e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
|
|
|
þ |
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
OR
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to .
Commission file number: 1-14323
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
|
|
76-0568219 |
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
|
|
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
Incorporation or Organization) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1100 Louisiana,
10th
Floor, Houston, Texas
|
|
|
|
77002 |
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
|
|
|
|
(Zip Code) |
(713) 381-6500
(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange On Which Registered |
|
|
|
Common Units
|
|
New York Stock Exchange |
Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None.
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of
the Securities Act.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or
Section 15(d) of the Act.
Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for
such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is
not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in
definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer,
or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of accelerated filer and large accelerated filer in
Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer þ Accelerated filer o Non-accelerated filer o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act).
Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of the common units of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD) held by
non-affiliates at June 30, 2006, based on the closing price of such equity securities in the daily
composite list for transactions on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2006, was approximately
$6.6 billion. This figure excludes common units beneficially owned by certain affiliates,
including (i) Dan L. Duncan, (ii) Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. and (iii) certain trusts established
for the benefit of Mr. Duncans family. There were 432,408,430 common units of EPD outstanding at
February 1, 2007.
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS REFERENCED IN THIS
ANNUAL REPORT
Unless the context requires otherwise, references to we, us, our or Enterprise Products
Partners are intended to mean the business and operations of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and
its consolidated subsidiaries, including Duncan Energy Partners.
References to Operating Partnership mean Enterprise Products Operating L.P., which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners through which Enterprise Products Partners
conducts substantially all of its business.
References to Duncan Energy Partners or DEP mean Duncan Energy Partners L.P., which is a
publicly traded, consolidated subsidiary of the Operating Partnership and completed its initial
public offering in February 2007.
References to Enterprise Products GP mean Enterprise Products GP, LLC, which is our general
partner.
References to Enterprise GP Holdings mean Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., a publicly traded
Delaware limited partnership, which owns Enterprise Products GP.
References to EPE Holdings mean EPE Holdings, LLC, which is the general partner of
Enterprise GP Holdings.
References to TEPPCO mean TEPPCO Partners, L.P.; a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership, which is an affiliate of us.
References to TEPPCO GP mean Texas Eastern Products Pipeline Company, LLC, which is the
general partner of TEPPCO and owned by a private company subsidiary of EPCO, Inc.
References to EPCO mean EPCO, Inc., which is a related party affiliate to all of the
foregoing named entities.
References to Employee Partnerships mean EPE Unit L.P. and EPE Unit II, L.P., collectively,
which are private company affiliates of EPCO. References to EPE Unit I and EPE Unit II refer
to EPE Unit L.P. and EPE Unit II, L.P., respectively.
We, the Operating Partnership, Duncan Energy Partners, Enterprise Products GP, Enterprise GP
Holdings, EPE Holdings, TEPPCO and TEPPCO GP are affiliates and under common control of Dan L.
Duncan, the Chairman and controlling shareholder of EPCO.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
This annual report contains various forward-looking statements and information that are based
on our beliefs and those of our general partner, as well as assumptions made by us and information
currently available to us. When used in this document, words such as anticipate, project,
expect, plan, goal, forecast, intend, could, believe, may and similar expressions
and statements regarding our plans and objectives for future operations, are intended to identify
forward-looking statements. Although we and our general partner believe that such expectations
reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, neither we nor our general partner can
give any assurances that such expectations will prove to be correct. Such statements are subject
to a variety of risks, uncertainties and assumptions as described in more detail in Item 1A of this
annual report. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if underlying
assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results may vary materially from those anticipated,
estimated, projected or expected. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking
statements.
1
PART I
Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties.
General
We are a North American midstream energy company providing a wide range of services to
producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and certain
petrochemicals. In addition, we are an industry leader in the development of pipeline and other
midstream energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf of Mexico. We conduct
substantially all of our business through our Operating Partnership. Our principal executive
offices are located at 1100 Louisiana, 10th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002 and our
telephone number is (713) 381-6500.
We are a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed in 1998, the common units of
which are listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol EPD. We are
owned 98% by our limited partners and 2% by our general partner, Enterprise Products GP. Our
general partner is owned by a publicly traded affiliate, Enterprise GP Holdings, the common units
of which are listed on the NYSE under the ticker symbol EPE.
As a growth oriented company, we completed the GulfTerra Merger transactions in September
2004, whereby GulfTerra Energy Partners, L.P. (GulfTerra) merged with one of our wholly owned
subsidiaries. As a result of the GulfTerra Merger, GulfTerra and its consolidated subsidiaries and
GulfTerras general partner (GulfTerra GP) became our wholly owned subsidiaries. The GulfTerra
Merger expanded our asset base to include numerous natural gas and crude oil pipelines, offshore
platforms and other midstream energy assets. In connection with the GulfTerra Merger, we purchased
various midstream energy assets from El Paso Corporation (El Paso) that are located in South
Texas.
In September 2006, we formed Duncan Energy Partners, a Delaware limited partnership, to
acquire, own and operate a diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets from us. Duncan Energy
Partners completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000 common units in February 2007. The
common units of Duncan Energy Partners are listed on the NYSE under the ticker symbol DEP. For
additional information regarding Duncan Energy Partners, see Recent Developments within this Item
1.
Business Strategy
We operate an integrated network of midstream energy assets that includes natural gas
gathering, processing, transportation and storage; NGL fractionation (or separation),
transportation, storage and import and export terminalling; crude oil transportation; offshore
production platform services; and petrochemical pipeline and services. NGL products (ethane,
propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline) are used as raw materials by the
petrochemical industry, as feedstocks by refiners in the production of motor gasoline and as fuel
by industrial and residential users. Our business strategy is to:
|
§ |
|
capitalize on expected increases in natural gas, NGL and crude oil production resulting
from development activities in the Rocky Mountain region, U.S. Gulf Coast and Gulf of
Mexico; |
|
|
§ |
|
maintain a balanced and diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets and expand
this asset base through growth capital projects and accretive acquisitions of
complementary midstream energy assets; |
|
|
§ |
|
share capital costs and risks through joint ventures or alliances with strategic
partners, including those that will provide the raw materials for these growth projects or
purchase the projects end products; and |
|
|
§ |
|
increase fee-based cash flows by investing in pipelines and other fee-based businesses. |
2
As noted above, part of our business strategy involves expansion through growth capital
projects. We expect that these projects will enhance our existing asset base and provide us with
additional growth opportunities in the future. For information regarding our growth capital
projects, see Capital Spending included under Item 7 of this annual report.
Financial Information by Business Segment
For information regarding our business segments, see Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Recent Developments
In September 2006, we formed a consolidated subsidiary, Duncan Energy Partners, to acquire,
own and operate a diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets. On February 5, 2007, this
subsidiary completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000 common units (including an
overallotment amount of 1,950,000 common units) at $21.00 per unit, which generated net proceeds to
Duncan Energy Partners of $291.3 million. As consideration for assets contributed and
reimbursement for capital expenditures related to these assets, Duncan Energy Partners distributed
$260.6 million of these net proceeds to us along with $198.9 million in borrowings under its credit
facility and a final amount of 5,371,571 common units of Duncan Energy Partners. Duncan Energy
Partners used $38.5 million of net proceeds from the overallotment to redeem 1,950,000 of the
7,301,510 common units it had originally issued to Enterprise Products Partners, resulting in the
final amount of 5,371,571 common units beneficially owned by Enterprise Products Partners. We used
the cash received from Duncan Energy Partners to temporarily reduce amounts outstanding under our
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility.
In summary, we contributed 66% of our equity interests in the following subsidiaries to Duncan
Energy Partners:
|
§ |
|
Mont Belvieu Caverns, LLC (Mont Belvieu Caverns), a recently formed subsidiary, which
owns salt dome storage caverns located in Mont Belvieu, Texas that receive, store and
deliver NGLs and certain petrochemical products for industrial customers located along the
upper Texas Gulf Coast, which has the largest concentration of petrochemical plants and
refineries in the United States; |
|
|
§ |
|
Acadian Gas, LLC (Acadian Gas), which owns an onshore natural gas pipeline system
that gathers, transports, stores and markets natural gas in Louisiana. The Acadian Gas
system links natural gas supplies from onshore and offshore Gulf of Mexico developments
(including offshore pipelines, continental shelf and deepwater production) with local gas
distribution companies, electric generation plants and industrial customers, including
those in the Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mississippi River corridor. A subsidiary of Acadian
Gas owns a 49.5% equity interest in Evangeline Gas Pipeline, L.P. (Evangeline); |
|
|
§ |
|
Sabine Propylene Pipeline L.P. (Sabine Propylene), which transports polymer-grade
propylene between Port Arthur, Texas and a pipeline interconnect located in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Lou-Tex Propylene Pipeline L.P. (Lou-Tex Propylene), which transports
chemical-grade propylene from Sorrento, Louisiana to Mont Belvieu, Texas; and |
|
|
§ |
|
South Texas NGL Pipelines, LLC (South Texas NGL), a recently formed subsidiary, which
began transporting NGLs from Corpus Christi, Texas to Mont Belvieu, Texas in January 2007.
South Texas NGL owns the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. |
In addition, to the 34% ownership interest we retained in each of these entities, we also own
the 2% general partner interest in Duncan Energy Partners and 26.4% of Duncan Energy Partners
outstanding common units. Our Operating Partnership directs the business operations of Duncan
Energy Partners through its ownership and control of the general partner of Duncan Energy Partners.
3
The formation of Duncan Energy Partners had no effect on our financial statements at December
31, 2006. For financial reporting purposes, the consolidated financial statements of Duncan Energy
Partners will be consolidated into those of our own. Consequently, the results of operations of
Duncan Energy Partners will be a component of our business segments. Also, due to common control
of the entities by Dan L. Duncan, the initial consolidated balance sheet of Duncan Energy Partners
will reflect our historical carrying basis in each of the subsidiaries contributed to Duncan Energy
Partners.
The public owners of Duncan Energy Partners common units will be presented as a
noncontrolling interest in our consolidated financial statements beginning in February 2007. The
public owners of Duncan Energy Partners have no direct equity interests in us as a result of this
transaction. The borrowings of Duncan Energy Partners will be presented as part of our
consolidated debt; however, we do not have any obligation for the payment of interest or repayment
of borrowings incurred by Duncan Energy Partners.
We have significant involvement with all of the subsidiaries of Duncan Energy Partners,
including the following types of transactions:
|
§ |
|
We utilize storage services provided by Mont Belvieu Caverns to support our Mont
Belvieu fractionation and other businesses; |
|
|
§ |
|
We buy natural gas from and sell natural gas to Acadian Gas in connection with our
normal business activities; and |
|
|
§ |
|
We are the sole shipper on the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. |
We may contribute other equity interests in our subsidiaries to Duncan Energy Partners in the
near term and use the proceeds we receive from Duncan Energy Partners to fund our capital spending
program. We have no obligation or commitment to make such contributions to Duncan Energy Partners.
For information regarding our other recent developments, see Overview of Business Recent
Developments included under Item 7 of this annual report, which is incorporated by reference into
this Item 1.
For recent developments involving releases of ammonia from a third-party pipeline operated by
the Operating Partnership through an indirect wholly owned subsidiary, see Item 3 of this annual
report.
Segment Discussion
Our midstream energy asset network links producers of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil from
some of the largest supply basins in the United States, Canada and the Gulf of Mexico with domestic
consumers and international markets. We have four reportable business segments:
|
§ |
|
NGL Pipelines & Services; |
|
|
§ |
|
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services; |
|
|
§ |
|
Offshore Pipelines & Services; and |
|
|
§ |
|
Petrochemical Services. |
Our business segments are generally organized and managed according to the type of services
rendered (or technologies employed) and products produced and/or sold.
The following sections present an overview of our business segments, including information
regarding the principal products produced, services rendered, seasonality, competition and
regulation. Our results of operations and financial condition are subject to a variety of risks.
For information regarding our key risk factors, see Item 1A of this annual report.
4
Our business activities are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations
governing a wide variety of topics, including commercial, operational, environmental, safety and
other matters. For a discussion of the principal effects such laws and regulations have on our
business, see Regulation and Environmental and Safety Matters included within this Item 1.
Our revenues are derived from a wide customer base. During 2006 and 2005, our largest
customer was The Dow Chemical Company and its affiliates, which accounted for 6.1% and 6.8%,
respectively, of our consolidated revenues. During 2004, our largest customer was Shell Oil
Company and its affiliates (Shell), which accounted for 6.5% of our consolidated revenues.
As generally used in the energy industry and in this document, the identified terms have the
following meanings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/d
|
|
=
|
|
per day |
|
|
BBtus
|
|
=
|
|
billion British thermal units |
|
|
Bcf
|
|
=
|
|
billion cubic feet |
|
|
MBPD
|
|
=
|
|
thousand barrels per day |
|
|
Mdth
|
|
=
|
|
thousand decatherms |
|
|
MMBbls
|
|
=
|
|
million barrels |
|
|
MMBtus
|
|
=
|
|
million British thermal units |
|
|
MMcf
|
|
=
|
|
million cubic feet |
|
|
Mcf
|
|
=
|
|
thousand cubic feet |
|
|
TBtu
|
|
=
|
|
trillion British thermal units |
The following discussion of our business segments provides information regarding our
principal plants, pipelines and other assets. For information regarding our results of operations,
including significant measures of historical throughput, production and processing rates, see Item
7 of this annual report.
NGL Pipelines & Services
Our NGL Pipelines & Services business segment includes our (i) natural gas processing business
and related NGL marketing activities, (ii) NGL pipelines aggregating approximately 13,295 miles and
related storage facilities including our Mid-America Pipeline System and (iii) NGL fractionation
facilities located in Texas and Louisiana. This segment also includes our import and export
terminal operations.
NGL products (ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline) are used as raw
materials by the petrochemical industry, feedstocks by refiners in the production of motor gasoline
and by industrial and residential users as fuel. Ethane is primarily used in the petrochemical
industry as a feedstock for ethylene production, one of the basic building blocks for a wide range
of plastics and other chemical products. Propane is used both as a petrochemical feedstock in the
production of ethylene and propylene and as a heating, engine and industrial fuel. Normal butane
is used as a petrochemical feedstock in the production of ethylene and butadiene (a key ingredient
of synthetic rubber), as a blendstock for motor gasoline and to derive isobutane through
isomerization. Isobutane is fractionated from mixed butane (a mixed stream of normal butane and
isobutane) or produced from normal butane through the process of isomerization, principally for use
in refinery alkylation to enhance the octane content of motor gasoline, in the production of
isooctane and other octane additives, and in the production of propylene oxide. Natural gasoline,
a mixture of pentanes and heavier hydrocarbons, is primarily used as a blendstock for motor
gasoline or as a petrochemical feedstock.
Natural gas processing and related NGL marketing activities. At the core of our
natural gas processing business are 23 processing plants located in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
New Mexico and Wyoming. Natural gas produced at the wellhead and in association with crude oil
contains varying amounts of NGLs. This rich natural gas in its raw form is usually not
acceptable for transportation in the nations major natural gas pipeline systems or for commercial
use as a fuel. Natural gas processing plants remove the NGLs from the natural gas stream, enabling
the natural gas to meet transmission pipeline and commercial quality specifications. In addition,
on an energy equivalent basis, NGLs generally have a greater economic value as a raw material for
petrochemical and motor gasoline production than their value
5
as components of the natural gas stream. After extraction, we typically transport the mixed
NGLs to a centralized facility for fractionation (or separation) into purity NGL products such as
ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane and natural gasoline. The purity NGL products can then
be used in our NGL marketing activities to meet contractual requirements or sold on spot and
forward markets.
When operating and extraction costs of natural gas processing plants are higher than the
incremental value of the NGL products that would be extracted from a stream of natural gas, the
recovery levels of certain NGL products, principally ethane, may be reduced or eliminated. This
leads to a reduction in NGL volumes available for transportation and fractionation.
In our natural gas processing activities, we enter into margin-band contracts,
percent-of-liquids contracts, percent-of-proceeds contracts, fee-based contracts, hybrid contracts
(mixed percent-of-liquids and fee-based) and keepwhole contracts. Under margin-band and keepwhole
contracts, we take ownership of mixed NGLs extracted from the producers natural gas stream and
recognize revenue when the extracted NGLs are delivered and sold to customers on NGL marketing
sales contracts. In the same way, revenue is recognized under our percent-of-liquids contracts
except that the volume of NGLs we extract and sell is less than the total amount of NGLs extracted
from the producers natural gas. Under a percent-of-liquids contract, the producer retains title
to the remaining percentage of mixed NGLs we extract. Under a percent-of-proceeds contract, we
share in the proceeds generated from the sale of the mixed NGLs we extract on the producers
behalf. If a cash fee for natural gas processing services is stipulated by the contract, we record
revenue when the natural gas has been processed and delivered to the producer. The NGL volumes we
earn and take title to in connection with our processing activities are referred to as our equity
NGL production.
In general, our percent-of-liquids, hybrid and keepwhole contracts give us the right (but not
the obligation) to process natural gas for a producer; thus, we are protected from processing at an
economic loss during times when the sum of our costs exceeds the value of the mixed NGLs of which
we would take ownership. Generally, our natural gas processing agreements have terms ranging from
month-to-month to life of the producing lease. Intermediate terms of one to ten years are also
common.
To the extent that we are obligated under our margin-band and keepwhole gas processing
contracts to compensate the producer for the energy value of mixed NGLs we extract from the natural
gas stream, we are exposed to various risks, primarily commodity price fluctuations. However, our
margin band contracts contain terms which limit our exposure to such risks. The prices of natural
gas and NGLs are subject to fluctuations in response to changes in supply, market uncertainty and a
variety of additional factors that are beyond our control. Periodically, we attempt to mitigate
these risks through the use of commodity financial instruments.
Our NGL marketing activities generate revenues from the sale and delivery of NGLs obtained
through our processing activities and purchases from third parties on the open market. These sales
contracts may also include forward product sales contracts. In general, the sales prices
referenced in these contracts are market-related and can include pricing differentials for such
factors as delivery location.
NGL pipelines, storage facilities and import/export terminals. Our NGL pipeline,
storage and terminalling operations include approximately 13,295 miles of NGL pipelines, 162
million barrels of underground NGL and related product storage working capacity and two
import/export facilities.
Our NGL pipelines transport mixed NGLs and other hydrocarbons to fractionation plants;
distribute and collect NGL products to and from petrochemical plants and refineries; and deliver
propane to customers along the Dixie Pipeline and certain sections of the Mid-America Pipeline
System. Revenue from our NGL pipeline transportation agreements is generally based upon a fixed
fee per gallon of liquids transported multiplied by the volume delivered. Accordingly, the results
of operations for this business are generally dependent upon the volume of product transported and
the level of fees charged to customers (including those charged to our NGL and petrochemical
marketing activities, which are eliminated in consolidation). The transportation fees charged
under these arrangements are either contractual or regulated by governmental agencies, including
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
6
Typically, we do not take title to the products transported in our NGL pipelines; rather, the
shipper retains title and the associated commodity price risk.
Our NGL and related product storage facilities are integral parts of our operations. In
general, our underground storage wells are used to store our and our customers mixed NGLs, NGL
products and petrochemical products. Under our NGL and related product storage agreements, we
charge customers monthly storage reservation fees to reserve a specific storage capacity in our
underground caverns. The customers pay reservation fees based on the quantity of capacity reserved
rather than on the amount of reserved capacity utilized. When a customer exceeds its reserved
capacity, we charge those customers an excess storage fee. In addition, we charge our customers
throughput fees based on volumes injected and withdrawn from the storage facility. Accordingly,
the profitability of our storage operations is dependent upon the level of capacity reserved by our
customers, the volume of product injected and withdrawn from our underground caverns and the level
of fees charged.
We operate NGL import and export facilities located on the Houston Ship Channel in southeast
Texas. Our import facility is primarily used to offload volumes for delivery to our NGL storage
and processing facilities near Mont Belvieu, Texas. Our export facility includes an NGL products
chiller and related equipment used for loading refrigerated marine tankers for third-party export
customers. Revenues from our import and export services are primarily based on fees per unit of
volume loaded or unloaded and may also include demand payments. Accordingly, the profitability of
our import and export activities primarily depends upon the available quantities of NGLs to be
loaded and offloaded and the fees we charge for these services.
NGL fractionation. We own or have interests in seven NGL fractionation facilities
located in Texas and Louisiana. NGL fractionation facilities separate mixed NGL streams into
purity NGL products. The three primary sources of mixed NGLs fractionated in the United States are
(i) domestic natural gas processing plants, (ii) domestic crude oil refineries and (iii) imports of
butane and propane mixtures. The mixed NGLs delivered from domestic natural gas processing plants
and crude oil refineries to our NGL fractionation facilities are typically transported by NGL
pipelines and, to a lesser extent, by railcar and truck.
Extraction of mixed NGLs by natural gas processing plants represent the largest source of
volumes processed by our NGL fractionators. Based upon industry data, we believe that sufficient
volumes of mixed NGLs, especially those originating from Gulf Coast and Rocky Mountain natural gas
processing plants, will be available for fractionation in commercially viable quantities for the
foreseeable future. Significant volumes of mixed NGLs are contractually committed to our NGL
fractionation facilities by joint owners and third-party customers.
The majority of our NGL fractionation facilities process mixed NGL streams for third-party
customers and support our NGL marketing activities under fee-based arrangements. These fees
(typically in cents per gallon) are subject to adjustment for changes in certain fractionation
expenses, including natural gas fuel costs. At our Norco facility, we perform fractionation
services for certain customers under percent-of-liquids contracts. The results of operations of
our NGL fractionation business are dependent upon the volume of mixed NGLs fractionated and either
the level of fractionation fees charged (under fee-based contracts) or the value of NGLs received
(under percent-of-liquids arrangements). We are exposed to fluctuations in NGL prices to the
extent we fractionate volumes for customers under percent-of-liquids arrangements. Our fee-based
customers generally retain title to the NGLs that we process for them.
Seasonality. Our natural gas processing and NGL fractionation operations exhibit
little to no seasonal variation. Likewise, our NGL pipeline operations have not exhibited a
significant degree of seasonality overall. However, propane transportation volumes are generally
higher in the October through March timeframe in connection with increased use of propane for
heating in the upper Midwest and southeastern United States. Our facilities located in the
southern United States may be affected by weather events such as hurricanes and tropical storms in
the Gulf of Mexico.
7
We operate our NGL and related product storage facilities based on the needs and requirements
of our customers in the NGL, petrochemical, heating and other related industries. We usually
experience an increase in the demand for storage services during the spring and summer months due
to increased feedstock storage requirements for motor gasoline production and a decrease during the
fall and winter months when propane inventories are being drawn for heating needs. In general, our
import volumes peak during the spring and summer months and our export volumes are at their highest
levels during the winter months.
In support of our commercial goals, our NGL marketing activities rely on inventories of mixed
NGLs and purity NGL products. These inventories are the result of accumulated equity NGL
production volumes, imports and other spot and contract purchases. Our inventories of ethane,
propane and normal butane are typically higher in summer months as each are normally in higher
demand and at higher price levels during winter months. Isobutane and natural gasoline inventories
are generally stable throughout the year. Our inventory cycle begins in late-February to mid-March
(the seasonal low point); builds through September; remains level until early December; before
being drawn through winter until the seasonal low is reached again.
Competition. Our natural gas processing business and NGL marketing activities
encounter competition from fully integrated oil companies, intrastate pipeline companies, major
interstate pipeline companies and their non-regulated affiliates, and independent processors. Each
of our competitors has varying levels of financial and personnel resources, and competition
generally revolves around price, service and location.
In the markets served by our NGL pipelines, we compete with a number of intrastate and
interstate liquids pipelines companies (including those affiliated with major oil, petrochemical
and gas companies) and barge, rail and truck fleet operations. In general, our NGL pipelines
compete with these entities in terms of transportation fees and service.
Our competitors in the NGL and related product storage businesses are integrated major oil
companies, chemical companies and other storage and pipeline companies. We compete with other
storage service providers primarily in terms of the fees charged, number of pipeline connections
and operational dependability. Our import and export operations compete with those operated by
major oil and chemical companies primarily in terms of loading and offloading volumes per hour.
We compete with a number of NGL fractionators in Texas, Louisiana and Kansas. Although
competition for NGL fractionation services is primarily based on the fractionation fee charged, the
ability of an NGL fractionator to receive mixed NGLs, store and distribute NGL products is also an
important competitive factor and is a function of the existence of the necessary pipeline and
storage infrastructure.
8
Properties. The following table summarizes the significant NGL pipelines and related
storage assets of our NGL Pipelines & Services business segment at February 5, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our |
|
|
|
|
|
Storage |
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
Length |
|
|
Capacity |
|
Description of Asset |
|
Location(s) |
|
Interest |
|
(Miles) |
|
|
(MMBbls) |
|
NGL pipelines: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-America Pipeline System |
|
Midwest and Western U.S. |
|
100% |
|
|
7,378 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dixie Pipeline |
|
South and Southeastern U.S. |
|
74.2%(1) |
|
|
1,370 |
|
|
|
|
|
Seminole Pipeline |
|
Texas |
|
90% (2) |
|
|
1,326 |
|
|
|
|
|
EPD South Texas NGL System |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
1,039 |
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana Pipeline System |
|
Louisiana |
|
Various(3) |
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
|
|
Promix NGL Gathering System |
|
Louisiana |
|
50% |
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
|
|
DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System |
|
Texas |
|
100%(4) |
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
|
|
Houston Ship Channel |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lou-Tex NGL |
|
Texas, Louisiana |
|
100% |
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
|
|
Others (5 systems) (5) |
|
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi |
|
Various |
|
|
452 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL and related product storage
facilities by state: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
125.0 |
|
Louisiana |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.6 |
|
Mississippi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.9 |
|
Others (Arizona, Georgia, Iowa,
Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capacity (7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
162.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We hold a 74.2% interest in this system through a majority owned subsidiary, Dixie Pipeline Company (Dixie). This reflects our acquisition of an additional 8.3% interest in Dixie in
December 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
We hold a 90% interest in this system through a majority owned subsidiary, Seminole Pipeline Company (Seminole). |
|
(3) |
|
Of the 612 total miles for this system, we own 100% of 559 miles and 43.5% of the remaining 53 miles. |
|
(4) |
|
Reflects consolidated ownership of this system by the Operating Partnership (34%) and Duncan Energy Partners (66%). |
|
(5) |
|
Includes our Tri-States, Belle Rose, Wilprise and Chunchula pipelines located in the coastal regions of Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi and a pipeline held by Venice Energy Services
Company, L.L.C. (VESCO), an equity investment of ours. |
|
(6) |
|
The amount shown for Texas includes 33 underground caverns with an aggregate useable storage capacity of approximately 100 MMBbls that we own jointly with Duncan Energy Partners. These
caverns are located in Mont Belvieu, Texas. |
|
(7) |
|
The 162.1 MMBbls of total useable storage capacity includes 21.3 MMBbls held under operating leases. The leased facilities are located in Texas, Louisiana and Kansas. |
The maximum number of barrels that our NGL pipelines can transport per day depends upon
the operating balance achieved at a given point in time between various segments of the systems.
Since the operating balance is dependent upon the mix of products to be shipped and demand levels
at various delivery points, the exact capacities of our NGL pipelines cannot be determined. We
measure the utilization rates of such pipelines in terms of net throughput (i.e., on a net basis in
accordance with our ownership interest). Total net throughput volumes for these pipelines were
1,450 MBPD, 1,360 MBPD and 1,343 MBPD during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
respectively.
The following information highlights the general use of each of our principal NGL pipelines.
We operate our NGL pipelines with the exception of Tri-States and a small portion of the Louisiana
Pipeline System.
|
§ |
|
The Mid-America Pipeline System is a regulated NGL pipeline system consisting of three
primary segments: the 2,568-mile Rocky Mountain pipeline, the 2,771-mile Conway North
pipeline and the 2,039-mile Conway South pipeline. This system covers thirteen states:
Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa,
Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The Rocky Mountain pipeline transports mixed NGLs from
the Rocky Mountain Overthrust and San Juan Basin areas to the Hobbs hub located on the
Texas-New Mexico border. The Conway North segment links the NGL hub at Conway, Kansas to
refineries, petrochemical plants and propane markets in the upper Midwest. In addition,
the Conway North segment has access to NGL supplies from Canadas Western Sedimentary
Basin through third-party connections. The Conway South pipeline connects the Conway hub
with Kansas refineries and |
9
|
|
|
transports NGLs from Conway, Kansas to the Hobbs hub. The Mid-America Pipeline System
interconnects with our Seminole Pipeline at the Hobbs hub. We also own fifteen unregulated
propane terminals that are an integral part of the Mid-America Pipeline System. |
|
|
|
|
During 2006, approximately 54% of the volumes transported on the Mid-America Pipeline
System were mixed NGLs originating from natural gas processing plants located in the
Permian Basin in west Texas, the Hugoton Basin of southwestern Kansas, the San Juan Basin
of northwest New Mexico, and the Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming. The remaining
volumes are generally purity NGL products originating from NGL fractionators in the
mid-continent areas of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, as well as deliveries from Canada. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Dixie Pipeline is a regulated propane pipeline extending from southeast Texas and
Louisiana to markets in the southeastern United States. Propane supplies transported on
this system primarily originate from southeast Texas, southern Louisiana and Mississippi.
This system operates in seven states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.
|
|
|
§ |
|
The Seminole Pipeline is a regulated pipeline that transports NGLs from the Hobbs hub
and the Permian Basin area of west Texas to markets in southeastern Texas. NGLs
originating on the Mid-America Pipeline System are the primary source of throughput for
the Seminole Pipeline. |
|
|
§ |
|
The EPD South Texas NGL System is a network of NGL gathering and transportation
pipelines located in south Texas. The system includes 379 miles of pipeline used to
gather and transport mixed NGLs from our south Texas natural gas processing facilities to
our south Texas NGL fractionation facilities. The pipeline system also includes
approximately 660 miles of pipelines that deliver NGLs from our south Texas fractionation
facilities to refineries and petrochemical plants located between Corpus Christi and
Houston, Texas and within the Texas City-Houston area, as well as to common carrier NGL
pipelines. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Louisiana Pipeline System is a network of NGL pipelines located in Louisiana. This
system transports NGLs originating in southern Louisiana and Texas to refineries and
petrochemical companies along the Mississippi River corridor in southern Louisiana. This
system also provides transportation services for our natural gas processing plants, NGL
fractionators and other facilities located in Louisiana. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Promix NGL Gathering System is a NGL pipeline system that gathers mixed NGLs from
natural gas processing plants in Louisiana for delivery to an NGL fractionator owned by
K/D/S Promix, L.L.C. (Promix). This gathering system is an integral part of the Promix
NGL fractionation facility. Our ownership interest in this pipeline is held indirectly
through our equity method investment in Promix. |
|
|
§ |
|
The DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System transports NGLs from our Shoup and Armstrong
fractionation facilities in south Texas to Mont Belvieu, Texas. This system became
operational in January 2007. We purchased 220 miles of this pipeline from ExxonMobil
Pipeline Company in August 2006. In addition, we lease an 11-mile segment of this
pipeline system from TEPPCO. The remaining 55 miles of this pipeline were either acquired
from TEPPCO (10 miles) or constructed by us (45 miles). |
|
|
|
|
We contributed a direct 66% equity interest in South Texas NGL, our subsidiary that owns
the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System, to Duncan Energy Partners on February 5, 2007. We
own the remaining 34% direct interest in South Texas NGL. For additional information
regarding this subsequent event, see Recent Developments within this Item 1. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Houston Ship Channel pipeline system is a collection of pipelines extending from
our Houston Ship Channel import/export facility and Morgans Point facility to Mont
Belvieu, Texas. This system is used to deliver NGL products to third-party petrochemical
plants and refineries as well as to deliver feedstocks to our Mont Belvieu facilities. |
10
|
§ |
|
The Lou-Tex NGL pipeline system is used to provide transportation services for NGLs and
refinery grade propylene between the Louisiana and Texas markets. We also use this
pipeline to transport mixed NGLs from certain of our Louisiana gas processing plants to
our Mont Belvieu NGL fractionation facility. |
In addition to the pipelines identified above, we have begun construction on the Meeker
pipeline in the Piceance Basin area of western Colorado. This new 50-mile pipeline will transport
mixed NGLs from our Meeker natural gas processing facility to the Mid-America Pipeline System.
Our NGL and related product storage facilities are integral parts of our pipeline and other
operations. In general, these underground storage facilities are used to store NGLs and
petrochemical products for us and our customers. Our underground storage facilities include
locations in Arizona, Kansas and Utah that were acquired in July 2005. We operate these
facilities, with the exception of certain storage locations operated for us by a third party in
Louisiana and Mississippi.
We contributed a direct 66% equity interest in our recently formed subsidiary, Mont Belvieu
Caverns, to Duncan Energy Partners on February 5, 2007. We own the remaining 34% direct interest
in Mont Belvieu Caverns.
Mont Belvieu Caverns owns 33 underground storage caverns with an aggregate underground storage
capacity of approximately 100 MMBbls, and a brine system with approximately 20 MMBbls of
above-ground storage pit capacity and two brine production wells. These assets store and deliver
NGLs (such as ethane and propane) and certain petrochemical products for industrial customers
located along the upper Texas Gulf Coast.
11
The following table summarizes the significant natural gas processing and NGL fractionation
assets of our NGL Pipelines & Services business segment at February 5, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Gas |
|
|
Total Gas |
|
|
Net |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
Our |
|
Processing |
|
|
Processing |
|
|
Plant |
|
|
Plant |
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
Capacity |
|
|
Capacity |
|
|
Capacity |
|
|
Capacity |
|
Description of Asset |
|
Location(s) |
|
Interest |
|
(Bcf/d) (1) |
|
|
(Bcf/d) |
|
|
(MBPD) (1) |
|
|
(MBPD) |
|
Natural gas processing facilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toca |
|
Louisiana |
|
61.4% |
|
|
0.66 |
|
|
|
1.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chaco |
|
New Mexico |
|
100% |
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pioneer (2) |
|
Wyoming |
|
100% |
|
|
0.60 |
|
|
|
0.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yscloskey |
|
Louisiana |
|
31.1% |
|
|
0.58 |
|
|
|
1.85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Terrebonne |
|
Louisiana |
|
43.5% |
|
|
0.57 |
|
|
|
1.30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calumet |
|
Louisiana |
|
31.2% |
|
|
0.50 |
|
|
|
1.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neptune |
|
Louisiana |
|
66% |
|
|
0.43 |
|
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pascagoula |
|
Mississippi |
|
40% |
|
|
0.40 |
|
|
|
1.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thompsonville |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
0.30 |
|
|
|
0.30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoup |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
0.29 |
|
|
|
0.29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gilmore |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
0.26 |
|
|
|
0.26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Armstrong |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matagorda |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Others (10 facilities) (3) |
|
Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana |
|
Various (4) |
|
|
1.16 |
|
|
|
4.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total processing capacities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.90 |
|
|
|
14.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL fractionation facilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mont Belvieu |
|
Texas |
|
75% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
230 |
|
Shoup and Armstrong |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
Norco |
|
Louisiana |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
Promix |
|
Louisiana |
|
50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
BRF |
|
Louisiana |
|
32.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Tebone |
|
Louisiana |
|
43.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total plant capacities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
444 |
|
|
|
627 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The approximate net natural gas processing and NGL fractionation capacity does not necessarily correspond to our ownership interest in each facility. It is based on a variety of factors such as volumes processed at the
facility and ownership interest in the facility. |
|
(2) |
|
We acquired the Pioneer facility from TEPPCO in March 2006 and subsequently increased the processing capacity from 0.3 Bcf/d to 0.6 Bcf/d. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes our Venice, Blue Water, Sea Robin and Burns Point facilities located in Louisiana; Indian Basin and Carlsbad facilities located in New Mexico; and San Martin, Delmita, Sonora and Indian Springs facilities located
in Texas. We acquired the Indians Springs facility in January 2005. Our ownership in the Venice plant is through our 13.1% equity method investment in VESCO. |
|
(4) |
|
Our ownership in these facilities ranges from 7.4% to 100%. |
At the core of our natural gas processing business are 23 processing plants located in
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Wyoming. Our natural gas processing facilities can
be characterized as two distinct types: (i) straddle plants situated on mainline natural gas
pipelines owned either by us or by third parties or (ii) field plants that process natural gas from
gathering pipelines. We operate the Toca, Chaco, North Terrebonne, Calumet, Neptune, Carlsbad and
Pioneer plants and all of the Texas facilities. In addition to the natural gas processing plants
noted above, we have begun construction on the Meeker facility and a new natural gas processing
facility adjacent to our existing Pioneer plant. The Meeker facility will be constructed in the
Piceance Basin of western Colorado and will have the capacity to process 1.7 Bcf/d of natural gas.
Our new Pioneer natural gas processing plant located in Opal, Wyoming will have a natural gas
processing capacity of 0.75 Bcf/d. On a weighted-average basis, utilization rates for these assets
were 56%, 53% and 61% during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These
rates reflect the periods in which we owned an interest in such facilities.
Our NGL marketing activities utilize a fleet of approximately 830 railcars, the majority of
which are leased. These railcars are used to deliver feedstocks to our facilities and to
distribute NGLs throughout the United States and parts of Canada. We have rail loading and
unloading facilities in Alabama, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, North Carolina and Texas. These facilities service both our rail shipments and those of
our customers.
12
The following information highlights the general use of each of our principal NGL
fractionation facilities. We operate all of our NGL fractionation facilities.
|
§ |
|
Our Mont Belvieu NGL fractionation facility is located at Mont Belvieu, Texas, which is
a key hub of the domestic and international NGL industry. This facility fractionates
mixed NGLs from several major NGL supply basins in North America including the
Mid-Continent, Permian Basin, San Juan Basin, Rocky Mountain Overthrust, East Texas and
the Gulf Coast. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Norco NGL fractionation facility receives mixed NGLs via pipeline from refineries
and natural gas processing plants located in southern Louisiana and along the Mississippi
and Alabama Gulf Coast, including our Yscloskey, Pascagoula and Toca facilities. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Promix NGL fractionation facility receives mixed NGLs via pipeline from natural gas
processing plants located in southern Louisiana and along the Mississippi Gulf Coast,
including our Calumet, Neptune, Burns Point and Pascagoula facilities. In addition to the
362-mile Promix NGL Gathering System, Promix owns five NGL storage caverns and a barge
loading facility that is integral to its operations. |
|
|
§ |
|
Our Shoup and Armstrong NGL fractionation facilities fractionate mixed NGLs supplied by
our south Texas natural gas processing plants. The Shoup and Armstrong facilities supply
NGLs transported by the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. |
|
|
§ |
|
The BRF facility processes mixed NGLs from natural gas processing plants located in
Alabama, Mississippi and southern Louisiana. |
On a weighted-average basis, utilization rates for our NGL fractionators were 75%, 74% and 70%
during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These rates reflect the
periods in which we owned an interest in such facilities. We own direct consolidated interests in
all of our NGL fractionation facilities with the exception of a 50% interest in a facility owned by
Promix and a 32.2% interest in a facility owned by Baton Rouge Fractionators LLC (BRF).
Our NGL operations include import and export facilities located on the Houston Ship Channel in
southeast Texas. We lease an import facility that can offload NGLs from tanker vessels at a rate
of 10,000 barrels per hour. In addition, we own an export facility that currently loads cargoes of
refrigerated propane and butane onto tanker vessels at rates of up to 5,000 barrels per hour. We
are in the process of expanding our import and export facility. In addition, we own a barge dock
that can load or offload two barges of NGLs or refinery-grade propylene simultaneously at rates up
to 5,000 barrels per hour. Our average combined NGL import and export volumes were 127 MBPD, 119
MBPD and 91 MBPD for 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services
Our Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services business segment includes approximately 18,889
miles of onshore natural gas pipeline systems that provide for the gathering and transmission of
natural gas in Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming. In
addition, we own two salt dome natural gas storage facilities located in Mississippi and lease
natural gas storage facilities located in Texas and Louisiana.
Onshore natural gas pipelines. Our onshore natural gas pipeline systems provide for
the gathering and transmission of natural gas from onshore developments, such as the San Juan,
Barnett Shale, Permian, Piceance and Greater Green River supply basins in the Western U.S., or from
offshore developments in the Gulf of Mexico through connections with offshore pipelines.
Typically, these systems receive natural gas from producers, other pipelines or shippers through
system interconnects and redeliver the natural gas to processing facilities, local gas distribution
companies, industrial or municipal customers or to other onshore pipelines.
13
Certain of our onshore natural gas pipelines generate revenues from transportation agreements
where shippers are billed a fee per unit of volume transported (typically in MMBtus) multiplied by
the volume delivered. The transportation fees charged under these arrangements are either
contractual or regulated by governmental agencies, including the FERC. Intrastate natural gas
pipelines (such as our Acadian Gas and Alabama Intrastate systems) may also purchase natural gas
from producers and suppliers and resell such natural gas to customers such as electric utility
companies, local natural gas distribution companies and industrial customers.
Our Texas, Acadian Gas and Alabama Intrastate pipelines are exposed to commodity price risk to
the extent they take title to natural gas volumes through certain of their contracts. In addition,
our San Juan Gathering, Permian Basin and Jonah pipeline systems provide aggregating and bundling
services, in which
we purchase and resell natural gas for certain small producers. Also, several of our
gathering systems, while not providing marketing services, have some exposure to risks related to
commodity prices through transportation arrangements with shippers. For example, approximately 94%
of the fee-based gathering arrangements of our San Juan Gathering System are calculated using a
percentage of a regional price index for natural gas. We use commodity financial instruments from
time to time to mitigate our exposure to risks related to commodity prices.
Underground natural gas storage. We own two underground salt dome natural gas storage
facilities located near Hattiesburg, Mississippi that are ideally situated to serve the domestic
Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast natural gas markets. On a combined basis, these facilities
(our Petal Gas Storage (Petal) and Hattiesburg Gas Storage (Hattiesburg) locations) are capable
of delivering in excess of 1.4 Bcf/d of natural gas into five interstate pipeline systems. We also
lease underground salt dome natural gas storage caverns that serve markets in Texas and Louisiana.
The ability of salt dome storage caverns to handle high levels of injections and withdrawals
of natural gas benefits customers who desire the ability to meet load swings and to cover major
supply interruption events, such as hurricanes and temporary losses of production. High injection
and withdrawal rates also allow customers to take advantage of periods of volatile natural gas
prices and respond in situations where they have natural gas imbalance issues on pipelines
connected to the storage facilities. Our salt dome storage facilities permit sustained periods of
high natural gas deliveries, including the ability to quickly switch from full injection to full
withdrawal.
Under our natural gas storage contracts, there are typically two components of revenues: (i)
monthly demand payments, which are associated with storage capacity reservation and paid regardless
of the customers usage, and (ii) storage fees per unit of volume stored at our facilities.
Seasonality. Typically, our onshore natural gas pipelines experience higher throughput
rates during the summer months as gas-fired power generation facilities increase output for
residential and commercial demand for electricity for air conditioning. Likewise, seasonality
impacts the timing of injections and withdrawals at our natural gas storage facilities. In the
winter months, natural gas is needed as fuel for residential and commercial heating, and during the
summer months, natural gas is needed by power generation facilities due to the demand for
electricity for air conditioning.
Competition. Within their market areas, our onshore natural gas pipelines compete with
other onshore natural gas pipelines on the basis of price (in terms of transportation fees and/or
natural gas selling prices), service and flexibility. Our competitive position within the onshore
market is enhanced by our longstanding relationships with customers and the limited number of
delivery pipelines connected (or capable of being economically connected) to the customers we
serve.
Competition for natural gas storage is primarily based on location and the ability to deliver
natural gas in a timely and reliable manner. Our natural gas storage facilities compete with other
providers of natural gas storage, including other salt dome storage facilities and depleted
reservoir facilities. We believe that the locations of our natural gas storage facilities allow us
to compete effectively with other companies who provide natural gas storage services.
14
Properties. The following table summarizes the significant assets of our Onshore
Natural Gas Pipelines & Services business segment at February 5, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Approximate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our |
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity, |
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
Length |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Capacity |
|
Description of Asset |
|
Location(s) |
|
Interest |
|
(Miles) |
|
|
(MMcf/d) |
|
|
(Bcf) |
|
Onshore natural gas pipelines: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Intrastate System |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
8,140 |
|
|
|
5,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jonah Gathering System |
|
Wyoming |
|
14.4% (1) |
|
|
643 |
|
|
|
1,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
Piceance Creek Gathering System |
|
Colorado |
|
100% |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
San Juan Gathering System |
|
New Mexico, Colorado |
|
100% |
|
|
6,065 |
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
Acadian Gas System |
|
Louisiana |
|
Various (2) |
|
|
1,042 |
|
|
|
954 |
|
|
|
|
|
Permian Basin System |
|
Texas, New Mexico |
|
100% |
|
|
1,387 |
|
|
|
490 |
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama Intrastate System |
|
Alabama |
|
100% |
|
|
408 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
|
|
Encinal Gathering System |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
452 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other (5 systems) (3) |
|
Texas, Mississippi |
|
Various (4) |
|
|
704 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,889 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas storage facilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petal |
|
Mississippi |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.9 |
|
Hattiesburg |
|
Mississippi |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0 |
|
Wilson |
|
Texas |
|
Leased (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
Acadian |
|
Louisiana |
|
Leased (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross capacity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Ownership interest as of December 31, 2006. This amount is expected to increase to approximately 20% upon completion of the Phase V expansion project. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects consolidated ownership of Acadian Gas by the Operating Partnership (34%) and Duncan Energy Partners (66%). Also includes the 49.5% equity investment that Acadian Gas has in the
Evangeline pipeline. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes the Delmita, Big Thicket, Indian Springs and Canales gathering systems located in Texas and the Petal pipeline located in Mississippi. The Delmita and Big Thicket gathering systems are
integral parts of our natural gas processing operations, the results of operations and assets of which are accounted for under our NGL Pipelines & Services business segment. We acquired the Indian
Springs gathering system in January 2005. We acquired the Canales gathering system in connection with the Encinal acquisition in July 2006. |
|
(4) |
|
We own 100% of these assets with the exception of the Indian Springs system, in which we own an 80% equity interest through a consolidated subsidiary. |
|
(5) |
|
This facility is held under an operating lease that expires in January 2028. |
|
(6) |
|
We hold this facility under an operating lease that expires in December 2012. |
On a weighted-average basis, aggregate utilization rates for our onshore natural gas
pipelines were approximately 71%, 73% and 75% during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004, respectively. These rates reflect the periods in which we owned an interest in such assets.
