Please contact me with any questions regarding this filing. Sincerely,

Transcription

1 Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP 1101 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC tel fax February 3, 2009 BY ELECTRONIC FILING Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC Dear Secretary Bose: Re: Magnum Gas Storage, LLC, Docket No. PF Submission of Draft Resource Report 1, Summary of Alternatives, Monthly Status Report and Affected Landowner Contact Information On December 22, 2008, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved the request of Magnum Gas Storage, LLC ( MGS ) to use the Commission s pre-filing procedures and review process for the Western Energy Hub Project. Pursuant to the Commission s regulations governing the pre-filing procedures and review process, 18 C.F.R (f)(4) (6) (2008), MGS submits for filing in the captioned proceeding draft Resource Report 1, a summary of alternatives considered and under consideration, the stakeholder mailing list for affected landowners, and a monthly status report describing MGS s project activities for the period from December 22, 2008 through February 2, Please contact me with any questions regarding this filing. Sincerely, Enclosures /s/ James F. Bowe, Jr. D. Gideon Wiginton Counsel for Magnum Gas Storage, LLC cc: Kandilarya Jacaman, Environmental Project Manager, Office of Energy Projects Douglas Sipe, Environmental Project Manager, Office of Energy Projects NEW YORK LONDON MULTINATIONAL PARTNERSHIP WASHINGTON, DC ALBANY ALMATY BEIJING BOSTON BRUSSELS CHICAGO DOHA DUBAI FRANKFURT HONG KONG HOUSTON JOHANNESBURG (PTY ) LTD. LOS ANGELES MILAN MOSCOW PARIS MULTINATIONAL PARTNERSHIP RIYADH AFFILIATED OFFICE ROME SAN FRANCISCO SILICON VALLEY WARSAW DC

2 Magnum Gas Storage LLC Docket No. PF Draft Resource Report 1

3 RESOURCE REPORT 1 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION MAGNUM GAS STORAGE, LLC MAGNUM GAS STORAGE PROJECT MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH Prepared for: MAGNUM GAS STORAGE, LLC 2150 South 1300 East, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT Prepared by: Tetra Tech 136 East South Temple, Suite 910 Salt Lake City, UT (801) Fax (801) Tetra Tech Project No February 2009

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS MINIMUM FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESOURCE REPORT 1...iii 1.0 RESOURCE REPORT 1 - GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Facilities Storage Site Lateral Meter and Regulator Stations and Interconnect Sites Temporary Fabrication Areas Required Utilities and Access Roads along Pipeline Corridor Purpose and Need Land Requirements Storage Site Lateral Facilities Interconnect Site Temporary Fabrication Areas Required Utility and Access Road Rights of Way Construction and Restoration Procedures Environmental Compliance, Training, and Inspection Construction Methods Special Construction Procedures Construction Workforce Construction Schedule Operation and Maintenance Plans Storage Site Pipelines Future Plans and Abandonment Future Plans Related to the Gas Storage Project Abandonment Permits and Approvals Affected Landowners Non-jurisdictional Facilities i

5 LIST OF TABLES Table Land Ownership - Pipeline Right of Way Table Disturbed Acreage...28 Table Special Pipeline Construction Method by Milepost Table Preliminary Construction Schedule Table Magnum Gas Storage Permits and Approvals Site Project Location Storage Site - Aerial Storage Site - Topographic Lateral Route Aerial Lateral Route Topographic Future Site Facilities LIST OF FIGURES Typical Pipeline Plan View Typical Pipeline Construction Cross Section Typical Meter and Regulator Site Pipeline Construction Schematic Typical Uncased Road Crossing Typical Cased Road Crossing Typical Details for Open Cut Water Crossing Typical Details for Directional Drilling of Road and Water Crossing Typical Dry Water Crossing LIST OF APPENDICES 1-1 Example Landowner Notification Letter {To be provided} {Note to FERC Staff: Some elements of the project are currently being refined. Notes on these items are provided in brackets throughout the document.} ii

6 MINIMUM FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESOURCE REPORT 1 Minimum Requirements 1. Provide a detailed description and location map of the project facilities. ( (c)(1)) o All pipeline and aboveground facilities. o Support areas for construction or operation. o Facilities to be abandoned. Section Number Figure 1.1.1, & NA 2. Describe any non-jurisdictional facilities that would be built in association with the project. ( (c)(2)) Provide current original U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute-series topographic maps with mileposts showing the project facilities. ( (c)(3)) o All linear project elements, and label them. o All significant aboveground facilities, and label them. Figure Provide aerial images or photographs or alignment sheets based on these sources with mileposts showing the project facilities. ( (c)(3)) Figure Provide plot/site plans of compressor stations showing the location of the nearest noise-sensitive areas (NSA) within 1 mile. ( (c)(3, 4)) There is no NSA within 1 mile of the project area Describe construction and restoration methods. ( (c)(6)) Identify the permits required for construction across surface waters. ( (c)(9)) Provide the names and address of all affected landowners and certify that all affected landowners will be notified as required in 157.6(d). ( (c)(10)). Provide an electronic copy directly to the environmental staff. 1.7; Table Additional Information Often Missing and Resulting in Data Requests Describe all authorizations required to complete the proposed action and the status of applications for such authorizations. Provide plot/site plans of all other aboveground facilities that are not completely within the right-of-way. There are no aboveground facilities not located within the right-of-way. 1.6; Table iii

7 Provide detailed typical construction right-of-way cross-section diagrams showing information such as widths and relative locations of existing rights-ofway, new permanent right-of-way and temporary construction right-of-way. See Resource Report ; Figure & Figure Summarize the total acreage of land affected by construction and operation of the project. 1.2; Table NA If Resource Report 5, Socioeconomics is not provided, provide the start and end dates of construction, the number of pipeline spreads that would be used, and the workforce per spread. {Resource Report 5 will be included.} Send two (2) additional copies of topographic maps and aerial images/photographs directly to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP). NA Provided with Submission Note: NA Not Applicable iv

8 1.0 RESOURCE REPORT 1 - GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Proposed Facilities Magnum Gas Storage, LLC ( MGS ) is proposing to develop a multifaceted energy storage project, the Western Energy Hub (the WEH Project ), in central Utah. The WEH Project would incorporate facilities to be used for the storage of natural gas transported in interstate commerce, as well as facilities to be used to create underground storage caverns and to receive, compress, withdraw, dehydrate, and redeliver natural gas. These facilities (which, collectively, make up the Gas Storage Project ), would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) under the Natural Gas Act of 1938, as amended (the NGA ). MGS is seeking from FERC under Section 7(c) of the NGA a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing MGS to construct the Gas Storage Project and to use it to offer natural gas storage services in interstate commerce. This Resource Report 1 describes the Gas Storage Project in detail. It also briefly describes the larger WEH Project of which the Gas Storage Project is an integral part. The Gas Storage Project will provide high-deliverability natural gas storage to markets in the Rocky Mountain area and the Western United States. The services MGS plans to offer will support the rapid expansion of both natural gas production and pipeline take-away capacity and meet a well-documented need for additional natural gas storage capacity and deliverability in the West. The WEH Project would be located within a contractually defined 2,150-acre area of mutual participation (the Storage Site ) comprised of private land owned by affiliates of MGS ( MGS Affiliates ) and public land owned by the State of Utah and administered through the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration ( SITLA ) (Figure 1.1.1). The central elements of the Gas Storage Project will be located within the Storage Site, which is above a known, but thus far undeveloped, salt structure near the town of Delta in Millard County, Utah. Other elements of the Gas Storage Project, primarily the natural gas transmission pipeline lateral (the Lateral ) linking the gas storage caverns with existing interstate gas transmission pipelines, would extend beyond the Storage Site for about 58.4 miles, crossing private and public lands in Millard, Juab and Utah Counties. In addition to offering natural gas storage services through the Gas Storage Project and thereby supporting Utah s and the Western U.S. s natural gas transmission infrastructure, the WEH Project would entail the development of additional energy storage and electric power generation facilities. These additional WEH Project facilities, which are described below and in Section 1.5.1, would provide flexibility and opportunity to operations at the Intermountain Power Agency s ( IPA s ) nearby 1,900 MW coal-fired electric generation facility, First Wind Energy s nearby 300 MW wind energy generation project (construction underway, with plans to expand to 1,000 MW), the nearby Utah Nevada ( UNEV ) 12-inch diameter refined products pipeline (construction underway), concentrated solar thermal generation facilities currently under consideration for the adjacent SITLA lands, and to the regional electric power transmission grid. Eight of the salt caverns created at the Storage Site would be used by MGS for the storage of natural gas. The natural gas storage caverns would each have a working gas storage capacity of eight (8) billion cubic feet ( Bcf ), supported in each case by one (1) Bcf of base or pad gas. {To be confirmed} The Gas Storage Project would be capable of injecting 1.2 Bcf and of withdrawing 1.6 Bcf per day. {To be confirmed} Natural gas would be routed to and from the Gas Storage Project s central compression facility by the Lateral to a point of interconnection 1

9 with existing interstate gas transmission facilities owned by Kern River Gas Transmission Company ( KRG ) and Questar Pipeline Company ( Questar ) near Goshen, Utah (the Goshen Interconnect ). The Lateral would be 36 inches in diameter and approximately 60 miles in length, with a maximum operating pressure of 1,480 psi. The Lateral would originate at the northwest corner of Section 27 of Township (T) 15 South (S) Range (R) 7 West (W) and run eastward along a 150-foot wide permanent utility corridor. It would then cross the Brush Wellman Road in Sec. 19, T15S, R6W, and continue to an existing power line corridor occupied by two 345 kilovolt ( kv ) transmission lines running from IPA s 1,900 MW coal-fired generating station to Rocky Mountain Power s ( RMP ) substation and the regional electric trading hub at Mona, Utah. The Lateral would then continue eastward along the south side of the IPA power line easement in a 50-foot wide permanent right-of-way ( ROW ) until it intersects the KRG pipeline at a point south of the Dog Valley Tap. From this point of intersection, the 50-foot wide Lateral ROW would turn northward, paralleling the west side of the existing KRG ROW to the Goshen Interconnect in Sec. 6,T10S, R1W the closest point of access for the Gas Storage Project to multiple intrastate and interstate pipelines and regional markets. Additional facilities that will or may be required for construction and operation of the Gas Storage Project include: water supply pipelines; water supply wells (unless existing sources of water supply can be used for all of the WEH Project s water requirements); well pads and wells that would be used for the creation of natural gas storage caverns and the injection and withdrawal of natural gas; eight caverns to be created through solution mining for the purpose of natural gas storage; leaching facilities for solution mining and creation of caverns; a salt processing facility (evaporation ponds/dryer) for the purpose of brine management and cavern creation; brine ponds, if required for brine management; surface facilities for gas storage that would include central compression and gas handling facilities, valving and dehydration facilities, pig launchers/receivers and an operations center; electric transmission lines to supply power to the cavern leaching and gas handling facilities; ROW corridors to interconnect the Lateral with two FERC-regulated interstate gas pipelines; meter and regulator stations; and access roads. The WEH Project will eventually include a number of facilities other than those subject to the FERC s NGA jurisdiction. Those facilities may include: 2

10 commercial salt processing, handling, and loading facilities; compressed air energy storage ( CAES ) caverns and related electric power generation facilities; one or more refined petroleum product storage cavern(s) with pipeline ROW(s) to interconnect with a refined petroleum products pipeline (under construction); a natural gas-fired electric generating facility and associated electrical transmission interconnect; and carbon sequestration and solar gradient pond generation (subject to technology advances). These additional facilities are discussed below in Section 1.5, Future Plans and Abandonment. MGS s and its affiliate s ultimate goal is to develop an integrated energy storage and generation project that would: convert intermittent wind, solar, and other renewable energy into a reliable and dispatchable electric energy source; support natural gas-fired electric power generation; and enhance the flexibility and reliability of the natural gas transmission infrastructure serving Utah and other states in the Western U.S Storage Site The Storage Site includes the natural gas storage caverns and the associated facilities (see Figures and 1.1.3) (as well as, potentially, other caverns to be used for petroleum product, compressed air, and other storage purposes, see Section 1.5). The lands at the Storage Site are undeveloped, rural areas adjacent to an existing 1,900 MW coal-fired generating station owned by IPA. Although the Storage Site has very little topographic relief, the specific lands on which the Gas Storage Project would be located are at the bottom of a shallow basin. Any standing surface waters evaporate quickly in this high desert environment (approximate elevation of 4,160 feet), nevertheless, the thin, largely clay-based soils within the Storage Site have become increasingly alkaline as the result of ongoing surface drainage from the surround lands. As a result, vegetation consists primarily of sparsely vegetated greasewood communities. It is generally accepted that this area is unsuitable for agriculture and only marginally usable for grazing Cavern Creation Within the Storage Site MGS would develop eight caverns located 3,800 to 4,400 feet below ground surface ( bgs ). The salt structure in which the caverns would be created is located immediately beneath the Storage Site. The salt structure is overlain by unconsolidated alluvium to a depth of about 3,000 feet bgs. Each cavern would have a working gas storage capacity of 8 Bcf supported by 1 Bcf of pad gas. Caverns would be about 300 feet in diameter and would be separated from one another by approximately 500 feet of undisturbed salt. Each cavern would be created by a process of solution mining, in which fresh water is injected in a controlled manner at a rate of approximately 2,500 gallons per minute ( gpm ) in order to dissolve a cavity in the salt mass. A thin layer of diesel that would float on top of the fresh water 3

