Maturities of Debt The scheduled maturities of the outstanding debt balances, excluding debt fair value adjustments as of December 31, 2014, are summarized as follows (in millions):
## Table 0 ##
Interest Rates, Interest Rate Swaps and Contingent Debt The weighted average interest rate on all of our borrowings was 5.02% during 2014 and 5.08% during 2013.
Information on our interest rate swaps is contained in Note 13.
For information about our contingent debt agreements, see Note 12.
Subsequent Event Subsequent to December 31, 2014, additional EP Trust I Preferred Securities were converted, primarily consisting of 969,117 EP Trust I Preferred Securities converted on January 14, 2015, into (i) 697,473 of our Class P common stock; (ii) approximately $24 million in cash; and (iii) 1,066,028 in warrants.9.
Share-based Compensation and Employee Benefits Share-based Compensation Kinder Morgan, Inc.  Class P Shares Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors We have a Stock Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, in which our eligible non-employee directors participate.
The plan recognizes that the compensation paid to each eligible non-employee director is fixed by our board, generally annually, and that the compensation is payable in cash.
Pursuant to the plan, in lieu of receiving some or all of the cash compensation, each eligible non-employee director may elect to receive shares of Class P common stock.
Each election will be generally at or around the first board meeting in January of each calendar year and will be effective for the entire calendar year.
An eligible director may make a new election each calendar year.
The total number of shares of Class P common stock authorized under the plan is 250,000.
During 2014, 2013 and 2012, we made restricted Class P common stock grants to our non-employee directors of 6,210, 5,710 and 5,520, respectively.
These grants were valued at time of issuance at $220,000, $210,000 and $185,000, respectively.
All of the restricted stock grants made to non-employee directors vest during a six-month period.
in direct competition with other CO2 pipelines.
We also compete with other interest owners in the McElmo Dome unit and the Bravo Dome unit for transportation of CO2 to the Denver City, Texas market area.
Terminals Our Terminals segment includes the operations of our petroleum, chemical, ethanol and other liquids terminal facilities (other than those included in the Products Pipelines segment) and all of our coal, petroleum coke, fertilizer, steel, ores and other dry-bulk material services facilities, including all transload, engineering, conveying and other in-plant services.
Our terminals are located throughout the U. S.  and in portions of Canada.
We believe the location of our facilities and our ability to provide flexibility to customers help attract new and retain existing customers at our terminals and provide us opportunities for expansion.
We often classify our terminal operations based on the handling of either liquids or dry-bulk material products.
In addition, we have Jones Act qualified product tankers that provide marine transportation of crude oil, condensate and refined products in the U. S.  The following summarizes our Terminals segment assets, as of December 31, 2014:
## Table 1 ##
Competition We are one of the largest independent operators of liquids terminals in the U.
S, based on barrels of liquids terminaling capacity.
Our liquids terminals compete with other publicly or privately held independent liquids terminals, and terminals owned by oil, chemical and pipeline companies.
Our bulk terminals compete with numerous independent terminal operators, terminals owned by producers and distributors of bulk commodities, stevedoring companies and other industrial companies opting not to outsource terminal services.
In some locations, competitors are smaller, independent operators with lower cost structures.
Our rail transloading (material services) operations compete with a variety of single- or multi-site transload, warehouse and terminal operators across the U. S.  Our Jones Act qualified product tankers compete with other Jones Act qualified vessel fleets.
Elba Express
## Table 2 ##
## Table 3 ##
17.
Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company.
Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or dividends to our shareholders.
We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company.
When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time.
If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range.
We disclose contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceedings SFPP The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers the most recent of which was filed in late 2015 with the FERC (docketed at OR16-6) challenging SFPP’s filed East Line rates.
In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).
In some of these proceedings shippers have challenged the overall rate being charged by SFPP, and in others the shippers have challenged SFPP’s index-based rate increases.
If the shippers are successful in proving these claims or other of their claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach back up to two years prior to the filing of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward.
These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts.
The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance SFPP may include in its rates.