The following information highlights the general use of each of our principal onshore natural
gas pipelines and storage facilities, all of which we operate.
|
§ |
|
The Texas Intrastate System gathers and transports natural gas from supply basins in
Texas (from both onshore and offshore sources) to local gas distribution companies and
electric generation and industrial and municipal consumers. This system serves important
natural gas producing regions and commercial markets in Texas, including Corpus Christi,
the San Antonio/Austin area, the Beaumont/Orange area, the Houston area, and the Houston
Ship Channel industrial market. The Texas Intrastate System is comprised of the
7,292-mile Enterprise Texas Intrastate pipeline system, the 197-mile TPC Offshore
gathering system and the 651-mile Channel pipeline system. The leased Wilson natural gas
storage facility is an integral part of the Texas Intrastate System. We own 100% of the
Texas Intrastate System with the exception of the Channel pipeline system, in which we own
a 50% undivided interest. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Jonah Gathering System is located in the Greater Green River Basin of southwestern
Wyoming. This system gathers natural gas from the Jonah and Pinedale fields for delivery
to regional natural gas processing plants, including our Pioneer facility, and major
interstate pipelines. In August 2006, we entered into a joint venture with TEPPCO and are
proceeding with |
15
|
|
|
an expansion of the Jonah Gathering System. For additional information
regarding this joint venture arrangement with TEPPCO and related
expansion project, see Item 13 of this annual report. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Piceance Creek Gathering System consists of a recently constructed natural gas
gathering pipeline located in the Piceance Basin of northwestern Colorado. This pipeline
is owned by Piceance Creek Pipeline, LLC, the ownership interests of which we acquired
from EnCana Oil & Gas (EnCana) in December 2006. The Piceance Creek Gathering System
extends from a connection with EnCanas Great Divide Gathering System located near
Parachute, Colorado, northward through the heart of the Piceance Basin to our 1.7 Bcf/d
Meeker natural gas treating and processing complex, which is currently under construction.
Connectivity to EnCanas Great Divide Gathering System will provide the Piceance Creek
Gathering System with access to natural gas production from the southern portion of the
Piceance basin, including production from EnCanas Mamm Creek field. The Piceance Creek
Gathering System was placed in service in January 2007 and began transporting initial
volumes of approximately 300 MMcf/d of natural gas. |
|
|
§ |
|
The San Juan Gathering System serves natural gas producers in the San Juan Basin of New
Mexico and Colorado. This system gathers natural gas production from over 10,400 wells in
the San Juan Basin and delivers the natural gas to natural gas processing facilities,
including our Chaco facility. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Acadian Gas System purchases, transports, stores and sells natural gas in
Louisiana. The Acadian Gas System is comprised of the 577-mile Cypress pipeline, 438-mile
Acadian pipeline and the 27-mile Evangeline pipeline. The leased Acadian natural gas
storage facility is an integral part of the Acadian Gas System. |
|
|
|
|
We contributed a direct 66% equity interest in Acadian Gas, which is a subsidiary that owns
the Cypress and Acadian pipelines, to Duncan Energy Partners on February 5, 2007. We own
the remaining 34% direct interest in Acadian Gas. For additional information regarding this
subsequent event, see Recent Developments within this Item 1. Acadian Gas owns a 49.5%
indirect interest in the Evangeline pipeline. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Permian Basin System gathers natural gas from wells in the Permian Basin region of
Texas and New Mexico and delivers natural gas into the El Paso Natural Gas, Transwestern
and Oasis pipelines. The Permian Basin System is comprised of the 452-mile Waha system
and 935-mile Carlsbad system. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Alabama Intrastate System mainly gathers coal bed methane from wells in the Black
Warrior Basin in Alabama. This system is also involved in the purchase, transportation
and sale of natural gas. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Encinal Gathering System gathers natural gas from the Olmos and Wilcox formations
and delivers into our Texas Intrastate System, which delivers the natural gas into our
south Texas facilities for processing. We acquired this gathering system in connection
with the Encinal acquisition in July 2006. |
|
|
§ |
|
Our Petal and Hattiesburg underground storage facilities are strategically situated to
serve the domestic Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast natural gas markets and are
capable of delivering in excess of 1.4 Bcf/d of natural gas into five interstate pipeline
systems. |
Offshore Pipelines & Services
Our
Offshore Pipelines & Services business segment includes
(i) approximately 1,586 miles of
offshore natural gas pipelines strategically located to serve production areas including some of
the most active drilling and development regions in the Gulf of Mexico, (ii) approximately 863
miles of offshore Gulf of Mexico crude oil pipeline systems and (iii) six multi-purpose offshore
hub platforms located in the Gulf of Mexico with crude oil or natural gas processing capabilities.
16
Offshore natural gas pipelines. Our offshore natural gas pipeline systems provide for
the gathering and transmission of natural gas from production developments located in the Gulf of
Mexico, primarily offshore Louisiana and Texas. Typically, these systems receive natural gas from
producers, other pipelines and shippers through system interconnects and transport the natural gas
to various downstream pipelines, including major interstate transmission pipelines that access
multiple markets in the eastern half of the United States.
Our revenues from offshore natural gas pipelines are derived from fee-based agreements and are
typically based on transportation fees per unit of volume transported (typically in MMBtus)
multiplied by the volume delivered. These transportation agreements tend to be long-term in
nature, often involving life-of-reserve commitments with firm and interruptible components. We do
not take title to the natural gas volumes that are transported on our natural gas pipeline systems;
rather, the shipper retains title and the associated commodity price risk.
Offshore oil pipelines. We own interests in several offshore oil pipeline systems,
which are located in the vicinity of oil-producing areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Typically, these
systems receive crude oil from offshore production developments, other pipelines or shippers
through system interconnects and deliver the oil to either onshore locations or to other offshore
interconnecting pipelines.
The majority of revenues from our offshore crude oil pipelines are derived from purchase and
sale arrangements whereby we purchase oil from shippers at various receipt points along our crude
oil pipelines for an index-based price (less a price differential) and sell the oil back to the
shippers at various redelivery points at the same index-based price. Net revenue recognized from
such arrangements is based on a price differential per unit of volume (typically in barrels)
multiplied by the volume delivered. In addition, certain of our offshore crude oil pipelines
generate revenues based upon a transportation fee per unit of volume (typically in barrels)
multiplied by the volume delivered to the customer. A substantial portion of the revenues
generated by our offshore crude oil pipeline systems are attributable to (i) production from
reserves committed under long-term contracts for the productive life of the relevant field or (ii)
contracts for the purchase and sale of crude oil with terms from two to twelve months. The
revenues we earn for our services are dependent on the volume of crude oil to be delivered and the
amount and term of the reserve commitment by the customer.
Offshore platforms. We have ownership interests in six multi-purpose offshore hub
platforms located in the Gulf of Mexico with crude oil or natural gas processing capabilities.
Offshore platforms are critical components of the offshore infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico,
supporting drilling and producing operations, and therefore play a key role in the overall
development of offshore oil and natural gas reserves. Platforms are used to: (i) interconnect with
the offshore pipeline grid; (ii) provide an efficient means to perform pipeline maintenance; (iii)
locate compression, separation, production handling and other facilities; (iv) conduct drilling
operations during the initial development phase of an oil and natural gas property; and (v) process
off-lease production.
Revenues from offshore platform services generally consist of demand payments and commodity
charges. Demand fees represent charges to customers who use our offshore platforms regardless of
the volume the customer delivers to the platform. Revenues from commodity charges are based on a
fixed-fee per unit of volume delivered to the platform (typically per MMcf of natural gas or per
barrel of crude oil) multiplied by the total volume of each product delivered. Contracts for
platform services often include both demand payments and commodity charges, but demand payments
generally expire after a contractually fixed period of time and in some instances may be subject to
cancellation by customers.
Seasonality. Our offshore operations exhibit little to no effects of seasonality;
however, they may be affected by weather events such as hurricanes and tropical storms in the Gulf
of Mexico.
Competition. Within their market area, our offshore natural gas and oil pipelines
compete with other pipelines (both regulated and unregulated systems) primarily on the basis of
price (in terms of transportation fees), available capacity and connections to downstream markets.
To a limited extent, our competition includes other offshore pipeline systems, built, owned and
operated by producers to handle
17
their own production and, as capacity is available, production for
others. We compete with other platform service providers on the basis of proximity and access to
existing reserves and pipeline systems, as well as costs and rates. Furthermore, our competitors
may possess greater capital resources than we have available, which could enable them to address
business opportunities more quickly than us.
Properties. The following table summarizes the significant assets of our Offshore
Pipelines & Services business segment at February 5, 2007, all of which are located in the Gulf of
Mexico primarily offshore Louisiana and Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our |
|
|
|
|
|
Water |
|
|
Approximate
Net Capacity |
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
Length |
|
|
Depth |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
Crude Oil |
|
Description of Asset |
|
Interest |
|
(Miles) |
|
|
(Feet) |
|
|
(MMcf/d) |
|
|
(MPBD) |
|
Offshore natural gas pipelines: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VESCO Gathering System |
|
13.1% |
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
800 |
|
|
|
|
|
Manta Ray Offshore Gathering System |
|
25.7% |
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
|
|
High Island Offshore System |
|
100% |
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
Viosca Knoll Gathering System |
|
100% |
|
|
164 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Green Canyon Laterals |
|
Various (1) |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
649 |
|
|
|
|
|
Anaconda Gathering System (2) |
|
100% |
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
|
|
Independence Trail (3) |
|
100% |
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nautilus System |
|
25.7% |
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
|
|
East Breaks System |
|
100% |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix Gathering System |
|
100% |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nemo Gathering System |
|
33.9% |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
|
|
Falcon Natural Gas Pipeline |
|
100% |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total miles |
|
|
|
|
1,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offshore crude oil pipelines: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline |
|
50% |
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
Poseidon Oil Pipeline System |
|
36% |
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144 |
|
Constitution Oil Pipeline |
|
100% |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
Allegheny Oil Pipeline |
|
100% |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
Marco Polo Oil Pipeline |
|
100% |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120 |
|
Typhoon Oil Pipeline |
|
100% |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
Tarantula Oil Pipeline |
|
100% |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total miles |
|
|
|
|
863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offshore platforms: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independence Hub(3) |
|
80% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
NA |
Marco Polo |
|
50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Viosca Knoll 817 |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
671 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Garden Banks 72 |
|
50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
518 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
East Cameron 373 |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
441 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Falcon Nest |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
389 |
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Our ownership interests in the Green Canyon Laterals ranges from 2.7% to 100%. |
|
(2) |
|
Data shown for the Anaconda Gathering System includes the 30-mile Constitution natural gas pipeline, which we constructed and placed in-service in 2006. The Constitution
natural gas pipeline has a net capacity of approximately 200 MMcf/d. |
|
(3) |
|
Construction of the Independence Trail pipeline and
Independence Hub platform are substantially complete. The
Independence Hub platform and Independence Trail pipeline are expected to begin operations during the second half of 2007. |
We operate our offshore natural gas pipelines, with the exception of the Manta Ray
Offshore Gathering System, Nautilus System, Nemo Gathering System and certain components of the
Green Canyon Laterals. On a weighted-average basis, aggregate utilization rates for our offshore
natural gas pipelines were approximately 26%, 30% and 32% during the years ended December 31, 2006,
2005 and 2004, respectively. These rates reflect the periods in which we owned an interest in such
assets.
18
The following information highlights the general use of each of our principal Gulf of Mexico
offshore natural gas pipelines.
|
§ |
|
The VESCO Gathering System is a 260-mile regulated natural gas pipeline system
associated with the Venice natural gas processing plant in Louisiana. This pipeline is an
integral part of the natural gas processing operations of VESCO. Our 13.1% interest in
this system is held through our equity method investment in VESCO. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Manta Ray Offshore Gathering System transports natural gas from producing fields
located in the Green Canyon, Southern Green Canyon, Ship Shoal, South Timbalier and Ewing
Bank areas of the Gulf of Mexico to numerous downstream pipelines, including our Nautilus
System. Our ownership interest in this pipeline is held indirectly through our equity
method investment in Neptune Pipeline Company, L.L.C. |
|
|
§ |
|
The High Island Offshore System (HIOS) transports natural gas from producing fields
located in the Galveston, Garden Banks, West Cameron, High Island and East Breaks areas of
the Gulf of Mexico to the ANR pipeline system, Tennessee Gas Pipeline and the U-T Offshore
System. The HIOS pipeline system includes 10 pipeline junction and service platforms. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Viosca Knoll Gathering System transports natural gas from producing fields located
in the Main Pass, Mississippi Canyon and Viosca Knoll areas to several major interstate
pipelines, including the Tennessee Gas, Columbia Gulf, Southern Natural, Transco, Dauphin
Island Gathering System and Destin Pipelines. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Green Canyon Laterals consist of 28 pipeline laterals (which are extensions of
natural gas pipelines) that transport natural gas to downstream pipelines, including the
HIOS. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Anaconda Gathering System connects our Marco Polo platform and the third-party
owned Constitution platform to the ANR pipeline system. The Anaconda Gathering System
includes our wholly-owned Typhoon, Marco Polo and Constitution natural gas pipelines. The
Constitution natural gas pipeline was completed in late 2005 and serves the Constitution
and Ticonderoga fields located in the central Gulf of Mexico. We initiated flows into our
Constitution natural gas pipeline during the first quarter of 2006. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Independence Trail natural gas pipeline will transport natural gas from our
Independence Hub platform to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. Natural gas transported on the
Independence Trail will come from production fields in the Atwater Valley, DeSoto Canyon,
Lloyd Ridge and Mississippi Canyon areas of the Gulf of Mexico. This pipeline includes
one pipeline junction platform at West Delta 68. We completed construction of the
Independence Trail natural gas pipeline during 2006, with an expected
in-service date during the second half of 2007. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Nautilus System connects our Manta Ray Offshore Gathering System to our Neptune
natural gas processing plant on the Louisiana gulf coast. Our ownership interest in this
pipeline is held indirectly through our equity method investment in Neptune Pipeline
Company, L.L.C. |
|
|
§ |
|
The East Breaks System connects the Hoover-Diana deepwater platform located in Alaminos
Canyon Block 25 to the HIOS pipeline system. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Phoenix Gathering System connects the Red Hawk platform located in the Garden Banks
area of the Gulf of Mexico to the ANR pipeline system. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Nemo Gathering System transports natural gas from Green Canyon developments to an
interconnect with our Manta Ray Offshore Gathering System. Our ownership interest in this
pipeline is held indirectly through our equity method investment in Nemo Gathering
Company, LLC. |
19
|
§ |
|
The Falcon Natural Gas Pipeline delivers natural gas processed at our Falcon Nest
platform to a connection with the Central Texas Gathering System located on the Brazos
Addition Block 133 platform. |
The following information highlights the general use of each of our principal Gulf of Mexico
offshore crude oil pipelines, all of which we operate. On a weighted-average basis, aggregate
utilization rates for our offshore crude oil pipelines were approximately 18%, 17% and 27% during
the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These rates reflect the periods in
which we owned an interest in such assets.
|
§ |
|
The Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline, which commenced operations during the first quarter
of 2005, gathers crude oil production from deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico,
primarily the South Green Canyon area, for delivery to refineries and terminals in
southeast Texas. This pipeline includes one pipeline junction platform. Our 50% joint
control ownership interest in this
pipeline is held indirectly through our equity method investment in Cameron Highway Oil
Pipeline Company (Cameron Highway). |
|
|
§ |
|
The Poseidon Oil Pipeline System gathers production from the outer continental shelf
and deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico for delivery to onshore locations in south
Louisiana. This system includes one pipeline junction platform. Our ownership interest
in this pipeline is held indirectly through our equity method investment in Poseidon Oil
Pipeline Company, LLC. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Constitution Oil Pipeline was completed in late 2005 and serves the Constitution
and Ticonderoga fields located in the central Gulf of Mexico. Initial throughput volumes
were received during the first quarter of 2006. The Constitution Oil Pipeline connects
with our Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline and Poseidon Oil Pipeline System at a pipeline
junction platform. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Allegheny Oil Pipeline connects the Allegheny and South Timbalier 316 platforms in
the Green Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico with our Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline and
Poseidon Oil Pipeline System. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Marco Polo Oil Pipeline transports crude oil from our Marco Polo platform to an
interconnect with our Allegheny Oil Pipeline in Green Canyon Block 164. |
The following information highlights the general use of each of our principal Gulf of Mexico
offshore platforms. We operate these offshore platforms with the exception of the Marco Polo
platform and East Cameron 373. Anadarko will operate the Independence Hub platform once it becomes
operational.
On a weighted-average basis, utilization rates with respect to natural gas processing capacity
of our offshore platforms were approximately 17%, 27% and 33% during the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Likewise, utilization rates for our offshore platforms were
approximately 19%, 9% and 14%, respectively, in connection with platform crude oil processing
capacity. These rates reflect the periods in which we owned an interest in such assets. In
addition to the offshore platforms we identified in the preceding table, we own or have an
ownership interest in fifteen pipeline junction and service platforms. Our pipeline junction and
service platforms do not have any processing capacity.
|
§ |
|
The Independence Hub platform is located in Mississippi Canyon Block 920. This platform
will process crude oil and natural gas gathered from production fields in the Atwater
Valley, DeSoto Canyon, Lloyd Ridge and Mississippi Canyon areas of the Gulf of Mexico. We
expect to complete construction of the Independence Hub platform in March 2007, with an
expected in-service date during the second half of 2007. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Marco Polo platform, which is located in Green Canyon Block 608, processes crude
oil and natural gas from the Marco Polo, K2, and K2 North fields and should begin
processing production from the Genghis Khan field in the second quarter of 2007. These
fields are located in the South |
20
|
|
|
Green Canyon area of the Gulf of Mexico. Our 50% joint
control ownership interest in this platform is held indirectly through our equity method
investment in Deepwater Gateway LLC. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Viosca Knoll 817 platform is centrally located on our Viosca Knoll Gathering
System. This platform primarily serves as a base for gathering deepwater production in
the area, including the Ram Powell development. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Garden Banks 72 platform serves as a base for gathering deepwater production from
the Garden Banks Block 161 development and the Garden Banks Block 378 and 158 leases.
This platform also serves as a junction platform for our Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline and
Poseidon Oil Pipeline System. |
|
|
§ |
|
The East Cameron 373 platform serves as the host for East Cameron Block 373 production
and also processes production from Garden Banks Blocks 108, 152, 197, 200 and 201. |
|
|
§ |
|
The Falcon Nest platform currently processes natural gas from the Falcon field. |
Petrochemical Services
Our Petrochemical Services business segment includes four propylene fractionation facilities,
an isomerization complex, and an octane additive production facility. This segment also includes
approximately 679 miles of petrochemical pipeline systems.
Propylene fractionation. Our propylene fractionation business consists primarily of
four propylene fractionation facilities located in Texas and Louisiana, and approximately 609 miles
of various propylene pipeline systems. These operations also include an export facility located on
the Houston Ship Channel and our petrochemical marketing activities.
In general, propylene fractionation plants separate refinery grade propylene (a mixture of
propane and propylene) into either polymer grade propylene or chemical grade propylene along with
by-products of propane and mixed butane. Polymer grade propylene can also be produced from
chemical grade propylene feedstock. Chemical grade propylene is also a by-product of olefin
(ethylene) production. The demand for polymer grade propylene is attributable to the manufacture
of polypropylene, which has a variety of end uses, including packaging film, fiber for carpets and
upholstery and molded plastic parts for appliance, automotive, houseware and medical products.
Chemical grade propylene is a basic petrochemical used in plastics, synthetic fibers and foams.
Results of operations for our polymer grade propylene plants are generally dependent upon toll
processing arrangements and petrochemical marketing activities. These processing arrangements
typically include a base-processing fee per gallon (or other unit of measurement) subject to
adjustment for changes in natural gas, electricity and labor costs, which are the primary costs of
propylene fractionation and isomerization operations. Our petrochemical marketing activities
generate revenues from the sale and delivery of products obtained through our processing activities
and purchases from third parties on the open market. In general, we sell our petrochemical
products at market-related prices, which may include pricing differentials for such factors as
delivery location.
As part of our petrochemical marketing activities, we have several long-term polymer grade
propylene sales agreements. To meet our petrochemical marketing obligations, we have entered into
several agreements to purchase refinery grade propylene. To limit the exposure of our petrochemical
marketing activities to price risk, we attempt to match the timing and price of our feedstock
purchases with those of the sales of end products.
Isomerization. Our isomerization business includes three butamer reactor units and
eight associated deisobutanizer units located in Mont Belvieu, Texas, which comprise the largest
commercial isomerization complex in the United States. In addition, this business includes a
70-mile pipeline system used to transport high-purity isobutane from Mont Belvieu, Texas to Port
Neches, Texas.
21
Our commercial isomerization units convert normal butane into mixed butane, which is
subsequently fractionated into normal butane, isobutane and high purity isobutane. Isobutane is
used in the production of alkylate for motor gasoline, propylene oxide, isooctane and methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). The demand for commercial isomerization services depends upon the
industrys requirements for high purity isobutane and isobutane in excess of naturally occurring
isobutane produced from NGL fractionation and refinery operations.
The results of operation of this business are generally dependent upon the volume of normal
and mixed butanes processed and the level of toll processing fees charged to customers. Our
isomerization facility provides processing services to meet the needs of third-party customers and
our other businesses, including our NGL marketing activities and octane additive production
facility.
Octane enhancement. We own and operate an octane additive production facility located
in Mont Belvieu, Texas designed to produce isooctane, which is an additive used in reformulated
motor gasoline
blends to increase octane, and isobutylene. The facility produces isooctane and isobutylene
using feedstocks of high-purity isobutane, which is supplied using production from our
isomerization units.
Prior to mid-2005, the facility produced MTBE. The production of MTBE was primarily driven by
oxygenated fuel programs enacted under the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which mandated
the use of reformulated gasoline in certain areas of the United States. In recent years, MTBE has
been detected in water supplies. The major source of ground water contamination appears to be
leaks from underground storage tanks. As a result of environmental concerns, several states enacted
legislation to ban or significantly limit the use of MTBE in motor gasoline within their
jurisdictions. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 eliminated the requirement of oxygenates
in reformulated motor gasoline. As a result of such developments, we modified the facility to
produce isooctane and isobutylene. Depending on the outcome of various factors, the facility may
be further modified in the future to produce alkylate, another motor gasoline additive.
Seasonality. Overall, the propylene fractionation business exhibits little
seasonality. Our isomerization operations experience slightly higher demand in the spring and
summer months due to the demand for isobutane-based fuel additives used in the production of motor
gasoline. Likewise, isooctane prices have been stronger during the April to September period of
each year, which corresponds with the summer driving season.
Competition. We compete with numerous producers of polymer grade propylene, which
include many of the major refiners and petrochemical companies on the Gulf Coast. Generally, the
propylene fractionation business competes in terms of the level of toll processing fees charged and
access to pipeline and storage infrastructure. Our petrochemical marketing activities encounter
competition from fully integrated oil companies and various petrochemical companies. Our
petrochemical marketing competitors have varying levels of financial and personnel resources and
competition generally revolves around price, service, logistics and location.
In the isomerization market, we compete primarily with facilities located in Kansas, Louisiana
and New Mexico. Competitive factors affecting this business include the level of toll processing
fees charged, the quality of isobutane that can be produced and access to pipeline and storage
infrastructure. We also compete with other octane additive manufacturing companies primarily on the
basis of price
22
Properties. The following table summarizes the significant assets of our Petrochemical
Services segment at February 5, 2007, all of which we operate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our |
|
Plant |
|
|
Plant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
Capacity |
|
|
Capacity |
|
|
Length |
|
Description of Asset |
|
Location(s) |
|
Interest |
|
(MBPD) |
|
|
(MBPD) |
|
|
(Miles) |
|
Propylene fractionation facilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mont Belvieu (3 plants) |
|
Texas |
|
Various (1) |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
BRPC |
|
Louisiana |
|
30% (2) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capacity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isomerization facility: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mont Belvieu (3) |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petrochemical pipelines: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lou-Tex and Sabine Propylene |
|
Texas, Louisiana |
|
100%(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
284 |
|
Texas City RGP Gathering System |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
108 |
|
Lake Charles |
|
Texas, Louisiana |
|
50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83 |
|
Others (6 systems)(5) |
|
Texas, Louisiana |
|
Various (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
679 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Octane additive production facilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mont Belvieu |
|
Texas |
|
100% |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We own a 54.6% interest and lease the remaining 45.4% of a facility having 17 MBPD of plant capacity. We own a 66.7% interest in a second facility having 41 MBPD of total plant capacity.
We own 100% of the remaining facility, which has 14 MBPD of plant capacity. |
|
(2) |
|
Our ownership interest in this facility is held indirectly through our equity method investment in Baton Rouge Propylene Concentrator LLC (BRPC). |
|
(3) |
|
On a weighted-average basis, utilization rates for this facility were approximately 70% during each of 2006 and 2005 and 66% during 2004. |
|
(4) |
|
Reflects consolidated ownership of these pipelines by the Operating Partnership (34%) and Duncan Energy Partners (66%). |
|
(5) |
|
Includes our Texas City PGP Gathering System and Port Neches, Bay Area, La Porte, Port Arthur and Bayport petrochemical pipelines. |
|
(6) |
|
We own 100% of these pipelines with the exception of the 17-mile La Porte pipeline, in which we hold an aggregate 50% indirect interest through our equity method investments in La Porte
Pipeline Company L.P. and La Porte Pipeline GP, L.L.C. |
We produce polymer grade propylene at our Mont Belvieu location and chemical grade
propylene at our BRPC facility. The primary purpose of the BRPC unit is to fractionate refinery
grade propylene produced by an affiliate of ExxonMobil Corporation into chemical grade propylene.
The production of polymer grade propylene from our Mont Belvieu plants is primarily used in our
petrochemical marketing activities. On a weighted-average basis, aggregate utilization rates of
our propylene fractionation facilities were approximately 86%, 83% and 86% during the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. This business segment also includes an
above-ground polymer grade propylene storage and export facility located in Seabrook, Texas. This
facility can load vessels at rates up to 5,000 barrels per hour.
The Lou-Tex propylene pipeline is used to transport chemical grade propylene from Sorrento,
Louisiana to Mont Belvieu, Texas. The Sabine pipeline is used to transport polymer grade propylene
from Port Arthur, Texas to a pipeline interconnect in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. We own these
pipelines through our subsidiaries, Lou-Tex Propylene and Sabine Propylene.
On February 5, 2007, we contributed a direct 66% equity interest in our subsidiaries that own
the Lou-Tex Propylene and Sabine Propylene pipelines to Duncan Energy Partners. We own the
remaining 34% direct interest in these subsidiaries. For additional information regarding this
subsequent event, see Recent Developments within this Item 1.
The maximum number of barrels that our petrochemical pipelines can transport per day depends
upon the operating balance achieved at a given point in time between various segments of the
systems. Since the operating balance is dependent upon the mix of products to be shipped and
demand levels at various delivery points, the exact capacities of our petrochemical pipelines
cannot be determined. We measure the utilization rates of such pipelines in terms of net
throughput (i.e., on a net basis in accordance
23
with our ownership interest). Total net throughput
volumes for these pipelines were 97 MBPD, 64 MBPD and 71 MBPD during the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Our octane additive facility currently has an isooctane production capacity of 12.0 MBPD. The
facility was capable of producing only MTBE prior to mid-2005 at a rate up to 15.5 MBPD. On a
weighted-average combined product basis, utilization rates for this facility were approximately
45%, 29% and 83% during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Title to Properties
Our real property holdings fall into two basic categories: (i) parcels that we and our
unconsolidated affiliates own in fee (e.g., we own the land upon which our Mont Belvieu NGL
fractionator is constructed) and (ii) parcels in which our interests and those of our
unconsolidated affiliates are derived from leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits or licenses
from landowners or governmental authorities permitting the use of such land for our operations.
The fee sites upon which our significant facilities are
located have been owned by us or our predecessors in title for many years without any material
challenge known to us relating to title to the land upon which the assets are located, and we
believe that we have satisfactory title to such fee sites. We and our unconsolidated affiliates
have no knowledge of any challenge to the underlying fee title of any material lease, easement,
right-of-way, permit or license held by us or to our rights pursuant to any material lease,
easement, right-of-way, permit or license, and we believe that we have satisfactory rights pursuant
to all of our material leases, easements, rights-of-way, permits and licenses.
Capital Spending
We are committed to the long-term growth and viability of Enterprise Products Partners. Part
of our business strategy involves expansion through business combinations, growth capital projects
and investments in joint ventures with industry partners. We believe that we are positioned to
continue to grow our system of assets through the construction of new facilities and to capitalize
on expected future production increases from such areas as the Piceance Basin of western Colorado,
the Greater Green River Basin in Wyoming, Barnett Shale in North Texas, and the deepwater Gulf of
Mexico. For a discussion of our capital spending program, see Capital Spending included under
Item 7 of this annual report.
Regulation
Interstate Regulation
Liquids Pipelines. Certain of our crude oil and NGL pipeline systems (collectively
referred to as liquids pipelines) are interstate common carrier pipelines subject to regulation
by the FERC under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Energy
Policy Act). The ICA prescribes that interstate tariffs must be just and reasonable and must not
be unduly discriminatory or confer any undue preference upon any shipper. FERC regulations require
that interstate oil pipeline transportation rates be filed with the FERC and posted publicly.
The ICA permits interested persons to challenge proposed new or changed rates and authorizes
the FERC to investigate such rates and to suspend their effectiveness for a period of up to seven
months. If, upon completion of an investigation, the FERC finds that the new or changed rate is
unlawful, it may require the carrier to refund the revenues in excess of the prior tariff during
the term of the investigation. The FERC may also investigate, upon complaint or on its own motion,
rates that are already in effect and may order a carrier to change its rates prospectively. Upon
an appropriate showing, a shipper may obtain reparations for damages sustained for a period of up
to two years prior to the filing of its complaint.
The Energy Policy Act deemed liquids pipeline rates that were in effect for the twelve months
preceding enactment and that had not been subject to complaint, protest or investigation, just and
reasonable under the Energy Policy Act (i.e., grandfathered). Some, but not all, our interstate
liquids pipeline rates are considered grandfathered under the Energy Policy Act. Certain other
rates for our
24
interstate liquids pipeline services are charged pursuant to a FERC-approved indexing
methodology, which allows a pipeline to charge rates up to a prescribed ceiling that changes
annually based on the change from year-to-year in the Producer Price Index for finished goods
(PPI). A rate increase within the indexed rate ceiling is presumed to be just and reasonable
unless a protesting party can demonstrate that the rate increase is substantially in excess of the
pipelines costs. Effective March 21, 2006, FERC concluded that for the five-year period
commencing July 1, 2006, liquids pipelines charging indexed rates may adjust their indexed ceilings
annually by the PPI plus 1.3%.
As an alternative to using the indexing methodology, interstate liquids pipelines may elect to
support rate filings by using a cost-of-service methodology, competitive market showings
(Market-Based Rates) or agreements with all of the pipelines shippers that the rate is
acceptable.
Because of the complexity of ratemaking, the lawfulness of any rate is never assured. The
FERC uses prescribed rate methodologies for approving regulated tariff rates for transporting crude
oil and refined products. These methodologies may limit our ability to set rates based on our
actual costs or may delay the
use of rates reflecting higher costs. Changes in the FERCs approved methodology for
approving rates could adversely affect us. Adverse decisions by the FERC in approving our
regulated rates could adversely affect our cash flow. Challenges to our tariff rates could be
filed with the FERC. We believe the transportation rates currently charged by our interstate
common carrier liquids pipelines are in accordance with the ICA. However, we cannot predict the
rates we will be allowed to charge in the future for transportation services by such pipelines.
The Lou-Tex Propylene pipeline is an interstate common carrier pipeline regulated under the
ICA by the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a part of the United States Department of
Transportation. If the STB finds that a carriers rates are not just and reasonable or are unduly
discriminatory or preferential, it may prescribe a reasonable rate. In determining a reasonable
rate, the STB will consider, among other factors, the effect of the rate on the volumes transported
by that carrier, the carriers revenue needs and the availability of other economic transportation
alternatives.
The STB does not need to provide rate relief unless shippers lack effective competitive
alternatives. If the STB determines that effective competitive alternatives are not available and a
pipeline holds market power, then we may be required to show that our rates are reasonable.
Natural Gas Pipelines. Our interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities are
regulated by the FERC under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA). Under the NGA, the rates for
service on these interstate facilities must be just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.
We operate these interstate facilities pursuant to tariffs which set forth terms and conditions of
service. These tariffs must be filed with and approved by the FERC pursuant to its regulations and
orders. Our tariff rates may be lowered by the FERC, on its own initiative, or as a result of
challenges to the rates by third parties if they are found unlawful and the FERC could require
refunds of amounts collected under such unlawful rates. Our rates are
derived based on a cost-of-service methodology.
One element of the FERCs cost-of-service methodology as it affects partnerships such as ours
is an income tax allowance. Pursuant to an order on remand of a decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in BP West Coast, LLC v. FERC and a policy statement
regarding income tax allowance issued by the FERC, the FERC will permit a pipeline to include in
cost-of-service a tax allowance to reflect actual or potential tax liability on its public utility
income attributable to all partnership or limited liability company interests if the ultimate owner
of the interest has an actual or potential income tax liability on such income. Whether a
pipelines owners have such actual or potential income tax liability will be reviewed by the FERC
on a case by case basis. Both the FERCs income tax allowance policy and its initial application
in an individual pipeline proceeding are being challenged in the court of appeals.
The FERCs authority over companies that provide natural gas pipeline transportation or
storage services also includes (i) certification, construction, and operation of new facilities;
(ii) the acquisition, extension, disposition or abandonment of such facilities; (iii) the
maintenance of accounts and records; (iv) the initiation, extension and discontinuation of covered
services; and (v) various other matters. In addition,
25
pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
the NGA and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) were amended to increase civil and criminal
penalties for any violation of the NGA, NGPA and any rules, regulations or orders of the FERC up to
$1 million per day per violation.
Offshore Pipelines. Our offshore pipeline systems are subject to federal regulation
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which requires that all pipelines operating
on or across the outer continental shelf provide nondiscriminatory transportation service.
Intrastate Regulation
Our intrastate NGL and natural gas pipelines are subject to regulation in many states,
including Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas. Certain of our
intrastate pipelines are subject to regulation by the FERC under the NGPA and provide
transportation and storage service pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA and the FERCs regulations.
Under Section 311 of the NGPA, an intrastate pipeline company may transport gas for an interstate
pipeline or any local distribution company served by
an interstate pipeline. We are required to provide these services on an open and nondiscriminatory
basis. The rates for 311 service may be established by the FERC or the respective state agency,
but may not exceed a fair and equitable rate.
Certain other of our pipeline systems operate within a single state and provide intrastate
pipeline transportation services. These pipeline systems are subject to various regulations and
statutes mandated by state regulatory authorities. Although the applicable state statutes and
regulations vary, they generally require that intrastate pipelines publish tariffs setting forth
all rates, rules and regulations applying to intrastate service, and generally require that
pipeline rates and practices be reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Shippers may also challenge our
intrastate tariff rates and practices on our pipelines.
Environmental and Safety Matters
General
Our operations are subject to multiple environmental obligations and potential liabilities
under a variety of federal, state and local laws and regulations. These include, without
limitation: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; the Clean Air Act; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the
Clean Water Act; the Oil Pollution Act; and analogous state and local laws and regulations. Such
laws and regulations affect many aspects of our present and future operations, and generally
require us to obtain and comply with a wide variety of environmental registrations, licenses,
permits, inspections and other approvals, with respect to air emissions, water quality, wastewater
discharges, and solid and hazardous waste management. Failure to comply with these requirements may
expose us to fines, penalties and/or interruptions in our operations that could influence our
results of operations. If an accidental leak, spill or release of hazardous substances occurs at a
facility that we own, operate or otherwise use, or where we send materials for treatment or
disposal, we could be held jointly and severally liable for all resulting liabilities, including
investigation, remedial and clean-up costs. Likewise, we could be required to remove or remediate
previously disposed wastes or property contamination, including groundwater contamination. Any or
all of this could materially affect our results of operations and cash flows.
We believe our operations are in material compliance with applicable environmental and safety
laws and regulations, other than certain matters discussed under Item 3 of this annual report, and
that compliance with existing environmental and safety laws and regulations are not expected to
have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Environmental and safety laws and regulations are subject to change. The clear trend in
environmental regulation is to place more restrictions and limitations on activities that may be
perceived to affect the environment, and thus there can be no assurance as to the amount or timing
of future expenditures for environmental regulation compliance or remediation, and actual future
expenditures may be different from the amounts we currently anticipate. Revised or additional
regulations that result in increased compliance costs or additional operating
26
restrictions,
particularly if those costs are not fully recoverable from our customers, could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Water
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as renamed and amended as the Clean Water Act
(CWA), and analogous state laws impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge
of pollutants into navigable waters of the United States, as well as state waters. Permits must be
obtained to discharge pollutants into these waters. The Clean Water Act imposes substantial
potential liability for the removal and remediation of pollutants.
The primary federal law for oil spill liability is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),
which addresses three principal areas of oil pollution prevention, containment and cleanup, and
liability. OPA subjects owners of certain facilities to strict, joint and potentially unlimited
liability for containment and removal costs, natural resource damages and certain other
consequences of an oil spill, where such spill is into navigable waters, along shorelines or in the
exclusive economic zone of the U.S. Any unpermitted
release of petroleum or other pollutants from our operations could also result in fines or
penalties. OPA applies to vessels, offshore platforms and onshore facilities, including terminals,
pipelines and transfer facilities. In order to handle, store or transport oil, shore facilities
are required to file oil spill response plans with the United States Coast Guard, the United States
Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) or the EPA, as appropriate.
Some states maintain groundwater protection programs that require permits for discharges or
operations that may impact groundwater conditions. Contamination resulting from spills or releases
of petroleum products is an inherent risk within our industry. To the extent that groundwater
contamination requiring remediation exists along our pipeline systems as a result of past
operation, we believe any such contamination could be controlled or remedied without having a
material adverse effect on our financial position, but such costs are site specific and we cannot
predict that the effect will not be material in the aggregate.
Air Emissions
Our operations are subject to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Clean Air Act) and comparable
state laws and regulations. These laws and regulations regulate emissions of air pollutants from
various industrial sources, including our facilities, and also impose various monitoring and
reporting requirements. Such laws and regulations may require that we obtain pre-approval for the
construction or modification of certain projects or facilities expected to produce air emissions or
result in the increase of existing air emissions, obtain and strictly comply with air permits
containing various emissions and operational limitations, or utilize specific emission control
technologies to limit emissions.
Our permits and related compliance obligations under the Clean Air Act, as well as recent or
soon to be adopted changes to state implementation plans for controlling air emissions in regional,
non-attainment areas, may require our operations to incur capital expenditures to add to or modify
existing air emission control equipment and strategies. In addition, some of our facilities are
included within the categories of hazardous air pollutant sources, which are subject to increasing
regulation under the Clean Air Act and many state laws. Our failure to comply with these
requirements could subject us to monetary penalties, injunctions, conditions or restrictions on
operations, and enforcement actions. We may be required to incur certain capital expenditures in
the future for air pollution control equipment in connection with obtaining and maintaining
operating permits and approvals for air emissions. We believe, however, that such requirements will
not have a material adverse effect on our operations, and the requirements are not expected to be
any more burdensome to us than to any other similarly situated companies.
Congress is currently considering proposed legislation directed at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. It is not possible at this time to predict how legislation that may be enacted to
address greenhouse gas emissions would impact our business. However, future laws and regulations
could result in
27
increased compliance costs or additional operating restrictions, and could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Solid Waste
In our normal operations, we generate hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes, including
hazardous substances, that are subject to the requirements of the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and comparable state laws, which impose detailed requirements for the
handling, storage treatment and disposal of hazardous and solid waste. We also utilize waste
minimization and recycling processes to reduce the volumes of our waste. Amendments to RCRA
required the EPA to promulgate regulations banning the land disposal of all hazardous wastes unless
the waste meets certain treatment standards or the land-disposal method meets certain waste
containment criteria.
Environmental Remediation
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also
known as Superfund, imposes liability, without regard to fault or the legality of the original
act, on
certain classes of persons who contributed to the release of a hazardous substance into the
environment. These persons include the owner or operator of a facility where a release occurred,
transporters that select the site of disposal of hazardous substances and companies that disposed
of or arranged for the disposal of any hazardous substances found at a facility. Under CERCLA,
these persons may be subject to joint and several liability for the costs of cleaning up the
hazardous substances that have been released into the environment, for damages to natural resources
and for the costs of certain health studies. CERCLA also authorizes the EPA and, in some
instances, third parties to take actions in response to threats to the public health or the
environment and to seek to recover the costs they incur from the responsible classes of persons.
It is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal
injury and property damage allegedly caused by hazardous substances or other pollutants released
into the environment. In the course of our operations, our pipeline systems generate wastes that
may fall within CERCLAs definition of a hazardous substance. In the event a disposal facility
previously used by us requires clean up in the future, we may be responsible under CERCLA for all
or part of the costs required to clean up sites at which such wastes have been disposed.
Pipeline Safety Matters
We are subject to regulation by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) under
the Accountable Pipeline and Safety Partnership Act of 1996, sometimes referred to as the Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA), and comparable state statutes relating to the design,
installation, testing, construction, operation, replacement and management of our pipeline
facilities. The HLPSA covers petroleum and petroleum products. The HLPSA requires any entity that
owns or operates pipeline facilities to (i) comply with such regulations, (ii) permit access to and
copying of records, (iii) file certain reports and (iv) provide information as required by the
Secretary of Transportation. We believe that we are in material compliance with these HLPSA
regulations.
We are subject to the DOT regulation requiring qualification of pipeline personnel. The
regulation requires pipeline operators to develop and maintain a written qualification program for
individuals performing covered tasks on pipeline facilities. The intent of this regulation is to
ensure a qualified work force and to reduce the probability and consequence of incidents caused by
human error. The regulation establishes qualification requirements for individuals performing
covered tasks. We believe that we are in material compliance with these DOT regulations.
We are also subject to the DOT Integrity Management regulations, which specify how companies
should assess, evaluate, validate and maintain the integrity of pipeline segments that, in the
event of a release, could impact High Consequence Areas (HCAs). HCAs are defined to include
populated areas, unusually sensitive environmental areas and commercially navigable waterways. The
regulation requires the development and implementation of an Integrity Management Program (IMP)
that utilizes internal pipeline inspection, pressure testing, or other equally effective means to
assess the integrity of HCA pipeline segments. The regulation also requires periodic review of HCA
28
pipeline segments to ensure adequate preventative and mitigative measures exist and that companies
take prompt action to address integrity issues raised by the assessment and analysis. In
compliance with these DOT regulations, we identified our HCA pipeline segments and have developed
an IMP. We believe that the established IMP meets the requirements of these DOT regulations.
Risk Management Plans
We are subject to the EPAs Risk Management Plan (RMP) regulations at certain facilities.
These regulations are intended to work with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) Process
Safety Management regulations (see Safety Matters below) to minimize the offsite consequences of
catastrophic releases. The regulations required us to develop and implement a risk management
program that includes a five-year accident history, an offsite consequence analysis process, a
prevention program and an emergency response program. We believe we are operating in material
compliance with our risk management program.
Safety Matters
Certain of our facilities are also subject to the requirements of the federal OSHA and
comparable state statutes. We believe we are in material compliance with OSHA and state
requirements, including general industry standards, record keeping requirements and monitoring of
occupational exposures.
We are subject to OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) regulations, which are designed to
prevent or minimize the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable or
explosive chemicals. These regulations apply to any process which involves a chemical at or above
the specified thresholds or any process which involves certain flammable liquid or gas. We believe
we are in material compliance with the OSHA PSM regulations.
The OSHA hazard communication standard, the EPA community right-to-know regulations under
Title III of the federal Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act and comparable state statutes
require us to organize and disclose information about the hazardous materials used in our
operations. Certain parts of this information must be reported to employees, state and local
governmental authorities and local citizens upon request.
Employees
As of December 31, 2006, approximately 1,900 persons spend 100% of their time engaged in the
management and operations of our business, and 100% of the cost for their services is reimbursed to
EPCO under an administrative services agreement, except for approximately 80 persons employed and
paid directly by Dixie. In addition approximately 1,100 persons assigned to EPCOs shared service
organizations spend all or a portion of their time engaged in our business. The cost for their
services is reimbursed to EPCO under an administrative services agreement (see Item 13) and is
generally based on the percentage of time such employees perform services on our behalf during the
year. All of the foregoing persons, except the approximately 80 who are employed directly by
Dixie, are employees of EPCO. In addition to the EPCO employees, there are approximately 150
contract maintenance and other various contract personnel engaged in our business. For additional
information regarding our relationship with EPCO, see Item 13 of this annual report.
Available Information
As a large accelerated filer, we electronically file certain documents with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). We file annual reports on Form 10-K; quarterly reports
on Form 10-Q; and current reports on Form 8-K (as appropriate); along with any related amendments
and supplements thereto. From time-to-time, we may also file registration statements and related
documents in connection with equity or debt offerings. You may read and copy any materials we file
with the SEC at the SECs Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. You may
obtain information
29
regarding the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In
addition, the SEC maintains an Internet website at www.sec.gov that contains reports and
other information regarding registrants that file electronically with the SEC.