11 would be injected into each cavern to control the areas of salt dissolution and, thereby, the shape of the salt storage caverns Brine Management The brine resulting from the dissolution of salt would be returned to the surface by the pressure imposed by injection of fresh water. Produced brine would be transported to lined surface ponds covering approximately 640 acres. The brines in these surface ponds would be further concentrated using established solar extraction technologies and/or vacuum evaporation processing utilizing recovered waste heat to produce marketable salt products Well Drilling Each cavern would require creation of a graveled drill/maintenance pad approximately 400 feet by 400 feet, with a connecting graveled access road. All water supply and cavern injection/withdrawal wells will be constructed by drilling contractors and service providers licensed in the State of Utah and all work would be conducted in accordance with all applicable bonding and drilling requirements of the Utah Divisions of Oil Gas & Mining and Water Rights. After each well has been successfully completed and the wellhead assembly and connecting pipelines and controls have been installed and tested, all debris, cuttings and drilling fluids would be disposed of on-site or transported to licensed disposal facilities as required by applicable local, state and federal regulations. A gated perimeter security fence would be constructed around the pads Utility Corridors Utilities for operation of the leaching facility and gas handling facilities would be placed in a 300- foot wide utility corridor running through the Storage Site. Fresh water, brine transportation and natural gas pipelines and, potentially, conduits for electrical supply and controls connecting each cavern with the central leaching facility, brine storage ponds and central compression facility will be constructed in this corridor. Whenever possible the corridor will also include an access road. These pipelines will be buried and covered with a minimum of three feet of surface material to protect against freezing and to minimize permanently disturbed areas Compression The central gas compression facility will include {electric motor or gas engine} driven compressors, as well as dehydration, separation, and ancillary equipment. To protect against four-season climate conditions, these facilities would be mounted on concrete foundation slabs over a gravel base and enclosed by a rectangular steel sided building approximately 70 feet by 400 feet. {The decision between gas engine or electric motor driven compressors will be motivated by consideration for other Project elements, including the ability of the Project to make use of waste heat and carbon dioxide from gas engine driven compressors, and the benefits of reduces air emissions from the use of electric motor driven compressors.} Water Supply The fresh water supply for solution mining of the storage caverns and other Gas Storage Project and WEH Project operations will come from a combination of pipeline interconnections with the existing surface and ground water supply facilities at the adjacent IPA generating station and new wells drilled within the Storage Site. 4

12 Both the surface and groundwaters in this area of the Sevier River drainage are currently closed to new appropriations. MGS is currently working in partnership with SITLA to acquire short term leases of 8,000 acre feet annually ( afa ) from the roughly 11,000 afa of surplus water rights currently owned and leased each year by IPA. In addition MGS is pursuing other private and municipal water right holders in the area with similar surplus rights. Existing surplus rights can be relocated through a change in the point of diversion. MGS is completing exploratory drilling activities to determine the location and potential productive capacity of the multiple, stacked aquifers contained within the unconsolidated sediments above the top of the salt structure. Depending on the success of this exploration and testing program, MGS may find that the aquifers identified under the Storage Site could support temporary change applications allowing the diversion of the leased water rights to new wells constructed within the Storage Site. This would minimize the amount of surface disturbance associated with new water supply pipelines from IPA or other sources, while avoiding the need to tap and potentially reconfigure their existing pumping, storage, and pipeline facilities. Because of the depth of the potentially productive aquifers underlying the Storage Site, the size of the graveled drill pads and access roads, the procedures used during and after drilling to minimize environmental impacts, and the security fencing, pipeline and control connections would be similar in size and nature to those described above for the cavern injection/withdrawal wells Leaching Facility Whether the fresh water supplies are obtained from existing sources or new on-site wells, high pressure electric motor driven pumps (some with variable speed motors to provide additional flexibility and operating control) will be used to move the water through new underground steel pipelines (buried alongside access roads with a minimum of three feet of cover) to the central leaching plant. This facility will be constructed on a gravel pad supporting a cement slab and enclosed by a steel sided building approximately 30 feet by 150 feet. {To be confirmed} The central leaching facility will include electric motor driven booster and injection pumps (some with variable speed drives to provide additional operating control and flexibility) with a combined minimum capacity of 5,000 gpm at 1,250 psi. {To be confirmed} The facility will also contain necessary filtration, water quality treatment, measurement and control equipment, as well as above ground steel surge and storage tanks to maintain consistent injection volumes. {Note to FERC Staff: MGS is conducting both subsurface and surface facility engineering and will provide engineering layouts with the final draft of Resource Report 1.} Lateral The preferred route of the 58.4-mile Lateral ROW would extend from the Storage Site to the Goshen Interconnect, following existing power line and natural gas pipeline corridors (Figure and Figure 1.1.5). From the Storage Site, the preferred route is aligned west to east across SITLA land abutting the south side of IPA s ROW for its two 345 kv power lines. It continues east through public and private land along the power line ROW to the KRG pipeline, and then turns north to follow along the west side of the KRG pipeline ROW to the Goshen Interconnect. Approximately 57 percent of the Lateral ROW would cross private land, 20 percent would cross lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management ( BLM ), 5 percent would cross U.S. Forest Service ( USFS ) lands, and 18 percent would traverse SITLA lands. Table shows the land ownership along the Lateral ROW by milepost. 5

13 An alternate route that would connect to the KRG pipeline near Mills, Utah (the Mills Interconnect ) has also been considered (see Figure and Figure 1.1.5). The alternate route follows the same alignment as the preferred route from the Storage Site along the south side of the IPA electric transmission ROW before heading southeast to the proposed Mills Interconnect. The alternate route then continues north, following the west side of the KRG pipeline ROW until it reconnects with the alignment of the preferred route south of KRG s Dog Valley Tap. It then continues along the preferred route to the Goshen Interconnect. The alternate route to the proposed Mills Interconnect is approximately 33 miles from the Storage Site. The northward continuation of this alternate route from Mills to the Goshen Interconnect is approximately 32 miles, making the total length of the alternate route approximately 65 miles. If an appropriate back-haul tariff can be negotiated with KRG for the Mills to Goshen segment, the potential benefit of this alternate route would be a reduction in the diameter (and capital costs) of the pipeline lateral paralleling this segment required for the interconnection with Questar at Goshen. The Lateral ROW would have a permanent width of 50 feet and an additional 50 feet of temporary easement for construction-related activities. Additional temporary work space for special construction activities would also be required. Additional work space would be associated with crossings of roads and water bodies. Typical cross-sectional layouts of the Lateral ROW are presented on Figures and The Lateral would be 36-inches in diameter and would be constructed of carbon steel. The Lateral would be capable of bi-directional operation and would have a maximum operating pressure of 1,480 psi. {Note to FERC Staff: MGS is conducting Lateral route engineering and will provide alignment sheets for the selected route with the final draft of Resource Report 1.} Meter and Regulator Stations and Interconnect Sites Two interconnects are planned at Goshen, allowing access to Questar and KRG. The interconnect site would be a 1-acre tract immediately adjacent to the west side of the KRG pipeline ROW at the Goshen Interconnect. Each interconnect would be bi-directional and would require a permanent 150 by 150-foot area (0.5 acre). Under separate agreements with MGS currently under negotiation, each of KRG and Questar would construct, own, operate and maintain a tap for the Lateral into their respective pipelines. Equipment layout and piping for these interconnect sites are illustrated in Figure The interconnect site would include: Launcher/receiver Measurement building Filter skid Metering Regulation delivery Regulation receipt Transmission pipeline 6

14 Storage site pipeline A permanent perimeter security fence with gated entrance would be maintained around the interconnect site. The areas within the site not occupied by roads, foundations or structures, yet subject to vehicle and pedestrian traffic, would be base stabilized with geo-textile fabric, crushed stone or concrete, or gravel-based material Temporary Fabrication Areas Temporary fabrication areas would be temporarily used to stage equipment and materials related to construction. These sites would also provide centralized locations for field construction offices, material storage, and off-road parking for workers associated with the construction of the Gas Storage Project (and ultimately other elements of the WEH Project). Factors to be used in determining locations proposed as temporary fabrication areas include: proximity to the Storage Site and the Goshen Interconnect, ease of access to site from paved and established roadways, and minimal environmental impacts required to prepare the site. Temporary fabrication areas would occupy approximately 100 acres in total. These locations would be located at intervals along the Lateral ROW and within the Storage Site. {Note to FERC Staff: temporary fabrication areas will be identified in the final draft of Resource Report 1.} Required Utilities and Access Roads along Pipeline Corridor The Gas Storage Project may require additional ROW width to provide utility access to the site and, possibly, to interconnect locations. Additional access road ROWs may also be required for construction and maintenance of the Lateral. {Note to FERC Staff: the storage site utility ROW and access road ROW requirements will be identified in the final draft of Resource Report 1.} Storage Site Utility ROW The Storage Site would require interconnections with several supporting utilities proposed to be co-located within the Lateral ROW at or near the storage site, including: potable and fresh water injection supply pipeline(s) pipelines for transportation of brines to/from solar extraction ponds and processing service power (high and low voltage as well as compressor power) fiber optic line and communications two lane graveled access road LDC gas pipeline (6-inch) The corridor may also contain a 12-inch diameter refined products pipeline (see Section 1.5 below). Additional facilities associated with the WEH Project that are not subject to FERC s jurisdiction under the NGA are described in Section below. 7

15 Additional ROW width may be required at or near the Storage Site to accommodate these utilities and interconnections Pipeline Access ROW There are currently roads in place for maintenance of the existing IPA power transmission lines and KRG natural gas pipeline. Where possible, these existing service roads would be used to access the Lateral ROW. In some areas, a new access road may be required. {Note to FERC Staff: the access road requirements will be identified in the final draft of Resource Report 1.} Any additional access road(s) would have a permanent ROW width of 50 feet. Additional temporary work spaces for specific construction activities may be required. Temporary construction width would be not greater than 50 feet in width Noise Sensitive Areas. There are no noise sensitive areas within one mile of the location of central compression facility at the Storage Site. There are no noise sensitive areas within one mile of the locations of any of the planned cavern injection or fresh water well pads at which drilling activities will be conducted. There are 6 homes within one mile of the planned road crossing at SR 125 south of Leamington. These represent the only homes or other noise sensitive areas within one mile of the remaining planned crossings of roads, waterways or foreign pipelines that might require the use of horizontal directional drilling ( HDD ) Purpose and Need The purpose of the Gas Storage Project is to provide high-deliverability, multi-cycle underground natural gas storage capacity to markets that can be accessed through the KRG and Questar systems throughout Utah and the Western U.S. The Gas Storage Project would provide greater system reliability, increased operating flexibility, and greater security of uninterrupted gas supply to the Western U.S. s growing and increasingly volatile natural gas market. It would enhance the existing natural gas infrastructure, providing both traditional seasonal storage services as well as short-term cycling and balancing services to interstate pipelines, gas-fired electric generators, local distribution companies and gas marketers. The Gas Storage Project would be centrally located between the Rocky Mountain production fields and the markets of California, Nevada, and Arizona. By accessing the existing and proposed interstate pipeline interconnections near Opal, Wyoming, the Gas Storage Project would also support natural gas markets in the Northwest and MidWest. Demand for natural gas storage services in these regional markets and throughout the United States demonstrates the need for the Gas Storage Project. This is discussed in greater detail in the accompanying application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The services to be provided by the Gas Storage Project include: Firm storage Interruptible storage Parking and loaning of natural gas supplies 8

