IS O

36. 3 154. 4
190. 7 8. 9
199. 6 Tota l 110. 6 273. 0
383. 6 22. 4
406. 0 2 7

6 7

6
10 0 n 62. 5 127. 0
190. 0 15. 6
206. 0 IS O

46. 5 178. 0
225. 0 10. 3
235. 0 Tota l 109. 0 305. 0
414. 0 25. 9
440. 0 _*

_

2 5 6 9

6
10 0 n 57. 2

—

24. 7 IS O 46. 6

.__

16. 3 Tota l 103. 8

—

41. 0

—

Sources : Ga s plan tproductio n an d impor tdat afro m Energ y Informatio n Administration , Petroleu m Suppl y Annual , 1982-1986
. 1982-198 6 Refiner y

productio n fro m Willia m E
. Cordill , "U.S
. NGL Suppl y an d Demand, " pape rdelivere d a tth e Ga s Processor s Associatio n Annual Meetings , 1984
. 198 5 Refiner y productio n fro m "Butanes, " CEH , op.cit
. p . 300.3501A
. Note : 198 6 refiner y productio n o f butane s wa s no tavailable
.P.1 4



### t o contractua l pipelin e level s thereb y increasin g th e marketabilit y of th e 1 gas
. Second , th e extracte dliquid s ar e marketabl e product s tha t comman da miu move r 

### t n e

### valu e o

f th e ga s itself

. Butane , becaus e o f it s valu e a s adirec t
n( 

### ji r 

### ec t blendin g componen t

i n moto r gasolin e an dit s relativel y hig hBT U content , tvpicall y commande dahighe r pric e incompariso nt o othe r natura l ga s liquid s duct s suc ha s propan e an dethane

. A lac k o f pric e dat ao nth e refiner y us e of n
butan e prevent s th e analysi s of th e refiner y valu e fo r

n-butane

.
Productio no f

isobutane , n-butane , an dtota l butane s fro mnatura l ga s ove r th e pas t

1 7

vear s i s shown in Exhibi t 2-2

. Thes e quantitie s represen t approximatel y 25-3 0 percen t
o f tota l domesti c supply

. Tota l productio nwas relativel y constan t fro m1970-197 5 a t abou t 12 0 millio n bbls/year

. However , fro m1975-197 8 productio nfel l steadily , reachin g alow fo r

th e fiftee n yea r

perio dof

102. 8 millio nbarrel s in1978

. Ove r th e
nex t thre e year s productio n level s climbe dagai nan dpeake dfo r th e perio da t

123. 4 million barrel s in 1981

. Sinc e then , tota l productio nha s bee nfallin g annuall y du e t o marke t surpluse s an ddepresse dmarke t prices , an dproductio nlevel s ar e expecte dt o continu e t o decline

. n-Butan e productio na s ashar e of tota l butan e productio nfro m natura l ga s throug h198 4 ha s range dbetwee n67 an d74 percent , bu t sinc e 198 4 n
butane' s shar e ha s droppe ddramaticall y t o 5 5 percen t of tota l butan e production

. Exhibit 2- 3 demonstrate s butan e productio npe r millio nbarrel s an dpe r millio ncubi c feet

.

There ar e anumbe r

of factor s tha t

affec t th e amoun t

of butan e whic hi s produce dfro m natura l gas
. Foremos t

amon g thes e i s th e quantit y of natura l ga s whic hi s produced

. Butan e i s basicall y abyproduc t of natura l ga s production , an dthu s butan e productio n i s directl y relate dt o natura l ga s production

. Fro m1975-1981 , natura l ga s productio nwa s fairl y stable , rangin g fro m2 1 t o 22 trillio ncubi c fee t ayear
. Sinc e 198 1 natura l ga s productio ndecline dsharpl y a t 2 8 percen t

durin g 1981-1985

. Butan e productio nfro m natura l ga s als o ha s bee n falling , from123. 5 millio nbarrel s in198 1 t o 113. 8 millio n barrel s in 1986

.

A secon dke y facto r

in th e reduce dproductio no f butan e fro mnatura l ga s i s th e amoun t
of butan e obtaine dfro meac huni t of processe dgas
. Ga s processin g plant s hav e generall y increase dth e efficienc y of thei r liqui drecover y operation s ove r time , an d thu s th e averag e amoun t o f butan e recovere dpe r uni t o f processe dga s ha s risen

. However , natura l ga s ha s becom e progressivel y drie r an dtota l productio npe r uni t of natura l ga s throughpu t

ha s decrease ddespit e hig hprocessin g efficiency

.P.1 5

EXHIBI T 2-2 : BUTAN E PRODUCTIO

N FRO M NATURA

L GAS (millio n bbls )

n-Butan e %_Isobutane % Tota l I ca i 198 6 198 5 198 4
198 3
198 2
198 1
198 0
197 9
197 8
1977
197 6
197 5
197 4
197 3
197 2
197 1
197 0

Sources : 57. 2

62. 5 74. 3
78. 1
77. 3
80. 9
76. 0
76. 6
75. 4
79. 8
81. 4
85. 0
87. 2
88. 8
88. 9
88. 5
87. 2 5 5

5 7 6 7
6 8
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 7
7 3
7 3
7 3
7 2
7 2
7 3
7 3
7 3
7 4 46. 6

46. 5 36. 3
36. 4
39. 8
42. 5
38. 4
38. 0
27. 4
29. 7
30. 2
32. 9
33. 4
33. 6
33. 5
32. 3
30. 8 4 5

4 3 3 3
3 2
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 3
2 7
2 7
2 7
2 8
2 8
2 7
2 7
2 7
2 6

Energ y Informatio n Administration , Petroleu m Suppl y 1981-1986
. Burea u o f Mines , Crud e Petroleum , Petroleu m an d Natura l Ga s Liquids , (1970-1980)
. 103. 8 109. 0 110. 6
114. 5
117. 1
123. 4
114. 4
114. 6
102. 8
109. 5
111. 6
117. 9
120. 6
122. 4
122. 4
120. 8
118. 0

Annual , Products ,

1 9P.1 6



### EXHIBI T 2-3 :

- PRODUCTIO

N O F BUTANES A

S A FUNCTIO

N O F NATURA

L GAS PRODUCTIO

N

Yea r
197 0 197 1 197 2 197 3 197 4 197 5 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 

### Tota

l NG L Production (Mil
. Bbl. ) 605.9 2 617.8 2 638.2 2 634.4 2 616.1 0 595.9 6 587.0 5 590.4 6 572.0 9 578.0 2 575.7 9 580.5 3 561.9 1 564.7 0 595.1 5 582.2 1 Butane s a s

aPercentag e o f Tota l NG

L 19. 9 19. 9 19. 5 19. 6 19. 8 20. 0 19. 2 18. 8 18. 1 19. 9 20. 0 21. 4 20. 0 20. 4 18. 6 19. 7 Natural Ga s Processe d forNG

L (Tril
. Cu
. Ft. ) 18.5 1 19.2 5 19.9 5 19.6 8 18.6 8 17.7 5 17.7 2 17.5 7 17.0 1

— 

### 14. 8 14. 7 14. 2 13. 2 13. 9

— 

### Butane s Recover y

(Bbl./Mil
. Cu
. Ft
. o f Processe d Gas ) 6.5 3 6.3 8 6.2 3 6.3 1 6.5 3 6.7 2 6.3 7 6.2 7 6. 1

— 

### 7.7 8 8.4 4 8.0 8 8.7 4 7.9 6

—



### TTi e considerabl e differenc e betwee n butan e recover y befor e an d afte r198 0 indicate s thatth e reportin g syste m probably changed
. Onl y 68 percen tof

th e gros s natura

l ga s productio n was processe d fo rliquid s extractio n i n 1980 , whereas i n previou s year s th e percentag e generall y exceede d 80 percent .

Source : Chemical Economic s Handboo k—SR I International
.



### 1 1P.1 7



### r i facto r

tha t ha s asomewha t

longe r rang e effec t

o nbutan e productio ni s th e f raw (wellhead ) natura l gas
. A s lon g a s th e marke t valu e o f butan e exceed s th e 1 a dcos 

### t o f natura l ga s plu s th e cos t of extractin g butane , ther e i s incentiv e fo r

. s t 0 

### extrac t

a s muc hbutan e a s possible

. Curren t processe s indee dyiel dahig h i 0 

### f extraction , generall y 9 5 t o 9 8 percen t of th e butane s ar e remove di nra w
ra l ga s processing

. Thoug hproducer s may no t see k t o remov e a s muc hbutan e if it s 1 decreases , proces s change s wil l b e limite dby (1 ) th e flexibilit y of existin g proces s nacity , (2 ) th e availabl e alternate s fo r marketin g butane s inothe r product s of

th e NG Lstream , and(3 ) th e valu e of othe r product s fromth e proces s stream

. Fo r example , plant s ar e reducin g th e amoun t o f ethan e produce d(an dthereb y leavin g i t inth e stream ) becaus e ethan e value s do no t suppor t extractio ncosts

. Leavin g ethan e inth e streamaffect s th e Bt

u conten t

o f th e natura l ga s an dthu s impact s th e adjustmen t o f Bt u conten t require dfo r

pipelin e transmission

. However , butane s mus t b e remove d fro mth e natura l ga s bu t

migh t b e suitabl e fo r

mixtur e withpropane
. I nsummary , an y individual produce r

wil l maximiz e tota l profit s i nth e framework o f apric e take r

for al l potentia l products , th e flexibilit y o f productio ncapacity , th e conten t requirement s o f processe dnatura l gas , an dal l o f th e abov e i ncombinatio na s i s require dt o maximiz e th e economi c efficienc y of existin g capacity

. Th e valu e of al l NG Lplan t product s i s importan t becaus e butane s migh t b e combine dwitho r

substitute dfo r

othe r product s sinc e the y canno t

b e lef t in th e stream

.

Refiner y Productio n

Refinerie s ar e th e larges t producer s o f

butane , supplyin g 65-7 0 percen t of tota l U.S

. butan e needs

. A

t th e sam e time , the y ar e als o th e larges t consumer s o f

butane

. As a resul t mos t refiner y produce dbutan e neve r enter s th e market

. Refinerie s a s awhol e
ar e ne t consumer s of

butane , producin g fro mrefiner y productio napproximatel y two

third s t o three-fourth s o f thei r tota l butan e needs

. I t i s als o importan t

t o remembe r tha t integrate doi l companie s ow n refinerie s an dals o alarg e segmen t of NG Lplants

. However , whil e refinerie s ar e ne t consumer s a s awhole , som e individua l refinerie s produc e butan e in exces s of thei r ow nneed s an dplac e thes e supplie s int o th e market

.

Becaus e th e circumstance s o f individua l refinerie s var y t o agrea t extent , charac

terizin g th e supply anddeman do f butan e a t

refinerie s i s difficult

. Factor s suc ha s th e typ e andsourc e o

f crud e oi l used , choic e of catalyst , refiner y design , severit y of

1 2P.1 8



### rations , an 

### dth e desire dfina l produc t mi x al l var y widel y fro mrefinery t o refiner y ope r i n addition , within eachrefinery operatin g condition s var y ove r time , refinery *

• a bot hbutan e yield s an

dneeds

. A

s aresult , estimatin g butan e productio n fo r changin g rner v industr

y a s awhol

e a s wel l a s fo r individua

l refinerie s i s extremel y On e approachtha t

i s commonl

y utilize di s t o estimat e productio n base do n butane yield s an

dth e amoun

t o f crud e processe db

y variou s type s o

f refineries , averag e u

_ noroac hwa s utilize dt o generat e th e following informatio n b y SRI

.
leu mrefiner s recover

butane s a s component s o f th e produc t

spectru mfro

m
eral refiner

y operations

. Refinerie s recove r an dseparat e light

hydrocarbon s fro

m l l refiner y processes , generall y i

n acentra l ga s recovery system

. Normally , refiner s fee dthe C, (butanes/butylenes ) fractio n (treate dt o remov e butadien e an d supplementedwit

hadditional isobutane ) t o a n alkylatio n uni t

i n whic hreactio n o

f isobutan e wit holefin s produce s gasoline alkylate

. Alternatively , th e component s o f th e strea mma y be separated

. Th

e isobutylen e ma

y b e remove dby absorptio n i n sulfuri c acido r b y reactio n wit

hmethano l t o produc e MTBE; extractio n distillatio n separate s th e n-butenes , leavin g th e saturate dbutanes

. I n anothe r

method , fractionationa l distillatio n o

f th e C 4 

### cu t

yield s on

e strea mcontainin g isobutane , isobutylene , and1

- buten e an danother streamcontainin g n-butan e and2-butene

. Afte r removal o

f th e isobutylen e fro mth e firs t

steam(b y absorptio n i

n sulfuri c acid) , th e isobutan e can b e isolatedthroug

hfractiona l distillation ; distillatio n als o separate s th e n-butan e i n th e
secon dstrea mfro mth e 2-butene

. Refiner

recoveries , b

y process , ar e describe dbelow

.

Crud e distillatio n

Butan e concentration s averag e approximatel y on e volum e percen t o f crude petroleum. Th e rati o o f n
- t o isobutan e i s commonl y abou t 3:1 , althoug hthi s rati o an dth e butan e percentag e var

y accordin g t o th e sourc e o f th e crud e oil

. Man

y light importe dcrude s hav e 2-3 % butanes , whil

e heavier foreign andmost

domesti c crude s contai n alower percentage

.
A t th e beginnin g o f 1986 , calenda

r da y capacit y o

f 15. 3 million barrel s fo

r crud e oil distillatio n reflecte dadeclin e o f 1 7 percen t

fro m18. 5 million barrel s pe r da y i n 1981

. Severa l refinerie s hav e been mothballe dor permanentl y close dduring th e pas t severa l years becaus e o

f exces s capacity , lowe

r gasolin e demandsinc e th e pea k o f th e lat e

"Butanes"

. SRI, pp
. 300.3501B-E

. 1 3P.1 9



### „H o considerabl e reductio ninrefiner y throughput ; operatin g refinerie s l970's , » n u 

### -I trrtm 30 3 in 198 1 t o 18 9 a t th e star t

of 1986

. I

n1981 , refiner y run s decline dir°' » te donl y 6 8 percen t

of nameplat e capacity , ashar p declin e fro mth e 85-9 0 leve l o f th e lat e 1970s ; b y 1985 , refiner y utilizatio nrecovere dt o abou t 8 0

percen t 

### base do n crud e runs
.

dcatalyti c crackin g (FCC ) upgrade s middl e an dheav y distillate s t o moto r gasolin e dlighte r products

. Crackin g o f

paraffin s yield s shorter-chai nparaffin s plu s olefins , hi e th e proces s convert s alky l naphtheni c component s t o naphthene s an dolefins

. Althoug hzeolit e catalyst s an driser-typ e ca t cracker s hav e improve dth e technology , vield s o f C stream s continu e t o depen doncrackin g severit y an dth e refiner' s emphasi s gasoline o r

fue l oi l production

. Th e C

. strea mtypicall y amount s t o 14-1 6 volum e
cen t o f th e

### produc t

slate , wit hth e outpu t

of saturate dbutane s equa l t o 7- 8 percen t
o f th e fres hfeed ; th e n
- t o is o rati o i s generall y abou t 1:3

. Newe r

antimony-containin g passivatin g catalysts , whic hreduc e th e heav y metal s conten t fro mcrud e oil , apparentl y have onl y asligh t effec t o n th e natur e o f

th e C 4 

### stream

. Catalyti c reformin g
Catalyti c reformin g provide s anothe r significan t

rout e t o butanes ; thi s proces s improve s th e octan e ratin g o

f naphth aan dheav y straigh t ru ngasolin e fractions

. A comple x serie s o f reactions , whic hconver t naphthene s t o aromatic s an dentai l cyclizatio nan d crackin g of

paraffins , ar e th e larges t refiner y sourc e o f

gasolin e blendin g components

. Butane s ar e forme db y th e crackin g an dsaturatio nof highe r paraffins

. Improvement s in reformin g technolog y ar e attribute dprimaril y t o increase dpreferenc e fo r bimetalli c platinum-rheniu mcatalyst s ove r th e conventiona l platinum-alumin a system

. Th

e bimetalli c catalys t

retain s highe r

activity , improve s gasolin e componen t selectivity , andpermit s lowe r operatin g pressures
. B y 1986 , bimetalli c catalyst s represente d8

2 percen t of reformin g capacity , ashar p increas e fro m2 9 percen t in197 2

an d75 percen t

in 1981

.

Reformin g capacit y increase da t a n averag e 2. 4 percen t annua l rate , fro m3.5 9 millio n t o 4.0 5 miUio

n barrel s pe r

strea mda y durin g 1976-1981 , befor e declinin g t o 3.6 7 millio n

1 4P.2 0



### strea mda y b y 1986

. According t o SRI , butane s outpu t typicall y equal s 7- 9 barrel s pe r »«- 1 

### ^pn t o f th e fee dstream(4- 5 percen t normal , 3-

4 percen t iso)

. volum e per<.« » Hydrocrackjn

j
lvti c hydrocracking , whic hcommonl

y operate s wit

harar e earth-impregnate d -aluminu mcatalyst , als o upgrade s heavie r distillatio n fraction s t o gasolin e quality

. aio r differenc e fro

mcat crackin g i s tha t

th e reducin g hydrogen atmospher e ate s larg e volume s o

f saturate dhydrocarbon s during th e sever e crackin g and nation reactions

. Butane yield s fro mfres hfee daverag e 16-1 7 volume percent , dth e n
- t o is o rati o i s about

1:2 whe n gasolin e i s th e majo

r product

. Althoug hhydrocracking grew rapidly durin g th e 1960s , it s popularity dimmedbecaus e o f hte hcapita l cost s an dutilit y requirement s andth e nee dfo r a n adjacen t

captiv e sourc e
o f hydrogen

. However, afte r annua l capacit y increase s o

f onl y 2 percen t

durin g 1976

- 198 1 t o 0.9 1 million barrel s pe

r streamda

y i n 1981 , U.S

. hydrocrackin g increase dt o 1.0 6 millio n barrel s pe

r streamda

y i n 1986

. Wit

hcontinue dcapacity increase s t o 1.1 5 millio n barrel s pe

r streamda

y an da n 8 5 percen t

operatin g rate s i

n 1990 , hydrocrackin g wil l yiel d55-5 8 million barrel s o f butane s pe r

year (1.1 5 million barrel s time s .8 5 capacit y time s .1 6 volum

e percen t time s 365 days)

.
Therma l operation s

Severa l mino r therma l processe s yiel dsmal l quantitie s o f butane s i

n th e produc t spectrum

. Tota

l butane s suppl

y fro mthes e operation s ar e estimate da t 8-1 2 million barrel s (22-3 3 thousandbarrel s per day ) in 1986

. Delaye dcokin g i s asever e crackin g proces s tha t produce s petroleu mcoke and minimizes residua

l fuel oi l productio n fro

mrefinery bottom s sucha s vacuumresidual s
an dtherma l tars

. Althoug

hyield s var

y wit hth e typ e o

f crude oil an

dcrackin g severity , th e C 4 

### output

account s fo

r 3- 5 volum

e percent , andbutane s represen t 6 0 percen t of tha t fraction

. Th

e n
- t o is o rati o i s approximatel y 2.5:1

.
Flui dcokin g convert s heavy liqui dfeed s t o coke , liquids , an dgaseou s fue l products

. Th e C 4 

### volum

e average s 3. 5 percen t

o f th e origina l feed , andbutane s accoun t fo r 50 percen t o f thi s fraction

.

1 5P.2 1



### mil dfor mo f therma l cracking , upgrade s refinery bottom s b y maximizin g visbreaking» a



### • I H whil e minimizing gasolin e output

. Butane s accoun t fo r 50-7 0 percen t

o f fuel oi l yi e i a



### , n fraction , whic

hrepresent s 2 percen t

o f th e tota l yield , th e total o 4 

### ir«

»

finers isomeriz e straight-chai n C , andC g 

### alkane s t o improv e octan e rating s ud e distillatio n fraction s (e.g. , straigh t ru n naphthas) , bu t

refiner s operat e C 4 

### zation unit s specificall y t o convert n-butan e t o isobutane

. Refiner s the n isobutan e fo r gasolin e alkylate , agasolin e blending component wit hlower t'litv tha n the reactan t

isobutan e an

dolefins

. Isomerizatio n commonl y employ s a tnu mcatalys t

unde r mil dcondition s (100-200° C an d200-5000 ps i i

n th e presenc e o

f droeen ) althoug hthe proces s ma

y als o us e molecula

r sieves , o

n silica/alumina

. merizatio n become s feasibl e onl

y whe n othe r refinery operation s yiel dinsufficien t

• obutan e an danatural ga s liquid s sourc e i s no t readil y available

. The pric e differentia l betwee n iso an dnormal mus t

als o b e sufficien t

t o warran t

operatio n o

f th e unit

. Currently , thi s differentia l i s 4- 5 cent s pe r gallo n o n amarginal cos t

basi s an d abou t 1 0 cent s pe

r gallon full

y costed

. Curren t

U.S

. industrywid e nameplat e C 4 

### isomerizatio

n capacit y i s approximatel y 8

0 thousan dbarrel s per

day ; Ques t

Enterprises , Inc

. (2 6 thousan dbarrel s pe

r day) , Maratho n Oil Compan y (1 5 thousan dbarrel s pe

r day) , Valer o Petroleu m(1 2 thousandbarrel s pe r day) , Phillip s Petroleu m( 8 thousan dbarrel s pe r day) , an dChampli n Petroleu mCompan

y (7. 5 thousandbarrel s per day ) operat e th e largest units

. However, man

y smal l unit s possibly operat e intermittentl y below capacity , an

dseveral ma

y b e mothballed ; actua l isobutan e suppl y fro mthi s sourc e was estimatedat

5 millio n barrel s per

yea r (1 5 thousan dbarrel s per day ) i n 1985

. Becaus e dat ao n smal l unit s i s lacking , unusedisomerizatio n capacity canno t b e estimated

.
Refinin g production b

y proces s andproduc t

i s show n i n Exhibit 2-4

.
Whil e refinerie s a s awhol

e ar e ne t consumer s o

f butane , some refinerie s d o produc e i

n
exces s o f their individua l need s an

dput butan e onto th e market

. Exhibit 2- 5 present s th e amounts o

f refiner y butane s tha t

hav e bee n markete din th e pas t 1 0 years
. Th

e
amoun t whic hi s markete ddepend s upo n individua

l refinery butan e supply/deman d balances , an

dvarie s considerably fro

myear t o year
. Th

e vas t majorit y o f th e marke t suppl y i s n-butane , sinc e ther e ar e fe w use s for

isobutan e othe r

than in th e manufacture gasoline

. Refiner

y supplie s t o th e marke t sho w considerabl e seasonal variation

. I n

1 6P.2 2

^ ^



### EXHIBI T 2-4 : U.S
. REFINER

Y PROCESSIN

G AND BUTAN

E YIELDS

Process Crud e Distillatio n CatalyticCracking CatalyticReforming Hydrocrackin

g Delaye d Cokin g Flui d Cokin g Visbreakin g

Proces s Crud e Distillatio n CatalyticCracking CatalyticReforming Hydrocrackin

g Therma l Operations Isomerizatio

n Tota l ProductDistributio n

Total Butane s n - t o Is o (volum e percent ) Rati o

1 3: 1 7- 8 1: 3 7- 9 1.2-1.3: 1 16-1 7 i : 

### 2 1.8- 3 2.5: 1 1-1. 2 4: 1 1-1. 4 3: 1

Production o f

Butane s a tRefinerie s (million s o f

barrel s pe ryear ) 198 5 n-Butan e Isobutan e Total 34 1 1 4 5 29 87 11 6 45 3 7 8 2 17 3 5 52 7 3 1 0

- 5 5 — 12 7 17 8 305 Refinery Proces s Capacity (million s of

barrel s Perstrea m day ) 198 1 198 5 19. 4 15.9 0 5.5 3 5.1 7 4.0 5 3.6 7 0.9 1 1.0 6 1.0 2 1.1 7 0.1 3 0.1 7 0.2 4 0.1 4

Sources : (A

) "Annua

l Refinin g Report, " Oi

l & Gas Journal , Marc

h 31
. 1981
. DD
. 63
- 65 ; an d Marc h 18 , 1985 , pp . 122-13 2 (Refinery Proces s Capacity data for198 1 an

d 1985)
. y 

### (B) "Butane

s

i 

### s, " SR I (al l othe rdata)
.

1 7

i

### EXHIBI T 2-5 : MARKETED * REFINER Y BUTAN

E (millio n bbls ) P.2 3



### jfea r 198 6 198 5 198 4 198 3 198 2 198 1 198 0 197 9 197 8 197 7 197 6 197 5 

### n-Butan e

35. 0 30. 1 22. 7 14. 5
3. 0 9. 8 15. 5 17. 0
18. 7
17. 6
20. 0 17. 4 Isobutane 1. 7 (.2 )

. 1

. 4

. 9 1. 0 2. 0 2. 2 2. 4 2. 6 2. 2 Tota l

36
. 29
. 22
. 14
. 3
. 10
. 16
. 19
. 20
. 20
. 22 , 19
. , 7 9

. 8

, 9

, 0

, 7

, 5

, 0

. 9

. 0

. 6

. 6

Source : Energ

y Informatio n Administration , Petroleum Suppl y Annual , 1981-1986
. Burea

u o f Mines , Crud

e Petroleum , Petroleu m Products , an

d Natural Ga

s Liquids , 1975
- 1980
.

Not e thatthi s tabl e doe s no trepresen ttota l refinery productio n o f butanes
. Th

e quantitie s shown her e represen tth e tota l amoun to f butane s thatare marketed t o other s b y refinerie s in th e cours e o f th e year . Thes e marke tquantitie s represen tth e supply/deman d imbalanc e a trefineries
.

1 8P.2 4



### refiner y us e of

butan e drop s whil e productio nof butan e remain s relativel y • h e sU<T>rt' eI, » 

### Aaresult , refinerie s offe r mor e butan e fo r

sal e durin g th e summe r months , steady * ^
s



### . .. . «, , th e butan e conten t of gasolin e increases , refinerie s consum e mor e mthe winter , a
. but 

### an e internall y an dmarke t less

. 2. 2 DEMAN

D

9 0 percen t of al l butane s ar e use db y th e refinin g industr y ingasolin e moto r fuel

.

,... , includ e th e petrochemica l industry , fue l markets , an dexports

. Tota l Othe r user s motioni n198 5 i s estimate da t

43 1 millio nbarrels

. ' Use s in1974 , 1978 , an d Q81-83 i n eac ho f thes e area s ar e show ni nExhibi t 2-6

.
Deman dfo r butane s b

y gasolin e refiner s an dfue l market s ha s generall y bee ndeclinin g
ne e 1978-198 0 becaus e of

1 ) decrease ddeman dfo r gasolin e an d2) fo r

many uses , th e hig hpric e o f butan e relativ e t o substitutes

. Deman db y th e petrochemica l industr y turneddow

ni n 1982

. Discussion s of

th e characteristic s o f

butan e us e ineac hdeman d categor y follow

.
Gasolin e Use s

Th e dominant

us e o f butane s i s i

n gasoline

. Blende ddirectl y int o th e fuel , butane s increas e volatilit y withou t negativel y impactin g octane

. Made int o alkylate , the y enhanc e th e octan e ratin g whil e maintainin g suitabl e volatility

. n-Butan e i s blende d directly int o gasolin e whil e isobutan e i s generall y firs t reacte dwithlo w molecula r weight, highly volatil e olefin s an dsaturate disoparaffin s t o mak e alkylate

. TTi e volum e
o f butane s directl y blende di n gasolin e in198 5 wa s 18 8 millio nbarrels ; th e volum e o f 3 isobutane consume dfo r

alkylat e wa s abou t

29 0 millio nbarrels

.

Estimate s o

f tota l an drefiner y consumptio nof butan e ar e difficul t

t o mak e becaus e mos t butane s produce db y refinerie s do no t leav e th e plan t

a s separat e products

. Also , smal l volume s ma

y b e use da s plan t

fuel

. Thi s possibl e us e i s no t furthe r discusse dher e an dis no t reflecte din th e consumptio nestimates

. "Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.350 1 M 3 "Butanes, " SRI , pp
. 300.3501 Q an d300.3501S

.

1 9

# r

EXHIBIT 2-6 :

197 4 U.S
. CONSUMPTIO N O F BUTANE S



### (millio nbarrel s pe r

year )

197 8 198 1 198 5

t o o Gasolin e

Volatilit y Contro l Gasolin e Alkylat e Fue l Use s LP G SN G
Chemical s Ethylen e Butadien e Aceti cAci d Malei cAnhydrid e Propylen e Oxid e Othe r Tota l

Source : "Butane" , Ch e n
15 5

1 6 1

7 1 3 5 neg . 1 19 7 is o
8 18 2

—

5 1 19 5

mi ca l Economic s To t

16 3 18 2

1 6 1

7 1 3 5 neg . 5 1 39 3

Handboo k n

17 9

1 4 1 5

1 2 4 5 1
1 23 0

' , SRI , is o

1 0 20 8

—

7 1 22 6

1987 , p . To t

18 9 20 8

1 4 1 5

1 2 4 5 1 7 2 45 6 n

16 7

1 6 3

1 3 3 5 1
2 20 9 is o
9

18 5

4

9 1 20 8

3003501N-300.3501O
. To t

17 6 18 5

2 0 3

1 3 3 5 1 9 3 41 7 n

17 9

2 0 0- 1

4 3 2 0
2 21 0 is o
9

20 0

-

1 1 1 22 1 To t

18 8 20 0

2 0 0- 1

4 3 0 3 1 1 3 43 1

U lP.2 6



### Dire£ ! Blendin

g
imaril y n 

### -butane , has forman y year s bee n considere d a n excellen tsubstanc e 8 0 

### * •'•„_ • easolin e volatilit y withou tnegativel y affectin g th e octan e rating
. The fo rraisin g B contento f gasolin e varie s widel y however , dependin g o n temperatur e conditions
. •h
- summe

ri n warmerregion s o f

th e country , n-butan e conten tma y b e onl y 0- 2 Durin g t n e su 

### '

„ nprcent , compared t o 1 4 volum e percen tin th e Uppe rMidwes tan

d Northeas t volum e pen- *
t n e

### winter
. Th

e averag e butane concentration s i n 198 5 fo rautomotiv e gasolin e durin g 8 volum e percent . Accordin g to SRI, n-butan e account s for9 5 percen tof

th e

ec 

### ti y blende

d butane s an

d isobutan e account s fo r5 percent . Exhibit2- 7 list s th e SR I

. -nt o o f butanes consumptio n in gasolin e fo r196 1 t o 1985
. estimat e w »

^o^n e Alkylat

e Alkylatio n is arefinery proces s tha tconvert s lo wmolecula rweight , highl y volatil e olefin s an d saturated isoparaffin s t o gasolin e component s wit h suitabl e octan e rating s
an d volatilit y properties
. Fe

w publishe d dataar e availabl e foralkylat e an d isobutan e productio n becaus e thes e products ar e both generate d an d consume d withi n th e refinery
. SR

I has estimate d isobutan e consumptio n fo r196 1 t o 198 5 fro m historica l reporte d alkylatio n capacitie s an d assume d industrywid e refiner y operatin g rates . Exhibi t2- 6 summarizes thes e estimates
.
Fuel Use s

A secon d majo rusero f butan e i s th e fue l market
. Th e 198 5 volum e o f

butane s
consume d b y the fue l markets wa s 2 1 millio n barrels
. LP G represent s almos tal l o f th e total
.
LPG' s

LPG
. ar e clean burnin

g fuels , usuall y propane and/o rbutane , tha tar e i n liqui d for

m unde rpressur e atroo m temperatures . LPG' s ma y als o sometime s includ e ethane
. Th e produc tis use d i n residentia l an

d commerica l heating , fo rindustrial energy , i n interna l combustio n engines , an

d formiscellaneou s use s suc h a s cro p drying , tobacc o curing , and

rar m applications
. Industrial consumptio n probably account s forabout80 percen t
"Butanes, " SRI

, p . 300.3501P
.

2 1P.2 7



### EXHIBI T 2-7 : U.S
. CONSUMPTIO

N O F BUTANES I

N GASOLIN

E (millio n barrels )

yea r
196 1 196 2 196 3 196 4 196 5 196 6 196 7 196 8 196 9 197 0 197 1 197 2 197 3 197 4 197 5 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5 Direc t

Blendin g 

### 10 7 11 1 114 116 11 9 12 5 12 9 13 6 142 14 7 15 4 16 2 16 8 16 3 16 8 17 6 181 18 9 18 9 18 0 17 6 184 17 9 17 8 18 8 Gasolin e Alkylat e (Isobutane )


### 14 0 15 3 161 16 6 17 4 181 19 5 21 2 22 0 24 6 25 5 27 0 28 3 26 3 26 9 28 7 29 0 30 1 30 2 27 6 26 8 26 4 26 9 28 2 29 0 Tota l Butane s


### 24 7 26 4 27 5 28 2 29 3 30 6 32 4 34 8 36 2 39 3 40 9 43 2 45 1 42 6 43 7 46 3 47 1 49 0 49 1 45 6 44 4 44 8 44 8 46 0 47 8
Source : "Butanes, " CEH , pp . 300.3501Q , 300.35015
. Indirectblending , th e rati o of n butan e t o Isobutane i s 95:5
. Assume s 7 volum e percen tof al l gasolin e produce d 1960-1978 , 7.5 % durin g 1979-1984 , an d 8 % in 1985
. Alkylat e production i s estimate d base d on estimate d capacit y utilizatio n rates .

22P.2 8



### of butan e us e in LPG

. Natura l ga s liquid s (NGL's ) ar e th e primar y source
. However , refinerie s sometime s marke t butane s also , afte r

thei r ownrequirement s hav e bee nmet

.