With respect to the various SFPP related complaints and protest proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $40 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $160 million in refunds.
Management believes SFPP has meritorious arguments supporting SFPP’s rates and intends to vigorously defend SFPP against these complaints and protests.
However, to the extent the shippers are successful in one or more of the complaints or protest proceedings, SFPP estimates that applying the principles of several recent FERC decisions in SFPP cases, as applicable, to pending cases would result in rate reductions and refunds substantially lower than those sought by the shippers.
EPNG The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”).
With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 517-A) in July 2015.
FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, ordered refunds to be paid within 60 days, and stated that it will apply its findings in Opinion 517-A to the same issues in the 2010 rate case.
EPNG has sought federal appellate review of Opinion 517-A.
With respect to the 2010 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 528) on October 17, 2013.
EPNG sought rehearing on certain issues in Opinion 528.
As required by Opinion 528, EPNG filed revised pro forma recalculated rates consistent with the terms of Opinion 528.
The FERC also required an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to conduct an additional hearing concerning one of the issues in Opinion 528.
On September 17, 2014, the ALJ issued an initial decision finding certain shippers qualify for lower rates under a prior settlement.
EPNG has sought FERC review of the ALJ decision.
EPNG believes it has an appropriate reserve, which is classified as a current liability, related to the findings in Opinions 517-A and 528 for both rate cases.
in direct competition with other CO2 pipelines.
We also compete with other interest owners in the McElmo Dome unit and the Bravo Dome unit for transportation of CO2 to the Denver City, Texas market area.
Terminals Our Terminals segment includes the operations of our refined petroleum product, crude oil, chemical, ethanol and other liquid terminal facilities (other than those included in the Products Pipelines segment) and all of our coal, petroleum coke, fertilizer, steel, ores and other dry-bulk terminal facilities.
Our terminals are located throughout the U. S.  and in portions of Canada.
We believe the location of our facilities and our ability to provide flexibility to customers help attract new and retain existing customers at our terminals and provide expansion opportunities.
We often classify our terminal operations based on the handling of either liquids or dry-bulk material products.
In addition, Terminals’ marine operations include Jones Act qualified product tankers that provide marine transportation of crude oil, condensate a

<table><tr><td>Year</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>$2,717</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>1,684</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>3,059</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>2,328</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>2,819</td></tr><tr><td>Thereafter</td><td>28,422</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$41,029</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>Number</td><td>Capacity(MMBbl)</td></tr><tr><td>Liquids terminals</td><td>39</td><td>78.0</td></tr><tr><td>Bulk terminals</td><td>78</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Materials Services locations</td><td>8</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Jones Act qualified tankers</td><td>7</td><td>2.3</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td>OwnershipInterest %</td><td>MilesofPipeline</td><td>Design (Bcf/d) [Storage (Bcf)] Capacity</td><td>Supply and Market Region</td></tr><tr><td>Elba Express</td><td>100</td><td>200</td><td>0.95</td><td>Georgia; connects to SNG (Georgia), Transco (Georgia/South Carolina), SLNG (Georgia) and CGT (Georgia).</td></tr><tr><td>FEP</td><td>50</td><td>185</td><td>2.00</td><td>Arkansas to Mississippi; connects to NGPL, Trunkline Gas Company, Texas Gas Transmission, and ANR Pipeline Company</td></tr><tr><td>KMLP</td><td>100</td><td>135</td><td>2.20</td><td>sources gas from Cheniere Sabine Pass LNG terminal to interconnects with Columbia Gulf, ANR and various other pipelines</td></tr><tr><td>Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC</td><td>35</td><td>61</td><td>0.20</td><td>near Tucson, Arizona, to the U.S.