16 The Gas Storage Project would support deliveries of natural gas to meet peak demands and would allow flowing natural gas supply to be matched with varying levels of demand. It would, in particular, enhance the ability of the interstate gas transmission infrastructure to handle fluctuations in hourly demand for natural gas increasingly imposed by dispatchable gas-fired electric generating facilities which are increasingly being used to back-up intermittent wind and other renewable generation sources. 1.2 Land Requirements Land requirements for the Gas Storage Project s permanent facilities and temporary construction are described by area below and listed in Table {Note to FERC Staff: acreages will be updated following the completion of detailed facility and pipeline design.} Storage Site The Storage Site is comprised of both State and private land totaling approximately 2,150 acres. Approximately 710 acres would be required for permanent facilities and 40 acres for temporary construction. This area includes the Gas Storage Project s surface facilities, compression facilities, leaching facilities, brine ponds, and utility corridors. Details of the land requirements for these facilities are included below. Because of the practical difficulty of re-establishing vegetative cover in alkaline soils in a desert environment temporary disturbance areas would be minimized wherever possible. Disturbed areas will be landscaped, graveled, or otherwise improved to suit the future uses of the Storage Site and no reclamation to the land s original state will be performed. A central temporary fabrication area is anticipated within the Storage Area. The temporary fabrication areas will be managed in a similar fashion to generate the minimal amount of disturbance Gas Storage Surface Facilities Approximately 30 acres of land would be permanently disturbed by drill/maintenance pads associated with each of the proposed eight gas storage caverns. {To be confirmed} Due to the need to access the well sites periodically with large drilling rigs for cavern maintenance, drill/maintenance pads would be 400-feet by 400-feet with no temporary disturbed area Compression Facility Approximately 4 acres of land would be permanently disturbed by the construction and operation of the compression facility. {To be confirmed} Due to the need to periodically access the machinery associated with the compression facility there would be 400-foot by 400-foot graveled area with no temporary disturbed area Leach Facility Approximately 2 acres of land would be permanently disturbed by the construction and operation of the leaching facility. {To be confirmed} Due to the need to periodically access the machinery associated with the leaching facility there would be 350-foot by 250-foot graveled area with no temporary disturbed area. 9

17 Brine Ponds Approximately 640 acres of land would be permanently disturbed by the creation of the brine ponds. The area of the brine ponds would be determined following the completion of detailed engineering and design of the brine management system for recovery of the salt and water. There would be no temporary disturbed areas associated with the brine ponds Storage Site Utility Corridors Approximately 3.6 miles of utility corridors would be constructed within the Storage Site. The utility corridors would connect the facilities and provide transportation access. There would be no temporary disturbed areas. The corridor heading out of the Storage Site to the east would contain the 36-inch Lateral along with other off-site utilities needed at the site. This corridor would be 150 feet in width, and would have a permanently disturbed area of 18 acres. The on-site corridors would be only 50 feet wide and would have a permanent disturbed area of 16 acres Lateral Facilities The construction of the Lateral would result in temporarily disturbance of approximately acres. Most of the Lateral ROW would be reclaimed. The amount of acreage to be permanently disturbed along the Lateral is estimated to total less than 2 acres (Table 1.2.1) Interconnect Site An estimated 4 acres would be temporarily disturbed by construction of the Goshen Interconnect. The permanently disturbed area will total an estimated 1 acre for the KRG and Questar interconnections with each fenced and gated interconnect location estimated to be 150 feet by 150 feet Temporary Fabrication Areas Three areas of not more than 20 acres each are anticipated for temporary construction along the Lateral. They would be restored following completion of the WEH Project, and thus their use will not result in any permanent disturbance Required Utility and Access Road Rights of Way {Note to FERC: Areas in addition to the 150-foot utility corridor at and adjacent to the Storage Site to be determined by engineering of the selected pipeline lateral route and included in the final draft of Resource Report 1.} 1.3 Construction and Restoration Procedures The Gas Storage Project would be constructed in compliance with applicable federal regulations and guidelines, the conditions of required federal, state and local permits, and MGS s written construction specifications. MGS is committed to, and would effectively communicate to its contractors, the objective of minimizing the potential for erosion and sedimentation throughout all phases of construction and to restore all disturbed areas effectively. These objectives would be met by employing erosion and sedimentation control measures in accordance with the FERC s Upland Erosion Control, Re-vegetation, and Maintenance Plan (the FERC Plan ) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures ( the FERC Procedures ). 10

18 In general, these control measures are designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation by: Minimizing the quantity and duration of soil exposure; Protecting critical areas during construction by redirecting and reducing the velocity of runoff; Installing and maintaining erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction; Establishing vegetation or other ground cover as soon as possible following final grading; and Inspecting the ROW and other disturbed areas and maintaining erosion and sedimentation controls as necessary until final stabilization is achieved. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ( E&SCP ) describes in detail the typical construction and restoration techniques and mitigation measures to be used for the Gas Storage Project. Dust mitigation measures would be implemented as necessary. The primary measure to minimize dust would be soil dampening during dry conditions. Special consideration would be given to roadway entrance areas where clear visibility is essential. Environmental inspection and oversight are discussed in Section 1.3.1; construction methods are discussed in Section 1.3.2; and specialized construction methods are discussed in Section The only proposed exceptions to the FERC Plan are as follows: {to be completed after pipeline engineering} The Lateral would be constructed in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations and the specific requirements of the permits issued for the Gas Storage Project. To ensure that construction would comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Resource Reports, FERC's evaluation of the project, and the requirements of other federal and state permitting agencies, MGS would include implementation details in its construction drawings and specifications, and would draft a detailed Implementation Plan where appropriate. Contractors selected to perform work on the project would receive copies of specifications and a Construction Drawing Package containing drawings designated as Approved for Construction. For those mitigation measures that address pre-construction surveys and clearances, MGS would include references to pertinent correspondence and documentation in the Construction Drawing Package. For those mitigation measures that address permit conditions from federal, state, and local agencies, MGS would include copies of permits and related drawings in the Construction Drawing Package. For those mitigation measures that, in part, address postconstruction requirements, MGS would include instructions and documentation (e.g., a Maintenance Plan) to be provided to operating personnel following the completion of construction. The Maintenance Plan would include copies of pertinent permits with particular reference to long-term permit conditions and reporting requirements. 11

19 To support the application of proper field construction methods, MGS would prepare a projectspecific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP ) in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) stormwater discharge permitting requirements, implementing Best Management Practices ( BMPs ) as recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) in the guidance manual, Stormwater Management for Construction Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices (1992). The SWPPP would also satisfy the requirements for erosion and sedimentation control planning, and provide specifications for hazardous materials transportation, handling, storage, spill prevention, and spill response in a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan ( SPCC ) attachment, which would be prepared prior to construction. The SWPPP would also incorporate state and county requirements and provisions of the FERC's Plan, with any FERC-approved exceptions. MGS and the construction contractors would jointly develop the SWPPP to ensure the proposed controls adequately address the materials to be used and the proposed construction methods, and to ensure complete contractor acceptance of the plans Environmental Compliance, Training, and Inspection MGS would provide training in proper field implementation of the FERC Plan and Procedures, FERC Certificate, Implementation Plan, E&SC Plan, SWPPP, the SPCC Plan, hazardous materials management, and other mitigation measure to its environmental inspectors. Although this training would focus on implementation, it would also include instructions on the implementation of other mitigation measures, as appropriate. In addition, MGS would provide training to construction personnel prior to beginning construction activities to make them aware of environmental requirements. Once construction is underway, MGS s Environmental Inspector (see below) would provide periodic follow-up training as necessary for newly-assigned personnel. An Environmental Inspector would be a full-time position that reports directly to MGS management and has environmentally related stop-work authority. The Environmental Inspector's duties are consistent with those contained in Paragraph li.b (Responsibilities of the Environmental Inspector) of FERC's Plan and would include ensuring compliance with environmental conditions attached to the FERC Certificate, project environmental designs and specifications, and environmental conditions attached to other permits or authorizations. The Environmental Inspector would be present throughout construction and restoration of pipeline and aboveground facilities and would have the authority to enforce permit and FERC Certificate conditions. The responsibilities of the Environmental Inspector during construction would include the following: Coordinating and/or performing updated environmental training as new contracted personnel begin working on project construction; Ensuring that construction activities occur within authorized works areas; Documenting activities with daily logs, weekly reports, and other required documentation; Educating other inspectors on task-specific environmental concerns; Providing notification of construction activities to agencies as required in permits; and 12

20 Ensuring the Contractor conducts training for spill prevention and impact minimization. At least one full-time Environmental Inspector would be on the construction project per construction spread in addition to the Chief Inspector, specific construction discipline inspectors, and safety inspectors. The Environmental Inspector would monitor construction activities to ensure compliance with environmental standards and to resolve construction-related environmental issues. MGS s Safety, Health, and Environmental Group will have responsibility for environmental compliance Construction Methods {This section to be updated following pipeline design.} Storage Site Construction Construction of the Storage Site would involve clearing the site of vegetation, and grading and compacting to the design-required elevations. The site would be perimeter fenced and gated for security and safety during construction. Electrical power, potable water, sanitation and communication service would be established at the site as soon as possible. Erosion control devices would be installed after clearing is completed but prior to grading to minimize soil runoff and sedimentation into adjacent roads or other sensitive areas. Foundations would be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications based on detailed geotechnical soils investigations. Large equipment would be assembled and mounted on their respective foundations. Other buildings and appurtenances necessary for the operation of the storage site would be constructed and installed. Electrical cable would be installed through aboveground transmission, underground conduits, and/or cable trays. Instrument panels and control systems would be installed and circuits checked. All piping on the storage site would be installed and tested. Following construction, debris would be removed. The temporary fabrication area would be restored, graded, and re-vegetated or provided with permanent ground cover. The Storage Site would be graded to final contours and permanent ground covers would be established. The main entrance to the site, access roads, and the parking area in the storage site would be dress-finished. Ground cover, such as gravel, would be spread around equipment areas, aboveground pipeways and valve areas, and lightly trafficked areas. Non-traffic areas would be replanted with vegetation or otherwise sculpted to a relatively natural contour. Outside lighting would be installed as needed. Drilling procedures prescribed by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining ( DOGM ) would be followed that limit and mitigate impacts to the environment. During drilling operations for the wells, self contained mud circulating systems with reserve pits would be installed to capture drilling fluids Brine Ponds Construction of the brine ponds would consist of grading and earth work. This would include clearing and grading of site vegetation and compacting soils to the design specifications. A specified granular fill with a compacted clay liner would be placed over the native soil and a 13

21 welded liner system would be installed over the fill. Erosion control devices would be installed around the perimeter at locations where run-off may be directed. Piping from the leaching facility to the brine ponds would be installed. Other buildings and appurtenances necessary for the operation of the brine ponds would be constructed and installed. Electrical cable serving the brine pond pumps and other equipment would be installed through above ground transmission, underground conduits, and/or cable trays. Instrument panels and control systems would be installed and circuits checked. All piping to and from the brine storage ponds and salt processing facility would be installed and tested Pipeline Construction Construction of the pipeline system would follow industry-accepted practices and procedures, as described below. Standard pipeline construction procedures are presented in chronological order in Sections to , followed by a discussion of special construction procedures in Section through the end of this section. Figure summarizes the pipeline construction graphically. Table lists the anticipated special construction techniques by milepost Surveying Right of Way The pipeline alignment would be surveyed and identified prior to beginning construction activity. Alignment identification would include staking the centerline of the pipeline, foreign line crossings, and the limits of construction work areas. Environmentally sensitive areas would also be flagged at this time Clearing and Grading Vegetation would be cut and cleared from the construction ROW and additional temporary workspaces. Generally, shrubs would be cut flush with the surface of the ground with the root structure left in place, except where necessary to create a safe and level work surface. After clearing, the upland portions of the construction ROW would be graded with a bulldozer or similar equipment as necessary to create a safe and level work surface. Sediment-control devices, such as silt fence and straw bales, would be installed as necessary at wetlands, water bodies, roads and other areas during clearing and grading, in accordance with FERC s Plan Stringing and Welding After preparation of the construction ROW, pipe and associated support timbers (skids) would arrive on the job site by highway trucks, along with pipe handling equipment in the form of crawler mounted side-boom tractors and hydraulic cranes. Where possible, the trucks would travel down the ROW, being off-loaded as they travel, placing joints of pipe end-to-end supported by skids with pad material to protect the coating. When emptied of their cargo, trucks would either turn around in areas provided, or would proceed to the next public road crossing for egress. All mud on the vehicle tires, wheels and undercarriage, which could be dropped in transit on public roads, would be removed before the vehicles leave the ROW. Pipe joints would be placed along the ROW parallel to the trench, bent to conform to the trench contour. Pipe ends (bevels) would be cleaned prior to welding by means of filing or wire brushing to remove rust, scale, and dirt. A side-boom crawler tractor or other suitable hoisting machine would lift each joint of pipe to abut and align with the bevel of the previous joint, and a suitable space for welding would be attained. Welders qualified by testing to the appropriate welding code would then apply an initial pass of weld, progressing to the next aligned joint as 14