We provide electronic access to our periodic and current reports on our Internet website,
www.epplp.com. These reports are available as soon as reasonably practicable after we
electronically file such materials with, or furnish such materials to, the SEC. You may also
contact our investor relations department at (713) 381-6521 for paper copies of these reports free
of charge.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
An investment in our common units involves certain risks. If any of these risks were to
occur, our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be materially
adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common units could decline, and you
could lose part or all of your investment.
The following section lists some, but not all, of the key risk factors that may have a direct
impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. The items are
not listed in terms of importance or level of risk.
Risks Relating to Our Business
Changes in demand for and production of hydrocarbon products may materially adversely affect
our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
We operate predominantly in the midstream energy sector which includes gathering,
transporting, processing, fractionating and storing natural gas, NGLs and crude oil. As such, our
results of operations, cash flows and financial condition may be materially adversely affected by
changes in the prices of these hydrocarbon products and by changes in the relative price levels
among these hydrocarbon products. Changes in prices and changes in the relative price levels may
impact demand for hydrocarbon products, which in turn may impact production and volumes of product
for which we provide services. We may also incur price risk to the extent counterparties do not
perform in connection with our marketing of natural gas, NGLs and propylene.
In the past, the prices of natural gas have been extremely volatile, and we expect this
volatility to continue. The NYMEX daily settlement price for natural gas for the prompt month
contract in 2004 ranged from a high of $8.75 per MMBtu to a low of $4.57 per MMBtu. In 2005, the
same index ranged from a high of $15.38 per MMBtu to a low of $5.79 per MMBtu. In 2006, the same
index ranged from a high of $10.63 per MMBtu to a low of $4.20 per MMBtu.
Generally, the prices of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and other hydrocarbon products are
subject to fluctuations in response to changes in supply, demand, market uncertainty and a variety
of additional factors that are impossible to control. Some of these factors include:
|
§ |
|
the level of domestic production; |
|
|
§ |
|
the availability of imported oil and natural gas; |
|
|
§ |
|
actions taken by foreign oil and natural gas producing nations; |
|
|
§ |
|
the availability of transportation systems with adequate capacity; |
|
|
§ |
|
the availability of competitive fuels; |
|
|
§ |
|
fluctuating and seasonal demand for oil, natural gas and NGLs;
|
30
|
§ |
|
the impact of conservation efforts; |
|
|
§ |
|
the extent of governmental regulation and taxation of production; and |
|
|
§ |
|
the overall economic environment. |
We are exposed to natural gas and NGL commodity price risk under certain of our natural gas
processing and gathering and NGL fractionation contracts that provide for our fees to be calculated
based on a regional natural gas or NGL price index or to be paid in-kind by taking title to natural
gas or NGLs. A decrease in natural gas and NGL prices can result in lower margins from these
contracts, which may materially adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and
financial position.
A decline in the volume of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil delivered to our facilities could
adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Our profitability could be materially impacted by a decline in the volume of natural gas, NGLs
and crude oil transported, gathered or processed at our facilities. A material decrease in natural
gas or crude oil production or crude oil refining, as a result of depressed commodity prices, a
decrease in exploration and development activities or otherwise, could result in a decline in the
volume of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil handled by our facilities.
The crude oil, natural gas and NGLs available to our facilities will be derived from reserves
produced from existing wells, which reserves naturally decline over time. To offset this natural
decline, our facilities will need access to additional reserves. Additionally, some of our
facilities will be dependent on reserves that are expected to be produced from newly discovered
properties that are currently being developed.
Exploration and development of new oil and natural gas reserves is capital intensive,
particularly offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Many economic and business factors are beyond our
control and can adversely affect the decision by producers to explore for and develop new reserves.
These factors could include relatively low oil and natural gas prices, cost and availability of
equipment and labor, regulatory changes, capital budget limitations, the lack of available capital
or the probability of success in finding hydrocarbons. For example, a sustained decline in the
price of natural gas and crude oil could result in a decrease in natural gas and crude oil
exploration and development activities in the regions where our facilities are located. This could
result in a decrease in volumes to our offshore platforms, natural gas processing plants, natural
gas, crude oil and NGL pipelines, and NGL fractionators, which would have a material adverse affect
on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position. Additional reserves, if
discovered, may not be developed in the near future or at all.
A decrease in demand for NGL products by the petrochemical, refining or heating industries
could materially adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial position.
A decrease in demand for NGL products by the petrochemical, refining or heating industries,
whether because of general economic conditions, reduced demand by consumers for the end products
made with NGL products, increased competition from petroleum-based products due to pricing
differences, adverse weather conditions, government regulations affecting prices and production
levels of natural gas or the content of motor gasoline or other reasons, could materially adversely
affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial position. For example:
Ethane. Ethane is primarily used in the petrochemical industry as feedstock for
ethylene, one of the basic building blocks for a wide range of plastics and other chemical
products. If natural gas prices increase significantly in relation to NGL product prices or if the
demand for ethylene falls (and, therefore, the demand for ethane by NGL producers falls), it may be
more profitable for natural gas producers to leave the ethane in the natural gas stream to be
burned as fuel than to extract the ethane from the mixed NGL stream for sale as an ethylene
feedstock.
31
Propane. The demand for propane as a heating fuel is significantly affected by weather
conditions. Unusually warm winters could cause the demand for propane to decline significantly and
could cause a significant decline in the volumes of propane that we transport.
Isobutane. A reduction in demand for motor gasoline additives may reduce demand for
isobutane. During periods in which the difference in market prices between isobutane and normal
butane is low or inventory values are high relative to current prices for normal butane or
isobutane, our operating margin from selling isobutane could be reduced.
Propylene. Propylene is sold to petrochemical companies for a variety of uses,
principally for the production of polypropylene. Propylene is subject to rapid and material price
fluctuations. Any downturn in the domestic or international economy could cause reduced demand for,
and an oversupply of propylene, which could cause a reduction in the volumes of propylene that we
transport.
We face competition from third parties in our midstream businesses.
Even if reserves exist in the areas accessed by our facilities and are ultimately produced, we
may not be chosen by the producers in these areas to gather, transport, process, fractionate, store
or otherwise handle the hydrocarbons that are produced. We compete with others, including
producers of oil and natural gas, for any such production on the basis of many factors, including
but not limited to:
|
§ |
|
geographic proximity to the production; |
|
|
§ |
|
costs of connection; |
|
|
§ |
|
available capacity; |
|
|
§ |
|
rates; and |
|
|
§ |
|
access to markets. |
Our future debt level may limit our flexibility to obtain additional financing and pursue other
business opportunities.
As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately $5.3 billion of consolidated debt outstanding.
In addition, as of February 5, 2007, Duncan Energy Partners had approximately $200.0 million
outstanding under its credit facility. The amount of our future debt could have significant effects
on our operations, including, among other things:
|
§ |
|
a substantial portion of our cash flow, including that of Duncan Energy Partners, could
be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on our future debt and may not be
available for other purposes, including the payment of distributions on our common units
and capital expenditures; |
|
|
§ |
|
credit rating agencies may view our debt level negatively; |
|
|
§ |
|
covenants contained in our existing and future credit and debt arrangements will
require us to continue to meet financial tests that may adversely affect our flexibility
in planning for and reacting to changes in our business, including possible acquisition
opportunities; |
|
|
§ |
|
our ability to obtain additional financing, if necessary, for working capital, capital
expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes may be impaired or such financing may not be
available on favorable terms; |
32
|
§ |
|
we may be at a competitive disadvantage relative to similar companies that have less
debt; and |
|
|
§ |
|
we may be more vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions as a result of
our significant debt level. |
Our public debt indentures currently do not limit the amount of future indebtedness that we
can create, incur, assume or guarantee. Although our Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility
restricts our ability to incur additional debt above certain levels, any debt we may incur in
compliance with these restrictions may still be substantial. For information regarding our
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility, see Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Our Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility and each of our indentures for our public debt
contain conventional financial covenants and other restrictions. For example, we are prohibited
from making distributions to our partners if such distributions would cause an event of default or
otherwise violate a covenant under our Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. A breach of any of
these restrictions by us could permit our lenders or noteholders, as applicable, to declare all
amounts outstanding under these debt
agreements to be immediately due and payable and, in the case of our Multi-Year Revolving Credit
Facility, to terminate all commitments to extend further credit. For additional information
regarding our Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility, see Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Our ability to access capital markets to raise capital on favorable terms will be affected by
our debt level, the amount of our debt maturing in the next several years and current maturities,
and by prevailing market conditions. Moreover, if the rating agencies were to downgrade our credit
ratings, then we could experience an increase in our borrowing costs, difficulty assessing capital
markets or a reduction in the market price of our common units. Such a development could adversely
affect our ability to obtain financing for working capital, capital expenditures or acquisitions or
to refinance existing indebtedness. If we are unable to access the capital markets on favorable
terms in the future, we might be forced to seek extensions for some of our short-term securities or
to refinance some of our debt obligations through bank credit, as opposed to long-term public debt
securities or equity securities. The price and terms upon which we might receive such extensions
or additional bank credit, if at all, could be more onerous than those contained in existing debt
agreements. Any such arrangements could, in turn, increase the risk that our leverage may
adversely affect our future financial and operating flexibility and thereby impact our ability to
pay cash distributions at expected rates.
We may not be able to fully execute our growth strategy if we encounter illiquid capital
markets or increased competition for investment opportunities.
Our strategy contemplates growth through the development and acquisition of a wide range of
midstream and other energy infrastructure assets while maintaining a strong balance sheet. This
strategy includes constructing and acquiring additional assets and businesses to enhance our
ability to compete effectively and diversifying our asset portfolio, thereby providing more stable
cash flow. We regularly consider and enter into discussions regarding, and are currently
contemplating and/or pursuing, potential joint ventures, stand alone projects or other transactions
that we believe will present opportunities to realize synergies, expand our role in the energy
infrastructure business and increase our market position.
We will require substantial new capital to finance the future development and acquisition of
assets and businesses. Any limitations on our access to capital will impair our ability to execute
this strategy. If the cost of such capital becomes too expensive, our ability to develop or
acquire accretive assets will be limited. We may not be able to raise the necessary funds on
satisfactory terms, if at all. The primary factors that influence our initial cost of equity
include market conditions, fees we pay to underwriters and other offering costs, which include
amounts we pay for legal and accounting services. The primary factors influencing our cost of
borrowing include interest rates, credit spreads, covenants, underwriting or loan origination fees
and similar charges we pay to lenders.
33
In addition, we are experiencing increased competition for the types of assets and businesses
we have historically purchased or acquired. Increased competition for a limited pool of assets
could result in our losing to other bidders more often or acquiring assets at less attractive
prices. Either occurrence would limit our ability to fully execute our growth strategy. Our
inability to execute our growth strategy may materially adversely affect our ability to maintain or
pay higher distributions in the future.
Our growth strategy may adversely affect our results of operations if we do not successfully
integrate the businesses that we acquire or if we substantially increase our indebtedness and
contingent liabilities to make acquisitions.
Our growth strategy includes making accretive acquisitions. As a result, from time to time,
we will evaluate and acquire assets and businesses (either for ourselves or direct Duncan Energy
Partners to do so) that we believe complement our existing operations. We may be unable to
integrate successfully businesses we acquire in the future. We may incur substantial expenses or
encounter delays or other problems in connection with our growth strategy that could negatively
impact our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. Moreover, acquisitions and
business expansions involve numerous risks, including but not limited to:
|
§ |
|
difficulties in the assimilation of the operations, technologies, services and products
of the acquired companies or business segments; |
|
|
§ |
|
establishing the internal controls and procedures that we are required to maintain
under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; |
|
|
§ |
|
managing relationships with new joint venture partners with whom we have not previously
partnered; |
|
|
§ |
|
inefficiencies and complexities that can arise because of unfamiliarity with new assets
and the businesses associated with them, including with their markets; and |
|
|
§ |
|
diversion of the attention of management and other personnel from day-to-day business
to the development or acquisition of new businesses and other business opportunities. |
If consummated, any acquisition or investment would also likely result in the incurrence of
indebtedness and contingent liabilities and an increase in interest expense and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expenses. As a result, our capitalization and results of operations may
change significantly following an acquisition. A substantial increase in our indebtedness and
contingent liabilities could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash
flows and financial condition. In addition, any anticipated benefits of a material acquisition,
such as expected cost savings, may not be fully realized, if at all.
Acquisitions that appear to be accretive may nevertheless reduce our cash from operations on a
per unit basis.
Even if we make acquisitions that we believe will be accretive, these acquisitions may
nevertheless reduce our cash from operations on a per unit basis. Any acquisition involves
potential risks, including, among other things:
|
§ |
|
mistaken assumptions about volumes, revenues and costs, including synergies; |
|
|
§ |
|
an inability to integrate successfully the businesses we acquire; |
|
|
§ |
|
decrease in our liquidity as a result of our using a significant portion of our
available cash or borrowing capacity to finance the acquisition; |
34
|
§ |
|
a significant increase in our interest expense or financial leverage if we incur
additional debt to finance the acquisition; |
|
|
§ |
|
the assumption of unknown liabilities for which we are not indemnified or for which our
indemnity is inadequate; |
|
|
§ |
|
an inability to hire, train or retain qualified personnel to manage and operate our
growing business and assets; |
|
|
§ |
|
limitations on rights to indemnity from the seller; |
|
|
§ |
|
mistaken assumptions about the overall costs of equity or debt; |
|
|
§ |
|
the diversion of managements and employees attention from other business concerns; |
|
|
§ |
|
unforeseen difficulties operating in new product areas or new geographic areas; and |
|
|
§ |
|
customer or key employee losses at the acquired businesses. |
If we consummate any future acquisitions, our capitalization and results of operations may
change significantly, and you will not have the opportunity to evaluate the economic, financial and
other relevant information that we will consider in determining the application of these funds and
other resources.
Our operating cash flows from our capital projects may not be immediate.
We are engaged in several construction projects involving existing and new facilities for
which significant capital has been or will be expended, and our operating cash flow from a
particular project may not increase until a period of time after its completion. For instance, if
we build a new pipeline or platform or expand an existing facility, the design, construction,
development and installation may occur over an extended period of time, and we may not receive any
material increase in operating cash flow from that project until a period of time after it is
placed in service. If we experience any unanticipated or extended delays in generating operating
cash flow from these projects, we may be required to reduce or reprioritize our capital budget,
sell non-core assets, access the capital markets or decrease or limit distributions to unitholders
in order to meet our capital requirements.
Our actual construction, development and acquisition costs could exceed forecasted amounts.
We have significant expenditures for the development and construction of energy infrastructure
assets, including construction and development projects with significant logistical, technological and
staffing challenges. We may not be able to complete our projects at the costs we estimated at the time of
each projects initiation or that we currently estimate. For example, material and labor cost trends
associated with our projects in the Rocky Mountains region have increased since the initiation of these
projects due to factors such as higher transportation costs and the availability of construction personnel.
Similarly, force majeure events such as hurricanes along the Gulf Coast may cause delays, shortages of
skilled labor and additional expenses for these construction and development projects, as were experienced
with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita during 2005.
Our construction of new assets is subject to regulatory, environmental, political, legal and
economic risks, which may result in delays, increased costs or decreased cash flows.
One of the ways we intend to grow our business is through the construction of new midstream
energy assets. The construction of new assets involves numerous operational, regulatory,
environmental, political and legal risks beyond our control and may require the expenditure of
significant amounts of capital. These potential risks include, among other things, the following:
|
§ |
|
we may be unable to complete construction projects on schedule or at the budgeted
cost due to the unavailability of required construction personnel or materials, accidents,
weather conditions or an inability to obtain necessary permits; |
35
|
§ |
|
we will not receive any material increases in revenues until the project is completed,
even though we may have expended considerable funds during the construction phase, which
may be prolonged; |
|
|
§ |
|
we may construct facilities to capture anticipated future growth in production in a
region in which such growth does not materialize; |
|
|
§ |
|
since we are not engaged in the exploration for and development of natural gas
reserves, we may not have access to third-party estimates of reserves in an area prior to
our constructing facilities in the area. As a result, we may construct facilities in
an area where the reserves are materially lower than we anticipate; |
|
|
§ |
|
where we do rely on third-party estimates of reserves in making a decision to construct
facilities, these estimates may prove to be inaccurate because there are numerous
uncertainties inherent in estimating reserves; and |
|
|
§ |
|
we may be unable to obtain rights-of-way to construct additional pipelines or the cost
to do so may be uneconomical. |
A materialization of any of these risks could adversely affect our ability to achieve growth
in the level of our cash flows or realize benefits from expansion opportunities or construction
projects.
One of the connections between our DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System and the Mont Belvieu
facility is a pipeline we have leased from TEPPCO. The initial term of this lease will
expire on September 15, 2007, and if we are unable to construct our planned replacement pipeline or
extend the lease, the operations of our DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System will be interrupted. We
cannot assure you that any construction will not be delayed due to government permits, weather
conditions or other factors beyond our control.
We may not be able to consummate future public offerings of Duncan Energy Partners on terms
that we expect or at all, which would result in less cash available for us to fund our capital
spending program.
Duncan Energy Partners was formed in part to acquire, own and operate midstream energy
businesses of ours. In the future, we may contribute additional equity interests in our
subsidiaries to Duncan Energy Partners and use the proceeds we receive from Duncan Energy Partners
to fund our capital spending program. Although Duncan Energy Partners successfully completed its
initial public offering in February 2007, there is no guarantee that Duncan Energy Partners will be
able to complete future offerings of its securities in amounts that we would expect. If this
occurs, we would have less cash available to fund our capital spending program, which could result
in less cash distributions.
Substantially all of the common units in us that are owned by EPCO and its affiliates are
pledged as security under EPCOs credit facility. Additionally, all of the member interests in
our general partner and all of the common units in us that are owned by Enterprise GP Holdings
are pledged under its credit facility. Upon an event of default under either of these credit
facilities, a change in ownership or control of us could ultimately result.
An affiliate of EPCO has pledged substantially all of its common units in us as security under
its credit facility. EPCOs credit facility contains customary and other events of default
relating to defaults of EPCO and certain of its subsidiaries, including certain defaults by us and
other affiliates of EPCO. An event of default, followed by a foreclosure on EPCOs pledged
collateral, could ultimately result in a change in ownership of us. In addition, the 100%
membership interest in our general partner and the 13,454,498 of our common units that are owned by
Enterprise GP Holdings are pledged under Enterprise GP Holdings credit facility. Enterprise GP
Holdings credit facility contains customary and other events of default. Upon an event of
default, the lenders under Enterprise GP Holdings credit facility could
36
foreclose on Enterprise GP
Holdings assets, which could ultimately result in a change in control of our general partner and a
change in the ownership of our units held by Enterprise GP Holdings.
The credit and risk profile of our general partner and its owners could adversely affect our
credit ratings and profile.
The credit and business risk profiles of the general partner or owners of a general partner
may be factors in credit evaluations of a limited partnership. This is because the general
partner can exercise significant influence over the business activities of the partnership,
including its cash distribution and acquisition strategy and business risk profile. Another factor
that may be considered is the financial condition of the general partner and its owners, including
the degree of their financial leverage and their dependence on cash flow from the partnership to
service their indebtedness.
Entities controlling the owner of our general partner have significant indebtedness
outstanding and are dependent principally on the cash distributions from their general partner and
limited partner equity interests in us, Enterprise GP Holdings and TEPPCO to service such
indebtedness. Any distributions by us, Enterprise GP Holdings and TEPPCO to such entities will be
made only after satisfying our then current obligations to creditors. Although we have taken
certain steps in our organizational structure, financial reporting and contractual relationships to
reflect the separateness of us and our general partner from the
entities that control our general partner, our credit ratings and business risk profile could be
adversely affected if the ratings and risk profiles of Dan L. Duncan or the entities that control
our general partner were viewed as substantially lower or more risky than ours.
The interruption of distributions to us from our subsidiaries and joint ventures may affect our
ability to satisfy our obligations and to make distributions to our partners.
We are a partnership holding company with no business operations and our operating
subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. Our only
significant assets are the ownership interests we own in our subsidiaries and joint ventures. As a
result, we depend upon the earnings and cash flow of our subsidiaries and joint ventures and the
distribution of that cash to us in order to meet our obligations and to allow us to make
distributions to our partners. The ability of our subsidiaries and joint ventures to make
distributions to us may be restricted by, among other things, the provisions of existing and future
indebtedness, applicable state partnership and limited liability company laws and other laws and
regulations, including FERC policies. For example, all cash flows from Evangeline are currently
used to service its debt.
In addition, the charter documents governing our joint ventures typically allow their
respective joint venture management committees sole discretion regarding the occurrence and amount
of distributions. Some of the joint ventures in which we participate have separate credit
agreements that contain various restrictive covenants. Among other things, those covenants may
limit or restrict the joint ventures ability to make distributions to us under certain
circumstances. Accordingly, our joint ventures may be unable to make distributions to us at
current levels if at all.
We may be unable to cause our joint ventures to take or not to take certain actions unless some
or all of our joint venture participants agree.
We participate in several joint ventures. Due to the nature of some of these arrangements,
each participant in these joint ventures has made substantial investments in the joint venture and,
accordingly, has required that the relevant charter documents contain certain features designed to
provide each participant with the opportunity to participate in the management of the joint venture
and to protect its investment, as well as any other assets which may be substantially dependent on
or otherwise affected by the activities of that joint venture. These participation and protective
features customarily include a corporate governance structure that requires at least a
majority-in-interest vote to authorize many basic activities and requires a greater voting interest
(sometimes up to 100%) to authorize more significant activities. Examples of these more
significant activities are large expenditures or contractual commitments, the construction or
acquisition of assets, borrowing money or otherwise raising capital, transactions with
37
affiliates
of a joint venture participant, litigation and transactions not in the ordinary course of business,
among others. Thus, without the concurrence of joint venture participants with enough voting
interests, we may be unable to cause any of our joint ventures to take or not to take certain
actions, even though those actions may be in the best interest of us or the particular joint
venture.
Moreover, any joint venture owner may sell, transfer or otherwise modify its ownership
interest in a joint venture, whether in a transaction involving third parties or the other joint
venture owners. Any such transaction could result in us being required to partner with different
or additional parties.
A natural disaster, catastrophe or other event could result in severe personal injury, property
damage and environmental damage, which could curtail our operations and otherwise materially
adversely affect our cash flow and, accordingly, affect the market price of our common units.
Some of our operations involve risks of personal injury, property damage and environmental
damage, which could curtail our operations and otherwise materially adversely affect our cash flow.
For example, natural gas facilities operate at high pressures, sometimes in excess of 1,100 pounds
per square inch. We also operate oil and natural gas facilities located underwater in the Gulf of
Mexico, which can involve complexities, such as extreme water pressure. Virtually all of our
operations are exposed to potential natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, storms,
floods and/or earthquakes. The location
of our assets and our customers assets in the U.S. Gulf Coast region makes them particularly
vulnerable to hurricane risk.
If one or more facilities that are owned by us or that deliver oil, natural gas or other
products to us are damaged by severe weather or any other disaster, accident, catastrophe or event,
our operations could be significantly interrupted. Similar interruptions could result from damage
to production or other facilities that supply our facilities or other stoppages arising from
factors beyond our control. These interruptions might involve significant damage to people,
property or the environment, and repairs might take from a week or less for a minor incident to six
months or more for a major interruption. Additionally, some of the storage contracts that we are a
party to obligate us to indemnify our customers for any damage or injury occurring during the
period in which the customers natural gas is in our possession. Any event that interrupts the
revenues generated by our operations, or which causes us to make significant expenditures not
covered by insurance, could reduce our cash available for paying distributions and, accordingly,
adversely affect the market price of our common units.
We believe that EPCO maintains adequate insurance coverage on behalf of us, although insurance
will not cover many types of interruptions that might occur and will not cover amounts up to
applicable deductibles. As a result of market conditions, premiums and deductibles for certain
insurance policies can increase substantially, and in some instances, certain insurance may become
unavailable or available only for reduced amounts of coverage. For example, change in the
insurance markets subsequent to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the hurricanes in
2005 have made it more difficult for us to obtain certain types of coverage. As a result, EPCO may
not be able to renew existing insurance policies on behalf of us or procure other desirable
insurance on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If we were to incur a significant liability
for which we were not fully insured, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial
position and results of operations. In addition, the proceeds of any such insurance may not be
paid in a timely manner and may be insufficient if such an event were to occur.
An impairment of goodwill and intangible assets could reduce our earnings.
At December 31, 2006, our balance sheet reflected $590.5 million of goodwill and $1.0 billion
of intangible assets. Goodwill is recorded when the purchase price of a business exceeds the fair
market value of the tangible and separately measurable intangible net assets. Accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States (GAAP) require us to test goodwill for impairment on an
annual basis or when events or circumstances occur indicating that goodwill might be impaired.
Long-lived assets such as intangible assets with finite useful lives are reviewed for impairment
whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be
38
recoverable. If we determine that any of our goodwill or intangible assets were impaired, we would
be required to take an immediate charge to earnings with a correlative effect on partners equity
and balance sheet leverage as measured by debt to total capitalization.
Increases in interest rates could materially adversely affect our business, results of
operations, cash flows and financial condition.
In addition to our exposure to commodity prices, we have significant exposure to increases in
interest rates. As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately $5.3 billion of consolidated debt,
of which approximately $3.8 billion was at fixed interest rates and approximately $1.5 billion was
at variable interest rates, after giving effect to existing interest swap arrangements. From time
to time, we may enter into additional interest rate swap arrangements, which could increase our
exposure to variable interest rates. As a result, our results of operations, cash flows and
financial condition, could be materially adversely affected by significant increases in interest
rates.
An increase in interest rates may also cause a corresponding decline in demand for equity
investments, in general, and in particular for yield-based equity investments such as our common
units. Any such reduction in demand for our common units resulting from other more attractive
investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our common units to decline.
The use of derivative financial instruments could result in material financial losses by us.
We historically have sought to limit a portion of the adverse effects resulting from changes
in oil and natural gas commodity prices and interest rates by using financial derivative
instruments and other hedging mechanisms from time to time. To the extent that we hedge our
commodity price and interest rate exposures, we will forego the benefits we would otherwise
experience if commodity prices or interest rates were to change in our favor. In addition, even
though monitored by management, hedging activities can result in losses. Such losses could occur
under various circumstances, including if a counterparty does not perform its obligations under the
hedge arrangement, the hedge is imperfect, or hedging policies and procedures are not followed.
Our pipeline integrity program may impose significant costs and liabilities on us.
The U.S. Department of Transportation issued final rules (effective March 2001 with respect to
hazardous liquid pipelines and February 2004 with respect to natural gas pipelines) requiring
pipeline operators to develop integrity management programs to comprehensively evaluate their
pipelines, and take measures to protect pipeline segments located in what the rules refer to as
high consequence areas. The final rule resulted from the enactment of the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2002. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate costs of compliance with
this rule because those costs will depend on the number and extent of any repairs found to be
necessary as a result of the pipeline integrity testing that is required by the rule. We will
continue our pipeline integrity testing programs to assess and maintain the integrity of our
pipelines. The results of these tests could cause us to incur significant and unanticipated
capital and operating expenditures for repairs or upgrades deemed necessary to ensure the continued
safe and reliable operation of our pipelines.
Environmental costs and liabilities and changing environmental regulation could materially
affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Our operations are subject to extensive federal, state and local regulatory requirements
relating to environmental affairs, health and safety, waste management and chemical and petroleum
products. Governmental authorities have the power to enforce compliance with applicable
regulations and permits and to subject violators to civil and criminal penalties, including
substantial fines, injunctions or both. Certain environmental laws, including CERCLA and analogous
state laws and regulations, impose strict, joint and several liability for costs required to
cleanup and restore sites where hazardous substances or hydrocarbons have been disposed or
otherwise released. Moreover, third parties, including neighboring landowners, may also have the
right to pursue legal actions to enforce compliance or to recover for
39
personal injury and property
damage allegedly caused by the release of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or other waste
products into the environment.
We will make expenditures in connection with environmental matters as part of normal capital
expenditure programs. However, future environmental law developments, such as stricter laws,
regulations, permits or enforcement policies, could significantly increase some costs of our
operations, including the handling, manufacture, use, emission or disposal of substances and
wastes.
Federal, state or local regulatory measures could materially adversely affect our business,
results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
The FERC regulates our interstate natural gas pipelines and natural gas storage facilities
under the Natural Gas Act, and interstate NGL and petrochemical pipelines under the ICA. The STB
regulates our interstate propylene pipelines. State regulatory agencies regulate our intrastate
natural gas and NGL pipelines, intrastate storage facilities and gathering lines.
Under the Natural Gas Act, the FERC has authority to regulate natural gas companies that
provide natural gas pipeline transportation services in interstate commerce. Its authority to
regulate those services is comprehensive and includes the rates charged for the services, terms and
condition of service and certification and construction of new facilities. The FERC requires that
our services are provided on a non-
discriminatory basis so that all shippers have open access to our pipelines and storage. Pursuant
to the FERCs jurisdiction over interstate gas pipeline rates, existing pipeline rates may be
challenged by customer complaint or by the FERC Staff and proposed rate increases may be challenged
by protest.
We have interests in natural gas pipeline facilities offshore from Texas and Louisiana. These
facilities are subject to regulation by the FERC and other federal agencies, including the
Department of Interior, under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and by the Department of
Transportations Office of Pipeline Safety under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act.
Our intrastate NGL and natural gas pipelines are subject to regulation in many states,
including Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas, and by the FERC pursuant
to Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act. We also have natural gas underground storage
facilities in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Although state regulation is typically less
onerous than at the FERC, proposed and existing rates subject to state regulation and the provision
of services on a non-discriminatory basis are also subject to challenge by protest and complaint,
respectively.
For a general overview of federal, state and local regulation applicable to our assets, see
Item 1 of this annual report. This regulatory oversight can affect certain aspects of our business
and the market for our products and could materially adversely affect our cash flows.
We are subject to strict regulations at many of our facilities regarding employee safety, and
failure to comply with these regulations could adversely affect our ability to make
distributions to you.
The workplaces associated with our facilities are subject to the requirements of the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Act, or OSHA, and comparable state statutes that regulate the
protection of the health and safety of workers. In addition, the OSHA hazard communication standard
requires that we maintain information about hazardous materials used or produced in our operations
and that we provide this information to employees, state and local governmental authorities and
local residents. The failure to comply with OSHA requirements or general industry standards, keep
adequate records or monitor occupational exposure to regulated substances could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make
distributions to you.
40
Terrorist attacks aimed at our facilities could adversely affect our business, results of
operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the United States
government has issued warnings that energy assets, including our nations pipeline infrastructure,
may be the future target of terrorist organizations. Any terrorist attack on our facilities or
pipelines or those of our customers could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We depend on the leadership and involvement of Dan L. Duncan and other key personnel for the
success of our businesses.
We depend on the leadership, involvement and services of Dan L. Duncan, the founder of EPCO
and the chairman of our general partner. Mr. Duncan has been integral to our success and the
success of EPCO due in part to his ability to identify and develop business opportunities, make
strategic decisions and attract and retain key personnel. The loss of his leadership and
involvement or the services of any key members of our senior management team could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, market price of our securities
and financial condition.
EPCOs employees may be subjected to conflicts in managing our business and the allocation of
time and compensation costs between our business and the business of EPCO and its other
affiliates.
We have no officers or employees and rely solely on officers of our general partner and
employees of EPCO. Certain of our officers are also officers of EPCO and other affiliates of EPCO.
These relationships may create conflicts of interest regarding corporate opportunities and other
matters, and the resolution of any such conflicts may not always be in our or our unitholders best
interests. In addition, these overlapping officers allocate their time among us, EPCO and other
affiliates of EPCO. These officers face potential conflicts regarding the allocation of their
time, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
We have entered into an administrative services agreement that governs business opportunities
among entities controlled by EPCO, which includes us and our general, Enterprise GP Holdings and
its general partner, Duncan Energy Partners and its general partner and TEPPCO and its general
partner. For information regarding how business opportunities are handled within the EPCO group of
companies, please read Item 13 of this annual report.
We do not have an independent compensation committee, and aspects of the compensation of our
executive officers and other key employees, including base salary, are not reviewed or approved by
our independent directors. The determination of executive officer and key employee compensation
could involve conflicts of interest resulting in economically unfavorable arrangements for us.
Risks Relating to Our Partnership Structure
We may issue additional securities without the approval of our common unitholders.
Subject to NYSE rules, we may issue an unlimited number of limited partner interests of any
type (to parties other than our affiliates) without the approval of our unitholders. Our
partnership agreement does not give our common unitholders the right to approve the issuance of
equity securities including equity securities ranking senior to our common units. The issuance of
additional common units or other equity securities of equal or senior rank will have the following
effects:
|
§ |
|
the proportionate ownership interest of a common unit will decrease; |
|
|
§ |
|
the amount of cash available for distributions on each common unit may decrease; |
|
|
§ |
|
the ratio of taxable income to distributions may increase; |
41
|
§ |
|
the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common unit may be
diminished; and |
|
|
§ |
|
the market price of our common units may decline. |
We may not have sufficient cash from operations to pay distributions at the current level
following establishment of cash reserves and payments of fees and expenses, including payments
to Enterprise Products GP.
Because distributions on our common units are dependent on the amount of cash we generate,
distributions may fluctuate based on our performance. We cannot guarantee that we will continue to
pay distributions at the current level each quarter. The actual amount of cash that is available
to be distributed each quarter will depend upon numerous factors, some of which are beyond our
control and the control of Enterprise Products GP. These factors include but are not limited to
the following:
|
§ |
|
the level of our operating costs; |
|
|
§ |
|
the level of competition in our business segments; |
|
|
§ |
|
prevailing economic conditions; |
|
|
§ |
|
the level of capital expenditures we make; |
|
|
§ |
|
the restrictions contained in our debt agreements and our debt service requirements; |
|
|
§ |
|
fluctuations in our working capital needs; |
|
|
§ |
|
the cost of acquisitions, if any; and |
|
|
§ |
|
the amount, if any, of cash reserves established by Enterprise Products GP in its sole discretion. |
In addition, you should be aware that the amount of cash we have available for distribution
depends primarily on our cash flow, including cash flow from financial reserves and working capital
borrowings, not solely on profitability, which is affected by non-cash items. As a result, we may
make cash distributions during periods when we record losses and we may not make distributions
during periods when we record net income.
We do not have the same flexibility as other types of organizations to accumulate cash and
equity to protect against illiquidity in the future.
Unlike a corporation, our partnership agreement requires us to make quarterly distributions to
our unitholders of all available cash reduced by any amounts of reserves for commitments and
contingencies, including capital and operating costs and debt service requirements. The value of
our units and other limited partner interests may decrease in direct correlation with decreases in
the amount we distribute per unit. Accordingly, if we experience a liquidity problem in the
future, we may not be able to issue more equity to recapitalize.
Cost reimbursements and fees due to EPCO and its affiliates, including our general partner may
be substantial and will reduce our cash available for distribution to holders of our units.
Prior to making any distribution on our units, we will reimburse EPCO and its affiliates,
including officers and directors of Enterprise Products GP, for all expenses they incur on our
behalf, including allocated overhead. These amounts will include all costs incurred in managing
and operating us, including costs for rendering administrative staff and support services to us,
and overhead allocated to us by EPCO. The payment of these amounts could adversely affect our
ability to pay cash distributions to holders of our
42
units. EPCO has sole discretion to determine
the amount of these expenses. In addition, EPCO and its affiliates may provide other services to
us for which we will be charged fees as determined by EPCO.
Enterprise Products GP and its affiliates have limited fiduciary responsibilities to, and
conflicts of interest with respect to, our partnership, which may permit it to favor its own
interests to your detriment.
The directors and officers of Enterprise Products GP and its affiliates have duties to manage
Enterprise Products GP in a manner that is beneficial to its members. At the same time, Enterprise
Products GP has duties to manage our partnership in a manner that is beneficial to us. Therefore,
Enterprise Products GPs duties to us may conflict with the duties of its officers and directors to
its members. Such conflicts may include, among others, the following:
|
§ |
|
neither our partnership agreement nor any other agreement requires Enterprise Products
GP or EPCO to pursue a business strategy that favors us; |
|
|
§ |
|
decisions of Enterprise Products GP regarding the amount and timing of asset purchases
and sales, cash expenditures, borrowings, issuances of additional units and reserves in
any quarter may affect the level of cash available to pay quarterly distributions to
unitholders and Enterprise Products GP; |
|
|
§ |
|
under our partnership agreement, Enterprise Products GP determines which costs incurred
by it and its affiliates are reimbursable by us; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP is allowed to resolve any conflicts of interest involving us and
Enterprise Products GP and its affiliates; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP is allowed to take into account the interests of parties other
than us, such as EPCO, in resolving conflicts of interest, which has the effect of
limiting its fiduciary duty to unitholders; |
|
|
§ |
|
any resolution of a conflict of interest by Enterprise Products GP not made in bad
faith and that is fair and reasonable to us shall be binding on the partners and shall not
be a breach of our partnership agreement; |
|
|
§ |
|
affiliates of Enterprise Products GP, including TEPPCO, may compete with us in certain
circumstances; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP has limited its liability and reduced its fiduciary duties and
has also restricted the remedies available to our unitholders for actions that might,
without the limitations, constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. As a result of purchasing
our units, you are deemed to consent to some actions and conflicts of interest that might
otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary or other duties under applicable law; |
|
|
§ |
|
we do not have any employees and we rely solely on employees of EPCO and its
affiliates; |
|
|
§ |
|
in some instances, Enterprise Products GP may cause us to borrow funds in order to
permit the payment of distributions, even if the purpose or effect of the borrowing is to
make incentive distributions; |
|
|
§ |
|
our partnership agreement does not restrict Enterprise Products GP from causing us to
pay it or its affiliates for any services rendered to us or entering into additional
contractual arrangements with any of these entities on our behalf; |
43
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP intends to limit its liability regarding our contractual and
other obligations and, in some circumstances, may be entitled to be indemnified by us; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP controls the enforcement of obligations owed to us by our
general partner and its affiliates; and |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP decides whether to retain separate counsel, accountants or
others to perform services for us. |
We have significant business relationships with entities controlled by Dan L. Duncan,
including EPCO and TEPPCO. For detailed information on these relationships and related
transactions with these entities, see Item 13 included within this annual report.
Unitholders have limited voting rights and are not entitled to elect our general partner or its
directors. In addition, even if unitholders are dissatisfied, they cannot easily remove our
general partner.
Unlike the holders of common stock in a corporation, unitholders have only limited voting
rights on matters affecting our business and, therefore, limited ability to influence managements
decisions regarding our business. Unitholders did not elect Enterprise Products GP or its
directors and will have no right to elect our general partner or its directors on an annual or
other continuing basis. The board of
directors of our general partner, including the independent directors, is chosen by the owners of
the general partner and not by the unitholders.
Furthermore, if unitholders are dissatisfied with the performance of our general partner, they
currently have no practical ability to remove Enterprise Products GP or its officers or directors.
Enterprise Products GP may not be removed except upon the vote of the holders of at least 60% of
our outstanding units voting together as a single class. Because affiliates of Enterprise Products
GP currently own approximately 33.9% of our outstanding common units, the removal of Enterprise
Products GP as our general partner is not practicable without the consent of both Enterprise
Products GP and its affiliates.
Unitholders voting rights are further restricted by a provision in our partnership agreement
stating that any units held by a person that owns 20% or more of any class of our common units then
outstanding, other than our general partner and its affiliates, cannot be voted on any matter. In
addition, our partnership agreement contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call
meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting our
unitholders ability to influence the manner or direction of our management.
As a result of these provisions, the trading price of our common units may be lower than other
forms of equity ownership because of the absence or reduction of a takeover premium in the trading
price.
Enterprise Products GP has a limited call right that may require common unitholders to sell
their units at an undesirable time or price.
If at any time Enterprise Products GP and its affiliates own 85% or more of the common units
then outstanding, Enterprise Products GP will have the right, but not the obligation, which it may
assign to any of its affiliates or to us, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the remaining
common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than the then current market price.
As a result, common unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time
or price and may therefore not receive any return on their investment. They may also incur a tax
liability upon a sale of their units.
Our common unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that limited partner
actions constitute control of our business.
Under Delaware law, common unitholders could be held liable for our obligations to the same
extent as a general partner if a court determined that the right of limited partners to remove our
general
44
partner or to take other action under our partnership agreement constituted participation
in the control of our business.
Under Delaware law, our general partner generally has unlimited liability for our obligations,
such as our debts and environmental liabilities, except for those of our contractual obligations
that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner.
The limitations on the liability of holders of limited partner interests for the obligations
of a limited partnership have not been clearly established in some of the states in which we do
business. You could have unlimited liability for our obligations if a court or government agency
determined that:
|
§ |
|
we were conducting business in a state, but had not complied with that particular
states partnership statute; or |
|
|
§ |
|
your right to act with other unitholders to remove or replace our general partner, to
approve some amendments to our partnership agreement or to take other actions under our
partnership agreement constituted control of our business. |
Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.
Under certain circumstances, our unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or
distributed to them. Under Section 17-607 of the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act
(the Delaware Act), we may not make a distribution to our unitholders if the distribution would
cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Liabilities to partners on account of
their partnership interests and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not
counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted. Delaware law provides that
for a period of three years from the date of an impermissible distribution, limited partners who
received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Delaware
law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. A purchaser of common
units who becomes a limited partner is liable for the obligations of the transferring limited
partner to make contributions to the partnership that are known to such purchaser of common units
at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be
determined from our partnership agreement.
A large number of our outstanding common units may be sold in the market, which may depress the
market price of our common units.
Shell owned 26,976,249 of our common units, representing approximately 6.2% of our outstanding
common units at December 31, 2006, and has publicly announced its intention to reduce its holdings
of our common units on an orderly schedule over a period of years, taking into account market
conditions. All of the common units held by Shell are registered for resale under our effective
registration statement on Form S-3. Shell sold 2,431,300 of our common units to third parties
during the year ended December 31, 2006. In addition, Shell sold approximately 7,340,500 of our
common units during January 2007.
Affiliates of Lewis Energy Group L.P. (collectively, Lewis) owned 7,070,644 of our common
units, representing approximately 1.6% of our outstanding common units at December 31, 2006, and
have publicly announced their intention to reduce their holdings of our common units on an orderly
schedule, taking into account market conditions. All of the common units held by Lewis are
registered for resale under our effective registration statement on Form S-3. Lewis sold 45,200 of
our common units to third parties during the year ended December 31, 2006.
Sales of a substantial number of our common units in the public market could cause the market
price of our common units to decline. As of February 1, 2007, we had 432,408,430 common units
outstanding. Sales of a substantial number of these common units in the trading markets, whether
in a single transaction or series of transactions, or the possibility that these sales may occur,
could reduce the
45
market price of our outstanding common units. In addition, these sales, or the
possibility that these sales may occur, could make it more difficult for us to sell our common
units in the future.
Tax Risks to Common Unitholders
Our tax treatment depends on our status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, as
well as our not being subject to a material amount of entity-level taxation by individual
states. If the IRS were to treat us as a corporation or if we were to become subject to a
material amount of entity-level taxation for state tax purposes, then our cash available for
distribution to our common unitholders would be substantially reduced.
The anticipated after-tax economic benefit of an investment in our common units depends
largely on our being treated as a partnership for federal income tax purposes. We have not
requested, and do not plan to request, a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on this
matter.
If we were treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would pay federal
income tax on our taxable income at the corporate tax rate, which is currently a maximum of 35%.
Distributions to our unitholders would generally be taxed again as corporate distributions, and no
income, gains, losses or deductions would flow though to our unitholders. Because a tax would be
imposed upon us as a
corporation, the cash available for distributions to our common unitholders would be substantially
reduced. Thus, treatment of us as a corporation would result in a material reduction in the
after-tax return to our common unitholders, likely causing a substantial reduction in the value of
our common units.
Current law may change, causing us to be treated as a corporation for federal income tax
purposes or otherwise subjecting us to a material amount of entity level taxation. In addition,
because of widespread state budget deficits and other reasons, several states (including Texas) are
evaluating ways to enhance state-tax collections. For example, our operating subsidiaries will be
subject to a newly revised Texas franchise tax (the Texas Margin Tax) on the portion of their
revenue that is generated in Texas beginning for tax reports due on or after January 1, 2008.
Specifically, the Texas Margin Tax will be imposed at a maximum effective rate of 0.7% of the
operating subsidiaries gross revenue that is apportioned to Texas. If any additional state were
to impose a entity-level tax upon us or our operating subsidiaries, the cash available for
distribution to our common unitholders would be reduced.
A successful IRS contest of the federal income tax positions we take may adversely impact the
market for our common units, and the costs of any contests will be borne by our unitholders and
our general partner.
The IRS may adopt positions that differ from the positions we take, even positions taken with
advice of counsel. It may be necessary to resort to administrative or court proceedings to sustain
some or all of the positions we take. A court may not agree with some or all of the positions we
take. Any contest with the IRS may materially and adversely impact the market for our common units
and the price at which our common units trade. In addition, the costs of any contest with the IRS,
principally legal, accounting and related fees, will be borne indirectly by our unitholders and our
general partner.
Even if our common unitholders do not receive any cash distributions from us, they will be
required to pay taxes on their share of our taxable income.
Common unitholders will be required to pay federal income taxes and, in some cases, state and
local income taxes on their share of our taxable income even if they do not receive any cash
distributions from us. Our common unitholders may not receive cash distributions from us equal to
their share of our taxable income or even equal to the actual tax liability which results from
their share of our taxable income.
Tax gain or loss on the disposition of our common units could be different than expected.