Becaus e norma l an disobutan e hav e muc hhighe r boilin g points , a t

atmospheri c pressure , tha n propan e (3 1 an d1 1 Fcompare dt o minu s 127°F) , th e butane s ar e no t a s usefu l a s propan e a s aportabl e convenienc e fue l incol dclimate s becaus e the y wil l no t vaporiz e whe n release dt o aburne r tip

. However , butan e LPGi s use dinth e souther nstate s t o a limite dextent

. A somewha t mor e common , bu t

stil l limited , LPGi s abutane-propan e mix

. Thi s formulatio n to o i s no t practica l fo r

mos t application s incol dclimate s becaus e th e propan e tend s t o vaporiz e fractionally , leavin g apredominantl y butan e

2 mixtur e i n th e tank

. Compare dt o propane , onl y smal l volume s of butan e ar e consume da s fuel

. I nadditio n t o th e vaporizatio n problem s describe dalready , thi s i s becaus e butan e ca nusuall y
comman dahighe r

pric e i n gasolin e an dothe r use s tha nfo r

it s straigh t

BT U fue l content

. Industria l user s conside r butan e onl y whe ni t

i s temporaril y i nlarg e suppl y an d price s dro p t o th e BT

U fue l valu e equivalen t

withpropan e o r

fue l oil

.

SN G

Whe n natura l ga s productio n appeare dt o b e peakin g inth e earl y 1970's , plan s wer e mad e t o buil d5 2 facilitie s tha t woul dreformulat e liqui dhydrocarbon s int o syntheti c natura l ga s (SNG)

. However , soo n afte r th e plan s wer e mad e an dconstructio nbega n fo r
som e plants , bot hnatura l ga s an dpetroleu mproduc t price s rose , leadin g t o substantia l conservatio n an damuc hlessene dnee dfo r thes e plants

. Only 1 4 o f th e 5 2 plant s wer e completed , four

of whic har e designe dt o us e butan e a s afeedstock

. All four ca nals o
us e othe r

natura l ga s liquid s and/o r naphtha

. Whe

nusin g butane , import s ar e th e primar y source
. 198 5 consumptio nof butan e fo r

SN Gwa s estimate db y SRI a t 0- 1 millio nbarrels , amajor declin e fromit s 197 8 leve l o f 1 0 t o 1 5 millio nbarrels

. (Se e Exhibi t 2-5)

. Th e four

plant s operate da t

20-2 5 percen t

of desig ncapacit y in1985

.

1 

### "Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.350 1 U

. 2 Th e Petrochemica l Energ y Group , Butan e an dth e Petrochemica l Industry , Novembe r 27 , 1973 , p
. 31

. 3 

### "Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.350 1 U

.

2 3P.2 9 

# r

Petrochemical s

I n 198 5 petrochemica l industr y consumptio nof butane s amounte dt o 2 2 millio nbarrels , o r abou t 5 percen t

o f tota l demand

. (Se e Exhibi t 2-5)

. The amoun t

of n-butan e wa s 1 1 millio n barrel s an dth e amoun t of isobutan e wa s 1 3 millio nbarrels

. Thoug hi t i s presentl y asmal l marke t fo r butane , becaus e of

changin g technolog y an dagrea t sensitivit y t o price , i t i s on e tha t

ha s significan t

marke t potentia l fo r

butan e manufacturers

.

Feedstock s fo

r petrochemica l plants , includin g butane , hav e witnesse dasubstantia l increas e i n economi c importanc e in recen t years
. Unti l th e earl y 1970's , feedstoc k cost s accounte dfor

onl y 1 0 t o 20 percen t of th e cos t of makin g basi c petrochemicals , withplan t

investmen t

accountin g fo r

amajo r portio no f

th e balance

. Today feedstoc k cost s amoun t

t o 5 0 t o 90 percen t

of productio ncosts

. Producer s hav e thu s becom e pric e sensitive , an dhav e responde db y buildin g plant s withgrea t flexibilit y inth e type s
of feedstock s tha t

ca n b e used

. Almos t

al l olefi nplant , o r

"stea mcracker, " operator s hav e investe din plant s tha t allo w us e o f

ver y larg e quantitie s o f ligh t feedstock s suc h

a s ethan e an dpropan e whe n price s favo r them , an dtha t

ca nshif t t o heav y hydrocarbon s i f thei r price s ar e mor e attractive

. Som e ca noperat e o nan y feedstoc k i nth e 2 hydrocarbo nslate , rangin g fro m100 percen t ethan e t o 10 0 percen t

ga s oil

.
Th e characteristic s of

deman dfo r

butan e a s afeedstoc k fo r eac ho f fiv e chemica l sector s ar e discusse din th e followin g paragraphs

. Ethylen e

Th e larges t

petrochemica l marke t

fo r n-butan e i s stea mcrackin g t o for methylen e an d co-products

. Fo r

many olefin s plants , n-butan e i s asupplementa l feedstoc k tha t ha s accounte dfor

no mor e tha n 4 percen t of tota l ethylen e productio nsinc e 1970

. Isobutan e i s no t

generall y use da s afeedstoc k fo r ethylen e plant s becaus e o f poo r 3 crackin g yields

.

Olefi n plant s ar e th e sourc e o f man y o f

th e petrochemica l industry' s basi c buildin g block s —ethylene , propylene , butylenes , butadiene , an dbenzene

. Olefi nplant s ar e als o calle dethylen e plants , afte r their , mai nproduct , o r stea mcrackers , becaus e th e fee di s usuall y mixe dwithstea mbefor e i t i s cracked

. The y may b e als o referre dt o a s ethane , propane , ga s oil , (or

othe r type s o f feedstock ) crackers

. 2 Bruc e F

. Greek , "Natura l Gas Liquid s Remai nStron g Petrochemica l Feedstock, " Chemica l an dEngineerin g News,

. Marc h12 , 1984 , pp
. 19-20

. 3 

### "Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.35201 Z 2 4P.3 0



### Volume s o

f n-butan e use dhav e varie dconsiderabl y fro myea r t o year
. 197 4 consump
tio nof 7 millio n barrel s gre w t o 1 2 millio nin1978 , an d1 3 millio nin1981 , the nfel l t o 8 millio n in 198 2 an dles s tha n hal f amillio nin1983

. I n1985 , butan e recovere d somewha t t o 4 millio n barrels

. Consumptio n of

n-butan e in olefin s cracker s i s influence db y th e pric e anddeman dfo r butan e fromcompetin g markets , th e valu e of co-product s create db y stea mcrackin g butane , an dth e pric e of competin g feedstocks

. I n1979 , hig hgasolin e deman dle dt o increase dn-butan e prices , whic hcause dadeclin e i nth e volume s consume db y th e petrochemica l industry

. B y 1981 , butan e price s ha dstabilized , an dincrease dvolume s
were consume da s a

n ethylen e feedstock , especiall y durin g th e summe r whengasolin e deman dfor

n-butan e i s lower

. Sinc e 1982 , relativel y smal l amount s of butan e wer e cracke dbecaus e of

th e highe r

price s bi db y gasolin e markets , an dth e sharpl y lowe r price s for competitor s of

ethan e an dpropane
. Shoul dn-butan e becom e mor e available , marke t share s ma

y increas e a s n-butan e eplace s ethane , propan e an dnaphtha , dependin g o

n it s pric e competitiveness

.
Aceti c Aci d

Th e U.S

. aceti c aci dindustr y change dproductio ntechnolog y an dreduce dit s deman dfo r n-butan e b y aceti c aci dproducers

. I n1979 , o f

domesti c capacit y o f

1,605,00 0 metri c ton s pe r year , 3 3 percen t

wa s basedo

na nn-butan e process
. A tota l of tw o n-butan e base dplant s wer e operate dby tw o producers , Celanes e Corporatio nan dUnio nCarbid e Corporation

. The n-butan e shar e of capacit y the nbega nt o dro p steadil y a s ne w capacit y usin g acheape r methano l base dproces s wa s introduced

. I n1981 , n-butan e base dproductio n wa s estimate da t 95 0 millio npounds , whic hconsume d5 millio nbarrel s
o f n-butane

. I

n 1983 , Unio n Carbid e close dit s 60 0 millio npoun dpe r yea r n-butan e base dplant , droppin g th e n-butan e shar e of curren t capacit y t o 16. 6 percent

. Celanese , unlike Unio n Carbide , ha s severa l plant s an dthu s ha s th e flexibilit y t o ru nth e butan e plan t a t ful l capacit y when price s ar e lo w an drel y o nothe r plant s whenth e price s of d; 3 2 othe r feedstock s ar e mor e attractive

. I f th e plan t

i s operate da t

ful l capacity , n-butan e us e wil l amoun t t o approximatel y 3 millio nbarrel s pe r year /

Ami n K

. Rafi e an dSar aL

. Soder , "Aceti c Acid, " Chemica l Economic s Handbook , Marc h 1979 , p
. 602-502 0 C

. 2 Ala n S

. Brown , "Technolog y Shif t Tighten s Aceti c Aci dMarket, " Chemica l Business , November

1984 , pp
. 11-14

. 3Estimate dbase do n proces s technolog y of 19 0 pound s of

aceti c aci dpe r

barre l o f butane

. 2 5_B3L

_



### cos t of productio n of

methanol-base daceti c aci dha donl y sligh t advantag e ove r hutan e feedstock , dependin g o nrelativ e costs

. While butan e feedstoc k cost s ar e

L 

### .„ h o Ptna n

### methano l costs , th e butan e proces s produce s som e highl y value dco
signe r oduct s suc ha s methy l ethy l ketone , formi c acid , an dmethanol

. However , new apacit y wil l likel y b e base don th e methano l process
. Thi s i s becaus e th e butane-base d oiant s ar e mor e expensiv e t o build ; th e produce r mus t hav e a ninfrastructur e fo r marketin g th e co-products ; an dth e pric e o f butan e ha s historicall y fluctuate dwidel y a s wit hgasolin e fluctuations

.
Butadien e

Butadien e i s achemica l use dprimaril y inth e productio nof syntheti c rubber

. Othe r
use s includ e plastic s fo r th e automobil e an dhom e construction , nylo nfiber s fo r tir e cord , late x for

carpe t backing , an dothe r

applications

. Supply ha s historicall y bee n provide db y fou r

sources : n-butan e dehydrogenation , butylen e n-buten e oxidativ e dehydrogenation , by

- product s of th e ethylen e industry , an dimports

. Onc e accountin g fo r mor e tha n 40 percen t of domesti c butadien e capacity , butan e i nth e earl y 1980' s accounte dfor

onl y 1 0 percent

. Celanes e wit h55 0 millio npound s o f n-butan e base d capacit y i s th e sol e remainin g n-butan e productio nfacilit y an dadditiona l productio n 2 fro mn-butan e i s unlikely

.
Malei c Anhydrid e

Malei c anhydrid e ca n b e produce dfro msevera l feedstock s includin g benzene , norma l butane s or

butylenes , andnorma l butane

. I nth e 1940's , economic s an dprice s favore d benzene

. I

nth e 1950's , butan e feedstock s becam e popular a s asurplu s o f

thi s chemica l appeare di n refineries , bu t soo n decline dwhe nsupplie s tightene dan dprice s increased

. I n 1974 , Monsant o converte don e fixe dbe dreacto r t o n-butan e feedstock , whic hha s a significan t

yiel dadvantag e ove r

benzene

. (Th e theoretica l yiel do f malei c anhydrid e i s 1.2 6 pound s pe r

poun do f benzene , bu t

1.7 5 pound s pe r

poun dof n-butane)

. Addition s t o

Th e Petrochemica l Energ y Group , op
. cit. , p
. 15

. 2 

### "Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.3502B

. 3 Petrochemical s fo r

th e Non-Technica l Person , op
. cit. , p
. 163

.

2 6P.3 2



### n-butan e capacit y continue da s Amoco , Monsanto , DenkaChemical , an dAshlan d Chemica l converte dcapacit y t o butane

. Tota l n-butan e base dcapacit y o f 19 0 millio n pound s in 198 3 represente d4 5 percen t of domesti c malei c anhydrid e capacity

. I n1986 , virtuall y al l capacit y wa s n-butane

.

The use s of

malei c anhydrid e ar e many , an dar e growin g faste r tha nthos e of

mos t othe r chemica l use s o f

butane

. Abou t

60 percen t

i s use dt o mak e polyeste r an dalky dresin s for boa t hulls , aut o body parts , pati o furniture , showe r stalls , pip e an dcoating s suc ha s paint , varnish , lacquer , an denamel

. It i s als o use dt o manufactur e plasticizer s an d

2 dibasi c acids , an da s abas e fo r severa l agricultura l chemicals

.
While th e malei c anhydrid e marke t i s probabl y th e fastes t growin g chemica l marke t fo r butane , i t

i s stil l asmal l one
. I

n 1981 , whenmalei c anhydrid e productio ntotalle d304. 1 millio n pound s an d2

0 percen t

of capacit y wa s base donbutane , butan e consumptio n amounte dt o onl y 0. 3 millio n barrels

. I n1983 , assumin g productio no f 33 5 millio n pound s an d4 5 percen t

o f capacit y an dproductio nbase do nbutane , butan e consumptio n amounte dt o abou t

0. 8 millio n barrels

. 198 5 consumptio nwa s 2.6-2. 7 millio nbarrels. 3


### Propylen e Oxid e an dT-Buty l Alcoho l

Th e primar y marke t

for isobutan e i

nth e chemica l industr y i s inth e productio no f propylen e oxid e an dt-buty l alcoho l (TBA) , th e latte r produce ddomesticall y b y ARC O

a t a1,020 millio n poun dpe r yea r propylen e oxid e plant

. Mos t isobutan e i s purchased , makin g ARC O amajo r

influenc e on spo t

marke t prices

.

Whe n th e isobutan e productio n proces s wa s firs t developed , TB A wa s alo w valu e by-produc t

an dth e TBA/propylen e oxid e ratio , whic htechnolog y allowe dt o b e adjuste d somewhat , wa s minimized

. I n 1979 , DO

Eapprove dcontinue dus e of TB A a s agasolin e additiv e an doctan e enhance r an dth e valu e o f

thi s by-produc t

improved

. Deman dfo r TB A i nthi s us e i s les s tha n suppl y however , s o som e TB A i s converte dt o isobutylen e via dehydration , ofte n fo r

subsequen t

conversio nt o MTBE

. TB A i s als o use ddirectl y a s a solvent , acomponen t

o f industria l cleanin g compounds , an da s anintermediar y fo r oil-solubl e polyeste r

resins

.

ln 

### Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.3502C

. 2 Petrochemical s fo r

th e Nontechnica l Person , p
. 165

. 3 

### "Butanes, " SRI , pp
. 300.3502C

. 27P.3 3



### Productio nof

th e othe r

principa l product , propylen e oxide , now ha s 3 9 percen t of capacit y base do

n isobutane

. Propylen e oxid e i s consume dinpolyo l ether s fo r urethanes , propylen e glycols , glyco l ethers , an dmiscelleneou s chemical s suc ha s glycerin , isopropanolamins , an dpropylen e carbonate

. Tota l 198 5 consumptio n o f isobutan e for

th e productio n of

propylen e oxid e an dTB A equalle d10. 8 millio nbarrels

.

Othe r Chemica l Use s
Hig hpurit y butane s an dpropane s hav e bee nth e principa l substitut e fo r fluorocarbon s in aerosol s becaus e of

thei r inertnes s an dhig hvapo r pressure
. One t o 1. 5 millio nbarrel s
of butane s wer e use din 198 5 fo r thi s purpose , withisobutan e th e mos t frequentl y use d isomer

. About

1 millio n barrel s of

hig hpurit y butan e ar e consume deac hyea r fo r polyme r processing

. Isobutan e i s als o consume dby Allie dChemica l Corporatio n an d

severa l other s a s asolven t i n th e HDPEprocess
. Shel l consume s butan e a t it s New Jerse y polypropylen e plant

. n-Butan e may b e use dfo r molecula r

weigh t contro l i n
som e LLDPEplants

. Butane s hav e als o bee nuse da s blowin g agent s fo r polystyrene

. Export s
Export s o f

butan e remaine dbelo w 3 millio nbarrel s pe r yea r fo r eac hyea r

betwee n 197 0

an d1981 , withth e Netherland s th e principa l destination

. I n1981 , however , export s o f natura l ga s liquids , in par t butanes , ros e unexpectedl y t o arecor d12. 3 millio nbarrel s a s supplie s abroa dtightened

. Export s ros e agai nt o 14. 4 millio nbarrel s i n1982

. A s estimate db y EIA , i n 198 5 export s resume dearlie r level s a t

3. 4 millio nbarrels , whil e 4 millio nbarrel s wer e exporte di n 1986

.

A considerabl e portio n o f ra w NG

Lexport s represen t

shipmen t

t o Canadia n fractionatio n facilitie s an dsubsequen t reimpor t

of th e products

. Exhibi t 2- 8 list s butan e an dnatura l ga s liqui dexport s fo r 1967-1985

.

2. 3 PRIC E

Th e pric e of

butan e in th e Unite dState s fluctuate s dramaticall y an di s affecte db y supply/deman dcondition s i n th e domesti c heating , gasoline , petrochemical , an d petroleu mrefinin g markets , a s wel l a s by internationa l movement s i nenerg y produc t

1 

### "Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.3502F-G

. 2 8

# 1

Q J

t o C O 

## V c •t a a

3 C O c «- • 0 3es,'

-SRI * • ID 7 CO o o C O c n o t o 5 5 

## 6 r-i 

### I? r* » t—Aesti 3 B r-r at CL

assu 3 3 * o q a < <o 0 3 O q <t>butanecomp O C O r-rionofnaturalgasliquids Cfl " t o0percen r-A I-A t-A r-A r-A r-*

C O C O C O C O C O CO 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 c n i b c o t o t-A o

|- » |- » H » »- » O O i b c o o o - a i b o

o c n t b r-A ts

> b ts

r-A 1— -

r-A l-A l- » o o co c o 4 - t o c n c n t o O J 1* * o o t o t o c o c n i~-

i b t o

• b o o i b >t - t o i- *

•- •o o c n c n co o

o c n o i b o o M i b CO C O C O C O C O -3-3-4-4- 4 c o o o - q O J o i

oooo o i b i b t-A t o c n c n o o HO J w C O C O C O C O C O

- J - 4 - J - J - J
* wt o H o

o o o o H-

> i- » - a o o c o O J o o c n c o t o c n

t o o o i b O J O J
c n 4 - O J c n - q o o o c o c o c n

c o I-A o c n o o c n o o c n o o o o C O CO CO O J O J O J c o o o - a M S 0 0

W H O O H - t O O l 0O 0 0 r-A to 0 3

C r-> 9 3 (0

O J c n O J O J O J
c n c o c o o o c n c n c o t~y

i b O J

M H t O t O M

• b C O t o I- * C

O i b c n t-A t o O J - 4 O J O J c o oo cn ooo o 3 

### 5 ' 3 a o orre 

# 5 55 C B c T o o Q 0 0 IALiq cids

• b c n

• b t o c n O J t o t o t o°!ll!u

3 aarr ct>TotaE>q X

«• »

_ _ 0 0 *" * eo £ 3 C O



## m x O H c o O T l C O G
> 55 Pl > 

### o 5 5 >
G S O > 

### o > C O 

## c C 

## 3
C O a c 

## 2 H t o i lo o



## feP.3 5



### price s an dsupplies

. It

i s als o affecte db

y suppl y /deman dandpricin g relationship s i n competin g energ y produc t markets

. Significant

change s i

n genera l marke t

equilibrium condition s i

n an y o f thes e area s will affec t th e domesti c marke t

pric e o f butane

. Before 1978 , wholesal e price s o f butane s were typicall y 80-9 0 percen t o f refinery crud e oi l acquisitio n costs , but

th e relationshi p ha s sinc e fluctuate dbetwee n 7 0 percen t an d 11 0 percen t

o n a n annual basis

. A

s expected , n-butan e price s closel y trac k wholesal e regular gasoline

. Price s fo

r n-butan e o

n th e Gul f Coas t ar e generall y about

7 0 percen t
o f spo t unleade dregula

r gasolin e prices

.
The Natura l Gas Policy Act o f 197 8 (NGPA

) ha s no t significantl y affecte dth e pric e and volume s o

f butane s extracte dfro

mnatura l gas
. Ga

s processor s must

remov e butane s becaus e o

f potentia l de

w point condensatio n i

n pipelines , andth e higher pric e commande db

y th e gasolin e marke t

ove r equivalen t

Bt u fuel value s will mak

e processin g
o f th e saturate dC. s economicall y worthwhile

. Wit hno chang e i

n volatility requirements , n-Butan e price s shouldmov e i n arang e boundedb

y th e Bt u equivalen t fue l valu e wit

hpropan e andapproximatel y 85-9 0 percen t o f th e wholesal e gasolin e price

.
Isobutan e price s dependo n th e valu e o

f alkylat e i

n gasoline

. For

agiven alkylat e value , isobutan e varie s inversel y wit hth e pric e o

f th e olefini c alkylat e component

. Isobutan e prices , a s indicate db

y th e spo t

market , were mor

e volatil e than n-butan e price s unti l 1982 , perhap s becaus e onl y 10-1 5 percen t

o f marketabl e isobutan e volume s ar e trade d
on th e spot

market

. I

n 1985-1986 , th e pric e differentia l betwee n normal-an disobutan e 3 fluctuate dbetwee n nea

r 0 an dabou t 7 cent s per

gallon

.
The federa l government

reporte dwholesal e price s fo r severa l years , bu t

contrac t and spo t price s hav e been liste do n aregula

r basi s onl y sinc e 197 9 b

y Oil Buyers ' Guide

. Butan e price s becam e extremel y volatil e afte r 197 9 becaus e o

f th e worldoi l situatio n
andth e relate dshortag e an dsucceedin g glu t

i n gasolin e markets

. I

n earl y 1980 , spo t

n
butan e price s skyrockete dt o nearl y 9 0 cent s per

gallon , whil e correspondin g isobutan e price s were $1.1 5 pe

r gallon

. I

n earl y 1986 , n-butan e price s plummete db y 50 percen t t o abou t 2 7 cent s per

gallo n b y Apri l in respons e t o decline s i n crud e oi l pricing

. Isobutan e als o fel l t o 30-3 2 cent s per gallon

. N

o analysi s was undertake n i n thi s
researc heffor

t t o identif

y th e comple x interrelationshi p betwee n crud e oil , gasoline , an dbutan e prices

.
ln 

### Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.3502G,H, L 2 

### "Butanes, " SIR

, P

. 300.3502G 3 

### "Butanes, " SRI, P

. 300.3502 1 3 0

### prior

t o 1980 , domesti c butane s wer e unde r pric e control s simila

r t o crude oil ; th e Departmen t

o f Energ y lifte dcontrol s i

n 1980 afte r

regulatory reviews

. Th e U.S

. Internationa l Trade Commission publishe s uni t sale s value s annually but thes e value s d

o
not reflec t actua l price s o

f al l butan e tha t

i s traded

. Exhibit

2- 9 present s th e estimate s publishe db

y IT C Exhibit

2- 9 provide s aview o

f marke t price s i n Texas

. It shouldb e note dtha t

th e refinery pric e o

f butanes , o

n a n annua l or seasonal basis , mus t b e impute dbecaus e most refinery butane s (consumed) d o no t transac t i n th e ope

n market

. Analysi s o

f th e refinery valu e o

f butane s i s limite db

y lac k o f informatio n o

n th e implici t

pric e o f n-butan e a t

th e refinery

. Market

price s reflec t

th e pric e a t

whic h refinerie s are willing t o sel l surplu s butanes , no t th e actua l valu e o

f butane s within th e refinery operation

.
Th e 198 6 pric e o

f butan e ha s not

bee n release db

y ITC , but

movement s i

n th e monthl

y Producer Pric e Inde

x a s well a s th e July 198 6 price s note di n Exhibit 2-1 0 indicate dtha t th e 198 6 pric e migh

t b e a s lo w a s 5 0 percen t o f th e 198 5 price

. Fo

r th e analysi s undertake n i

n thi s report , 198 6 productio n wa s value da t

$15.0 0 pe r barre l (al l butanes)

. Th e 198 6 price s o

f n-butan e an

disobutan e were $14.3 6 an d$16.3 9 per barrel , respectively

.

1 

### "Butanes, " SRI , p
. 300.3502J

3 10 0 

### e

r t O P 3 C D Cf l C O

C O o o • o o c n o t o 7 ! o o t o 

### 8 P c ra f D C O C

T w Cf l «- • 3 D C D a , B

B O

ra c »— * a rt fD 

### S ;>

O i o 3 3

_ ? ~ - 2

. ra o 3

o
•-» O l 5
-

O B ^ o » 

### 2 O 

## 2 c

o o i

_ 

### *_§

. 3 rt- 

## S T



## o 

## ° s

a o 

### 2

. ra" O 3 * C D 

## 8 I f C ! C O * 

## 8

. c ra

O B 3 

### a . 

## 8 a
C O 

### 5 *
rtCD

- I 3 0 Brtr—. o 3 a o

0 B a . ra C
- " • n 3

< - • 0 B 3 ra 0 B 3 Q

. —• C o O O " c rt a 3 ra c r 0 B Cf l ra a o 3 CX ra 3 Cf l ra Cf l

t o

0 B 3 Q , r-y C O

- 4 T J O C 3 

## era

• - J c r 0 B •T l -1 ra

ra Cf l T J ra ra
< ra t o co

o o o o O J c n o r C O C O C O C O C O

o o o o o o o o o o i b O O t O H * O C O C O C O C O C O -4-4-3-4- 4 C O o o - 4 O J c n C O C O C O C O C O -3-4-4-4- 4 i b C O t o 1-A ts t o t o C O c o t o I <f

c O J O J O J O J O J I C D t o o o - 4 O J c n |- »

H ON H H (ntoOOl H O c n c n O J o o
O O C O O J C O c n H
o o > b r-A r-A t-A t O t O

t o t o IS O t o t o t o t o o o t o i b o o t o t o t-yt1 h- » O O O C O 0 0 H » C O C O C O C O t o t o t o t o t o C O c o l b o o i b t o c n o o o i b t o o o c n o oooo o o

o co o t o o oooo o t o t o t o i b » b

oooo o ra

O

O B r—A .-, ( »

- » -I ra c o —LAA-, 05 O ra

t-A c n c n t o > b O O t o c n C O t o t o i b O J O c n t o c n O J t o • b c n t o t o o r-A l- » h- » H H 4»O 0 O - 4 O J O J t o o o t o t o t o

o o t-A t o i b t o C

O c o t o t o t o

• b l b l b O J O J 

## s o

ra r t -t ra H o 3 O C
- O B Cf l T > ra -t

C O o ooibcntoc o OJOJOJOJC n-4Cnooo4 H * c n i b O J c o C O I— > t o o o o C O l - l l b l b > b O

r-rtCf l

>-A C O O J c n tOtOtOtOO O h- » t- » •- » H H

OJOOCOibO O C O C O C O C O o O J C O I - 4 c o t o t o C O

o o 0 0 c n c o c o c n O J i1 o o o oooo o o ao O J o t o

oooo o o

o c n i o o t o 0 0 o o o o

oooo o

t-A t O OOCOOOCOl b I— A r-A A-A >-A *-A , 0 O 0 0 O H WJ W O O i b l b l b H - 4 l b C O C O co - 4 t o t o H * i—'i b •bcoi-'ojc n H O i Will i C O t o C O C O C O O i b t~-

r-A- H c

ra



### a

ra cfl ""CB D ra

2 

## S
2

. » ra 3 H X J o ra 3 T l 3

I 0 0 c r t C D 3 ra

o cr c rt O B 3 ra 

# 1

C O 

### a 5 5

- 3 C O > tr * w C O < > f 

### a w o
3 I 0 0 G > W > O

C O O 0 0 

### a > 5 S W w X a c
t o i 5 P

;" 0 i o

### EXHIBI T 2-10 ; U.S

. MARKE

T PRICE S FO RBUTANES 8 

### (cent s pe r

gallon ) P.3 8



### Februar y 197 9 Jul y 197 9 Januar y 198 0 Jul y 198 0 Januar y 198 1 Jul y 198 1 Januar y 198 2 Jul y 198 2 Januar y 198 3 Jul y 198 3 Januar y 198 4 Jul y 198 4 Januar y 198 5 Jul y 198 5 Januar y 198 6 Jul y 198 6 nContrac t 28.5-29. 5 55-8 0 75-8 5 43.5-4 7 65-6 8 52-5 3 48-5 0
65-6 8
70-71. 5 70-7 2
55-5 6 50-52. 5
55.5-5 6 48-48. 5 58-5 9 23-2 4 Butan e Spo t

31.5-3 2 77-8 0 86-8 7 43.0-43. 3 59.3-59. 5 58.25-5 9 45.8-46. 5 69.5-7 0
73.5-74. 5 66.5-6 7
55.5-5 6 48.8-49. 3
54.5-54. 8 47.5-48. 5 57-5 8 20-2 1 Isobutan e Spo t 39-4 0
100-11 0
110-11 6 67.5-68. 5 88-8 9 62.8-63. 5 51.5-5 3 79.5-8 0
74-7 6 71-71. 3
56.5-57. 3
51-5 2 53.8-5 4 54.5-55. 5 58-5 9 

### 25

At Mon t Belvieu , Texas , fo r

th e firs t week of th e month

.

Source : Oi l Buyers ' Guide

.

3 3P.3 9



### CHAPTE R3 :

TH EEFFECT O

FA MARKE

T PRIC E REDUCTIO

N O N BUTAN ESUPPLIER

S

Butan e supplier s ca

n be dividedinto tw o broadcategories : Refinerie s andNationa l Gas Liquid s (NGL

) processors
. Refiner s consume 9 0 percen t o f butane s consume di

nth e U.S

. an dproduc e about

75 percen t

o f domesti c production

. Thoug hne t purchaser s o

f butanes , aportio n o

f thei r productio n i s offere dfo r sal e as productio n doe s no t equal consumptio n plu s storag e capacity a t eac hrefinin g facility

. Th e quantity offere dfo

r sal e b y refiner s amounte dt o 3 7 million barrel s i n 1986

.
Th e secon dbroa

dcategory o

f butane s producer s ar e NG Lprocessors
. Sinc e al l productio n fro

mNG Lplant s i s consume db y othe r user s (NG

Lproducer s ar e no t
consumer s o

f butanes ) NG

Lproducer s ar e referre dt o a s ope n marke t producers

. Market production , a s definedb y th e Departmen t

o f Energ y an dindustr y analysts , equal s butane s offere dfo r sal e b y refiner s plu s butane s produce db y NG Lplant s plu s import s plu s inventor

y adjustments

. The breakdow n o f ope n marke t butanes , 198 6 is :

Sourc e Refiner y Productio n (Sold) Fiel dProductio n Import s Inventor y Adjustmen t

Tota l Millio n Barrel s 36. 7 103. 8 41. 0 (2.0 ) 179. 5 Percen t

20 5 8 2 3 

## I M (Source : Petroleu mSuppl y Annual , 1986 , p
. 24

)

Becaus e plant-specific estimate s ar e no t availabl e fo

r sale s fro

mrefinerie s o

r inventory adjustments , th e following analysi s of open market

butane s i s confine dt o fiel d(NG Lplant ) production

.
A n importan t

facto r i n th e analysi s o

f NG Lplan t operatio n i s plan t

ownership

. Whil

e i t i s conceptuall y simpl e t o divide butane s productio n between refinerie s (tha t consume
mos t o f th e butane s produced) an dNG Lproducer s (that

consum e no butanes), th e distinctio n i s misleading

. Whe n NG Lplan t ownership i s scrutinized , i t i s immediatel y

34P.4 0



### eviden t tha t mos t productio n of

butane s b y NG

Lplant s i s controlle dby oi l companie s tha t als o operat e refineries

. Th e "ope nmarket " concep t of NG Lplant s i s thu s overshadowe dwithth e understandin g tha t mor e tha n8 0 percen t

o f butan e productio ni n NG Lplant s i s represente dby plant s owne db y th e primar y consumers , oi l companies

. Moreover , thi s estimat e of oi l compan y ownershi p i s understate dbecaus e many NG L plant s tha t

ar e no t wholl y owne dby oi l companie s ma y hav e alarg e percentag e of thei r stoc k hel dby an oi l company
.

ANALYTICA LAPPROAC H

T o determin e th e effec t of areductio ninmarke t valu e o f butane s o

nsupplier s tha t coul dresul t

fro machang e i n RVPrequirements , supplier s wer e groupe db y compan y size

. Th e initia l dat ase t wa s develope dfro mestimate s of productio nfo r approximatel y 800 plants

. Afte r combinin g plant s by ownership , th e lis t wa s reduce dt o 11 4 companie s show n in Exhibi t 3-1

. The companie s ar e ranke db y volum e of butane s produced , th e las t

1 0 companie s on th e lis t reporte dtha t

n o butane s wer e produced

.

T o determin e th e effec t of areductio ninth e pric e of butan e onproducin g companies , 198 6 butane s production , fro mactua l reporte dproductio no r impute dproductio nbase d

o nreporte dra w NG

Lproduction , wa s multiplie dby th e estimate daverag e annua l pric e
o f butane s (separatel y fo r isobutan e andn-butane)

. To determin e th e dollar impac t o n
revenues , i t

wa s assume dtha t

areductio ninbutan e deman dcoul ddecreas e th e 198 6 pric e up t o 3 0 percent

. Estimate s of th e amoun t

of reduce drevenue s wer e mad e fo r
eac ho f 10 , 20 an d3 0 percen t

reductions , a s show ni nExhibi t 3-2

.