22 the first weld pass is applied. Subsequent welding passes would be applied by other welders following the initial pass until satisfactory weld metal has been applied. Each pass, including the final pass, would be mechanically cleaned of slag by wire brush and/or grinding disc, and the welds would be radiographically inspected for defects. Welds found to be defective beyond code limits would be repaired by grinding out the defect and re-welding the objectionable area, or they would be cut out and re-welded. Welding would be performed in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute Standard Number 1104, U.S. Department of Transportation ( DOT ) pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 192 (2008). Completed welds would be visually and radiographically or ultrasonically inspected in accordance with the same standards to determine the integrity of the welds. After passing quality control checks, the weld areas (field joints) would be coated with either a powdered epoxy applied to the induction heated weld areas, or be coated with a mastic sleeve which, when heated, would shrink to form a snug fit on the pipe, and the mastic would become somewhat liquid to eliminate air pockets and provide adhesion. The pipe would be visually checked for damaged coating (holidays), and damaged areas would be repaired by means of melting a stick form of epoxy onto the damaged area Trenching and Installation Trenching involves excavating a ditch for the pipeline and would be accomplished with backhoes or trenching machines. The trench would be excavated to a depth sufficient to provide the appropriate amount of cover, which would generally be a minimum of three feet over all pipelines. Depth of cover would be a minimum of five feet at road crossings and a minimum of four feet at ditches adjacent to roads. Trench spoil would be deposited on the spoil storage portion of the ROW. Trench width would be determined based on the pipeline diameter and the type of soils. The trench may be wider in wet or sandy areas to allow for unstable soils and a sloped trench wall. Based on the conditions along the pipeline ROW, it is not anticipated that blasting would be required. Due to the unconsolidated nature of the soil present in the Gas Storage Project area, the ditch would be excavated following pipe stringing, welding, and joint coating to minimize impacts from ditch wall sloughing. Pipe sections that are ready to be installed in the trench would be lowered in by means of nylon straps or wheeled cradles suspended from side-boom tractors or other hoisting equipment. After the last handling, an electrical coating tester attached to a girth spring would be passed along the entire length of pipe, alerting by audible signal the presence of defects (holidays) in the pipe coating. The lowering operation would cease until the defect is repaired. Inspectors would ensure, by measuring pipe depth, that the minimum required cover is attained Backfilling After the pipe is lowered into the trench, the trench would be backfilled with the previously excavated material. Where topsoil is stored separately from subsoil, the subsoil would be backfilled first and then the topsoil would be replaced in accordance with the FERC s Plan. Although not anticipated, if rock conditions exist, a layer of rock-free soil would be placed over the pipe to protect the coating, and then the backfill operation would be completed. A soil mound would be left over the trench to allow for soil settlement, unless otherwise required by the landowner. 15

23 Hydrostatic Testing After construction and prior to placing the pipelines in service, the completed pipelines would be hydrostatically tested. Hydrostatic testing would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of DOT pipeline safety regulations 49 CFR Part 192, MGS testing specifications, and applicable permits. Pipeline segments would be tested as constructed with each pipeline section tested independently, with the water to be cascaded from one pipeline to another to reduce the amount of hydrostatic test water required and discharged. MGS would obtain water for hydrostatic testing from existing municipal or private surface or ground water connections at or near the Goshen Interconnect. The pipeline would be filled from the east end, pushing pipeline pigs ahead of the water to eliminate air from the line. No additives would be introduced into the hydrostatic test water. Once the line is filled with water, the pressure would be increased in steps to a minimum test pressure in accordance with 49 CFR Part The minimum test pressure would be held for a minimum of 8 hours. The temperature and pressure would be recorded both manually and mechanically using pen chart recorders. The test records would be retained for the life of the pipeline in accordance with 49 CFR Part {Note to FERC Staff: Depending on the quality of the returned test water, disposal may be into either the fresh water or brine holding ponds constructed at the storage site for cavern creation.} Restoration and Cleanup Restoration and cleanup would begin after the trench is backfilled or as soon as weather and site conditions permit. The disturbed areas would be graded as near as practical to preconstruction contours. During cleanup, trash that remains on the ROW would be removed and disposed of in approved areas in accordance with applicable regulations. Organic refuse unsuitable for spreading over the ROW would be disposed at an authorized facility. Cleared vegetation would be chipped (trees), managed on site (brush), or hauled off site to a commercial disposal facility. Chipping would involve spreading the shredded material across the work area. Disturbed areas, fences, and roads would be restored as nearly as practicable to their original condition, permanent erosion-control measures would be installed as appropriate, and revegetation measures would be implemented in accordance with FERC s Plan. Pipeline markers and cathodic protection stations would be located along the length of the proposed pipelines at fences, roadways, pipeline crossings, and any other locations deemed necessary to identify the route and location of the new pipeline, as described on alignment drawings Special Construction Procedures {This section to be updated following pipeline design.} Rugged Topography Those portions of the pipeline system located in upland terrain would employ conventional overland construction techniques for large-diameter pipelines. In the typical pipeline construction scenario, the construction spread (crew) would proceed along the pipeline ROW in one continuous operation. The entire process would be coordinated in such a manner as to minimize the total time an individual tract of land is disturbed and, therefore, exposed to erosion and temporarily precluded from its normal use. 16

24 The pipeline system would be designed and constructed in accordance with 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural Gas and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; 18 CFR Section 2.69, Guidelines to be followed by Natural Gas Pipeline Companies in the Planning, Clearing, and Maintenance of Rights-of-Way and the Construction of Aboveground Facilities; as well as other applicable federal and state regulations Blasting Blasting is not anticipated for this project; therefore, no specialized construction methods, techniques or procedures specific to blasting are proposed Residential Areas Construction of the Lateral would not occur within 50 feet of any residence. If construction requires the removal of private property features, such as gates or fences, the landowner or tenant would be notified prior to the action. Following completion of major construction, the property would be restored as requested by the landowner. Property restoration would be in accordance with any agreements between MGS and the landowner Active Croplands The Lateral ROW would cross approximately 9 miles of active croplands, primarily alfalfa/grass fields. MGS would conserve topsoil in active croplands. A maximum of 12-inches of topsoil would be segregated in these areas, and in other areas at the specific request of the landowner or land management agency. The topsoil and subsoil would be temporarily stockpiled in separate windrows on the construction ROW and would not be allowed to mix. Where topsoil is less than 12 inches deep, the actual depth of the topsoil would be removed and segregated as accurately as possible. The depth of the ditch would be sufficient to allow for at least three feet of cover on top of the pipe. Note that topsoil would not typically be segregated in fields unless the fields are dry at the time of crossing. MGS would schedule the construction in fields during dry periods to the maximum extent practical Road Crossings The Lateral would cross three major roads: US 6 and State Highways 125 and 132. Highway 6 is crossed twice, once in the SW portion of the route and again at the north extent of the proposed route. The preferred route also crosses rural un-separated roads in 12 locations. The alternate route shares the same major road crossings and would cross rural un-separated roads in 19 locations. Both the preferred and alternate routes cross 33 dirt roads that are passable only with 4-wheel drive. The Lateral will be installed under major roads where required by local regulation using the horizontal boring method. Minor road crossings will be installed using the open cut method. Construction of the pipeline across major roadways would be accomplished by horizontally boring under the roadbed. Major road crossing locations are listed in Table Little or no disruption of traffic is expected. Typical cased and uncased road crossings are shown on Figures and Waterbody Crossings The Lateral would cross four intermediate water bodies (between 10 and 100 feet in width) and approximately 15 annually intermittent streams or dry washes. The intermediate waterbodies include two tributaries of the Sevier River, Kimball Creek and the Central Utah Canal. No non- 17

25 stream waterbody crossings are anticipated along the Lateral. The planned crossing methods for these four major crossings are presented in Table In general, waterbody crossing techniques associated with the pipeline facilities can be divided into three main categories: Open-Cut Crossing (Figure 1.3.4), Horizontal Directional Drilling ( HDD ) (Figure 1.3.5), and Dry Water Crossing (Figure 1.3.6). The dry washes will be addressed using conventional trenching and backfilling activities detailed in Sections and MGS anticipates (weather permitting) completing trenching, installing pipe, and backfilling of minor waterbody crossings (less than 10 feet wide) within 24 continuous hours and intermediate waterbodies within 48 continuous hours, unless a flume is used to allow uninterrupted flows across the trench line. Open Cut Water Crossings. Open cut water crossing are typically done on short, shallow crossing. Other factors could necessitate an open cut crossing such as subsurface soil conditions. There are three basic methods of an open cut crossing. Flume Crossing A flume crossing requires the installation of pipe capable of carrying the entire water flow (with a safety factor of, e.g., 1.5) in the flow channel. A dam is installed on each side of the proposed pipeline crossing directing the water through the flume pipe. A trench is then dug in the conventional manner. The segment of pipe crossing the waterway, which has been prefabricated, is installed. The pipe is then covered with soil that was excavated for the crossing. The temporary dams and flume are removed and the waterway and surrounding banks are restored. Pumped Crossing This method replaces the flume pipe with large hoses and pumps to move the water around the crossing. The same steps are followed as a flume crossing. Coffer Dam A coffer dam is installed part way across the waterway. The coffer dam creates a work area in the waterway where the ditch is dug and pipe installed. Depending on the width of the waterway a series of coffers might be used to cross a water way. The waterway is restored as the construction progresses across the waterway. Bridge The other option is to build a bridge across the crossing. Usually a suspension bridge is built. Significant amount of land on both sides of the crossing are required for the bridge structure and routing of the pipe. Special design considerations have to allow for both thermal expansion/contraction and bridge movement of the pipe at both approaching and leaving areas of the crossing. Horizontal Directional Drill. HDD is a method of crossing rivers and other types of barriers such as wetlands, airport runways, congested areas and even golf courses. Often, environmental concerns are a reason to use directional drilling, to enable a pipeline to be laid under or through a sensitive area with minimal disturbance. The pipe path is an arc which is determined by the physical properties of the pipe diameter, wall thickness, and yield stress. Also operating and construction conditions, operating pressure, installation temperature and others are critical in the design. The pipe path does not have to be straight line across the obstruction. 18

26 A HDD is typically done in the following manner. 1. The first stage consists of directionally drilling a small diameter pilot hole along a predetermined path. During drilling of the pilot hole, directional control is achieved by using a non-rotating drill string with an asymmetrical leading edge. The asymmetry of the leading edge creates a steering bias, which allows the operator to control the direction of the drill bit. The actual path of the pilot hole is determined during drilling by a very accurate monitoring and control system, which tracks the progress and exact location of the drilling head at all times. 2. The second stage begins once the pilot hole is complete, when the pilot hole is enlarged (reamed) to a diameter that will accommodate the pipeline. Typically, numerous reaming passes are necessary with each pass enlarging the diameter of the pilot hole incrementally. The reamers are typically attached to the drill string at the exit point and are rotated and drawn to the drilling rig, thus enlarging the pilot hole with each pass. To minimize heaving during pullback, a pullback rate that maximizes the removal of soil cuttings and minimizes compaction of the ground around the borehole is used. The pullback rate is also set to minimize over cutting of the borehole during the back reaming operation to ensure excessive voids are not created resulting in post installation settlement. 3. The third stage of pipe installation is accomplished by attaching a prefabricated pipeline pull section behind a reaming assembly at the exit point and pulling the entire pipeline string assembly back through the drilled hole to the drilling rig. After the pipe is in place, tie-in welds on each side of the crossing are completed. Horizontal Bore (also known as Horizontal Auger Bore) A boring technique used to cross underneath shallow depth structures or water crossing and shorter distances. The pipe path is flat and straight. Two methods are used in a horizontal bore. The first is cased crossing where a larger pipe (casing) is installed first and then the carrier pipe in place inside the casing pipe. The other method is not to install a casing pipe but to use a segment of carrier pipe that has a special abrasive resistive coating and a thicker pipe wall. The second method is the preferred method because of fewer cathodic protection problems after construction. Both methods require excavation of pits on both sides of obstruction. The bore pit has to be approximately 50 feet across and at least 60 feet in length along the pipeline direction. The other pit is smaller to allow cleaning of the pipe and the pipeline to be tied in. An auger bit that can fit inside either the casing pipe or the carrier is used. The pipe is pushed by the auger machine as the auger is drilling. The auger and pipe form a tube that carries the excavated soil to the bore pit. When the bore is complete either the casing pipe or carrier pipe is cleaned of remaining soil inside the pipe. If a casing pipe is used the carrier pipe is then pulled through the casing pipe. Centering rings are used to keep the carrier in the center of the casing pipe. The ends of the carrier pipe are tied into the mainline pipe. All equipment and construction debris are removed from the pits before they are back filled. Proper shoring and escape paths are required. Water flow will be maintained at all waterbody crossings, and no alteration to the waterbody s capacity is planned as a result of pipeline construction. MGS would ensure that construction 19