46
If a common unitholder sells its common units, the unitholder will recognize a gain or loss
equal to the difference between the amount realized and the unitholders tax basis in those common
units. Prior distributions to a unitholder in excess of the total net taxable income a unitholder
is allocated for a common unit, which decreased the unitholders tax basis in that common unit,
will, in effect, become taxable income to the unitholder if the common unit is sold at a price
greater than the unitholders tax basis in that common unit, even if the price the unitholder
receives is less than the unitholders original cost. A substantial portion of the amount
realized, whether or not representing gain, may be ordinary income to a unitholder.
Tax-exempt entities and foreign persons face unique tax issues from owning common units that
may result in adverse tax consequences to them.
Investments in common units by tax-exempt entities, such as individual retirement accounts
(known as IRAs) and foreign persons raises issues unique to them. For example, virtually all of
our income allocated to unitholders who are organizations exempt from federal income tax, including
individual retirement accounts and other retirement plans, will be unrelated business taxable
income and will be taxable to them. Distributions to non-U.S. persons will be reduced by
withholding taxes at the highest applicable effective tax rate, and non-U.S. persons will be
required to file United States federal income tax returns and pay tax on their share of our taxable
income.
We will treat each purchaser of our common units as having the same tax benefits without regard
to the units purchased. The IRS may challenge this treatment, which could adversely affect the
value of our common units.
Because we cannot match transferors and transferees of common units, we adopt depreciation and
amortization positions that may not conform with all aspects of applicable Treasury regulations. A
successful IRS challenge to those positions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits
available to a common unitholder. It also could affect the timing of these tax benefits or the
amount of gain from a sale of common units and could have a negative impact on the value of our
common units or result in audit adjustments to the common unitholders tax returns.
Our common unitholders will likely be subject to state and local taxes and return filing
requirements in states where they do not live as a result of an investment in our common units.
In addition to federal income taxes, our common unitholders will likely be subject to other
taxes, including state and local income taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate,
inheritance or intangible taxes that are imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do
business or own property. Our common unitholders will likely be required to file state and local
income tax returns and pay state and local income taxes in some or all of these various
jurisdictions. Further, they may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with those
requirements. We may own property or conduct business in other states or foreign countries in the
future. It is the responsibility of the common unitholder to file all United States federal, state
and local tax returns.
The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our capital and profits interests during any
twelve-month period will result in the termination of our partnership for federal income tax
purposes.
We will be considered to have terminated for federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or
exchange of 50% or more of the total interests in our capital and profits within a twelve-month
period. Our termination would, among other things, result in the closing of our taxable year for
all unitholders and could result in a deferral of depreciation deductions allowable in computing
our taxable income.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.
None.
47
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
On occasion, we are named as a defendant in litigation relating to our normal business
activities, including regulatory and environmental matters. Although we insure against various
business risks to the extent we believe it is prudent, there is no assurance that the nature and
amount of such insurance will be adequate, in every case, to indemnify us against liabilities
arising from future legal proceedings as a result of our ordinary business activities. We are not
aware of any significant litigation, pending or threatened, that we believe may individually have a
significant adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations.
A number of lawsuits have been filed by municipalities and other water suppliers against
various manufacturers of reformulated gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). In
general, such suits have not named manufacturers of MTBE as defendants, and there have been no such
lawsuits filed against our subsidiary that owns an octane-additive production facility. It is
possible, however, that former MTBE manufacturers such as our subsidiary could ultimately be added
as defendants in such lawsuits or in new lawsuits.
We acquired additional ownership interests in our octane-additive production facility from
affiliates of Devon Energy Corporation (Devon), which sold us its 33.3% interest in 2003, and
Sunoco, Inc. (Sun), which sold us its 33.3% interest in 2004. As a result of these acquisitions,
we own 100% of our Mont Belvieu, Texas octane-additive production facility. Devon and Sun have
indemnified us for any liabilities (including potential liabilities as described in the preceding
paragraph) that are in respect of periods prior to the date we purchased such interests. There are
no dollar limits or deductibles associated with the indemnities we received from Sun and Devon with
respect to potential claims linked to the period of time they held ownership interests in our
octane-additive production facility.
On September 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of TEPPCO, filed a complaint
in the Court of Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual capacity,
as a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders of TEPPCO, and derivatively on behalf of
TEPPCO, concerning, among other things, certain transactions involving TEPPCO and us or our
affiliates. The complaint names as defendants (i) TEPPCO, its current and certain former
directors, and certain of its affiliates; (ii) us and certain of our affiliates, including the
parent company of our general partner; (iii) EPCO, Inc.; and (iv) Dan L. Duncan. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants have caused TEPPCO to enter into certain
transactions with us or our affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise unfairly favored us
or our affiliates over TEPPCO. These transactions are alleged to include the joint venture to
further expand the Jonah Gathering System entered into by TEPPCO and one of our affiliates in
August 2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of our affiliates of the Pioneer gas processing plant in
March 2006. The complaint seeks (i) rescission of these transactions or an award of rescissory
damages with respect thereto; (ii) damages for profits and special benefits allegedly obtained by
defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and (iii) awarding plaintiff
costs of the action, including fees and expenses of his attorneys and experts. We believe this
lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. For information regarding our
relationship with TEPPCO, see Item 13 of this annual report.
On February 13, 2007, our Operating Partnership received notice from the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) that it was the subject of a criminal investigation related to an ammonia release
in Kingman County, Kansas on October 27, 2004 from a pressurized anhydrous ammonia pipeline owned
by a third party, Magellan Ammonia Pipeline, L.P. (Magellan). Our Operating Partnership is the
operator of this pipeline. On February 14, 2007, our
Operating Partnership received a letter from the Environment and Natural Resources Division
(ENRD) of the DOJ regarding this incident and a previous release of ammonia on September 27, 2004
from the same pipeline. The ENRD has indicated that it may pursue civil damages against our
Operating Partnership and Magellan as a result of these incidents. Based on this correspondence
from the ENRD, the statutory maximum amount of civil fines that could be assessed against our
Operating Partnership and Magellan is up to $17.4 million in the aggregate. Our Operating
Partnership is cooperating with the DOJ and is hopeful that an
48
expeditious resolution acceptable to
all parties will be reached in the near future. Our Operating Partnership is seeking defense and
indemnity under the pipeline operating agreement between it and Magellan. At this time, we do not
believe that a final resolution of either the criminal investigation by the DOJ or the civil claims
by the ENRD will have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.
On October 25, 2006, a rupture in the Magellan Ammonia Pipeline resulted in the release of
ammonia near Clay Center, Kansas. We and Magellan are in the process of estimating the repair and
remediation costs associated with this release. Environmental remediation efforts continue in and
around the site of the release under the supervision and management of affiliates of Magellan.
Our operating agreement with Magellan provides the Operating Partnership with an indemnity
clause for claims arising from such releases. At this time, we do not believe that this incident
will have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
None.
49
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrants Common Equity, Related Unitholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.
Market Information and Cash Distributions
Our common units are listed on the NYSE under the ticker symbol EPD. As of February 1,
2007, there were an approximately 930 unitholders of record of our common units. The following
table presents the high and low sales prices for our common units during the periods indicated (as
reported by the NYSE Composite Transaction Tape) and the amount, record date and payment date of
the quarterly cash distributions we paid on each of our common units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Distribution History |
|
|
Price Ranges |
|
Per |
|
Record |
|
Payment |
|
|
High |
|
Low |
|
Unit |
|
Date |
|
Date |
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
|
$ |
28.350 |
|
|
$ |
23.920 |
|
|
$ |
0.4100 |
|
|
Apr. 29, 2005 |
|
May 10, 2005 |
2nd Quarter |
|
$ |
27.090 |
|
|
$ |
24.770 |
|
|
$ |
0.4200 |
|
|
Jul. 29, 2005 |
|
Aug. 10, 2005 |
3rd Quarter |
|
$ |
27.660 |
|
|
$ |
23.500 |
|
|
$ |
0.4300 |
|
|
Oct. 31, 2005 |
|
Nov. 8, 2005 |
4th Quarter |
|
$ |
26.020 |
|
|
$ |
23.380 |
|
|
$ |
0.4375 |
|
|
Jan. 31, 2006 |
|
Feb. 9, 2006 |
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
|
$ |
26.000 |
|
|
$ |
23.690 |
|
|
$ |
0.4450 |
|
|
Apr. 28, 2006 |
|
May 10, 2006 |
2nd Quarter |
|
$ |
25.710 |
|
|
$ |
23.760 |
|
|
$ |
0.4525 |
|
|
Jul. 31, 2006 |
|
Aug. 10, 2006 |
3rd Quarter |
|
$ |
27.060 |
|
|
$ |
25.000 |
|
|
$ |
0.4600 |
|
|
Oct. 31, 2006 |
|
Nov. 8, 2006 |
4th Quarter |
|
$ |
29.980 |
|
|
$ |
26.050 |
|
|
$ |
0.4675 |
|
|
Jan. 31, 2007 |
|
Feb. 8, 2007 |
The quarterly cash distributions shown in the table above correspond to cash flows for
the quarters indicated. The actual cash distributions (i.e., the payments made to our partners)
occur within 45 days after the end of such quarter. We expect to fund our quarterly cash
distributions to partners primarily with cash provided by operating activities. For additional
information regarding our cash flows from operating activities, see Liquidity and Capital
Resources included under Item 7 of this annual report. Although the payment of cash distributions
is not guaranteed, we expect to continue to pay comparable cash distributions in the future.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities
There were no sales of unregistered equity securities during 2006.
Common Units Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plan
See Item 12 of this annual report, which is incorporated by reference into this Item 5.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
We did not repurchase any of our common units during 2006. In December 1998, we announced a
common unit repurchase program whereby we, together with certain affiliates, intended to repurchase
up to 2,000,000 of our common units for the purpose of granting options to management and key
employees (amount adjusted for the 2-for-1 unit split in May 2002). As of February 15, 2007, we
and our affiliates could repurchase up to 618,400 additional common units under this repurchase
program.
50
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
The following table presents selected historical consolidated financial data of our
partnership. This information has been derived from our audited financial statements and should be
read in conjunction with the audited financial statements included under Item 8 of this annual
report. In addition, information regarding our results of operations and liquidity and capital
resources can be found under Item 7 of this annual report. As presented in the table, amounts are
in thousands (except per unit data).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
2002 |
Operating results data: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
13,990,969 |
|
|
$ |
12,256,959 |
|
|
$ |
8,321,202 |
|
|
$ |
5,346,431 |
|
|
$ |
3,584,783 |
|
Income from continuing operations (2) |
|
$ |
599,683 |
|
|
$ |
423,716 |
|
|
$ |
257,480 |
|
|
$ |
104,546 |
|
|
$ |
95,500 |
|
Income per unit from continuing operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.92 |
|
|
$ |
0.83 |
|
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
$ |
0.55 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.92 |
|
|
$ |
0.83 |
|
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
|
$ |
0.48 |
|
Other financial data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distributions per common unit(3) |
|
$ |
1.825 |
|
|
$ |
1.698 |
|
|
$ |
1.540 |
|
|
$ |
1.470 |
|
|
$ |
1.360 |
|
Commodity hedging income (loss) (4) |
|
$ |
10,257 |
|
|
$ |
1,095 |
|
|
$ |
448 |
|
|
$ |
(619 |
) |
|
$ |
(51,344 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
2002 |
Financial position data: (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
13,989,718 |
|
|
$ |
12,591,016 |
|
|
$ |
11,315,461 |
|
|
$ |
4,802,814 |
|
|
$ |
4,230,272 |
|
Long-term and current maturities of debt (5) |
|
$ |
5,295,590 |
|
|
$ |
4,833,781 |
|
|
$ |
4,281,236 |
|
|
$ |
2,139,548 |
|
|
$ |
2,246,463 |
|
Partners equity (6) |
|
$ |
6,480,233 |
|
|
$ |
5,679,309 |
|
|
$ |
5,328,785 |
|
|
$ |
1,705,953 |
|
|
$ |
1,200,904 |
|
Total units outstanding (excluding treasury) (6) |
|
|
432,408 |
|
|
|
389,861 |
|
|
|
364,786 |
|
|
|
217,780 |
|
|
|
183,810 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In general, our historical operating results and financial position have been affected by numerous acquisitions since 2001. Our most significant transaction to date was the GulfTerra Merger, which was completed on
September 30, 2004. The aggregate value of the total consideration we paid or issued to complete the GulfTerra Merger was approximately $4 billion. We accounted for the GulfTerra Merger and our other acquisitions using
purchase accounting; therefore, the operating results of these acquired entities are included in our financial results prospectively from their respective acquisition dates. For additional information regarding such
transactions, see Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report. |
|
(2) |
|
Amounts presented for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 are before the cumulative effect of accounting changes. |
|
(3) |
|
Distributions per common unit represent declared cash distributions with respect to the four fiscal quarters of each period presented. |
|
(4) |
|
Income from continuing operations includes our gain or loss from commodity hedging activities. A variety of factors influence whether or not a particular hedging strategy is successful. As a result of incurring
significant losses from commodity hedging transactions in early 2002
due to a rapid increase in natural gas prices, we exited those commodity hedging strategies that created the losses. Since that time, we have utilized only a limited number of commodity financial instruments. For additional information regarding our use of financial instruments, see Item 7A of this annual report.
(5) In general, the balances of our long-term and current maturities of debt have increased over time as a result of financing all or a portion of acquisitions and other capital spending. |
|
(6) |
|
We regularly issue common units through underwritten public offerings and, less frequently, in connection with acquisitions or other transactions. The increase in partners equity since 2002 has been the result of such
transactions, with the September 2004 issuance of 104.5 million common units in connection with the GulfTerra Merger being our largest. For additional information regarding our partners equity and unit history, see Note 15
of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report. |
51
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
The following information should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial
statements and our accompanying notes listed in the Index to Consolidated Financial Statements on
page F-1 of this annual report. Our discussion and analysis includes the following:
|
|
|
Overview of Business. |
|
|
|
|
Results of Operations Discusses material year-to-year variances in our Consolidated
Statements of Operations. |
|
|
|
|
Liquidity and Capital Resources Addresses available sources of liquidity and analyzes
cash flows. |
|
|
|
|
Critical Accounting Policies Presents accounting policies that are among the most
significant to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations. |
|
|
|
|
Other Items Includes information related to contractual obligations, off-balance
sheet arrangements, related party transactions, recent accounting pronouncements and
similar disclosures. |
This discussion contains various forward-looking statements and information that are based on
our beliefs and those of our general partner, as well as assumptions made by us and information
currently available to us. When used in this document, words such as anticipate, project,
expect, plan, goal, forecast, intend, could, believe, may and similar expressions
and statements regarding our plans and objectives for future operations, are intended to identify
forward-looking statements. Although we and our general partner believe that such expectations
reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, neither we nor our general partner can
give any assurances that such expectations will prove to be correct. Such statements are subject
to a variety of risks, uncertainties and assumptions as described in more detail in Item 1A of this
annual report. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or if underlying
assumptions prove incorrect, our actual results may vary materially from those anticipated,
estimated, projected or expected. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking
statements.
As generally used in the energy industry and in this discussion, the identified terms have the
following meanings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/ d
|
|
=
|
|
per day |
|
|
BBtus
|
|
=
|
|
billion British thermal units |
|
|
Bcf
|
|
=
|
|
billion cubic feet |
|
|
MBPD
|
|
=
|
|
thousand barrels per day |
|
|
Mdth
|
|
=
|
|
thousand decatherms |
|
|
MMBbls
|
|
=
|
|
million barrels |
|
|
MMBtus
|
|
=
|
|
million British thermal units |
|
|
MMcf
|
|
=
|
|
million cubic feet |
|
|
Mcf
|
|
=
|
|
thousand cubic feet |
|
|
TBtu
|
|
=
|
|
trillion British thermal units |
Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting standards
generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP).
52
Overview of Business
We are a North American midstream energy company providing a wide range of services to
producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and crude oil, and certain
petrochemicals. In addition, we are an industry leader in the development of pipeline and other
midstream energy infrastructure in the continental United States and Gulf of Mexico. We are a
publicly traded Delaware limited partnership formed in 1998, the common units of which are listed
on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol EPD.
We conduct substantially all of our business through our Operating Partnership. We are owned
98% by our limited partners and 2% by our general partner, referred to as Enterprise Products GP.
Enterprise Products GP is owned 100% by Enterprise GP Holdings, a publicly traded affiliate listed
on the NYSE under the ticker symbol EPE. We, Enterprise Products GP and Enterprise GP Holdings
are affiliates and under common control of Dan L. Duncan, the Chairman and the controlling
shareholder of EPCO.
Our midstream energy asset network links producers of natural gas, NGLs and crude oil from
some of the largest supply basins in the United States, Canada and the Gulf of Mexico with domestic
consumers and international markets. We have four reportable business segments: NGL Pipelines &
Services; Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services; Offshore Pipelines & Services; and
Petrochemical Services. Our business segments are generally organized and managed according to the
type of services rendered (or technologies employed) and products produced and/or sold.
Recent Developments
The following information highlights our significant developments since January 1, 2006
through the date of this filing. For additional information regarding the capital projects and
acquisitions highlighted below, see Capital Spending Significant Recently Announced Growth
Capital Projects included within this Item 7.
|
|
|
In February 2007, Duncan Energy Partners L.P. (Duncan Energy Partners), a
consolidated subsidiary of ours, completed an underwritten initial public offering of
14,950,000 of its common units. We formed Duncan Energy Partners as a Delaware
limited partnership to acquire ownership interests in certain of our midstream energy
businesses. For additional information regarding Duncan Energy Partners, see Other
Items Initial Public Offering of Duncan Energy Partners included within this Item
7. |
|
|
|
|
In December 2006, we purchased all of the membership interests in Piceance Creek
Pipeline, LLC (Piceance Creek Pipeline) from an affiliate of the EnCana Corporation
(EnCana) for $100 million. The assets of Piceance Creek Pipeline consist primarily
of a recently constructed 48-mile natural gas gathering pipeline (the Piceance Creek
Gathering System) located in the Piceance Basin of northwest Colorado. This pipeline
will connect to our Meeker natural gas processing plant, which is currently under
construction. |
|
|
|
|
In December 2006, Standard & Poors raised its credit rating of our Operating
Partnership from BB+ to BBB-, which is investment grade, with a stable outlook. As a
result of this change, all of the senior unsecured credit ratings of our Operating
Partnership are currently at an investment grade level. |
|
|
|
|
In November 2006, we entered into a 30-year agreement with an affiliate of Exxon
Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil), to provide gathering, compression, treating and
conditioning services for natural gas produced as part of a development program
planned by ExxonMobil in the Piceance Basin in Colorado. Under the terms of the
agreement, ExxonMobils natural gas production from its Piceance Development Project,
which encompasses more than 29,000 acres in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, will be
dedicated to us. The fee-based agreement |
53
|
|
|
includes an option for us to recover NGLs
beyond those extracted to condition the gas to meet downstream pipeline
specifications. |
|
|
|
|
To provide these services, we expect to invest approximately $185 million to construct
new plant and pipeline facilities to compress the natural gas, treat it to remove
impurities, extract NGLs, and deliver gas to the various pipeline transmission systems
that serve the region. Construction of the facilities will begin after the receipt of
the necessary permits and approvals and is expected to be completed in late 2008. |
|
|
|
|
In November 2006, we announced an expansion of our Texas Intrastate Pipeline with
the construction of a 178-mile pipeline (the Sherman Extension) that will transport
up to 1.1 Bcf/d of natural gas from the growing Barnett Shale area of North Texas.
This new pipeline is expected to cost $424.6 million, most of which will be spent in
2008, and be placed in service during the fourth quarter of 2008. |
|
|
|
|
In October 2006, we signed definitive agreements with producers to construct, own
and operate an offshore oil pipeline that will provide firm gathering services from
the Shenzi production field located in the Southern Green Canyon area of the central
Gulf of Mexico. |
|
|
|
|
In September 2006, we sold 12,650,000 of our common units in an underwritten public
offering, which generated net proceeds of approximately $320.8 million. |
|
|
|
|
During the third quarter of 2006, the Operating Partnership sold $550 million in
principal amount of fixed/floating unsecured junior subordinated notes due 2066 (the
Junior Subordinated Notes A). For additional information regarding this issuance of
debt, see Liquidity and Capital Resources Debt Obligations included within this
Item 7. |
|
|
|
|
In August 2006, we became a joint venture partner with TEPPCO involving its Jonah
Gas Gathering Company (Jonah). Jonah owns the Jonah Gathering System, located in
the Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming. The Jonah Gathering System
gathers and transports natural gas produced from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to
regional natural gas processing plants, including our Pioneer plant, and major
interstate pipelines that deliver natural gas to end-use markets. As part of this new
joint venture, we and TEPPCO are significantly expanding the Jonah Gathering System
(the Phase V expansion project). |
|
|
|
|
In August 2006, we purchased a 220-mile NGL pipeline extending from Corpus Christi,
Texas to Pasadena, Texas from ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. The total purchase price
for this asset was $97.7 million in cash. This pipeline (in combination with others
to be constructed or acquired) will be used to transport NGLs from our South Texas
natural gas processing plants to our Mont Belvieu fractionation facilities.
Duncan Energy Partners acquired an indirect 66% interest in this pipeline asset on
February 5, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
In August 2006, our wholly owned subsidiary, Mid-America Pipeline Company LLC
(Mid-America), executed new long-term transportation agreements with all but one of
its current shippers on its Rocky Mountain pipeline pursuant to terms and conditions
of Mid-Americas open season tariff that was accepted by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission effective August 6, 2006. Under the terms of the new agreements, shippers
have committed to transport all of their current and future NGL production from the
Rocky Mountains through the Mid-America Pipeline System to either our Hobbs
fractionator (expected to be operational by mid-2007) or to Mont Belvieu, Texas via
our Seminole Pipeline for a minimum of 10 years and up to a maximum of 20 years.
Based on shipper production forecasts and current NGL extraction rates, we expect that
these new agreements will fully utilize our Mid-America Pipeline System, including the
50 MBPD Phase I Expansion expected to be placed in-service during the third quarter of
2007. |
|
|
|
|
In July 2006, we signed long-term agreements with CenterPoint Energy Resources
Corp. (CenterPoint Energy) to provide firm natural gas transportation and storage
services to its |
54
|
|
|
natural gas utility, primarily in the Houston, Texas metropolitan
area. We will provide CenterPoint Energy with an estimated 14 Bcf per year of natural
gas beginning in April 2007. Our deliveries to CenterPoint Energy through these new
contracts will mark the first time that we have had the opportunity to serve the growing Houston area natural gas market. We
are already the primary natural gas service provider to the San Antonio and Austin,
Texas markets. |
|
|
|
|
In July 2006, we acquired the Encinal and Canales natural gas gathering systems and
their related gathering and processing contracts and other amounts that comprised the
South Texas natural gas transportation and processing business of Cerrito Gathering
Company, Ltd., an affiliate of Lewis Energy Group, L.P. (Lewis). The aggregate
value of total consideration we paid or issued to complete this business combination
(referred to as the Encinal acquisition) was $326.3 million, which includes $145.2
million in cash paid to Lewis and the issuance of 7,115,844 of our common units to
Lewis. |
|
|
|
|
In April 2006, we announced plans to expand our Houston Ship Channel NGL import and
export facility and related pipeline and other assets to accommodate an expected
increase in throughput volumes. |
|
|
|
|
In March 2006, we purchased the Pioneer natural gas processing plant and certain
related natural gas processing rights from TEPPCO for $38.2 million in cash. |
|
|
|
|
In March 2006, we announced plans to expand our petrochemical assets located in
southeast Texas. The plans include the construction of a new propylene fractionator
at our Mont Belvieu, Texas facility and the expansion of two refinery grade propylene
pipelines. |
|
|
|
|
In March 2006, we sold 18,400,000 of our common units in a public offering, which
generated net proceeds of approximately $430 million. |
|
|
|
|
In January 2006, we announced the execution of a minimum 15-year natural gas
processing agreement with an affiliate of EnCana. Under this agreement, we have the
right to process up to 1.3 Bcf/d of EnCanas natural gas production from the Piceance
Basin area of western Colorado. To accommodate this production, we began construction
of the Meeker natural gas processing facility in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. In
addition, we will construct a 50-mile NGL pipeline that will connect our Meeker
processing facility to our Mid-America Pipeline System. |
Capital Spending
We are committed to the long-term growth and viability of Enterprise Products Partners. Part
of our business strategy involves expansion through business combinations, growth capital projects
and investments in joint ventures. We believe that we are positioned to continue to grow our
system of assets through the construction of new facilities and to capitalize on expected future
production increases from such areas as the Piceance Basin of western Colorado, the Greater Green
River Basin in Wyoming, Barnett Shale in North Texas, and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
Management continues to analyze potential acquisitions, joint ventures and similar
transactions with businesses that operate in complementary markets or geographic regions. In
recent years, major oil and gas companies have sold non-strategic assets in the midstream energy
sector in which we operate. We forecast that this trend will continue, and expect independent oil
and natural gas companies to consider similar divestitures.
Based on information currently available, we estimate our consolidated capital spending for
2007 will approximate $1.9 billion, which includes estimated expenditures of $1.7 billion for
growth capital projects and acquisitions and $0.2 million for sustaining capital expenditures.
55
Our forecast of consolidated capital expenditures is based on our strategic operating and
growth plans, which are dependent upon our ability to generate the required funds from either
operating cash flows or from other means, including borrowings under debt agreements, issuance of
equity, and potential
divestitures of certain assets to third and/or related parties. Our forecast of capital
expenditures may change due to factors beyond our control, such as weather related issues, changes
in supplier prices or adverse economic conditions. Furthermore, our forecast may change as a
result of decisions made by management at a later date, which may include acquisitions or decisions
to take on additional partners.
Our success in raising capital, including the formation of joint ventures to share costs and
risks, continues to be a principal factor that determines how much we can spend. We believe our
access to capital resources is sufficient to meet the demands of our current and future operating
growth needs, and although we currently intend to make the forecasted expenditures discussed above,
we may adjust the timing and amounts of projected expenditures in response to changes in capital
markets.
The following table summarizes our capital spending by activity for the periods indicated
(dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
2004 |
|
Capital spending for business combinations and asset purchases: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra Merger: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash payments to El Paso, including amounts paid to acquire
certain South Texas midstream assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
655,277 |
|
Transaction fees and other direct costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,032 |
|
Cash received from GulfTerra |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40,313 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash payments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
638,996 |
|
Value of non-cash consideration issued or granted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,910,771 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total GulfTerra Merger consideration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,549,767 |
|
Encinal acquisition, including non-cash equity consideration |
|
$ |
326,309 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piceance Creek acquisition |
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL underground storage and terminalling assets
purchased from Ferrellgas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
145,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
Indirect interests in the Indian Springs natural gas gathering
and processing assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
74,854 |
|
|
|
|
|
Additional ownership interests in Dixie Pipeline Company (Dixie) |
|
|
12,913 |
|
|
|
68,608 |
|
|
|
|
|
Additional ownership interests in Mid-America and
Seminole pipeline systems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other business combinations and asset purchases |
|
|
18,390 |
|
|
|
12,618 |
|
|
|
85,851 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
457,612 |
|
|
|
326,602 |
|
|
|
3,635,618 |
|
|
|
|
Capital spending for property, plant and equipment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Growth capital projects, net |
|
|
1,148,123 |
|
|
|
719,372 |
|
|
|
113,759 |
|
Sustaining capital projects |
|
|
132,455 |
|
|
|
98,077 |
|
|
|
33,169 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
1,280,578 |
|
|
|
817,449 |
|
|
|
146,928 |
|
|
|
|
Capital spending attributable to unconsolidated affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in and advances to Jonah Gas Gathering Company |
|
|
120,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
7,290 |
|
|
|
88,044 |
|
|
|
64,412 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
127,422 |
|
|
|
88,044 |
|
|
|
64,412 |
|
|
|
|
Total capital spending |
|
$ |
1,865,612 |
|
|
$ |
1,232,095 |
|
|
$ |
3,846,958 |
|
|
|
|
Our capital spending for growth capital projects (as presented in the preceding table)
are net of amounts we received from third parties as contributions in aid of our construction
costs. Such contributions were $60.5 million, $47.0 million and $8.9 million during 2006, 2005 and
2004, respectively. On certain of our capital projects, third parties are obligated to reimburse
us for all or a portion of project expenditures. The majority of such arrangements are associated
with projects related to pipeline construction and production well tie-ins.
At December 31, 2006, we had $239.0 million in outstanding purchase commitments. These
commitments primarily relate to growth capital projects in the Rocky Mountains that are expected to
be
56
placed in service in 2007 and the Shenzi Oil Export Pipeline Project (see below), which is
expected to be completed in 2009.
Significant Recently Announced Growth Capital Projects
The following information summarizes our significant growth capital projects as of February
15, 2007. The capital spending amount noted for each project includes accrued expenditures and
capitalized interest through December 31, 2006. The forecast amount noted for each project
includes a provision for estimated capitalized interest.
Piceance Creek Acquisition. In December 2006, we purchased all of the membership
interests in Piceance Creek from an affiliate of EnCana for $100 million. The assets of Piceance
Creek consist primarily of the Piceance Creek Gathering System. As part of the transaction, EnCana
signed a long-term, fixed-fee gathering contract and dedicated significant production to the system
for the life of the associated lease holdings. The new Piceance Creek Gathering System has a
transportation capacity of 1.6 Bcf/d and extends from a connection with EnCanas Great Divide
Gathering System near Parachute, Colorado, northward through the Piceance Basin to our Meeker gas
treating and processing complex, which is under construction. The Piceance Creek Gathering System
commenced operations in January 2007.
Current natural gas production from the Piceance Basin, which covers approximately 6,000
square miles, exceeds 1 Bcf/d from more than 4,800 wells and has been growing at an annualized rate
averaging 25% over the past five years. With third party estimates suggesting 20 trillion cubic
feet of undeveloped reserves, the Piceance Basin offers long-term opportunities for us to continue
to expand our system to serve producers developing this extensive resource play.
Barnett Shale Natural Gas Pipeline Project. In November 2006, we announced an
expansion of our Texas Intrastate Pipeline with the construction of the Sherman Extension that will
transport up to 1.1 Bcf/d of natural gas from the growing Barnett Shale area of North Texas. The
Sherman Extension is supported by long-term contracts with Devon Energy Corporation, the largest
producer in the Barnett Shale area, and significant indications of interest from leading producers
and gatherers in the Fort Worth basin, as well as other shippers on our Texas Intrastate Pipeline
system. At its terminus, the new pipeline system will make deliveries into Boardwalk Pipeline
Partners L.P.s (Boardwalk) Gulf Crossing Expansion Project, which will provide export capacity
for Barnett Shale natural gas production to multiple delivery points in Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama that offer access to attractive markets in the Northeast and Southeast United States. In
addition, the Sherman Extension will provide natural gas producers in East Texas and the Waha area
of West Texas with access to these higher value markets through our Texas Intrastate Pipeline
system.
The Sherman Extension will originate near Morgan Mill, Texas and extend through the center of
the current Barnett Shale development area to Sherman, Texas. This new pipeline is expected to
cost $424.6 million, most of which will be spent in 2008, and be placed in service during the
fourth quarter of 2008. In addition, we have the option to acquire up to a 49% interest in Gulf
Crossing Expansion Project from Boardwalk, subject to certain conditions.
The Barnett Shale is considered to be one of the largest unconventional natural gas resource
plays in North America, covering approximately 14 counties and over seven million acres in the Fort
Worth basin in North Texas. Current natural gas production is estimated at 2 Bcf/d from
approximately 5,500 wells. Approximately 130 rigs are currently estimated to be working to develop
Barnett Shale acreage in the region. According to the United States Geological Survey, the Barnett
Shale has the resource potential of approximately 26 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Shenzi Oil Export Pipeline Project. In October 2006, we announced the execution of
definitive agreements with producers to construct, own and operate an oil export pipeline that will
provide firm gathering services from the BHP Billiton Plc-operated Shenzi production field located
in the South Green Canyon area of the central Gulf of Mexico. The estimated construction cost of
this new pipeline is
57
approximately $172.4 million. As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending
with respect to the Shenzi oil pipeline project was $6.8 million.
The Shenzi oil export pipeline will originate at the Shenzi Field, located in 4,300 feet of
water at Green Canyon Block 653, approximately 120 miles off the coast of Louisiana. The 83-mile,
20-inch diameter pipeline will have the capacity to transport up to 230 MBPD of crude oil and will
connect the Shenzi Field to our Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline and Poseidon Oil Pipeline System at
our Ship Shoal 332B junction platform. We own a 50% interest in the Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline
and a 36% interest in the Poseidon Oil Pipeline System and operate both pipelines. The Shenzi oil
export pipeline will connect to a platform being constructed by BHP Billiton Plc to develop the
Shenzi Field, which is expected to begin production in mid-2009.
Jonah Joint Venture with TEPPCO and the Phase V Expansion. In August 2006, we became
a joint venture partner with TEPPCO in its Jonah subsidiary, which owns the Jonah Gathering System,
located in the Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming. The Jonah Gathering System
currently gathers and transports approximately 1.5 Bcf/d (or 85%) of natural gas produced from over
1,100 wells in the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas processing plants, including
our Pioneer plant, and major interstate pipelines that deliver natural gas to end-use markets.
Prior to entering into the Jonah joint venture, we managed the construction of the Phase V
expansion and funded the initial construction costs under a letter of intent we entered into in
February 2006. In connection with the joint venture arrangement, we and TEPPCO plan to continue
the Phase V expansion, which is expected to increase the capacity of the Jonah Gathering System
from 1.5 Bcf/d to 2.3 Bcf/d and to significantly reduce system operating pressures, which is
anticipated to lead to increased production rates and ultimate reserve recoveries. The first
portion of the expansion, which is expected to increase the system gathering capacity to 2.0 Bcf/d,
is projected to be completed in the first quarter of 2007 at an estimated cost of approximately
$302.0 million. The second portion of the Phase V expansion is expected to cost approximately
$142.0 million and be completed by the end of 2007. As of December 31, 2006, capital spending with
respect to the overall Phase V Expansion (on a 100% basis) was $233.7 million.
We will continue to manage the Phase V construction project. TEPPCO was entitled to all
distributions from the joint venture until specified milestones were achieved, at which point, we
became entitled to receive 50% of the incremental cash flow from portions of the system placed in
service as part of the expansion. After subsequent milestones are achieved, we and TEPPCO will
share distributions based on a formula that takes into account the respective capital contributions
of the parties, including expenditures by TEPPCO prior to the expansion. From August 1, 2006, we
and TEPPCO share equally in the construction costs of the Phase V expansion.
As of December 31, 2006, TEPPCO reimbursed us $109.4 million for 50% of the Phase V expansion
cost incurred through November 29, 2006 (including carrying costs of $1.3 million). We had a
receivable of $8.7 million from TEPPCO at December 31, 2006 for costs incurred through December 31,
2006. Upon completion of the expansion project and based on the formula in the joint venture
partnership agreement, we expect to own an interest in Jonah of approximately 20%, with TEPPCO
owning the remaining 80%. We will operate the system. See Item 13 of this annual report for
additional information regarding our relationship with TEPPCO.
DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. In August 2006, we acquired a 220-mile pipeline
from ExxonMobil Pipeline Company for $97.7 million in cash. This pipeline originates in Corpus
Christi, Texas and extends to Pasadena, Texas. This pipeline segment was expanded (the Phase I
expansion) by (i) the construction of 45 miles of pipeline laterals to connect the system to our
Armstrong and Shoup NGL fractionation facilities; (ii) the short-term lease from TEPPCO of a
11-mile interconnecting pipeline extending from Pasadena, Texas to Baytown, Texas; and (iii) the
purchase of an additional 10-mile pipeline from TEPPCO that will connect the leased TEPPCO pipeline
to Mont Belvieu, Texas. The purchase of the 10-mile segment from TEPPCO cost $8.0 million and was
completed in January 2007. The primary term of the TEPPCO
pipeline lease will expire in September 2007,
and will continue on a month-to-month basis
58
subject to customary termination provisions.
Collectively, this 286-mile pipeline system will be termed the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline. Phase
I of the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System commenced transportation of NGLs in January 2007.
During 2007, we will construct an additional 21 miles of pipeline (the Phase II upgrade) to
replace (i) the 11-mile pipeline we lease from TEPPCO and (ii) certain segments of the pipeline we
acquired in August 2006 from ExxonMobil Pipeline Company. The Phase II upgrade is expected to
provide a significant increase in pipeline capacity and be operational during the third quarter of
2007.
We estimate the cost of the Phase I expansion was $37.7 million, which included the $8 million
we paid TEPPCO to acquire its 10-mile Baytown to Mont Belvieu pipeline. We expect the Phase II
upgrade to cost an additional $28.6 million. As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending with
respect to the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System was $117.8 million, which includes the $97.7
million we paid in August 2006.
This pipeline system is owned by South Texas NGL Pipelines, LLC, an entity that is 66% owned
by Duncan Energy Partners and 34% by our Operating Partnership. For additional information
regarding Duncan Energy Partners, see Other Items Initial Public Offering of Duncan Energy
Partners included within this Item 7.
Texas Intrastate Pipeline Expansion Projects. In July 2006, we signed long-term
agreements with CenterPoint Energy to provide firm natural gas transportation and storage services
to its one of its natural gas utilities, primarily in the Houston, Texas metropolitan area. We
will provide CenterPoint Energy with an estimated 14 Bcf per year of natural gas beginning in April
2007.
To provide these new services, we will enhance our Texas Intrastate natural gas pipeline
system through a combination of pipeline and compression projects, including the expansion of our
Wilson natural gas storage facility in Texas, acquisition of certain pipeline laterals located in
the Houston, Texas area and the construction of eleven new city gate delivery stations.
The total capital cost of these projects is estimated to be $112.2 million and will be
completed in phases extending through 2008. As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending with
respect to these natural gas pipeline projects was $13.7 million. As part of this expansion
project, we purchased certain idle pipeline assets in the Houston, Texas area from TEPPCO for $11.7
million in cash in October 2006.
Encinal Acquisition. In July 2006, we acquired the Encinal and Canales natural gas
gathering systems and related gathering and processing contracts and other assets that comprised
the South Texas natural gas transportation and processing business of Lewis. The aggregate value
of total consideration we paid or issued to complete this business combination, referred to as the
Encinal acquisition, was $326.3 million.
The Encinal and Canales gathering systems are located in South Texas and are connected to over
1,450 natural gas production wells producing from the Olmos and Wilcox formations. The Encinal
system consists of 452 miles of pipeline, which is comprised of 280 miles of pipeline we acquired
from Lewis in this transaction and 172 miles of pipeline that we own and had previously leased to
Lewis. The Canales gathering system is comprised of 32 miles of pipeline. Currently, natural gas
volumes gathered by the Encinal and Canales systems are transported by our existing South Texas
natural gas pipeline system and are processed by our South Texas natural gas processing plants.
As part of this transaction, we acquired long-term natural gas processing and gathering
dedications from Lewis. First, these gathering systems will be supported by a life of reserves
gathering and processing dedication by Lewis related to its natural gas production from the Olmos
formation. Second, Lewis entered into a 10-year agreement with us for the transportation of
natural gas treated at its proposed Big Reef facility. This facility will treat natural gas
production from the southern portion of the Edwards Trend in South Texas. Third, Lewis entered
into a 10-year agreement with us for the gathering and processing of rich gas it produces from
below the Olmos formation.
59
The total consideration paid or granted for the Encinal acquisition is summarized in the
following table (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Cash payment to Lewis |
|
$ |
145,197 |
|
Fair value of our 7,115,844 common units issued to Lewis |
|
|
181,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total consideration |
|
$ |
326,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Note 12 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8
of this annual report for our preliminary purchase price allocation related to this acquisition.
As a result of our preliminary purchase price allocation, we recorded goodwill of $95.2 million,
which management attributes to potential future benefits we may realize from our existing South
Texas processing and NGL businesses as a result of the Encinal acquisition. Specifically, the
long-term dedication rights acquired in connection with the Encinal acquisition are expected to add
value to our South Texas processing facilities and related NGL businesses due to increased volumes.
Expansion of Import and Export Capability. In April 2006, we announced an expansion
of our NGL import and export terminal located on the Houston Ship Channel. This expansion project
will increase offloading capability of our import facility from a maximum peak operating rate of
240 MBPD to 480 MBPD and the maximum loading rate of our export facility from 140 MBPD to 160 MBPD.
As part of this expansion project, we will increase the transportation and processing capacities
of certain of our assets that serve the terminal in order to accommodate the expected increase in
import volumes.
This expansion project is expected to cost approximately $62.7 million and be completed in the
second quarter of 2007. As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending with respect to the
expansion of import and export capabilities was $5.8 million.
Wyoming Gas Processing Projects. In March 2006, we paid $38.2 million to TEPPCO for
its Pioneer natural gas processing plant located in Opal, Wyoming and certain natural gas
processing rights related to production from the Jonah and Pinedale fields located in the Greater
Green River Basin in Wyoming. After completing this asset purchase, we increased the capacity of
the Pioneer natural gas processing plant from 300 MMcf/d to 600 MMcf/d at an additional cost of
approximately $21 million. This expansion was completed in July 2006 and enables us to process
natural gas production from the Jonah and Pinedale fields that will be transported to our Wyoming
facilities as a result of the processing contract rights we acquired from TEPPCO. Of the $38.2
million we paid TEPPCO to acquire the Pioneer facility, $37.8 million was allocated to the contract
rights we acquired.
In addition, to handle future production growth in the region and substantially increase NGL
recoveries, we started construction of a new cryogenic natural gas processing plant in July 2006
adjacent to the Pioneer plant we acquired from TEPPCO. We expect our new natural gas processing
plant, which will have the capacity to process up to 750 MMcf/d of natural gas, to be placed in
service by the fourth quarter of 2007 at an expected cost of $236.2 million. As of December 31,
2006, our capital spending with respect to the new natural gas processing plant was $53.7 million.
Expansion of Mont Belvieu Petrochemical Assets. In March 2006, we announced an
expansion of our petrochemical assets in Mont Belvieu and southeast Texas. This expansion project
includes (i) the construction of a fourth propylene fractionator at our Mont Belvieu complex, which
will increase our propylene/propane fractionation capacity by approximately 15 MBPD, and (ii) the
expansion of two refinery grade propylene gathering pipelines which will add 50 MBPD of gathering
capacity into Mont Belvieu. These projects are expected to be completed by late 2007 and cost
approximately $204.1 million, which includes $35.0 million we spent in December 2005 to acquire a
related pipeline asset. As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending with respect to these
expansion projects was $142.8 million.
Piceance Basin Gas Processing Project. In January 2006, we announced the execution of
a minimum 15-year natural gas processing agreement with an affiliate of EnCana. Under that
agreement, we
60
have the right to process up to 1.3 Bcf/d of EnCanas natural gas production from the
Piceance Basin area of western Colorado.
To accommodate this production, we have begun construction of the Meeker natural gas
processing facility in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. This processing plant will provide us with 750
MMcf/d of natural gas processing capacity and the ability to recover up to 35 MBPD of NGLs at full
rates when Phase I of construction is completed in mid-2007. In addition, we will construct an
approximate 50-mile NGL pipeline that will connect our Meeker facility with our Mid-America
Pipeline System. The estimated cost of Phase I of the Meeker facility and related NGL pipeline is
$320.7 million. EnCana has certain guaranteed payment obligations to us and we are currently
working to secure production dedications from additional producers.
In June 2006, EnCana executed an option which requires us to build a 750 MMcf/d expansion of
the Meeker facility by mid-2008 (the Phase II expansion). We have initiated design work on this
expansion, which is expected to cost $260.6 million. This expansion will enable us to recover an
additional 35 MBPD of NGLs at full rates. Under the terms of the agreement, EnCana has certain
additional guaranteed payment obligations to us associated with the Phase II expansion.
As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending with respect to our Piceance Basin gas
processing projects was $137.4 million.
Hobbs NGL Fractionator. In June 2005, we announced plans to construct a new NGL
fractionator, designed to handle up to 75 MBPD of mixed NGLs, located at the interconnection of our
Mid-America Pipeline System and our Seminole Pipeline near Hobbs, New Mexico. This project is
expected to cost $232.5 million and be placed in service during the third quarter of 2007. Our
Hobbs NGL fractionator will process the increase in mixed NGLs resulting from our Phase I expansion
of the Mid-America Pipeline System. As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending with respect to
the Hobbs NGL fractionator was $110.4 million.
Mid-America Pipeline System Projects. In January 2005, we announced an expansion (the
Phase I expansion) of the Rocky Mountain segment of our Mid-America Pipeline System to accommodate
expected increases in mixed NGL shipments originating from producing basins in Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado and New Mexico. The Phase I expansion project will be completed in stages and will
increase throughput volumes on the Rocky Mountain segment by 50 MBPD. We expect final completion
of the Phase I expansion during the third quarter of 2007 at a cost of approximately $202.6
million.
As of December 31, 2006, our capital spending with respect to the Phase I expansion project
was $128.6 million, including accrued expenditures. In August 2006, we executed new long-term
transportation agreements with all but one of our current shippers on the Rocky Mountain segment of
the Mid-America Pipeline System that will fully utilize this additional capacity.
In June 2005, we began engineering and design work to construct a 190-mile, 12-inch NGL
pipeline that will have the capacity to move up to 67 MBPD of mixed NGLs bi-directionally between
Skellytown, Texas and Conway, Kansas and an additional 48 MBPD from Skellytown, Texas to Hobbs, New
Mexico. Construction of this pipeline began in the spring of 2006 and is expected to cost
approximately $83.6 million and be placed in service in April 2007. As of December 31, 2006, our
capital spending with respect to the Skellytown to Conway pipeline was $62.5 million.
Independence Hub Platform and Independence Trail Pipeline System. In November 2004,
we entered into an agreement with the Atwater Valley Producers Group for the dedication, processing
and gathering of natural gas and condensate production from several natural gas fields in the
Atwater Valley, DeSoto Canyon, Lloyd Ridge and Mississippi Canyon areas (collectively, the anchor
fields) of the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. First production is expected in the second half of 2007.