Anothe r approac ht o estimatin g impact s woul dinvolv e estimatin g th e petrochemica l floo r pric e of butane s an dincrementall y examinin g th e reductio ni nvalu e downt o th e

Al l plant s tha t

coul db e identifie da s wholly owne dwer e matche dwithth e appropriat e company
. Thus , eac hcompan y show n tha t i s liste da s havin g onl y on e plan t represent s a plan t tha t wa s no t identifie da s owne db

y acompan y distinc t

fro mth e plant

. Fo r

thos e plants , th e plan t

i s considere dt o b e th e compan y an dplan t revenue s ar e use dt o represen t compan y revenues
.

3 5EXHIBIT 3-1 : 198 6 BUTAN E SALE S B Y COMPANY (Thousand s o f

198 6 U.S
. DoUars ) P.4 1

Cotpjny Valu e o fDail y Butan e Salt *

Iso-C 4 n-C

4 Tota l Annua l Butan e Revenue s Estimate d

Plan t Revenues Cotpjn y

Revenue s tutan t

Revenue s a t a I o f Compan y o rPlan t Revenue s
1 Phillip s (1 ) 2 Eno n 3 Ttiac o 4 Shel l 5 Atoc o 6 Chevro n (2 ) 7 Conoc o 9 Hotn l 9 Occidenta l 1 0 Enro n 1 1 Valer o 1 2 Sun 1 3 Mitchel l 1 4 ARC O I S Burlingto n Nort h 1 6 Allied-Signa l ( 3 1 7 Departmen t o fEn I B US I 1 9 Coasta l 2 0 CS I 2 1 Ham s Energ y 2 2 Unio n Pacifi c 23 Tenneco 24 Enserc h 25 HilSa s C

o 26 Northves t P i pel i 27 Unoca l 2 8 Si d Richardso n C 2 9 Koch Hydrocarbo n 30 Cabo t Corp

. 3 1 Consolidate d 6a s 3 2 Uester n Sa

s Pro c 33 Daiso n 3 4 Tan l an d Indust r 3 5 Hes a 36 Kerr-KcSe e 37 Sunterr a 6a s Pr o 38 Placi d Oi l 39 Associate d 4 0 Seagul l 4 1 BH P Petroleu * 4 2 Claiborn e 6asol i 4 3 Colutbi a Sas Tr a 4 4 Anadark

o 45 NAPC O Vestpa n I n 4 6 Hunt Oi l 4 7 Endevc o 4 8 Plain s Petroleu i 49 Nat' l Heliu i 4

0 2 5 4 7 3 1 3 1 5 8 1 2 3 3 2 9 2 0 1 0 2 6 3 3 2 8 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 0 3 I 1 7 1 1 1 3 2 2 14 6 7 1 2 1 1 3 1 5 5 6 6 3 2 7 1 1 2 2 6 3 2 4 4 2 405.4 9 120.4 0 155.8 9 138.4 2 54.5 0 115.9 3 109.6 3 107.6 4 81.7 3 68.6 1 80.9 9 101.9 0 63.5 0 24.9 5 33.5 5 39.1 6 6.2 6 39.9 5 18.7 5 56.4 5 33.0 7 30.4 8 31.8 0 29.0 9 28.0 3 4.6 7 2.7 5 20.0 5 5.9 0 17.2 1 15.1 0 6.3 7 14.1 0 14.8 4 13.9 2 6.1 9 9.1 0 9.0 7 8.5 4 8.4 5 4.8 8 7.7 5 6.7 3 6.5 4 6.4 3 6.2 9 5.9 3 0.0 0 2.0 5 440.0 6 315.7 7 229.6 2 202.0 5 242.7 5 159.6 2 145.9 2 138.1 4 141.5 7 140.0 3 98.1 0 67.2 0 81.8 4 113.7 2 97.0 7 73.5 5 106.3 5 65.7 2 86.8 2 46.8 1 68.2 0 70.2 4 46.6 1 40.5 3 39.0 4 61.5 9 62.3 7 27.9 3 38.4 6 23.9 7 24.8 3 30.7 3 21.5 3 20.6 7 20.9 5 18.0 3 12.6 8 12.6 4 11.9 0 11.7 7 12.6 4 8.8 0 9.3 8 9.1 2 8.9 6 8.7 6 8.2 6 13.3 4 11.2 2 308,623.8 3 159,201.6 3 140,711.4 1 124,268.7 2 108,496.4 5 100,577.4 4 93,276.4 2 89,709.2 6 81,505.4 0 76,154.9 7 65,367.5 7 61,722.4 4 53,052.6 6 50,615.6 5 47,676.2 5 41,139.1 5 41,101.2 9 38,570.2 0 38,533.7 4 37,692.8 4 36,961.9 2 36,762.0 2 28,619.1 5 23,411.3 3 24,482.1 1 24,184.5 5 23,769.2 8 17,514.6 5 16,191.1 9 15,032.1 5 14,575.4 7 13,540.3 5 13,002.9 1 12,961.1 2 12,728.1 9 8,840.2 9 7,951.5 4 7,924.1 1 7,461.2 1 7,382.3 5 6,393.3 4 6,040.3 9 5,880.5 1 5,715.9 2 5,619.9 1 5,493.0 5 5,177.5 9 4,868.3 7 4,844.9 2 —

—
— —
— —
— — — —
— — —
—

-- -
— 103,493.8 0

—
—
—
—
— — — IS8,392.9 0 97,736.8 5

— 146,853.4 2 84,571.7 7

— 59,801.5 1 88,517.3 0

— 74,028.9 2

—
— 44,983.5 3 55,458.9 8 42,209.6 5 41,763.5 0 30,355.9 6 65,460.5 6 33,267.2 5

— 31,793.0 2 31,075.3 0

—
— 13,382.1 9 10,015,000.0 0

76,555,000.0 0 32,591,000.0 0 17,353,000.0 0 20,231,000.0 0 27,131,000.0 0 11,039,000.0 0 49,865,000.0 0 16,237,600.0 0 7,561,967.0 0 1,880,125.0 0 10,440,000.0 0 845,801.0 0 15,774,000.0 0 6,941,413.0 0 11,794,000.0 0 N A 15,009,000.0 0 6,718,100.0 0 6,345,000.0 0 2,543,500.0 0 6,688,000.0 0 14,617,000.0 0 228,034.0 0 M N A 8,253,000.0 0 M N A 1,320,106.0 0 N A N A 49,410.0 0 N A 359,638.0 0 2,569,000.0 0 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 209,254.0 0 N A N A 114,319.0 0 13,376.0 0 N A 3. 1

0. 2 0.4 0. 7 0.5 0.4 0. 8 0. 2 0. 5 1.0 3. 5 0. 6 6. 3 0. 3 0. 7 0. 3 39. 7 0. 3 0. 6 0. 6 1. 5 0. 5 0. 2 11. 1 15. 5 24. 7 0. 3 11. 9 19. 1 1. 1 24. 4 15. 3 26. 3 17. 5 3. 5 0. 3 17. 7 14. 3 17. 7 17. 7 21. 1 9. 2 17. 7 2. 7 17. 7 17. 7 4. 5 36. 4 36. 2

3 6Coipan y I

5 0 Davi s Sa

s Proce s < 51 S6S I Gatherin g 5 2 Davis , J.L

. ( 5 3 Arkl a 5 4 Resource

s Eitra c 5 5 Oklahom

a 6a s Pi p 5 6 SP 6 Eiploratio n 5 7 Adob e Resource

s 5 8 Brui n Petroleu i 5 9 Louisian a Lan

d t 6 0 Lad d Petroleu i 6 1 Enogei Producti o 6 2 Freeport-HcfloRa n 6 3 Hyin g J Inc

. 6 4 Vessel s 6 Proce

s 6 5 Standar

d 6 6 Southwes

t Fores t 6 7 Ralsto n Process i 6 8 dineral s Inc

. 6 9 FH P Operatin g C

o 7 0 Housto n Oi l I H i 7 1 Gar y Energ y Cor p 7 2 Hid-Ateric a 6a

s 7 3 Petrolan e Lotit a 7 4 Cene i 7 5 Petro-Hun t 7 6 Sant a F t 7 7 Parade 7 8 Tru e Oi l 7 9 NS L Productio n 8 0 SONAT , Inc

. 8 1 Celsiu s Energ

y 8 2 Michiga n Consol i 8 3 For t Chadbourn

t 8 4 Porta l 8 5 Unite d Teias Tr

a 8 6 Breckenridg e 8 7 Kansa s Refine d H 8 8 Cerrit o Lan

d 8 9 Serlan e Petrole u 9 0 Lakevill e Sa

s A s 91 Coor s Energ y 9 2 Eagl e 9 3 Brighto n 9 4 CN S Producin g C

o 9 5 W Su b In e 9 6 Mountai n Fue l R

t 9 7 Rock y Mountai n N 9 8 Deisenrot h Sa

s P 9 9 Pront o 10 0 Bear d Oi l Co

. 10 1 Cabi n Creek 10 2 Phillips , Jack

L 10 3 Berthou d 10 4 Double U Oi l 10 5 Plane t Engineer

s 10 6 Mill s Bennet

t E s 10 7 Black Hav k 10 8 Ancho r Sasolin e 10 9 Kentuck

y Hydroc a EXHIBI T3-1 : -(continued )

198 6 BUTAN E SALE S B YCOMPAN Y (Thousand s o f198 6 U.S

. Dollars )

Value o fDail y Butan e Salt s

.. . Iso-C 4

5.4 8 5.0 3 4.9 5 4.8 2 4.6 4 2.5 0 ! 0.2 9 2.9 6 i 2.9 1 2.7 1 ? 2.5 0 2.3 2
> 2.0 6 0.2 9 1 1.8 3 ! 0.0 0 1.4 1 0.0 0 I 1.23 1.1 9 S 1.1 5 2 0.9 2 3 0.7 3 2 0.9 8 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.6 8 2 0.5 6 3 0.4 7 1 0.4 4 0.4 2 1 0.3 9 I 0.3 9 1 0.3 7 1 0.2 9 2 0.2 9 1 0.2 4 1 0.2 4 0.2 4 I 0.2 2 0.1 8 2 0.I B 0.1 6 1 0.1 6 1 0.1 5 1 0.1 5 5 0.1 3 1 0.1 2 3 0.1 1 2 0.1 0 1 0.0 7 2 0.0 5 1 0.04 1 0.0 2 1 0.0 0 1 0.0 0 1 0.0 0 1 0.0 0 2 0.0 0 .. .

«-C 4

7.6 3 7.0 1 6.8 9 6.1 0 3.9 4 5.0 2 7.0 4 4.1 2 4.0 5 3.7 7 3.4 9 3.2 3 2.8 7 4.6 1 2.5 4 3.5 1 1.97 3.0 8 1.72 1.65 1.6 0 1.72 1.89 1.3 7 1.84 1.73 1.6 7 0.9 4 0.7 8 0.6 6 0.6 2 0.5 9 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 2 0.4 1 0.4 0 0.3 8 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 0 0.2 6 0.2 5 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.1 9 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 4 0.0 9 0.0 7 0.0 5 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Tota l

Annual Butane Revenue s

4,783.2 7 4,392.3 8 4,320.3 7 3,986.1 7 3,130.9 7 2,745.9 0 2,674.6 4 2,583.3 7 2,540.7 9 2,365.9 2 2,187.6 2 2,023.0 3 1,800.1 6 1,787.6 9 1,594.4 2 1,281.1 5 1,234.39 - 1,123.4 7 1,076.6 6 1,035.5 2 1,001.2 3 963.4 6 957.0 3

. 857.2 2 670.1 4 630.7 2 611.0 1 589.7 7 490.3 3 411.4 6 387.4 6 366.8 9 342.8 9 342.8 9 325.74 237.1 7 250.3 1 227.0 3 205.7 3 205.7 3 188.5 9 161.1 6 154.3 0 144.0 1 144.0 1 133.73 126.87 116.5 8 102.87 99.4 4 89.1 5 58.2 9 44.5 8 34.2 9 17.1 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Estitate d

Plan t Revenue s

28,822.9 0 24,848.6 0 24,441.2 5

.. . 19,666.2 0 12,061.0 6 17,469.8 4 14,625.9 5 14,373.7 8

.. . 46,275.1 8 38,089.7 1

— 4,582.0 5 9,019.9 8

— 6,983.2 1 4,784.4 2 6,090.9 1 5,858.1 4 17,800.4 1 7,498.9 3 11,563.9 3 5,319.5 7

— 2,769.2 6

— 3,336.4 2 2,773.8 9 2,327.7 4

— 2,075.5 7 1,939.7 8 1,939.7 8 1,842.7 9 1,500.4 6 1,416.0 4 791.3 2 2,171.2 7 1,163.8 7 1,066.8 8 911.7 0

951.5 8 814.7 1 756.5 1 717.7 2 659.5 3 581.9 3 562.5 4

375.3 9 252.1 7 193.9 8 96.9 9 1,558.7 0 501.8 8 912.5 0 2,646.2 5 98,002.5 0 Coipan

y Revenue s

N A N A N A 1,002,244.0 0 N A N A 24,105.0 0 N A N A 826,500.0 0 N A N A 770,959.0 0 N A N A 10,115,000.0 0 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 1,093,181.0 0 N A 110,100.0 0 N A N A N A 1,792,632.0 0 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 1,518.0 0 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A 15,333.0 0 N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A Butan

e Revenue s a s a I of Coipan y o r Pla t (evenut s

16. 6 17. 7 17. 7 0.4 15. 9 22. 8 11. 1 17. 7 17. 7 0. 3 4. 7 5. 3 0. 2 39. 0 17. 7 0. 0 17. 7 23. 5 17. 7 17. 7 5. 6 12. 8 8. 3 16. 1 0. 1 22. 8 0. 6 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 0. 0 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 1 17. 7 28. 7 9. 5 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 10. 2 15. 1 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 0. 6 15. 5 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0



### 3 7P.4 3

EXHIBI T 3-1 ; - (continued ) 198 6 BUTAN

E SALES B

Y COMPAN

Y (Thousand s o f

198 6 U.S
. DoUars)

Coipany

11 0 Lovelan d U l Perry 11 2 Sreele y Ga

s C o 11 3 Peoples Nat

. 11 4 Pennzoi 1 Ga

s P 1 a n t i

1 1 1 1 9 Valu e o

f Dail y Butan e

.. . Iso-C 4

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Salt s

.. . n-C 4

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Tota l

Annua l Butan e Revenue s

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Est!tate d

Plan t Revenue s

2,662.3 1 11,406.2 5 912.5 0 410.6 3 Coapiny

Revenue s

N A N A N A N A 1,921,223.0 0 lutan t

Rtvenue s a t a I o f Coipany or Plan t Revenue s

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
Total 81

0 2,226,072.2 2 1,676,365.7 6 398,964,438.0 0

N A - No t Availabl e (1 ) Phillip s Petroleu i Co
. doe s notreleas eplant
- o rstate-specifi cdata , onl y th e total s include d here
. (2 ) Chevron' s ga s capacit y figure s ar e incomplete , becaus eit s subsidiary , Warre nPetroleui , doe s no t releas ethi s intonation
. (3 ) Allied-Signal , Inc
. ovn s 50 1 o f Unio nTeia s Petroleu i Holdings , Inc
.
(Sources : Oi l an

d Sas Journal ; Jul y 13 , 1987 ; Moody' s Industria l Manual, 1987 ; Coipan y Annua l Report s )

3 8

### EXHIBI T 3-2 :

C O to I

2 3 4 3 6 7 •i 9 1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 * 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 i l 22 2 3

. 4

- 3 2 6 27 2 8

- 9 3 0 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 7 4 8 4 9 3 0 3 1 V P 1 4
n t Coapan u s

Phillip s <l ' Exro n Texac o SKel l fW: o Chevro n (2, Corwc o •tobi l O C Ti.J*

. .t» l Cnr.jr > Vtler o S u n nitcl.el l «e>: o Bur l inoto n Ikjrt h Hill* ) ii/u l • ? Departmen t o f F n •is: : Coasta l CS X tt»r,.i Fnercj u Unto n Pacifi c Tennec o Enj«rc h H i Hit s C o tfrjrtrwei t Pipe l i Ur»> : « l S i d RichM-tso n " 7

••>. h H'/tr.j

. rl» n Cabo t Corp

. Conjo l i. J jte> J Oa s Wester n '».» = lio c O m w FaraOw J liv>>j.»l. r rtes a I'e t r -H.;i»* e 'i^il.er t > Ov s F t

. > P|*:i J Oi l Asso c i at». J S e ag o 1 1 BH P Petrols*

. Claiborn e Gaso l l ColUK—I t » '-.J S l r a Hnadarl: o MflPiI O He.'tp m I n Hun t Oi 1 £!>)*•«:• » Plain s Patro l •*•« • •Ut ' I H e I i<j » Oav n '?» s Pro..e j 86> I 6ltrv? r uv j Dffii , l.L

. 4 0 2 3 4 7 3 1 3 1 3 8 1 ? 3 3 2 9 2 0 1 0 2 6 3 3 2 8 I I 1 3 3 3 3 2 0 3 1 1 7 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 1 2 1 1. 3 1 3 5 6 6 3 > 7 1 1 2 2 6 3 2 4 4 2 9 2 6 Estiaatec l Plan t feutnue s 198 6

- -

-

. . -

-

- 103,49 ?
—

- -

— —

138. 3 V 97,73 6
146,3 5 3 84,37 1

39.80 1 8 8 , 'il ?
74,02: ?

44,-':? ? "JS , 4-lmf
4*.2I: P 4 1 , 76 3 30.33 3 63,46 0 33,26 7

31..-- 0 31,07 3

13.38 2 2*,82 2 24,84: ) 24,44 1 8 0

9 0 :J 3

4 2 . ' 7

3 1 3 0

9 2

3 3 1 8 6 3 '>'. • 9 6 3 6 2 3

0 2 3 0

1 9 9 0 6 0 2 3 EFFEC TO F REVENUE S O F ABUTAN E PRIC E REDUCTIO N

Co*pan u Revemje s 198 6

10,013,00 0 76,555,00 0 32,391,i>30

. 17,353,00 0 20,231,1)00

. 27, 131,000. 11,039,000

. 49,865,1)0 0 16,237.600

. 7.361,••67

. l,i*30 , 123

. 1 0 , 440,"WO

. 845,301

. 13,774,'JilO

. 6,941,413

. 11.794,000

. 11 0 I3,'>"J9,'.«)'J

. 6,718,100

. 6,343,nO0

. 2,343,300

. 6,638,000

. 14,617,000

. 228,034

. m i I I H 8,. > 3:<.!».ii ' Ill l 11 0 1,320 , UV , 11 0 I I H 49,4io

. 11 0 359,630

. 2.569,000

. II H 11 0 II H M O II O I f l I f l 209,231

. I I H 11 0 114,319

. 1 3

. 376

. I I H U H

•f l I I H 0 0 • » i ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1)1 ) 1) 0 0 0 • X I <x > l.» ) l » 0 0 0 0 1)1 )

0 0
•> 0 111 ) •J O 0 0 0 0

• r.)

'» >

0 0

IH )

• -"' • III )

n O

0 0 • X I B u t art e Revenue s <lnous»*_ * o f 198 6 U

.% < ; : o f Tot * l C'Mi p an u or Plan t Revenue s 198 6

3 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 7 0 . 5 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 5 1 . 0 3 . 5 0 . 6 6 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 7 0 . 3 31. 7 0 . 3 0 . 6 0 . 6 1 . 5 0 . 5 0 . 2 l l

. 1 15. 5 24. 7 0 . 3 11. 9 1 '

. 1 1

. 1 24. 4 13. 3 26. 3 17. 5 3 . 5 0 . 3 17. 7 14. 3 17. 7 17. 7 2 1

. 1 9 . 2 17. 7 2.7 17. 7 17. 7 4 . 5 36. 4 36. 2 16. 6 17. 7 17. 7 IVVHJ- 1

B u t an * Revenue s 198 6 Pric e
308,623.8 3 159,201.6 3 140,711.4 1 124,268.7 2 108,496.4 5 100,577.4 4 93,276.4 2 89,709.2 6 81,305.40 - 76,134.9 7 65,367.5 7 61,722.4 4 53,032.6 6 5"),615.6 3 47,676.2 5 41,139.1 5 41,101.2 9 38,570.2 0 38,533.7 4 37,692.8 4 36,961.9 2 36,762.0 2 28,619.1 5 25,411.3 3 24,482.1 1 21,184.5 3 23,769.2 8 17,514.6 5 16,191.1 9 15,032.1 5 14,575.4 7 13,540.3 5 13,002.9 1 12,961.1 2 12,728.1 9 8,840.2 9 7.951.5 4 7.924.1 1 7,-161.2 1 7,382.3 5 6,393.3 4 6,1)40.3 9 5,880.5 1 5,715.9 2 5,619.9 1 3,493.0 5 5,177.3 9 4,868.3 7 4,844.9 2 4.783.2 7 4,392.3 8 4,320.3 7 Dolla r

Cos t
o f a 1 0 •/. Reductio n i n Pric e

30,862. 4 13,920. 2 14,071. 1 12,426. 9 10,849. 6 10,057. 7 9,327. 6 8,970. 9 8,150. 5 7,615. 5 6,536. 8 6,172. 2 5,303. 3 5,061. 6 4,767. 6 4,113. 9 4,110. 1 3,857. 0 3,833. 4 3,769. 3 3,696. 2 3,676. 2 2,861. 9 2,341. 1 2,448. 2 2,418. 5 7,376. 9 1,751. 5 1,619. 1 1,303. 2 1,457. 5 1,354. 0 1,300. 3 1,296. 1 1,272. 8 884. 0 795. 2 792. 4 746

. 1 738. 2 631. 3 604. 0 588

. 1 571. 6 362. 0 549. 3 517. 8 486.: ? 484. 5 478. 3 439. 2 432. 0 . S

.

Per c Dro p Tot a Dollar- )

e n t i n 1 Revenue s

0.3 1 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 7 0.0 5 0.0 4 0.0 8 0.0 2 0

. 0 5 0

. 1 0 0.3 3 0.0 6 0.6 3 0.0 3 0

. 0 7 0.0 3 3.9 7 0.0 ) 0.0 6 0.0 6 0

. 1 5 0.0 3 0.0 2 1

. 1 1 1.3 1 2.4 7 0 0 3 1

. l i 1.9 1 0

. I I 2.4 4 1.5 3 2.6 3 1.7 5 0.3 5 0.0 3 1.7 7 1 4 ? 1

. 7 7 1.7 7 2

. I I 0

. > 2 1.7 7 0 2 7 1.7 7 1

. 7 7 0

. 4 3 3.6 4 3.6 2 1.6 6 1.7 7 I 7 7 Dolla r Cos t
o f a 2 0 •/. Reduc t io n i n Pric e

61,724. 8 31,840. 3 2 8 , 142. 3 24,853. 7 21,699. 3 2 0 , 115. 5 18,655. 3 17,941. 9 16,301. 1 15,231. 0 13,073. 5 12,344. 5 10,610. 5 1 0

. 123

. 1 9,5.35. 2 8,227. 8 8,220. 3 7.714. 0 7

. 71)6

. 7 7,538. 6 7 . 3 '2. 4 7,352. 4 5

. 723

. 0 5,082. 3 4.896. 4 4 . 8 J6

. ' • 4,753. 9 3,502. 9 3,238. 2 3.0i)6. 4 2,915

. 1 2.7o3

. 1 2,6'XJ. 6 2.592. 2 2,545. 6 1 , 763

. 1 1,590. 3 1.584

. 8 1,492

. _ 1.476. 5 1.273. 7 1.208

. 1 I

. 176

. 1 1 , 143. 2 1 , 124. 0 l.0'8. 6 1.035. 5 973

. 7 9.79

. 0 956. 7 378. 5 864

. 1 Ptr.:

Dro p -rn t

i n Tota l Revenue s

0.6 2 0.0 4 0.0 9 0

. 1 4 0

. 1 1 0.0 7 0

. 1 7 0.0 4 0

. 1 0 0.7 0 0 7 0 0

. 1 2 1.2 5 0.0 6 1.1

. 1 4 0.0 7 7.9. 1 0.0"

. 0.1 1 0

. 1 2 0.2 > 0

. 1 1 0.0 4 2-2 1 3.0 9 4.r > 1J.1V > 2.3 9 3.8 3 0.2 ) 4 - 8 7 3.0 6 5.2 6 3.5 0 0.7 1 0.0 7 3.5 4 2-3 6 3.5 1 3.5 1 4.2 1 1.8 5 .3.5 4 0.5 5 .3.5 4 3.3 4 0.9 1 7.2 8 7.2 4 3.3 7 3.5 4 3.3 4 D o 1 ta r

Cos t
•> fa 3 0 7. Reductio n i n Pric e

92.587

. 1 4 7 , 76i)

. 5 42,213. 4 37,280. 6 32,543. 9 3 0 , 173. 2 27.932. 9 26,912. 8 2 4 , 4'

. 1. 6 22,846. 5 19,610. 3 18,516. 7 15,9|5. 3 15.134. 7 14.307. 9 17,3 4 1. 7 12.330. 4 11,571

. 1 1 1 , 360

. 1 1 I.3i.i7. 9 I 1,0:33. 6 11,028. 6 8.505

. 7 7,623. 4 7

. 344. 6 7.753. 4 7

. 1 (". a 3

. 254. 4 4,837. 4 4,509. 6 4,372. 6 4.062. 1 3,-x». 9 3,833. 3 3.813. 5 2.652. 1 2,335

. 5 2.S77.2 2.233. 4 2.214. 7 t,''l3. 0 1,312. 1 1

. 764. 2 1.714. 3 l,6:i6. 0 1,647. 9 1,553

. 3 1.460. 5 1,433. 5 1 . 4 33. 0 1.317. 7 1.296. 1 Percen t

Or.v p i n lot s I Revem*e s

0.9 2 i).i) 6 0.1 3 0.2 1 0

. 1 6 0

. I I 0.2 5 0.1) 3 0

. 1 5 0.3 0 1

. 0 4 0

. 1 3 1.8 3 0

. 1 0 0.2 1 0

. 1 0 I I ? | 0.0 0 0

. 1 7 0.1 3 0.4 4 0

. 1 6 0.0 6 3.7-1 4 4.6 4 7

. Ar0.0 9 3.5 8 5

. 7 4 ' J

. 3 4 7.3 1 4.5 9 7

. 8 * 5.2 5 1

. 0 6 0

. U l 5.3 0 4.2> 5.3- j 5.3 0 6

. 3 2 2

. 7 7 5.3 0 0.3 2 5.3 M 3.3 0 1.3 6 10.- v 10.3 6 4.9 0 5.3 o 5.3 0 

# }EXHIBI T 3-2 : —(continued )

Coapan y

3 3 ftrUta 5 4 Resource ? Ex M a c 3 5 O k I aftoa a Ga s Pi p St

. SP G E»p>'. « atio n 3 7 Ffck4> e Resource s 3 6 B i •!)• •F'eiroleu a 3 9 Louisian a Lan d t> 6 0 Lad d P«-t > oleu a 6 1 Encve x Pioducti o 6 2 Freep w» . McfloRa n 6 3 Flyin g J Inc

. 6 4 Ve*seI s ft

F' I c« s t> 5 Standa t d tut, Southwel l F wes t 6 7 Ralsto n Pr<-cesr i t> 8 Hine t al s Inc

. 6 9 r wOp*- , 4i.ii.c i C o 7 0 Hourlo n Oi I 4 H i 7 1 bm y Ene i y y Cw p 7 2 r1id-rt»e i ic a 0- F 7; : Petrol-if - Lcwiii a 7 4 te.** : 7 3 le> i n-Hm. i 7t

. <.»,> a T e 7 7 Parad e 7 H T i •« •O i 1 7 9 Mt*

. P i <«)>„: •in, 6 0 «tt*H , IK

. 8 1 (*l?lu f F i t*- i y y 8 2 Hicriiy_t i l'H,r<.l i 8 3 fo, t, Chadt-i m i,* - 8 4 If

. I a l 8 5 Lk.itc- d t»-sa s T i a ft*. l»-ecte< « idy*

. 6 7 )«,? » (•••• i ii.e d I I 8t : t e . i 1 1 <

> I aii d 6 9 6e i la * I*ir,.,l« i 9 0 l_l-e" i 1 1« - Oi ? H s 9 1 Co ws Fi « c m 9 2 Cattl e 9 3 l » i^ii- m 9 4 CMC

. l l •<+._ : I IK l •o ST

. M M <:_t

. In e 9*

. Mountai n Fue l P« - 9 7 Rock u Mountai n I I 9* 3 CieiSM

. ...•! •C-_ r P 9 9 P i mi( i H * i t'-ea i d I.I i I to

. IC H CatO n t i **•

. ICi

_ Ph i I I ten

. .'ac t 10 3 Be

. thou d 10 4 OouM e t l "i l F1
a i i t
s

7 1 1 2 1 5 2 2

, 4 i 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 3 i 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 i 1 2 1 1 I i 1 1 1
r. 1 I 1 1 1 6
» 1 i

, ? 1 2 1 1 EFFEC TO F REVENUE S O F ABUTAN E PRIC E REDUCTIO N

Esti*-ate> J Plan t Pevemje s 198 6

19,666.2 0 12.iJ6l.0 6 17,469.8 4 14,625.9 5 14,373.7 8 46,275.1 3 38,iW9.7 l 4,582.0 3 9,019.9 8
6.983.2 1 4,784.4 2 6.091).9 ( 5,358.1 4 17,300.4 1 7,498.9 3 11,563.9 3 5,3 1 '.5 7 7,769.2 6 3,336.4 2 2,773.:» 9 2 , J27.7 4
2.U75.5 7 1,939.7 3 1 ,939.7 8 1.342.7 9 l,50>>.4 6 I,4I6.I X 791.3 2 2,171.2 7 1,163.8 7 1.066.3 8 911.7 0
•51.5 8 314.7 1 756.5 1 :\r.?2 6 5 '.5 3 531.9 3 •>62.5 4
375

. 3 9 252.1 7 l>3.9 8 •V.

. 9 9 Coapan y

Revenue s 198 6

1,1)02,744

. I I H I I H 2 4 , 105

. I I H I I H 826,500

. H H H H 770,959

. I I H I I H 1 0 , I15,i)00

.