27 across the waterbody is completed in the shortest amount of time practical to minimize the duration of potentially adverse impacts. All waterbody crossings would be performed in accordance with all applicable permits, FERC s Plan and Procedures, and the E&SCP. Moreover, should crossing installation design(s) need to be revised due to different conditions in the field prior to the initiation of construction, MGS would notify the appropriate agencies of any modifications to the crossing plans. Typically, the pipe would be installed approximately perpendicular to the waterbody crossing configuration. Grading at approaches to the waterbody may be required to create a safe work surface and to allow the necessary area for pipe bending. If grading is required, it would be directed away from the waterbody to reduce the possibility of disturbed soils being transported into the waterbody by erosion or sedimentation. Extra work spaces would be located at least 50 feet beyond the edge of the waterbody. If sitespecific conditions do not permit a 50-foot setback, a variance would be sought to allow a lesser setback. Spill prevention measures would be developed. Hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels or lubricating oils would not be stored nor would concrete coating activities be performed within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland. Spoil would be stored at least 10 feet from waterbody crossings, where possible. Spoil placed up-gradient of a waterbody would be contained within sediment control devices to prevent spoil materials from flowing into the waterbody or off the ROW. At a waterbody, equipment crossings would be limited, and mats would be laid adjacent to and across streambeds. It is anticipated that dry crossing techniques may be employed at waterbody and wetland crossings. These techniques could include HDD, dam and pump, and flume crossing. These dry crossing techniques, if employed, would be performed as per the FERC Procedures. A plan would be submitted by MGS for each HDD crossing. FERC approval would be obtained prior to any such crossing. A Typical Dry Water Crossing is presented in Figure Wetlands {Wetlands may be present at the Sevier River crossings. The status of these areas is not available and a survey of the potential wetland areas will be completed.} No other potential wetland areas were identified. Wetlands would be crossed in accordance with the E&SCP, FERC Procedures, and conditions imposed by any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Primary emphases would be on minimizing overall impact by limiting the time and extent of disturbance in wetlands and controlling sedimentation into these resources. Special care would be taken during restoration to ensure that wetlands are stabilized and revegetated and that natural functions and values are retained. In general, the method of pipeline construction in wetlands would depend upon the soil stability and the extent of saturation of the wetlands. The total ROW width would be limited to a maximum of 75 feet in wetlands. However, MGS would endeavor to minimize the ROW width to 20

28 the extent practicable. Where soils are unstable and saturated, stable temporary work surfaces in the wetlands may be required. Timber mats, travel pads, and/or gravel on geo-textile reinforced membrane are possible methods of stabilization and would aid to reduce the disturbance to wetland soils. Extra work spaces would be located a minimum of 50 feet from the boundary of any designated wetland. The construction procedures used to cross unsaturated wetlands would be similar to those used on dry land areas. Unless wetland soils are saturated, the top 12 inches of wetland soil would be salvaged from over the trench. The salvaged soil would be temporarily stockpiled along the pipeline trench, with gaps left at appropriate intervals to provide for natural circulation or drainage of water. Subsoil would be transported to a nearby extra work space for temporary storage. Erosion and sedimentation control devices would be installed at edges of the construction ROW in wetlands. Backfill would be well compacted, especially near the edges of the wetlands. Topsoil would be replaced and ripped if necessary to relieve compaction. Upon completion of construction, cleanup would include removal of any construction work pads and/or temporary matting. The area would then be restored to approximate original contours in a manner to re-establish the essential hydrologic functions. Construction techniques in highly saturated, flooded areas would vary according to the site specific conditions. Construction may involve utilizing either the push technique or the pull technique. These techniques involve pushing the prefabricated pipe from the edge of the wetland or pulling the pipe from the opposite bank of the wetland with a winch. The trench would be made with a backhoe, dragline, clamshell dredge, or a combination of this equipment. The push and pull sites, the pipe lay-down areas, and fabricating areas would be located outside of any delineated wetland boundaries Construction Workforce The Gas Storage Project s construction is expected to create an average of 50 construction jobs over the first two years, with peak levels occasionally reaching 75. There could be a maximum of two pipeline spreads, although one is typical. The average workforce per spread would be 35. A review of the proposed manpower breakdown by trade indicates that the vast majority of the workforce can be secured from within the surrounding counties existing population. Shortages in workforce levels for specific trades would be filled from within Utah. A few specialists would be called on from time to time from outside the immediate area. Table presents the projected workforce for the project Construction Schedule It is anticipated that construction of the Gas Storage Project would begin as soon after issuance of the FERC Section 7(c) certificate, anticipated in December 2009, as weather permits, and should be completed for the first series of caverns by Q4 of The pipeline should be operational by Q4 of Table presents the preliminary construction schedule. 1.4 Operation and Maintenance Plans The Gas Storage Project Lateral would be operated in compliance with all federal and state requirements. Operations and maintenance procedures for the Storage Site and pipelines are provided below. 21

29 {Note to FERC Staff: This section to be revised after facility design is completed.} Storage Site The Gas Storage Project s surface facilities would require personnel staffing based at the compressor station area to support operations and maintenance activities. There would be an onsite control center for monitoring operational activities. In addition to the onsite control center, a remote backup center would allow for secondary monitoring/control of the facilities Pipelines MGS would operate and maintain the pipeline systems in compliance with DOT regulations provided in 49 CFR 192, FERC s regulations in 18 CFR , and maintenance provisions of FERC s Plan. It is anticipated that MGS s solution mining and gas storage staff would also operate and maintain the pipeline. Contractors would be used for infrequent tasks such as ROW maintenance and inline inspection. Operational activity would focus on maintenance of the ROW; protecting the pipeline from third party contractor activity; protecting the pipeline from unauthorized encroachment on the ROW, such as buildings and other substantial structures; conducting cathodic protection surveys in accordance with 49 CFR 192, Section ; identifying soil erosion; and, identifying other conditions that could present a safety hazard or require preventive maintenance or repairs. MGS would maintain vegetation or other ground cover on the permanent ROW, as required. The frequency of the vegetation maintenance would depend upon the vegetation growth rate, but would not be more frequent than dictated by FERC s approved Plan. The Gas Storage Project s pipeline systems would be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, railroads, water bodies, and other key points, in accordance with DOT regulations. The markers would indicate the presence of the pipeline and provide a telephone number and address where a company representative could be reached in the event of an emergency. MGS would participate in the Utah One Call system to prevent third-party damage to the pipeline systems. 1.5 Future Plans and Abandonment Future Plans Related to the Gas Storage Project The WEH Project will ultimately involve the development of additional facilities that would not be subject to FERC s NGA jurisdiction. These facilities may include: commercial salt processing, handling, and loading facilities; compressed air energy storage (CAES) cavern and generation facilities; recovered energy and other clean electric generation facilities; refined petroleum product storage cavern(s) with pipeline ROW to a nearby refined petroleum products pipeline (under construction); and a natural gas-fired electric generating facility and associated electrical transmission interconnect. Thus, the WEH Project is likely to incorporate the development of storage caverns beyond those to be developed as part of the Gas Storage Project. It may also incorporate power generation 22

30 facilities and related facilities to take advantage of the availability of gas supply to the storage site and the opportunities presented by the proximity of the storage site to major sources of wind and solar energy, as well as large capacity electric transmission facilities. At full build-out, the WEH Project could offer the following: Commercial salt processing facility, drying, packing, shipping, etc. (taking advantage of the large volumes of brine to be produced through solution mining of salt caverns and possibly large quantities of waste heat energy); CAES, which can provide wind and solar power firming, peak shaving and a source of low carbon emissions alternative electric energy supply; Refined product storage (taking advantage of the storage site s proximity to a new petroleum products pipeline extending from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas), which would contribute to the stabilization of volatile refined fuel prices; Gas fired generation (which could provide peak shaving supply into regional wholesale electric energy markets); and Electric generation from recovered waste heat energy. Because of the close proximity of the site to existing electric transmission and the IPA coal-fired generating station, there may be additional future opportunities for pumped hydro-storage or carbon sequestration (depending upon technology advances). The services provided by the non-jurisdictional portions of the WEH Project may include: renewable energy firming (CAES, pumped hydro-electric); clean energy peak shaving; waste energy capture and use; refined product storage (domestic price management); and clean energy production. The WEH Project could incorporate as many as 20 caverns to support these potential future facilities, subject to future technical and market conditions. The various facilities that would make up the WEH Project at full build-out are illustrated in Figure MGS is unable today to provide a project schedule that identifies precisely when each of the various foreseeable future actions would be commenced and completed. Conditions in credit markets, natural gas markets, refined petroleum product markets and electric power markets would have an important bearing on the timing of construction of the various WEH Project elements once the relevant federal, state and local permits have been obtained. MGS has every expectation that it or an MGS affiliate would develop, at a minimum, a commercial salt production business, a CAES plant, and a refined petroleum product storage facility in addition to the FERC-jurisdictional Gas Storage Project Abandonment The supply of gas and market needs will be the major factors in determining the life of the Gas Storage Project. The history of natural gas market development in the U.S. indicates that the 23

31 need for natural gas storage capacity and deliverability can be expected to remain robust, if not increase, during the useful life of the Gas Storage Project s facilities. Properly maintained, the Lateral can be expected to operate for 50 years or more. The other gas-related elements of the Gas Storage Project (e.g., the central compression facility, cavern wellheads and dehydration facilities), if properly maintained, can be expected to have a useful service life of 30 years or more. The fresh water supply and brine management facilities required for cavern construction will also be required for cavern maintenance, and so these facilities will need to be maintained for the life of the caverns. Therefore, no abandonment of facilities is anticipated in the reasonably foreseeable future for this Project. In the event abandonment is required, all abandonment procedures would be in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements. Construction activities and associated impacts to the environment would be minimized. 1.6 Permits and Approvals The construction, operation, and maintenance of the Gas Storage Project and related Lateral would require multiple permits and regulatory approvals from federal, state, and local agencies. Table summarizes the applicable federal, state, and local permits and approvals and responsible agencies. Permits would be provided to FERC as they are obtained. On November 6, 2008, the Commission issued an Order Granting Exemption for Temporary Acts and Operations authorizing MGS to drill one or two test wells for purposes of exploring the potential fresh and saline aquifers above the salt structure and of obtaining core samples and geophysical logs to confirm the suitability of the salt structure for cavern development (Docket No. CP ). {Note to FERC Staff: the results of test well drilling and coring activities will be described in the final draft of this Resource Report.} 1.7 Affected Landowners In its Certificate Policy Statement, FERC directs all applicants for a NGA certificate of public convenience and necessity to take time before filing, in the planning stage, to minimize adverse effects to the interests of landowners and surrounding communities whenever possible. MGS has undertaken an extensive community relations effort prior to filing its certificate application. MGS representatives have met with public officials and community members on a number of occasions to discuss the project and answer any questions. {To be updated with summary of the pre-filing process once completed.} Landowners whose holdings are traversed by or located within 50 feet of the pipeline ROW were identified from searches of the public land and property tax assessment records maintained by the Recorder s Offices in Millard, Juab, and Utah Counties. MGS has worked proactively to develop a positive rapport with these potentially affected landowners and with the local community. Table identifies all landowners within sections through which the pipeline would pass. {Survey information to be submitted after final selection of Lateral route and completion of surveys.} All of the landowners or tenants within 50 feet of the storage site and Lateral ROW will be informed of MGS s intent to develop the Gas Storage Project. All of these landowners will be 24

32 contacted again under the FERC s landowner notification requirements. An example of this correspondence is included as Appendix 1-1. MGS will continue to communicate with affected landowners and towns, communities, and local, state, and federal governments and agencies with a potential stake in the project. All affected landowners would be notified as required by 18 CFR Part 157.6(d), Part (a)(4) & (c)(10). 1.8 Non-jurisdictional Facilities Non-jurisdictional facilities are those facilities related to the project that would be constructed, owned, and operated by others and are not subject to FERC jurisdiction. These include electric transmission and distribution facilities that will be extended to the Gas Storage Project s gas handling facility and, potentially, to the remote location of one or more water supply pipelines, pumping stations or wells. They may also include one or more water supply pipelines permitting the Gas Storage Project to make use of large volume water supplies available to the neighboring IPP generating facility. Depending on the outcome of commercial negotiations underway as this Resource Report is being prepared, the Gas Storage Project may also find it advantageous on economic and environmental impact grounds to develop facilities that would derive commercially marketable salt from the brine to be produced by cavern leaching activities. The WEH Project is likely to pursue the development of facilities in the immediate vicinity of the Gas Storage Project that would augment the effectiveness of gas storage or would take advantage of the storage site s favorable location. Among the other activities the WEH Project is likely to pursue are: commercial salt processing; CAES, refined petroleum product storage and development of gas fired and other clean generation. The WEH Project could eventually be expanded to include pumped hydro electric generation facilities and facilities for carbon sequestration (depending on advances in technology). Most of these activities would require the creation of additional non-gas storage salt caverns and creation of additional non-gas storage leaching facilities. These potential future facilities are also discussed under Section above. 25

33 TABLES 26

34 Table Land Ownership - Pipeline Right of Way Land Ownership Start Milepost End Milepost SITLA Private BLM Private SITLA Private SITLA Private USFS Private BLM Private SITLA Private BLM Private BLM Private BLM Private

35 Table Disturbed Acreage Facility Facility Dimensions Temporary Construction Acres Permanent Operations Acres Main Transmission Pipeline 60 mi x 100 ft Pipe Storage Area Pipe Storage Area Pipe Storage Area Goshen Regulation & Metering Facility 150 ft x 150 ft Jones Rd Brush-Wellman Rd Burlington North Railroad HWY Sevier River Kimball Creek Central Utah Canal HWY Hwy 125 Block Valve Site 50 ft x 75 ft Sevier River Leamington Pass Rd Sevier River Hwy Hwy 137 Block Valve Site 50 ft x 75 ft Nelson Spring Rd Nelson Spring Rd Block Valve Site 50 ft x 75 ft W S HWY 6 (W S) Storage Site Metering Storage Site (Leach, Compressor, Utilities, Gas Storage 0 70 Storage Site Fabrication Brine Ponds TOTAL