We constructed and own an 80% interest in the Independence Hub platform, which will be located
in Mississippi Canyon Block 920, at a water depth of approximately 8,000 feet. The Independence
Hub is
61
a 105-foot deep-draft, semi-submersible platform with a two-level production deck, which
will process 1 Bcf/d of natural gas. In January 2007, the Independence Hub platform sailed from
its construction site in
Corpus Christi, Texas to Mississippi Canyon Block 920, where it will be installed. We expect
mechanical completion of the platform by mid-March 2007.
The platform, which is estimated to cost $445.9 million, will be operated by Anadarko (one of
the major producers in the Atwater Valley Producers Group), and is designed to process production
from its anchor fields and has excess payload capacity to support ten additional pipeline risers.
As of December 31, 2006, our 80% share of capital spending with respect to the Independence Hub
platform was $344.8 million.
During the third quarter of 2006, we completed construction of our 134-mile Independence Trail
natural gas pipeline system, which has a throughput capacity of 1 Bcf/d of natural gas and will
transport production from our Independence Hub platform to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline. This
pipeline system and a related junction platform (under construction) are estimated to cost $281.3
million. We own 100% of the Independence Trail pipeline. As of December 31, 2006, our capital
spending with respect to the Independence Trail pipeline and related junction platform was $271.3
million, including accrued expenditures.
Pipeline Integrity Costs
Our NGL, petrochemical and natural gas pipelines are subject to pipeline safety programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, through its Office of Pipeline Safety. This
federal agency has issued safety regulations containing requirements for the development of
integrity management programs for hazardous liquid pipelines (which include NGL and petrochemical
pipelines) and natural gas pipelines. In general, these regulations require companies to assess
the condition of their pipelines in certain high consequence areas (as defined by the regulation)
and to perform any necessary repairs. In connection with the regulations for hazardous liquid
pipelines, we developed a pipeline integrity management program in 2002. In connection with the
regulations for natural gas pipelines, we developed a pipeline integrity management program in
2004.
We spent approximately $64.6 million to comply with these programs during 2006, of which $26.4
million was recorded as an operating expense and the remaining $38.2 million was capitalized.
During 2005, we spent approximately $42.2 million to comply with these programs, of which $25.0
million was recorded as an operating expense, and the remaining $17.2 million was capitalized.
We expect our net cash outlay for pipeline integrity program expenditures to approximate $48.0
million for 2007. Our forecast is net of certain costs we expect to recover from El Paso in
connection with an indemnification agreement. In April 2002, GulfTerra acquired several midstream
assets located in Texas and New Mexico from El Paso. These assets include the Texas Intrastate
System and the Permian Basin System. El Paso agreed to indemnify GulfTerra for any pipeline
integrity costs it incurred (whether paid or payable) during 2005, 2006 and 2007 with respect to
such assets, to the extent that such annual costs exceed $3.3 million; however, the aggregate
amount reimbursable by El Paso for these periods is capped at $50.2 million. In 2006, we recovered
$13.7 million from El Paso related to our 2005 expenditures. During 2007, we expect to recover
$29.1 million from El Paso related to our 2006 expenditures, which leaves a remainder of $7.3
million reimbursable by El Paso for 2007 pipeline integrity costs.
62
Results of Operations
We have four reportable business segments: NGL Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas
Pipelines & Services, Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services. Our business
segments are generally organized and managed according to the type of services rendered (or
technology employed) and products produced and/or sold.
We evaluate segment performance based on the non-GAAP financial measure of gross operating
margin. Gross operating margin (either in total or by individual segment) is an important
performance measure of the core profitability of our operations. This measure forms the basis of
our internal financial reporting and is used by senior management in deciding how to allocate
capital resources among business segments. We believe that investors benefit from having access to
the same financial measures that our management uses in evaluating segment results. The GAAP
financial measure most directly comparable to total segment gross operating margin is operating
income. Our non-GAAP financial measure of total segment gross operating margin should not be
considered as an alternative to GAAP operating income.
We define total (or consolidated) segment gross operating margin as operating income before
depreciation, amortization and accretion expense; (ii) operating lease expenses for which we do not
have the payment obligation; (iii) gains and losses on the sale of assets; and (iv) general and
administrative expenses. Gross operating margin is exclusive of other income and expense
transactions, provision for income taxes, minority interest, extraordinary charges and the
cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles. Gross operating margin by segment is
calculated by subtracting segment operating costs and expenses (net of the adjustments noted above)
from segment revenues, with both segment totals before the elimination of intersegment and
intrasegment transactions. Intercompany accounts and transactions are eliminated in consolidation.
We include earnings from equity method unconsolidated affiliates in our measurement of segment
gross operating margin and operating income. Our equity investments with industry partners are a
vital component of our business strategy. They are a means by which we conduct our operations to
align our interests with those of our customers and/or suppliers. This method of operation also
enables us to achieve favorable economies of scale relative to the level of investment and business
risk assumed versus what we could accomplish on a stand-alone basis. Many of these businesses
perform supporting or complementary roles to our other business operations. As circumstances
dictate, we may increase our ownership interest in equity investments, which could result in their
subsequent consolidation into our operations.
For additional information regarding our business segments, see Note 16 of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
63
Selected Price and Volumetric Data
The following table illustrates selected annual and quarterly industry index prices for
natural gas, crude oil and selected NGL and petrochemical products for the periods presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polymer |
|
Refinery |
|
|
Natural |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normal |
|
|
|
|
|
Natural |
|
Grade |
|
Grade |
|
|
Gas, |
|
Crude Oil, |
|
Ethane, |
|
Propane, |
|
Butane, |
|
Isobutane, |
|
Gasoline, |
|
Propylene, |
|
Propylene, |
|
|
$/MMBtu |
|
$/barrel |
|
$/gallon |
|
$/gallon |
|
$/gallon |
|
$/gallon |
|
$/gallon |
|
$/pound |
|
$/pound |
|
|
(1) |
|
(2) |
|
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
(1) |
|
(1) |
2004 Averages |
|
$ |
6.13 |
|
|
$ |
41.45 |
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
$ |
0.74 |
|
|
$ |
0.88 |
|
|
$ |
0.88 |
|
|
$ |
1.00 |
|
|
$ |
0.33 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
|
|
2005 Averages |
|
$ |
8.64 |
|
|
$ |
56.47 |
|
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
0.91 |
|
|
$ |
1.09 |
|
|
$ |
1.15 |
|
|
$ |
1.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
$ |
0.37 |
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
|
$ |
9.01 |
|
|
$ |
63.35 |
|
|
$ |
0.57 |
|
|
$ |
0.94 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.27 |
|
|
$ |
1.38 |
|
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
$ |
0.40 |
|
2nd Quarter |
|
$ |
6.80 |
|
|
$ |
70.53 |
|
|
$ |
0.68 |
|
|
$ |
1.05 |
|
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
1.26 |
|
|
$ |
1.52 |
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
3rd Quarter |
|
$ |
6.58 |
|
|
$ |
70.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
|
$ |
1.10 |
|
|
$ |
1.28 |
|
|
$ |
1.30 |
|
|
$ |
1.53 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
$ |
0.46 |
|
4th Quarter |
|
$ |
6.56 |
|
|
$ |
60.03 |
|
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
0.95 |
|
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
|
$ |
1.31 |
|
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.35 |
|
|
|
|
2006 Averages |
|
$ |
7.24 |
|
|
$ |
66.09 |
|
|
$ |
0.66 |
|
|
$ |
1.01 |
|
|
$ |
1.20 |
|
|
$ |
1.24 |
|
|
$ |
1.44 |
|
|
$ |
0.47 |
|
|
$ |
0.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Natural gas, NGL, polymer grade propylene and refinery grade propylene prices represent an average of
various commercial index prices including Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) and Chemical Market
Associates, Inc. (CMAI). Natural gas price is representative of Henry-Hub I-FERC. NGL prices are
representative of Mont Belvieu Non-TET pricing. Refinery grade propylene represents an average of CMAI
spot prices. Polymer-grade propylene represents average CMAI contract pricing. |
|
(2) |
|
Crude oil price is representative of an index price for West Texas Intermediate. |
The following table presents our significant average throughput, production and
processing volumetric data. These statistics are reported on a net basis, taking into account our
ownership interests, and reflect the periods in which we owned an interest in such operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
NGL Pipelines & Services, net: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL transportation volumes (MBPD) |
|
|
1,577 |
|
|
|
1,478 |
|
|
|
1,411 |
|
NGL fractionation volumes (MBPD) |
|
|
312 |
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
307 |
|
Equity NGL production (MBPD)(1) |
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Fee-based natural gas processing (MMcf/d) |
|
|
2,218 |
|
|
|
1,767 |
|
|
|
1,692 |
|
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services, net: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas transportation volumes (BBtus/d) |
|
|
6,012 |
|
|
|
5,916 |
|
|
|
5,638 |
|
Offshore Pipelines & Services, net: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas transportation volumes (BBtus/d) |
|
|
1,520 |
|
|
|
1,780 |
|
|
|
2,081 |
|
Crude oil transportation volumes (MBPD) |
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
Platform gas processing (BBtus/d) |
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
306 |
|
Platform oil processing (MBPD) |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Petrochemical Services, net: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Butane isomerization volumes (MBPD) |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
Propylene fractionation volumes (MBPD) |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
Octane additive production volumes (MBPD) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
Petrochemical transportation volumes (MBPD) |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
Total, net: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL, crude oil and petrochemical transportation volumes
(MBPD) |
|
|
1,827 |
|
|
|
1,669 |
|
|
|
1,620 |
|
Natural gas transportation volumes (BBtus/d) |
|
|
7,532 |
|
|
|
7,696 |
|
|
|
7,719 |
|
Equivalent transportation volumes (MBPD)(2) |
|
|
3,809 |
|
|
|
3,694 |
|
|
|
3,651 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Volumes for 2005 and 2004 have been revised to incorporate asset-level definitions of equity NGL production volumes. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects equivalent energy volumes where 3.8 MMBtus of natural gas are equivalent to one barrel of NGLs. |
64
Comparison of Results of Operations
The following table summarizes the key components of our results of operations for the periods
indicated (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
Revenues |
|
$ |
13,990,969 |
|
|
$ |
12,256,959 |
|
|
$ |
8,321,202 |
|
Operating costs and expenses |
|
|
13,089,091 |
|
|
|
11,546,225 |
|
|
|
7,904,336 |
|
General and administrative costs |
|
|
63,391 |
|
|
|
62,266 |
|
|
|
46,659 |
|
Equity in income of unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
21,565 |
|
|
|
14,548 |
|
|
|
52,787 |
|
Operating income |
|
|
860,052 |
|
|
|
663,016 |
|
|
|
422,994 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
238,023 |
|
|
|
230,549 |
|
|
|
155,740 |
|
Net income |
|
|
601,155 |
|
|
|
419,508 |
|
|
|
268,261 |
|
Our gross operating margin by segment and in total is as follows for the periods
indicated (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
Gross operating margin by segment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL Pipelines & Services |
|
$ |
752,548 |
|
|
$ |
579,706 |
|
|
$ |
374,196 |
|
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services |
|
|
333,399 |
|
|
|
353,076 |
|
|
|
90,977 |
|
Offshore Pipeline & Services |
|
|
103,407 |
|
|
|
77,505 |
|
|
|
36,478 |
|
Petrochemical Services |
|
|
173,095 |
|
|
|
126,060 |
|
|
|
121,515 |
|
Other, non-segment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,025 |
|
|
|
|
Total segment gross operating margin |
|
$ |
1,362,449 |
|
|
$ |
1,136,347 |
|
|
$ |
655,191 |
|
|
|
|
For a reconciliation of non-GAAP gross operating margin to GAAP operating income and
further to GAAP income before provision for income taxes, minority interest and the cumulative
effect of changes in accounting principles, see Other Items Non-GAAP reconciliations included
within this Item 7.
The following table summarizes the contribution to consolidated revenues from the sale of NGL,
natural gas and petrochemical products during the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
NGL Pipelines & Services: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of NGL products |
|
$ |
9,496,926 |
|
|
$ |
8,176,370 |
|
|
$ |
5,542,877 |
|
Percent of consolidated revenues |
|
|
68 |
% |
|
|
67 |
% |
|
|
67 |
% |
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of natural gas |
|
$ |
1,230,369 |
|
|
$ |
1,065,542 |
|
|
$ |
686,770 |
|
Percent of consolidated revenues |
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
9 |
% |
|
|
8 |
% |
Petrochemical Services: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of petrochemical products |
|
$ |
1,545,693 |
|
|
$ |
1,311,956 |
|
|
$ |
1,054,994 |
|
Percent of consolidated revenues |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
11 |
% |
|
|
13 |
% |
Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2006 with Year Ended December 31, 2005
Revenues for 2006 were $14.0 billion compared to $12.3 billion for 2005. The increase in
consolidated revenues year-to-year is primarily due to higher sales volumes and energy commodity
prices in 2006 relative to 2005. These factors accounted for a $1.7 billion increase in
consolidated revenues associated with our marketing activities. Revenues for 2006 include $63.9
million of proceeds from business interruption insurance associated with Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita in 2005 and Hurricane Ivan in 2004.
Operating costs and expenses were $13.1 billion for 2006 versus $11.5 billion for 2005. The
year-to-year increase in consolidated operating costs and expenses is primarily due to an increase
in the cost of sales associated with our marketing activities. The cost of
65
sales of our NGL and
petrochemical products increased $1.2 billion year-to-year as a result of an increase in volumes
and higher energy commodity
prices. Operating costs and expenses associated with our natural gas processing plants increased
$258.7 million as a result of higher energy commodity prices in 2006 relative to 2005. General and
administrative costs increased $1.1 million year-to-year primarily due to higher costs associated
with FERC rate case filings associated with our Mid-America Pipeline System and Texas Intrastate
System.
Changes in our revenues and costs and expenses year-to-year are explained in part by changes
in energy commodity prices. The weighted-average indicative market price for NGLs was $1.00 per
gallon during 2006 versus $0.91 per gallon during 2005, a year-to-year increase of 10%. Our
determination of the weighted-average indicative market price for NGLs is based on U.S. Gulf Coast
prices for such products at Mont Belvieu, which is the primary industry hub for domestic NGL
production. The market price of natural gas (as measured at Henry Hub) averaged $7.24 per MMBtu
during 2006 versus $8.64 per MMBtu during 2005. Polymer grade and refinery grade propylene index
prices increased 12% year-to-year. For additional historical energy commodity pricing information,
see the table on page 64.
Equity earnings from unconsolidated affiliates were $21.6 million for 2006 compared to $14.5
million for 2005. An increase in volumes from offshore production led to a collective $11.8
million increase year-to-year in equity earnings from Poseidon and Deepwater Gateway. Equity
earnings from Cameron Highway increased $4.9 million year-to-year. Our equity earnings for 2005
included an $11.5 million charge associated with the refinancing of Cameron Highways project
finance debt. Also, equity earnings from our investment in Neptune decreased $10.3 million
year-to-year primarily due to a $7.4 million non-cash impairment charge recorded in 2006
associated with this investment.
Operating income for 2006 was $860.1 million compared to $663 million for 2005. Collectively,
the aforementioned changes in revenues, costs and expenses and equity earnings contributed to the
$197.1 million increase in operating income year-to-year.
Interest expense increased $7.5 million year-to-year primarily due to our issuance of junior
notes in 2006 and an increase in interest rates charged on our variable rate debt. Our average
debt principal outstanding was $4.9 billion in 2006 compared to $4.6 billion in 2005.
As a result of items noted in the previous paragraphs, our consolidated net income increased
$181.6 million year-to-year to $601.2 million in 2006 compared to $419.5 million in 2005. Net
income for both years includes the recognition of non-cash amounts related to the cumulative
effects of changes in accounting principles. We recorded a $1.5 million benefit in 2006 and a $4.2
million charge in 2005 related to such changes. For additional information regarding the
cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles we recorded in 2006 and 2005, see Note 8 of
the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
The following information highlights significant year-to-year variances in gross operating
margin by business segment:
NGL Pipelines & Services. Gross operating margin from this business segment was $752.5
million for 2006 compared to $579.7 million for 2005. Segment gross operating margin for 2006
includes $40.4 million of proceeds from business interruption insurance claims related to
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ivan. We collected $4.8 million of proceeds from business
interruption claims in 2005 related to Hurricane Ivan. Strong demand for NGLs in 2006 compared
to 2005 led to higher natural gas processing margins, increased volumes of natural gas processed
under fee-based contracts and higher NGL throughput volumes at certain of our pipelines and
fractionation facilities.
Gross operating margin from NGL pipelines and storage was $265.7 million for 2006 compared to
$203.0 million for 2005. Total NGL transportation volumes increased to 1,577 MBPD during 2006 from
1,478 MBPD during 2005. The $62.7 million year-to-year increase in gross operating margin is
primarily due to higher NGL transportation and storage volumes at certain of our facilities and the
affects of a higher average transportation rate charged to shippers
on our Mid-America Pipeline System.
Also, segment gross operating margin in 2006 from our Dixie pipeline system benefited from lower
pipeline integrity
66
and maintenance costs year-to-year and the settlement of claims associated with
a pipeline contamination incident in 2005.
Gross operating margin from our natural gas processing and related NGL marketing business was
$359.6 million for 2006 compared to $308.5 million for 2005. The $51.1 million increase in gross
operating margin year-to-year is largely due to improved results from our south Texas and Louisiana
natural gas processing facilities, which benefited from strong demand for NGLs, a favorable
processing environment and higher levels of offshore natural gas production available for
processing. Fee-based processing volumes increased to 2.2 Bcf/d during 2006 from 1.8 Bcf/d during
2005. Lastly, gross operating margin from natural gas processing for 2006 includes $9.6 million
from processing contracts we acquired in connection with the Encinal acquisition in July 2006 and
$9.4 million from the Pioneer plant, which we acquired from TEPPCO in March 2006 and subsequently
expanded its capacity from 300 MMcf/d to 600 MMcf/d.
Gross operating margin from NGL fractionation was $86.8 million for 2006 compared to $63.4
million for 2005. Fractionation volumes increased from 292 MBPD during 2005 to 312 MBPD during
2006. The year-to-year increase in gross operating margin of $23.4 million is largely due to
increased fractionation volumes at our Norco NGL fractionator. This facility suffered a reduction
of volumes in the second half of 2005 due to the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Also, our
Mont Belvieu NGL fractionator benefited from a 15 MBPD expansion project that was completed during
the second quarter of 2006.
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services. Gross operating margin from this business
segment was $333.4 million for 2006 compared to $353.1 million for 2005. Our total onshore natural
gas transportation volumes were 6,012 BBtu/d during 2006 compared to 5,916 BBtu/d for 2005. A
$24.7 million increase in segment gross operating margin from our Texas Intrastate System
year-to-year was more than offset by lower gross operating margin from our San Juan Gathering
System and Wilson natural gas storage facility. Gross operating margin from our Texas Intrastate
System increased to $117.7 million for 2006 from $93 million for 2005. Our Texas Intrastate System
benefited from higher transportation fees and lower operating costs year-to-year.
Segment gross operating margin from our San Juan Gathering System decreased $26.7 million
year-to-year attributable to lower revenues from certain gathering contracts in which the fees are
based on an index price for natural gas. Average index prices for natural gas were significantly
higher during 2005 relative to 2006 due to supply interruptions and higher regional demand caused
by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Natural gas gathering volumes for the San Juan Gathering System
were 1.2 BBtu/d for 2006 and 2005.
In addition, gross operating margin from this segment decreased $21.9 million year-to-year as
a result of mechanical problems associated with three storage caverns located at our Wilson natural
gas storage facility in Texas, which caused these wells to be taken out of service for most of
2006. This includes $7.9 million in losses associated with the withdrawal of cushion gas from
these wells.
Lastly, gross operating margin for 2006 includes $1.8 million from the Encinal
Gathering System that we acquired in July 2006. The Encinal Gathering System
contributed 89 BBtu/d of gathering volumes during 2006.
Offshore Pipelines & Services. Gross operating margin from this business segment was
$103.4 million for 2006 compared to $77.5 million for 2005. Segment gross operating margin for
2006 includes $23.5 million of proceeds from business interruption insurance claims related to
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Ivan. As a result of industry losses associated with these
storms, insurance costs for offshore operations have increased dramatically. Insurance costs for
our offshore assets were $21.6 million for 2006 compared to $6.5 million for 2005.
67
Gross
operating margin from our offshore crude oil pipelines was $23.0 million for 2006 versus
$0.3 million for 2005. Our Marco Polo and Poseidon oil pipelines posted higher crude oil
transportation volumes during 2006 due to increased production activity by our customers.
Collectively, gross operating
margin from the Marco Polo and Poseidon oil pipelines improved $10.1 million year-to-year.
Our Constitution Oil Pipeline, which was placed in-service during the first quarter of 2006,
contributed $8.8 million to segment gross operating margin during 2006. Total offshore crude oil
transportation volumes were 153 MBPD during 2006 versus 127 MBPD during 2005.
Gross operating margin from our offshore natural gas pipelines was $22.4 million for 2006
compared to $37.1 million for 2005. Offshore natural gas transportation volumes were 1,520 BBtu/d
during 2006 versus 1,780 BBtu/d during the third quarter of 2005. The $14.7 million decrease in
gross operating margin year-to-year is largely due to increased insurance costs and a non-cash
impairment charge of $7.4 million recorded in 2006 associated with our investment in Neptune.
Also, 2006 includes gross operating margin of $8.4 million and transportation volumes of 50 BBtu/d
from the Constitution natural gas pipeline, which was placed in service during the first quarter of
2006.
Gross operating margin from our offshore platforms was $34.5 million for 2006 compared to
$40.1 million for 2005. The decrease in gross operating margin year-to-year is primarily due to
reduced offshore production as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. Equity earnings
from Deepwater Gateway, which owns the Marco Polo platform, increased $7.8 million year-to-year
primarily due to higher processing volumes.
Petrochemical Services. Gross operating margin from this business segment was $173.1
million for 2006 compared to $126.1 million for 2005. The $47 million year-to-year increase in
gross operating margin is primarily due to improved results from our octane enhancement business
attributable to higher isooctane sales volumes and prices. Gross operating margin from this
business was $36.5 million for 2006 compared to $3.6 million for the 2005. Isooctane, a high
octane, low vapor pressure motor gasoline additive, complements the increasing use of ethanol,
which has a high vapor pressure. Our isooctane production facility commenced operations in the
second quarter of 2005.
Gross operating margin from our propylene fractionation and pipeline activities was $63.4
million for 2006 versus $55.9 million for 2005. The year-to-year increase in gross operating
margin of $7.5 million is primarily due to improved polymer grade propylene sales prices and
volumes and the addition of the Texas City refinery-grade propylene pipeline, which we completed
during 2005. Petrochemical transportation volumes were 97 MBPD during 2006 compared to 64 MBPD
during 2005. Gross operating margin from butane isomerization was $73.2 million for 2006 compared
to $66.6 million for 2005. The year-to-year increase of $6.6 million is primarily due to higher
processing fees and lower fuel costs. Butane isomerization volumes were 81 MBPD during 2006 and
2005.
Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2005 with Year Ended December 31, 2004
Revenues for 2005 were $12.3 billion compared to $8.3 billion for 2004. The increase in
consolidated revenues is due in part to an increase in NGL and petrochemical sales volumes and
higher energy commodity prices in 2005 relative to 2004. These differences accounted for a $2.4
billion increase in revenues from our natural gas, NGL and petrochemical marketing activities.
Also, our consolidated revenues increased by $1.5 billion year-to-year attributable to revenues
earned by acquired or consolidated businesses, particularly those generated by the GulfTerra and
South Texas midstream assets.
Operating costs and expenses were $11.5 billion for 2005 compared to $7.9 billion for 2004.
The year-to-year increase in consolidated costs and expenses is primarily due to (i) higher energy
commodity prices, which resulted in a $2.2 billion increase in the cost of sales of natural gas,
NGLs and petrochemical products and (ii) the addition of $1.4 billion in costs and expenses
attributable to acquired or consolidated businesses. General and administrative costs increased
$15.6 million year-to-year as a result of our expanded business activities.
68
As noted previously, changes in our revenues and costs and expenses year-to-year are explained
in part by changes in energy commodity prices. The weighted-average indicative market price for
NGLs was $0.91 per gallon during 2005 versus $0.73 per gallon during 2004 a year-to-year increase
of 25%. The Henry Hub market price for natural gas averaged $8.64 per MMBtu during 2005 versus
$6.13 per MMBtu
during 2004. Polymer grade propylene index prices increased 27% year-to-year and refinery
grade propylene index prices increased 28% year-to-year. For additional historical energy
commodity pricing information, see the table on page 64.
Equity earnings from unconsolidated affiliates were $14.5 million for 2005 versus $52.8
million for 2004. Equity earnings for 2005 include a full year of our share of earnings from
investments we acquired in connection with the GulfTerra Merger, including an $11.5 million charge
associated with the refinancing of Cameron Highways project debt. Fiscal 2004 includes $32.0
million of equity earnings from GulfTerra GP, which we consolidated in September 2004 as a result
of completing the GulfTerra Merger.
Operating income for 2005 was $663.0 million compared to $423.0 million for 2004.
Collectively, the aforementioned changes in revenues, costs and expenses and equity earnings
contributed to the $240 million increase in operating income year-to-year.
Interest expense increased $74.8 million year-to-year primarily due to debt that was incurred
in 2004 as a result of the GulfTerra Merger and the issuance of additional senior notes in 2005.
Our average debt principal outstanding was $4.6 billion in 2005 compared to $2.8 billion in 2004.
As a result of items noted in the previous paragraphs, our consolidated net income increased
$151.2 million year-to-year to $419.5 million in 2005 compared to $268.3 million in 2004. Net
income for both years includes the recognition of non-cash amounts related to the cumulative
effects of changes in accounting principles. We recorded a $4.2 million charge in 2005 and a $10.8
million benefit in 2004 related to such changes. For additional information regarding the
cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles we recorded in 2005 and 2004, see Note 8 of
the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
The following information highlights significant year-to-year variances in gross operating
margin by business segment:
NGL Pipelines & Services. Gross operating margin from this business segment was
$579.7 million for 2005 versus $374.2 million for 2004. The $205.5 million year-to-year increase
in gross operating margin is primarily due to assets we acquired in connection with the GulfTerra
Merger. Also, this business segment was impacted by the varying effects of Hurricanes Katrina
(August 2005) and Rita (September 2005), both significant storms. In general, the disruptions in
natural gas, NGL and crude oil production along the U.S. Gulf Coast resulted in decreased volumes
for some of our pipeline systems, natural gas processing plants and NGL fractionators, which in
turn caused a decrease in our gross operating margin from certain operations. In addition,
operating costs at certain of our plants and pipelines were negatively impacted due to the higher
fuel costs. These effects were mitigated by increases in gross operating margin from certain of
our other operations, which benefited from increased demand for NGLs, regional demand for natural
gas and a general increase in commodity prices.
We collected $4.8 million of proceeds from business interruption
claims in 2005 related to Hurricane Ivan.
Segment gross operating margin from our natural gas processing and related NGL marketing
business was $308.5 million for 2005 compared to $123.6 million for 2004. The $184.9 million
year-to-year increase includes $122.3 million of gross operating margin from natural gas processing
plants we acquired in connection with the GulfTerra Merger. Gross operating margin from our NGL
marketing activities increased $66.9 million year-to-year due to higher sales volumes and energy
commodity prices during 2005 relative to 2004.
Gross operating margin from NGL fractionation was $63.4 million for 2005 compared to $42.6
million for 2004. The $20.8 million year-to-year increase in gross operating margin from NGL
fractionation includes (i) $14.9 million of improved results from our Mont Belvieu facility, (ii)
$14 million
69
from assets acquired in connection with the GulfTerra Merger and (iii) a $9.0 million
decrease from our Louisiana NGL fractionators, particularly Norco, which suffered a loss of
processing volumes due to Hurricane Katrina.
Gross operating margin from NGL pipelines and storage was $203.0 million for 2005 compared to
$208.0 million for 2004. The $5.0 million year-to-year decrease in gross operating margin from NGL
pipelines and storage was due to a variety of reasons, including (i) a net $11.2 million decrease
from our Mid-America Pipeline System and Seminole Pipeline primarily due to higher fuel costs and
pipeline integrity expenses, (ii) a $4.9 million decrease from our Louisiana Pipeline System
primarily due to hurricane effects, (iii) a net $6.9 million increase from our import and export
facilities and related Houston Ship Channel pipeline attributable to increased volumes, and (iv) a
net $8.9 million increase due to acquired assets and consolidation of former equity method
investees.
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services. Gross operating margin from this business
segment was $353.1 million for 2005 compared to $91.0 million for 2004. The $262.1 million
increase in gross operating margin year-to-year is primarily due to onshore natural gas pipelines
and storage assets acquired in connection with the GulfTerra Merger. Gross operating margin from
this segment is largely attributable to contributions from our San Juan Gathering System, Texas
Intrastate System and Permian Basin System, which together generated gross operating margins of
$290.4 million in 2005. Our Petal and Hattiesburg natural gas storage facilities generated $38.7
million of gross operating margin in 2005. The San Juan Gathering System, Texas Intrastate System,
Permian Basin System and Petal and Hattiesburg natural gas storage facilities were acquired in
connection with the GulfTerra Merger.
Offshore Pipelines & Services. Gross operating margin from this business segment was
$77.5 million for 2005 compared to $36.5 million for 2004. The $41.0 million increase in gross
operating margin year-to-year is primarily due to offshore Gulf of Mexico assets acquired in
connection with the GulfTerra Merger. The year-to-year change in gross operating margin consists
of the following: (i) a $20.1 million increase from offshore natural gas pipelines, (ii) a $26.4
million increase from offshore platforms and (iii) a $5.5 million decrease from offshore crude oil
pipelines, which includes an $11.5 million charge related to the refinancing of Cameron Highways
project debt in 2005.
Petrochemical Services. Gross operating margin from this business segment was $126.1
million for 2005 compared to $121.5 million during 2004. The $4.6 million increase in gross
operating margin is primarily due to improved results from our butane isomerization and octane
enhancement businesses, both of which benefited from increased demand for motor gasoline in 2005.
Other. Gross operating margin from this segment pertains to equity earnings we
recorded from GulfTerra GP prior to its consolidation with our financial results in September 2004.
Significant Risks and Uncertainties Hurricanes
EPCO renewed its property and casualty insurance programs during the second quarter of 2006.
As a result of severe hurricanes such as Katrina and Rita that occurred in 2005, market conditions
for obtaining property damage insurance coverage were difficult. Under our renewed insurance
programs, coverage is more restrictive, including increased physical damage and business
interruption deductibles. For example, our deductible for onshore physical damage increased from
$2.5 million to $5 million per event and our deductible period for onshore business interruption
claims increased from 30 days to 60 days. Additional restrictions will also be applied in the
event of damage from named windstorms.
In addition to changes in coverage, the cost of property damage insurance increased
substantially from prior periods. At present, our annualized cost of insurance premiums for all
lines of coverage is approximately $49.2 million, which represents a $28.1 million (or 133%)
increase from our 2005 annualized insurance cost.
The following is a discussion of the general status of insurance claims related to significant
storm events that affected our assets in 2004 and 2005. To the extent we include estimates
regarding the dollar
70
value of damages, please be aware that a change in our estimates may occur as
additional information becomes available to us.
Hurricane Ivan insurance claims. Our final purchase price allocation related to the
merger of GulfTerra with a wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners in September
2004 (the GulfTerra Merger) included a $26.2 million receivable for insurance claims related to
expenditures to repair property damage to certain pre-merger GulfTerra assets caused by Hurricane
Ivan. During 2006, we received cash reimbursements from insurance carriers totaling $24.1 million
related to these property damage claims, and we expect to recover the remaining $2.1 million in
2007. If the final recovery of funds is different than the amount previously expended, we will
recognize an income impact at that time.
In addition, we have submitted business interruption insurance claims for our estimated losses
caused by Hurricane Ivan. During 2006, we received $17.4 million of nonrefundable cash proceeds
from such claims. We are continuing our efforts to collect residual balances and expect to
complete the process during 2007. To the extent we receive nonrefundable cash proceeds from
business interruption insurance claims, they are recorded as a gain in our Statements of
Consolidated Operations in the period of receipt.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita insurance claims. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both
significant storms, affected certain of our Gulf Coast assets in August and September of 2005,
respectively. The majority of repairs to our facilities are completed; however, certain minor
repairs are ongoing to two offshore pipelines and an onshore gas processing facility. To the
extent that insurance proceeds from property damage claims are not probable of collection or do not
cover our estimated expenditures (in excess of $5.0 million of insurance deductibles we expensed
during 2005), such amounts are charged to earnings when realized. With respect to these storms, we
have $78.2 million of estimated property damage claims outstanding at December 31, 2006, that we
believe are probable of collection during the period 2007 through 2009. For the year ended
December 31, 2006, we received $10.5 million of physical damage proceeds related to such storms (dollars in thousands).
In addition, we received $46.5 million of nonrefundable cash proceeds from business
interruption claims during the year ended December 31, 2006. We are aggressively pursuing
collection of our remaining property damage and business interruption claims related to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
The following table summarizes proceeds we received during 2006 from business interruption and
property damage insurance claims with respect to certain named storms
(dollars in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
Business interruption proceeds: |
|
|
|
|
Hurricane Ivan |
|
$ |
17,382 |
|
Hurricane Katrina |
|
|
24,500 |
|
Hurricane Rita |
|
|
22,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total proceeds |
|
$ |
63,882 |
|
|
|
|
|
Property damage proceeds: |
|
|
|
|
Hurricane Ivan |
|
$ |
24,104 |
|
Hurricane Katrina |
|
|
7,500 |
|
Hurricane Rita |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total proceeds |
|
$ |
34,604 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total proceeds received during 2006 |
|
$ |
98,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
During 2005, we received $4.8 million of nonrefundable cash proceeds from business
interruption claims.
71
General Outlook for 2007
We are currently in a major asset construction phase that began in 2005. Fiscal 2007 will be
a transition year as we take several major projects from the construction phase and place them
in-service. In addition, we have continued to grow our relationships with customers by executing
several long-term natural gas gathering and processing agreements with major producers to support
our newly constructed assets. As we further expand our portfolio of midstream assets, we expect
our results of operations to be affected by the following key trends and events during 2007.
|
|
|
We believe that drilling activity in the major producing areas where we operate,
including the Gulf of Mexico and supply basins in Texas, San Juan and the Rocky
Mountains, will result in increased demand for our midstream energy services. As a
result, we expect higher transportation and processing volumes for our existing assets
due to increased natural gas and crude oil production from both onshore and offshore
producing areas. In addition, we expect to benefit from increased demand as new
assets come on-line during 2007. |
|
|
|
|
We expect to benefit from an increase in crude oil and natural gas production in
the Gulf of Mexico as our Independence Hub platform and Independence Trail pipeline
are placed in-service during the second half of 2007. Our Independence Hub platform
and Independence Trail pipeline will benefit from initial natural gas production from
dedicated production fields in the Atwater Valley, DeSoto Canyon, Lloyd Ridge and
Mississippi Canyon areas of the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, we believe that our
Marco Polo Oil Pipeline and Marco Polo platform will continue to benefit as production
volumes increase from developments in the Southern Green Canyon area of the Gulf of
Mexico. Increased production in the Gulf of Mexico will increase volumes of natural
gas and NGLs available to our facilities in southern Louisiana. |
|
|
|
|
We expect the volume of natural gas and NGLs available to our facilities in Texas
to increase as a result of drilling activity and long-term agreements executed with
new customers. We expect natural gas transportation volumes on our Texas Intrastate
System to increase during 2007 as we begin to supply the Houston, Texas area with
natural gas volumes under a long-term agreement with CenterPoint Energy. As a result
of the Encinal acquisition, we expect to increase natural gas gathering and processing
volumes in south Texas. In turn, this should increase our NGL production in south
Texas. In addition, we will continue to expand our natural gas gathering assets in
the Barnett shale region of north Texas. |
|
|
|
|
We expect to benefit from increased natural gas and NGL volumes as several new
assets are placed in-service throughout Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. We expect
our new Pioneer natural gas processing plant and expanded Jonah Gathering System to
benefit from increased production in the Greater Green River basin of Wyoming.
Production from the Piceance basin of western Colorado should benefit our Piceance
Creek Gathering System and Meeker natural gas processing plant. We expect our
Mid-America Pipeline System, Seminole Pipeline and Hobbs NGL fractionator to benefit
from increased volumes of NGLs produced at the Pioneer and Meeker natural gas
processing facilities. |
|
|
|
|
We believe that the strength of the domestic and global economy will continue to
drive increased demand for all forms of energy despite fluctuating commodity prices.
Our largest NGL consuming customers in the ethylene industry continue to see strong
demand for their products. Ethane and propane continue to be the preferred feedstocks
for the ethylene industry with the high price of crude oil relative to natural gas. |
72
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Our primary cash requirements, in addition to normal operating expenses and debt service, are
for working capital, capital expenditures, business acquisitions and distributions to our partners.
We expect to fund our short-term needs for such items as operating expenses and sustaining capital
expenditures with operating cash flows and short-term revolving credit arrangements. Capital
expenditures for long-term needs resulting from internal growth projects and business acquisitions
are expected to be funded by a variety of sources (either separately or in combination) including
cash flows from operating activities, borrowings under credit facilities, the issuance of
additional equity and debt securities and proceeds from divestitures of ownership interest in
assets to affiliates or third parties. We expect to fund cash distributions to partners primarily
with operating cash flows. Our debt service requirements are expected to be funded by operating
cash flows and/or refinancing arrangements.
At December 31, 2006, we had $22.6 million of unrestricted cash on hand and approximately
$790.1 million of available credit under our Operating Partnerships Multi-Year Revolving Credit
Facility. In total, we had approximately $5.3 billion in principal outstanding under various debt
agreements at December 31, 2006.
As a result of our growth objectives, we expect to access debt and equity capital markets from
time-to-time and we believe that financing arrangements to support our growth activities can be
obtained on reasonable terms. Furthermore, we believe that maintenance of an investment grade
credit rating combined with continued ready access to debt and equity capital at reasonable rates
and sufficient trade credit to operate our businesses efficiently provide a solid foundation to
meet our long and short-term liquidity and capital resource requirements.
For additional information regarding our growth strategy, see Capital Spending included
within this Item 7.
Registration Statements
We may issue equity or debt securities to assist us in meeting our liquidity and capital
spending requirements. Duncan Energy Partners may do likewise in meeting its liquidity and capital
spending requirements. In March 2005, we filed a universal shelf registration statement with the
SEC registering the issuance of $4 billion of equity and debt securities. After taking into
account the past issuance of securities under this universal registration statement, we can issue
approximately $2.1 billion of additional securities under this registration statement as of
February 1, 2007.
Our significant issuances of partnership equity during the year ended December 31, 2006 were
as follows:
|
|
|
In March 2006, we sold 18,400,000 common units (including an over-allotment amount of
2,400,000 common units) to the public at an offering price of $23.90 per unit. Net
proceeds from this offering, including Enterprise Products GPs proportionate net capital
contribution of $8.6 million, were approximately $430 million after deducting applicable
underwriting discounts, commissions and estimated offering expenses of $18.3 million. The
net proceeds from this offering, including Enterprise Products GPs proportionate net
capital contribution, were used to temporarily reduce indebtedness outstanding under our
Operating Partnerships Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. |
|
|
|
|
In July 2006, we issued approximately 7.1 million of our common units in connection
with the Encinal business acquisition. In August 2006, we filed a registration statement
with the SEC for the resale of these common units. |
|
|
|
|
In September 2006, we sold 12,650,000 common units (including an over-allotment amount
of 1,650,000 common units) to the public at an offering price of $25.80 per unit. Net
proceeds from this offering, including Enterprise Products GPs proportionate net capital
contribution of $6.4 |
73
|
|
|
million, were approximately $320.8 million after deducting applicable
underwriting discounts, commissions and estimated offering expenses of $11.8 million. Net
proceeds of $260 million
from this offering, including Enterprise Products GPs proportionate net capital
contribution, were used to temporarily reduce indebtedness outstanding under our Operating
Partnerships Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. The remaining net proceeds were used
for general partnership purposes. |
During 2003, we instituted a distribution reinvestment plan (DRIP). The DRIP provides
unitholders of record and beneficial owners of our common units a voluntary means by which they can
increase the number of common units they own by reinvesting the quarterly cash distributions they
would otherwise receive into the purchase of additional common units. We have a registration
statement on file with the SEC covering the issuance of up to 15,000,000 common units in connection
with the DRIP. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we issued 3,639,949 common units in
connection with our DRIP, which generated proceeds of $91.6 million from plan participants. These
proceeds include $50 million reinvested by EPCO in August 2006 with respect to its beneficial
ownership of our common units. A total of 1,966,354 common units were issued to EPCO as a result
of this reinvestment in our partnership.
We also have a registration statement on file related to our employee unit purchase plan,
under which we can issue up to 1,200,000 common units. Under this plan, employees of EPCO can
purchase our common units at a 10% discount through payroll deductions. During the year ended
December 31, 2006, we issued 134,700 common units to employees under this plan, which generated
proceeds of $3.4 million.
In February 2007, Duncan Energy Partners completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000
common units, the majority of proceeds from which were distributed to us. Duncan Energy Partners
may issue additional amounts of equity in the future in connection with other acquisitions. For
additional information regarding Duncan Energy Partners, see Other Items Initial Public Offering
of Duncan Energy Partners.
For information regarding our public debt obligations or partnership equity, see Notes
14 and 15, respectively, of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of
this annual report.
Credit Ratings of Operating Partnership
At February 27, 2007, the investment-grade credit ratings of our Operating Partnerships debt
securities were Baa3 by Moodys Investor Services; BBB- by Fitch Ratings; and BBB- by Standard and
Poors. All three ratings services have assigned to us a stable outlook with respect to their
judgment of our future business performance.
Based on the characteristics of the fixed/floating unsecured junior subordinated notes that
the Operating Partnership issued during the third quarter of 2006, the rating agencies assigned
partial equity treatment to the notes. Moodys Investor Services and Standard and Poors each
assigned 50% equity treatment and Fitch Ratings assigned 75% equity treatment.
In connection with the construction of our Pascagoula, Mississippi natural gas processing
plant, the Operating Partnership entered into a $54 million, ten-year, fixed-rate loan with the
Mississippi Business Finance Corporation (MBFC). The indenture agreement for this loan contains
an acceleration clause whereby if the Operating Partnerships credit rating by Moodys declines
below Baa3 in combination with our credit rating at Standard & Poors declining below BBB-, the
$54.0 million principal balance of this loan, together with all accrued and unpaid interest would
become immediately due and payable 120 days following such event. If such an event occurred, we
would have to either redeem the Pascagoula MBFC Loan or provide an alternative credit agreement to
support our obligation under this loan.
74
Debt Obligations
For detailed information regarding our consolidated debt obligations and those of our
unconsolidated affiliates, see Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included
under Item 8 of this annual report. The following table summarizes our consolidated debt
obligations at the dates indicated (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
Operating Partnership senior debt obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility, variable rate, due October 2011 (1) |
|
$ |
410,000 |
|
|
$ |
490,000 |
|
Pascagoula MBFC Loan, 8.70% fixed-rate, due March 2010 |
|
|
54,000 |
|
|
|
54,000 |
|
Senior Notes B, 7.50% fixed-rate, due February 2011 |
|
|
450,000 |
|
|
|
450,000 |
|
Senior Notes C, 6.375% fixed-rate, due February 2013 |
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
Senior Notes D, 6.875% fixed-rate, due March 2033 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Senior Notes E, 4.00% fixed-rate, due October 2007 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Senior Notes F, 4.625% fixed-rate, due October 2009 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Senior Notes G, 5.60% fixed-rate, due October 2014 |
|
|
650,000 |
|
|
|
650,000 |
|
Senior Notes H, 6.65% fixed-rate, due October 2034 |
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
Senior Notes I, 5.00% fixed-rate, due March 2015 |
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
250,000 |
|
Senior Notes J, 5.75% fixed-rate, due March 2035 |
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
250,000 |
|
Senior Notes K, 4.950% fixed-rate, due June 2010 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Dixie Revolving Credit Facility, variable rate, due June 2010 (2) |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
17,000 |
|
Other, 8.75% fixed-rate, due June 2010 (5) |
|
|
5,068 |
|
|
|
5,068 |
|
|
|
|
Total principal amount of senior debt obligations |
|
|
4,779,068 |
|
|
|
4,866,068 |
|
Operating Partnership Junior Subordinated Notes A, due August 2066 |
|
|
550,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total principal amount of senior and junior debt obligations |
|
|
5,329,068 |
|
|
|
4,866,068 |
|
Other, including unamortized discounts and premiums and changes in fair value (3) |
|
|
(33,478 |
) |
|
|
(32,287 |
) |
|
|
|
Long-term debt(4) |
|
$ |
5,295,590 |
|
|
$ |
4,833,781 |
|
|
|
|
Standby letters of credit outstanding |
|
$ |
49,858 |
|
|
$ |
33,129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In June 2006, the Operating Partnership executed a second amendment (the Second Amendment) to the credit agreement governing its Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. The Second
Amendment, among other things, extends the maturity date of amounts borrowed under the Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility from October 2010 to October 2011 with respect to $1.25 billion of
the commitments. Borrowings with respect to the remaining $48 million in commitments mature in October 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
The maturity date of this facility was extended from June 2007 to June 2010 in August 2006. The other terms of the Dixie facility remain unchanged from those described in our annual report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. In accordance with GAAP, we consolidated Dixies debt with that of our own; however, we are not obligated to make interest or debt payments
with respects to Dixies debt. |
|
(3) |
|
The December 31, 2006 amount includes $29.1 million related to fair value hedges and a net $4.4 million in unamortized discounts and premiums. The December 31, 2005 amount includes $19.2
million related to fair value hedges and a net $13.1 million in unamortized discounts and premiums. |
|
(4) |
|
In accordance with SFAS 6, Classification of Short-Term Obligations Expected to be Refinanced, long-term and current maturities of debt reflects the classification of such obligations at
December 31, 2006. With respect to Senior Notes E due in October 2007, the Operating Partnership has the ability to use available credit capacity under its Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility
to fund the repayment of this debt. |
|
(5) |
|
Represents the remaining debt obligations assumed in connection with the GulfTerra merger. |
Issuance of Junior Subordinated Notes A. The Operating Partnership sold $550.0
million in principal amount of fixed/floating, unsecured, long-term subordinated notes due 2066
during the third quarter of 2006. The Operating Partnership used the proceeds from issuing this
subordinated debt to temporarily reduce borrowings outstanding under its Multi-Year Revolving
Credit Facility and for general partnership purposes. The Operating Partnerships payment
obligations under the Junior Subordinated Notes A are subordinated to all of its current and future
senior indebtedness (as defined in the Indenture Agreement). We have guaranteed repayment of
amounts due under the Junior Subordinated Notes A through an unsecured and subordinated guarantee.
