Incorrectly

In the article “XTO, MarkWest Execs Tout Shale Success, Push Public Interaction, LNG Exports” (see Shale Daily, Sept. 21), NGI’s Shale Daily incorrectly stated that the Golden Pass liquefied natural gas terminal project is being developed by Cheniere Energy Inc. The Golden Pass Products liquefaction expansion project is a partnership of affiliates of Qatar Petroleum International (70% ownership) and ExxonMobil Corp. (30%). NGI’s Shale Daily regrets the error.

In a story published in April, BP Expanding in GOM Deepwater, the initial gas processing capacity from the Mad Dog field was incorrectly stated (see NGI, April 16). The platform initially was designed to process up to 60 MMcf/d of gas and up to 100,000 b/d of oil. NGI regrets the error.

In the story BHP Unleashes $708M for Second Mad Dog Platform in Deepwater Gulf, the initial gas processing capacity from the Mad Dog field was incorrectly stated (see Daily GPI, April 12). The platform initially was designed to process up to 60 MMcf/d of gas and up to 100,000 b/d of oil. NGI regrets the error.

Native Americans claim they were unable to add input in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) negotiations on the final rules that will regulate hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of oil and gas operations on public lands. Absent this input, some of the tribal leaders claimed the rules could impede their ability to develop their energy resources.

In the article “TransCanada: Marcellus-Backed Flow Reversal Is Inevitable” (see NGI, Feb. 27), NGI incorrectly stated that Union Gas is working on plans for a new import route from New York State to its Dawn storage and trading hub in southern Ontario. Union Gas in fact has no plans for a competitive pipeline with an import route from New York State to Dawn. The company says it has discussed the need for an expansion of pipeline capacity east of Parkway to Maple to relieve a transportation bottleneck on this corridor, and it continues to believe an expansion of this path is required. NGI regrets the error.

In the article “TransCanada: Marcellus-Backed Flow Reversal Is Inevitable” (see Daily GPI, Feb. 27), NGI incorrectly stated that Union Gas is working on plans for a new import route from New York State to its Dawn storage and trading hub in southern Ontario. Union Gas in fact has no plans for a competitive pipeline with an import route from New York State to Dawn. The company says it has discussed the need for an expansion of pipeline capacity east of Parkway to Maple to relieve a transportation bottleneck on this corridor, and it continues to believe an expansion of this path is required. NGI regrets the error.

In the article “Senate Passes Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Bill” (see Daily GPI, Oct. 19), NGI incorrectly stated that a provision that would have grandfathered older pipelines from having to install certain safety devices had been removed from S. 275. In fact, senators included in the bill an amendment calling “for testing to confirm the material strength of previously untested natural gas pipelines located in certain areas.” The amendment would require tests on pipelines operating at more than 30% of specified minimum yield strength in densely populated or environmentally sensitive areas. Language requiring the use of automatic or remote-controlled shut-off valves “on transmission pipelines constructed or entirely replaced” after a final rule is issued remains in the legislation. NGI regrets the error.

In the article “Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale Gas Production Jumps” (see Shale Daily, Aug. 17), NGI’s Shale Daily incorrectly listed the well counts for the major producers in Pennsylvania by including wells that had been permitted, but not yet drilled. In actuality, Chesapeake Energy Corp. produced from 110 wells, not 1,286 wells. Talisman Energy Inc. produced from 185 wells, not 684 wells. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. produced from 117 wells, not 261 wells. Range Resources Corp. produced from 240 wells, not 632 wells, and EQT Corp. produced from 49 wells, not 355 wells. NGI’s Shale Daily regrets the error.

In the story “EIA: Renewables Up, Gas Flat as Power Sources” (see Daily GPI, May 23), NGI incorrectly stated that the average price for natural gas used in power generation was $5.09/MMBtu a year ago. In fact, the average price paid for natural gas for power generation in February 2011 was $5.09/MMBtu, down 5.2% from the average price of $5.37/MMBtu paid in January 2011, and down 16% from the average price of $6.06/MMBtu paid in February 2010. NGI regrets the error.