36 Table Special Pipeline Construction Method by Milepost Milepost Conventional Overland Pipeline Construction Method Road Water Water Crossing Crossing Crossing Horizontal Horizontal Dry Bore Bore Goshen Regulation & Metering Facility 0 X Jones Rd 0.8 X Brush-Wellman Rd 1.8 X Burlington North Railroad 9.9 X HWY X Sevier River 11.1 X Central Utah Canal 15.8 X Hwy 125 & Block Valve Site 17.6 X Leamington Pass Rd 23 X Sevier River 26.8 X Hwy X Kimball Creek 46 X Nelson Spring Rd & Block Valve Site 52.4 X W S 56.3 X HWY 6 (W S) 58.3 X Storage Site Metering 58.4 X Main Transmission Pipeline 58.4 X Directional Drill 29

37 Table Construction Work Force Projection Facilities Construction Pipeline Construction Plant Operations Construction Engineer Construction Manager Chief Inspector Materials Manager Carpenters Crane & Backhoe Operators Welders & Welders Helpers Fitters Millwrights Laborers Environmental & Safety Inspectors Trade Inspectors Construction Engineer Construction Manager Chief Inspector Materials Manager Laborers Backhoe and Dozer Operators Welders & Welders Helpers Fitters Coating Inspectors Welding Inspectors Environmental & Safety Inspectors Plant Manager Plant Administration Mechanics Electrical Technicians Instrument Technicians Plant Operators Table Preliminary Construction Schedule Start Date End Date Pipeline ROW and Storage Site Survey January 2010 March 2010 Brine Pond Construction (Phase 1 4 Ponds) January 2010 March 2010 Brine Pond Construction (Phase 2) June 2010 November 2010 Storage Site Construction January 2010 September 2010 Salt Cavern Creation (Phase 1 2 caverns) March 2010 September 2011 Salt Cavern Creation (Phase 2 Add l caverns) March 2012 Continuing Brine Processing June 2010 Continuing Pipeline Construction March 2010 June 2010 Pipeline in Service July 2010 Continuing Gas Storage Begins June 2012 Continuing 30

38 Table Magnum Gas Storage Permits and Approvals Permit Agency Address and Contact Information Proposed Permit Submittal Date Submittal Date Receipt Date Status FEDERAL Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC /1/09 Sodium Prospecting Permit United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Utah State Office 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (801) Stan Perkes Submitted 2/07/07 Amended 10/1/07 Crossing Federal Lands by ROW Corridors BLM, Branch Offices Richfield Field Office 150 East 900 North Richfield, UT Cornell Christensen, Field Manager Phone: (435) Pending O&C Analysis of ROWs Fillmore Field Office 35 East 500 North Fillmore, UT Nancy Allen, Field Manager Phone: (435) Pending O&C Analysis of ROWs Individual Permit or Nationwide Permit (unlikely to be required) United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA Phone: (916) Non Jurisdictional 31

39 Table Magnum Gas Storage Permits and Approvals Permit Agency Address and Contact Information Proposed Permit Submittal Date Submittal Date Receipt Date Status Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation and Clearances (unlikely to be required) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Utah Field Office 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50 West Valley City, Utah Phone: (801) Pending Further Field Review; No T&E Species Anticipated STATE Lease and Easement Agreements Seismic Exploration (ROE) State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) 675 East 500 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT Phone: (801) LaVonne Garrison, Assistant Director Oil & Gas Submitted 2/12/07 Final Lease January 14,2009 Field Work Completed November 2008 Class II Permit for Solution Mining for Gas Storage Seismic Exploration Core Drilling Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR), Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM) 1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210 Salt Lake City, UT Phone: (801) Paul Baker, Assistant Director Not Determined Field Work Completed November 2008 Approved 11/26/2008 Coordination of all Utah State and Local Permitting Agencies Governor s Office 324 South State Street, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT Phone: (801) Dianne Nielson, Energy Advisor Initial Meeting 12/15/

40 Table Magnum Gas Storage Permits and Approvals Permit Agency Address and Contact Information Proposed Permit Submittal Date Submittal Date Receipt Date Status Class III Permit for Solution Mining to Mine Salt Utah Pollution Discharge Eliminations Systems (UPDES) Construction Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 288 North 1460 West Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (801) Not Determined Not Determined Activity Storm Water Permit and Pollution Prevention Plan Not Determined UPDES Industrial Discharge Permit Not Determined Groundwater Discharge Permit Wastewater Treatment System Construction Permit Not Determined Not Determined Wastewater Treatment System Operating Permit Not Determined 33

41 Table Magnum Gas Storage Permits and Approvals Permit Agency Address and Contact Information Proposed Permit Submittal Date Submittal Date Receipt Date Status Non-Production Well Permit Application to Appropriate Water and Follow on Proof and/or Change Application (as required) Dam Impoundment Construction Permit UDNR, Division of Water Rights (DWR) 1594 West North Temple Suite 310 Salt Lake City, UT Phone: (801) Kirk Forbush, Regional Engineer 130 North Main Street Richfield, Utah Phone: (435) Approved 10/15/2008 Not Determined Not Determined Small Source Exemption Permit; Utah Approval Order; or Title V Major Source Permit (as required) UDEQ, Division of Air Quality 150 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, Utah Phone: (801) Not Determined National Historic Preservation Act Cultural Resource Consultations/ Clearance State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) 300 S. Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City, UT Phone: (801) No Significant Artifacts Seismic Clearance Field Work Completed November 34

42 Table Magnum Gas Storage Permits and Approvals Permit Agency Address and Contact Information Proposed Permit Submittal Date Submittal Date Receipt Date Status Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation and Clearances UDNR, Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) 1594 West North Temple Suite 2110 Salt Lake City, UT Phone: (801) Pending Further Field Review LOCAL Special Use Permit Zoning/Siting Millard County 71 South 200 West Delta, UT Phone: (435) Kathy Walker, Commissioner Sheryl Dekker, Administrator Pending Further Site Design Pending Further Site Design 35

43 FIGURES

44 Eagle Mountain Fairfield Utah Lake Orem Provo--Orem Provo 15 Springville Legend Interconnect Proposed Pipeline TOOELE Vernon Mapleton Spanish Fork UTAH Salem Payson Genola Woodland Hills Elk Ridge Goshen Interconnect Santaquin Eureka Goshen Santaquin Rocky Ridge 6 Alternate Route Interstate Highway Primary Highway Major Road Local Road Major Railroad Lines Stream Intermittent Stream Lake JUAB Mona 89 6 Nephi KRGT Dog Valley Tap Area Storage of Site Mutual Participation County Boundaries Municipalities Idaho Wyoming Western Energy Hub Project Area Lynndyl 6 Leamington Mills Proposed Interconnect Levan Fountain Green Moroni Fairview Mount Pleasant Nevada Utah Arizona Colorado Hinckley Delta MILLARD 50 Oak City Wales Spring City SANPETE Ephraim I 1:633, Miles 1 inch = 10 miles Scipio 50 Fayette Sterling Manti Project: MAGNUM GAS STORAGE, LLC Source: AGRC Image Server image.state.ut.us & ESRI Base Data County: Millard State: Utah Location: T. 15 S. R. 7 W. PRJ: NAD 83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 1/22/2009 Figure Site Location 50 Gunnison Centerfield Mayfield N:\PROJECTS\Magnum Energy LLC\WESTERN ENERGY HUB\GIS\O&C Level II\Maps\Figure General Location Plan.mxd Tt Kevin.Hively

45 Legend D Wooden Power Poles High Tension Tower IPA Rail Road Spur Fiber Optic Line IPA 46 kv Service Line IPA 230 kv Transmission Line First Wind 345 kv Transmission Line IPA 500 kv Transmission Line IPA Transmission Line to Mona Roads Area Storage of Mutual Site Participation Townships Sections Utility Corridor Storage Site 21 D D 22 D T15S R7W IPA 230 kv D 345 kv D Brush Wellman RD 23 D D IPA 46 kv IPA 500 kv D Gas Storage Area D D D Brine Ponds Leach Plant Area D I Brine Ponds North 2000 West St Compressor Area Temporary Fabrication Area Brine Ponds Jones Road N:\PROJECTS\Magnum Energy LLC\WESTERN ENERGY HUB\GIS\Maps\O&C Level II\Figure Gas Storage Site mxdtt Kevin.Hively 1:24, ,000 2,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,000 feet Western Energy Hub Project Area Project: Source: AGRC Image Server >>> image.state.ut.us County: Millard State: Utah Locatio n: T. 15 S. R. 7 W. PRJ: NAD 83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 1/22/2009 Figure Storage Site Aerial AMP

46 Legend Wooden Power Poles D High Tension Tower IPA Rail Road Spur Fiber Optic Line IPA 46 kv Service Line IPA 230 kv Transmission Line First Wind 345 kv Transmission Line IPA 500 kv Transmission Line IPA Transmission Line to Mona Roads Area Storage of Mutual Site Participation Townships Sections Utility Corridor 21 D D 22 D T15S R7W IPA 230 kv D 345 kv D Brush Wellman RD 23 D D IPA 46 kv IPA 500 kv D Gas Storage Area D D D Brine Ponds Leach Plant Area D I Brine Ponds North 2000 West St Compressor Area Temporary Fabrication Area Brine Ponds Jones Road N:\PROJECTS\Magnum Energy LLC\WESTERN ENERGY HUB\GIS\Maps\O&C Level II\Figure Gas Storage Site mxdtt Kevin.Hively 1:24, ,000 2,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,000 feet Western Energy Hub Project Area Project: Source: AGRC Image Server >>> image.state.ut.us County: Millard State: Utah Location: T. 15 S. R. 7 W. PRJ: NAD 83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 1/22/2009 Figure Storage Site Topo AMP

47 UV Goshen Interconnect UV Legend Label UV UV Storage Site 6 KRGT Dog Valley Tap UV 15 I UV 6 UV Mills Proposed Interconnect UV UV Project: MAGNUM GAS STORAGE, LLC Source: AGRC Image Server >>> image.state.ut.us County: Millard State: Utah Location: T. 15 S. R. 7 W. PRJ: NAD 83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 1/22/2009

48 Private US Forest Service (USFS) UV Goshen Interconnect UV Legend Label Private Private UV Private UV Private Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 6 Storage Site State Trust Land Private Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National Recreation Area Private Bureau of Land Management (BLM) KRGT Dog Valley Tap Private Private UV 15 Private I Private Western Energy Hub Project Area State UV Trust Land Private Private Private US Forest Service (USFS) 6 UV Mills Proposed Interconnect UV UV US Forest Service (USFS) Project: MAGNUM GAS STORAGE, LLC Source: AGRC Image Server >>> image.state.ut.us County: Millard State: Utah Location: T. 15 S. R. 7 W. PRJ: NAD 83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 1/22/2009

49 Legend D Wooden Power Poles High Tension Tower IPA Rail Road Spur Salt Processing Fiber Optic Line IPA 46 kv Service Line IPA 230 kv Transmission Line First Wind 345 kv Transmission Line IPA 500 kv Transmission Line IPA Transmission Line to Mona Roads Area Storage of Mutual Site Participation Townships Sections Utility Corridor Air Storage Gas Storage Refined Product Storage 21 D D 22 D T15S R7W IPA 230 kv D D 345 kv Brush Wellman RD 23 D Air Storage D IPA 500 kv D IPA 46 kv CAES Plant Combined Cycle Gas Plant North 2000 West St Refined Product Area 26 Salt Processing Area N:\PROJECTS\Magnum Energy LLC\WESTERN ENERGY HUB\GIS\Maps\O&C Level II\Figure Gas Storage Site mxdtt Kevin.Hively D D Jones Road 25 D D 30 I 1:24, ,000 2,000 Feet 1 inch = 2,000 feet Western Energy Hub Project Area Project: Source: AGRC Image Server >>> image.state.ut.us County: Millard State: Utah Locatio n: T. 15 S. R. 7 W. PRJ: NAD 83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 1/22/2009 Figure Future Site Facilities AMP

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59 APPENDIX 1-1 Example Landowner Notification Letter