H H I I H H H H H I I H H H I f ) I I H l,i)93 , 181

. H H 1 in , 100

. H H N H I I H 1.792.632

. I I H H H I I H I I H H H I I H lil t I I H H H I I H I I H 1.513

. I I H H H I I H H H t i n o n III ) 15,3 3 3

. I I H H H I I H I f ) Oi )

0 0

0 0

0 0

i »

0 0

0 0

' X I

, III )

. ' ".' I B u t .an e Revervje s

« s (Thousand s o f

a 7. o fTota l Compan y
o r Re-

. Plan t •enue s 198 6

0 . 4 15. 9 22. 8 11. 1 17. 7 17. 7 0 . 3 4 . 7 5 . 3 0 . 2 39. 0 17. 7

. 0 17. 7 23. 3 17. 7 17. 7 5 . 6 12. 8 8 . 3 16. 1 0

. 1 22. 8 0 . 6 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7

. 0 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17

. 1 17. 7 28. 7 9 . 5 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 10. 2 15. 1 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 0 . 6 15. 5 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 ftonua l Butan e Revenue s 198 6 Pric e

3 , 3 , 2 2 2 , 2 , 2, 2 2

., 1 , 1 , I , 1 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , ,986.1 7 ,130.9 7 ,745.9 0 ,674.6 4 ,585.3 7 ,340.7 9 ,365.9 2 ,187.6 2 ,023.0 3 ,800.1 6 ,787.6 9 ,394.4 2 ,281.1 3 ,234.3 9 ,123.4 7 ,076.6 6 ,035.3 2 ,001.2 3 963.4 6 957.0 3 857.2 2 670.1 4 630.7 2 611.0 1 589.7 7 490.3 3 411.4 6 387.4 6 366.3 9 342.8 9 342.3 9 325.7 4 257.1 7 250.3 1 227.0 3 205.7 3 205.7 3 188.5 9 161.1 6 154.3 0 144.0 1 144.0 1 133.7 3 126.8 7 116.5 8 102.3 7 99.4 4 3 9

. 1 5 38.2 9 44.3 8 34.2 9 17

. 1 4 Doll

. Cos t o f a 1 0 V. 198 6 U

• r

Reductio n i n Pric e

398. 6 313. 1 274. 6 267. 5 258. 5 234. 1 236. 6 218. 8 202. 3 180. 0 178. 8 139. 4 128. 1 123. 4 112. 3 107. 7 103. 6 100. 1 96. 3 93. 7 85. 7 67. 0 63. 1 61. 1 59. 0 49. 0 41. 1 38. 7 36. 7 34. 3 34. 3 32. 6 23. 7 23. 0 22. 7 20. 6 20. 6 18. 9 16

. 1 13. 4 14. 4 14. 4 13. 4 12. 7 11. 7 10. 3 9.' ' 3 . 9 5 . 8 4 . 5 3 . 4 1 . 7 . S

. Oo i lars )
Percen t Dro p Tot a •i n 1 Revenue s

0.0 4 1-5 9 2.2 3 1

. 1 1 1.7 7 1.7 7 0.0 3 0.4 7 0.5 3 0.0 2 3.9 0 1.7 7 . 0 0 1.7 7 2.3 5 1.7 7 1.7 7 0.5 6 1.2 3 0-8 3 1.6 1 0.0 1 2.2 3 0.0 6 1.7 7 1.7 7 1.7 7 . O n 1.7 7 1

. 7 7 1.7 7 1.7 7 1

. 7 1 1.7 7 2.8 7 0.9 5 1.7 7 1.7 7 1.7 7 1.0 2 1.5 1 1.7 7 1.7 7 1.7 7 1 r: t

. 7? 1

. 7 7 0 0 6 1.5 5 1.7 7 1

. 7 7 1.7 7 Oo i I Cos t o f a 2 0 7. » r

Reductio n i n Pric e

797. 2 626. 2 549. 2 534. 9 517. 1 508. 2 473. 2 437. 5 404. 6 360. 0 337. 5 318. 9 256. 2 246. 9 224. 7 215. 3 207

. 1 200. 2 192. 7 191. 4 171. 4 134. 0 126

. 1 172. 2 113. 0 >8

. 1 32. 3 77. 5 73. 4 68. 6 68. 6 6 5

. 1 51. 4 5 0

. 1 45. 4 4 1

. 1 41. 1 37. 7 32. 2 30. 9 28. 8 28. 8 26. 7 25. 4 23. 3 20. 6 19. 9 17. 8 11. 7 8 . 9 6 . 9 3 . 4 Percen t Dr.j p t n Tota l Revenue s

0.O 8 3

. 1 8 4.5 5 2.2 2 3.5 4 3.5 4 0.O 6 0.9 5 1.0 6 0.O 5 7.8 0 3.5 4 .•X ) 3.3 4 4

. 7 0 3.5 4 3.5 4 1

. 1 2 2.5 7 1.6 6 3.2 2 0.0 1 4.5 6 0

. I t 3.5 4 3.3 4 3.5 4

. i> i 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.3 4 3.4 3 3.5 4 5

. 7 4 I

. •> •• 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 2.0 ) 3.0 3 3.3 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.5 4 3.3 4 0

. 1 2 3 l l 3.5 4 3.3 4 3.3 4 Oo i 1 Cos t o f a 3 0 7. a r

Reductio n i n Pric e

1 ,195. 8 939

. 3 8<;3. 8 802. 4 775. 6 762. 2 709. 8 636. 3 606. 9 540. 0 536. 3 4 78. 3 384. 3 3.0. 3 337. 0 323

. 0 310. 7 300. 4 289. 0 287

. 1 257

. 2 201. 0 189. 2 133. 3 176. 9 147

. 1 123. 4 1 16. 7 ll. l 1 1M2. 9 102. 9 •7

. 7 .'?. 1 75

. 1 6 8

. 1 •71

. 7 6 i

. ; • 56. 6 •1 3 3 4 6 3 •13. 2 •13. 2 4 0 I 3 3

. 1 3 5

. 0 3 0

. 9 .'9. 3 2 6 7 17. 5 13. 4 10. 3 3

. 1 Percen t Dro p i n Tota l Re.ienue s

0

. 1 2 4

. 7 8 6.8 3 3.3 3 5.3 0 5.3 U 0.0 9 1.4 2 1.5 9 0.0 7 11.7 0 5.3 0 - 0 O 5

. J O 7.0 4 5.3 0 5.3 0 1.6 9 3.3 5 2.4 8 4.8 3 0.0 2 6.8 3 0

. 1 7 5

. 3> > 5 3> J 5.3 0 0.0 1 5.3 " 5.3 u 5.3i > 5

. 3 D 5

. 1 4 5.3i ) 3.6 1 2.8 4 5

. 3 0 5

. 3 M 5

. ?I J J. 0 3 4

. 5- 1 5.3- 1 5.3 0 5

. 3 u 5.3 0 5.3 0 5

. ?• • '•

. 1 7 4 6 6 5.3 0 5

. ?. l 5 3 0

### EXHIBIT 3-2 ; —(continued ) EFFEC T OF REVENUE S OF A BUTAN E PRIC E REDUCTION 

# 1

COMp-t'U

J P

1 a t i t P

10 5 Pla»ie

» Enginee * s 10 6 Hill ? E'Wie M 10 7 Blac k Han k 10 6 fktct-ic

r Gaso l • 10 9 Kentuck y

Hue * 11 0 Lovelan ll l Perr y E s

ti e oc a

11 2 Greele y

Ga r C o 11 3 People ? Hat . 11 4 Petnzo i 1 Ga s Estimate d Plan t Revenue s 198 6

1 1,598.7 0 1 501.3 8 1 912.5 0 1 2,646.2 5

_98,002.5 0 1 2,662.3 1 1 11,406.2 5 1 912.5 0 1 410.6 3 < . Company

Revenue s 198 6

H R H R 

### n n H R H R H R m H R Hf l 1,921,223 . B' J t an e

Revenue s a s C o o r <Thousand s

* : : ofTota l npan y Plan t Revenue s 198 6

0 0 0. 0

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Rnnua l Butan e Revenue s 198 6 P r i >; e
0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 j f 193 6 U.S . Dolla r Cos t o f 1 0 R e in a y *JC t io n Pric e

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Per c Dro p Tot a O o 1 I -r

s >

en t in 1 Revenue s

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0' J 0.0 0 0.0 0 O o lia

r Cos t o f 2 0 3 7. Redu.: t i n P r i io

n : e

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Dolla r Percen t Los t Percen t Dro p i n o f a Dro p i n Tota l 3 0 7. Iot a I Revenue s Reductio n Revenue s

i n Pric e

0.01 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0. 0

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
To»a l 8 1 0 1,676,365.7 6 398,964,438.0 0 2,226,072.2 2

N R = Mo t Hvailabl eP.4 7



### theoretica l floo

r price

. Thi s approac hwas undertake n previousl y , andrecen t

marke t performanc e ha s demonstrate dtha t th e petrochemica l floo

r pric e i s amovin

g targe t subjec t t o extrem e fluctuations

. Becaus e th e petrochemica l floo r pric e i s closel y aligne dt o th e pric e o

f crude an dth e pric e o

f butan e i s als o closely linkedwit hth e pric e
o f crude , analyzin g on

e i n term s o f th e othe r

represent s ahazardous , circular pat ho f analysis

. Whil

e th e relativ e pric e relationship s i n astabl e marketplac e ca n b e expecte d t o b e stable , th e hazardo f estimatin g actua l price s i s indicate db y revie w o

f th e 198 5 estimate s o

f th e petrochemical floo

r price : $20.2 6 pe

r barrel

. Th

e 198 6 pric e o

f butan e was $15.0

0 pe r barre l an

dtheoreticall y th e 198 6 petrochemica l floo r pric e was lower than $15.0

0 pe r barrel

. However , ther e ar e anumbe r o f indication s tha t

th e 198 6 pric e level s represente dabottomin g out o f th e petrochemica l floo

r price , specifically , th e 198 6 pric e o

f propan e was approximatel y equal t o th e 198 6 pric e o f butanes

. Moreover , th e 198 6 price s fo r al l fuel s were s o lo

w tha t producer s wer

e cripple da s the y attempte dt o recover

operatin g cost s fro

mth e differenc e betwee n th e price s receive d fo r thei r product s an

dth e cos t

o f thei r feedstock

. Thus , th e reade r i s referre dt o th e previou s study fo

r a n analysi s o

f relativ e energ y produc t

price s i n astabl e marketplac e
andcautione dtha t

198 5 price s didno t

represen t

stabl e price s fo

r petrochemica l feedstoc k no r ahealth y industr

y environment

.

T o summariz e th e effec t

o f pric e reduction s o

n 198 6 companie s a t

198 6 prices , Exhibit 3- 3 group s al l companie s b y percentag e decreas e i

n revenue s fo

r eac ho f 10 , 2 0 and3 0 percen t reductions

. A

t a3 0 percen t reduction , 79 percen t

o f al l butane s ar e produce d b y companie s tha t

los e les s tha

n on e percen t o f tota l revenues
. It

shouldbe note dtha t
mos t o f th e companie s tha t

los e mor

e than 3 percen t

o f tota l revenu e (1 4 percen t o f production ) represen t

singl e plant

companies , i.e. , plant s tha t couldno t

b e identifie d fro msecondar

y source s a s bein g par t

o f alarge r company
. Som

e o f thes e plant s ma

y actuall y b e part

o f alarge r company
. Additionally , alarg e numbe r o f th e independent (plant-specifi c companies ) producer s tha t ar e no t wholl y owne db y larg e companie s ar e in man y instance s owne

di n part b y large r companies

. Fo

r example , perusal o

f Moody' s informatio n indicate s tha t Phillip s owns partia l interes t i n 1 8 plants ; Shell , 2

2 plants ; Ker r McGee , 1 8 plants ; Occidental , 4 0 plants ; andUnocal , 2

9 plants

. Whil

e secondar

y

Jac k Faucet t Associates , "Th

e Butane Industry : A

n Overview an

dAnalysi s o

f th e Effect s o f Gasoline Volatilit

y Contro l o

n Price s andDemand, " 1985

.

4 2P.4 8

EXHIBI T 3-3 : LOS S O F REVENUE S B Y NUMBE RO F COMPANIE S AN D PERCEN T O F TOTA L BUTAN E PRODUCTIO N FROM A 10 , 20 , AN D 3 0 PERCEN T PRIC E REDUCTION

Magnitud e o f Pric e Reductio n

Los s o f Revenue s

< 1 X 1-1.99 X 2-2.9 9 X 3-3.9 9 X 4-4.9 9 X 5-5.9 9 X 6-6.9 9 X 7-7.9 9 X 8-8.9 9 X 9-9.9 9 X 10-10.9 9 X 11-11.9 9 X

Tota l m t m 1 0 X iitit t

Co i

- panie s

4 3 4 9 8 4

10 4 X o f Butan e Productio n

86. 0 8. 7 2. 8 2. 5

100. 0 m m * 2 0 X tft m Co i

- panie s

3 6 6 6 4 4 6 2 0 4

10 4 X o f Butan e 'roductio n

83. 1 2. 8 2. 5 6. 3 2. 2 0. 6

• . . 2. 4

99. 9 m m t 3 0 X m m Co i pa m - e s

3 2 7 3

• 5 8 3 7 3 4 1 0 2 2

10 4 X o f Butan e Productio n

79. 3 6. 4 0. 3 2. 1 2. 5 4. 1 0. 4 2. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 4 1. 9

99. 9



### 4 3

### informatio n an dlimite dresource s prevente dth e comprehensiv e analysi s o f ownership , i t i s clear tha t most NG Lproductio n o

f butane s i s owne

db y larg e companie s andmos t
o f th e larg e companie s ar e directl y involve di n th e oi l industr

y (full y integrate doi l companie s or

larg e independent

producers)

.
T o demonstrat e th e exten t o f ownership b

y typ e o f company , Exhibit

3-4 classifie s th e 3 0 larges t

butan e producers

. TTies e producer s i

n tota l produc e 9

0 percen t o f al l butanes

. O

f th e top 3

0 producers , 1 4 ar e integrate doil companie s and9 ar e larg e independents

. Thes e tw o categorie s contro l 7 8 percen t o f tota l butan e productio n fro m NG Lprocessors
. Total productio n b y oi l companie s include s thi s productio n plu s productio n fro

mth e remainin g NG

Lproducer s tha t

ar e wholl

y owne db y oi l companie s plu s th e extensiv e partia l ownership o f othe r companies

. I

n summary , i t

i s likel y tha t th e oi l industr

y owns mor

e than 8 5 percen t

o f al l butane s productio n i n th e Unite d States

.
SUMMAR Y

Th e ope n marke t suppl y (includin g import s an dinventory changes ) o f butane s wa s 179. 5 million barrel s i

n 1986

. O

f thi s total , 2

0 percen t was produce db

y refinerie s anda

n estimate d4

9 percen t wa s produce db

y NG Lplant s owne

db y oil companies

. O

f th e remainin g 3 1 percent , 2

3 percen t wa s importe dleavin g onl

y a n estimate d8 percen t (14. 4 million barrels ) o

f tota l U.S

. supply produce db y U.S

. companie s othe r

than oi l companies

. Withi

n tha t 8 percen t

i s th e U.S

. Departmen t

o f Energy productio n o

f 1. 8 million barrel s i

n 1986

.
Fo r th e majorit

y o f butane-producin g companies , th e effec t o f areductio n i

n th e pric e
of butan e o n tota l revenue s i s trivia l an di n th e short

term , unavoidable

. Specifically , mos t productio n i s undertake n b y larg e oi l companie s an dth e inability o

f thes e companie s t o offse t

pric e decrease s i

n one produc t

b y increasin g th e pric e o

f anothe r produc t i s th e underlyin g basi s o f th e tremendousl y decrease dprofit s earne di n 198 6 compare dt o prior

years
. T

o th e exten t

tha t adecreas e i

n th e valu e o

f n-butan e reduce s th e value o

f th e wellheadpric e o

f ra w natura l gas , th e owner s o f natura l ga s well s ma y suffe r decrease s i

n revenues
. I

n hydrocarbo n production , product s compet e directl y andindirectl y wit heac hothe r

andprice s ar e determine do n arelativ e Bt

u basis , conditione db

y purchaser s ability t o substitut e differen t products

. Whe

n a relativ e pric e declin e fo

r butan e i s considere di

n th e framewor

k o f 198 6 productio n and

4 4P.5 0



### EXHIBI T 3-4 : 198 6 PRODUCTIO

N O F BUTANE

S B Y TH E TO P30 PRODUCER

S B Y COMPAN

Y CLASSIFICATIO

N (Thousands of

Gallon s perDay)

Classificatio n Integrate d Oi l Companies Ran k Coipan y

Larg e Independen t Producer s o f Oi l S

r Ga s 1 Phillip s Petroleu i Co . 2 Exxo nCorp . 3 Texaco , Inc . 4 Shel l Oi l Co . 5 Aioc o Corp . 6 Chevro n Corp

. 8 Mobi l Corp

. 9 Occidenta l Petroleu i Corp . 1 2 SunCo . 1 4 Atlanti c Richfiel dCorp . 1 9 Coasta l Corp . 2 1 flaxu s Energy , Inc . 2 3 Tenneco , Inc . 2 7 Unio nOi l Coipany

o f Californi a

7 E.I . D uPon t d e Neiours , Inc . (Conoco ) 1 0 Enro nCorp . 1 1 Valer o Energ y

Corp . 1 3 Hitchel l Energ y

an dDevelopien t Co . 2 4 Enserc hCorp . 2 5 Hi I Ga s Co . 2 8 Si dRichardso nCarbo n. Gasolin e Co . 2 9 Koc hHydrocarbo nCo . 3 0 Cabo t Corp . Tota l Iso Butan e

664. 7 197. 4 255. 6 226. 9 89. 3 190. 1 176. 5 134. 0 167. 0 40. 9 30. 7 54. 2 52. 1 4.5 Tota l Nora. l Butan e

814. 9 584. 8 425. 2 374. 2 449. 5 295. 6 255. 8 262. 2 124. 5 210. 6 160. 8 126. 3 86. 3 115. 5 1 Tota l Butan e

1,479. 6 782. 1 680. 8 601. 1 538. 9 485. 7 432. 3 396. 2 291. 5 251. 5 191. 5 180. 5 138. 4 120. 0 'ercent of Tota l Cumulativ e 'roductionPercen t

13.6 9 7.2 4 6.3 0 5.5 6 4.9 9 4.4 9 4.0 0 3.6 7 2.7 0 2.3 3 1.7 7 1.6 7 1.2 8 1.1 1

179. 7 112. 5 132. 8 104. 1 47. 7 45. 9 32. 9 9. 7 28. 2 270. 2 259. 3 181. 7 151. 6 75. 0 72. 3 51. 7 71. 2 44. 4 449. 9 371. 8 314. 4 255. 7 122. 7 118. 3 84. 6 80. 9 72. 6 4.1 6

3.4 4 2.9 1 2.3 7 1.1 4 1.0 9 0.7 8 0.7 5 0.6 7
Pipelin e Companie s

Corporation s no t Concen tratedinHydrocarbo n Productio n

Governmen t 2 6 Northwes t Pipelin e Corp .

1 5 Burlingto nNorthern , Inc . 1 6 Allied-Signal , In

e
1 8 US XCorp . 2 0 CS XCorp . 2 2 UnionPacifi c Resource s Co . 7. 7

55. 0 64. 2

65. 5 92. 5 50. 0 114. 1

179. 8 136. 2

121. 7 86. 7 130. 1 121. 7

234. 8 200. 4

187. 2 179. 2 180. 0 1.1 3

2.1 7 1.8 5

1.7 3 1.6 6 1.6 7

1 7 U.S . Departlen t o f Energ y

Total : To p3 0 Producer s
Total : Al l Companie s 10. 3 196. 9 207. 2 1.9 2

3,322. 5 6,429. 0 9,751. 5 90.2 4

3670. 2 7136. 1 10,806. 4 60.8 0

17.3 1

1.1 3

4.0 2

5.0 6

1.9 2

(Source : Oi l an d Ga

s Journal , Jul y13 , 1987. ) 4 5P.5 1



### revenues , adecreas e i

n th e marke t

pric e o f butane s will resul t

i n ashort-ter mdecreas e (slight) i n revenue s o

f th e oil an

dga s industry

. Th

e longer ru n respons e wil l b e t o modif y productio n processe s so a s t o maximiz e profit s i n light o f arelativel y lower marke t valu e fo r butanes

.
Whil e toda y NG Lplan t butan e productio n i s largel y controlle db y th e oi l industry , th e industr y ma y choos e t o dives t

thi s ownership i

f face dwit

hadrop i

n th e valu e o

f n
butane

. I

n an y case , th e burde

n o f revenu e maximizatio n will b e fel t most directl y a t th e plan t level , an di t will b e incumbent

o n NG Lplant s t o maximiz e revenue s fro mth e proces s stream

. I

f plant s ar e able , the y will seek t o purchas e ra

w natura l ga s a t

alower pric e t o reflec t

th e lower

valu e o f th e NG Lproduc t stream

. I

f contractua l agreement s limi t th e flexibilit

y o f pricin g arrangements , th e NG Lplant s will b e compelle dt o reconfigure thei r

productio n an

dproduc t slate s t o balanc e al l products , includin g butanes , t o maximiz e revenues
.
Butane s ma

y be markete da s primar

y feedstoc k

or i n combinatio n wit

hothe r feedstock s t o th e customer

base

. I n time , butane s can b e expecte dt o recove r som e par t o f thei r valu e i n alternativ e uses
. On

e additional us e tha t

ma y increas e i s i

n MTBE

. T o produc e MTBE , n-butan e can b e intentionall y isomerize dt o produc e isobutan e for subsequen t dehydratio n t o isobutylene

. Isobutylene i s reacte dwit hmethano l t o produc t

MTBE

.
EP A currentl y allow s MTB

Et o b e blende dwit

hgasolin e u

p t o 1 1 percent

. Especiall y in nonattainmen t

areas , us e o

f oxygenate s includin g MTB Ei s bein g promote dan

dtested

. I f allowabl e RV

Pi s reduced , MTB

Ewit hablendin g numbe

r o f abou t 11 0 andablendin g RV Po f 6. 7 psi ama

y offe r agoo dsubstitut e fo

r butan e (octan e blendin g valu e = 92 , RV P

= 5 2 psi)

. Th

e short-ter msubstitutio n o f MTB Efor n-butan e wil l b e controlle db y th e abilit y t o produc e sufficient volume s o

f isobutylen e an

dth e relativ e cos t

o f producin g MTB Ecompare dt o othe r

octan e enhancers , e.g. , toluene , benzen e an dxylenes

. TTi

e supply an dpric e o

f isobutylene , produce dfro mn-butan e o

r othe r source s (olefin production , catalyti c cracking , tertiar y buty l alcohol , isobutane ) most likel y will determin e th e rol e o

f MTB Ea s asubstitut e fo

r n-butane

. Moreover , modelling b y Arthur D

. Littl e a s describe di

n Hydrocarbo n Processing , Ma y 1987 , Volum

e 66 , No

. 5 , assume s tha t

refiner s will mak

e processin g an dinvestmen t change s t o absor

b potentia l butan e supply

. Hi e mode l assume s tha t

i f butan e price s were a t

distillat e parity , refiner s woul

dabsor b 3 0 t o 8 0 percen t

o f potentia l surplu s suppl y (fro mRV P restriction)

. I

f butan e wer

e a t fue l oi l value , refiner s woul dabsor b al l incrementa l supply

. Thes e estimate s reflec t us e o f isobutan e (intentionall y isomerize dfro m
46P.5 2



### n-butane ) an

dus e o f oxygenate s (includin g MTBE ) t o reduc e RVP

. (Isomerizatio n alon e increase s n-butane s octan e b y 1 0 t o 2 0 numbers wit

ha n increas e i

n RV Po f onl y 0. 5 t o 1. 0 psi. )

47

### CHAPTE R4 :

RATE S O FRETUR N I N TH EREFININ

GINDUSTR

Y

extendth e analysi s presente di n thi s repor t

fro mth e shor

t termeffect s o

n revenue s f a

### potential declin e i

n th e marke t

valu e o f butanes , i t

i s useful t o examin e th e rat e o f etur n o n investment

o f th e refinin g industry

. Th e rat e o f return , i n combinatio n wit

h
norma l replacemen t

an dtechnological advancemen t wil l affec t

th e refinery industry' s abilit y t o reac t t o achang e i

n th e demandfo

r butanes

. Becaus e refinery machiner y and equipmen t i s designedan

dconfigure dt o optimize profit s fo r an y period , adjustmen t tim e wil l b e require dt o operationall y reac t t o achang e i

n butan e marke t

conditions

.
Th e refiner y industr y rat e o f retur n i s suitabl e for

study becaus e dat ai s availabl e o n thi s industr

y an dth e processin g equipment usedb y refinerie s offe

r man y similaritie s t o that usedi n th e processin g o

f natura l ga s an

dfractionatio n o

f natura l ga s liquid s int o product s includin g butane

.
SURVE Y O FPERFORMANC

EMEASURE

S COMMONL

Y EMPLOYE

D

Perusal o f curren t literatur e coverin g petroleu mindustr y performanc e reveal s tha t th e numbe r o f measure s actuall y usedi s limited

. Interes t i s focusedo

n th e following rates :

return o n ne t plan t return o n gros s plan t return o n investe dcapita l return o n employedcapita l return o n (average ) tota l capita l return o n ne t investmen t

i n plac e return o n tota l investmen t return o n tota l asset s * 

### return o n shareholder' s equity

.

Thos e markedwit

hasta r (* ) ar e th e mos t

commonly usedmeasures
.

4 8P.5 4



### Thes e rate s ar e determine dalmos t exclusively usin g ne t

income , althoug htw o majo r source s o f informatio n d

o giv e pre-ta x figures

. A s such , the y must

b e viewe da s number s whic

hprovide ahistorica l record , first , o f periodi c change s i

n pric e andi

n ne t income and , second , o

f th e effectivenes s o

f th e business' s operatin g activities , rathe r than rate s o

f return appropriat e fo

r capita l decisio n making

. Complete , accurat e measure s o f performanc e o

f th e refinin g industr

y ar e not availabl e fro msecondary sources
. Whil e ther e ar e companie s tha t engag e onl

y i n petroleu m refinin g activities , thes e d o no t for marepresentativ e sampl e o f th e refinin g industry

. Thi s latte r

industr y i s no t aseparat e entity , but

acollectio n o

f "segments " o

f muc h large r an ddiversified , integrate dfirms

. Mos t publicl y availabl e dat ameasure th e performanc e o

f th e petroleu mindustr

y a s a n integrate dwhole

.
There ar e tw o source s tha t attemp t t o presen t

petroleu mindustr

y financial dat ab

y industr y segment

. Th

e firs t include s al l publication s presentin g informatio n b y Standard Industrial Classificatio n (SIC) (e.g

. - Du n an dBradstreef s Industr

y Norms an

dCommo n busines s Ratios ; Robert

Morri s Associates ' Annua l Statemen t

Studies ; Standardand Poor' s Aggregate Fil e Compustat Tape)

. Petroleu mRefinin g i s SI C 291 1 andbecaus e th e larges t

integrate dpetroleu mcompanie s ar e als o th e larges t refiners , thes e oi l companie s ar e classifie di n SI C 2911

. Thus , th e rat e o f return fo

r SI C 291 1 i s tha t employe di

n most analyse s t o compare th e oi l industry wit hal l othe r

industries

. I

n fact , however , SI

C 291 1 presents , no t

acomplete pictur e o

f th e refinin g industry , but a distorte don

e o f th e petroleu mindustry

. Fo r thi s reaso n industr

y analyst s analyz e representativ e sample s o f th e larges t

integrate doi l companie s i n plac e o f asubse t o f SI C 2911

.

Th e secon dsourc e o

f segmente dindustr

y dat ai s th e Energ y Informatio n Administration' s Performanc e Profile s o f Majo r Energy Producer s (Annual)

. Having
acces s t o confidentia l information , th e EI A i s bette r

abl e than an

y othe r organizatio n t o accomplis hone o

f it s mai n objectives : t o allow economi c an dfinancial analysi s o

f th e

EIA, Performanc e Profile s o f Majo r Energy Producers ; U.S

. Dept

. o f Commerce , Quarterl y Financia l Report fo r Manufacturing , Minin

g andTrad e Corporations

.

49P.5 5



### energ y industr

y t o be performe db

y industr y segment

. Industr

y segment s ar e presente d
a s thougheac hwer

e aseparat e entit y (wit hrecognize dlimitations ) wit hit s ow n income statement , enterin g int o transaction s wit hothe r segment s an dthir dparties

.
ANALYSI S O FTH EINDUSTR

Y B Y REPRESENTATIV

ESAMPLE

S

A t leas t fou r organization s measure th e performanc e o f th e petroleu mindustr

y b y examinin g aggregate dinformatio n fro msample s o

f th e larges t

integrate doi l companies

. Thes e are :

• Th e Chas e Manhatta

n Ban k (Chase )

• Carl H

. Pforzheimer <5 c Co

. (Pforzheimer)

• Th e America n Petroleu mInstitut e (API )

• Th e Energy Informatio n Administratio n (EIA )

Becaus e eac huse s simila

r measure s of

petroleu mindustr

y performance , compariso n of thes e i s possible

.
Th e compan y sample s employedb

y eac hdiffer

i n suc hawa y tha t i t i s bes t t o concentrat e o

n th e dat asupplie dby th e latte r tw o organizations

. Th

e Chas e sampl e (2 6 companie s fro

m196 8 t o 1971 , 2

4 companie s fro

m197 1 t o 1982 , 2

2 companie s i

n 1983 , and1 8 companie s i

n 198 4 —th e las t

yea r available ) cover s 1 8 o

f th e larges t

U.S

. oi l companies , tw o othe r

U.S

. oi l companie s andfive larg e internationa l oi l companie s domicile dabroad

. Th

e Pforzheimer

report s coverag e has varie dbetwee n 4 1 and4 4 firm s ove r th e seventeen-year

period

. It

include s tw o larg e foreig n companies

. Thus , bot hgiv e mor

e weigh t t o foreig n firm s tha

n d o eithe r o f th e othe r tw o reports , wherein coverag e i s limite dt o U.S

. companies

.

Th e segment s ar e intende dfo r presentatio n a s separat e entities

. Their income statement s presen t

sale s an dpurchase s t o an

dfromaffiliate dpartie s a s well a s t o and fro mothe r segments

. "Becaus e th e segment s are , i n actua l fact , no t

separat e entities , bu t ar e part o f a n integrate dfirm , tw o specia l classification s ar e define dwhic hallo w reconciliatio n o

f consolidate dcompany figure s wit hthos e o

f segments

. Th

e firs t is...th e nontraceabl e classificatio n whic hcapture s assets , liabilities , revenue s an d expens e item s whic

hexis t only i n th e corporat e contex t

andcanno t

reasonabl y b e attribute dt o th e activitie s o f asegment. " "Th

e secondi s th e elimination s classificatio n whic

hi s necessary t o preven t double countin g o

f intersegmen t transaction s whe

n th e segment s ar e consolidate dint o tota l compan y figures. "

5 0P.5 6



### Exhibit 4- 1 identifie s th e companie s i n eac hsample

. Whil

e ther e ar e difference s i

n th e sample s chosen b

y EI A an dAP I th e tw o ar e similar

enoug ht o justif y compariso n o

f th e results

. Exhibit

4- 2 demonstrate s that

th e marke t

shar e o f refinin g capacit y heldb y companie s i

n th e EI A sampl e i s larg e enoug

ht o assume tha t

thei r refinin g segment s represen t th e refinin g industry

.

PRESENTATIO

N O FTH EDAT A
Company-wide Dat a

Th e company-wide dat aavailabl e fro meac ho f th e 4 sample s give s agoo dindicatio n o

f th e rate s o

f retur n fo r th e entir e oil industry

. Thes e rate s ar e primaril y measure dafte r income taxes , thoughth e EI A present s income statement s tha t include preta x income , thereb y enablin g th e calculatio n o f preta x rate s o

f return

. Company-wide measure s ar e usually calculate dbase do n ne t income

. Th

e following i s a graphi c compariso n o

f thos e rate s o

f retur n use db

y eac ho f th e sampl e analyses

.
1

. Ne t Income/Shareholders ' Equit y

According t o th e rat e o f retur n accruin g t o stockholder s o n thei r investment , i t

i s clear fro mExhibit s 4- 3 an

d4- 4 tha t

ther e i s a fundamenta

l consensu s o

n th e profitabilit y t o investor s o f investmen t

i n th e oil industry

. I

n th e literature , thi s i s th e most common rat e measured

. A long ru

n expectatio n o

n thi s measur

e o f return o f 1 3 percen t appear s supporte db

y al l th e data

. Th

e highreturn s realize dfo r th e 1979

- 198 1 perio dar e no t

representative

.
2

. Ne t Income/Total Asset s

Thes e estimates , presente di n Exhibit s 4- 5 and4- 6 measure bot hth e productivity o

f asset s i n term s o f income productio n an

dth e effectivenes s
o f management

i n employing th e availabl e resources
. Once again , ther e i s onl y slight variatio n betwee n th e samples

. Thi s variatio n i s explaine db y th e differin g definition s o f tota l asset s usedb

y eac horganization

. AP I

5 1P.5 7



### EXHIBI T 4-1 : COMPARISO

N O F TH E COMPANIE

S CONSTITUTIN

G TH E AP I AN D TH E EI A SAMPLE

S (1986 )

Aierica nPetroleu i Institut e
Aierad a Hes s Corp . Aierica nPetrofina , Inc . AshlandOil , In

e Atlanti c Richfiel dCo .
Chevro nCorporatio n Conoco , Inc . (1 ) DiaiondShairoc kCorp .
Exxo nCorporatio n

Kerr-Mc6e e Corporatio n Maratho nOi l Co . (2 ) Hobi l Corporatio n(3 ) Murphy Oi l Corporatio n Occidenta l Petroleu i Corp . Pennzoi l Coipany Phillip s Petroleu i Co . Shel l Oi l Coipan y Standar dOi l Coipan y (Aioc o Corp . sinc e 1985 ) Standar dOi l Coipan y

(Ohio ) SunCoipany , Inc .

Texaco , Inc . Unoca l Corporatio n Energ y Informatio n Administratio n
Aierad a Hes s Corp . Aierica nPetrofina , Inc . Ashlan dOil , In

e Atlanti c Richfiel dCo . Burlingto nNorthern , Inc . Chevro nCorporatio n Citie s Servic e Oi l Coipany (4 ) Coasta l Corporatio n E.I . duPon t de Neiour s . Co . Exxo nCorporatio n Gett y Oi l Coipany

(5 ) Gul f Oi l Coipan y

(5 ) Kerr-HcGe e Corporatio n
Hobi l Oi l Corporatio n
Occidenta l Petroleu i Corp . Phillip s Petroleu i Co . Shel l Oi l Coipany Standar dOi l Coipany

(Indiana ) (Aioc o Corp . sinc e 1985 ) Standar dOi l Coipany

(Ohio ) Su nCoipany , Inc .
Tenneco , Inc . Texaco , Inc . Unoca l Corporatio n Unio nPacifi c Corp . Unite dState s Stee l Corp .