The indenture agreement governing the Junior Subordinated Notes A allows the Operating
Partnership to defer interest payments on one or more occasions for up to ten consecutive years
subject to certain conditions. The indenture agreement also provides that, unless (i) all deferred
interest on the Junior
75
Subordinated Notes A has been paid in full as of the most recent interest
payment date, (ii) no event of default under the Indenture has occurred and is continuing and (iii)
we are not in default of our obligations
under related guarantee agreements, then the Operating Partnership and we cannot declare or make
any distributions with respect to any of their respective equity securities or make any payments on
indebtedness or other obligations that rank pari passu with or subordinate to the Junior
Subordinated Notes A.
The Junior Subordinated Notes A will bear interest at a fixed annual rate of 8.375% from July
2006 to August 2016, payable semi-annually in arrears in February and August of each year,
commencing in February 2007. After August 2016, the Junior Subordinated Notes A will bear variable
rate interest at an annual rate equal to the 3-month LIBOR rate for the related interest period
plus 3.708%, payable quarterly in arrears in February, May, August and November of each year
commencing in November 2016. Interest payments may be deferred on a cumulative basis for up to ten
consecutive years, subject to the certain provisions. The Junior Subordinated Notes A mature in
August 2066 and are not redeemable by the Operating Partnership prior to August 2016 without
payment of a make-whole premium.
In connection with the issuance of the Junior Subordinated Notes A, the Operating Partnership
entered into a Replacement Capital Covenant in favor of the covered debt holders (as named therein)
pursuant to which the Operating Partnership agreed for the benefit of such debt holders that it
would not redeem or repurchase such junior subordinated notes unless such redemption or repurchase
is made from the proceeds of issuance of certain securities.
Based on the characteristics of the Junior Subordinated Notes A, rating agencies assigned
partial equity treatment to the notes. Moodys Investor Services and Standard and Poors each
assigned 50% equity treatment and Fitch Ratings assigned 75% equity treatment.
Debt obligations of unconsolidated affiliates. The following table summarizes the
debt obligations of our unconsolidated affiliates (on a 100% basis to the joint venture) at
December 31, 2006 and our ownership interest in each entity on that date (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Total |
|
Cameron Highway |
|
|
50.0 |
% |
|
$ |
415,000 |
|
Poseidon |
|
|
36.0 |
% |
|
|
91,000 |
|
Evangeline |
|
|
49.5 |
% |
|
|
25,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
531,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In March 2006, Cameron Highway amended the note purchase agreement governing its senior
secured notes to primarily address the effect of reduced deliveries of crude oil to Cameron Highway
resulting from production delays caused by the lingering effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
In general, this amendment modified certain financial covenants in light of production forecasts.
In addition, the amendment increased the letters of credit required to be issued by the Operating
Partnership and an affiliate of our joint venture partner from $18.4 million each to $36.8 million
each.
In September 2006, Fitch Ratings reaffirmed its BBB- rating (with a negative outlook) of
Cameron Highways privately placed senior secured notes. The rating was placed on watch in March
2006 due to the near-term financial impact of lower than anticipated volumes on the Cameron Highway
Oil Pipeline. While Fitch continues to believe that the current volume shortfalls are temporary,
particularly with completion of the Atlantis development expected in the first quarter of 2007, if
transportation volumes remain impaired over the next several months Fitch will likely lower the
rating. Currently, production from Atlantis is expected to commence by the end of 2007. If the
rating falls below BBB-, the interest rates paid by Cameron Highway will increase by 1% to 1.5% per
annum depending on the lower rating.
In May 2006, Poseidon amended its revolving credit facility, which, among other things,
decreased the availability to $150.0 million from $170.0 million, extended the maturity date from
January 2008 to May 2011 and lowered the borrowing rate.
76
Cash Flows from Operating, Investing and Financing Activities
The following table summarizes our cash flows from operating, investing and financing
activities for the periods indicated (dollars in thousands). For information regarding the
individual components of our cash flow amounts, see the Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows
included under Item 8 of this annual report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
Net cash flows provided by operating activities |
|
$ |
1,175,069 |
|
|
$ |
631,708 |
|
|
$ |
391,541 |
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
1,689,288 |
|
|
|
1,130,395 |
|
|
|
941,424 |
|
Net cash provided by financing activities |
|
|
494,972 |
|
|
|
516,229 |
|
|
|
543,973 |
|
Net cash flows provided by operating activities is largely dependent on earnings from our
business activities. As a result, these cash flows are exposed to certain risks. We operate
predominantly in the midstream energy industry. We provide services for producers and consumers of
natural gas, NGLs and crude oil. The products that we process, sell or transport are principally
used as fuel for residential, agricultural and commercial heating; feedstocks in petrochemical
manufacturing; and in the production of motor gasoline. Reduced demand for our services or
products by industrial customers, whether because of general economic conditions, reduced demand
for the end products made with our products or increased competition from other service providers
or producers due to pricing differences or other reasons could have a negative impact on our
earnings and thus the availability of cash from operating activities. For a more complete
discussion of these and other risk factors pertinent to our business, see Item 1A of this annual
report.
Cash used in investing activities primarily represents expenditures for capital projects,
business combinations, asset purchases and investments in unconsolidated affiliates. Cash provided
by (or used in) financing activities generally consists of borrowings and repayments of debt,
distributions to partners and proceeds from the issuance of equity securities. Amounts presented
in our Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows for borrowings and repayments under debt agreements
are influenced by the magnitude of cash receipts and payments under our revolving credit
facilities.
Our Statements of Consolidated Cash Flows are prepared using the indirect method. The
indirect method derives net cash flows from operating activities by adjusting net income to remove
(i) the effects of all deferrals of past operating cash receipts and payments, such as changes
during the period in inventory, deferred income and similar transactions, (ii) the effects of all
accruals of expected future operating cash receipts and cash payments, such as changes during the
period in receivables and payables, (iii) the effects of all items classified as investing or
financing cash flows, such as gains or losses on sale of property, plant and equipment or
extinguishment of debt, and (iv) other non-cash amounts such as depreciation, amortization,
operating lease expense paid by EPCO and changes in the fair market value of financial instruments.
Equity in income from unconsolidated affiliates is also a non-cash item that must be removed in
determining net cash provided by operating activities. Our cash flows from operating activities
reflect the actual cash distributions we receive from such investees.
In general, the net effect of changes in operating accounts results from the timing of cash
receipts from sales and cash payments for purchases and other expenses during each period.
Increases or decreases in inventory are influenced by the quantity of products held in connection
with our marketing activities and changes in energy commodity prices.
The following information highlights the significant year-to-year variances in our cash flow
amounts:
77
Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2006 with Year Ended December 31, 2005
Operating activities. Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the year
ended December 31, 2006 increased $543.4 million over that recorded for the year ended December 31,
2005. In addition to changes in our earnings and other factors as described below, cash flows from
operating activities are influenced by the timing of cash receipts and disbursements. The
following information highlights factors that influenced the year-to-year change in cash flows
provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
Gross operating margin for the year ended December 31, 2006 increased $226.1 million
over that recorded for the year ended December 31, 2005. The increase in gross operating
margin is discussed under Results of Operations within this Item 7. |
|
|
|
|
With respect to changes in operating accounts, the timing of cash receipts and
disbursements improved year-to-year generally due to the successful integration of
acquired businesses and increased efficiencies. As to cash receipts, the average
collection period for accounts receivable during the year ended December 31, 2006 improved
approximately nine days when compared to the year ended December 31, 2005, with the
related turnover rate increasing 26% year-to-year. In addition, as to cash disbursements,
our payable turnover rate increased significantly year-to-year. |
Investing activities. Cash used in investing activities was $1.7 billion for the year
ended December 31, 2006 compared to $1.1 billion for the year ended December 31, 2005.
Our cash outlays for business combinations were $276.5 million in 2006 versus $326.6 million
in 2005. During the year ended December 31, 2006, we paid $100.0 million for a 100% interest in
Piceance Creek Pipeline, LLC and paid Lewis $145.2 million in cash in connection with the Encinal
acquisition. Our cash outlay for acquisitions during 2005 included (i) $145.5 million for storage
assets purchased from Ferrellgas LP, (ii) $74.9 million for indirect interests in certain East
Texas natural gas gathering and processing assets, (iii) $68.6 million for additional ownership
interests in Dixie and (iv) $25.0 million for the remaining ownership interests in our Mid-America
Pipeline System and an additional interest in the Seminole Pipeline.
Proceeds from the sale of assets during 2005 include $42.1 million from the sale of our
investment in Starfish Pipeline Company, LLC (Starfish). We were required to divest our
ownership interest in this entity by the Federal Trade Commission in order to gain its approval for
our merger with GulfTerra Energy Partners, L.P. in September 2004. In addition, we received $47.5
million as a return of our investment in Cameron Highway in June 2005. As a result of refinancing
its project debt, Cameron Highway was authorized by its lenders to make this special distribution.
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates were $138.3 million for the year ended December 31,
2006 compared to $87.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2005. The 2006 period includes
$120.1 million we invested to date in Jonah. The 2005 period
primarily reflects $72.0 million we contributed to Deepwater Gateway to fund our share of the
repayment of its construction loan in March 2005.
For additional information related to our capital spending program, see Capital Spending
included within this Item 7.
Financing activities Cash provided by financing activities was $495.0 million for
the year ended December 31, 2006 compared to $516.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2005.
As a result of our capital spending program, we utilized the Operating Partnerships Multi-Year
Revolving Credit Facility in varying degrees throughout 2006. During 2006, we applied all or a
portion of the net proceeds from equity and debt offerings to reduce debt outstanding. We used
$430 million of net proceeds from our March 2006 equity offering and $260 million of net proceeds
from our September 2006 equity offering to temporarily reduce amounts due under the Multi-Year
Revolving Credit Facility. We also used the net proceeds from the Operating Partnerships issuance
of Junior Subordinated Notes A in the third quarter of 2006 to reduce
78
debt outstanding under this
facility. We used any remaining net proceeds from these offerings in 2006 for general partnership
purposes.
During 2005, our Operating Partnership issued an aggregate of $1 billion in senior notes, the
proceeds of which were used to repay $350 million due under Senior Notes A, to temporarily reduce
amounts outstanding under our bank credit facilities and for general partnership purposes.
Additionally, we repaid the remaining $242.2 million that was due under our 364-Day Acquisition
Credit Facility (which was used to finance elements of the GulfTerra Merger) using proceeds
generated from our February 2005 equity offering.
Net proceeds from the issuance of our limited partner interests were $857.2 million for 2006
compared to $646.9 million for 2005. With respect to equity offerings (including sales through our
distribution reinvestment program and employee unit purchase plan), we issued 34,824,649 common
units 2006 versus 23,979,740 common units during 2005. Net proceeds from underwritten equity
offerings were $750.8 million during 2006 reflecting the sale of 31,050,000 common units and $555.5
million during 2005 reflecting the sale of 21,250,000 common units. Our distribution reinvestment
program and related employee unit purchase plan generated net proceeds of $96.9 million during
2006, including $50 million reinvested by EPCO. In comparison, this program generated proceeds of
$69.7 million during 2005, including $30 million reinvested by EPCO.
Cash distributions to partners increased from $716.7 million during 2005 to $843.3 million
during 2006. The period-to-period increase in cash distributions is due to an increase in common
units outstanding and quarterly cash distribution rates. Cash contributions from minority
interests were $27.6 million for 2006 compared to $39.1 million for 2005.
Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2005 with Year Ended December 31, 2004
Operating activities. Net cash flows provided by operating activities for the year
ended December 31, 2005 increased $240.2 million over that recorded for the year ended December 31,
2004. The following information highlights factors that influenced the year-to-year change in cash
flows provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
Gross operating margin for the year ended December 31, 2005 increased $481.2 million
over that recorded for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase in gross operating
margin is discussed under Results of Operations within this Item 7. |
|
|
|
|
Cash payments for interest for the year ended December 31, 2005 increased $103.3
million over that recorded for the year ended December 31, 2004. The increase in cash
outflows for interest was due to the additional debt we incurred to complete the GulfTerra
Merger. |
|
|
|
|
The carrying value of our inventories increased from $189 million at December 31, 2004
to $339.6 million at December 31, 2005. The $150.6 million increase is primarily due to
higher commodity prices during 2005 when compared to 2004 and an increase in volumes
purchased and held in inventory in connection with our marketing activities at December
31, 2005 versus December 31, 2004. |
|
|
|
|
With respect to changes in operating accounts, the timing of cash disbursements slowed
following the GulfTerra Merger as integration activities were ongoing. A slight
improvement in the collection of accounts receivable also added to our operating cash
flows. |
Investing activities. Cash used in investing activities was $1.1 billion in 2005
compared to $941.4 million in 2004. Expenditures for growth and sustaining capital projects (net
of contributions in aid of construction costs) increased $670.5 million year-to-year primarily due
to cash payments associated with our offshore Gulf of Mexico projects. Our cash outlays for
business combinations were $326.6 million in 2005 versus $724.7 million in 2004. The 2004 period
includes $638.8 million paid to El Paso in connection with the GulfTerra Merger.
79
Our investments in unconsolidated affiliates increased to $87.3 million in 2005 from $57.9
million in 2004. In 2005, we contributed $72.0 million to Deepwater Gateway to fund our share of
the repayment
of its term loan. During 2004, we used $27.5 million to acquire additional ownership
interests in Promix, which owns the Promix NGL fractionator, and contributed $24.0 million to
Cameron Highway for the construction of its crude oil pipeline.
Cash flows related to investing activities for 2005 also include (i) a $47.5 million cash
receipt related to the partial return of our investment in Cameron Highway and (ii) a $42.1 million
cash receipt from the sale of our investment in Starfish. The sale of our Starfish investment was
required by the FTC in order to gain its approval for the GulfTerra Merger.
Financing activities. Cash provided by financing activities was $516.2 million in
2005 compared to $544.0 million in 2004. We had net borrowings under our debt agreements of $561.7
million during 2005 versus $125.6 million during 2004. During 2005, we issued an aggregate $1
billion in senior notes, the proceeds of which were used to temporarily reduce debt outstanding
under our bank credit facilities, repay Senior Notes A and for general partnership purposes,
including capital expenditures, asset purchases and business combinations. In addition, we repaid
the remaining $242.2 million that was outstanding at the end of 2004 under our 364-Day Acquisition
Credit Facility using proceeds from our February 2005 equity offering. We used the net proceeds
from our November 2005 equity offering to temporarily reduce amounts outstanding under our
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility.
In September 2004, we borrowed $2.8 billion under our bank credit facilities (principally the
364-Day Acquisition Credit Facility) to fund $655.3 million in cash payment obligations to El Paso
in connection with the GulfTerra Merger; purchase $1.1 billion of GulfTerras senior and senior
subordinated notes in connection with our tender offers; and repay $962 million outstanding under
GulfTerras revolving credit facility and secured term loans. In October 2004, we issued an
aggregate $2 billion in senior notes, the proceeds of which were used to reduce indebtedness
outstanding under our bank credit facilities. Our repayments of debt during 2004 also reflect the
use of $563.1 million of net proceeds from our May 2004 and August 2004 equity offerings to reduce
indebtedness under bank credit facilities.
Net proceeds from the issuance of limited partner interests were $646.9 million in 2005
compared to $846.1 million in 2004. We issued 23,979,740 common units in 2005 and 39,683,591
common units in 2004. Net proceeds from underwritten equity offerings were $555.5 million during
2005 reflecting the sale of 21,250,000 units and $694.3 million during 2004 reflecting the sale of
34,500,000 units. We used net proceeds from these underwritten offerings to reduce debt, including
the temporary repayment of indebtedness under bank credit facilities. Our distribution reinvestment
program and related plan generated net proceeds of $69.7 million in 2005 and $111.6 million in
2004. We used net proceeds from these offerings for general partnership purposes. For additional
information regarding our equity issuances, please read Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Cash distributions to partners increased from $438.8 million in 2004 to $716.7 million in 2005
primarily due to an increase in common units outstanding and our quarterly cash distribution rates.
We expect that future cash distributions to partners will increase as a result of our periodic
issuance of common units. Cash contributions from minority interests were $39.1 million in 2005
compared to $9.6 million in 2004. These amounts relate to contributions from our joint venture
partner in the Independence Hub project.
Our financing activities for 2004 include a net cash receipt of $19.4 million resulting from
the settlement of forward starting interest rate swaps.
Critical Accounting Policies
In our financial reporting process, we employ methods, estimates and assumptions that affect
the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
as of the date of
80
our financial statements. These methods, estimates and assumptions also affect
the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Investors should be
aware that actual results could
differ from these estimates if the underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect. The
following describes the estimation risk underlying our most significant financial statement items:
Depreciation methods and estimated useful lives of property, plant and equipment
In general, depreciation is the systematic and rational allocation of an assets cost, less
its residual value (if any), to the periods it benefits. The majority of our property, plant and
equipment is depreciated using the straight-line method, which results in depreciation expense
being incurred evenly over the life of the assets. Our estimate of depreciation incorporates
assumptions regarding the useful economic lives and residual values of our assets. At the time we
place our assets in service, we believe such assumptions are reasonable; however, circumstances may
develop that would cause us to change these assumptions, which would change our depreciation
amounts prospectively. Some of these circumstances include changes in laws and
regulations relating to restoration and abandonment requirements; changes in expected costs for
dismantlement, restoration and abandonment as a result of changes, or expected changes, in labor,
materials and other related costs associated with these activities; changes in the useful life of
an asset based on the actual known life of similar assets, changes in technology, or other factors;
and changes in expected salvage proceeds as a result of a change, or expected change in the salvage
market.
At December 31, 2006 and 2005, the net book value of our property, plant and equipment was
$9.8 billion and $8.7 billion, respectively. We recorded $352.2 million, $328.7 million and $161.0
million in depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
A significant portion of the year-to-year increase in depreciation expense between 2005 and 2004
is attributable to the property, plant and equipment assets we acquired in the GulfTerra Merger in
September 2004. For additional information regarding our property, plant and equipment, see Notes
2 and 10 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual
report.
Measuring recoverability of long-lived assets and equity method investments
In general, long-lived assets (including intangible assets with finite useful lives and
property, plant and equipment) are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that their carrying amount may not be recoverable. Examples of such events
or changes might be production declines that are not replaced by new discoveries or long-term
decreases in the demand or price of natural gas, oil or NGLs. Long-lived assets with recorded
values that are not expected to be recovered through future expected cash flows are written-down to
their estimated fair values. The carrying value of a long-lived asset is not recoverable if it
exceeds the sum of undiscounted estimated cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual
disposition of the existing asset. Our estimates of such undiscounted cash flows are based on a
number of assumptions including anticipated operating margins and volumes; estimated useful life of
the asset or asset group; and estimated salvage values. An impairment charge would be recorded for
the excess of a long-lived assets carrying value over its estimated fair value, which is based on
a series of assumptions similar to those used to derive undiscounted cash flows. Those assumptions
also include usage of probabilities for a range of possible outcomes, market values and replacement
cost estimates.
Equity method investments are evaluated for impairment whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that there is a possible loss in value for the investment other than a
temporary decline. Examples of such events include sustained operating losses of the investee or
long-term negative changes in the investees industry. The carrying value of an equity method
investment is not recoverable if it exceeds the sum of discounted estimated cash flows expected to
be derived from the investment. This estimate of discounted cash flows is based on a number of
assumptions including discount rates; probabilities assigned to different cash flow scenarios;
anticipated margins and volumes and estimated useful life of the investment. A significant change
in these underlying assumptions could result in our recording an impairment charge.
81
We recognized non-cash asset impairment charges related to property, plant and equipment of
$0.1 million in 2006 and $4.1 million in 2004, which are reflected as components of operating costs
and expenses. No such asset impairment charges were recorded in 2005.
During 2006, we evaluated our equity method investment in Neptune Pipeline Company, L.L.C. for
impairment. As a result of this evaluation, we recorded a $7.4 million non-cash impairment charge
that is a component of equity income from unconsolidated affiliates for the year ended December 31,
2006. We had no such impairment charges during the years ended December 31, 2005 or 2004. For
additional information regarding impairment charges associated with our long-lived assets and
equity method investments, see Notes 2 and 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Amortization methods and estimated useful lives of qualifying intangible assets
The specific, identifiable intangible assets of a business enterprise depend largely upon the
nature of its operations. Potential intangible assets include intellectual property, such as
technology, patents, trademarks and trade names, customer contracts and relationships, and
non-compete agreements, as well as other intangible assets. The method used to value each
intangible asset will vary depending upon the nature of the asset, the business in which it is
utilized, and the economic returns it is generating or is expected to generate.
Our customer relationship intangible assets primarily represent the customer base we acquired
in connection with business combinations and asset purchases. The value we assigned to these
customer relationships is being amortized to earnings using methods that closely resemble the
pattern in which the economic benefits of the underlying oil and natural gas resource bases from
which the customers produce are estimated to be consumed or otherwise used. Our estimate of the
useful life of each resource base is based on a number of factors, including third-party reserve
estimates, the economic viability of production and exploration activities and other industry
factors.
Our contract-based intangible assets represent the rights we own arising from discrete
contractual agreements, such as the long-term rights we possess under the Shell natural gas
processing agreement. A contract-based intangible asset with a finite life is amortized over its
estimated useful life (or term), which is the period over which the asset is expected to contribute
directly or indirectly to the cash flows of an entity. Our estimates of useful life are based on a
number of factors, including (i) the expected useful life of the related tangible assets (e.g.,
fractionation facility, pipeline, etc.), (ii) any legal or regulatory developments that would
impact such contractual rights, and (iii) any contractual provisions that enable us to renew or
extend such agreements.
If our underlying assumptions regarding the estimated useful life of an intangible asset
change, then the amortization period for such asset would be adjusted accordingly. Additionally,
if we determine that an intangible assets unamortized cost may not be recoverable due to
impairment; we may be required to reduce the carrying value and the subsequent useful life of the
asset. Any such write-down of the value and unfavorable change in the useful life of an intangible
asset would increase operating costs and expenses at that time.
At December 31, 2006 and 2005, the carrying value of our intangible asset portfolio was $1.0
billion and $913.6 million, respectively. We recorded $88.8 million, $88.9 million and $33.8
million in amortization expense associated with our intangible assets for the years ended December
31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. A significant portion of the year-to-year increase in
amortization expense between 2005 and 2004 is attributable to the intangible assets we acquired in
the GulfTerra Merger.
For additional information regarding our intangible assets, see Notes 2 and 13 of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
82
Methods we employ to measure the fair value of goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase prices we paid for certain businesses over
their respective fair values and is primarily comprised of $385.9 million associated with the
GulfTerra Merger. We do not amortize goodwill; however, we test our goodwill (at the reporting
unit level) for impairment during the second quarter of each fiscal year, and more frequently, if
circumstances indicate it is more likely than not that the fair value of goodwill is below its
carrying amount. Our goodwill testing involves the determination of a reporting units fair value,
which is predicated on our assumptions regarding the future economic prospects of the reporting
unit. Such assumptions include (i) discrete financial forecasts for the assets contained within
the reporting unit, which rely on managements estimates of operating margins and transportation
volumes, (ii) long-term growth rates for cash flows beyond the discrete forecast period, and (iii)
appropriate discount rates. If the fair value of the reporting unit (including its inherent
goodwill) is less than its carrying value, a charge to earnings is required to reduce the carrying
value of goodwill to its implied fair value. At December 31, 2006 and 2005, the carrying value of
our goodwill was $590.5 million and $494.0 million, respectively.
We did not record any goodwill impairment charges during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
For additional information regarding our goodwill, see Notes 2 and 13 of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Our revenue recognition policies and use of estimates for revenues and expenses
In general, we recognize revenue from our customers when all of the following criteria are
met: (i) persuasive evidence of an exchange arrangement exists, (ii) delivery has occurred or
services have been rendered, (iii) the buyers price is fixed or determinable and (iv)
collectibility is reasonably assured. When sales contracts are settled (i.e., either physical
delivery of product has taken place or the services designated in the contract have been
performed), we record any necessary allowance for doubtful accounts.
Our use of certain estimates for revenues and expenses has increased as a result of SEC
regulations that require us to submit financial information on accelerated time frames. Such
estimates are necessary due to the timing of compiling actual billing information and receiving
third-party data needed to record transactions for financial reporting purposes. One example of
such use of estimates is the accrual of an estimate of processing plant revenue and the cost of
natural gas for a given month (prior to receiving actual customer and vendor-related plant
operating information for the subject period). These estimates reverse in the following month and
are offset by the corresponding actual customer billing and vendor-invoiced amounts. Accordingly,
we include one month of certain estimated data in our results of operations. Such estimates are
generally based on actual volume and price data through the first part of the month and estimated
for the remainder of the month, adjusted accordingly for any known or expected changes in volumes
or rates through the end of the month.
If the basis of our estimates proves to be substantially incorrect, it could result in
material adjustments in results of operations between periods. On an ongoing basis, management
reviews its estimates based on currently available information. Changes in facts and circumstances
may result in revised estimates.
Reserves for environmental matters
Each of our business segments is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations
governing environmental quality and pollution control. Such laws and regulations may, in certain
instances, require us to remediate current or former operating sites where specified substances
have been released or disposed of. We accrue reserves for environmental matters when our
assessments indicate that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and an amount can be
reasonably estimated. Our assessments are based on studies, as well as site surveys, to determine
the extent of any environmental damage and the necessary requirements to remediate this damage.
Future environmental developments, such as increasingly strict environmental laws and additional
claims for damages to property, employees and other persons resulting from current or past
operations, could result in substantial additional costs beyond our current reserves.
83
At
December 31, 2006 and 2005, we had a liability for environmental
remediation of $24.2
million and $22.1 million, respectively, which was derived from a range of reasonable estimates
based
upon studies and site surveys.
We follow the provisions of AICPA Statement of Position 96-1, which provides key guidance on
recognition, measurement and disclosure of remediation liabilities. We have recorded our
best estimate of
the cost of remediation activities.
See Item 3 of this annual report for recent developments regarding environmental matters.
Natural gas imbalances
In the pipeline transportation business, natural gas imbalances frequently result from
differences in gas volumes received from and delivered to our customers. Such differences occur
when a customer delivers more or less gas into our pipelines than is physically redelivered back to
them during a particular time period. The vast majority of our settlements are through in-kind
arrangements whereby incremental volumes are delivered to a customer (in the case of an imbalance
payable) or received from a customer (in the case of an imbalance receivable). Such in-kind
deliveries are on-going and take place over several months. In some cases, settlements of
imbalances built up over a period of time are ultimately cashed out and are generally negotiated at
values which approximate average market prices over a period of time. As a result, for gas
imbalances that are ultimately settled over future periods, we estimate the value of such current
assets and liabilities using average market prices, which is representative of the estimated value
of the imbalances upon final settlement. Changes in natural gas prices may impact our estimates.
At December 31, 2006 and 2005, our imbalance receivables, net of allowance for doubtful
accounts, were $97.8 million and $89.4 million, respectively, and are reflected as a component of
Accounts and notes receivable trade on our Consolidated Balance Sheets. At December 31, 2006
and 2005, our imbalance payables were $51.2 million and $80.5 million, respectively, and are
reflected as a component of Accrued gas payables on our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Other Items
Initial Public Offering of Duncan Energy Partners
In September 2006, we formed a consolidated subsidiary, Duncan Energy Partners, to acquire,
own and operate a diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets. On February 5, 2007, this
subsidiary completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000 common units (including an
overallotment amount of 1,950,000 common units) at $21.00 per unit, which generated net proceeds to
Duncan Energy Partners of $291.3 million. As consideration for assets contributed and
reimbursement for capital expenditures related to these assets, Duncan Energy Partners distributed
$260.6 million of these net proceeds to us along with $198.9 million in borrowings under its credit
facility and a final amount of 5,371,571 common units of Duncan Energy Partners. Duncan Energy
Partners used $38.5 million of net proceeds from the overallotment to redeem 1,950,000 of the
7,301,571 common units it had originally issued to Enterprise Products Partners, resulting in the
final amount of 5,371,571 common units beneficially owned by Enterprise Products Partners. We used
the cash received from Duncan Energy Partners to temporarily reduce amounts outstanding under our
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility.
In summary, we contributed 66% of our equity interests in the following subsidiaries to Duncan
Energy Partners:
|
|
|
Mont Belvieu Caverns, LLC (Mont Belvieu Caverns), a recently formed subsidiary, which
owns salt dome storage caverns located in Mont Belvieu, Texas that receive, store and
deliver NGLs and certain petrochemical products for industrial customers located along the
upper Texas Gulf Coast, which has the largest concentration of petrochemical plants and
refineries in the United States; |
|
|
|
|
Acadian Gas, LLC (Acadian Gas), which owns an onshore natural gas pipeline system
that gathers, transports, stores and markets natural gas in Louisiana. The Acadian Gas
system links natural gas supplies from onshore and offshore Gulf of Mexico developments
(including offshore
|
84
|
|
|
pipelines, continental shelf and deepwater production) with local gas
distribution companies, electric generation plants and industrial customers, including
those in the Baton Rouge-New
Orleans-Mississippi River corridor. A subsidiary of Acadian Gas owns a 49.5% equity
interest in Evangeline Gas Pipeline, L.P. (Evangeline); |
|
|
|
|
Sabine Propylene Pipeline L.P. (Sabine Propylene), which transports polymer-grade
propylene between Port Arthur, Texas and a pipeline interconnect located in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana; |
|
|
|
|
Enterprise Lou-Tex Propylene Pipeline L.P. (Lou-Tex Propylene), which transports
chemical-grade propylene from Sorrento, Louisiana to Mont Belvieu, Texas; and |
|
|
|
|
South Texas NGL Pipelines, LLC (South Texas NGL), a recently formed subsidiary, which
began transporting NGLs from Corpus Christi, Texas to Mont Belvieu, Texas in January 2007.
South Texas NGL owns the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. |
In addition, to the 34% ownership interest we retained in each of these entities, we also own
the 2% general partner interest in Duncan Energy Partners and 26.4% of Duncan Energy Partners
outstanding common units. Our Operating Partnership directs the business operations of Duncan
Energy Partners through its ownership and control of the general partner of Duncan Energy Partners.
The formation of Duncan Energy Partners had no effect on our financial statements at December
31, 2006. For financial reporting purposes, the consolidated financial statements of Duncan Energy
Partners will be consolidated into those of our own. Consequently, the results of operations of
Duncan Energy Partners will be a component of our business segments. Also, due to common control
of the entities by Dan L. Duncan, the initial consolidated balance sheet of Duncan Energy Partners
will reflect our historical carrying basis in each of the subsidiaries contributed to Duncan Energy
Partners.
The public owners of Duncan Energy Partners common units will be presented as a
noncontrolling interest in our consolidated financial statements beginning in February 2007. The
public owners of Duncan Energy Partners have no direct equity interests in us as a result of this
transaction. The borrowings of Duncan Energy Partners will be presented as part of our
consolidated debt; however, we do not have any obligation for the payment of interest or repayment
of borrowings incurred by Duncan Energy Partners.
We have significant continuing involvement with all of the subsidiaries of Duncan Energy
Partners, including the following types of transactions:
|
|
|
We utilize storage services provided by Mont Belvieu Caverns to support our Mont
Belvieu fractionation and other businesses; |
|
|
|
|
We buy natural gas from and sell natural gas to Acadian Gas in connection with its
normal business activities; and |
|
|
|
|
We are the sole shipper on the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. |
We may contribute other equity interests in our subsidiaries to Duncan Energy Partners in the
near term and use the proceeds we receive from Duncan Energy Partners to fund our capital spending
program. We have no obligation or commitment to make such contributions to Duncan Energy Partners.
85
Contractual Obligations
The following table summarizes our significant contractual obligations at December 31, 2006
(dollars in thousands). For additional information regarding these significant contractual
obligations, see Note 20 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of
this annual report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment or Settlement due by Period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than |
|
1-3 |
|
3-5 |
|
More than |
Contractual Obligations |
|
Total |
|
1 year |
|
years |
|
years |
|
5 years |
|
Scheduled maturities of long-term debt |
|
$ |
5,329,068 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
500,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,929,068 |
|
|
$ |
2,900,000 |
|
Estimated cash payments for interest |
|
$ |
5,703,440 |
|
|
$ |
325,267 |
|
|
$ |
613,348 |
|
|
$ |
465,947 |
|
|
$ |
4,298,878 |
|
Operating lease obligations |
|
$ |
274,700 |
|
|
$ |
19,190 |
|
|
$ |
36,251 |
|
|
$ |
31,951 |
|
|
$ |
187,308 |
|
Purchase obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product purchase commitments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated payment obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas |
|
$ |
920,736 |
|
|
$ |
153,316 |
|
|
$ |
307,052 |
|
|
$ |
306,632 |
|
|
$ |
153,736 |
|
NGLs |
|
$ |
2,902,805 |
|
|
$ |
959,127 |
|
|
$ |
436,885 |
|
|
$ |
426,630 |
|
|
$ |
1,080,163 |
|
Petrochemicals |
|
$ |
2,656,633 |
|
|
$ |
1,110,957 |
|
|
$ |
693,362 |
|
|
$ |
339,434 |
|
|
$ |
512,880 |
|
Other |
|
$ |
79,418 |
|
|
$ |
35,183 |
|
|
$ |
41,334 |
|
|
$ |
1,424 |
|
|
$ |
1,477 |
|
Underlying major volume commitments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas (in BBtus) |
|
|
109,600 |
|
|
|
18,250 |
|
|
|
36,550 |
|
|
|
36,500 |
|
|
|
18,300 |
|
NGLs (in MBbls) |
|
|
68,331 |
|
|
|
21,957 |
|
|
|
10,408 |
|
|
|
10,172 |
|
|
|
25,794 |
|
Petrochemicals (in MBbls) |
|
|
45,535 |
|
|
|
19,250 |
|
|
|
11,749 |
|
|
|
5,694 |
|
|
|
8,842 |
|
Service payment commitments |
|
$ |
15,725 |
|
|
$ |
10,413 |
|
|
$ |
4,659 |
|
|
$ |
186 |
|
|
$ |
467 |
|
Capital expenditure commitments |
|
$ |
239,000 |
|
|
$ |
239,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Long-Term Liabilities, as reflected
in our Consolidated Balance Sheet |
|
$ |
86,121 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
14,101 |
|
|
$ |
4,004 |
|
|
$ |
68,016 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
18,207,646 |
|
|
$ |
2,852,453 |
|
|
$ |
2,646,992 |
|
|
$ |
3,505,276 |
|
|
$ |
9,202,925 |
|
|
|
|
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
Cameron Highway issued senior secured notes in December 2005. We secure a portion of these
notes by (i) a pledge by us of our 50% partnership interest in Cameron Highway, (ii) mortgages on
and pledges of certain assets related to certain rights of way and pipeline assets of an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of ours that serves as the operator of the Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline,
and (iii) letters of credit in an initial amount of $18.4 million issued by the Operating
Partnership on behalf of Cameron Highway.
In March 2006, Cameron Highway amended the note purchase agreement governing its senior
secured notes to primarily address the effect of reduced deliveries of crude oil to Cameron Highway
resulting from production delays caused by the lingering effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
In general, this amendment modified certain financial covenants in light of production forecasts.
In addition, the amendment increased the face amount of the letters of credit required to be issued
by our Operating Partnership and an affiliate of our joint venture partner from $18.4 million each
to $36.8 million each. For more information regarding Cameron Highways senior secured notes, see
Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual
report.
In May 2006, Poseidon amended its revolving credit facility to, among other things, reduce
commitments from $170.0 million to $150.0 million, extend the maturity date from January 2008 to
May 2011 and lower the borrowing rate.
At December 31, 2006, long term debt for Evangeline consisted of (i) $18.2 million in
principal amount of 9.9% fixed rate Series B senior secured notes due December 2010 and (ii) a $7.5
million subordinated note payable.
In addition, we furnished $1.1 million in letters of credit on behalf of Evangeline
at December 31, 2006.
Except for the foregoing, we have no off-balance sheet arrangements, as described in Item
303(a)(4)(ii) of Regulation S-K, that have or are reasonably expected to have a material current or
future
86
effect on our financial condition, revenues, expenses, results of operations, liquidity,
capital expenditures or
capital resources. See Note 14 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included
under Item 8 of this annual report for the information regarding the debt obligations of our
unconsolidated affiliates.
Summary of Related Party Transactions
The following table summarizes our related party transactions for the periods indicated
(dollars in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
Revenues from consolidated operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
98,671 |
|
|
$ |
311 |
|
|
$ |
2,697 |
|
Shell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
542,912 |
|
Unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
304,559 |
|
|
|
354,461 |
|
|
|
258,541 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
403,230 |
|
|
$ |
354,772 |
|
|
$ |
804,150 |
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
311,537 |
|
|
$ |
293,134 |
|
|
$ |
203,100 |
|
Shell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
725,420 |
|
Unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
31,606 |
|
|
|
23,563 |
|
|
|
37,587 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
343,143 |
|
|
$ |
316,697 |
|
|
$ |
966,107 |
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
41,265 |
|
|
$ |
40,954 |
|
|
$ |
29,307 |
|
|
|
|
For additional information regarding our related party transactions, see Note 17 of the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report. For
information regarding certain business relationships and related transactions, see Item 13 of this
annual report.
We have an extensive and ongoing relationship with EPCO and its affiliates, including TEPPCO.
Our revenues from EPCO and affiliates are primarily associated with sales of NGL products. Our
expenses with EPCO and affiliates are primarily due to (i) reimbursements we pay EPCO in connection
with an administrative services agreement and (ii) purchases of NGL products. TEPPCO is an
affiliate of ours due to the common control relationship of both entities.
Many of our unconsolidated affiliates perform supporting or complementary roles to our
consolidated business operations. The majority of our revenues from unconsolidated affiliates
relate to natural gas sales to a Louisiana affiliate. The majority of our expenses with
unconsolidated affiliates pertain to payments we make to K/D/S Promix, L.L.C. for NGL
transportation, storage and fractionation services.
On February 5, 2007, our consolidated subsidiary, Duncan Energy Partners, completed an
underwritten initial public offering of its common units. Duncan Energy Partners was formed in
September 2006 as a Delaware limited partnership to, among other things, acquire ownership
interests in certain of our midstream energy businesses. For additional information regarding
Duncan Energy Partners, see Other Items Initial Public Offering of Duncan Energy Partners
within this section.
87
Non-GAAP reconciliations
A reconciliation of our measurement of total non-GAAP gross operating margin to GAAP operating
income and income before provision for income taxes, minority interest and the cumulative effect of
changes in accounting principles follows (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year the Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
Total non-GAAP segment gross operating margin |
|
$ |
1,362,449 |
|
|
$ |
1,136,347 |
|
|
$ |
655,191 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile total non-GAAP gross operating margin
to GAAP operating income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, amortization and accretion in
operating costs and expenses |
|
|
(440,256 |
) |
|
|
(413,441 |
) |
|
|
(193,734 |
) |
Retained lease expense, net in operating costs and expenses |
|
|
(2,109 |
) |
|
|
(2,112 |
) |
|
|
(7,705 |
) |
Gain on sale of assets in operating costs and expenses |
|
|
3,359 |
|
|
|
4,488 |
|
|
|
15,901 |
|
General and administrative costs |
|
|
(63,391 |
) |
|
|
(62,266 |
) |
|
|
(46,659 |
) |
|
|
|
GAAP consolidated operating income |
|
|
860,052 |
|
|
|
663,016 |
|
|
|
422,994 |
|
Other net expense, primarily interest expense |
|
|
(229,967 |
) |
|
|
(225,178 |
) |
|
|
(153,625 |
) |
|
|
|
GAAP income before provision for income taxes, minority interest
and the cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles |
|
$ |
630,085 |
|
|
$ |
437,838 |
|
|
$ |
269,369 |
|
|
|
|
EPCO subleases to us certain equipment located at our Mont Belvieu facility and 100
railcars for $1 per year (the retained leases). These subleases are part of the administrative
services agreement that we executed with EPCO in connection with our formation in 1998. EPCO holds
this equipment pursuant to operating leases for which it has retained the corresponding cash lease
payment obligation. We record the full value of such lease payments made by EPCO as a non-cash
related party operating expense, with the offset to partners equity recorded as a general
contribution to our partnership. Apart from the partnership interests we granted to EPCO at our
formation, EPCO does not receive any additional ownership rights as a result of its contribution to
us of the retained leases. For additional information regarding the administrative services
agreement and the retained leases, see Item 13 of this annual report.
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles
Our Statements of Consolidated Operations reflect the following cumulative effects of changes
in accounting principles:
|
|
|
We recognized, as a benefit, a cumulative effect of a change in accounting principle of
$1.5 million in 2006 based on the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)
123(R), Share-Based Payment, requirements to recognize compensation expense based upon
the grant date fair value of an equity award and the application of an estimated
forfeiture rate to unvested awards. |
|
|
|
|
We recorded a $4.2 million non-cash expense related to certain asset retirement
obligations in 2005 due to our implementation of FIN 47 as of December 31, 2005. |
|
|
|
|
We recorded a combined $10.8 million non-cash gain in 2004 related to the impact of (i)
changing the method our BEF subsidiary uses to account for its planned major maintenance
activities from the accrue-in-advance method to the expense-as-incurred method and (ii)
changing the method in which we account for our investment in VESCO from the cost method
to the equity method. |
For additional information regarding these changes in accounting principles, including a
presentation of the pro forma effects these changes would have had on our historical earnings, see
Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual
report.
88
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
The accounting standard setting bodies and the SEC have recently issued the following
accounting guidance that will or may affect our future financial statements:
|
|
|
Emerging Issues Task Force No. 06-3, How Taxes Collected From Customers and Remitted
to Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income Statement (That Is, Gross
versus Net Presentation), |
|
|
|
|
SFAS 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments, |
|
|
|
|
SFAS 157, Fair Value Measurements, and |
|
|
|
|
SFAS 159, Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities
Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115. |
For additional information regarding these recent accounting developments and others that may
affect our future financial statements, see Note 3 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
We
are exposed to financial market risks, including changes in commodity
prices, interest rates and foreign exchange rates. We may use financial instruments (i.e., futures, forwards, swaps, options and other
financial instruments with similar characteristics) to mitigate the risks of certain identifiable
and anticipated transactions. In general, the type of risks we attempt to hedge are those related
to (i) the variability of future earnings, (ii) fair values of certain debt instruments and (iii)
cash flows resulting from changes in applicable interest rates or commodity prices. As a matter of
policy, we do not use financial instruments for speculative (or trading) purposes.
We recognize financial instruments as assets and liabilities on our Consolidated Balance
Sheets based on fair value. Fair value is generally defined as the amount at which a financial
instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, not in a forced or
liquidation sale. The estimated fair values of our financial instruments have been determined
using available market information and appropriate valuation techniques. We must use considerable
judgment, however, in interpreting market data and developing these estimates. Accordingly, our
fair value estimates are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that we could realize upon
disposition of these instruments. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation
techniques could have a material effect on our estimates of fair value.
Changes in the fair value of financial instrument contracts are recognized currently in
earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met. If the financial instruments meet
those criteria, the instruments gains and losses offset the related results of the hedged item in
earnings for a fair value hedge and are deferred in other comprehensive income for a cash flow
hedge. Gains and losses related to a cash flow hedge are reclassified into earnings when the
forecasted transaction affects earnings. For additional information regarding our accounting for
financial instruments, see Note 7 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under
Item 8 of this annual report.
To
qualify as a hedge, the item to be hedged must be exposed to commodity,
interest rate or exchange rate
risk and the hedging instrument must reduce the exposure and meet the hedging requirements of SFAS
133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities (as amended and interpreted).
We must formally designate the financial instrument as a hedge and document and assess the
effectiveness of the hedge at inception and on a quarterly basis. Any ineffectiveness of the hedge
is recorded in current earnings.
We routinely review our outstanding financial instruments in light of current market
conditions. If market conditions warrant, some financial instruments may be closed out in advance
of their contractual settlement dates thus realizing income or loss depending on the specific
exposure. When this occurs, we
89
may enter into a new financial instrument to reestablish the
economic hedge to which the closed instrument relates.
Interest Rate Risk Hedging Program
Our interest rate exposure results from variable and fixed rate borrowings under debt
agreements. We assess cash flow risk related to interest rates by identifying and measuring
changes in our interest rate exposures that may impact future cash flows and evaluating hedging
opportunities to manage these risks. We use analytical techniques to measure our exposure to
fluctuations in interest rates, including cash flow sensitivity analysis models to forecast the
expected impact of changes in interest rates on our future cash flows. Enterprise Products GP
oversees the strategies associated with these financial risks and approves instruments that are
appropriate for our requirements.