60 LANDOWNER NOTIFICATION OF FILING BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF MAGNUM GAS STORAGE PROJECT MILLARD COUNTY, UTAH (January, 2009) On October 28, 2008, Magnum Gas Storage, LLC ( MGS ) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to construct, own and operate a natural gas storage facility for the storage of natural gas transported in interstate commerce. The underground storage caverns and gas handling facilities associated with the gas storage facility would be located in Millard County, Utah; the natural gas transmission pipeline that would link the gas storage project with interstate natural gas pipeline facilities owned and operated by Kern River Gas Transmission Company and Questar Pipeline Company would traverse Millard, Juab and Utah Counties. You are receiving a copy of this landowner notification because you own or occupy land near MGS s proposed natural gas storage site or along MGS proposed pipeline route. A copy of a FERC pamphlet which explains the certificate process and a map showing the location of the proposed gas storage project and related pipeline facilities are enclosed with this notification. Brief Description of the MGS Gas Storage Pipeline Extension and Realignment In its application, MGS requests FERC s authorization to construct a new natural gas storage facility and related natural gas transmission pipeline facilities in Millard, Juab and Utah Counties, Utah. Figure 1 shows the general location of the proposed natural gas storage project. {additional description to be inserted} Contact If you have any questions regarding MGS s gas storage project, please call: David Babcock Magnum Gas Storage, LLC 2150 South 1300 East, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT ; (cell) davidbabcock@westernenergyhub.com

61 Landowners may obtain a copy of MGS s application by contacting David Babcock or on FERC Online, which can be accessed through FERC s website on the internet Information of Special Interest to Potentially Affected Landowners Under FERC s regulations, an affected landowner is a landowner whose property would be temporarily or permanently crossed or used as a result of the proposed construction and/or operation. You are receiving this landowner notice because you are considered to be an affected landowner under FERC s regulations. This landowner notice is also being sent to nearby towns and communities and involved local, state, and federal government agencies. The enclosed pamphlet, An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know? explains FERC s approval process and your rights as an affected landowner. Conclusion Magnum Gas Storage wants to ensure that potentially affected landowners and other interested parties are fully informed concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact David Babcock ; (cell) davidbabcock@westernenergyhub.com. Attachments

62 Magnum Gas Storage LLC Docket No. PF Summary of Alternatives

63 135 East South Temple, Suite 910 Salt Lake City, Utah Tel Fax Technical Memorandum To: D. Babcock From: Jeanny Miles & David Steed Company: Magnum Gas Storage, LLC Date: January 28, 2009 Re: CC: Pipeline Right of Way Opportunities & Constraints Analysis Jim Bowe Dewey & LeBoeuf Project #: This memorandum presents a summary of the routing alternatives analyzed by Tetra Tech for Magnum Gas Storage, LLC s ( MGS ) proposed natural gas pipeline lateral ( Lateral ) in preparation for drafting Resource Report 10. The starting point for this opportunities and constraints ( O&C ) analysis is fixed by the underground salt structure underlying MGS s Western Energy Hub Project ( WEH ) located north of Delta, Utah. The end point is similarly fixed by the existing trading hub at the interconnection of the Kern River Gas ( KRG ) interstate pipeline and the Questar ( Questar ) interstate pipeline near Goshen (aka Elberta), Utah ( Goshen Interconnect ). This analysis also considered as an alternative, the closest potential interconnection with KRG s pipeline at Mills, UT. If acceptable back haul tariffs could be negotiated by MGS for the segment of KRG s pipeline from Mills to Goshen, an intermediate connection of the Lateral at Mills to KRG only could, potentially, reduce the required diameter for the remainder of the Lateral from Mills to the interconnect with Questar at Goshen. Phase I Analysis The O&C analysis initially reviewed existing ROWs, land ownership, route distances and topography to identify nine potential routes for the Lateral ROW between the starting point at the WEH Project site and the end point at the Goshen Interconnect (Figure 1). The first seven potential routes are summarized in Table 1. Routes A-1, A-2, and A-3 initially follow the western portion of the west wide energy corridor proposed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management ( WWEC ), crossing over to the eastern portion of the WWEC by either passing south of the Tintic Mountains, passing through the Tintic mountains at the town of Eureka or passing through the Tintic mountains just south of the town. Routes B-1 through B-4 parallel either Highway 136 or the route of the two 345 kv transmission lines extending northeastward from the WEH Project area ( Transmission Lines ) toward KRG s existing tap at Dog Valley ( DVT ), before turning north to follow the route of the KRG pipeline to the Goshen Interconnect.

64 Two additional routes, C-1 and C-2 parallel the Transmission Lines from the WEH site eastward toward KRG s pipeline at Mills, before turning north to follow the route of KRG s pipeline to the interconnect with Questar at Goshen (Table 2). Phase II Analysis Tetra Tech next subdivided these nine potential routes into over 150 route segments for more detailed review using satellite images and Geographic Information System (GIS) data. This review included over 25 digital map layers representing ROW opportunities and constraints, such as: existing utility corridors, public or private land ownership, total route length, total area disturbed, steep terrain, farmland, water body and wetland crossings, sensitive habitat, and active mine areas. A 1000-foot evaluation corridor was used for initial evaluation and a 500-foot routing corridor was used to refine the analysis. Opportunities and Constraints Existing utility or transportation corridors were viewed as opportunities for the pipeline ROW. Existing corridors identified through this process include: Roads Transmission Lines West Wide Energy Corridor KRG pipeline Questar interstate and local distribution pipelines Railroads (outside a 1,000-foot avoidance buffer) The analysis also considered identified environmental constraints; these include: Slopes greater than 15 percent Residential cities and towns (towns of Lynndyl, Eureka and Leamington) Utah Natural Heritage Program (UNHP) identified sensitive species habitat Sage Grouse habitat Streams and lakes Wetlands Active mines and mining claims (near the town of Eureka) Agriculture (including Farmlands of Statewide Importance) Railroad corridors (within 1000 feet of ROW) Faults The analysis also reviewed other potential environmental constraints, none of which were identified along the routes analyzed for the Lateral: Airport clear zones (2-mile buffer) Bureau of Indian Affairs land Wild and Scenic Rivers National Recreation Areas (Little Sahara NRA) National Wildlife Refuges National Scenic Areas National Parks National Monuments Wilderness Areas Wilderness Study Areas State Parks Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)

65 Historic Trails Brown fields Conclusion Preferred Route: Route B-4 to Goshen Tetra Tech presented the process and results of the O&C analysis to MGS. MGS accepted Tetra Tech s recommendation of Route B-4 as the preferred route ( Preferred Route ) for accessing the existing regional markets at Goshen (Figure 2). Route B-4 is 58.4 miles long. The Preferred Route initially parallels the south side of the existing Transmission Lines eastward from the WEH Project site to KRG s pipeline south of the tap at Dog Valley. The route then continues north along the west side of the KRG pipeline to the existing interconnection of the KRG and Questar interstate pipelines at Goshen. Alternate Route: Route through Mills to Goshen (Part of Route B-4 and Route C-2) An alternate route ( Alternate Route ), a combination of Routes B-4 and C-2, was also identified. This route initially follows the Preferred Route east from the WEH Project site along the south side of the Transmission Lines, before continuing south and east to the KRG pipeline near Mills (Figure 2). The Alternate Route then continues north along the west side of the KRG pipeline to Goshen. The total length of this route is 66.4 miles. Table 1. Routes to Goshen Route Description Length (miles) Route A-1 Follows western portion of the WWEC; crosses over to eastern portion of the WWEC south of the Tintic Mountains 54.0 Route A-2 Follows western portion of the WWEC; crosses over to eastern portion of the WWEC through town of Eureka 59.5 Route A-3 Follows western portion of the WWEC; crosses over to eastern portion of the WWEC south of town of Eureka 56.6 Route B-1 Follows A routes around Lynndyl to the north; crosses over to the KRG at DVT; continues north along the KRG 59.8 Route B-2 Passes around Lynndyl to the south; follows Highway 132 to the KRG at DVT; continues north along the KRG 59.9 Route B-3 Passes through Lynndyl; follows Transmission lines to Highway 136; following Highway 136 to the KRG at DVT; continues north along the KRG 62.1 Route B-4 Follows Transmission lines to the KRG south of the DVT; continues north along the KRG 58.4 Table 2. Routes to Mills Route Description Length to Mills (miles) Total Length to Goshen (miles) Route C-1 Crosses over toward Mills (southerly route) Route C-2 Crosses over toward Mills (northerly route)

66 Route A 2 Route A 3 Route A 1 Goshen Interconnect! Legend Label! Interconnect RouteA3 RouteA2 RouteA1 Route B-3 Route B-1 RouteC1 RouteC2 Route B-4 Route B-4 Existing Gas Pipelines Area of Mutual Participation Land Ownership Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Private State Parks and Recreation State Trust Land US Forest Service (USFS) Route B 1 KRGT Dog Valley Tap! Route B 2 I Miles Route B 3 Route C 1 Route B 4 Route C 2 Mills Proposed! Interconnect Project: 1:253,440 1 inch = 4 miles Magnum Energy, LLC. Source: AGRC Image Server, USGS 1:24,000 DRG County: Millard-Juab State: Utah Location: T 15 S, R 7 W PRJ: NAD83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 12/31/2008 Revision: 1 FIGURE 1 Magnum O & C Route Analysis 6/19/2007 N:\PROJECTS\Arch Coal\Canyon Fuel\Skyline\WinterQuarters 2007 Wildlife\Maps\Fig 1 Winter Quarters Exploration Area.mxd Tt Kevin Hively

67 Private US Forest Service (USFS) Goshen Interconnect! Legend Alternate Route Pipeline Route Private Private Private Label! Interconnect Area of Mutual Participation Land Ownership Owner Bureau of Land Management Private State Trust Land US Forest Service National Recreation Area Private Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Trust Land Private Bureau of Land Management (BLM) National Recreation Area Private KRGT Dog Valley Tap! Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Private Private I Private Miles 1:253,440 1 inch = 4 miles Private Private State Trust Land Private Private Mills Proposed! Interconnect US Forest Servi Project: Magnum Energy, LLC Source: AGRC Image Server, USGS 1:24,000 DRG County: Millard, Juab, Utah State: Utah Location: Site T15S, R7W PRJ: NAD83 UTM 12 Meters Date: 1/9/2009 Revision: 1 FIGURE 2 Pipeline Route US Forest Service (USFS) N:\PROJECTS\Magnum Energy LLC\WESTERN ENERGY HUB\GIS\O&C Level II\Maps\Route B-4 Analysis 11X17.mxdTt Kevin Hively

68 Magnum Gas Storage LLC Docket No. PF Stakeholder Mailing List

69 Magnum Gas Storage, LLC Stakeholder Mailing List Affected Landowners February 3, 2009 UTAH COUNTY Surface Owner Address T9S, R1W, S.L.M. Corp of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints LDS Church, Tax Division 50 E. North Temple, 22nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah T10S, R1W, S.L.M. Brent & Kay Sumsion Family, LC S&L Sumsion Properties LC Chief Consolidated Mining Co. George Thurman Barber & Teresa Healy Barber, trustees Kern River Gas Transmission Co. Corp of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Questar Pipeline Company Rigtrup Poultry Farm Inc S&L Sumsion Properties LC Scott and Julia A. McLachlan Brent & Kay Sumsion Family, LC S&L Sumsion Properties LC 316 South 1500 East Mapleton, UT Chief Consolidated Mining Co. 866 Second Ave New York, NY George Thurman Barber & Teresa Healy Barber, trustees PO Box Tunnel Rd Elberta, UT Kern River Gas Transmission Co. c/o Jeffrey Velentine, MD PO Box Salt Lake City, UT LDS Church, Tax Division 50 E. North Temple, 22nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah Questar Pipeline Company Po Box Salt Lake City, UT Rigtrup Poultry Farm Inc S Tunnel Rd Elberta, UT S&L Sumsion Properties LC 316 South 1500 East Mapleton, UT Scott and Julia A. McLachlan PO Box 37 Lehi, UT

70 Scott Cooper McClachlan Julie A McClachlan Scott Cooper McClachlan Julie A McClachlan PO Box 37 Lehi, UT T10S, R2W, S.L.M. George Thurman Barber & Teresa Healy Barber, trustees Butler Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Scott McClachlan George Thurman Barber & Teresa Healy Barber, trustees PO Box Tunnel Rd Elberta, UT LDS Church, Tax Division 50 E. North Temple, 22nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah Scott McClachlan PO Box 37 Lehi, UT T11S, R2W, S.L.M. Bay Storage LLC Bay Storage LLC PO Box 91 Willard, UT Bethel V Holman Bethel V. Holman, etal, trustees Suzanne Southwick 210 N Mall Drive #133 Hugh B Holman Saint George, UT Holly Milne, trustees Bill Beifuss Bill Beifuss Golden Oak Ln Broderick & Henderson Investments, LLC Dan Ray Kay Dell Reese Kay Danny A Throckmorton Sharon D Throckmorton Max Sidney Throckmorton Genola, UT Gayleen Z Throckmorton Douglas G Thomas Lucille T Thomas Katherin Merrill Kreiner Highland, UT Broderick & Henderson Investments, LLC 295 East 950 South Orem, UT Dan Ray Kay Dell Reese Kay 70 W Main PO Box 1 Goshen, UT Danny A Throckmorton, etal 209 E Center Katherin Merrill Kreiner 144 Skytop Ln Port Matilda, PA