-Mexico border near Sasabe, Arizona; connects to EPNG and via a new international border crossing with a new natural gas pipeline in Mexico</td></tr><tr><td>Young Gas Storage</td><td>48</td><td>16</td><td>[6]</td><td>Morgan County, Colorado, capacity is committed to CIG and Colorado Springs Utilities.</td></tr><tr><td>Keystone Gas Storage</td><td>100</td><td>12</td><td>[6]</td><td>located in the Permian Basin and near the WAHA natural gas trading hub in West Texas.</td></tr><tr><td>Gulf LNG Holdings</td><td>50</td><td>5</td><td>[6.6]</td><td>near Pascagoula, Mississippi; connects to four interstate pipelines and natural gas processing plant.</td></tr><tr><td>Bear Creek Storage</td><td>100</td><td>—</td><td>[59]</td><td>located in Louisiana; provides storage capacity to SNG and TGP.</td></tr><tr><td>SLNG</td><td>100</td><td>—</td><td>[11.5]</td><td>Georgia; connects to Elba Express, SNG and CGT</td></tr><tr><td>ELC</td><td>100</td><td>—</td><td>0.35</td><td>Georgia; not in service until 2018</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Midstream assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>KM Texas andTejas pipelines</td><td>100</td><td>5,600</td><td>6.20[124]</td><td>Texas Gulf Coast.</td></tr><tr><td>Mier-Monterreypipeline</td><td>100</td><td>87</td><td>0.65</td><td>Starr County, Texas to Monterrey, Mexico; connects to Pemex NG Transportation system and a 1,000-megawatt power plant</td></tr><tr><td>KM North Texaspipeline</td><td>100</td><td>82</td><td>0.33</td><td>interconnect from NGPL; connects to 1,750-megawatt Forney, Texas, power plant and a 1,000-megawatt Paris, Texas, power plant</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Oklahoma</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Southern Dome</td><td>73</td><td>—</td><td>0.03</td><td>propane refrigeration plant in the southern portion of Oklahoma county</td></tr><tr><td>Oklahoma System</td><td>100</td><td>3,600</td><td>0.38</td><td>Hunton Dewatering, Woodford Shale, and Mississippi Lime</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">South Texas</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Webb/Duval gas gathering system</td><td>63</td><td>145</td><td>0.15</td><td>South Texas</td></tr><tr><td>South Texas System</td><td>100</td><td>1,300</td><td>1.88</td><td>Eagle Ford shale formation, Woodbine and Eaglebine (Texas)</td></tr><tr><td>EagleHawk</td><td>25</td><td>860</td><td>1.20</td><td>South Texas, Eagle Ford shale formation</td></tr><tr><td>KM Altamont</td><td>100</td><td>1,200</td><td>0.08</td><td>Utah, Uinta Basin</td></tr><tr><td>Red Cedar</td><td>49</td><td>740</td><td>0.70</td><td>La Plata County, Colorado, Ignacio Blanco Field</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Rocky Mountain</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fort Union</td><td>37</td><td>310</td><td>1.25</td><td>Powder River Basin (Wyoming)</td></tr><tr><td>Bighorn</td><td>51</td><td>290</td><td>0.60</td><td>Powder River Basin (Wyoming)</td></tr><tr><td>KinderHawk</td><td>100</td><td>500</td><td>2.00</td><td>Northwest Louisiana, Haynesville and Bossier shale formations</td></tr><tr><td>North Texas</td><td>100</td><td>400</td><td>0.14</td><td>North Barnett Shale Combo</td></tr><tr><td>Endeavor</td><td>40</td><td>100</td><td>0.12</td><td>East Texas, Cotton Valley Sands and Haynesville/ Bossier Shale horizontal well developments</td></tr><tr><td>Camino Real - Gas</td><td>100</td><td>70</td><td>0.15</td><td>South Texas, Eagle Ford shale formation</td></tr><tr><td>KM Treating</td><td>100</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>Odessa, Texas, other locations in Tyler and Victoria, Texas</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term assets, excluding goodwill and other intangibles</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>U.S.</td><td>$51,679</td><td>$49,992</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>2,193</td><td>2,268</td></tr><tr><td>Mexico</td><td>67</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Total consolidated long-lived assets</td><td>$53,939</td><td>$52,341</td></tr></table>

Question: What was the total amount of the KMLP and Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC in the sections where FEP is greater than 80?
Answer: 196