(1 ) Subsidiar y

o f D uPont . No t directl y

include di n198 5
(2 ) Subsidiar y

o f U.S . Stee l
(3 ) Dat a ar e fo

r Hobi l Oi l Corporatio n
(4 ) Occidenta l Petroleu i acquire dCitie s Servic e in1982 . Hovever , Occidenta l di dno t consolidat e Citie s Service' s operation s unti l Deceiber , 1982 . (5 ) In1984 , Chevro nCorporatio nacquire dGul f Oi l Corp. ; Hobi l Corp . acquire dSuperio r Oi l Co. ; andTexac o acquire dGett y Oi l Coipany . Non e o f th e acquisition s ver e consolidate dfo r th e entir e yea r o f 1984 , an dal l acquire dcompanie s lad e financia l report s for 1984 . Th e thre e acquire dcoipanie s ar e include da s separat e companie s fo r 198 4 an dal l prio r years . Beginnin g vit hth e 198 5 reportin g year , thes e terger s ver e coiplete , and2 2 coipanie s no v coipris e th e saipl e use db

y th e Energ y

Informatio nAdministratio n(EIA) . 5 2P.5 8

EXHIBI T 4-2 : DOMESTI C REFINERY CONFIGURATIO N FO REI A COMPANIE S AN D FO RTHE DOMESTI C INDUSTR Y (198 0 an d 1985 )

Crud e Octane , Unleade dPercentag e o f Heavy/Sou r Percentag e o f Distillatio nDistillatio nDistillatio nCrud e Distillatio n Capacit y (1 ) Capacit y

(2 ) Capacit y

Capacit y

(3 ) Capacit y
198 5 Al l EI A Coipanie s
Domesti c Industry

EI A Coipany Shar e (X )

198 0 Al l EIA Coipanie s
Domesti c Industry

EIA Coipan y Shar e (X ) 12,61 4

16,12 7

78. 2

15,08 5
19,40 4

77. 7 8,88 8

11,02 3

80. 6

9,64 9
11,84 3

81. 5 70. 5

68. 4

—

64. 0

61.0

~ 4,50 7

5,30 0

85. 0

4,27 2
4,93 3

86. 6 35. 7

32. 9

—

28. 3

25. 4

~

(1 ) Crud e distillatio ncapacit y i nthousan dbarrel s pe r strea i da y
(2 ) Include s catalyti c reforiing , fres hfeedcatalyti c cracking , hydrocracking , andalkylatio ncapacitie s (3 ) Include s hydrotreatin g andhydrorefinin g capacitie s exclusiv e o f pretreate dcatalyti c refone r feed , napth a desulfurization , and napth a olefi nor aromatic s saturatio n

(Source : EI A

Performanc e Profiles , 198S. )



### 5 3P.5 9



### EXHIBI T 4-3 : OI L COMPAN

Y NE T INCOM

E A S A PERCENTAG

E O F STOCKHOLDERS ' EQUIT Y (Afte rTax , 1968-1986 )

196 8 196 9 197 0 197 1 197 2 197 3 197 4 197 5 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5
Media n(1968-85 ) AP

I Sampl e (1 )

12. 5 11. 3 10. 9 10. 4 9. 8 15. 0 18. 6 12. 8 14. 0 13. 4 13. 7 20. 9 22. 8 18. 8 13. 1 12. 4 11. 1 10. 0

13. 0 Chas e

Sampl e (2 )

11. 7 11. 0 10. 4 10. 9 9. 7 15. 5 19. 2 12. 4 13. 5 13. 8 13. 1 24. 0 22. 4 16. 7 12. 2 12. 9 12. 3

—
12. 9 Pforzheime r

Sampl e (3 )

12. 0 11. 4 10. 7 10. 8 9. 7 15. 6 19. 0 13. 1 14. 3 13. 9 13. 5 24. 0 22. 5 17. 7 11. 5 12. 0 12. 5 10. 6

12. 8 EI

A Sampl e

12. 6 12. 8 18. 8 21. 1 18. 1 11. 9 11. 4 12. 1 10. 5

Media n(1977-85 ) 15. 1 14. 2 15. 4 14. 4
(1 ) Ne t Income a s a percentag e o f stockholders ' equit y
(2 ) Ne t income a s a percentag e o f beginnin g o f yea r stockholders ' equit y (3 ) Ne t incom

e a s a percentag e o f averag e commo nequit y

(4 ) Ne t incom

e a s a percentag e o f stockholders ' equit y

(Source : Sovell , E. , API , 1986. )



### 5 4P.6 0



### EXHIBI T 4-4 :

24. 0

c v u

- o a. 

## Oi l Compan yRate s o f Retur n Ne t Income/Stockholders ' Equit y

198 5

O EI A AP

I Cha s Pforzheime r

55P.6 1

EXHIBI T 4-5 : OI L COMPAN Y NE T INCOME A S A PERCENTAG E O F AVERAG E TOTA L ASSET S (1968-1986 )

AP I Chas e Pforzheime r EI A Sampl e (1 ) Sampl e (2 ) Sampl e (3 ) Sampl e (4 )

196 8 196 9 197 0 197 1 197 2 197 3 197 4 197 5 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5

Median(1968-85 )
Median(1977-85 ) 8. 3

7.4 7. 1 6. 7 6.3 9. 1 10. 5 7. 0 7. 5 7. 2 7. 3 10. 5 11. 1 9.5 6. 9 6. 7 6. 1 5. 3

7. 3
7. 8 7. 4

6. 8 6. 2 6. 3 5. 5 8. 6 10. 0 6. 0 6.4 6. 4 6. 1 11. 0 10. 2 7. 5 5. 6 6. 0 5. 6

" "

6. 4
6. 5 7. 3

6.6 5. 1 6. 0 5. 3 8.4 9.6 6. 1 6.6 6.4 5. 9 10. 5 9.6 7.5 5. 1 5. 0 5. 1 3. 9

6.3
6.6 5. 4

6. 4 8. 3 9. 3 8.1 5. 3 5. 2 5. 0 4. 0

6. 3

(1 ) Ne t income plu s after-ta xinteres t a s a percentag e o f averag e tota l asset s
(2 ) Ne t income plu s income applicabl e t o minorit y interest s a s a percentag e

o f averag e tota l asset s
(3 ) Ne t income a s a percentag e o f averag e tota l asset s
(4 ) Ne t incom

e a s a percentag e o f year-endtota l asset s
(Source : E . Sovell , API , 1986 ; EIA , Performanc e Profiles , 1977-1985. )



### 5 6

# f

EXHIBI T 4-6 :

12. 0

c t>

_ c a 

## Oi l Compan yRate s o f Retur n Ne t Income/Averag e Tota l Asset s

198 3 198 4 198 5

Chas e Pforzheime r

5 7

# T " P.6 3



### add s after-ta x interes t

t o ne t incom e i n order t o mak e th e rat e mor

e independent

o f financing

. A

s state db

y API , sinc e interes t

i s ta x deductible , thi s treatmen t make s return s ove

r tim e mor

e comparable

. Th e resul t i s ahigher

rat e o f retur n o

n tota l assets

. A long run expectatio n o

f abou t 7 percen t

appear s reasonabl e fo

r thi s measure
.
Th e Effec t o f Inflatio n

Becaus e growt

hi n nomina l ne t incom e ma y b e th e resul t

o f inflation , reflectin g n

o increas e i n purchasin g power , change s i n pric e shouldbe considered

. According t o API , ther e ha s been considerabl e controvers y abou t a n appropriat e metho do

f convertin g ne t income expresse di

n curren t dollar s t o constan t

dollars

. Usin

g th e curren t

cos t metho d prescribe db

y th e Financial Accountin g Standard s Board , ninetee n o f th e 2 1 companie s i n th e AP I sampl e disclose di

n thei r 198 5 annua

l report s th e effect s o

f genera l inflatio n fro m198 1 t o 1985

. Th

e result s a s the y appea

r i n API' s Financial Trend s o f Leading U.S

. Oil Companies , 1968-198 5 ar e presente di n Exhibit 4-7

. Th e rea l rat e o

f retur n o f 4- 5 percen t i s indicate dfo

r thi s period

.
EI A Performanc e Measure s

Acces s t o confidential informatio n allow s th e EI A t o analyz e mor

e complet e financial dat afor eac ho f it s sampl e companies

. Th e siz e o f th e sampl e o

f companie s analyze d suggest s tha t

th e publishedconclusion s ca n b e vieweda s representative

. Th e following sectio n present s asummar y o f th e EI A data

.
Th e EI A give s fou

r rate s o f retur n applicabl e t o th e oi l industr y a s awhole :

• Net

Income/Total Assets ;

• Net

Income/Shareholders ' Equity ;

• Net

Income/Ne t

Investmen t

i n Plac e (ne t

property, plan t

an dequipment plu s investment s an

dadvance s t o unconsolidate daffiliates) ; and

• Ne t Incom e plu s Interest/Ne t

Investment

i n Place

.
Thes e rate s o

f retur n hav e als o been calculate dfo r preta x income fo

r thi s study

. Th

e result s ar e presente di

n Exhibit 4- 8 andgraphe di

n Exhibit 4- 9 t o 4-11

. Exhibit s 4- 9 t o 4-1 1 demonstrat e th e relationshi p o f preta x income an

dne t income compare dt o

58c n

to ^ 

### EXHIBI T 4-7 : 

# NOMINA L AN D DEFLATE D RETUR N O N STOCKHOLDERS ' EQUIT Y Leadin g Oi l Companie s 2 0



## 1 5 H

c a > 

## 1 0 H



## 5 H

0- L Nomina l



## Deflate d

198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 i — 

## 198 5 (Source : E
. Sowell , API , 1986 , p . 21 )

### EXHIBI T 4-8 : PERFORMANC EPROFILE S O FMAJO RENERG Y PRODUCERS , 1977-198 5 (Billion s o f

Curren t U.S

. Dollars ) P.6 5

•.-.- • •«• > 55 1 153 2 138 3 193 4 158 5
?::: nInccs e Se : Inton e
Tota l Asset s
Preta xIncose/Tcta l Asset ; Se : Incoie-'Tota l Asset s

*
- zrz'r, y ', y ar c ' J^K'- M
Preta xIncoae/itarrhclders ' :o>it y S° * I~cc_e/Shareholders ' E*-'': ?
He : Investmen ti n Piec eil !
Preta xIncoae/Ke cIn-estiei ti n Plat e Se tIncome/Ne thvesuen ti s Plac e 25. 0 U
. '
236. 6
11. 3 5. 4
100. 5

r . i

. _ . c
134. 3

9. 4 M
. * 13. 5
il*. l
13. 9 5. 4
108. 6
2". 3 12. 8
147. 8
20. 4 9. 4 48. 7

4

. - t J

_2<!
. T

3. 3
124. 9

18. 8
169. 9
28. : 13. 3 66. 5

. A 2

. .

t . . - 5. 3
U M

i - . Z

202. 6

15. 3 35. 6

272. 5

3. i

165. 3

18. 1
240. 8
24. 3 12. 5 45. 2 21. 8
411. 9

5. 2

183. 9
24. 6 11. 9
282. 5
16. 0 7. 7 47. 4 21. 9
421. 8

5. 2

192. 5
24. 5 11. 4
296. 3
16. 0 7. 4 • i 1 :

1
. . 3

... ^

tec .7
1 .
. J

175. 5
27. : 12. 1
305. 1
15. 4 5. 9 45. 6 17. 4
453. 4

4. :
165. 5
26. 5 10. 5
315. 4
13. 3 5. 5

Se t Inton e - Interest ; 12. 4 15. 5 13. ' 15. 3 11. 9 11. 5 12. 0 11. 4

[iiiiiiiiiiiuiuttiiiiiititiittiiitiittiiiiiiitiiiiiiitiiitutiiiiiiniititittfttiitiiiiiiiiittiitiittiitiiuiiiiii u Petrcieus : Se t Contributio n: : Se : 12. 5 13. 1 13. 3 15. 2 16. 6 12.5 11.3 10. 4 10. 5

" - *, - r a . ' * * -! b c f T . p y - '.-, *';:• » a - ")'•

IllllllUllllttttlltllltlltltltltltlUlltllllUtlllttlltlllllttlllltUlllllllltltllllUIIXItltltlttltltlllllUtllllll l Domti c ?.eiir.i^;/Mariaciag : Se t Coacribucio nt c Se t 7. 2 7. 5 5. 8 10. 1 4. 4 5. 0 4. 3 3. 3 5. 5 Inccae/Investaen t inPlac e
itiiiiuiitiutiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuuitiiiiiitiiiiiiiitiiiiiittiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiuiiiiiiiii u
il ' Se t investaen t i s plac e i s ti e tota l cf : ii ! ne t property , plan t * equipaent , an

ddi ! ::.7eit«ient s « advance s to unconsolidate daffiliate s
i2 ! Contributio no f the seoaen t t o tota l ne t incoi e

(Source : Ener; y

Intonatio nAdiinistration !



### 6 0

### EXHIBI T 4-9 :

o Q

. 

## Oi l Compan yRate s o f Return , 1977-198 5

5 0 0

• 0. 0 -

30. 0 -

20. 0 -

10. 0

0. 0 Income/Shareholders ' Equit y

197 7 197 8 i r 197 9 198 0 198 4 198 5

D Preta xInoom e + Ne t Incom e



### 6 1P.6 7



### EXHIBI T 4-10 :


## Oi l Compan yRate s o f Return , 1977-198 5

26. 0 - r

c o o

_ e a

197 7 Inoome/Tota l Asset s

197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5

Preta xIncom e Ne t Incom e

6 2P.6 8

EXHIBI T 4-11 :


## Oi l Compan yRate s o f Return , 1977-198 5
Income/Ne t Invxsstmcn t i n Ploc e 35. 0

30. 0 -\

25. 0 -\

20. 0 H

15. 0 H

10. 0 - i

5. 0 H

0. 0 -\ 1 98 4 198 5 197 7

a Preta xIncom e -t

- Ne t Incom e

6 3P.6 9



### shareholders ' equity , tota l assets , an dne t investmen t

inplace , respectively

. I nal l case s th e path s ar e simila r

thoug hth e relativ e positio nof ne t incom e t o preta x incom e i s lowe r whe n preta x incom e i s higher

.

A chang e in corporat e incom e ta x rate s o r othe r ta x provision s suc ha s depletio n allowances , depreciatio n sschedules , etc. , wil l effec t bot hth e afte r

ta x retur nan dth e preta x return

. Taxe s ar e transfe r payment s tha t

shif t revenue s t o an dfro mth e privat e sector

. I

f taxe s ar e changed , firm s wil l adjus t outpu t i na nattemp t

t o maintai nROI

. Th e effec t

o f th e outpu t

change s wil l b e achang e inconsume r surplu s o r

tota l welfare

. Thes e interaction s ar e comple x an ddifficul t t o measur e othe r

tha nintheory

. To date , n o researc huncovere dby thi s stud y ha s evaluate dth e rat e o f retur ni nth e oi l industry , adjustin g fo r

annua l change s in ta x rate s o r rules

.

Performanc e B

y Segmen t

Tli e EI A break s it s sampl e companies , first , b y thei r variou s activitie s (Petroleum , Coal , Nuclear , Othe r

Energy , an dNonenergy ) and , second , by segmen t o f activit y (Petroleu m becomes : Domesti c Production , Domesti c Refining/Marketing , Rat e Regulate d Pipeline , Foreig n Production , Foreig n Refining/Marketing , an dInternationa l Marine)

.
Of particula r

relevanc e t o th e presen t stud y ar e th e dat afor

th e petroleu mindustr y an d fo r th e domesti c refining/marketin g segment

. Th e EI A present s onl y dat afo r ne t incom e (determine da s th e ne t contributio no f

th e segmen t

t o tota l ne t

income ) an d give s onl y on e rat e o f

return : Ne t

Contributio nt o Ne t

Income/Ne t

Investmen t

i nPlace , show n in Exhibi t

4-8

. Thi s exhibi t

point s ou t

th e differenc e inth e rate s of retur n realize db y differen t

segment s of

adiversifie dcompany
. Refinin g show s rate s o f retur n tha t averag e onl y abou t

hal f of thos e realize db

y th e petroleu mindustr y a s awhole

. Thus , projec t

decision s withi n th e refinin g secto r o f acompan y wil l hav e t o compet e fo r limite dresource s withothe r operation s tha t

generat e highe r

profit s pe r

uni t of investment

. Thi s relationshi p shoul dlea dt o refiner y investmen t limite dt o th e investmen t

require dt o preserv e outpu t capabilities

.

Indeed , i t

i s th e lo w ris k

associate dwithrefiner y investment s tha t make s lo w return s acceptable

. Majo

r oi l companie s ar e full y integrate dt o ensur e tha t thei r natura l

resource s ca n b e transported , refined , an ddelivere dt o consumers
. I f an y lin k

inthi s

64P.7 0



### chai n were no t

sufficien t

t o satisf y consume

r needs , th e hig

hris k o f exploratio n and development

venture s coul dno t

b e justified

. I

t ha s bee n th e investmen t philosoph

y of th e integrate doi l industr y t o ensure tha t

enoug hcapacit y exist s a t

eac hlin k tha t th e retai l outle t

wi n never b e without

product s fo

r sale

.
Exhibit 4-1 2 illustrate s th e dat ab y segmen t

andcompare s i t

t o dat afo

r th e entir e sampl e of companies

. It

i s importan t

t o not e tha t

th e rat e o

f retur n fo

r petroleu m activitie s a s awhole i s consistentl y highe r than fo r th e integrate dindustr

y andmuc

h higher than th e retur n fro

mth e refinin g segment

.
Exhibit 4-1 3 demonstrate s tha t

fo r th e companie s include db y EIA, al l measure s mov e similarly

. Th

e relationshi p of

stockholders ' equity an

dne t contribution s t o ne t

incom e t o ne t investmen t

i n plac e ar e particularl y closel y aligned

.

65P.7 1



### EXHIBI T 4-12 : 

# Oi l Compan y Rates o

f Return , b

y Segmen t

26. 0 No t wvoomo ^ NB C tfi^pifTwn t I n Pioo o

197 7 1»7 8 1»7 »

LEGEND : f j - Oi

l Mustry
. •f - Petroleu

m Segmen
t s Domesti cRefining/Marketingt

NetContribution t o Total Ne tIncom e NetInvestmen tin Place
.

6 6P.7 2



### EXHIBI T 4-13 :

c o o

_ e 0

. 

## Oi l Compan yRate s o f Return , 1977-198 5 Compariso n o f * D A Measure s

197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 4 198 5

LBGEND i D « Tota l Aaets

.

•+- = Stockholder'

s Equity

.
V s Investmen

t i n Place

. _i\ » Ne tContribution s t o Tota l Ne tIncom e

Ne tInvestmen ti n Place
.



### 6 7P.7 3



### Conclusion s

B y al l measures , th e rat e o f retur n fo

r th e oi l industr

y ar e consisten t

an dstrong

. Discountin g th e unusually hig hreturn s fro

m1979-1981 , th e industr y returne dahealth y 10-1 2 percen t

afte r ta x retur n fro

m1977-1985

. After

adjustment

fo r inflation , th e return o n equity stil l heldt o a4 percen t average
. However , th e dat afo r th e refinin g segmen t indicat e tha t

it s retur n i s significantl y less , abou t hal f o f tha t evidence db

y th e overal l retur n fo

r integrate dcompanies

. TTii s woul dimpl y tha t investmen t

i n refinin g activitie s i s limite dt o th e leve l require dt o maintai n th e efficienc y o f th e capita l stock

. Efficienc y i

n thi s contex t

i s define da s th e ability t o refin e withi n competitiv e operatin g cos t

levels

.

6 8

# r

CHAPTE R5 :

TH ETYPICA

LECONOMI

C LIF EO F REFINER Y PROCESSIN

GEQUIPMEN

T

Th e typica l functional lif

e o f majo r processin g equipment

i n th e refinin g industr

y i s upward s o

f 4 0 years
. Th

e pipes , compressors , pump s an dboiler s tha t

compris e equipment

ar e durabl e component s an dwit hproper car e an dmaintenanc e seldom requir e replacement

. A chief engineer a t Ford/Bacon/Davi s spok

e wit hprais e o

f 191 8 crud e distillatio n uni t

tha t i s stil l i n operation

. I

n thi s chapter , th e discussio n o f economi c lif

e i s divide dint o description s o f mechanical life , design lif e an duseful life

. Eac ho f thes e aspect s o

f economi c lif

e ca n b e examine dseparatel y an deac hi s differen t fo r refinery equipment

.
Mechanical lif

e refer s t o th e expecte dlongevit y o f th e commo

n mechanical component s
o f refinery equipment

. Refiner y equipment

consist s largel y o

f pipes , compressors , pump s andboilers

. Thes e component s ar e durable , andth e mechanic l lif e i s governe d b y th e particular

proces s characteristics

. TTi e corrosivenes s o

f th e proces s liquid s i

n combinatio n wit

hth e thicknes s o

f metal s i n th e equipment

an dth e corrosio n allowance s (include di

n design) determin e th e useful live s o f thes e components

. Wit

hproper car e
andmaintenance , useful lif e o f refiner y equipment

generall y surpasse s a

n acceptabl e rang e fo r th e equipment' s economi c life

.
Th e estimate ddesig n lif

e o f aprocessin g uni t

i s determine db

y (1 ) th e requirement s o

f refinery investor s an

dmanagement , (2

) th e typ e o

f crud e tha t

wil l b e processe dan

d(3 ) th e rat e o

f corrosio n expected

. Th e typ e o f processin g uni t

doe s no t generall y impac t design lif e a s al l unit s ar e mad

e o f simila r components

. Fo

r example , isomerizatio n units , hydrotreator s an

dreformer s ca

n b e converte dint o eac hothe r throughth e reconfiguratio n o

f component s an

dchang e o

f catalysts

. Delayedcoking units , however , canno t b e converted

. Becaus e o f th e generall y hig

hdegre e o

f proces s uni t

flexibility , th e desig n lif

e o f ane w facility i s considere dfo r th e facility rathe r

than fo r th e individual processin g unit s within afacility

.

Mik e Lawrence ; Ford/Bacon/Davis , personal communication

.

6 9P.7 5



### Estimate s of

desig n lif

e wer e collecte dfro mvariou s source s andinclude :

1

. I n astud y don e fo r

th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , "Th e Effect s o f Restriction s i

n th e Sulphur

an dAromatic s Conten t o f Highway Diese l Fuel, " Bonner

an dMoore conclude dtha t th e desig nlif

e of ne w refinin g facilitie s i s 1 3 years , wit hamaintenanc e facto r of 4 percen t

pe r year
.

2

. 

### A n enginee r

wit hM.W

. Kellogg , who worke dpreviousl y fo r Tenneco , sai d tha t Tennec o alway s use d1 6 2/ 3 year s fo r purpose s o f

financin g an d 2 depreciation

.

3

. Gar y andHandwerk , in th e 198 4 textbook , Petroleu mRefining : Technolog y an dEconomics , stat e tha t usefu l desig nlif

e o f arefiner y (th e estimat e use di n calculatin g th e interna l rat e of retur non an investment ) i s betwee n 1 0 an d2 0 years
. The y allo w fo r maintenanc e cost s o f

betwee n 3 3 an d8 percen t

pe r year
.

4

. Th e Interna l Revenu e Service , i n it s Asse t Guidelin e Classes , give s 1 6 year s a s th e asse t

guidelin e perio dfo r

petroleu mrefining

. Tti e lowe r an d uppe r limit s in th e IRS' s asse t depreciatio nrang e ar e 1 3 an d1 9 years , respectively , with7 percen t presente da s th e annua l asse t guidelin e repai r 4 allowance

.
Usefu l lif

e refer s t o th e lifespa n of th e technolog y itself

. Althoug han enginee r create s
aprocessin g uni t

i s buil t wit ha n intende ddesig nlif e o f 2 0 year s o r

more , thi s i s don e wit hth e knowledg e tha t th e uni t wil l no t las t tha t lon g becaus e interna l changes , mad e inorde r t o avoi dtechnologica l obsolescence , ar e inevitable

. The rea l lif e expectanc y
o f auni t i s measure db

y th e lif e of th e technolog y itself

. I n it s origina l form , aproces s routinel y become s obsolet e i n 5- 7 years
.

Referre dt o by Terr y Higgins , Nationa l Petroleu mReserc hAssociations

. Ralp hRagsdale , M.W

. Kellogg

. 3 Gary , Jame s H

. an dGlenn E

. Handwerth , Petroleu mRefinin g Technolog y an d Economics , Marce l Dekker , Inc. , New York , 1984 , Chapte r 16

. 4IRS , Asse t

Guidelin e Classes , Revenu e Procedur e 83-3 5 (1983- 1 C B 745) , pp
. 199-201

.

7 0

# rr

Th

e name o f th e proces s remains , bu t th e proces s itsel f

changes

. Fo

r example , ove

r th e las t 2 0 years , Reforming ha s change dfro mThermal Reformin g t o Catalyti c Reformin g using firs t chemica l an

dthe n preciou s metal catalysts

. Soo n afte r th e introductio no

f th e latter , bi-metalli c catalyst s wer e used

. Thes e ha

dt o b e periodicall y regenerated

. Th e lates t technolog y use s abi-metalli c catalys t o n acontinuously regeneratin g basis

. Th e original reformers , designe dt o las t perhap s 2

0 years , hav e ha

dt o underg o 5 technological tranformation s durin g tha t 2 0 yea r period

. TTioug hth e lifespan o

f an y given uni t

i s short , th e bul

k o f th e change s require dt o alte r th e proces s d

o no t require investmen t

i n ne w processin g units

. Re-vampin g an dup
gradin g are normally sufficien t t o maintai n th e efficien t operatio n o

f aunit

. Investor s selec t fo r n o mor e tha n 3 t o 5 yea

r payback period s fo

r proces s changes , thereb y limitin g th e capita l investmen t t o les s than majo

r syste mchanges

.
Whil e th e processe s i

n thei r original for

mbecom e obsolete , th e machiner y itsel f ca n alway s b e usedin othe r

ways
. Refiner

y processin g unit s ar e seen t o b e extremel y adaptable

. RichardCorbett , Refiner y Editor , Oil <5

c Ga s Journal , commente dtha t th e respons e require dt o meet possibl e restriction s o

n th e ReidVapo

r Pressure o

f gasolin e couldb e characterize db

y th e following action s i

n orde r o f likelihood :

1

. adjustin g th e processes ' parameter s 2

. varyin g feedstock s 3

. re-vampin g andup-gradin g proces s unit s 4

. making ne

w investments

.
I n hi s vie w ne w investmen t

will probably no t

b e necessar

y t o met

th e proposed restrictions

.
I n summary , th e mechanical component s o f processin g equipment

ar e constructe dt o las t 4 0 year s o r more , th e design lif

e i s 10-20 year s wit

halibera l allowanc e for maintenanc e an

dth e useful lif

e i s approximatel y 5- 7 year s (equal t o th e lif e o f th e technology)

. I

t i s als o tru e tha t

th e mechanical component s ar e frequentl y retaine d throug hproces s change s andunit s ar e designe dwit hth e expectatio n o

f proces s changes

. Th e capita l investmen t

i n th e mechanical component s i s lon g term , however , additional fund s ar e require d(1 ) t o periodicall y chang e processe s (o r certai n aspect s o

f processes) , (2 ) t o reconfigure th e mechanical component s and(3 ) t o cover proces s chang e licens e costs

. Maintenanc e cost s fo r refiner y equipment

ar e significant

an dessentia l t o minimiz e capita l replacemen t costs

. 7 1P.7 7



### APPENDI

X A :

SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATIO

N

72P.7 8
Ga s Processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 198 6 Capacitie s an d Product s Exhibi t A- l

R N cf d Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe rday )

Coipan y Exxo n

Hobi l Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 6 3 5 9 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4
6 3 4 7 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 3 4 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8a

s Ga s Through - Proces s Capacit y 4 0 9 0 95 0 60 0 10 0 1 5 8 0 29 3 15 0 12 5 2 5 11 5 4 0 3 0 96 0 16 5 92 5 3 0 10 0 2 0 6 5 9 5 6 0 16 5 13 5
1 0 21 0 31 0 95 0 5 5 12 5 50 0 30 0 15 0 12 5 2 3 9 0 3 4 18. 5 5 0 2 0 7 0 1 1 14 0 2 5 1. 2 3 5 32 0 5. 5 9 0 1 5 20 0 2 8 pu t Hetho i 3 0 6 7 34. 7 6 7 52 3 6 7 11 0
. 8 4 1 7. 3
. 4 9 7 

### s o ; 12 6
. 9 0 J 6. 9 3

f 11 2 ; 26. 6
. 2 2 7 27 5
. 2 0
. 63 8 ; 3 0 ; 4 2 2 0 2 3 5 4 2 1 ; 13 1 6 5

N RI 100. 2 26 5 30 0 1 4 2 7 35 4 13 5 5 0 10 4 3. 4 52. 1 13. 7 2. 3 37. 8 1. 2 39. 7 1. 3 10 5 11. 8 0. 8 13. 5 20 0 4.1 8 4 13. 8 8 5 12. 7 Iso - NorialLP-Ga s

Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e 1 6 105. 4 220. 3 49. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 18. 2

' 9. 1

' 0 > 351. 3 ! 0 ! 455. 8 ! 0

' 0 i 0
r 0 i 0 I 0 1 0 0

> 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 7 0 7 10 0 7 0 7 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 7 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 7 0 7 0 3 0 1 0 7 18 2 7 1. 5 7 77. 7 2 4 7 0 3 0 49. 1

100. 8 137. 5 30. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. 1 45. 2 9. 2 0 132. 6 0 184. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 9. 4 0 8. 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 2. 2 0 4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21. 4 4 0 44. 9 60. 2 9 6 14. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. 2 4. 7 0 0 149. 7 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0. 6 0 1.5 0 0 o • 55. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1. 8 0 0 Ni x 0 0 0 0 Ra w Debut . NG L Ni x 0 0 0 0 0 170. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 8 22 3 70. 8 11 8 95. 3 4 4 0 0 19. 9 0 40. 6 0 66. 5 61. 2 65. 1 0 101. 3 0 0 70. 5 1 7 0 128. 6 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1. 2 35. 8 16 8 23 1 2 1 23. 6 0 176. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50. 4 70. 1 1 1 15 6 28. 9 12. 5 53. 2 0 0 185. 6 0 0 16. 7 144. 6 0 0 0 0 0 24. 4 12. 6 1 3 0 0 0 165. 9 0 0 0 90. 9 0 131. 7 Nat . Gaso . Othe r 33. 8 34. 7 96. 4 15. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54. 4 9. 7 0 0 0 146. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 1.4 0 5. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 1 0 0 0 0 0 40. 5 0 0 0. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12. 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 1 6 1. 7 0. 4 0. 5 0 0. 5 0 66. 9 0 0 0 6.1 0 0 0 0 0 7 3P.7 9 ^(^5a s Processin g lo.pame s



### j ! Coipan y 

### 1

1 t 1 I Texac o t

!

j 1

j ; ! 1 i 

# J

1 : 

# 1 i

! Chevro n an d Plant s

Location , byCensu s Cod e 7 4 7 4 7 4
6 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 8 4 4 7 4 7 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 8 5 8 5 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

9 4 : 193

6 Capacitie s an d Product s -.xiiiO u r.-i — V-oiUhiasju ; 

# 1

N N cf d

6as Ga s Through Capacit y pu t 56. 7 89. 1 12 5 5

4 235 11 9

35 34. 2 2 0 7. 5 4 2. 3 1 8 0. 3 6 0 32. 7 2 0. 8 1 8 9. 8 2 0 15. 6 4. 5 0. 4 30 6. 9 25 8. 3 30 13. 4 60 0 18

9 40 6. 7 737. 5 300 66 0 266 90 0 27

7 65 25 2 5 6. 2 10 5 72. 5 1 4 1. 1 30 18. 4 1 5 3. 4 1 5 0. 1 11 4 102. 4 10 0 79.4 3 12. 5 12. 5 3 0 1 0 1 5 4. 7 5 0 30. 8 150 79 5 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 1. 3 19 0 188. 6 2 0 1 4 5 3. 8 1 0 0. 6 2 6 0. 7 2 3 12. 1 2 5 10. 6 1 0 1. 5 55 32. 1 42 11. 8 5 0 41. 5 1 5 4. 1 2 0 0

3 0 30. 4 ! Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe r day )

Ra wDebut

. Proces s Iso - NonalLP-Ga s NG L Nat

. Metho d Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e Ni xNi x Gaso

. Othe r 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 117. 6 0 0 2 18. 4 18. 3 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0

3 0 45. 1 18. 3 21. 8 0 0 17. 7 0 1 0 11. 5 0 0 0 10. 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2. 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0. 2 0 0 3 0 19. 7 0 0 0 39. 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 3 0 2 0 5. 9 4. 5 0 0 0 7. 2 0 2 0 19. 4 6. 6 15. 2 0 0 13. 9 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 5. 9 0 0 0 5. 8 0 0 2 0 9. 2 0 0 0 8. 8 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 20. 2 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 195. 5 0 0 2 0 1. 9 0 1. 2 0 0 1. 8 0 26 7 107. 1 65. 1 20. 2 16. 9 0 0 43. 9 0 267 77. 2 96. 5 30. 7 2 5 0 0 52. 4 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 533. 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 16. 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 72. 8 0 0 7 176. 7 112. 9 11. 4 33. 8 0 0 48. 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 5. 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 188. 8 130 8. 8 43. 2 0 0 50. 8 2. 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 264. 8 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 61. 9 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 32. 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 14. 1 0 0 7 104. 4 127. 9 15. 1 47. 9 0 0 50. 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 26. 8 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 67. 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8. 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 415. 7 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 12. 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 14. 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3. 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1. 8 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 12. 6 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 41. 9 0 0 3 0 00 0 010 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 152. 4 0 0 7 0 12. 4 0 0 0 29. 3 0 0 2 0 12. 4 0 0 0 13. 2 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 19. 7 0 0 1 0 OOOOOO O

3 0 2. 9 0 0 0 12. 1 0 0 7 4P.8 0 

# r g a s Procesj.n g •J.oipanies an d Plants : 198

6 Capacitie s an

d Product s Exhibi t A- i — (continued )

N Ncf d Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe r day)

Coipan y

Warre n (Chevron )

Aioc o Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 8 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 7 8 3

7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 4 4 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

7 1 8 4 8 4 8 4 Ga

s 6a s Through Capacit y 2 3 3. 5 1 5 1 0 6 0 5 7 1 6 3 1 0 5 0 3 3 4 6 3 8 15 0

N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R N R

2 8 1 2 3 7 25 0 pu t 6. 7 2. 5 9. 2 6. 1 5 4 1.4 0. 6 11. 7 0. 9 6 9 1 6 2 6 7 11 0

8.1 19. 8 66. 9 347. 1 5 0 5 9 2 7 1 2 3 1 7.1 15. 9 24. 3 23. 6 1 1

. 1 0 5 36. 5 6. 2 2. 4 7. 9 2 2 8. 9 10 5 1 0 8. 9 1. 8 2 4 1.5 0. 8 1. 8 7

25. 1 3. 1 23. 9 53. 9 Proces s Iso - NorialLP-6a s Metho dEthan e Propan e ButaneButan

e 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 5 3 2

2 1 7 2 7 7 6 6 7 7 2 7 2 7 7 7 2 7 7 6 6 7 2 7 7 2 7 7 7 7 3 7

7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 16 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0. 9 0 0 0 46. 1 0 0 4. 3 0 0 5. 8 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 117. 8 0 0 0 0 62. 6 0 4. 1 0 0 0 0 4. 6 11. 8 0 0 0 0 9. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 8. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 34. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 3. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. 7 0 0 2. 6 0 19. 4 0 0

0 0 0 38. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. 3 7. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 Ni x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. 7 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 Ra w Debut . NG L Ni x 0 3. 7 15. 9 8. 7 45. 4 3. 4 0. 3 15. 4 1.4 2 1 0 O 87. 5 0 0