We manage a portion of our interest rate exposures by utilizing interest rate swaps and
similar arrangements, which allow us to convert a portion of fixed rate debt into variable rate
debt or a portion of variable rate debt into fixed rate debt. We believe that it is prudent to
maintain an appropriate balance of variable rate and fixed rate debt in the current business
environment.
Fair value hedges Interest rate swaps
As summarized in the following table, we had eleven interest rate swap agreements outstanding
at December 31, 2006 that were accounted for as fair value hedges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Period Covered |
|
Termination |
|
Fixed to |
Notional |
|
Hedged Fixed Rate Debt |
|
Of Swaps |
|
by Swap |
|
Date of Swap |
|
Variable Rate (1) |
Amount |
|
|
Senior Notes B, 7.50% fixed rate, due Feb. 2011
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Jan. 2004 to Feb. 2011
|
|
Feb. 2011
|
|
7.50% to 8.89% |
$50 million |
|
Senior Notes C, 6.375% fixed rate, due Feb.
2013
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Jan. 2004 to Feb. 2013
|
|
Feb. 2013
|
|
6.38% to 7.43% |
$200 million |
|
Senior Notes G, 5.6% fixed rate, due Oct. 2014
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
4th Qtr. 2004 to Oct. 2014
|
|
Oct. 2014
|
|
5.60% to 6.33% |
$600 million |
|
Senior Notes K, 4.95% fixed rate, due June 2010
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Aug. 2005 to June 2010
|
|
June 2010
|
|
4.95% to 5.76% |
$200 million |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The variable rate indicated is the all-in variable rate for the current settlement period. |
We have designated these interest rate swaps as fair value hedges under SFAS 133 since they
mitigate changes in the fair value of the underlying fixed rate debt. As effective fair value
hedges, an increase in the fair value of these interest rate swaps is equally offset by an increase
in the fair value of the underlying hedged debt. The offsetting changes in fair value have no
effect on current period interest expense.
These eleven agreements have a combined notional amount of $1.1 billion and match the maturity
dates of the underlying debt being hedged. Under each swap agreement, we pay the counterparty a
variable interest rate based on six-month London interbank offered rate (LIBOR) (plus an
applicable margin as defined in each swap agreement), and receive back from the counterparty a
fixed interest rate payment based on the stated interest rate of the debt being hedged, with both
payments calculated using the notional amounts stated in each swap agreement. We settle amounts
receivable from or payable to the counterparties every six months (the settlement period). The
settlement amount is amortized ratably to earnings as either an increase or a decrease in interest
expense over the settlement period.
The total fair value of these eleven interest rate swaps at December 31, 2006, was a liability
of $29.1 million, with an offsetting decrease in the fair value of the underlying debt. Interest
expense for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 reflects a $5.2 million loss, $10.8
million benefit and $9.1 million benefit from these swap agreements, respectively.
90
The following tables show the effect of hypothetical price movements on the estimated fair
value of our interest rate swap portfolio and the related change in fair value of the underlying
debt at the dates
indicated (dollars in thousands). Income is not affected by changes in the fair value of
these swaps; however, these swaps effectively convert the hedged portion of fixed-rate debt to
variable-rate debt. As a result, interest expense (and related cash outlays for debt service) will
increase or decrease with the change in the periodic reset rate associated with the respective
swap. Typically, the reset rate is an agreed upon index rate published for the first day of the
six-month interest calculation period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swap Fair Value at |
|
|
Resulting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scenario |
|
Classification |
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
December 31, 2006 |
|
February 7, 2007 |
|
FV assuming no change in underlying interest rates |
|
Asset (Liability) |
|
$ |
(19,179 |
) |
|
$ |
(29,060 |
) |
|
$ |
(31,918 |
) |
FV assuming 10% increase in underlying interest rates |
|
Asset (Liability) |
|
|
(50,308 |
) |
|
|
(56,249 |
) |
|
|
(58,956 |
) |
FV assuming 10% decrease in underlying interest rates |
|
Asset (Liability) |
|
|
11,950 |
|
|
|
(1,872 |
) |
|
|
(4,881 |
) |
The fair value of the interest rate swaps excludes the benefit (detriment) we have already recorded
in earnings. The change in fair value between December 31, 2006 and February 7, 2007 is primarily
due to an increase in market interest rates relative to the forward interest rate curve used to
determine the fair value of our financial instruments. The underlying floating LIBOR forward
interest rate curve used to determine the February 7, 2007 fair values ranged from approximately
4.8% to 5.4% using 6-month reset periods ranging from February 2007 to October 2014.
Cash flow hedges Treasury locks
During the second quarter of 2006, the Operating Partnership entered into a treasury lock
transaction having a notional amount of $250.0 million. In addition, in July 2006, the Operating
Partnership entered into an additional treasury lock transaction having a notional amount of $50.0
million. A treasury lock is a specialized agreement that fixes the price (or yield) on a specific
treasury security for an established period of time. A treasury lock purchaser is protected from a
rise in the yield of the underlying treasury security during the lock period. The Operating
Partnerships purpose in entering into these transactions was to hedge the underlying U.S. treasury
rate related to its anticipated issuance of subordinated debt during the second quarter of 2006.
In July 2006, the Operating Partnership issued $300.0 million in principal amount of its Junior
Subordinated Notes A (see Note 14 in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements under Item
8). Each of the treasury lock transactions was designated as a cash flow hedge under SFAS 133. In
July 2006, the Operating Partnership elected to terminate these treasury lock transactions and
recognized a minimal gain.
During the fourth quarter of 2006, the Operating Partnership entered into treasury lock
transactions having a notional value of $562.5 million. The Operating Partnership entered into
these transactions to hedge the underlying U.S. treasury rates related to its anticipated issuances
of debt during 2007. Each of the treasury lock transactions was designated as a cash flow hedge
under SFAS 133. At December 31, 2006, the value of the treasury locks was $11.2 million.
On February 27, 2007, the Operating Partnership entered into additional treasury lock
transactions having a notional value of $437.5 million. The Operating Partnership entered into
these transactions to hedge the underlying U.S. treasury rates related to its anticipated issuances
of debt during 2007. Each of the treasury lock transactions will be designated as a cash flow
hedge under SFAS 133.
Commodity Risk Hedging Program
The prices of natural gas, NGLs and petrochemical products are subject to fluctuations in
response to changes in supply, market uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are
beyond our control. In order to manage the price risks associated with such products, we may enter
into commodity financial instruments. The primary purpose of our commodity risk management
activities is to hedge our exposure to price risks associated with (i) natural gas purchases, (ii)
the value of NGL production and inventories, (iii) related firm commitments, (iv) fluctuations in
transportation revenues where the underlying fees are based on natural gas index prices and (v)
certain anticipated transactions involving either natural gas, NGLs or certain petrochemical
products. The commodity financial instruments we utilize may be settled in cash or with another
financial instrument.
91
The fair value of our commodity financial instrument portfolio at December 31, 2006 was a
liability of $3.2 million. During the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, we recorded
$10.3
million, $1.1 million and $0.4 million, respectively, of income related to our commodity
financial instruments, which is included in operating costs and expenses on our Statements of
Consolidated Operations.
We assess the risk of our commodity financial instrument portfolio using a sensitivity
analysis model. The sensitivity analysis applied to this portfolio measures the potential income
or loss (i.e., the change in fair value of the portfolio) based upon a hypothetical 10% movement in
the underlying quoted market prices of the commodity financial instruments outstanding at the date
indicated within the following table. The following table shows the effect of hypothetical price
movements on the estimated fair value (FV) of this portfolio at the dates presented (dollars in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commodity Financial Instrument Portfolio FV |
|
|
Resulting |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scenario |
|
Classification |
|
December 31, 2005 |
|
December 31, 2006 |
|
February 7, 2007 |
|
FV assuming no change in underlying commodity prices |
|
Asset (Liability) |
|
$ |
(53 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,184 |
) |
|
$ |
549 |
|
FV assuming 10% increase in underlying commodity prices |
|
Asset (Liability) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(2,119 |
) |
|
|
1,734 |
|
FV assuming 10% decrease in underlying commodity prices |
|
Asset (Liability) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(4,249 |
) |
|
|
(637 |
) |
Foreign Currency Hedging Program
In October 2006, we acquired all of the outstanding stock of an affiliated NGL marketing
company located in Canada from EPCO and Dan L. Duncan. Since this foreign subsidiarys functional
currency is the Canadian dollar, we could be adversely affected by fluctuations in foreign currency
exchange rates. We attempt to hedge this risk using foreign purchase contracts to fix the exchange
rate. As of December 31, 2006, we had entered into foreign purchase contracts valued at $5.1
million, all of which settled in January 2007. In January and February 2007, we entered into $3.8
million and $4.8 million, respectively, of such instruments. These contracts typically settle in
the month following their inception. Due to the limited duration of these contracts, we utilize
mark-to-market accounting for these transactions, the effect of which has had a minimal impact on
our earnings.
Product Purchase Commitments
We have long and short-term purchase commitments for NGLs, petrochemicals and natural gas with
several suppliers. The purchase prices that we are obligated to pay under these contracts are
based on market prices at the time we take delivery of the volumes. For additional information
regarding these commitments, see Contractual Obligations included under Item 7 of this annual
report.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Our consolidated financial statements, together with the independent registered public
accounting firms report of Deloitte & Touche LLP, begin on page F-1 of this report.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
None.
92
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.
Disclosure controls and procedures
Our management, including the chief executive officer (CEO) and chief financial officer
(CFO) of Enterprise Products GP, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
procedures, including internal controls over financial reporting, as of December 31, 2006. This
evaluation concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures, including internal controls over
financial reporting, are effective to provide us with a reasonable assurance that the information
required to be disclosed in reports filed with the SEC is recorded, processed, summarized and
reported within the time periods specified in the SECs rules and forms. Our management noted no
material weaknesses in the design or operation of our internal controls over financial reporting
that are likely to adversely affect our ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information. In addition, no fraud involving management or employees who have a significant role
in our internal controls over financial reporting was detected.
The disclosure controls and procedures are also designed to provide reasonable assurance that
such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the CEO and CFO of
our general partner, as appropriate to allow such persons to make timely decisions regarding
required disclosures.
Our management does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures will prevent all
errors and all fraud. The design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource
constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Based on the
inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute
assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within Enterprise Products
Partners have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in
decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple errors or mistakes.
Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of
two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of
controls is also based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events.
Therefore, a control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only
reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Our
disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide such reasonable assurance of achieving
our desired control objectives, and our CEO and CFO have concluded that our disclosure controls and
procedures are effective in achieving that level of reasonable assurance as of December 31, 2006.
Internal control over financial reporting
Our internal controls over financial reporting are designed to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of our financial statements in
accordance with GAAP. These internal controls over financial reporting were designed under the
supervision of our management, including the CEO and CFO of Enterprise Products GP, and include
policies and procedures that:
|
(i) |
|
pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately
and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets, |
|
|
(ii) |
|
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to
permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP, and that our
receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with authorizations of our
management and directors; and |
|
|
(iii) |
|
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material
effect on our financial statements. |
In accordance with Item 308 of SEC Regulation S-K, management is required to provide an annual
report regarding internal controls over our financial reporting. This report, which includes
93
managements assessment of the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting, is
found on page 95.
Changes in internal control over financial reporting during the fourth quarter of 2006
There were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Rule
13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) or in other factors during the fourth quarter
of 2006, that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect our internal
controls over financial reporting.
94
MANAGEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2006
The management of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries,
including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, is responsible for
establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Our internal
control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to Enterprise Products Partners
management and board of directors regarding the preparation and fair presentation of published
financial statements. However, our management does not represent that our disclosure controls and
procedures or internal controls over financial reporting will prevent all error and all fraud. A
control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only a reasonable, not an
absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met.
Our management assessed the effectiveness of Enterprise Products Partners internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006. In making this assessment, it used the criteria
set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework. This assessment included design effectiveness and operating
effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting as well as the safeguarding of assets.
Based on our assessment, we believe that, as of December 31, 2006, Enterprise Products Partners
internal control over financial reporting is effective based on those criteria.
Our managements assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2006 has been audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent
registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included herein under Item 9A
of this annual report.
Our Audit, Conflicts and Governance Committee is composed of directors who are not officers or
employees of Enterprise Products GP. It meets regularly with members of management, the internal
auditors and the representatives of the independent registered public accounting firm to discuss
the adequacy of Enterprise Products Partners internal controls over financial reporting, financial
statements and the nature, extent and results of the audit effort. Management reviews with the
Audit, Conflicts and Governance Committee all of Enterprise Products Partners significant
accounting policies and assumptions affecting the results of operations. Both the independent
registered public accounting firm and internal auditors have direct access to the Audit, Conflicts
and Governance Committee without the presence of management.
Pursuant to the requirements of Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, this Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting has been
signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities indicated
below on February 28, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert G. Phillips |
|
/s/ Michael A. Creel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
|
Robert G. Phillips
|
|
Name:
|
|
Michael A. Creel |
|
|
Title:
|
|
Chief Executive Officer of
|
|
Title:
|
|
Chief Financial Officer of |
|
|
|
|
our general partner,
|
|
|
|
our general partner, |
|
|
|
|
Enterprise Products GP, LLC
|
|
|
|
Enterprise Products GP, LLC |
|
|
95
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors of Enterprise Products GP, LLC and
Unitholders of Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
Houston, Texas
We have audited managements assessment, included in the accompanying Managements Annual
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting as of December 31, 2006, that Enterprise
Products Partners L.P. and its consolidated subsidiaries (Enterprise Products Partners)
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on
criteria established in Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Enterprise Products Partners management is responsible
for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on managements assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of Enterprise Products
Partners internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was
maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal
control over financial reporting, evaluating managements assessment, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis
for our opinions.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the
supervision of, the companys principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons
performing similar functions, and effected by the companys board of directors, management, and
other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. A companys internal control over financial reporting includes
those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable
detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,
and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with
authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance
regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including
the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements
due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any
evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods
are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions,
or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, managements assessment that Enterprise Products Partners maintained effective
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, is fairly stated, in all
material respects, based on the criteria established in Internal ControlIntegrated Framework
issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Also in our
opinion, Enterprise Products Partners maintained, in all material respects, effective internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, based on the criteria established in
Internal ControlIntegrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet, the related statements of
consolidated
96
operations, consolidated comprehensive income, consolidated cash flows, consolidated
partners equity and the consolidated financial statement schedule as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006 of Enterprise
Products Partners and our report dated February 28, 2007 expressed an unqualified opinion on
those financial statements and the financial statement schedule.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Houston, Texas
February 28, 2007
97
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
PART III
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.
Partnership Management
As is commonly the case with publicly traded limited partnerships, we do not directly employ
any of the persons responsible for the management or operations of our business. These functions
are performed by the employees of EPCO pursuant to an administrative services agreement under the
direction of the Board of Directors (the Board) and executive officers of Enterprise Products GP,
our general partner. For a description of the administrative services agreement, see Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions Relationship with EPCO under Item 13 of this annual
report.
The executive officers are elected for one-year terms and may be removed, with or without
cause, only by the Board. Our unitholders do not elect the officers or directors of Enterprise
Products GP. Dan L. Duncan, through his indirect control of Enterprise Products GP, has the
ability to elect, remove and replace at any time, all of the officers and directors of Enterprise
Products GP. Each member of the Board serves until such members death, resignation or removal.
The employees of EPCO who served as directors of Enterprise Products GP during 2006 were Messrs.
Duncan, Phillips, Cunningham, Creel, Bachmann and Fowler.
On February 14, 2006, Dr. Ralph S. Cunningham, Michael A. Creel, Richard H. Bachmann, W.
Randall Fowler and Stephen L. Baum were elected directors of our general partner. In addition, O.S.
Andras, W. Matt Ralls and Richard S. Snell resigned from the board of directors of Enterprise
Products GP effective February 14, 2006. There were no disagreements between Messrs. Andras, Ralls,
Snell and us on any matter relating to our operations, policies or practices which resulted in
their resignation. Following such resignations, Mr. Andras and Mr. Ralls were appointed directors
of the general partner of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P., which owns a 100% membership interest in
Enterprise Products GP. Mr. Snell was elected a director of the general partner of an affiliate,
TEPPCO Partners L.P., in January 2006.
On October 12, 2006, Charles M. Rampacek and Rex C. Ross were elected as directors, to replace
Stephen L. Baum and Philip C. Jackson, who resigned on October 10, 2006 and October 12, 2006,
respectively.
There were no disagreements between Messrs. Jackson, Baum and us on any matter relating to our operations, policies
or practices which resulted in their resignation.
In November 2006, the Board approved the merging of its Audit and Conflicts Committee with its
Governance Committee, resulting in a combined committee entitled the Audit, Conflicts and
Governance Committee (ACG Committee). Unless the context requires otherwise, references to ACG
Committee include references to the separate Audit and Conflicts Committee and Governance
Committee.
During 2006, there were seven meetings of the Board. In addition, the ACG Committee met eleven
times regarding audit and conflicts matters and four times regarding governance matters. Messrs.
Cunningham and Bachmann attended four and five of the Board meetings, respectively, during 2006.
For their respective periods of service, the remaining directors were present at each Board
meeting.
Because we are a limited partnership and meet the definition of a controlled company under
the listing standards of the NYSE, we are not required to comply with certain requirements of the
NYSE. Accordingly, we have elected to not comply with Section 303A.01 of the NYSE Listed Company
Manual, which would require that the Board of Enterprise Products GP be comprised of a majority of
independent directors. In addition, we have elected to not comply with Sections 303A.04 and
303A.05 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, which would require that the Board of Enterprise
Products GP maintain a Nominating Committee and a Compensation Committee, each consisting entirely
of independent directors.
98
Notwithstanding any contractual limitation on its obligations or duties, Enterprise Products
GP is liable for all debts we incur (to the extent not paid by us), except to the extent that such
indebtedness or
other obligations are non-recourse to Enterprise Products GP. Whenever possible, Enterprise
Products GP intends to make any such indebtedness or other obligations non-recourse to itself.
Under our limited partnership agreement and subject to specified limitations, we will
indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law, from and against all losses, claims,
damages or similar events any director or officer, or while serving as director or officer, any
person who is or was serving as a tax matters member or as a director, officer, tax matters member,
employee, partner, manager, fiduciary or trustee of our partnership or any of our affiliates.
Additionally, we will indemnify to the fullest extent permitted by law, from and against all
losses, claims, damages or similar events any person who is or was an employee (other than an
officer) or agent of our partnership.
Corporate Governance
We are committed to sound principles of governance. Such principles are critical for us to
achieve our performance goals, and maintain the trust and confidence of investors, employees,
suppliers, business partners and stakeholders.
A key element for strong governance is independent members of the Board. Pursuant to the NYSE
listing standards, a director will be considered independent if the Board determines that he or she
does not have a material relationship with Enterprise Products GP or us (either directly or as a
partner, unitholder or officer of an organization that has a material relationship with Enterprise
Products GP or us). Based on the foregoing, the Board has affirmatively determined that Rex C.
Ross, Charles M. Rampacek and E. William Barnett are independent directors under the NYSE rules.
As required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the SEC adopted rules that direct national
securities exchanges and associations to prohibit the listing of securities of a public company if
its audit committee members do not satisfy a heightened independence standard. In order to meet
this standard, members of such audit committees may not receive any consulting fee, advisory fee or
other compensation from the public company other than fees for service as a director or committee
member and may not be considered an affiliate of the public company. Neither Enterprise Products
GP nor any individual member of its ACG Committee has relied on any exemption in the NYSE rules to
establish such individuals independence. Based on the foregoing criteria, the Board has
affirmatively determined that all members of its ACG Committee satisfy this heightened independence
requirement.
Code of Conduct and Ethics and Corporate Governance Guidelines
Enterprise Products GP has adopted a Code of Conduct that applies to all directors, officers
and employees. This code sets out our requirements for compliance with legal and ethical standards
in the conduct of our business, including general business principles, legal and ethical
obligations, compliance policies for specific subjects, obtaining guidance, the reporting of
compliance issues and discipline for violations of the code.
In addition, Enterprise Products GP has adopted a code of ethics, the Code of Ethical Conduct
for Senior Financial Officers and Managers, that applies to the chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, principal accounting officer and senior financial and other managers. In
addition to other matters, this code of ethics establishes policies to prevent wrongdoing and to
promote honest and ethical conduct, including ethical handling of actual and apparent conflicts of
interest, compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations, full, fair, accurate, timely and
understandable disclosure in public communications and prompt internal reporting violations of the
code.
Governance guidelines, together with applicable committee charters, provide the framework for
effective governance. The Board has adopted the Governance Guidelines of Enterprise Products
Partners, which address several matters, including qualifications for directors, responsibilities
of directors, retirement of directors, the composition and responsibility of the ACG Committee, the
conduct and
99
frequency of board and committee meetings, management succession, director access to
management and outside advisors, director compensation, director orientation and continuing
education, and annual self-evaluation of the board. The Board recognizes that effective governance
is an on-going process, and thus, it will review the Governance Guidelines of Enterprise Products
Partners annually or more often as deemed necessary or appropriate.
We provide access through our website at www.epplp.com to current information relating to
governance, including the Code of Ethical Conduct for Senior Financial Officers and Managers, the
Governance Guidelines of Enterprise Products Partners and other matters impacting our governance
principles. You may also contact our investor relations department at (713) 381-6521 for printed
copies of these documents free of charge.
ACG Committee
The sole committee of the Board is its ACG Committee. In accordance with NYSE rules and
Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Board has named three of its
members to serve on the ACG Committee. The members of the ACG Committee are independent directors
free from any relationship with us or any of our affiliates or subsidiaries that would interfere
with the exercise of independent judgment.
The members of the ACG Committee must have a basic understanding of finance and accounting and
be able to read and understand fundamental financial statements, and at least one member of the ACG
Committee shall have accounting or related financial management expertise. At December 31, 2006,
the members of the ACG Committee are Rex C. Ross, Charles M. Rampacek and E. William Barnett, who
is chairman of the ACG Committee. Our Board has determined that Mr. Rampacek qualifies as an
independent audit committee financial expert as defined in Item 401(h) of Regulation S-K
promulgated by the SEC.
The ACG Committees duties are addressing audit and conflicts-related items and general
corporate governance. From an audit and conflicts standpoint, the primary responsibilities of the
ACG Committee include:
|
§ |
|
monitoring the integrity of our financial reporting process and related systems of
internal control; |
|
|
§ |
|
ensuring our legal and regulatory compliance and that of Enterprise Products GP; |
|
|
§ |
|
overseeing the independence and performance of our independent public accountants; |
|
|
§ |
|
approving all services performed by our independent public accountants; |
|
|
§ |
|
providing for an avenue of communication among the independent public accountants,
management, internal audit function and the Board; |
|
|
§ |
|
encouraging adherence to and continuous improvement of our policies, procedures and
practices at all levels; |
|
|
§ |
|
reviewing areas of potential significant financial risk to our businesses; and |
|
|
§ |
|
approving awards granted under our 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan. |
If the Board believes that a particular matter presents a conflict of interest and proposes a
resolution, the ACG Committee has the authority to review such matter to determine if the proposed
resolution is fair and reasonable to us. Any matters approved by the ACG Committee are
conclusively deemed to be fair and reasonable to our business, approved by all of our partners and
not a breach by Enterprise Products GP or the Board of any duties it may owe us or our unitholders.
100
Pursuant to its formal written charter, as amended and currently in effect, the ACG Committee
has the authority to conduct any investigation appropriate to fulfilling its responsibilities, and
it has direct access to our independent public accountants as well as any EPCO personnel whom it
deems necessary in fulfilling its responsibilities. The ACG Committee has the ability to retain,
at our expense, special legal, accounting or other consultants or experts it deems necessary in the
performance of its duties.
From a governance standpoint, the primary responsibilities of the ACG Committee are to develop
and recommend to the Board a set of governance principles applicable to us, review the
qualifications of candidates for Board membership, screen and interview possible candidates for
Board membership and communicate with members of the Board regarding Board meeting format and
procedures. The ACG Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.
A copy of the ACG Committee charter is available on our website, www.epplp.com. You may also
contact our investor relations department at (713) 381-6521 for a printed copy of this document
free of charge.
NYSE Corporate Governance Listing Standards
Annual CEO Certification. On April 5, 2006, our chief executive officer certified to
the NYSE, as required by Section 303A.12(a) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, that as of April 5,
2006, he was not aware of any violation by us of the NYSEs Corporate Governance listing standards.
Executive Sessions of Non-Management Directors
The Board holds regular executive sessions in which non-management directors meet without any
members of management present. The purpose of these executive sessions is to promote open and
candid discussion among the non-management directors. During such executive sessions, one director
is designated as the presiding director, who is responsible for leading and facilitating such
executive sessions. Currently, the presiding director is Mr. Barnett.
In accordance with NYSE rules, we have established a toll-free, confidential telephone hotline
(the Hotline) so that interested parties may communicate with the presiding director or with all
the non-management directors as a group. All calls to this Hotline are reported to the chairman of
the ACG Committee, who is responsible for communicating any necessary information to the other
non-management directors. The number of our confidential Hotline is (877) 888-0002.
101
Directors and Executive Officers of Enterprise Products GP
The following table sets forth the name, age and position of each of the directors and
executive officers of Enterprise Products GP at February 28, 2007. Each executive officer holds
the same respective office shown below in the general partner of the Operating Partnership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Age |
|
Position with Enterprise Products GP |
|
Dan L. Duncan (1)
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
Director and Chairman |
Robert G. Phillips(1)
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer |
Dr. Ralph S. Cunningham (1)
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
Director, Group Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer |
Michael A. Creel (1)
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
Director, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Richard H. Bachmann (1)
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
Director, Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary |
W. Randall Fowler (1)
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
Director, Senior Vice President and Treasurer |
E. William Barnett (2,3)
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
Director |
Rex C. Ross (2)
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
Director |
Charles M. Rampacek (2)
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
Director |
James H. Lytal (1)
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
Executive Vice President |
A.J. Teague (1)
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
Executive Vice President |
Gil H. Radtke
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
Senior Vice President |
James M. Collingsworth
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
Senior Vice President |
Michael J. Knesek (1)
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
Senior Vice President, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Executive officer |
|
(2) |
|
Member of ACG Committee |
|
(3) |
|
Chairman of ACG Committee |
Dan L. Duncan was elected chairman and a director of Enterprise Products GP in April 1998
and chairman and a director of the general partner of our Operating Partnership in December 2003.
Mr. Duncan has served as chairman and a director of EPE Holdings since April 2005 and as chairman
of EPCO since 1979. Mr. Duncan was elected chairman and director of the general partner of Duncan
Energy Partners in October 2006.
Robert G. Phillips was elected president and chief executive officer of Enterprise Products GP
in February 2005. Mr. Phillips served as president and chief operating officer of Enterprise
Products GP from September 2004 to February 2005. Mr. Phillips has served as a director of
Enterprise Products GP since September 2004; a director of the general partner of our Operating
Partnership since September 2004; and a director of EPE Holdings since February 2006.
Mr. Phillips served as a director of GulfTerras general partner from August 1998 until
September 2004. He served as chief executive officer for GulfTerra and its general partner from
November 1999 until September 2004 and as chairman from October 2002 until September 2004. He
served as executive vice president of GulfTerra from August 1998 to October 1999. Mr. Phillips
served as president of El Paso Field Services Company from June 1997 to September 2004. He served
as president of El Paso Energy Resources Company from December 1996 to July 1997, president of El
Paso Field Services Company from April 1996 to December 1996 and senior vice president of El Paso
Corporation from September 1995 to April 1996. For more than five years prior, Mr. Phillips was
chief executive officer of Eastex Energy, Inc.
Dr. Ralph S. Cunningham was elected group executive vice president and chief operating officer
of Enterprise Products GP in December 2005 and a director in February 2006. Dr. Cunningham
previously served as a director of Enterprise Products GP from 1998 until March 2005 and served as
chairman and a director of the general partner of TEPPCO from March 2005 until November 2005. He
retired in 1997 from CITGO Petroleum Corporation, where he had served as president and chief
executive officer since 1995.
Dr. Cunningham serves as a director of Tetra Technologies, Inc. (a publicly traded energy
services and chemical company), EnCana Corporation (a Canadian publicly traded independent oil and
natural gas
102
company) and Agrium, Inc. (a Canadian publicly traded agricultural chemicals company). He was
a director of EPCO from 1987 to 1997.
Michael A. Creel was elected an executive vice president of Enterprise Products GP and EPCO in
January 2001, after serving as a senior vice president of Enterprise Products GP and EPCO from
November 1999 to January 2001. Mr. Creel, a certified public accountant, served as chief financial
officer of EPCO from June 2000 through April 2005 and was named chief operating officer of EPCO in
April 2005. In June 2000, Mr. Creel was also named chief financial officer of Enterprise Products
GP. Mr. Creel has served as a director of the general partner of our Operating Partnership since
December 2003, and has served as president, chief executive officer and a director of EPE Holdings
since August 2005.
Mr. Creel was elected a director of Edge Petroleum Corporation (a publicly traded oil and
natural gas exploration and production company) in October 2005 and a director of Enterprise
Products GP in February 2006. In October 2006, Mr. Creel was elected executive vice president,
chief financial officer and a director of the general partner of Duncan Energy Partners.
Richard H. Bachmann was elected an executive vice president, chief legal officer and secretary
of Enterprise Products GP and EPCO in January 1999 and a director of Enterprise Products GP in
February 2006. Mr. Bachmann previously served as a director of Enterprise Products GP from June
2000 to January 2004. Mr. Bachmann has served as a director of the general partner of our
Operating Partnership since December 2003 and has served as executive vice president, chief legal
officer and secretary of EPE Holdings since August 2005.
Mr. Bachmann was elected a director of EPE Holdings in February 2006 and of EPCO in January
1999. In October 2006, Mr. Bachmann was elected president, chief executive officer and a director
of the general partner of Duncan Energy Partners. In November 2006, Mr. Bachmann was appointed an
independent manager of Constellation Energy Partners LLC. Mr. Bachmann serves as a member of the
audit, compensation and nominating and governance committee of Constellation Energy Partners LLC.
W. Randall Fowler was elected senior vice president and treasurer of Enterprise Products GP in
February 2005 and a director in February 2006. Mr. Fowler, a certified public accountant
(inactive), joined us as director of Investor Relations in January 1999 and served as treasurer and
a vice president of Enterprise Products GP and EPCO from August 2000 to February 2005. Mr. Fowler
has served as senior vice president and chief financial officer of EPE Holdings since August 2005
and as chief financial officer of EPCO since April 2005.
Mr. Fowler was elected a director of EPE Holdings in February 2006. In October 2006, Mr.
Fowler was elected a senior vice president, treasurer and a director of the general partner of
Duncan Energy Partners.
E. William Barnett was elected a director of Enterprise Products GP in March 2005. Mr.
Barnett is a member of our ACG Committee and serves as its chairman. Mr. Barnett practiced law
with Baker Botts L.L.P. from 1958 until his retirement in 2004. In 1984, he became managing
partner of Baker Botts L.L.P. and continued in that role for fourteen years until 1998. He was
senior counsel to the firm from 1998 until June 2004, when he retired from the firm. Mr. Barnett
served as chairman of the Board of Trustees of Rice University from 1996 to July 2005.
Mr. Barnett is a life trustee of The University of Texas Law School Foundation; a director of
St. Lukes Episcopal Health System; a director of the Center for Houstons Future and director and
former chairman of the Houston Zoo, Inc. (the operating arm of the Houston Zoo). He is a director
of Reliant Energy, Inc. (a publicly traded electric services company) and Westlake Chemical
Corporation (a publicly traded chemical company). He is also director and former chairman of the
Greater Houston Partnership. He is chairman of the Advisory Board of the Baker Institute for
Public Policy at Rice University. He also served as a trustee of Baylor College of Medicine from
1993 until 2004.
103
Rex C. Ross was elected a director of Enterprise Products GP in October 2006 and is a member
of its ACG Committee. Mr. Ross serves as a non-executive chairman of Schlumberger Technology
Corporation, the holding company for all Schlumberger Limited assets and entities in the United
States. Prior to his executive retirement from Schlumberger Limited in May 2004, Mr. Ross held a
number of executive management positions during his 11-year career with the company, including
president of Schlumberger Oilfield Services North America; president, Schlumberger GeoQuest; and
president of SchlumbergerSema North & South America.
Charles M. Rampacek was elected a director of Enterprise Products GP in October 2006 and is a
member of its ACG Committee. Mr. Rampacek is currently a business and management consultant in the
energy industry. Mr. Rampacek served as chairman, chief executive officer and president of Probex
Corporation (Probex), an energy technology company that developed a proprietary used oil recovery
process, from 2000 until his retirement in 2003. Prior to joining Probex Corporation, Mr. Rampacek
was president and chief executive officer of Lyondell-Citgo Refining L.P, a manufacturer of
petroleum products, from January 1996 through August 2000. From 1982 to 1995, he held various
executive positions with Tenneco Inc. and its energy related subsidiaries, including president of
Tenneco Gas Transportation Company, executive vice president of Tenneco Gas Operations and senior
vice president of Refining.
His extensive management background in the energy transportation and refining sectors also
includes 13 years with Tenneco, Inc. and its energy-related subsidiaries, serving as president of
Gas Pipeline Transportation and senior vice president of Refining and Supply. In addition, Mr.
Rampacek spent 16 years with Exxon Company USA, where he served as planning manager of Refining,
planning manager of Coal and Synthetic Fuels, as well as operations and technical manager of the
Benicia, California refinery. Mr. Rampacek has been a director of Flowserve Corporation since 1998
and is chairman of its Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and a member of its Audit
Committee.
In 2005, two complaints requesting recovery of certain costs were filed against former
officers and directors of Probex Corporation as a result of the bankruptcy of Probex in 2003. These
complaints were defended under Probexs director and officer insurance by AIG and settlement was
reached and paid by AIG with bankruptcy court approval in the first half of 2006. An additional
complaint was filed in 2005 against noteholders of certain Probex debt of which Mr. Rampacek was
one. A settlement of $2,000 was reached and approved by the bankruptcy court in the first half of
2006.
James H. Lytal was elected executive vice president of Enterprise Products GP in September
2004. Mr. Lytal served as a director of GulfTerras general partner from August 1994 until
September 2004, and as president of GulfTerra and its general partner from July 1995 until
September 2004. He served as senior vice president of GulfTerra and its general partner from
August 1994 to June 1995. Prior to joining GulfTerra, Mr. Lytal served in various capacities with
the oil and gas exploration and production and natural gas pipeline businesses of United Gas
Pipeline Company, Texas Oil and Gas, Inc. and American Pipeline Company
A.J. Teague was elected an executive vice president of Enterprise Products GP in November
1999. From 1998 to 1999, Mr. Teague served as president of Tejas Natural Gas Liquids, LLC.
Gil H. Radtke was elected a senior vice president of Enterprise GP in February 2002. Mr.
Radtke joined us in connection with our purchase of Diamond-Kochs storage and propylene
fractionation assets in January and February 2002. Before joining us, Mr. Radtke served as
president of the Diamond-Koch joint venture from 1999 to 2002, where he was responsible for its
storage, propylene fractionation, pipeline and NGL fractionation businesses. From 1997 to 1999 he
was vice president, Petrochemicals and Storage of Diamond-Koch. In October 2006, Mr. Radtke was
elected senior vice president, chief operating officer and a director of the general partner of
Duncan Energy Partners.
James M. Collingsworth joined Enterprise GP as a Vice President in November 2001 and was
elected a Senior Vice President in November 2002. Previously, he served as a board member of Texaco
Canada Petroleum Inc. from July 1998 to October 2001 and was employed by Texaco from 1991 to 2001
in
104
various management positions, including Senior Vice President of NGL Assets and Business
Services from July 1998 to October 2001.
Michael J. Knesek, a certified public accountant, was elected senior vice president and
principal accounting officer of Enterprise Products GP in February 2005. Previously, Mr. Knesek
served as principal accounting officer and a vice president of Enterprise Products GP from August
2000 to February 2005.
Mr. Knesek has served as senior vice president and principal accounting officer of EPE
Holdings since August 2005. In October 2006, Mr. Knesek was elected senior vice president,
principal accounting officer and controller of the general partner of Duncan Energy Partners. Mr.
Knesek has been the controller and a vice president of EPCO since 1990.
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Under the federal securities laws, Enterprise Products GP, directors of Enterprise Products
GP, executives (and certain other) officers, and any persons holding more than 10% of our common
units are required to report their ownership of common units and any changes in that ownership to
us and the SEC. Specific due dates for these reports have been established by regulation, and we
are required to disclose in this report any failure to file by these dates during 2006. Dan L.
Duncan filed two late reports during 2006 in connection with the exercise of options by employees
of EPCO.
105
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
Executive Officer Compensation
We do not directly employ any of the persons responsible for managing or operating our
business and we have no compensation committee. Instead, we are managed by our general partner,
Enterprise Products GP, the executive officers of which are employees of EPCO. Our reimbursement
for the compensation of executive officers is governed by the administrative services agreement
with EPCO, and is generally based on time allocated during a period to the activities of EPCO or
the EPCO affiliates who reimburse EPCO pursuant to this agreement. For a description of the
administrative services agreement, see Relationship with EPCO and affiliates Administrative
Services Agreement under Item 13 of this annual report.
Summary Compensation Table
The following table presents consolidated compensation amounts paid, accrued or otherwise
expensed by us with respect to the year ended December 31, 2006 to our general partners chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and our three other most highly compensated executive
officers at December 31, 2006 (collectively, the named executive officers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit |
|
Option |
|
All Other |
|
|
Principal |
|
|
|
|
|
Salary |
|
Bonus |
|
Awards |
|
Awards |
|
Compensation |
|
Total |
Position |
|
Year |
|
($) |
|
($) (2) |
|
($) (3) |
|
($) (4) |
|
($) (5) |
|
($) |
|
Enterprise Products GP: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert G. Phillips, CEO |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
722,500 |
|
|
$ |
300,000 |
|
|
$ |
660,270 |
|
|
$ |
357,209 |
|
|
$ |
150,984 |
|
|
$ |
2,190,962 |
|
Michael A. Creel, CFO (1) |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
306,000 |
|
|
$ |
125,000 |
|
|
$ |
303,622 |
|
|
$ |
23,613 |
|
|
$ |
71,812 |
|
|
$ |
830,048 |
|
James H. Lytal |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
367,500 |
|
|
$ |
187,500 |
|
|
$ |
455,462 |
|
|
$ |
47,227 |
|
|
$ |
101,639 |
|
|
$ |
1,159,327 |
|
A.J. Teague |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
428,480 |
|
|
$ |
250,000 |
|
|
$ |
299,984 |
|
|
$ |
47,227 |
|
|
$ |
69,563 |
|
|
$ |
1,095,254 |
|
Ralph S. Cunningham |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
$ |
478,667 |
|
|
$ |
250,000 |
|
|
$ |
52,815 |
|
|
$ |
13,707 |
|
|
$ |
33,208 |
|
|
$ |
828,397 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts presented reflect compensation allocated to us based on the percentage of time Mr. Creel spent on our consolidated business activities during 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
Amounts represent discretionary annual cash awards accrued for the year ended December 31, 2006. Payment of these amounts was made in February 2007. |
|
(3) |
|
Amounts represent expense recognized in accordance with SFAS 123(R) with respect to restricted unit and Employee Partnership awards for the year ended December 31, 2006. |
|
(4) |
|
Amounts represent expense recognized in accordance with SFAS 123(R) with respect to unit option awards for the year ended December 31, 2006. |
|
(5) |
|
Amounts primarily represent (i) matching contributions under funded, qualified, defined contribution retirement plans, (ii) quarterly distributions received from restricted unit awards and (iii) the imputed value of life
insurance premiums paid on behalf of the officer. |
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Compensation paid or awarded by us in 2006 with respect to our named executive officers
reflects only that portion of compensation paid by EPCO allocated to us pursuant to the
administrative services agreement, including an allocation of a portion of the cost of equity-based
long-term incentive plans of EPCO. Dan L. Duncan controls EPCO and has ultimate decision-making
authority with respect to compensation of our named executive officers. The following elements of
compensation, and EPCOs decisions with respect to determination of payments, are not subject to
approvals by our Board or the ACG Committee. Awards under EPCOs long-term incentive plans are
approved by the ACG Committee. We do not have a separate compensation committee (see Item 10 of
this annual report).
106
As discussed below, the elements of EPCOs compensation program, along with EPCOs other
rewards (e.g., benefits, work environment, career development), are intended to provide a total
rewards package to employees. The compensation package is designed to reward contributions by
employees in support of the business strategies of EPCO and its affiliates at both the partnership
and individual levels. During 2006, EPCOs compensation package did not include any elements based
on targeted performance-related criteria.
The primary elements of EPCOs compensation program are a combination of annual cash and
long-term equity-based incentive compensation. During 2006, the elements of compensation for the
named executive officers consisted of the following:
|
§ |
|
Annual base salary; |
|
|
§ |
|
Discretionary annual cash awards; |
|
|
§ |
|
Awards under long-term incentive arrangements; and |
|
|
§ |
|
Other compensation, including very limited perquisites. |
With respect to compensation objectives and decisions regarding the named executive officers
for 2006, Mr. Duncan sought and received recommendations of Robert G. Phillips, the chief executive
officer of Enterprise Products GP, after preliminary formulation of such recommendation by him and
the senior vice president of Human Resources for EPCO with respect to employees other than Mr.
Phillips. EPCO takes note of market data for determining relevant compensation levels and
compensation program elements through the review of and, in certain cases, participation in,
various relevant compensation surveys. EPCO considered market data in a 2004-2005 survey prepared
for EPCO by an outside compensation consultant, but did not otherwise consult with compensation
consultants with respect to determining 2006 compensation for the named executive officers.
During late 2006, EPCO engaged an outside compensation consultant to prepare a report that it
expects to consider when determining future compensation, but EPCO did not use this report in
making decisions on discretionary annual cash compensation with respect to 2006 for any of our
named executive officers. Mr. Duncan and EPCO do not use any formula or specific performance-based
criteria for our named executive officers in connection with services performed for us. All
compensation determinations are discretionary and, as noted above, subject to Mr. Duncans ultimate
decision-making authority.
The discretionary cash awards paid to each of our named executive officers for the year ended
December 31, 2006 were determined by consultation among Mr. Duncan, Mr. Phillips and the senior
vice president of Human Resources for EPCO, subject to Mr. Duncans final determination. These
cash awards, in combination with base salaries, are intended to yield competitive total cash
compensation levels for the executive officers and drive performance in support of our business
strategies, as well as the performance of other EPCO affiliates for which the named executive
officers perform services. The portion of any discretionary cash awards paid by EPCO allocable to
us and reported as compensation to our named executive officers were based on the provisions of the
administrative services agreement. It is EPCOs general policy to pay these awards during the first
quarter of each year.
The 2006 equity awards granted to our named executive officers were determined by consultation
among Mr. Duncan, Mr. Phillips and the senior vice president of Human Resources for EPCO, and were
approved by the ACG Committee. These awards (restricted units and unit options) are intended to
align the long-term interests of the executive officers with those of our unitholders. It is
EPCOs general policy to recommend, and the ACG Committee typically approves, these grants to
employees during the second quarter of each fiscal year. Individually, our named executive
officers are Class B limited partners in either EPE Unit I or EPE Unit II. See Summary of
Long-Term Incentive Arrangements within this Item 11. See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report for information regarding our
accounting for equity awards.
EPCO generally does not pay for perquisites for any of our named executive officers, other
than reimbursement of certain parking expenses, and expects to continue its policy of covering very
limited
107
perquisites allocable to our named executive officers. EPCO also makes matching contributions under
its 401(k) plan for the benefit of our named executive officers in the same manner as it does for
other EPCO employees.
EPCO does not offer our named executive officers a defined benefit pension plan. Also, none
of our named executive officers had nonqualified deferred compensation during 2006.
We believe that each of the base salary, cash awards, and equity awards fit the overall
compensation objectives of us and of EPCO, as stated above (i.e., to provide competitive
compensation opportunities to align and drive employee performance toward the creation of sustained
long-term unitholder value, which will also allow us to attract, motivate and retain high quality
talent with the skills and competencies required by us).
Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal Year 2006
The following table presents information concerning each grant of an equity award made to a
named executive officer in 2006. All equity awards granted during 2006 were under EPCOs 1998
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the 1998 Plan). See Summary of Long-Term Incentive Arrangements
within this Item 11.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
Date Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Base |
|
Value of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under |
|
Price of |
|
Unit and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
|
Option |
|
Option |
|
|
Grant |
|
Threshold |
|
Target |
|
Maximum |
|
Awards |
|
Awards |
Name |
|
Date |
|
(#) |
|
(#) |
|
(#) |
|
($/Unit) |
|
($) (1) |
|
Restricted unit awards: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert G. Phillips |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
549,881 |
|
Michael A. Creel |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
151,217 |
|
James H. Lytal |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
274,940 |
|
A. J. Teague |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
274,940 |
|
Ralph S. Cunningham |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
274,940 |
|
Unit option awards: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert G. Phillips |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
$ |
164,483 |
|
Michael A. Creel |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
$ |
41,121 |
|
James H. Lytal |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
$ |
82,241 |
|
A. J. Teague |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
$ |
82,241 |
|
Ralph S. Cunningham |
|
|
5/1/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
$ |
82,241 |
|
EPE Unit II profits interest award: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph S. Cunningham |
|
|
12/5/2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
212,289 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts presented reflect that portion of grant date fair value allocable to us based on the percentage of time each officer
spent on our consolidated business activities during 2006. Based on current allocations, we estimate that the consolidated
compensation expense we record for each named executive officer with respect to these awards will equal these amounts over time.
For the period in which these awards were outstanding during 2006, we recognized a total of $317 thousand of consolidated
compensation expense for these awards. The remaining portion of grant date fair value will be recognized as expense in future
periods. |
The fair value amounts shown in the preceding table are based on certain assumptions and
considerations made by management. The grant date fair values of restricted unit awards issued in
May 2006 were based on a market price of $24.85 per unit and an assumed forfeiture rate of 7.8%.