71 KBW Properties Limited La Ray Coombs Larry Carson Bill Beifuss Larry Smoot Carson Butler Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Palmer D Helston Patricia J Winters Jill C Hansen Peter J Gordon Steven John Radmall Eva Nadine Radmall Wasatch Rock & Gravel LLP Wilshire Consulting Group LLC KBW Properties Limited 4983 Old Oak Ln Highland, UT La Ray Coombs 480 E 200 S North Nephi, UT Larry Carson Bill Beifuss Oak Cir Highland, UT Larry Smoot Carson Oak Cir Highland, UT LDS Church, Tax Division 50 E. North Temple, 22nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah Palmer D Helston South 7300 West Herriman, UT Patricia J Winters Jill C Hansen PO Box Kannarraville, UT Peter J Gordon 1282 W 1200 S Woods Cross, UT Steven John Radmall Eva Nadine Radmall 511 East 100 North Pleasant Grove, UT Wasatch Rock & Gravel LLP 707 West 700 South Woods Cross, UT Wilshire Consulting Group LLC 5040 Acoma St Denver, CO T12S, R2W, S.L.M. Beifuss Family LLC Charles N & Janet G Walter Beifuss Family LLC Golden Oak Ln Highland, UT Charles N & Janet G Walter PO Box 1053 Springville, UT

72 Robin & Layne Brown Investments Inc. Saddle View, Inc. Tyler M Pettit William E Beifuss Robin & Layne Brown Investments Inc South Yearling Dr Riverton, UT Saddle View, Inc Acoma Street Denver, CO Tyler M Pettit 246 West Woods Cross Creek Dr Morgan, UT William E Beifuss Golden Oak Ln Highland, UT JUAB COUNTY T12S, R2W, S.L.M. George C Kiser, Patricia R Kiser, Beverly R Probert, Steven M Probert, James E Lowry, Jr, Joyce R Lowry, Ephraim H Gankhauser, Camille R Fankhauser, John G Robinson, Mary Jo Robinson, Christopher M Brockbank, Virginia R Brockbank, Robert W Robinson, Kathryn G Robinson, David L Robinson, Yvonne J Robinson, Stephen M Robinson, Susan W Robinson, Thomas Evan Robinson, Thomas Evan Robinson, Jr Joseph Jackson and Carma F. Jackson, trustees Juab Stake of the LDS Church Quality For Animal Life, Inc. George C. Kiser, et al c/o John G Robinson 626 Wilford Ave Murray, UT Joseph Jackson and Carma F. Jackson, Trustees 3449 Navajo Ln Provo, UT Juab Stake of the LDS Church c/o LDS Church, Tax Division 50 E. North Temple, 22nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah Quality For Animal Life, Inc South Highland Dr. Suite 1 Holladay, UT T13S, R2W, S.L.M. Cary G Peterson and Ila Ranee Petersen, trustees & Ila Ranee Peterson and Cary G Peterson, trustees Conzic Land Company, Inc. Cary G Peterson & Ila Ranee Petersen 406 East 500 North Nephi, UT Conzic Land Company, Inc N Becky Road Dolan Springs, AZ

73 Dora Jean Cherry, trustee Edwin D Park and Pam A Park, joint tenants Jimmie L McWilliams, trustee of the Jimmie L McWilliams Living Trust Juab Stake of the LDS Church Kern River Gas Transmission Co. Mickie Park McKenzie Mountain Fuel Supply Co. State Road Commission of Utah Dora Jean Cherry, Trustee 1382 West 1700 North Provo, UT Edwin D Park & Pam A Park 588 South 200 West Nephi, UT Jimmie L McWilliams PO Box 103 Nephit, UT Juab Stake of the LDS Church c/o LDS Church, Tax Division 50 E. North Temple, 22nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah Kern River Gas Transmission Co. c/o Tax Department PO Box Salt Lake City, UT Mickie Park McKenzie PO Box 281 Aurora, UT Mountain Fuel Supply Co. Ray Butcher PO Box Salt Lake City, UT State Road Commission of Utah 1 South State Street Office Building Salt Lake City, UT T14S, R1W, S.L.M. Conzic Land Company, Inc. Crandall Farms Inc. Leo E England and Joanne A England, trustees Neal L Adams and William J Adams, trustees Ronald E Harper and Noreen R Harper, joint tenants Conzic Land Company, Inc N Becky Road Dolan Springs, AZ Crandall Farms Inc S. Main St Springville, UT Leo E & Joanne A England, Trustees 560 East 4500 South Delta, UT Neal L Adams & William J Adams, Trustees 6016 Lake Placid Pl Salt Lake City, UT Ronald E Harper and Noreen R Harper PO Box 130 Levan, UT

74 Utah Frontiersman, a Non-Profit Utah Frontiersman, a Non-Profit PO Box 616 Pleasant Grove, UT T14S, R2W, S.L.M. Cary G Peterson and Ila Ranee Petersen, trustees & Ila Ranee Peterson and Cary G Peterson, trustees Conzic Land Company, Inc. Crandall Farms Inc. Daniel F I Johnson, trustee Leo E England and Joanne A England, trustees Cary G Peterson & Ila Ranee Petersen 406 East 500 North Nephi, UT Conzic Land Company, Inc N Becky Road Dolan Springs, AZ Crandall Farms Inc S. Main St Springville, UT Daniel F I Johnson, Trustee 1333 Wisteria Ct Ivins, UT Leo E & Joanne A England, Trustees 560 East 4500 South Delta, UT T15S, R2W, S.L.M. Cary G Peterson and Ila Ranee Petersen, trustees & Ila Ranee Peterson and Cary G Peterson, trustees Crandall Farms Inc. Jerold M. Hall Corp of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Rex L Page and Margaret J Page, joint tenants Cary G Peterson & Ila Ranee Petersen 406 East 500 North Nephi, UT Crandall Farms Inc S. Main St Springville, UT Jerold M. Hall PO Box 34 Levan, UT LDS Church, Tax Division Re: File # E. North Temple, 22nd Floor Salt Lake City, Utah Rex L Page & Margaret J Page PO Box 729 Kamas, UT T15S, R3W, S.L.M. Arlene S McPherson Arlene S McPherson 54 East 500 North Nephi, UT

75 Stewart Craig Vaughn and Patricia Caroline Vaughn, trustees Stewart Craig Vaughn, Patricia Caroline Vaughn, Trustees PO Box Leamington, UT MILLARD COUNTY T15S, R4W, S.L.M. David M Lyman Fool Creek Properties LTD, Partnership Grayson Dee Roper LTD Partnership Intermountain Power Agency Jay B. Finlinson Ladd Brent Holman and Margo N. Holman, tenants in common Richard K Dillard, trustee Robert D & Marilyn S. Nielson, trustees Shann Finlinson & Deena Finlinson, joint tenants Vaughn Stewart Craig, Trustees David Lyman PO Box 100 Oak City, UT Fool Creek Properties LTD, Partnership c/o David Lyman PO Box 100 Oak City, UT Grayson Dee Roper LTD Partnership PO Box 116 Oak City, UT Intermountain Power Agency River Front Parkway # 120 South Jordan, UT Jay B. Finlinson c/o Bryce Finlinson PO Box 67 Oak City, UT Ladd Brent Holman & Margo N. Holman PO Box Leamington, UT Richard K Dillard, trustee PO Box Salt Lake City, UT Robert D & Marilyn S. Nielson, Trustees PO Box Lynndyl, UT Shann Finlinson & Deena Finlinson PO Box 98 Leamington, UT Vaughn Stewart Craig PO Box Leamington, UT 84638

76 T15S, R5W, S.L.M. Brush Resources, Inc. Eldonna C. Anderson, trustee Robert D & Marilyn S. Nielson, trustees Brush Resources, Inc. Don McMillan PO Box 815 Delta, UT Eldonna C. Anderson, trustee PO Box 172 Oak City, UT Robert D & Marilyn S. Nielson, Trustees PO Box Lynndyl, UT

77 Magnum Gas Storage LLC Docket No. PF Monthly Status Report (December 22, 2008 February 2, 2009)

78 FERC Pre Filing Process Monthly Status Report Reporting Period: December 22, 2008 February 2, 2009 Introduction On December 22, 2008 Magnum Gas Storage, LLC ( MGS ) received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) to use FERC s pre filing process for the Western Energy Hub Project ( WEH or the Project ) in Docket No. PF09 3. MGS proposes to develop the Project on an approximately 10,000 acre site surrounding a known salt structure in Millard County, Utah. MGS proposes to make use of up to six salt caverns to be created at the WEH for natural gas storage and construct an associated lateral pipeline to transport natural gas to and from nearby interstate natural gas transmission systems. The facility will provide high deliverability natural gas storage to markets in the Rocky Mountain area and the Western U.S. to support the rapid expansion of both natural gas production and pipeline take away capacity, and to meet a well documented need for additional natural gas storage capacity and deliverability in the West. Summary of Current Activities Current activities include Resource Report preparation, analysis of pipeline route alternatives, and meetings with stakeholder communities and interested agencies. MGS has completed a draft of Resource Report 1 to be submitted to FERC on February 3, MGS has completed and opportunities and constraints analysis identifying the preferred pipeline route and alternatives, which will be submitted to FERC on February 3, The analysis will provide much of the information to be included in the draft Resource Report 10. Letters notifying agency stakeholders of FERC acceptance of MGS s Request Use the Pre Filing Process were sent out on December 31, 2008, with copies of Request and links to the FERC and WEH web sites. An example of the cover letter for this announcement is attached. Final documentation of Lease of SITLA lands was completed at the SITLA Board of Trustees Meeting on January 22, This documentation establishes the approximately 2,150 acre Area of Mutual Participation ( AMP ) for siting of WEH Project facilities. Draft seismic reports that identify the geographic extent and quality of the salt structure have been completed. Record reviews in the offices of Millard, Juab and Utah County Recorders identifying adjacent landowners along the natural gas pipeline alignment were completed. Page 1 of 3

79 Stakeholder Communications and Agency Meetings MGS has met with stakeholder communities and interested agencies as summarized in the table below: Table 1 Meetings During the prior Month (12/22/2008 to 2/2/2009) Date Parties Purpose 14/2009 SITLA ROW Sought input on the natural gas pipeline alignment across SITLA land from the Storage Site to approximately HWY 6. 1/16/2009 Millard County Zoning Sought input on natural gas pipeline alignment across Millard County. Coordinated follow up meeting for February 3, 2009 with Millard County Commission and introduction by Millard County to Juab County Commission. 1/22/2009 SITLA Econ. Dev. Coordination of infrastructure/utility interconnections with adjacent SITLA Industrial Park, e.g., fresh water supply, electric site power, rail, telecommunications, LDC gas supply and sewer. SITLA Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration MGS has established a Project website at Surveys and Other Activities MGS has not performed any surveys in the Project area during the reporting period. The test well drilling is proceeding. Following the completion of the test well, salt will be physically and chemically tested and potential water bearing zones will be further analyzed for resource potential. Filings and Schedule MGS submitted no documents to FERC during this reporting period. In consultation with FERC Staff and Millard County Commissioners, MGS has scheduled an open house with stakeholders and interested agencies to be held on March 3, 2009 at the offices of Millard County in Delta, Utah. MGS will provide timely notice of the open house to affected landowners, interested agencies, and community councils. At the open house MGS plans to present the proposed Project to stakeholders, including affected landowners. Page 2 of 3

80 A schedule of the major Project milestones is presented below: Date June 2009 December 2009 January 2010 March 2012 Milestone Submit application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Certificate Issued by FERC Begin Construction In service Date Page 3 of 3

81 Sample of Cover Letter Sent to Interested Agencies on December 31, 2008

82 MAGNUM GAS STORAGE, LLC Craig W. Broussard 2150 South 1300 East, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah (office) (cell) December 31, 2008 Stan Perkes United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, UT RE: Commencement of FERC Pre Filing Review Process for Western Energy Hub Project Dear Mr. Perkes This letter is to invite your participation as a stakeholder in the Pre Filing Process recently commenced by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) for our underground natural gas storage facility in Millard County, with its associated pipeline connection (the Gas Storage Facility ). This six month Pre Filing Process will include a coordinated environmental review, with FERC acting as the lead federal agency, of the Gas Storage Facility. This review will also include all associated facilities proposed to be constructed by Magnum Gas Storage, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, MGS ) as part of their multiple use Western Energy Hub Project located approximately 10 miles north of Delta, Utah. Descriptions of the proposed facilities are contained in the enclosed copies of MGS s October 28, 2008 Application and FERC s December 22, 2008 Notice of Acceptance. Your prompt assistance in reviewing and advising me of any corrections to or changes in the designated contact for your agency will be particularly appreciated. I can be reached using the letterhead contact information. If I am not available for any reason at the time of your response or request, inquiries may also be directed to my partner, Dave Detton, by at dave@westernenergyhub.com or by phone at Copies of filings and information regarding the status of this Pre Filing Process can be obtained from the FERC website, by entering the Docket Number for this matter (PF09 3). Additional information will also soon be available from the WEH Project website currently under construction.