40. 1 32. 1 88. 2 53. 3 25 3 24 5 20 1 7 3 60. 3 16. 6 12. 9 80. 6 53. 8 60. 1 20. 1 0 0 9 1 4.1 45. 3 8 3 16. 1 45 1 6 6 8.1 0. 5 9 0 19. 4 1. 2 1. 5 1 2

24. 6 8 87. 4 84. 5 Nat . 6aso . Othe

r 1. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. 2 0 5. 3 0 26. 8 36. 9 2. 5 0 142. 8 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 3 0 15. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0. 3 0 1 0 0 0 7 5P.8 1

6* * eSS in g Coipanie s an d Plants : 198

6 Capacitie s an

d Product s Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

Coipan y

Shel l Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 4 7 7 2 3 4 8 5 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3

9 3 9 3 9 3 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 3 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 N N cfd

Ga

s Ga s Through Capacit y 40 0 29 7 18 0 4 2 8 0 5 5 14 5 2 5 2 0 6 0 1 2 6 0 3 2 10 0 1 5 5 2 5 17 5 5 7 1 0 5 0

• • • 6 5 1 4 1 7 6 0 27 5

3. 6 5 0 2 0 19 5 1 8 120 0 12 0 125 0 29 5 10 0 83 0 13 0 185 0 35 0 1 5 4 10 0 1.9 0. 4 1. 2 4.5 0. 5 7 0 3 0 7 0 pu t 404. 4 113. 7 115. 2 40. 3 13. 4 38. 9 46. 5 2.1 1. 2 47. 6 N R 37. 6 3 2 16. 6 25. 1 4 17. 4 12 2 50. 2 9. 6 8. 8

i • a 25. 2 7 11. 9 49. 1 13 9

0.1 3 4 3 11 2 1 1 51 2 4 8 58 7 20 7 3 3 44 7 3 1 84 7 20 7 6 4 5 8 1 0. 3 1 2 0.1 4 5 1 2 2 7 1

1

Proces s Production (1, 0 100 ga l Ion s per day )

Ra w Debut . Iso - NonalLP-Ga s MethodEthan e Propan e ButaneButane 2 2 7 7 2 7 7 5 2 7 3 2 7 3 7 3 7 7 7 7 3 3 2 4 2 2 7

1 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 2 7 2 7 2 2 2 7 3 3

• • • 3 3 4 3 3 2 7 7 7 6 0 0 0 77. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 16. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 64. 9 0 58. 6 46. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16. 8 0 0 0 0 4 8 40. 4 10 9 0 0 4 13. 2 0 18. 4 0 0

0 12. 9 0. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 8 0 0 3. 3 0 0 0 1. 2 0 3. 2 0. 1 28. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. 2 0 0 0 0 57. 8 10. 6 88. 7 0 0 0 11. 2 0 1 6 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 Ni x NG L Mi x 0 141. 3 0 0 0 0 0 77. 9 96. 5 0 29. 3 82. 6 0 107. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 1 13. 8 16. 1 0 16. 9 0 14 0 9 0 0 0 9 9 0 12. 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 126. 3

0 31. 4 26. 7 0. 9 0 0 0 135. 4 0 3. 8 0 319. 5 0 45. 8 0 607. 6 0 112. 7 0 46. 4 0 584. 9 9. 3 0 0 567. 7 0 627. 7 0 0 0 0 1. 4 0 6.1 0 4 1 0 0 4. 9 0 0 0 5. 5 0 0 0 2 5 0 183. 3 Nat . Gaso . Othe r 0 0 0 21. 6 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 11. 2 0 17. 5 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 1. 3 4. 7 0 0 17. 1 0 53. 5 8. 8 0 1. 9 0 4 1 0 79. 7 213. 3 0 0 0 9 0 19. 3 0 0. 8 41. 7 0 0 7. 3 0 0 0 120. 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. 1 0 0 7. 2 0 0 0 0. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0P.8 2

g a S Processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 198

6 Capacitie s an

d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

Coipan y

Citie s Servic e (Occidental )

ARC O Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

7 1 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 6 8 5 8 5 4 4 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

9 4 9 3 .9 3 7 2 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 m cf d

Ga s T h Capacit y 9 0 28 5 1 0 5 5 4 0 19 0

2 5 10 0 55 0 3 0 6 6 16 8 8 9 5 1.5 2 5 8 1 1 40 0 1 2 4 0 5 0 10 0 2 7 1 0 7 1 2 2 3 0 8 5 1 2

330 0 2 0 6. 9 9 7 0. 5 1 5 1 5 1 0 3 2 0 1 2 5 26 5

• i a 1 5 5 0 1 5 1 2 Ga s rough pu t 4 8 12 2 5 25. 1 2 4 7 2

2 3 2 5 372. 5 2 3 20. 4 7 6 7 0 2. 4 0. 7 1 9 3 6. 9 17 8 5 6. 7 3 7 8 4 2 2 9 3. 6 8. 9 0. 5 1 6 6 7 5. 8

0 12. 2 3 36. 3 0. 2 1 2 6 2. 1 3.1 9.1 3. 9 1.6 307. 5

• a • 6. 8 9. 8 14. 4 4. 5 1 1

Proces s Production (1,00 0 gal l on s per day )

Ra w Debut . Iso - NorialLP-Ga s Metho dEthan e Propan e ButaneButan e

• • • 2 3 6 2 2

2 6

3 6

• • i 2 2 2 3 7 I 3 3 1 3 3 3 7 3 3 7 7 5 7 7 0 113. 2 0 36. 8 43. 5 13 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0.1 15. 6 0 0. 5 1.4 3 1. 8 0. 9 210. 6 0 7. 5 10. 4 32. 4 0 0 70. 8 0 26. 8 41. 9 173. 1

6 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 1 7 6 0

. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 17. 5

0 27. 2 0 8. 8 0.1 17. 6 1 2 1.9 2. 5 14. 4 2. 3 2. 8 156. 9 1. 2 7. 8 4. 9 25. 4 0. 3 0 16. 4 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2. 6 0 0 0. 1 2. 6 1.9 0. 3 0. 4 1. 7 0. 4 0. 5 0 0 1. 2 1. 1 4. 3 0 0 18. 2 0 0 20. 5 0

6 0 0 0 5. 3 0

• 0 0 0 0 0 3. 4 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 8. 8

0 7. 5 0 5 0. 1 7 6 0. 9 1. 2 5. 8 1. 1 1.5 87. 1 1.5 3. 6 1.4 9. 6 0. 4 Ni x 0 0 11. 4 33. 5 0 22 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 0 0 9 3 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N6 L Ni x 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 9 36 8 3 0 0 10 3 9 1 10. 7 3. 8 10 5 9 0 0 14. 4 1 6 11 8 49 1 0 2 4 1 0 0 2. 5 0 18 6 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat . iaso . Othe r 0 6 1 3. 8 0 17. 7 0

9 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9.5

0 9 0. 4 5. 8 0. 2 8. 9 9. 8 0. 9 1 7. 8 1.4 1. 8 7 3 2. 4 4. 2 2. 6 8. 4 0. 9 0 0 0 0

• 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. 6 0 0 0 7 11 6 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0. 2 0. 6 0 0. 2 1 0.1 0 0 0 0. 1 0 4. 5 0P.8 3

S( , s processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 198

6 Capacitie s an

d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

KHcf d Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe rday )

Coipan y Location ,

b y Censu s Code 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 3 Ga

s Ga s Through Capacity 1 8 3 5 1 2 9 0 1 5 6. 5 1 5 4 0 3 1 pu t 3. 6 9. 2 7. 4 32. 7 5. 2 1.4 3. 8 14. 6 10. 1 Proces s Metho dEthan e Propane 2 6 3 3 1 3 7 2 3 0 46. 1 5. 8 0 0. 9 0 17. 1 0 0 0. 9 62. 5 7.4 22. 5 3. 5 0 18. 4 3. 6 20. 2 Iso - NonalLP-Ga s tutaneButan

e 0 0 1.2 18. 1 0 0 4.5 0 0 0. 7 42. 6 3. 6 0 4. 4 0 5. 4 3. 3 10. 9 Ni x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ra w Debut . NG L Ni x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat . Gaso . 1 32. 8 4. 6 14. 6 6 0 5. 3 3. 6 9. 1 Othe r 0.1 1. 1 0.1 0 0. 4 0. 2 0.1 0. 5 0. 8 8 3 3

0 11. 1

Tennec o

Conoc o (E.I . D uPont ) 7

2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

7 2 7 2 7 2 8 5 8 5 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 5 0 10 0 22 5 20 0 22 5 3 5 7 0 5 5 6 0 22. 5 14 5

4 5 18 0 95 0 5 0 50 0 3 0 7 5 3 0 3 0 5 1 4 1 0 26. 9 7 84. 7 7 13 6 7 73. 2 7 116. 2 7 4. 3
. 62. 4 ; N R 

### ; 57. 5 7 2 2 / 36. 1 ;

32. 5 169. 4 334. 1 2 ' 2 0 50 0 25. 2 61. 6 29. 8 14. 2 1. 7 1 0 7. 7 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

• 0

' 0 0 ! 0

1 12. 4

' 148. 2 f 132. 8 f 42. 5 J 0 7 21. 3 7 56. 7 7 21. 5 7 8. 4 3 0 7 17. 3

. 0 0

0 40. 8 0 39. 4 3. 5 29. 4 0 0 0 5. 4

5. 5 7 3 68. 6 36. 6 0 29. 7 34. 6 19. 4 6. 5 4. 4 18. 2 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 17. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 23. 7 2 6 5. 2 0 4 6. 4 2. 5 1 0 2. 8 0 0 0 17. 7 0 16. 3 3. 4 2 0 0 0 0 4

3. 4 18. 1 18. 1 12. 2 0 11. 8 8. 2 6. 8 2. 5 5. 7 7 6. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41. 6 0 0 82. 2 0 0 0 16. 9 74. 4 30. 9 0

0 0 0 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97. 7 4 1 0 0 0 40. 0 0 32. 5 119. 1 2. 5 13. 2 0 0 0 4. 2

0 33. 1 41. 5 9. 7 0 13. 6 10. 2 7 3. 2 3. 7 7.1 6. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

6. 3 2. 8 0 4. 1 0 1. 1 0.1 0. 7 0. 1 0 0.1 0



### Su n 9 3 8 4 8 4 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 N R 1 2 1 8 2 2 5 0 2 0 3 2 2 5 7. 4 9. 7 3 1 0 21. 3 3. 9 3. 9 20. 8 3 2 9. 5 18. 9 8. 7 6.1 5 0. 4 3. 2 2

2 2 6 2 2 2 2 3

a i l 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. 2 12. 1 3. 6 9. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. 6 9. 8 3. 7 0 32. 6 16. 2 43. 6 12. 2 5 3. 5 0. 6 15. 3 0 0 0 17. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8P.8 4

g a s Processin g Coipanie s and Plants : i98 a Capacitie s an d Product s L.l,,U| l

. 1

-

Coipany Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 3 4 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 3 N H cfd

Sa

s 6a s Through - Proces s Capacit y 1. 5 1 5 6 5 20 0 N R 1 5 2 0 N R 7 0 3 5 5 0 9 2 4 0 1 0 pu t Metho d 0. 7 3 18. 8 7 4 4 7 74. 5 7 5. 1 2 14. 3 2 7. 3 2 1. 2 3 35. 7 6 7 28. 7 2 44. 7 7 94. 5 2 24. 4 2 11. 8 2 ! Productio n

Ethan e Propan e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40. 4 4. 5 0 5. 6 0 54. 6 0 95. 1 37. 4 6. 4 10. 3 (1,00 0 gal l

Iso - 1 on s per day )

Ra w 0 tona l LP-Ga s lutaneButan

e 0 0 0 9.9 0 0 0 0 50. 2 0 69. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 20. 4 0 0 3. 8 0 0 0 0 33. 2 8. 2 0 Ni x 0 0 NG L Ni x 1. 6 65. 4 0 194. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.1 35. 8 0 7. 9 0 41. 9 0 36. 4 0 6. 7 ebut . Nat . 6aso . Othe r 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. 7 124. 9 0 0 0 1. 5 2 0 0 0 39. 1 182. 7 0 0 83. 8 261. 3 0 6 7 5. 1 25. 3 0 0

Standar d

Phillip s 7 3 7 3 7 3 4

5 3 0 1 5 3 3 3 0 1 0 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 6. 5 0 0 0 0 0 6. 5 0 16 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 5 0

Maratho n (USX )

Texa s Oi l & Ga s (USX ) 9

4 9 3 7 2 7 2 3 4 4 6 8 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 7 8 3 8 3

8 4 7 2 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 5

2 8 0 20 0 6 5 3 8 2 21 0 2 1 3. 3 5 5 7 2 1 6.5 0. 5

5 3 0 5 0 7 5 9 0 11 5 7 5 2 0 2 5 4 0 7 5 6 7 5 1 4 4 9 6 2 2 3 3. 8 1.3 63. 6 1 8 2. 8 7 3 6 1.4 5 0. 2

0. 7 30. 3 2 9 13. 4 23. 1 57. 1 35. 5 0. 6 0. 2 1. 7 24. 6 1. 8 56. 7 7 0

1 0 7 0 7 2 7 2 0 3 0 7 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 3 7 0 3 0 3 0 3 0

3 0 3 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 2 7 0 7 0 2 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 3 0 7 0 7 9 0

17. 9 0 12. 2 22. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.1 0 9. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26. 3 0 5 2 0 0 2. 7 0 104. B 4. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1. 6 52. 1 4. 2 14. 5 4

0. 4 26. 1 58. 8 2 2 47. 6 0 120. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 1. 1 0. 3 2. 6 43. 5 2. 8 12 7 0 13. 5 0 8. 1 20. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0. 6 0. 3 0. 5 0. 3 4.1 0 0 0. 4 1. 4 0 0. 6P.8 5

1 ^Kr&i. Processin g Coipanie s

j Coipan y

t

Unoca l



## j j
i

Enro n



### i |

i i Coasta l

t ana Plant s

Location , b yCensu s Cod e 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

6 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 8 4 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 7 8 3

8 4 5 9 4 7 4 7 4 7 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 3

4 3 7 3 7 2 8 7 1;3S Capacitie s an d Product s Exhioi t A- L —veununuea ,

H H cf d ! Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe rday )

Ga s Ra wDebut

. Ga s Through - Proces s Iso - NorialLP-Ga s N6L Nat

. Capacitypu t Hetho d Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e Ni xNi x6aso

. Othe r 30 12. 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 39. 3 0 0 75 25. 3 7 7. 1 0 0 8. 6 0 0 6 0. 3 16 5 64. 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 42. 1 0 0 2 0 1. 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 1. 7 0 0 3 0 11. 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 11. 4 0 0. 2 100 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 16. 8 0 30. 9 3 0 14. 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 37. 5 0 0 2 5 8. 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 25. 1 0 1

5 7 39. 3 3 0 59. 6 0 47. 6 0 0 24. 2 0 3 5 11. 5 1 0 1 2 0 10. 2 0 0 13. 3 0 0. 6 0. 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 3 70 64. 3 7 0 40. 6 0 10. 8 0 0 26. 1 0 3 2. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 4. 6 0 0 1 7 11. 2 7 0 0 0 0 18. 7 0 7. 2 0 2 0 5. 8 1 0 6. 8 0 0 0 20. 2 0 0 5 0. 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0. 4 0 0 1 0 3. 4 3 0 4. 3 0 0 0 4 0 0. 2 1 3 4. 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 36. 2 0 0 4 0 1 3 1 0 11. 6 0 8. 6 0 4. 7 0 0 1 5 8. 7 2 0 7. 2 0 10. 1 0 0 11. 1 0 8 0 53. 7 3 0 20. 9 0 1 4 0 0 17. 2 0 1 5 13. 4 7 0 13. 7 0 7. 1 0 0 5. 2 0

6 3. 3 3 0 3. 5 0. 2 1. 5 0 0 1. 4 0 700 65 4 2 0 50. 2 16. 4 17. 9 0 0 43 0 540 507. 1 7 193. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 892. 5 2 0 50 6 70. 6 138. 2 0 0 117. 6 0 52 0 138 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 3 3 5 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 2 3 5 2 6 7 0 9. 3 7. 6 0 0 5. 7 0 7 0 4 0 2 0 22. 8 0 2 1 0 0 8. 5 0. 6 1 8 1 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 48. 6 0 0 1 5 13. 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 28. 4 0 0 1 5 8 3 0 13. 6 0 1 0 0 0 6. 3 0 1 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 48. 1 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 17. 9 0 0 1 0 2. 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 8 0 64 2 8. 2 17. 1 0 14. 3 0 0 8. 4 0. 3 3 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 3 0 5 5 5 7 2 0 10. 6 0 20. 8 0 0 11. 6 0 3 5 6 1 0 0. 5 0 0. 4 0 0 1. 3 0 6 0 3 2 2 0 8. 6 0 7. 4 0 0 6. 8 0. 1 64. 4 64. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 0

1 2 3 3 0 6. 1 0 0 6. 3 0 0 0. 9 20 0 14

3 7 0 0 0 0 0 197. 1 0 0 25 0 183 7 0 0 0 0 0 182. 8 0 0 4 0 1 5 3 0 16. 8 0 10. 5 0 0 19. 9 0

8 0P.8 6

aa s Processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 198 6 Capacitie s and Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

Coipany N N cf d
Location , 6a s b y Censu s Ga s Through Cod e Capacit y

pu t Productio n(1,00 0 gallon s pe r day )

Proces s Iso - NorialLP-6a s Hetho dEthan e Propan e ButaneButan e Ni x Ra wDebut . N6 L Nat . Ni xGaso . Othe r

Enserc h

Diaion dShairock (Maxu s Energy ) 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

7 4 6 3 0 1 8 1 4 5 0 2 0 4. 5 2 0 1 8 3 5 8 0 6 5

37 5 2. 3 17. 6 10. 5 2. 2 36. 2 14. 6 3 15. 8 21. 5 1.4 2. 8 42. 9 59. 6

275. 6 2 0

7 0 7 0 3 0 7 0 5 0 3 0 7 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 7 0 7 0

2 7 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

244. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

47. 1 0 0 0 0

. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

115. 1 0 2. 8

0 84. 1 0 41. 9 0 4 0 140. 2 0 1. 8 0 4. 5 0 90. 5 0 117. 7 0 6. 4 0 2. 6 0 14 4 0 100. 6

0 110. 5 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 390. 8

Chaipli n (Unio nPacific ) 8 4 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 7 8 7 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 1. 7 3 5 1 2 1 0 3 5 6 6 0 38 0 8 5 3 5 1 5 1 0 8 0 6 5 6 0 3 2 5 1. 6 19. 7 7.1 8. 9 21. 2 2. 3 58. 2 28 1 60. 2 14. 8 7. 8 2. 6 46. 7 5 7 4 3 0. 5 2 0 3 2 6 6 6 3 7 7 7 3 3 3 7 2 7 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240. 6 64. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103. 1 28. 6 0 0 5. 2 34. 9 16. 8 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 3 20. 2 0 0 0 0 30. 7 0 0 4. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. 8 75. 7 32. 4 44. 1 90. 1 1. 7 81. 2 0 203. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62. 5 42. 1 14. 3 31. 3 o 0 47. 7 0. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 45. 3 0 0 0

21. 6 0 0 6. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kerr-HeGe e

Mes a 7 2 4 4 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4

4 7 8 5 12. 5

6 1 2 3 5 43. 5 2 4

24 2 6 N R N R N R N R N R N R

4 9 1.5 2

3 2 7 7 2

2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 6. 6 0 18. 9 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 4 0 13. 4 0 0

0 0 0 0 31. 7 0 0 0

0 0 11. 7 2. 3 0 20. 3 94. 7 28. 8

65. 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0
0 1P.8 7

g a s Processin g Coipanie s and Plants : 198 6 Capacitie s an d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

N N cf d Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe r day )

Coipan y

Pennzoi l

Arld a

Mitchel l Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 7 3 7 3 7 3 Sa

s Ga s Through Capacit y pu t 1 5 7. 2 2 5 9. 9 8 0 42. 8 7 4

5 5 8

0 Proces s Iso - NonalLP-6a s

Netho d Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e Mi x 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15. 3 1. 4 5. 1 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 Ra w Debut . N6 L Hi x 9. 7 0 12 3 Nat . Gaso . 0 4. 7 0 Othe r 0 0 0 36. 9 7 0 0 10 7

7 1 7 2 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 2

0 6 0 3 1 0 3 12 5 2 0 11. 7 10. 9 1.3 0. 4 0. 6 59. 7 4. 5 2

1 3 5 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. 7 0 0 0 0 9. 5 0 3. 4 0 0 0 0 4. 5 0 4. 7 0 0

. 0 0 6. 6 0 0 2. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. 4 2. 5 0. 3 0.1 0. 2 16. 7 0. 8 2. 9 0. 8 0 0 0 0 0

7 2 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 5 1 5 2 0 2 0 15 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 4 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 2 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 2 0 2 11 5 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 5 5 5 7 5 0. 5 3 10. 5 7 13. 9 7 0. 4 7 124. 7 7 16. 6 7 16. 6 7 13. 3 7 9. 2 7 9. 1 7 6. 6 3. 4 ; 10. 9 10. 9 10. 9 2. 4 4. 9 4. 9 14. 8 8. 2 5. 6 5. 6 7. 4 2. 3 85. 8 5. 4 1.5 8. 8 7. 5 9. 2 1. 2 3. 6 42. 1 7

9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 1 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 2 0 7 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 0

0 0 0 125. 9 16. 7 16. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2. 6 2. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21. 6 2. 9 2. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 7 37. 2 51. 3 1.4 0 266. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35. 4 35. 4 47. 7 38. 8 43. 2 2 6 9. 9 4 3 4 3 4 3 6. 5 25. 1 25. 1 75. 1 48. 3 17. 4 17. 8 23. 4 5.1 82. 7 20. 2 10. 6 3S. 2 16. 6 27. 7 4. 5 16. 2 46. 2 0 0 0 0 66. 1 8. 8 8. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 6 0. 8 0.1 9.1 9. 1 1. 2 1. 2 0 0. 6 0 0. 4 0 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0 0. 3 0. 3 0. 8 1. 2 0.1 0.1 0. 2 0. 2 0 0. 5 0 0. 1 0 0.1 0. 2 0 0P.8 8

Sa s Processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 198 6 Capacitie s an d Product s 

### Exhibit A- l —(continued )

Coipan y M H cf d

Location , 6a s byCensu s Ga

s Through Code Capacit ypu t Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe r day )

Proces s Iso - NonalLP-Ga s Method Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e Ni x Ra wDebut

. N6L Nat

. Mi xGaso

. Othe r

Valer o 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8

5 14. 1 40 0 9 0 7. 5 19 0 4 0 15 0 30 0 4 4 68. 3 13. 6 : 338. 7 7 4 1. 8 117. 6 51. 1 150. 3 247. 1 29. 3 18. 5

! 10. 4 7 242. 2 7 6 4 7 2. 1 I 22. 6 7 94. 4 1 101. 6 1 181. 2 7 38. 3 26. 1

15. 3 137. 8 25. 2 2. 5 3 4 87. 4 71. 5 82. 7 24. 1 5. 4 2.1 34. 3 9 0. 4 8. 9 1 0 18. 1 26. 6 3. 7 10. 1 6. 8 41. 8 7. 5 0. 9 8. 6 27. 5 25. 5 23. 1 7. 4 

## 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 5. 7 63. 5 17. 3 1 17. 8 19. 7 34. 7 44. 4 7. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unio n Texa

s Pet

. (Allied-Signal ) 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 2

0 2 0 7 0 16 0 13 0 2 5 3 7 4 0 2 0 3 0 2 5 1 0 6 8. 9 6. 4 26. 7 8 9 95. 9 10. 3 23. 9 3 6 17. 5 1 8 2 4 6. 6 2. 7 1 0

2 0 2 0 2 0 2 7 91. 1 6 7 9. 1 2 7 55. 2 7 74. 2 7 6. 8 7 1 2 7 62. 2 7 11. 4 7 1. 4 2. 9

0. 8 9. 4 39. 3 95. 8 7. 2 42. 4 69. 5 15. 1 10. 4 59. 6 10. 4 3. 8 1 0. 3 2. 5 11. 9 15. 1 1. 4 5. 6 8. 6 4. 9 1.5 9. 3 1.5 0. 6 1. 1 0. 3 3. 3 1 4 35. 7 3. 2 15. 4 25. 7 4. 8 4.1 22. 6 4. 1 1. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. 8 1 8. 4 25. 2 60. 6 3. 9 19. 4 28. 5 5. 8 4. 3 22. 9 5. 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Associate d

Anadarko 7 1 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 7 2 7 4 3

0 1 5 2 0 2 4 1 5 5 5 5 2 7 9. 9 12. 6 20. 6 11. 3 3 0 2. 5 2

3 3 6 3 3 7 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. 4 0 27. 4 0 36. 1 0 45. 8 0 35. 4 0 5 1 0 17. 5 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 7 3 7 3 2

0 1 6 4 1 1 1 0 2 5 7. 8 4 1. 2 7. 2 3. 2 8. 7 2 0

2 0 3 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 3. 4

2. 1 0 3. 1 0 9. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141. 3 0 4. 3 0 2. 9 0 5. 7 0 4. 4 0 8. 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Daiso n 8 4 8 4 8 4 2

2 9 1.5 1

6 9 1 7 7 3 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 0 2. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0P.8 9

6 i 5 Processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 1986 Capacitie s an d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

M M cf d ! Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe r day )

Coipany

AN R Pipelin e (Coastal ) Location ,

b yCensu s Cod e 7 2 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

3 4 34 3 4 34 3 4 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 3 4 34 34 34 Ga

s Ga s Through

Capacit y 80 2 70 1 3 30 1 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 10 0

500 300 22 0 40 50 38 5 30 0 3 2 100 0 45 0 40 5 0 5 0 300 270 10 0 pu t 14. 5 0. 5 32 0. 8 0. 8 1 4 5 6 6 2 6 2 20

11 4 88 11 6 1 6 1 6 13 4 11 0 24. 4 18 6 12 5 7 1 1 1 8 8 0 15 7 37 Proces s Iso

- NonalLP-Ga s Metho d Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e 2 3 7 4 3 7 1 3 1 7 4 1

5 1 3 1 1 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

58. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. 5 0 0 0

0 101. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ni x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ra wDebut

. NG L Mi x 1 2 1. 5 95 4 1. 8 32 0 0 0 13 0 0 35

96. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1. 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nat

. Gaso

. Othe r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1. 3 0 14. 8 0 0 0. 9 0. 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Sant a F e 9 3 1 5 5. 3 8. 7 0 3. 1

CS X Oi l

. Sa s 7 2 7 2 72 17

5 135 0 4 0 16 2 103 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 7 33 2 252. 1 82. 7 71. 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 0 34 0 16 5 0 0 0 0

Cene x 4 4 0. 7 1. 1 0 3. 4

Wester n Ga

s Processor s 8

4 43 4 4 44 4 4 8 3 1. 5 2. 5 6 6 5 4 32. 5 0. 3

2 4 4 4 4 3 0 3 3 3 2 7 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10. 7 0 39. 2 0 0 0 3. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32. 2 0 0 0 7. 4 0 0 0 0 2 4. 6 0 0 13. 3 3 9 0 2. 4 0 35. 6 0 0 0 0 2. 6 10. 3 0. 7 1. 9

« 4o O ) C Litinued)(con
1 r-t 1 < *->iibi 

## 3

1/ 1 * *

" • 3andPro

i n t uCapacitits:1986

c =rocessingCoapaniesandPla;

o

_ i n <__ ) >

^

« a

c uallonsfO Og

<->
—oductior

Q -

«» - V J I C -T-.Ut.

_ o O f C__ i

o c

1

m *9 C O

__ :Locatioiat.

_ i to

- E1LP-Gas

•

oIso-

i nProces

i _«

_Througl

i n ro C D

i n

_ abyCens _ , —C t Ot •• J C o u o . A * <_•

. u o o o U t o o ro to
Xo o/ >

C J
M O O

O l c o o M S 3 C O OJ = 0 0

— 1

_ » 3 C OPropane8.30

c
-fc * U J

- o e n e nMetho

J - » -^ - ir > 3 • O L r« ~

>si n u o .* *Capaci

C O C OCoipanyCode88 o o < >

O D

o

o

C J

— ^

o17.1

<_ >

C O

C O

<_ > •— >

C O C O o

o

— V O

_ >

o

o

o

o

V O

OT >

—t -

c o C O o1.6

o

o

o

o

C O

o

C O

C O

u o

C O o o0.11.9

o

o

C l o

o

—

o

C O

V O

C J

C O o o o

o

a o

—

o

o

o

o

o >

C J

C O V_ S

_ ^ C l

C O a oessing

UIfEnergyGatheringAndPro

z. to o

o

r ~

•«* •

o

o

o

o

o

C O

—t -

C O

— f(Chevron)8 o

o

C M C O

o

o

<_ •

o

o >

C O

C J C O

u o C O

—t- C O o

o

o

v O

o

o

o

o

t" ~

C O •^ -

v o

C l o

o

—t -
—

o

o

o

o

_ >

C O

©" « C O

o

C O o

o

v o

o

o

_ >

o

o

C O

v O
o

r - o

C O o

o

r* - C O

o

o

o

o

o

C O

V O C O

o

C O o

o

o o C J

o

o >

o

o

_ >

r-~

u o

— r

C l

• « • o

o

V O
o- >

— f

o

o

o

o

o

c *

r^ - C O

IS
- C O

—r - <= >

o

- * C O C O

o

o

o

o

o

r~ -

a o V O C J

o —t-

w o o

o

v o C O C J

o

o

o

_ >

o

r ^

— o o

_ >

u o o

o

" » C M

o

o

o

<= >

o

r ^

—r -

— ^

u o

• -

.

u oPasoNatural6as

U J o o o

o o o

yr <z> ao

. <m> r-m eo wo

o o o

o o o

<-> o o

o o o

o o o

—> C J C M

u o cr » C l

— r *_ •r* » o y c o C J C O

o o — r u o u o O * C M U O U O C M

w o w o u oBurlingtonNorthern)888

y—r O

O

"» • V O

o

o

o

o

o

_ A

V O r* ~

m.A r-.

u o C O o

o

u o
" »

o

o

o

o

o

C O

—y
-.-

o

— f

C O r ^ o o

o* » O C O V O

o - r C M

o o

V O O
o r ^

o O

r~ . o
o v o

w o o o o r* *

—- > — r

• * •r ^

r- » o V O C M

O O o V O C O

•« •— r r* - r* ~ o

o

o o

r ^

o

o

—

o

•^

• « • —" •

o

— >

f* ~ o oPasoHydrocarbons

U J o

v o C O

o

o

o

o

o

o

r~ .

w o
o a o

o o ^

— i -BurlingtonNorthern)7 o

o >

o

o

V O C M C M

o43.447.8

t^ »

o C M

— r c » o

o

C M C O r —
o

o

o

o

o

t» ^

a o

o C J

^- c -ochHydrocarbon

-.- o

o

ay ay

— r ^

o

o16.8

o

C J

u o

u o C M

a o o8.1

o

o

C O

o

C O V O

o

C O

C O
u o

c% o3.4

u o

o

o8.3

—to69.7

o

r> -

—

u o

o 1 — o

o

r^

. u o t —
o

o

o

o

o

-

— f O D

O O C M O

o

u o

o

o

o1.5

o

C O

C O

C M o

o

o- >

— f

o

o

o

o

o

C O

C O C O

u o o

o

a a —t ^

o2.9

o

C M

o

C O

— w o

C M
* • «

O OtrolaneLoiita

o > o

_ o

o

w o

o

o

o

o

o

• « •

c

o

— f

C O C7 * o

o

o C M

o

o

o2.8

<m>

C O

w o V O

— r

C O o» > i n

0 0botCorp

•0 C JP.9 1

1^ 5 Processin g >,o«pan:e s an o slants ; iv8 6 Capacitie s an d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

Coipan y

Nat . Ga s Pipelin e

Departien t o f Energy

Berthou d
Brighton
Cabi nCree k

Celsiu s Energ

y
Cerrit o Lan

d

Coor s Energy
Greeley Ga s C o
Lovelan d

NcHoRan (Freeport-HcHoRan )

NGL Productio n

Northwes t Pipelin e

Plane t Engineer s Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 7 3 8 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

7 1 7 4

9 3 9 3 9 3

8 4
8 4
8 4
8 4
8 4
8 4
8 4
8 4

8 4 7 3
8 4 8 4 8 3

8 4 8 3

8 4 N Hcfd

Ga

s 6a s Through Capacity 2 0 60. 5 4 0 2 0 3 5 11. 5 2 0 24. 5 1 5 2 3 4 0 33. 5

85 0 8 0

9 4 10 0 10 0

2. 5
2. 5
1.5

1 0

4 0
8
5
6

8 3 6

2 0 2 0 3 0

30 0 40 0

7. 5 pu t 7. 6 0. 9 14. 7 14. 6 10. 3 1 0 6. 9 18. 8 4. 6 0. 7 10. 5 27. 7

40 0 5 0

47. 2 106. 4 108. 1

0. 3

1
0. 2
4. 9

1 5
5. 7
2. 3

2

4. 5 21. 5
4. 5 7. 6 21. 1

17 6 21 0

2. 4 • i

'ro c es s Production (1,00 0 gal l on s per day )

Ra w Debut . Iso - NonalLP-Ga s MethodEthan e Propan e ButaneButan e 7 7 2 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 7

3 7

1 3 3

3
3

3
3

2
3
3
3

2 7
3 3 5

7 2 7

2
8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0 0
0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

39. 7 89. 4 90. 9

0
0

0
0

6
0
0
3. 9

9. 5 0
0 0 0

8 4 8 6

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0 0
0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

' 0

32. 6 73. 5 74. 7

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0 0
0 0 0

4 2 6 0

0 Ni x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NG L Ni x 22. 4 5. 7 18. 6 49. 6 18. 8 53. 2 36. 3 0 104. 9 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0

7. 6 0
0 0 0

0 0

0 6 2. 7 26. 5 93. 7

1 5 17 0

28. 4 6 5 6 6

1

4. 2
1. 7

10. 7
6
4. 7
0
0

0 52. 5
2. 9 6. 7 2. 4

0 11 9

0 Nat . iaso . Othe r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. 4

0 0
0 0 0

2 7 3 0

2. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0

0. 3
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0

0 0
0 0 0

0 0

0g 3 5 Processing Coipanie s an dPlants : 198 6 Capacitie s an dProduct s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

MHcf d Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe r day )

Coipan y Rock y Mountai nN

G

Vessel s 6 Processing Location ,

b y Censu s Cod e 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4

8 4 8 4 Ga s Ra w Debut . Ga s Through - Proces s Iso - NonalLP-6a s N6 L Nat . Capacit y put MethodEthan e Propan e ButaneButan e Ni xMi xGaso . Other N R 5 1 5 1 5 1 5

4 3 0 1. 2 2. 2 3. 5 1 8. 1

2.2 2 2 0 11. 5 0 3 5

KM Energ y (Plain s Petroleui ) 4 7 7

5 6

2 3 2. 2 33. 8 0 18. 5 0 0 4. 3 0 4 7 15

0 99. 8 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 12. 8 0 8 3 8

0 43. 2 1 0 1 3 0 4. 2 0 0 3. 1 0 8 3 5 1. 6 1 0 2. 4 0 0 2. 7 0 0 0

Kansa s Refined Heliu i

Nat' l Heliu i

NorthernNat . Ga s (Hobil )

People s Nat . Sa s
Kentuck y Hydrocarbon

Brui nPetroleu i

Claiborn e Gasolin e 4 7

4 7

4 7 8 5

4 7

6 1 6 1

7 2

7 2 2 4

100 0

20 0 22 0

4. 5 1 7

47 8

168. 9 75. 1 0. 1 0. 4 0. 7 0 0 1. 2 0

1. 2 0 15. 5 0 52. 2 0 0

0 35. 4 0 127. 1


### 0.9 0 0

0 0

2 0 5 1

4 0

N R 16. 3 49. 2
3 5

33. 6 2 7

36 7

• a • 2 0

0
0
0 0 0
0
2 7 0 0
0

12. 7 0 0
0

16. 3 0

0
0
0 0 0

2 5
0 0 31. 1 0 183. 7

0 0

0 120. 3

Davis , J.L . 7 2 7 2 8 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 1

5 7. 5 1 2 1 2 1 5 8 8 3 6 5 4 4 6 6 7 2 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 4 2 4 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Davi s Ga s Processing 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 1

2 8 1 0 2 1 6 8 9. 5 3. 5 3. 5 0. 2 8. 5 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 8 3. 5 1 4 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SJ 5 Processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 1986 Capacitie s an d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l — (continued )

H H cf d ! Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe rday )

Location , Ga s Ra wDebut

. b yCensu s 6a s Through

- Proces s Iso

- NonalLP-Ga s N6 L Nat

. Coipan yCod e Capacit ypu t Netho d Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e Hi xNi x6aso

. Othe r

74 6 3. 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 74 8 3. 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0

TM P Operating Co . Louisian a Lan

dk Exploration 7 2 2 1 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 30. 2 0 0

7 2 12 5 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0

Petro-Hun t
Placi dOi l 7 2 2

5 5. 4 0 3. 2

(S0NAT ) Flyin g J Inc

. 4 3 3

0 20. 8 9. 7 0 7. 8 0 7. 3 2. 7
7 2 7 2

Resource s Extractio n& Processing 7 2

Si dRichardso nCarbon& 6asolin e

Lakevill e Ga s Associate s Michiga nConsolidate d

SouthernNat . Ga s 7 2 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4

3 4
3 4

6 4 217. 5 40 0

20 0

1 5 1 5 1 2 6 0 12 0 4 0

2 0

1 5

75 0 20 7 61. 7

20 0

3. 2 8.1 7.1 31. 9 89. 5 16. 7

4

12. 5
28 2 2 7

7

7 3 6 7 7 7

2
3

5 0 0

64. 2

0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0 0 0

24. 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0 0 0

7. 6

0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0 0 0

7. 3

0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0 0 159. 7 0

0

0 0 0 0 71. 4

0

5. 6 16. 2 7 0 10 3 0 237. 5 0

0
0
0 78. 5

5. 5

1 0

11. 3 0 0

1 6

0 0 0 0 0 0

0
0
0 23. 3 0

0

10 0 1. 9 O. l 1. 3 1. 4 0

0
0
0

True Oi l

Nineral s Inc .

Sunterr a Ga s Processin g

BeardOi l Co . 4 3 4 4

8 5 8 5

8 5 8 5 8 5

7 3 7 3 4 1 0

4 5 6

10 0 8 5 8 5

1 3 0. 8 1.3

1 9 2. 5

78. 6 12. 3 41. 7

0. 4 1 3 3

7 6

2 7 7

3 3 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 4. 1 0 10. 2

0 30. 2 0 1. 2

0 135. 6 0 26. 4 0 69. 9

0 0. 3 0 2. 3 0

0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0 8 8P.9 4

6a s Processin g Coipanie s an d Plants : 198 6 Capacitie s an d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

HN cf d Productio n(1,00 0 gallon s pe r day )

Coipany CN GProducin g Co . Location , Ga s Ra w Debut , b y Censu s 6a s Through - Proces s Iso - NonalLP-Ga s N6 L Nat . Cod e Capacit y

put Metho dEthan e Propan e ButaneButan e Hi xHi xGaso . Othe r

Deisenrot h6a s Product s

Enoge xProductio nCorp . 

### 7 3

7 3 0. 7

O. f 3 0 4. 2

Lad dPetroleu i

Hid-Aieric a Ga s Lin e Corp .

Oklahoi a Ga s Pipelin e C o 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3

7 3 7 4

7 3 7 3 7 3

7 3 25

0 3 1 5 1 0

4 0 2 3

5 6 3

6 0 10 3 1. 9 13. 5 0. 9

30. 9 1 7

2. 3 2. 1 1. 1

3 5 2 3 7 3

7 1 2

3 3 3

7 0 0 0 0

0 0

0. 7 1 0. 5

9. 8 5 0 0 0 0

0 0

1. 8 2. 5 1. 3

1 9 0 0 0 0

0 0

0. 4 0. 5 0. 3

4.1 0 0 0 0

0 0

1. 2 1. 6 0. 7

9. 3 4 0 0 0 0

0 74. 3

5. 6 7. 8 3. 3

0 0 5 4 2 1 2

63. 8 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0

1. 5 2.1 0. 5

11. 7 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0

Adob e Resource s Corp .

Ancho r Gasolin e Cor p

BH P Petroleu i

Blac kHaw k
Breckenridg e

Brui n 

### 7 4

7 4 1 6

6 7 11. 4



### N R 0 75. 4

5 0 0. 8

7 4

7 4

7 4

7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 1

8
1.5

7

2 0 4 1 2 4 1 3
0. 7

3. 2

1 8 4 1 1 6
3 4

1

7 3 3 3 43. 2
0
0

0 0 0 0 58. 2
0
0

0 0 0 0 8
0
0

0 0 0 0 23. 4
0
0

0 0 0 0 0
2
0

0 0 0 0 0
0

7. 3

43. 1 4 2 0 22. 6
0
0

0 0 0 0 0. 9
0
0

0 0 0 0

Doubl e UOi l 

### 7 4 0.

4 0 0. 5

Eagl e Petroleu i Corp .

Endevc o 7 4 7 4

7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 1. 5 1.5

3 0 2 0 13 0 3 0 0. 5 0. 5

2 6 1 1 10 0 2 4 3 3

7 7 1 7 8 9 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2. 5

5 6 2 0 0 7 5 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0r

}ii Processin g coipanie s an d Plan;s : 138

6 Capacitie s an

d Product s Exhibi t A- l —^continued )

H H cf d ! Productio n (1,00 0 gallon s pe rday )
Location , Ga s Ra wDebut , b yCensu s 6a s Through - Proces s Iso - NonalLP-Ga s N6 L Nat

. Coipan yCode Capacit ypu t Netho d Ethan e Propan e ButaneButan e Hi x, Hi xGaso

. Othe r
Farilan d Industrie s In e 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 8 3

7 4 7 4 1

5 3 5 5 0 1 0 7

4 4 13. 6 31. 5 24. 1 3. 9 1. 8

2 3 7 7 7 3 3

3 3 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 4. 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 94. 2 98. 7 16 0 20. 7 4. 4

4 6 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 For t Chadbourn e Cor p

Gerlan e Petroleu i 74 1 2 3 2 0 0000 6
66S I Gatherin g 74 3 0 18. 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 128. 1
Housto n Oi l & Hineral s 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 4 5

1 10 5 1 8 3. 5 0. 8 3 8 1 0 3 4 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. 4 1. 2 0 2 0 0 6. 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 5 0 1 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 17. 6 0 2 0

Hun tOi l C o

HAPC 0 Uestpa n Inc

.

Hill s Bennet t Estat e

Parad e
Periia n (Occidental )
Perr y Phillips , Jac kL .
Porta l

Pront o

Seagul l 7 4

7 4 7 4 7 4

7 4

7 4

7 4 7 4

7 4

7 4

7 4

7 4 7 4 7 4

7 4 87. 5 1 0

10 0 6 0 10 0

8
3

5 5
10 0

7

2. 2

1 2 0. 8

25 0 6 7 3

13. 4 3 5 1

1. 5
1. 7

2 2
0

1

3. 4

0.1 1. 8 0. 2

19 4 2 3

2 2 2

2
3
3 3

7
3

3

3 3 3

7
9 0 0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0 0
0
0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0 0
0
0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0 0
0
0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0 0
0
0

0

0 0 0

0 0 157. 5 0

0 0 0

1. 1
0
0 0
0
0

0

0 0 0 2. 7

39. 4 12 2 2. 5

0

17. 2
6 1 1
0
1.3

9. 5

0. 6 2. 1 0. 2

0 215. 3 0

0

0 0 0

0
0
0 0
2 5
0
0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0
0
0 0
0
0

0

0 0 0

0ga s Processing Coipanie s an d Plants : 198 6 Capacitie s an d Product s 

### Exhibi t A- l —(continued )

HH cfd ! Productio n(1,00 0 gallon s pe

r day )
Location , 6a s Ra w Debut , b y Censu s 6a s Through - Proces s Iso - NonaILP-6a s N6 L Nat . Coipan y Cod

e Capacity

pu t Netho dEthan e Propan e ButaneButan

e NixHixGaso . Othe r Southwes t Fores t 6a s Gatherin g 7 4 1 6 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0

SP 6 Exploratio n 7 4 5 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 7. 3 0 0 7 4 6 0 21. 5 2 0 27. 1 0 12. 3 0 0 7. 9 1 2
Unite d Texa

s Transmissio n 7

4 4 0 10. 6 7 0 0 0 0 7. 5 0 0. 1

ViiGa s C o 7 4 6 5 3 2 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 146. 2 23. 1 0

7 4 20 0 12 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 567. 8 20. 5 0

W Su bIn e

Gar y Energ y Cor p 

### 7

4

8 7 12. 5 1. 3

2 3 11. 3 0 0

0. 6 13. 8 0 0. 8 0 0 0 3. 9

0 0 0. 8 0 23. 5 0

Mountai nFue l Resource s Inc .



### 8 7 12 0 77. 7 0 0 0 0 3. 7 0 0
Coluibi a Ga

s Transmissio n Cor p

5 5 3 5 3 2 5 5 12 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 41. 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0
Consolidate d Ga

s Transmissio n Corp

5 5 15 0 118. 6 3 210. 1 129. 6 22. 1 41. 8 0 41. 3 0 0

Inexc o (Louisian a Land

. E

x83 2

5 2 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 4 0 0
Ralsto n Processin g Associate s 8 3 6 1 8 3 N

A N A 2 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0

2 0 1. 5 0 1. 7 0 0 2 0

9 1T J

< U 3 C —A Am* c o V

_-
*tm--t J C 

# 8 w

i n m c T J Qi O 1 i O • ^ *- * O

J 0 J O TU T r f OJ | N 'T i r-

J - M I N U T U T T f O J U J * I N I N O O o r r—t -t U T y - t >T > U T U T U TO T O TC O

U l a t TJ o o

-r-t

- P Iti IJ o

_ l o

- p

OJ O

J

- p O i

- p C O

OJ

- p •V

- p t o I I I I I i a x c

_< »- • Q 2 X(-l-<t<>i-i>
- ZOOOLL_CDU)KI-3>>333 3

I U J 0 J -r-t -t

CO rt

CO u T t «- " u J 0 0 O

J O J U T C O T f 0 0 yy

O J 0 0 r M l_ ) N U T

C D

I I I I I > U

J Q < z : -Z z : 2 tT

J O r - II I > _:_:_:_ : 2 2 i ^ z : > o

2 Z 2 2 2

3 u i m C T J a i o i r o * u J —O J 1 " i£ > '- i O J "J i C O U T0 1 O TO J O J I N I <J J 'T i C O ( N iT i 0 0 ^ U

TU TU TU T'X i 0 0 C

O O J ^ •*

nj

- p < 0

- p C O 1 1 1 1 J_!N(_<OKUIuJ<<QJZ<U ) < < < < U U U Q O I vO I M H H H

_ 

# VP.9 8

ja s Processin g Coipanies : Capacity , 198 6 Productio n an d Revenue s 

### Exhibi t A- 2

Coipan y

1 Phillip s (1 ) 2 Exxo n 3 Texac o 4 Shel l 5 Aioc o 6 Chevro n(2 ) 7 Conoc o 8 Nobi l 9 Occidenta l 1 0 Enro n 1 1 Valer o 1 2 Su n 1 3 Hitchel l 1 4 ARC O 1 5 Burlingto nNorther n 1 6 Allied-Signa l (3 ) 1 7 U.S . Dep t of Energy 1 8 US X 1 9 Coasta l 2 0 CS X 2 1 Haxu s Energy 2 2 Unio nPacifi c 2 3 Tennec o 2 4 Enserc h 2 5 H i 1Sa s C o 2 6 Northwes t Pipelin e 2 7 Unoca l 2 8 Si dRichardso n 2 9 Koc hHydrocarbo n 3 0 Cabo t Corp . 3 1 Consol . Ga s Trans . 3 2 Wester nGa s Proc . 3 3 Daiso n 3 4 FarilandIndustrie s 3 5 Hes a 3 6 Kerr-HeSe e 3 7 Sunterr a Ga s Proc. 3 8 Placi dOi l 3 9 Associate d 4 0 Seagul l 4 1 BH P Petroleu i 4 2 Claiborn e Gasolin e 4 3 Coluibi a Ga s Trans . 4 4 Anadark o 4 5 HAPC O HestpanInc . 4 6 Hun t Oi l 4 7 Endevc o 4 8 Plain s Petroleu i 4 9 Nat' l Heliu i 5 0 Davi s Ga s Proc . 5 1 G6S I Gathering 5 2 Davis , J.L . P 1
a n t HHcf d Ga

s 6a s Through s Capacit y
4 0 2 5 4 7 3 1 3 1 5 8 1 2 3 3 2 9 2 0 1 0 2 6 3 3 2 8 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 0 3 1 1 7 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 1 2 1 1 3 1 5 5 6 6 3 2 7 1 1 3,334. 5 5,373. 0 4,475. 5 7,379. 1 2,603. 0 649. 7 1,919. 0 4,747. 9 2,805. 5 3,253. 4 1,320. 6 822. 6 822. 0 4,153. 9 1,916. 0 593. 0 294. 0 1,962. 3 4,589. 0 1,565. 0 375. 0 917. 7 1,187. 5 333. 5 265. 0 700. 0 380. 6 262. 0 182. 0 343. 0 150. 0 224. 5 401. 5 117. 0 448. 0 pu t
2,000. 0 2,620. 5 1,963. 1 3,531. 6 1,484. 8 1,366. 5 1,206. 2 2,537. 5 1,539. 4 2,547. 0 1,091. 8 539. 4 478. 7 531. 6 813. 3 365. 9 261. 7 732. 1 1,583. 4 1,222. 0 275. 6 652. 6 619. 3 230. 4 161. 0 386. 0 232. 1 156. 5 99. 5 127. 3 118. 6 109. 9 153. 6 74. 9 147. 3 133. 0 N R 270. 0 617. 5 164. 0 250. 0 18. 0 2 N R 2 6 3 2 4 4 2 9 2 6 155. 0 86. 0 260. 0 97. 5 210. 0 310. 0 1,000. 0 75. 0 30. 0 69. 5 132. 6 268. 7 113. 9 194. 0 13. 0 33. 6 152. 0 32. 1 49. 4 70. 0 161. 0 206. 6 478. 0 37. 2 18. 7 30. 0 Productio n

Ethan e

1,225. 2 654. 2 341. 8 149. 8 167. 0 461. 1 383. 6 0. 0 201. 7 775. 3 0. 0 0. 0 354. 1 126. 3 323. 4 0. 0 34. 1 0. 0 332. 0 0. 0 313. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 210. 1 0. 0 25. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 43. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 - 1,00 0 gallon s pe

r da y

Propan e

700. 9 675. 8 365. 5 428. 0 210. 2 306. 5 164. 8 138. 6 642. 2 506. 6 284. 5 159. 3 425. 1 205. 2 366. 6 220. 0 52. 6 81. 5 252. 1 244. 7 201. 6 118. 5 0. 0 0. 0 170. 0 176. 7 0. 0 97. 2 0. 0 129. 6 85. 7 85. 0 4. 2 15. 3 25. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 58. 2 27. 0 0. 0 18. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 49. 2 1. 2 10. 5 0. 0 0. 0 9 3 Iso butan e

90. 4 115. 6 16. 4 11. 1 34. 8 71. 6 42. 1 16. 0 94. 8 118. 5 132. 0 25. 2 40. 9 0. 0 64. 2 0. 0 2. 7 0. 0 82. 7 47. 1 2. 9 36. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 22. 1 3. 9 0. 0 0. 0 1.4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 8. 0 12. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Noria l Butan e

453. 6 205. 0 42. 9 326. 4 51. 3 100. 1 44. 4 76. 5 231. 5 159. 2 69. 3 27. 4 210. 6 93. 2 136. 2 180. 8 22. 9 112. 4 71. 2 115. 1 56. 0 61. 4 0. 0 0. 0 102. 0 108. 4 0. 0 56. 0 0. 0 41. 8 46. 6 3. 5 0. 0 5.1 17. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 23. 4 16. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 24. 7 15. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 LP-6a s Ni x

0. 0 0. 0 387. 8 0. 0 7. 6 0. 0 16. 7 178. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 4. 3 6. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 18. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 7. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 31. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Ra w NG L Hi x

1,295. 1 2,174. 7 3,271. 1 1,215. 9 2,412. 4 1,680. 0 2,087. 7 1,833. 4 274. 7 221. 8 544. 6 1,226. 1 0. 0 854. 7 0. 0 159. 4 975. 7 477. 7 153. 0 110. 5 731. 4 246. 0 741. 1 714. 0 119. 0 70. 1 510. 8 150. 3 438. 4 41. 3 101. 7 359. 1 378. 0 332. 8 157. 8 231. 9 231. 1 217. 6 215. 3 0. 0 0. 0 171. 5 166. 7 163. 9 160. 2 151. 0 0. 0 52. 2 139. 5 128. 1 126. 0 Debut . Nat . 6aso .

391. 1 287. 2 93. 0 202. 4 20. 8 135. 3 95. 7 78. 5 205. 2 0. 0 173. 0 83. 7 219. 5 447. 6 190. 6 0. 0 48. 4 19. 9 165. 0 0. 0 164. 0 191. 1 0. 0 43. 6 57. 0 104. 3 0. 0 61. 5 0. 0 0. 0 58. 0 6. 0 0. 0 4. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 22. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 20. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Othe r

54. 9 4. 2 0. 0 521. 9 8.1 15. 3 83. 2 190. 6 1.5 0. 0 662. 7 28. 1 10. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 62. 8 29. 7 0. 0 390. 8 0. 0 259. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 5 104. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 31. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 23. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 9 120. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l Product s
8,047. 2P.9 9

oa s Processin g Conpanies : Capacity , 198 6 Productionan dRevenue s 

### Exhibi t A- 2 —(continued )

Coipan y

5 3 Arkl a 5 4 Resource s Extractio n 5 5 Oklahoi a Ga s P L 5 6 SP 6 Exploratio n 5 7 Adob e Resource s 1 5 8 Brui nPetroleu i 1 5 9 Louisian a Lan

di t Exp . 1 6 0 Lad

dPetroleu i 6 1 Enoge xProductio n 6 2 Freeport-HcHoRa n 6 3 Flying J Inc . 6 4 Vessel s 6 Processin g i 6 5 Standar d j 6 6 Southwes t Fores t Sa s 6 7 Ralsto nProcessin g 6 8 Mineral s Inc . j 6 9 FH P Operating Co . 7 0 Housto nOi l & Min . 7 1 Gary Energy Corp 7 2 Nid-Aieric a Ga s Lin e 7 3 Petrolan e Loiit a 7 4 Cene x 7 5 Petro-Hun t 7 6 Sant a F e 7 7 Parad e 7 8 Tru e Oi l 7 9 N6 L Productio n 8 0 SONAT , Inc . 8 1 Celsiu s Energy 8 2 Michiga nConsolidate d 8 3 For t Chadbourn e Cor p 8 4 Porta l 8 5 Unite dTexa s Trans . 8 6 Breckenridg e 8 7 Kansa s Refine dHeliu i 8 8 Cerrit o Lan

d 8 9 Gerlan e Petroleu i 9 0 Lakevill e Ga s Assoc . 9 1 Coor s Energy 9 2 Eagl e 9 3 Brighto n 9 4 CN GProducin g Co . 9 5 W W SubIn e 9 6 Mountai nFue l Res . 9 7 Rocky Mountai nN 6 9 8 Deisenrot h6a s Prod . 9 9 Pront o 10 0 BeardOi l Co . 10 1 Cabi nCree k 10 2 Phillips , Jac kL . 10 3 Berthoud 10 4 Doubl e UOi l P 1
a n t HHcf d Ga

s Ga s Through s Capacit y
7 1 1 2 1 5 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1' 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 241. 0 200. 0 60. 0 65. 0 16. 0 80. 0 150. 0 63. 0 278. 0 44. 0 30. 0 34. 0 90. 0 16. 0 6. 0 51. 0 21. 0 179. 0 35. 5 14. 0 54. 0 3. 0 25. 0 15. 0 3. 0 14. 0 70. 0 750. 0 10. 0 15. 0 8. 0 2. 2 40. 0 7. 0 24. 0 40. 0 12. 0 20. 0 8. 0 3. 0 2. 5 2. 0 2. 0 120. 0 50. 0 1. 0 3. 8 4. 0 1.5 7. 0 2. 5 1. 0 pu t

89. 1 200. 0 35. 0 24. 5 11. 4 59. 0 86. 0 47. 9 119. 2 26. 0 20. 8 24. 2 73. 0 6. 0 1. 0 21. 5 13. 0 69. 3 12. 6 5. 5 23. 5 0. 7 8. 0 5. 3 1. 7 2.1 33. 2 282. 0 4. 9 12. 5 5. 0 3. 4 10. 6 3. 2 17. 0 15. 0 3. 0 4. 0 5. 7 1. 0 1. 0 0. 7 1. 0 77. 7 16. 0 0. 8 2. 1 1.4 0. 2 1. 0 0. 3 0. 4 Productio n-

Ethan e P r
0. 0 64. 2 9. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 9 4 1,00 0

opan e

19. 2 24. 3 19. 0 27. 1 0. 0 0. 0 15. 0 0. 0 50. 0 9. 5 9. 7 0. 0 6. 5 0. 0 5. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 14. 4 5. 6 2. 8 1. 1 5. 4 8. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.1 6. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 gallon s per da

y

Iso butan e
7. 9 7. 6 4.1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Noria l Butan e
11. 3 7. 3 9.3 12. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 7. 8 0. 0 6. 5 0. 0 5. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 8 3. 5 0. 0 3. 4 3. 2 3.1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 LP-Ga s Ni x
2. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 74. 3 40. 0 7. 6 0. 0 0. 0 .218. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 16. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Ra w NG L Mi x
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 7. 3 75. 4 74. 1 69. 0 63. 8 59. 0 52. 5 7. 3 46. 5 0. 0 36. 0 0. 0 31. 4 30. 2 29. 2 23. 5 0. 0 25. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 17. 2 14. 3 12. 0 11. 3 10. 7 10. 0 10. 0 9. 5 7. 5 7. 3 0. 0 6. 0 6. 0 5. 5 4. 7 4. 5 4. 2 4. 2 3. 9 3. 7 3. 4 3. 0 2. 9 2. 6 1. 7 1.3 1. 0 0. 5 Debut . Nat . Gaso .
26. 0 16. 0 11. 7 7. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 11. 0 0. 0 6. 0 0. 0 0. 0 6. 6 0. 8 4. 1 0. 0 0. 0 2. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l Othe r Product s
3. 7 0. 0 0. 0 12. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 45. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 20. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

iP. 1

Ba s Processin g Companies : Capacity , 198 6 .Productio n an

d Revenue

s 

### Exhibi t A- 2 —(continued )

Coipan y

10 5 Plane t Engineer s 10 6 Hill s Bennet t Estat e 10 7 Blac kHawk 10 8 Ancho r Gasolin e Cor p 10 9 Kentuck y

Hydrocarbo n 11 0 Lovelan d 11 1 Perr y 11 2 Greele y

Ga s C o 11 3 People s Nat . 6a s 11 4 Pennzoi l

Tota l P

1
a n 

### t s

- 1

9 HHcf d Ga

s Ga s Through Capacit y
7. 5 8. 0 1.5 67. 0 N R 71. 0 6. 0 100. 0 5. 0 4. 5 9. 0 pu t
2. 4 1.5 0. 7

65. 5 2. 0 0. 0 2. 3 3. 0 5. 0

81 0 67,885. 3 35,523. 7 0. 0 Productio n

Ethan e
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
6,199. 3 - 1,00 0

Propan e
3. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 3. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
7,941. 3 gallon s

Iso butan e
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
1,114. 6 pe r day

Noraa l Butan e
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
3,383. 0 LP-Ga s

Ni x
0. 0 1. 1 2. 0 5. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 0 0. 9 0. 0 Ra w NG L Mi x
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
1,031. 0 29,014. 4 Debut .

Nat . Gaso . 2. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 8 0. 0 4. 4 25. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 0
3,718, 5 Tota l

Othe r Product s
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 214. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
2,900. 4 8,047. 2

(1 ) Phillip s Petroleu i Co

. doe s no t releas e plant - or state-specifi c data , onl y th e total s include dhere . (2 ) Chevron' s ga

s capacit y figure s ar e incoiplete

. because it s subsidiary , Uarre n Petroleui , doe s no t releas e thi s information

. (3 ) Allied-Signal , Inc

. ovn s 50 Z o fUnio n Texas Petroleu i Holdings , Inc

.

(Source : Oi l and Ga

s Journal ; Jul y 13 , 1987 ; Moody' s Industria l Manual , 1987 ; Selecte d Coipan y Annua l Reports. )

9 5P. 2
I >'ta Processin g •.'•"'ipanies.

- Capacity , i38 6 Productio n an d Revenue

s 

### Exhibi t A- 2 —(continued )

Coipan y

1 Phillip s (1 ) 2 Exxo n 3 Texac o 4 Shel l 5 Aioc o 6 Chevro n(2 ) 7 Conoc o 8 Mobi l 9 Occidenta l 1 0 Enro n 1 1 Valer o 1 2 Su n 1 3 Mitchel l 1 4 ARC O 1 5 Burlingto nNorther n 1 6 Allied-Signa l (3 ) 1 7 U.S . Dep t o f Energ y 1 8 US X 1 9 Coasta l 2 0 CS X 2 1 Haxu s -Energ

y 2 2 Unio nPacifi c 2 3 Tennec o 2 4 Enserc h 2 5 Ni l Ga s C o 2 6 Northwes t Pipelin e 2 7 Unoca l 2 8 Si dRichardso n 2 9 Koc hHydrocarbo n 3 0 Cabo t Corp . 3 1 Consol . Ga s Trans . 3 2 Wester nGa s Proc . 3 3 Oaiso n 3 4 Farilan dIndustrie s 3 5 Mes a 3 6 Kerr-Hc6e e 3 7 Sunterr a Ga s Proc . 3 8 Placi dOi l 3 9 Associate d 4 0 Seagul l 4 1 BH P Petroleu i 4 2 Claiborn e Gasolin e 4 3 Coluibi a Ga s Trans . 4 4 Anadark o 4 5 MAPC OUestpa nInc . 4 6 Hun t Oi l 4 7 Endevc o 4 8 Plain s Petroleu i 4 9 Nat' l Heliu i 5 0 Davi s Ga s Proc . 5 1 66S I Gatherin g 5 2 Davis , J.L . P 1
a n t s
4 0 2 5 4 7 3 1 3 1 5 8 1 2 3 3 2 9 2 0 1 0 2 6 3 3 2 8 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 0 3 1 1 7 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 1 2 1 1 3 1 5 5 6 6 3 2 7 1 1 2 2 6 3 2 4 4 2 9 2 6 Ethan e fro a Ra w NG L
2,525. 3 406. 4 682. 4 1,026. 5 381. 6 757. 0 527. 2 655. 1 575. 3 86. 2 69. 6 170. 9 384. 8 0. 0 268. 2 0. 0 50. 0 306. 2 149. 9 48. 0 34. 7 229. 5 77. 2 232. 6 224. 1 37. 3 22. 0 160. 3 47. 2 137. 6 13. 0 31. 9 112. 7 113. 6 104. 4 49. 5 72. 8 72. 5 68. 3 67. 6 0. 0 0. 0 53. 8 52. 3 51. 4 50. 3 47. 4 0. 0 16. 4 43. 8 40. 2 39. 5 Propan e fro i Raw NG L
2,642. 6 425. 3 714. 1 1,074. 2 399. 3 792. 2 551. 7 685. 6 602. 1 90. 2 72. 8 178. 8 402. 6 0. 0 280. 7 0. 0 52. 3 320. 4 156. 9 50. 2 36. 3 240. 2 80. 8 243. 4 234. 5 39. 1 23. 0 167. 7 49. 4 144. 0 13. 6 33. 4 117. 9 124. 1 109. 3 51. 8 76. 2 75. 9 71. 5 70. 7 0. 0 0. 0 56. 3 54. 7 53. 8 52. 6 49. 6 0. 0 17. 1 45. 8 42. 1 41. 4 Iso-C 4 fro a Ra w N6 L

664. 7 107. 0 179. 6 270. 2 100. 4 199. 3 138. 8 172. 5 151. 4 22. 7 18. 3 45. 0 101. 3 0. 0 70. 6 0. 0 13. 2 80. 6 39. 5 12. 6 9. 1 60. 4 20. 3 61. 2 59. 0 9. 8 5. 8 42. 2 12. 4 36. 2 3. 4 8. 4 29. 7 31. 2 27. 5 13. 0 19. 2 19. 1 18. 0 17. 8 0. 0 0. 0 14. 2 13. 8 13. 5 13. 2 12. 5 0. 0 4. 3 11. 5 10. 6 10. 4 n-C 4 fro i Ra w NG L

814. 9 131. 2 220. 2 331. 3 123. 1 244. 3 170. 1 211. 4 185. 7 27. 8 22. 5 55. 2 124. 2 0. 0 86. 6 0. 0 16. 1 98. 8 48. 4 15. 5 11. 2 74. 1 24. 9 75. 0 72. 3 12. 1 7.1 51. 7 15. 2 44. 4 4. 2 10. 3 36. 4 38. 3 33. 7 16. 0 23. 5 23. 4 22. 0 21. 8 0. 0 0. 0 17. 4 16. 9 16. 6 16. 2 15. 3 0. 0 5. 3 14. 1 13. 0 12. 8 9 6 C 5 • fro i Ra w NG l
1,399. 6 225. 3 378. 2 568. 9 211. 5 419. 6 292. 2 363. 1 318. 9 47. 8 38. 6 94. 7 213. 3 0. 0 148. 7 0. 0 27. 7 169. 7 83. 1 26. 6 19. 2 127. 2 42. 8 128. 9 124. 2 20. 7 12. 2 88. 8 26. 1 76. 2 7. 2 17. 7 62. 5 65. 7 57. 9 27. 4 40. 3 40. 2 37. 8 37. 4 0. 0 0. 0 29. 8 29. 0 28. 5 27. 9 26. 3 0. 0 9. 1 24. 3 22. 3 21. 9 Tota l Ethan e

1,631. 6 1,336. 6 1,368. 3 531. 4 924. 0 988. 3 1,038. 7 575. 3 287. 9 844. 9 170. 9 384. 8 354. 1 394. 5 323. 4 50. 0 340. 3 149. 9 380. 0 34. 7 542. 5 77. 2 232. 6 224. 1 37. 3 22. 0 160. 3 47. 2 137. 6 223. 1 31. 9 137. 7 118. 6 104. 4 49. 5 72. 8 72. 5 68. 3 67. 6 43. 2 0. 0 53. 8 52. 3 51. 4 50. 3 47. 4 2. 2 16. 4 43. 8 40. 2 39. 5 Tota l Propan e

1,126. 2 1,389. 9 1,439. 7 827. 3 1,002. 4 858. 2 850. 4 740. 7 732. 4 579. 4 463. 3 561. 9 425' . 1 485. 9 366. 6 272. 3 373. 0 238. 4 302. 3 281. 0 441. 8 199. 3 243. 4 234. 5 209. 1 199. 7 167. 7 146. 6 144. 0 143. 2 119. 1 202. 9 128. 3 124. 6 77. 3 76. 2 75. 9 71. 5 70. 7 58. 2 27. 0 56. 3 73. 1 53. 8 52. 6 49. 6 49. 2 18. 3 56. 3 42. 1 41. 4 Tota l Iso-C 4

197. 4 255. 6 226. 9 89. 3 190. 1 179. 7 176. 5 134. 0 112. 5 132. 8 167. 0 104. 1 40. 9 55. 0 64. 2 10. 3 65. 5 30. 7 92. 5 54. 2 50. 0 52. 1 47. 7 45. 9 7, 7 4. 5 32. 9 9. 7 28. 2 24. 8 10. 4 23. 1 24. 3 22. 8 10. 2 14. 9 14. 9 14. 0 13. 9 8. 0 12. 7 11. 0 10. 7 10. 5 10. 3 9. 7 0. 0 3. 4 9. 0 8. 2 8.1 Tota l n-C 4

584. 8 425. 2 374. 2 449. 5 295. 6 270. 2 255. 8 262. 2 259. 3 181. 7 124. 5 151. 6 210. 6 179. 8 136. 2 196. 9 121. 7 160. 8 86. 7 126. 3 130. 1 86. 3 75. 0 72. 3 114. 1 115. 5 51. 7 71. 2 44. 4 46. 0 56. 9 39. 9 38. 3 38. 8 33. 4 23. 5 23. 4 22. 0 21. 8 23. 4 16. 3 17. 4 16. 9 16. 6 16. 2 15. 3 24. 7 20. 8 14. 1 13. 0 12. 8 1 1

Tota l C 5 •

671. 3 669. 6 1,049. 7 935. 8 456. 1 442. 8 558. 7 766. 0 254. 5 38. 6 930. 4 325. 1 229. 5 596. 3 190. 6 27. 7 285. 2 139. 0 191. 6 410. 0 291. 2 493. 0 128. 9 167. 8 77. 7 135. 7 193. 5 87. 6 76. 2 7. 2 114. 9 68. 5 65. 7 62. 6 59. 1 40. 3 63. 5 37. 8 37. 4 23. 5 120. 3 29. 8 29. 0 28. 5 27. 9 26. 3 22. 9 9. 1 24. 3 22. 3 21. 9 Valu e Ethan e

555.5 6 358.9 6 294.0 6 301.0 3 116.9 0 203.2 9 217.4 3 228.5 2 126.5 7 63.3 4 185.8 8 37.6 0 84.6 5 77.9 0 86.7 9 71.1 5 11.0 0 74.8 6 32.9 8 83.6 0 7.6 3 119.3 5 16.9 8 51.1 6 49.2 9 8.2 2 4.8 4 35.2 6 10.3 8 30.2 7 49.0 7 7.0 2 30.2 9 26.1 0 22.9 8 10.8 9 16.0 1 15.9 5 15.0 2 14.8 6 9.5 0 0.0 0 11.8 4 11.5 1 11.3 2 11.0 6 10.4 2 0.4 8 3.6 0 9.6 3 8.8 4 8.7 0P. 3

•Ja s ,-rocessin g U'apanies : lapacicy , jjSf a F'rC'Cuc;;o n on e Revenue s 

### Exhibi t A- 2 —(continued )

Coipan y

5 3 Arkl a 5 4 Resource s Extractio n 5 5 Oklahoi a Ga s P L 5 6 SP GExploratio n 5 7 Adob e Resource s 5 8 Brui nPetroleu i 5 9 Louisian a Lan

d& E.xp . 6 0 LaddPetroleu i 6 1 Enoge xProductio n 6 2 Freeport-McHoRa n 6 3 Flyin g J Inc . 6 4 Vessel s GProcessing 6 5 Standar d 6 6 Southwes t Fores t 6a s 6 7 Ralsto nProcessin g 6 8 Mineral s Inc . 6 9 FH P Operatin g Co . 7 0 Housto nOi l & Min . 7 1 Gar y Energy Corp 7 2 Hid-Aieric a Ga s Lin e 7 3 Petrolan e Loiit a 7 4 Cene x 7 5 Petro-Hun t 7 6 Sant a F e 7 7 Parad e 7 8 Tru e Oi l 7 9 NG L Productio n 8 0 SONAT , Inc . 8 1 Celsiu s Energ

y 8 2 Michiga nConsolidate d 8 3 For t Chadbourn e Corp 8 4 Porta l 8 5 Unite dTexa s Trans . 8 6 Breckenridg e 8 7 Kansa s Refine dHeliu i 8 8 Cerrit o Lan

d 8 9 6erlan e Petroleu i 9 0 Lakevill e Ga s Assoc . 9 1 Coor s Energy 9 2 Eagl e 9 3 Brighto n 9 4 CN 6 Producin g Co . 9 5 U USu bIn e 9 6 Mountai nFue l Res . 9 7 Rocky Mountai nN

G 9 8 Deisenrot hGa s Prod . 9 9 Pront o 10 0 Bear dOi l Co . 10 1 Cabi nCree k 10 2 Phillips , Jac kL . 10 3 Berthou d 10 4 Doubl e UOi l P 1
a n t s
7 1 1 2 1 5 2 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 Ethan e fro i Ra w N6 L
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 3 23. 7 23. 3 21. 7 20. 0 18. 5 16. 5 2. 3 14. 6 0. 0 11. 3 0. 0 9. 9 9. 5 9. 2 7. 4 0. 0 7. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 5. 4 4. 5 3. 8 3. 5 3. 4 3.1 3.1 3. 0 2. 4 2. 3 0. 0 1.9 1. 9 1. 7 1.5 1.4 1. 3 1.3 1. 2 1.2 1. 1 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 Propan e fro i Ra w NGL
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 2. 4 24. 8 24. 3 22. 7 21. 0 19. 4 17. 2 2. 4 15. 3 0. 0 11. 8 0. 0 10. 3 9. 9 9. 6 7. 7 0. 0 8. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 5. 6 4. 7 3. 9 3. 7 3. 5 3. 3 3. 3 3.1 2. 5 2. 4 0. 0 2. 0 2. 0 1. 8 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1. 3 1.2 1. 1 1. 0 1. 0 0. 9 0. 6 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 Iso-C 4 fro i Ra w NGL
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 6 6. 2 6. 1 5. 7 5. 3 4. 9 4. 3 0. 6 3. 8 0. 0 3. 0 0. 0 2. 6 2. 5 2. 4 1. 9 0. 0 2. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1.4 1. 2 1. 0 0. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0. 8 0. 8 0. 6 0. 6 0. 0 t 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0. 0 n-C 4 fro i Ra w NGL
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 7 7. 6 7. 5 7. 0 6.5 6. 0 5. 3 0. 7 4. 7 0. 0 3. 5 0. 0 3. 2 3.1 3. 0 2. 4 0. 0 2. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 7 1. 4 1.2 1. 1 1. 1 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 0. 8 0. 7 0. 0 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 C 5 • fro i Ra w N6 L
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1.3 13. 1 12. 9 12. 0 11. 1 10. 3 9. 1 1.3 8. 1 0. 0 6. 3 0. 0 5. 5 5. 3 5. 1 4. 1 0. 0 4. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 3. 0 2. 5 2.1 2. 0 1.9 1. 7 1. 7 1. 7 1.3 1.3 0. 0 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 0. 8 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 3 0. 2 0. 2 0.1 Tota l Ethan e
0. 0 64. 2 9.8 2. 3 23. 7 23. 3 21. 7 20. 0 18. 5 16. 5 2. 3 14. 6 0. 0 11. 3 0. 0 9.9 9. 5 9. 2 7.4 2. 2 7. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 5. 4 4.5 3. 8 3.5 3. 4 3. 1 3. 1 3. 0 2. 4 2. 3 0. 0 1. 9 1.9 1. 7 1. 5 1. 4 1. 3 1. 3 1. 2 1.2 1. 1 0. 9 0.9 0. 8 0.5 0. 4 0.3 0. 2 Tota l Propan e

19. 2 24. 3 19. 0 29. 5 24. 8 24. 3 37. 7 21. 0 69. 4 26. 7 12. 1 15. 3 6. 5 11. 8 5. 5 10. 3 9. 9 9. 6 22. 1 5. 6 11. 0 1. 1 5. 4 8. 7 5. 6 4. 7 3. 9 3. 7 3. 5 3. 3 3. 3 3.1 2. 5 2. 4 0.1 8. 0 2. 0 1. 8 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1. 2 1. 1 1. 0 1. 0 0. 9 0. 6 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2 Tota l Iso-C 4
7. 9 7. 6 4.1 0. 5 4. 9 4. 8 4. 4 4.1 3. 8 3. 4

' 0. 5 3. 0 0. 0 2. 3 0. 0 2. 0 1.9 1.9 1.5 1. 2 1.6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 1 0. 9 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0. 0 Tota l n-C 4

11. 3 7. 3 9. 3 13. 0 7. 6 7. 5 7. 0 6.5 6. 0 5. 3 8. 5 4. 7 6.5 3. 6 5. 7 3. 2 3. 1 3. 0 3. 2 3. 5 2. 5 3. 4 3. 2 3.1 1. 7 1.4 1. 2 1. 1 1. 1 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 0. 8 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 4 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 l

Tota l C 5 •

31. 9 16. 0 11. 7 21. 2 13. 1 12. 9 12. 0 85. 4 50. 3 16. 7 1.3 8. 1 274. 0 6. 3 6. 0 5. 5 5. 3 31. 7 4. 9 20. 8 4. 3 0. 0 2. 7 0. 0 3. 0 2. 5 2.1 2. 0 1.9 1. 7 1. 7 1. 7 1.4 1.3 1. 2 1. 0 1. 0 1. 0 0. 8 0. 8 1. 0 0. 7 0. 7 0. 6 0. 6 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 4 0. 2 0. 2 0.1 Valu e Ethan e

0.0 0 14.1 2 2.1 6 0.5 0 5.2 1 5.1 2 4.7 6 4.4 0 4.0 7 3.6 2 0.5 0 3.2 1 0.0 0 2.4 9 0.0 0 2.1 7 2.0 8 2.0 2 1.6 2 0.4 8 1.7 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.1 9 0.9 9 0.8 3 0.7 8 0.7 4 0.6 9 0.6 9 0.6 6 0.5 2 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.3 8 0.3 2 0.3 1 0.2 9 0.2 9 0.2 7 0.2 6 0.2 3 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.1 8 0.1 2 0.0 9 0.0 7 0.0 3 9 7P. 4

risin g Coapanies : Capacity , 198 6 Productio n an d Revenue s 

### Exhibi t A- 2 —(continued )

Coipany

10 5 Plane t Engineer s 10 6 Mill s Bennet t Estat e 10 7 Blac kHaw

k 10 8 Ancho r Gasolin e Cor p 10 9 Kentuck y

Hydrocarbo n 11 0 Lovelan d 11 1 Perr y 11 2 Greele y

Ga s C o 11 3 People s Nat . Ga s 11 4 Pennzoi l

Tota l Ethan e fro i Propan

e fro i Iso-C

4 fro i n-C4 fro i C

5 • fro i

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l Ra wNG L Ra wNG L Ra wNG L Ra wNG L Ra wN6 L Ethan e

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l Tota l Propan e Iso-C 4

3. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 3. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l n-C4

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l C 5 •
2. 4 1. 1 2. 0 5. 8 214. 8 4. 4 25. 0 2. 0 0. 9 2. 0 Value Ethan e
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0
81 0 11,630. 6 12,170. 9 3,061. 5 3,753. 3 6,446. 2 15,304. 3 17,469. 3 3,005. 5 6,321. 2 12,696. 3 3922.7 3

9 8P. 5

-recessin g Coipari.es : Capacity , 198 6 Producti'^ nan dRevenue s 

### Exhibi t A- 2 - - (continued )

(1,00 0 t

Coipan y

1 Phillip s (1 ) 2 Exxo n 3 Texac o 4 Shel l 5 Aioc o 6 Chevron(2 ) 7 Conoc o 8 Mobi l 9 Occidenta l 1 0 Enron 1 1 Valer o 1 2 Su n 1 3 Mitchel l 1 4 ARC O 1 5 BurlingtonNorther n 1 6 Allied-Signa l (3 ) 1 7 U.S . Dept o f Energ

y 1 8 US X 1 9 Coasta l 2 0 CS X 2 1 Maxu s Energy 2 2 Unio nPacifi c 2 3 Tennec o 2 4 Enserc h 2 5 Uil6a s C o 2 6 Northwes t Pipelin e 2 7 Unoca l 2 8 Si dRichardso n 2 9 KochHydrocarbo n 3 0 Cabo t Corp . 3 1 Consol . 6a s Trans . 3 2 Uester nGa s Proc . 3 3 Daison 3 4 FarilandIndustrie s 3 5 Mes a 3 6 Kerr-H e Ge e 3 7 Sunterr a 6a s Proc . 3 8 Placi dOi l 3 9 Associate d 4 0 Seagul l 4 1 BH P Petroleu i 4 2 Claiborn e 6asolin e 4 3 Columbi a Ga s Trans . 4 4 Anadark o 4 5 HAPC 0 Uestpa nInc . 4 6 Hun t Oi l 4 7 Endevc o 4 8 Plain s Petroleu i 4 9 Nat' 1 Heliu i 5 0 Davi s Ga s Proc. 5 1 6GS I Gatherin g 5 2 Davis , J.L . P 1 a n t s

4 0 1 2 5 4 7 3 1 3 1 5 8 1 2 3 3 2 9 2 0 1 0 2 6 3 3 2 8 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 2 0 3 1 1 7 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 4 6 7 1 2 1 1 3 1 5 5 6 6 3 2 7 1 1 2 2 6 3 2 4 4 2 9 2 6 (1,00 0 $/day )

Valu e 'ropane
,215.6 0 518.0 5 639.3 7 662.2 6 380.5 5 461.1 1 394.7 7 391.1 7 340.7 1 336.9 1 266.5 4 213.1 4 258.4 9 195.5 5 223.5 0 168.6 4 125.2 8 171.5 8 109.6 5 139.0 8 129.2 5 203.2 2 91.6 7 111.9 5 107.8 6 96.1 8 91.8 7 77.1 6 67.4 2 66.2 2 65.8 5 54.7 8 93.3 5 59.0 3 57.3 1 35.5 7 35.0 3 34.9 1 32.8 7 32.5 2 26.7 7 12.4 2 25.9 1 33.6 5 24.7 6 24.2 0 22.8 1 22.6 3 8.4 4 25.9 0 19.3 5 19.0 3 Valu e Iso-C 4

405.4 9 120.4 0 155.8 9 138.4 2 54.5 0 115.9 3 109.6 3 107.6 4 81.7 3 68.6 1 80.99 101.9 0 63.5 0 24.9 5 33.5 5 39.1 6 6.2 6 39.9 5 18.7 5 56.4 5 33.0 7 30.4 8 31.8 0 29.0 9 28.0 3 4.6 7 2.7 5 20.0 5 5.9 0 17.2 1 15.1 0 6.3 7 14.1 0 14.8 4 13.9 2 6.1 9 9.1 0 9.0 7 8.5 4 8.4 5 4.8 8 7.7 5 6.7 3 6.5 4 6.4 3 6.2 9 5.9 3 0.0 0 2.0 5 5.4 8 5.0 3 4.9 5 Valu e n-C 4 Valu e (1,00 0 $/day )

Tota l Dail y Butan e Tota l

Dail y o NG L C 5 + Revenue s Revenue s

440.0 6 1,749.5 3 315.7 7 229.6 2 839.0 7 837.0 5 202.0 5 1,312.1 7 242.7 5 1 159.6 2 145.9 2 138.1 4 141.5 7 140.0 3 98.1 0 67.2 0 1 81.8 4 113.7 2 97.0 7 73.5 5 106.3 5 65.7 2 86.8 2 46.8 1 68.2 0 70.2 4 46.6 1 40.5 3 39.0 4 61.5 9 62.3 7 27.9 3 38.4 6 23.9 7 24.8 3 30.7 3 21.5 3 20.6 7 20.9 5 18.0 3 12.6 8 12.6 4 11.9 0 11.7 7 12.6 4 8.8 0 9.3 8 9.1 2 8.9 6 8.7 6 8.2 6 13.3 4 11.2 2 7.6 3 7.0 1 6.8 9 ,169.7 2 570.1 0 553.5 0 698.3 8 957.4 7 318.1 0 48.2 2 ,163.0 3 406.3 1 286.8 8 745.3 2 238.2 5 34.6 5 356.5 0 173.7 3 239.5 1 512.5 2 364.0 1 616.2 3 161.1 2 209.7 3 97.1 2 169.6 2 241.9 3 109.5 5 95.3 1 8.9 8 143.6 1 85.5 7 82.1 8 78.2 3 73.9 3 50.4 2 79.3 7 47.3 1 46.8 1 29.3 8 150.3 8 37.29 36.2 4 35.6 3 34.8 3 32.8 3 28.6 3 11.3 5 30.3 3 27.8 5 27.3 9 9 9 845.5 4 4,366.2 4 436.1 7 2,152.2 4 385.5 1 2,156.0 0 340.4 6 2,615.9 1 297.2 5 1,964.4 2 275.5 5 1,510.0 5 255.5 5 1 ,421.2 4 245.7 8 1,563.8 6 223.3 0 1,648.0 6 208.6 4 179.0 9 169.1 0 1 145.3 5 138.6 7 130.6 2 1 112.7 1 112.6 1 105.6 7 105.5 7 103.2 7 101.2 7 100.7 2 78.4 1 69.6 2 67.0 7 66.2 6 65.1 2 47.9 9 44.3 6 41.1 8 39.9 3 37.1 0 35.6 2 35.5 1 34.8 7 24.2 2 21.7 9 21.7 1 20.4 4 20.2 3 17.5 2 16.5 5 16.1 1 15.6 6 15.4 0 15.0 5 14.1 9 13.3 4 13.2 7 13.1 0 12.0 3 11.8 4 926.3 9 679.7 3 ,582.8 6 894.8 0 699.0 0 ,186.2 3 590.7 4 283.5 4 708.6 2 421.3 3 565.4 6 750.6 7 787.3 1 803.2 9 393.8 6 433.9 5 267,7 7 331.4 5 402.3 4 231.7 0 232.9 9 163.8 4 242.5 1 244.8 3 202.8 2 193.3 9 144.6 1 123.2 4 151.9 4 115.6 4 114.4 2 83.1 7 179.3 4 91.1 4 97.0 6 87.1 0 85.1 4 80.2 5 65.0 8 36.6 6 78.9 7 68.0 8 66.9 6 'ercent f Iiputed N6 L Revenue s
19. 4 20. 3 17. 9 13. 0 15. 1 18. 2 18. 0 15. 7 13. 5 22. 5 26. 3 10. 7 16. 2 19. 8 11. 0 19. 1 39. 7 14. 9 25. 0 18. 3 13. 5 12. 8 9. 8 17. 7 15. 5 24. 7 19. 6 11. 9 19. 1 17. 7 24. 4 15. 3 14. 6 17. 5 18. 0 16. 7 17. 7 14. 3 17. 7 17. 7 21. 1 9. 2 17. 7 16. 1 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 20. 5 36. 2 16. 6 17. 7 17. 7 per Year ) Tota l Annua l Butan e o 'ercent

f Tota l Revenue s Revenue s
308,623.8 3 159,201.6 3 140,711.4 1 124,268.7 2 108,496.4 5 100,577.4 4 93,276.4 2 89,709.2 6 81,505.4 0 76,154.9 7 65,367.5 7 61,722.4 4 53,052.6 6 50,615.6 5 47,676.2 5 41,139.1 5 41,101.2 9 38,570.2 0 38,533.7 4 37,692.8 4 36,961.9 2 36,762.0 2 28,619.1 5 25,411.3 3 24,482.1 1 24,184.5 5 23,769.2 8 17,514.6 5 16,191.1 9 15,032.1 5 14,575.4 7 13,540.3 5 13,002.9 1 12,961.1 2 12,728.1 9 8,840.2 9 7,951.5 4 7,924.1 1 7,461.2 1 7,382.3 5 6,393.3 4 6,040.3 9 5,880.5 1 5,715.9 2 5,619.9 1 5,493.0 5 5,177.5 9 4,868.3 7 4,844.9 2 4,783.2 7 4,392.3 8 4,320.3 7 3.1

0. 2 0. 4 0. 7 0. 5 0. 4 0. 8 0. 2 0. 5 1. 0 3. 5 0. 6 6. 3 0, 3 0. 7 0. 3
0. 3 0. 6 0. 6 1.5 0. 5 0. 2 11. 1

0. 3

1. 1

26. 3
3. 5 0. 3

2. 7

4. 5 36. 4 198 6 Revenue s (thousands )
10,015,000.0 0 76,555,000.0 0 32,591,000.0 0 17,353,000.0 0 20,231,000.0 0 27,131,000.0 0 11,039,000.0 0 49,865,000.0 0 16,237,600.0 0 7,561,967.0 0 1,880,125.0 0 10,440,000.0 0 845,801.0 0 15,774,000.0 0 6,941,413.0 0 11,794,000.0 0
15,009,000.0 0 6,718,100.0 0 6,345,000.0 0 2,543,500.0 0 6,688,000.0 0 14,617,000.0 0 228,034.0 0

8,253,000.0 0

1,320,106.0 0

49,410.0 0
359,638.0 0 2,569,000.0 0

209,254.0 0

114,319.0 0 13,376.0 0P. 6

Ga s Processing Coipames : Capacity , 198 6 Productionan dRevenue s 

### Exhibi t A- 2 —(continued )

(1,00 0 $

Coipan y

5 3 Arkl a 5 4 Resource s Extractio n 5 5 Oklahoi a 6a s P L 5 6 SPGExploratio n 5 7 Adob e Resource s 5 8 Brui nPetroleu i 5 9 Louisian a Lan

di Exp . 6 0 Lad dPetroleu i 6 1 EnogexProductio n 6 2 Freeport-McMoRa n 6 3 Flying J Inc . 6 4 Vessel s GProcessing 6 5 Standard 6 6 Southwes t Fores t Ga s 6 7 RalstonProcessin g 6 8 Mineral s Inc . 6 9 FMP Operating Co . 7 0 HoustonOi l & Min . 7 1 Gar y Energ y Corp 7 2 Hid-Aieric a Ga s Lin e 7 3 Petrolan e Loiit a 7 4 Cenex 7 5 Petro-Hun t 7 6 Sant a F e 7 7 Parad e 7 8 True Oi l 7 9 NGL Productio n 8 0 S0NAT , Inc . 8 1 Celsiu s Energy 8 2 Michiga nConsolidate d 8 3 For t Chadbourn e Cor p 8 4 Porta l 8 5 UnitedTexa s Trans . 8 6 Breckenridg e 8 7 Kansa s Refine dHeliu i 8 8 Cerrit o Lan

d 8 9 Gerlan e Petroleu i 9 0 Lakevill e Ga s Assoc . 9 1 Coor s Energy 9 2 Eagl e 9 3 Brighton 9 4 CN 6 Producing Co . 9 5 U USu bIn e 9 6 Mountai nFue l Res . 9 7 Rock y Mountai nN

G 9 8 Deisenrot h6a s Prod . 9 9 Pront o 10 0 BeardOi l Co . 10 1 Cabi nCree k 10 2 Phillips , Jac kL . 10 3 Berthoud 10 4 Doubl e UOi l P

1 a n t s
7 1 1 2 1 5 t L 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 (1,00 0 $/day )

Valu e Propan e
8.8 3 11.1 8 8.7 4 13.5 7 11.3 9 11.1 9 17.3 2 9.6 4 31.9 1 12.3 0 5.5 6 7.0 2 2.9 9 5.4 4 2.5 3 4.7 4 4.5 6 4.4 1 10.1 7 2.5 8 5.0 6 0.5 1 2.4 8 4.0 0 2.6 0 2.1 6 1.8 1 1.7 1 1.6 2 1.5 1 1.5 1 1.4 4 1.1 3 1.1 0 0.0 5 3.6 7 0.9 1 0.8 3 0.7 1 0.6 8 0.6 3 0.6 3 0.5 9 0.5 6 0.5 1 0.4 5 0.4 4 0.3 9 0.2 6 0.2 0 0.1 5 0.0 8 Valu e Iso-C 4

4.8 2 4.6 4 2.5 0 0.2 9 2.9 6 2.9 1 2.7 1 2.5 0 2.3 2 2.0 6 0.2 9 1.8 3 0.0 0 1.4 1 0.0 0 1.2 3 1.1 9 1.1 5 0.9 2 0.7 3 0.9 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.6 8 0.5 6 0.4 7 0.4 4 0.4 2 0.3 9 0.3 9 0.3 7 0.2 9 0.2 9 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 2 0.1 8 0.1 8 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 3 0.1 2 0.1 1 0 ; 1 0 0.0 7 0.0 5 0.0 4 0.0 2 Valu e n-C 4

6.1 0 3.9 4 5.0 2 7.0 4 4.1 2 4.0 5 3.7 7 3.4 9 3.2 3 2.8 7 4.6 1 2.5 4 3.5 1 1.9 7 3.0 8 1.7 2 1.6 5 1.6 0 1.7 2 1.8 9 1.3 7 1.8 4 1.7 3 1.6 7 0.9 4 0.7 8 0.6 6 0.6 2 0.5 9 0.5 5 0.5 5 0.5 2 0.4 1 0.4 0 0.3 8 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 0 0.2 6 0.2 5 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.1 9 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 4 0.0 9 0.0 7 0.0 5 0.0 3 Valu e (1,00 0 */day )

Tota l Dail y Butan e Tota l -ercent

Dail y o f Iiputed NG L C 5 + Revenue s Revenue s

39.8 8 20.0 0 14.6 3 26.4 6 16.3 9 16.1 1 15.0 0 106.7 5 62,8 3 20.9 1 1.5 9 10.1 1 342.5 0 7.8 3 7.5 0 6.8 3 6.5 7 39.6 0 6.1 1 26.0 0 5.4 4 0.0 0 3.3 8 0.0 0 3.7 4 3.1 1 2.6 1 2.4 6 2.3 3 2.1 7 2.1 7 2.0 7 1.7 6 1.5 9 1.5 0 1.3 0 1.3 0 1.2 0 1.0 2 0.9 8 1.2 9 0.9 1 0.8 5 0.8 0 0.7 4 0.6 5 0.6 3 0.5 7 0.4 9 0.2 8 0.2 2 0.1 1 1 0 0 10.9 2 8.5 8 7.5 2 7.3 3 7.0 8 6.9 6 6.4 8 5.9 9 5.5 4 4.9 3 4.9 0 4.3 7 3.5 1 3.3 8 3.0 8 2.9 5 2.8 4 2.7 4 2.6 4 2.6 2 2.3 5 1.8 4 1.7 3 1.6 7 1.6 2 1.3 4 1.1 3 1.0 6 1.0 1 0.9 4 0.9 4 0.8 9 0.7 0 0.6 9 0.6 2 0.5 6 0.5 6 0.5 2 0.4 4 0.4 2 0.3 9 0.3 9 0.3 7 0.3 5 0.3 2 0.2 8 0.2 7 0.2 4 0.1 6 0.1 2 0.0 9 0.0 5 59.6 3 53.8 8 33.0 4 47.8 6 40.0 7 39.3 8 43.5 7 126.7 8 104.3 6 41.7 7 12.5 5 24.7 1 349.0 0 19.1 3 13.1 1 16.6 9 16.0 5 48.7 7 20.5 5 31.6 8 14.5 7 2.3 4 7.5 9 5.6 8 9.1 4 7.6 0 6.3 8 6.0 1 5.6 9 5.3 1 5.3 1 5.0 5 4.1 1 3.8 8 2.1 7 5.9 5 3.1 9 2.9 2 2.5 0 2.3 9 2.6 1 2.2 3 2.0 7 1.9 7 1.8 1 1.5 9 1.5 4 1.3 8 1.0 3 0.6 9 0.5 3 0.2 7 NG L Revenue s
18. 3 15. 9 22. 8 15. 3 17. 7 17. 7 14. 9 4. 7 5. 3 11. 8 39. 0 17. 7 •1. 0 17. 7 23. 5 17. 7 17. 7 5. 6 12. 8 8. 3 16. 1 78. 4 22. 8 29. 5 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 1 17. 7 28. 7 9. 5 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 15. 1 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 15. 5 17. 7 17. 7 17. 7 pe

r Year ) Tota l Annua l Butan e o Percen t

f Tota l Revenue s Revenue s
3,986.1 7 3,130.9 7 2,745.9 0 2,674.6 4 2,585.3 7 2,540.7 9 2,365.9 2 2,187.6 2 2,023.0 3 1,800.1 6 1,787.6 9 1,594.4 2 1,281.1 5 1,234.3 9 1,123.4 7 1,076.6 6 1,035.5 2 1,001.2 3 963.4 6 957.0 3 857.2 2 670.1 4 630.7 2 611.0 1 589.7 7 490.3 3 411.4 6 387.4 6 366.8 9 342.8 9 342.8 9 325.7 4 257.1 7 250.3 1 227.0 3 205.7 3 205.7 3 188.5 9 161.1 6 154.3 0 144.0 1 144.0 1 133.7 3 126.8 7 116.5 8 102.8 7 99.4 4 89.1 5 58.2 9 44.5 8 34.2 9 17.1 4 0. 4

11. 1

0. 3

0. 2

0. 0

0.1
0. 6

0. 0

10. 2

0. 6 198 6 Revenue s (thousands )
1,002,244.0 0

24,105.0 0

826,500.0 0

770,959.0 0

10,115,000.0 0

1,093,181,0 0
110,100.0 0

1,792,632.0 0

1,518.0 0

15,333.0 0P. 7

6a s Cofipames : Capacity , i'?8 6 Productio n an d Revenue s Exhibi tA- 2 —(continued )
(1,00 0 $

Coipany

10 5 Plane t Engineer s 10 6 Mill s Bennet t Estat e 10 7 Blac kHaw

k 10 8 Ancho r Gasolin e Corp 10 9 Kentucky

Hydrocarbo n 11 0 Loveland 11 1 Perry 11 2 6reele y

Sa s C o 11 3 People s Nat . Sa s 11 4 Pennzoi l

Tota l P

1 a n t s

9
81 0 (1,00 0

Valu e Propan e

1.3 8 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.7 9 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

9251.9 3 */day )

Valu e Iso-C 4

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

2239.4 3 Valu e

n-C 4

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Valu e C 5 •
3.0 0 1.3 8 2.5 0 7.2 5 268.5 0 5.5 0 31.2 5 2.5 0 1.1 3 2.5 0

3854.0 6 17621.1 4 (1,00 0

Tota l Dail y Butan e Revenue s
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 $/day ) Tota l Dail y NG L Revenue s
4.3 8 1.3 8 2.5 0 7.2 5 258.5 0 7.2 9 31.2 5 2.5 0 1.1 3 2.5 0

6092.3 5 36929.7 9 Percen t

o f Iipute d N6 L Revenue s
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 pe r Year ) Tota l Annua l 8utan e Revenue s
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

16. 5 2,226,072.2 2 Percen t

o f Tota l Revenue s

0,0 198 6 Revenue s (thousands )

1,921,223.0 0

0. 6 398,964,438.0 0



### 10 1

# r P. 8

Sources ofInforiatio n Use d i n Deteninin g Suppl yofand Price s ofNatura l Ga

s Liquid s

Suppl yand Dispositio n ofNatura l Ga s Liquids , 1986 (Thousan d Barrels )

Fiel d Coiiodit y Productio n Percen t

Natura l Ga

s Liquid s 564,40 1 100.0 0 Pentane s Plu s 98,16 5 17.3 9 Liquefie d Petroleu i 6ase s 466,23 6 82.6 1 Ethan e 177,11 5 31.3 8 Propan e 185,34 3 32.8 4 Noria l Butan e 57,15 6 10.1 3 Isobutan e 46,62 2 9.2 6

(Source : Energ yInforiatio n Administration , Petroleu i Suppl yAnnua l 1986 , p . 24

.

Produce r Pric e Indices , 198 6

Liquefie dPetroleu i 6ase s Ethane Propan e Butan e Othe r Nat . Ga s Liquid s Annua l 198 5 541. 9 96. 7 150. 3 224. 6 89. 7 Average s

198 6 383. 2 83. 2 118. 2 143. 7 53. 9 Differenc e (I ) -29. 3 -14. 0 -21. 4 -36. 0 -39. 9 (Source : U.S

. Departmen t o fLabor , Produce rPric e Indexes , 1986 )

Natura l 6as Liquid s Price s

Ethane Propan e Noria l Butan e Isobutan e Pentane s Plu s 198 5 $ pe r lb . 0.0 7 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 3 0.2 2 lb./gal .

3.14 4 4.22 0 4.86 5 4.68 6 5.69 3 198 5 $

pe r gal . 0.2 2 0.4 6 0.5 4 0.6 1 1.2 5 198 5 * 198 6 $ pe r bbl . pe r bbl. t 9.2 4 7.9 5 19.5 0 15.3 3 22.4 8 14.3 9 25.5 9 16.3 8 52.6 0 31.6 1

* 1986 price s ar e iipute d usin g th e produce rpric e indices

. (Source : U.S

. Internationa l Trad e Coiiission , Syntheti c Organi c Cheiicals :

Unite d State s Productio n and Sales , 1985 ; Bland , U.F

. an d Rober t L

. Davidson , editors , Petroleu i Processin g Handbook , McGraw-Hill , Ne

wYork , 1967. ) 

### Exhibi tA- 3

102