The grant date fair values of unit option awards issued in May 2006 were based on the
following assumptions: (i) expected life of the options of seven years; (ii) risk-free interest
rate of 5.0%; (iii) an expected distribution yield on our units of 8.9%;
and (iv) an expected unit price volatility of our units of 23.5%.
108
The fair value of the EPE Unit II profits interest award issued in December 2006 was based on
the following assumptions: (i) remaining life of the award of five years; (ii) risk-free interest
rate of 4.4%; (iii) an expected distribution yield on Enterprise GP Holdings units of 3.8%; and
(iv) an expected unit price volatility of Enterprise GP Holdings units of 18.7%. The EPE Unit II
profits interest awards are classified as liability awards under the provisions of SFAS 123(R).
Outstanding Equity Awards at 2006 Fiscal Year-End
The following table presents information concerning each named executive officers unexercised
unit options and restricted units that have not vested as of December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
Unit Awards |
|
|
Number of Units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Market |
|
|
Underlying |
|
Option |
|
|
|
|
|
of Units |
|
Value of Units |
|
|
Options |
|
Exercise |
|
Option |
|
That Have |
|
That Have |
|
|
Unexercisable |
|
Price |
|
Expiration |
|
Not Vested |
|
Not Vested |
Name |
|
(#) |
|
($/Unit) |
|
Date |
|
(#) |
|
($) |
|
Robert G. Phillips |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2004 option award (4) |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
$ |
23.18 |
|
|
|
9/30/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 4, 2005 option award (2) |
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
$ |
26.47 |
|
|
|
8/4/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006 option award (3) |
|
|
80,000 |
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
|
5/1/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted unit awards (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86,553 |
|
|
$ |
2,508,306 |
|
Employee Partnership award (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,098 |
|
|
$ |
1,038,794 |
|
Michael A. Creel : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 10, 2004 option award (1) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
$ |
20.00 |
|
|
|
5/10/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 4, 2005 option award (2) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
$ |
26.47 |
|
|
|
8/4/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006 option award (3) |
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
|
5/1/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted unit awards (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76,553 |
|
|
$ |
2,218,506 |
|
Employee Partnership award (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,098 |
|
|
$ |
1,038,794 |
|
James H. Lytal: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2004 option award
(4) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
$ |
23.18 |
|
|
|
9/30/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 4, 2005 option award (2) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
$ |
26.47 |
|
|
|
8/4/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006 option award (3) |
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
|
5/1/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted unit awards (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,532 |
|
|
$ |
1,725,237 |
|
Employee Partnership award (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,872 |
|
|
$ |
697,693 |
|
A.J. Teague: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 10, 2004 option award (1) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
$ |
20.00 |
|
|
|
5/10/2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 4, 2005 option award (2) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
$ |
26.47 |
|
|
|
8/4/2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006 option award (3) |
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
|
5/1/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted unit awards (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,000 |
|
|
$ |
985,320 |
|
Employee Partnership award (6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,872 |
|
|
$ |
697,693 |
|
Ralph S. Cunningham |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 1, 2006 option award (3) |
|
|
40,000 |
|
|
$ |
24.85 |
|
|
|
5/1/2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted unit awards (5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
$ |
347,760 |
|
Employee
Partnership award (7) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
152 |
|
|
$ |
5,603 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
These awards vest on May 10, 2008. |
|
(2) |
|
These awards vest on August 4, 2009. |
|
(3) |
|
These awards vest on May 1, 2010. |
|
(4) |
|
This award vests on September 30, 2008. |
|
(5) |
|
The total number of nonvested restricted units held by our named executive officers at December 31, 2006 was 268,638. Of this amount,
24,000 vest on May 28, 2008, 12,000 vest on September 30, 2008, 110,638 vest on October 12, 2008, 50,000 vest on August 4, 2009 and 72,000
vest on May 1, 2010. The estimated market value of these nonvested restricted units is based on a closing price of $28.98 per unit on
December 29, 2006. |
|
(6) |
|
The EPE Unit I profits interests awards vest on August 30, 2010. See Summary of Long-Term Incentive Arrangements Employee Partnership
awards for additional information regarding these awards. |
|
(7) |
|
This EPE Unit II profits interest award vests on December 5, 2011. See Summary of Long-Term Incentive Arrangements Employee
Partnership awards for additional information regarding these awards. |
109
Summary of Long-Term Incentive Arrangements
Restricted unit awards. Under the 1998 Plan, we may issue restricted common units to
key employees of EPCO and directors of our general partner. The 1998 Plan provides for the
issuance of 3,000,000 restricted common units, of which 1,737,364 remain authorized for issuance at
December 31, 2006. In general, restricted unit awards allow recipients to acquire the underlying
common units (at no cost to the recipient) once a defined vesting period expires, subject to
certain forfeiture provisions. The restrictions on such nonvested units generally lapse four years
from the date of grant. Compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the
vesting period. The fair value of restricted units is based on the market price of the underlying
common units on the date of grant and an allowance for estimated forfeitures.
Unit option awards. Under EPCOs 1998 Plan, non-qualified, incentive options to
purchase a fixed number of our common units may be granted to EPCOs key employees who perform
management, administrative or operational functions for us. When issued, the exercise price of
each option grant is equivalent to the market price of the underlying equity on the date of grant.
In general, options granted under the 1998 Plan have a vesting period of four years and remain
exercisable for ten years from the date of grant. In order to fund its obligations under the 1998
Plan, EPCO may purchase common units at fair value either in the open market or directly from us.
When employees exercise unit options, we reimburse EPCO for the cash difference between the strike
price paid by the employee and the actual purchase price paid by EPCO for the units issued to the
employee.
Employee Partnership awards. In connection with Enterprise GP Holdings initial
public offering in August 2005, EPCO formed EPE Unit I to serve as an incentive arrangement for
certain employees of EPCO through a profits interest in EPE Unit I. In December 2006, EPE Unit
II was formed to serve as an incentive arrangement for Dr. Cunningham, who is not a participant in
the EPE Unit I arrangement. These awards are designed to provide additional long-term incentive
compensation for our named executive officers. The profits interest awards (or Class B limited
partner interests) in EPE Unit I or EPE Unit II entitle the holder to participate in the
appreciation in value of the parent companys units and are subject to forfeiture.
At December 31, 2006, four of our named executive officers held Class B limited partner
interests in EPE Unit I as follows: Robert G. Phillips, 7.2%, Michael A. Creel, 7.2%, James H.
Lytal, 4.8% and A.J. Teague, 4.8%. Based on a closing market price of the parent companys units
of $36.97 per unit at December 29, 2006 and taking into account the terms of liquidation outlined
in the EPE Unit I partnership agreement, we estimate that the total profits interests would have
been worth $14.4 million, of which each named executive officer would have received his
proportionate share. See Relationship with EPCO and its other affiliates Relationship with
Employee Partnerships under Item 13 for additional information regarding EPE Unit I.
At December 31, 2006, Dr. Cunningham was the sole Class B limited partner in EPE Unit II.
Based on a closing market price of the parent companys units of $36.97 per unit at December 29,
2006 and taking into account the terms of liquidation outlined in the EPE Unit II partnership
agreement, we estimate that the total profits interests would have been worth a nominal amount.
See Relationship with EPCO and its other affiliates Relationship with Employee Partnerships
under Item 13 for additional information regarding EPE Unit II.
Option Exercises and Stock Vested Table
The named executive officers did not exercise any unit options during the year ended December
31, 2006. In addition, the named executive officers did not become vested in any equity-based
awards during the year.
110
Director Compensation
The following table presents information regarding compensation to the independent directors
of our general partner during 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Paid |
|
Unit |
|
Option |
|
All other |
|
|
|
|
in Cash |
|
Awards |
|
Awards |
|
Compensation |
|
Total |
Name |
|
($) |
|
($) |
|
($) (3) |
|
($)
(7) |
|
($) |
|
Current directors: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. William Barnett |
|
$ |
32,500 |
|
|
$ |
8,936 |
(1) |
|
$ |
9,159 |
(4) |
|
$ |
2,244 |
|
|
$ |
52,839 |
|
Rex C. Ross |
|
$ |
6,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,759 |
(5) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
13,009 |
|
Charles M. Rampacek |
|
$ |
6,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,759 |
(6) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
13,009 |
|
Former directors: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip C. Jackson |
|
$ |
24,435 |
|
|
$ |
36,336 |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,016 |
|
|
$ |
61,787 |
|
Stephen L. Baum |
|
$ |
19,565 |
|
|
$ |
25,785 |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
449 |
|
|
$ |
45,799 |
|
W. Matt Ralls |
|
$ |
3,972 |
|
|
$ |
25,603 |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
532 |
|
|
$ |
30,108 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Barnett holds 1,744 of our nonvested restricted units. Of this amount, 269 units vest on May 24, 2009, 475 units vest on August 4, 2009,
500 units vest on February 21, 2010 and 500 units vest on August 2, 2010. At December 31, 2006, the total market value of these units was $51
thousand based on a closing market price of $28.98 per common unit at December 29, 2006. The dollar amount presented under the column labeled
Unit Awards for Mr. Barnett represents the expense recognized by Enterprise Products GP during 2006 related to these awards attributable to his
service during 2006. |
|
(2) |
|
The restricted units held by these former directors vested upon their respective resignation dates (see Item 10) and converted to common units
on a one-for-one basis. The dollar amounts presented under the column labeled Unit Awards for Messrs. Jackson, Baum and Ralls represent the
expense recognized by Enterprise Products GP during 2006 related to these awards, including the acceleration of expense amounts due to each
directors resignation. |
|
(3) |
|
Amount presented reflects the compensation expense recognized by Enterprise Products GP related to unit appreciation rights granted during 2006
under letter agreements. |
|
(4) |
|
At December 31, 2006, the fair value of UARs granted to Mr. Barnett was $195 thousand. |
|
(5) |
|
At December 31, 2006, the fair value of UARs granted to Mr. Ross was $202 thousand. |
|
(6) |
|
At December 31, 2006, the fair value of UARs granted to Mr. Rampacek was $202 thousand. |
|
(7) |
|
Amounts primarily represent quarterly distributions received
from restricted unit awards. |
Neither we nor Enterprise Products GP provide any additional compensation to employees of
EPCO who serve as directors of our general partner. The employees of EPCO who served as directors
of Enterprise Products GP during 2006 were Messrs. Duncan, Phillips, Cunningham, Creel, Bachmann
and Fowler.
Independent Director Compensation
At February 27, 2007, our independent directors are Messrs. Barnett, Ross and Rampacek.
Enterprise Products GP is responsible for compensating these directors for their services.
Cash Compensation. For the year ended December 31, 2006, our standard compensation
arrangement for independent directors was as follows: (i) each director received $25,000 in cash
and $25,000 worth of restricted common units annually and (ii) if the individual served as chairman
of a committee of the Board, he received an additional $7,500 in cash annually. Effective January
1, 2007, our standard cash compensation arrangement was changed to reflect the following:
|
§ |
|
Each independent director receives $50,000 in cash and $25,000 worth of restricted
units annually. |
|
|
§ |
|
If the individual serves as chairman of a committee of the Board, then he receives an
additional $15,000 in cash annually. |
Equity-Based Compensation. The independent directors of our general partner have been
granted unit appreciation rights (UARs). These awards are in the form of letter agreements with
each of the
111
directors and are not part of any established long-term incentive plan of EPCO, Enterprise GP
Holdings or Enterprise Products Partners. The awards are based upon an incentive plan of EPE Holdings and are made in the form of UAR grants
for non-employee directors of Enterprise Products GP (filed as an
exhibit to this annual report
on Form 10-K). The compensation expense associated with these awards is recognized by Enterprise
Products GP. These UARs entitle the directors to receive a cash
amount in the future equal to the excess, if any, of the fair market value of Enterprise GP
Holdings units (determined as of a future vesting date) over the grant date price. If the
director resigns prior to vesting, his UAR awards are forfeited.
On August 3, 2006, Messrs. Barnett, Jackson and Baum were each granted 10,000 UARs, for a
total of 30,000 UARs, of which 20,000 were subsequently forfeited with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Baum
resigned. The grant date price of the August 2006 UARs was $35.71 per unit. This price differs
from the $35.40 per unit closing unit price of Enterprise GP Holdings units on August 3, 2006. The
higher grant date price was determined by reference to the closing price of Enterprise GP Holdings
units on May 2, 2006, which was the original date that these awards were contemplated to be issued.
The remaining 10,000 UARs held by Mr. Barnett vest on August 3, 2011.
On November 1, 2006, Mr. Barnett was issued an additional 20,000 UARs and Messrs. Ross and
Rampacek were issued 30,000 UARs each under this letter agreement format. The grant date price of
these rights was $34.10 per unit. These awards vest on November 1, 2011.
These UARs are accounted for as liability awards under SFAS 123(R) since they will be settled
with cash.
At December 31, 2006, the total fair value of the remaining 10,000 UARs issued in August 2006
was $60 thousand, which was based on the following assumptions: (i) remaining life of award of 4.6
years; (ii) risk-free interest rate of 4.7%; (iii) an expected distribution yield on the parent
companys units of 3.8%; and (iv) an expected unit price volatility of the parent companys units
of 18.7%.
At December 31, 2006, the total fair value of the 80,000 UARs issued in November 2006 was $539
thousand, which was based on the following assumptions: (i) remaining life of award of 4.8 years;
(ii) risk-free interest rate of 4.7%; (iii) an expected distribution yield on the parent companys
units of 3.8%; and (iv) an expected unit price volatility of the parent companys units of 18.7%.
112
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
and Related Unitholder Matters.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners
The following table sets forth certain information as of February 1, 2007, regarding each
person known by our general partner to beneficially own more than 5% of our common units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nature of |
|
|
Title of |
|
Name and Address |
|
Beneficial |
|
Percent |
Class |
|
of Beneficial Owner |
|
Ownership |
|
of Class |
|
Common units |
|
Dan L. Duncan |
|
|
147,007,446 |
(1) |
|
|
34.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Houston, Texas 77002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For a detailed listing of ownership amounts that comprise Mr. Duncans total beneficial ownership of our common
units, see the table presented in the following section, Security Ownership of Management, within this Item 12. |
Security Ownership of Management
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and Enterprise GP Holdings L.P.
The following table sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of our
common units and the units of Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. as of February 1, 2007 by:
|
§ |
|
each of our named executive officers; |
|
|
§ |
|
all of the current directors of Enterprise Products GP; and |
|
|
§ |
|
all of the current directors and executive officers of Enterprise Products GP as a group. |
Enterprise GP Holdings owns 100% of the membership interests of Enterprise Products GP.
All information with respect to beneficial ownership has been furnished by the respective
directors or officers. Each person has sole voting and dispositive power over the securities shown
unless otherwise indicated below. The beneficial ownership amounts of certain individuals include
options to acquire our common units that are exercisable within 60 days of the filing date of this
annual report.
Mr. Duncan owns 50.4% of the voting stock of EPCO and, accordingly, exercises sole voting and
dispositive power with respect to our common units beneficially owned by EPCO and its affiliates.
The remaining shares of EPCO capital stock are owned primarily by trusts for the benefit of members
of Mr. Duncans family. The address of EPCO is 1100 Louisiana Street, 10th Floor,
Houston, Texas 77002.
113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited Partner Ownership Interests In |
|
|
Enterprise Products Partners |
|
Enterprise GP Holdings |
|
|
Amount and |
|
|
|
|
|
Amount and |
|
|
|
|
Nature Of |
|
|
|
|
|
Nature Of |
|
|
Name of |
|
Beneficial |
|
Percent of |
|
Beneficial |
|
Percent of |
Beneficial Owner |
|
Ownership |
|
Class |
|
Ownership |
|
Class |
|
Dan L. Duncan: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units owned by EPCO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Through DFI Delaware Holdings, L.P. |
|
|
120,044,779 |
|
|
|
27.8 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Through Duncan Family Interests, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,271,231 |
|
|
|
80.2 |
% |
Through Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. |
|
|
13,454,498 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPCO (direct) |
|
|
41,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units owned by Dan Duncan LLC (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,726,273 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
% |
Units owned by EPE Unit I (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,821,428 |
|
|
|
2.1 |
% |
Units owned by EPE Unit II (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,725 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Units owned by trusts (3) |
|
|
12,566,645 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
% |
|
|
243,071 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Units owned directly |
|
|
900,024 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total for Dan L. Duncan |
|
|
147,007,446 |
|
|
|
34.0 |
% |
|
|
77,102,728 |
|
|
|
86.8 |
% |
Robert G. Phillips (4,5) |
|
|
130,702 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Dr. Ralph S. Cunningham (4) |
|
|
16,139 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael A. Creel (4) |
|
|
114,828 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Richard H. Bachmann |
|
|
116,252 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
20,469 |
|
|
|
* |
|
W. Randall Fowler |
|
|
60,057 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
E. William Barnett |
|
|
1,744 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Charles M. Rampacek |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rex C. Ross |
|
|
16,170 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
4,400 |
|
|
|
* |
|
A. J. Teague (4) |
|
|
164,547 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
17,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
James H. Lytal (4) |
|
|
76,825 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
All current
directors and executive officers of Enterprise Products GP, as a
group, (14 individuals in total) (6) |
|
|
147,814,495 |
|
|
|
34.2 |
% |
|
|
77,306,597 |
|
|
|
87.0 |
% |
|
|
|
* |
|
The beneficial ownership of each individual is less than 1% of the registrants common units outstanding. |
|
(1) |
|
Dan Duncan LLC is owned by Mr. Duncan. |
|
(2) |
|
As a result of EPCOs ownership of the general partners of the Employee Partnerships, Mr. Duncan is deemed beneficial owner of the units held by these entities. |
|
(3) |
|
In addition to the units owned by EPCO, Mr. Duncan is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the common units owned by the Duncan Family 1998 Trust and the Duncan Family 2000
Trust, the beneficiaries of which are the shareholders of EPCO. |
|
(4) |
|
These individuals are our named executive officers for 2006. |
|
(5) |
|
The number of Enterprise Products Partners common units shown for Mr. Phllips includes 5,132 common units held by trusts for which he has disclaimed beneficial ownership. |
|
(6) |
|
Cumulatively, this groups beneficial ownership amount includes 10,000 options to acquire Enterprise Products Partners common units that were issued under the 1998 Plan. These
options are exercisable within 60 days of the filing date of this report. |
Essentially all of the ownership interests in us and Enterprise GP Holdings that are
owned or controlled by EPCO are pledged as security under the credit facility of an EPCO affiliate.
This credit facility contains customary and other events of default relating to EPCO and certain
of its affiliates, including Enterprise GP Holdings, TEPPCO and us. In the event of a default
under this credit facility, a change in control of Enterprise GP Holdings or us could occur,
including a change in control of our respective general partners.
Duncan Energy Partners L.P.
On February 5, 2007, a consolidated subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners, Duncan Energy
Partners, completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000 common units. Certain of our
directors and executive officers purchased common units of Duncan Energy Partners in this offering.
There are 20,321,571 common units of Duncan Energy Partners outstanding following the offering.
For information regarding the initial public offering of Duncan Energy Partners, see Recent
Developments under Item 1 of this annual report.
114
The following table presents the beneficial ownership of common units of Duncan Energy
Partners by our directors, named executive officers and all directors and officers of our general
partner (as a group) at February 5, 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Energy Partners |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
|
|
And Nature Of |
|
|
Name of |
|
Beneficial |
|
Percent of |
Beneficial Owner |
|
Ownership |
|
Class |
|
Dan L. Duncan, through the Operating Partnership (1) |
|
|
5,371,571 |
|
|
|
26.4 |
% |
Richard H. Bachmann (2) |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Michael A. Creel (3) |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
W. Randall Fowler |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Robert G. Phillips |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Dr. Ralph S. Cunningham |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Rex C. Ross |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
* |
|
All current directors and executive officers of Enterprise
Products GP, as a group (14 individuals in total) |
|
|
5,419,171 |
|
|
|
26.6 |
% |
|
|
|
* |
|
The beneficial ownership of each individual is less than 1% of the registrants units outstanding. |
|
(1) |
|
The number of common units shown for Dan L. Duncan represents the final amount of common units issued to the Operating Partnership of
Enterprise Products Partners in connection with its contribution of equity interests to Duncan Energy Partners on February 5, 2007. |
|
(2) |
|
Mr. Bachmann is the chief executive officer of Duncan Energy Partners. |
|
(3) |
|
Mr. Creel is the chief financial officer of Duncan Energy Partners. |
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
The following table sets forth certain information as of December 31, 2006 regarding the 1998
Plan, under which our common units are authorized for issuance to EPCOs key employees and to
directors of Enterprise Products GP through the exercise of unit options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remaining |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
available for |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
future issuance |
|
|
units to |
|
Weighted- |
|
under equity |
|
|
be issued |
|
average |
|
compensation |
|
|
upon exercise |
|
exercise price |
|
plans (excluding |
|
|
of outstanding |
|
of outstanding |
|
securities |
|
|
common unit |
|
common unit |
|
reflected in |
Plan Category |
|
options |
|
options |
|
column (a) |
|
|
(a) |
|
(b) |
|
(c) |
Equity compensation plans approved by unitholders: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1998 Plan |
|
|
2,416,000 |
(1) |
|
$ |
23.32 |
|
|
|
2,025,443 |
|
Equity compensation plans not approved by unitholders: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total for equity compensation plans |
|
|
2,416,000 |
(1) |
|
$ |
23.32 |
|
|
|
2,025,443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Of the 2,416,000 unit options outstanding at December 31, 2006, 591,000 were immediately exercisable and an additional 785,000,
450,000, and 590,000 options are exercisable in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. |
The 1998 Plan is effective until either all available common units under the plan have
been issued to participants or the earlier termination of the 1998 Plan by EPCO. The 1998 Plan
also provides for the issuance of restricted common units, of which 1,105,237 were outstanding at
December 31, 2006. During 2006, a total of 466,400 restricted unit awards were issued to key
employees of EPCO and our independent directors. For additional information regarding the 1998
Plan and related equity awards, see Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
included under Item 8 of this annual report.
115
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.
The following information summarizes our business relationships and related transactions with
entities controlled by Dan L. Duncan during 2006. We have also provided information regarding our
business relationships and transactions with our unconsolidated affiliates and Shell.
For additional information regarding our transactions with related parties, see Note 17 of the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included under Item 8 of this annual report.
Relationship with EPCO and affiliates
We have an extensive and ongoing relationship with EPCO and its affiliates, which include the
following significant entities:
|
§ |
|
EPCO and its private company subsidiaries; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP, our sole general partner; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise GP Holdings, which owns and controls our general partner; |
|
|
§ |
|
Duncan Energy Partners, which is a public company subsidiary of ours; |
|
|
§ |
|
TEPPCO and TEPPCO GP, which are controlled by affiliates of EPCO; and |
|
|
§ |
|
the Employee Partnerships. |
Unless noted otherwise, our agreements with EPCO are not the result of arms length
transactions. As a result, we cannot provide assurance that the terms and provisions of such
agreements are at least as favorable to us as we could have obtained from unaffiliated third
parties.
EPCO is a private company controlled by Dan L. Duncan, who is also a director and Chairman of
Enterprise Products GP, our general partner. At December 31, 2006, EPCO and its affiliates
beneficially owned 146,768,946 (or 33.9%) of our outstanding common units, which includes
13,454,498 of our common units owned by Enterprise GP Holdings. In addition, at December 31, 2006,
EPCO and its affiliates beneficially owned 86.7% of the limited partner interests of Enterprise GP
Holdings and 100% of its general partner, EPE Holdings. Enterprise GP Holdings owns all of the
membership interests of Enterprise Products GP. The principal business activity of Enterprise
Products GP is to act as our managing partner. The executive officers and certain of the directors
of Enterprise Products GP and EPE Holdings are employees of EPCO.
In connection with its general partner interest in us, Enterprise Products GP received cash
distributions of $126.0 million, $76.8 million and $40.4 million from us during the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These amounts include incentive distributions of
$86.7 million, $63.9 million and $32.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004, respectively.
We and Enterprise Products GP are both separate legal entities apart from each other and apart
from EPCO, Enterprise GP Holdings and their respective other affiliates, with assets and
liabilities that are separate from those of EPCO, Enterprise GP Holdings and their respective other
affiliates. EPCO and its private company subsidiaries and affiliates depend on the cash
distributions they receive from us, Enterprise GP Holdings and other investments to fund their
other operations and to meet their debt obligations. EPCO and its affiliates received $306.5
million, $243.9 million and $189.8 million in cash distributions from us during the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
The ownership interests in us that are owned or controlled by Enterprise GP Holdings are
pledged as security under its credit facility. In addition, the ownership interests in us that are
owned or controlled by EPCO and its affiliates, other than those interests owned by Enterprise GP
Holdings, Dan Duncan LLC and certain trusts affiliated with Dan L. Duncan, are pledged as security
under the credit facility of a private company affiliate of EPCO. This credit facility contains
customary and other events of default relating to EPCO and certain affiliates, including Enterprise
GP Holdings, us and TEPPCO.
116
We have entered into an agreement with an affiliate of EPCO to provide trucking services to us
for the transportation of NGLs and other products. For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004, we paid this trucking affiliate $20.7 million, $17.6 million and $14.2 million, respectively,
for such services.
We lease office space in various buildings from affiliates of EPCO. The rental rates in these
lease agreements approximate market rates. For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
we paid EPCO $3.0 million, $2.7 million and $1.7 million, respectively, for office space leases.
Historically, we entered into transactions with a Canadian affiliate of EPCO for the purchase
and sale of NGL products in the normal course of business. These transactions were at
market-related prices. We acquired this affiliate in October 2006 and began consolidating its
financial statements with those of our own from the date of acquisition. For the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2004, our revenues from this former affiliate were $0.3 million and $2.7
million, respectively, and our purchases were $61.0 million and $71.8 million, respectively. For
the nine months ended September 30, 2006, our revenues from this former affiliate were $55.8
million and our purchases were $43.4 million.
Relationship with Duncan Energy Partners
In September 2006, we formed a consolidated subsidiary, Duncan Energy Partners, to acquire,
own and operate a diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets. On February 5, 2007, this
subsidiary completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000 common units at $21.00 per unit,
which generated net proceeds to Duncan Energy Partners of $291.3 million. As consideration for
assets contributed and reimbursement for capital expenditures related to these assets, Duncan
Energy Partners distributed $260.6 million of these net proceeds to Enterprise Products Partners
(along with $198.9 million in borrowings under its credit facility and a final amount of 5,371,571
common units of Duncan Energy Partners). Duncan Energy Partners used $38.5 million of net proceeds
from the overallotment to redeem 1,950,000 of the 7,301,571 common units it had originally issued
to Enterprise Products Partners, resulting in the final amount of 5,371,571 common units
beneficially owned by Enterprise Products Partners. We used the cash received from Duncan Energy
Partners to temporarily reduce amounts outstanding under the Operating Partnerships Multi-Year
Revolving Credit Facility.
In addition to the 34% direct ownership interest we retained in certain subsidiaries of Duncan
Energy Partners, we also own the 2% general partner interest in Duncan Energy Partners and 26.2% of
Duncan Energy Partners outstanding common units. Our Operating Partnership directs the business
operations of Duncan Energy Partners through its control of the general partner of Duncan Energy
Partners. Certain of our officers and directors are also beneficial owners of common units of
Duncan Energy Partners (see Item 12).
We have significant involvement with all of the subsidiaries of Duncan Energy Partners,
including the following types of transactions: (i) we utilize storage services provided by Mont
Belvieu Caverns to support our Mont Belvieu fractionation and other businesses; (ii) we buy natural
gas from and sell natural gas to Acadian Gas in connection with our normal business activities; and
(iii) we are the sole shipper on the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System.
We may contribute other equity interests in our subsidiaries to Duncan Energy Partners in the
near term and use the proceeds we receive from Duncan Energy Partners to fund our capital spending
program.
For additional information regarding Duncan Energy Partners, see Recent Developments under
Item 1 of this annual report.
Omnibus Agreement. In connection with the initial public offering of common units by
Duncan Energy Partners, our Operating Partnership also entered into an Omnibus Agreement with
Duncan Energy Partners and certain of its subsidiaries that will govern our relationship with
Duncan Energy Partners on the following matters:
117
|
§ |
|
indemnification for certain environmental liabilities, tax liabilities and right-of-way defects; |
|
|
§ |
|
reimbursement of certain expenditures for South Texas NGL and Mont Belvieu Caverns; |
|
|
§ |
|
a right of first refusal to the Operating Partnership on the equity interests in the
current and future subsidiaries of Duncan Energy Partners and a right of first refusal on
the material assets of these entities, other than sales of inventory and other assets in
the ordinary course of business; and |
|
|
§ |
|
a preemptive right with respect to equity securities issued by certain of Duncan Energy
Partners subsidiaries, other than as consideration in an acquisition or in connection
with a loan or debt financing. |
Indemnification for Environmental and Related Liabilities. Our Operating Partnership
also agreed to indemnify Duncan Energy Partners after the closing of its initial public offering
against certain environmental and related liabilities arising out of or associated with the
operation of the assets before February 5, 2007. These liabilities include both known and unknown
environmental and related liabilities. This indemnification obligation will terminate on February
5, 2010. There is an aggregate cap of $15.0 million on the amount of indemnity coverage. In
addition, Duncan Energy Partners is not entitled to indemnification until the aggregate amounts of
its claims exceed $250 thousand. Liabilities resulting from a change of law after February 5, 2007
are excluded from the environmental indemnity provided by the Operating Partnership.
In addition, our Operating Partnership will indemnify Duncan Energy Partners for liabilities
related to:
|
§ |
|
certain defects in the easement rights or fee ownership interests in and to the lands
on which any assets contributed to Duncan Energy Partners on February 5, 2007 are located; |
|
|
§ |
|
failure to obtain certain consents and permits necessary for Duncan Energy Partners to
conduct its business that arise within three years after February 5, 2007; and |
|
|
§ |
|
certain income tax liabilities related to the operation of the assets contributed to
Duncan Energy Partner attributable to periods prior to February 5, 2007. |
Reimbursement for Certain Expenditures. Our Operating Partnership has agreed to make
additional contributions to Duncan Energy Partners as reimbursement for its 66% share of excess
construction costs, if any, above (i) the $28.6 million of estimated capital expenditures to
complete planned expansions of the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System and (ii) $14.1 million of
estimated construction costs for additional planned brine production capacity and above-ground
storage reservoir projects at Mont Belvieu, Texas. We estimate the costs to complete the planned
expansion of the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline after the closing of the Duncan Energy Partners
initial public offering would be approximately $28.6 million, of which Duncan Energy Partners 66%
share would be approximately $18.9 million. Duncan Energy Partners retained cash from the proceeds
of its initial public offering in an amount equal to 66% of these estimated planned expansion
costs. The Operating Partnership will make a capital contribution to South Texas NGL for its 34%
share of such planned expansion costs.
Relationship with TEPPCO
TEPPCO became a related party to us in February 2005 in connection with the acquisition of
TEPPCO GP by a private company subsidiary of EPCO.
We received $42.9 million and a nominal amount from TEPPCO during the years ended December 31,
2006 and 2005, respectively, from the sale of hydrocarbon products. We paid TEPPCO $24.0 million
and $17.2 million for NGL pipeline transportation and storage services during the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. We did not sell hydrocarbon products to TEPPCO or
utilize its NGL pipeline transportation and storage services during the year ended December 31,
2004.
118
Purchase of Pioneer plant from TEPPCO. In March 2006, we paid TEPPCO $38.2 million for
its Pioneer natural gas processing plant located in Opal, Wyoming and certain natural gas
processing rights related to natural gas production from the Jonah and Pinedale fields located in
the Greater Green River Basin in Wyoming. After an in-depth consideration of all relevant factors,
this transaction was approved by the ACG Committee of our general partner and the Audit and
Conflicts Committee of the general partner of TEPPCO. In addition, each party received a fairness
opinion rendered by an independent advisor. TEPPCO will have no continued involvement in the
contracts or in the operations of the Pioneer facility.
Jonah Joint Venture with TEPPCO. In August 2006, we became a joint venture partner
with TEPPCO in its Jonah Gas Gathering Company (Jonah), which owns the Jonah Gas Gathering System
located in the Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming. The Jonah Gathering System
gathers and transports natural gas produced from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural
gas processing plants and major interstate pipelines that deliver natural gas to end-user markets.
Prior to entering into the Jonah joint venture, we managed the construction of the Phase V
expansion and funded the initial construction costs under a letter of intent we entered into in
February 2006. In connection with the joint venture arrangement, we and TEPPCO plan to continue
the Phase V expansion, which is expected to increase the capacity of the Jonah Gathering System
from 1.5 Bcf/d to 2.3 Bcf/d and to significantly reduce system operating pressures, which we
anticipate will lead to increased production rates and ultimate reserve recoveries. The first
portion of the expansion, which is expected to increase the system gathering capacity to 2.0 Bcf/d,
is projected to be completed in the first quarter of 2007 at an estimated cost of approximately
$302.0 million. The second portion of the expansion is expected to cost approximately $142.0
million and be completed by the end of 2007.
We manage the Phase V construction project. TEPPCO was entitled to all distributions from the
joint venture until specified milestones were achieved, at which point, we became entitled to
receive 50% of the incremental cash flow from portions of the system placed in service as part of
the expansion. After subsequent milestones are achieved, we and TEPPCO will share distributions
based on a formula that takes into account the respective capital contributions of the parties,
including expenditures by TEPPCO prior to the expansion.
Since August 1, 2006, we and TEPPCO equally share in the construction costs of the Phase V
expansion. During 2006, TEPPCO reimbursed us $109.4 million, which represents 50% of total Phase V
costs incurred through December 31, 2006. We had a receivable of $8.7 million from TEPPCO at
December 31, 2006 for Phase V expansion costs.
Upon completion of the expansion project and based on the formula in the joint venture
partnership agreement, we expect to own an interest in Jonah of approximately 20%, with TEPPCO
owning the remaining 80%. At December 31, 2006, we owned an approximate 14.4% interest in Jonah.
We will operate the Jonah system.
The Jonah joint venture is governed by a management committee comprised of two representatives
approved by us and two appointed by TEPPCO, each with equal voting power. After an in-depth
consideration of all relevant factors, this transaction was approved by the ACG Committee of our
general partner and the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the general partner of TEPPCO. The ACG
Committee of our general partner received a fairness opinion in connection with this transaction.
In our Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2006, we mistakenly reported that the
Audit and Conflicts Committee of TEPPCO GP had also received a fairness opinion in connection with
this transaction; however, they did not. The transaction was reviewed and recommended for approval
by the Audit and Conflicts Committee of TEPPCO GP with assistance from an independent financial
advisor.
We account for our investment in the Jonah joint venture using the equity method. As a result
of entering into the Jonah joint venture, we reclassified $52.1 million expended on this project
through July 31, 2006 (representing our 50% share at inception of the joint venture) from Other
assets to Investments in
119
and advances to unconsolidated affiliates on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. The remaining
$52.1 million we spent through this date is included in the $109.4 million we billed TEPPCO (see
above).
We have agreed to indemnify TEPPCO from any and all losses, claims, demands, suits,
liabilities, costs and expenses arising out of or related to breaches of our representations,
warranties, or covenants related to the Jonah joint venture. A claim for indemnification cannot be
filed until the losses suffered by TEPPCO exceed $1.0 million. The maximum potential amount of
future payments under the indemnity agreement is limited to $100.0 million. All indemnity payments
are net of insurance recoveries that TEPPCO may receive from third-party insurance carriers. We
carry insurance coverage that may offset any payments required under the indemnification.
Purchase of Houston-area pipelines from TEPPCO. In October 2006, we purchased certain
idle pipeline assets in the Houston, Texas area from TEPPCO for $11.7 million in cash. The
acquired pipelines will be modified for natural gas service. The purchase of this asset was in
accordance with the Board-approved management authorization policy.
Purchase and lease of pipelines for DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System from TEPPCO.
In January 2007, we purchased a 10-mile segment of pipeline from TEPPCO located in the Houston area
for $8.0 million that is part of the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. In addition, we entered
into a lease with TEPPCO for a 11-mile interconnecting pipeline located in the Houston area. The
primary term of this lease expires in September 2007, and will continue on a month-to-month basis
subject to termination by either party upon 60 days notice. This pipeline is being leased by a
subsidiary of Duncan Energy Partners in connection with operations on its DEP South Texas NGL
Pipeline System until construction of a parallel pipeline is completed. These transactions were in
accordance with the Board-approved management authorization policy.
Relationship with Employee Partnerships
EPE Unit I. In connection with the initial public offering of Enterprise GP Holdings,
EPCO formed EPE Unit I to serve as an incentive arrangement for certain employees of EPCO through a
profits interest in EPE Unit I. EPCO serves as the general partner of EPE Unit I. In connection
with the closing of Enterprise GP Holdings initial public offering, EPCO Holdings, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of EPCO, borrowed $51.0 million under its credit facility and contributed the
proceeds to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Duncan Family Interests, Inc. (Duncan Family Interests).
Subsequently, Duncan Family Interests contributed the $51.0 million to EPE Unit I as a capital
contribution and was issued the Class A limited partner interest in EPE Unit I. EPE Unit I used the
contributed funds to purchase 1,821,428 units directly from Enterprise GP Holdings at the initial
public offering price of $28.00 per unit. Certain EPCO employees, including all of Enterprise
Products GPs then current executive officers other than the Chairman, were issued Class B limited
partner interests without any capital contribution and admitted as Class B limited partners of EPE
Unit I.
Unless otherwise agreed to by EPCO, Duncan Family Interests and a majority in interest of
the Class B limited partners of EPE Unit I, EPE Unit I will terminate at the earlier of five years
following the closing of Enterprise GP Holdings initial public offering or a change in control of
Enterprise GP Holdings or its general partner. EPE Unit I has the following material terms
regarding its quarterly cash distribution to partners:
|
§ |
|
Distributions of Cashflow Each quarter, 100% of the cash distributions received by
EPE Unit I from Enterprise GP Holdings will be distributed to the Class A limited partner
until Duncan Family Interests has received an amount equal to the Class A preferred return
(as defined below), and any remaining distributions received by EPE Unit I will be
distributed to the Class B limited partners. The Class A preferred return equals 1.5625%
per quarter, or 6.25% per annum, of the Class A limited partners capital base. The Class
A limited partners capital base equals $51 million plus any unpaid Class A preferred
return from prior periods, less any distributions made |
120
|
|
|
by EPE Unit I of proceeds from the sale of Enterprise GP Holdings units owned by EPE Unit I
(as described below). |
|
|
§ |
|
Liquidating Distributions Upon liquidation of EPE Unit I, units having a fair market
value equal to the Class A limited partner capital base will be distributed to Duncan
Family Interests, plus any accrued Class A preferred return for the quarter in which
liquidation occurs. Any remaining units will be distributed to the Class B limited
partners. |
|
|
§ |
|
Sale Proceeds If EPE Unit I sells any of the 1,821,428 Enterprise GP Holdings units
that it owns, the sale proceeds will be distributed to the Class A limited partner and the
Class B limited partners in the same manner as liquidating distributions described above. |
The Class B limited partner interests in EPE Unit I that are owned by EPCO employees are
subject to forfeiture if the participating employees employment with EPCO and its affiliates is
terminated prior to the fifth anniversary of the closing of Enterprise GP Holdings initial public
offering, with customary exceptions for death, disability and certain retirements. The risk of
forfeiture associated with the Class B limited partner interests in EPE Unit I will also lapse upon
certain change of control events.
Since Enterprise GP Holdings has an indirect interest in us through its ownership of our
general partner, EPE Unit I, including its Class B limited partners, may derive some benefit from
our results of operations. Accordingly, a portion of the fair value of these equity awards is
allocated to us under the EPCO administrative services agreement as a non-cash expense. We,
Enterprise Products GP, Duncan Energy Partners, DEP Holdings and Enterprise GP Holdings will not
reimburse EPCO, EPE Unit I or any of their affiliates or partners, through the administrative
services agreement or otherwise, for any expenses related to EPE Unit I, including the contribution
of $51 million to EPE Unit I by Duncan Family Interests or the purchase of Enterprise GP Holdings
units by EPE Unit I.
For the period that EPE Unit I was in existence during 2005, EPCO accounted for this
equity-based award using the provisions of APB 25. Under APB 25, the intrinsic value of the Class
B limited partner interests was accounted for in a manner similar to stock appreciation rights
(i.e. variable accounting). Upon our adoption of SFAS 123(R), we began recognizing compensation
expense based upon the estimated grant date fair value of the Class B partnership equity awards.
EPCOs non-cash compensation expense related to this arrangement is allocated to us and other
affiliates of EPCO based on our usage of each employees services. For the years ended December
31, 2006 and 2005, we recorded $2.1 million and $2.0 million, respectively, of non-cash
compensation expense for these awards associated with employees who work on our behalf.
EPE Unit II. In December 2006, EPE Unit II was formed to serve as an incentive
arrangement for an executive officer of our general partner. The officer, who is not a participant
in EPE Unit I, was granted a profits interest in EPE Unit II. EPCO serves as the general partner of
EPE Unit II.
Duncan Family Interests contributed $1.5 million to EPE Unit II as a capital contribution and
was issued the Class A limited partner interest in EPE Unit II. EPE Unit II used these funds to
purchase on the open market 40,725 units of Enterprise GP Holdings on the open market at an average
price of $36.91 per unit in December 2006. The officer was issued a Class B limited partner
interest in EPE Unit II without any capital contribution. The significant terms of EPE Unit II
(e.g. termination provisions, quarterly distributions of cashflow, liquidating distributions,
forfeitures, and treatment of sale proceeds) are similar to those for EPE Unit I except that the
Class A capital base for Duncan Family Interests is $1.5 million.
As with EPE Unit I, EPCOs non-cash compensation expense related to this arrangement is
allocated to us and other affiliates of EPCO based on our usage of the officers services. In
accordance with SFAS 123(R), we recognize compensation expense associated with EPE Unit II based on
the estimated grant date fair value of the Class B partnership equity award. Since EPE Unit II was
formed in December 2006, we recorded a nominal amount of expense associated with this award during
the year ended December 31, 2006.
121
See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements under Item 8 of this annual
report for additional information regarding our accounting for equity awards.
EPCO Administrative Services Agreement
We have no employees. All of our management, administrative and operating functions are
performed by employees of EPCO pursuant to an administrative services agreement (the ASA). We
and our general partner, Enterprise GP Holdings and its general partner, Duncan Energy Partners and
its general partner, and TEPPCO and its general partner, among other affiliates, are parties to the
ASA. The significant terms of the ASA are as follows:
|
§ |
|
EPCO will provide selling, general and administrative services, and management and
operating services, as may be necessary to manage and operate our business, properties and
assets (in accordance with prudent industry practices). EPCO will employ or otherwise
retain the services of such personnel as may be necessary to provide such services. |
|
|
§ |
|
We are required to reimburse EPCO for its services in an amount equal to the sum of all
costs and expenses incurred by EPCO which are directly or indirectly related to our
business or activities (including expenses reasonably allocated to us by EPCO). In
addition, we have agreed to pay all sales, use, excise, value added or similar taxes, if
any, that may be applicable from time to time in respect of the services provided to us by
EPCO. |
|
|
§ |
|
EPCO will allow us to participate as named insureds in its overall insurance program,
with the associated premiums and other costs being allocated to us. |
Under the ASA, EPCO subleases to us (for $1 per year) certain equipment which it holds
pursuant to operating leases and has assigned to us its purchase option under such leases (the
retained leases). EPCO remains liable for the actual cash lease payments associated with these
agreements. We record the full value of these payments made by EPCO on our behalf as a non-cash
related party operating lease expense, with the offset to partners equity accounted for as a
general contribution to our partnership. At December 31, 2005, the retained leases were for a
cogeneration unit and approximately 100 railcars. Should we decide to exercise the purchase
options associated with the retained leases, $2.3 million would be payable in 2008 and $3.1 million
in 2016.
Our operating costs and expenses for 2006, 2005 and 2004 include reimbursement payments to
EPCO for the costs it incurs to operate our facilities, including compensation of employees. We
reimburse EPCO for actual direct and indirect expenses it incurs related to the operation of our
assets.
Likewise, our general and administrative costs for 2006, 2005 and 2004 include amounts we
reimburse to EPCO for administrative services, including compensation of employees. In general,
our reimbursement to EPCO for administrative services is either (i) on an actual basis for direct
expenses it may incur on our behalf (e.g., the purchase of office supplies) or (ii) based on an
allocation of such charges between the various parties to ASA based on the estimated use of such
services by each party (e.g., the allocation of general legal or accounting salaries based on
estimates of time spent on each entitys business and affairs).
The ASA also addresses potential conflicts that may arise among us and our general partner,
Duncan Energy Partners and its general partner, DEP Holdings, LLC (DEP Holdings) Enterprise GP
Holdings and its general partner, and the EPCO Group, which includes EPCO and its affiliates (but
does not include the aforementioned entities and their controlled affiliates). The administrative
services agreement provides, among other things, that:
|
§ |
|
If a business opportunity to acquire equity securities (as defined) is presented to
the EPCO Group, us and our general partner, Duncan Energy Partners, its general partner,
and its operating partnership, or Enterprise GP Holdings and its general partner, then
Enterprise GP Holdings will have the first right to pursue such opportunity. The term
equity securities is defined to include: |
122
|
§ |
|
general partner interests (or securities which have characteristics similar to
general partner interests) and incentive distribution rights or similar rights in
publicly traded partnerships or interests in persons that own or control such
general partner or similar interests (collectively, GP Interests) and securities
convertible, exercisable, exchangeable or otherwise representing ownership or control
of such GP Interests; and |
|
|
§ |
|
incentive distribution rights and limited partner interests (or securities which
have characteristics similar to incentive distribution rights or limited partner
interests) in publicly traded partnerships or interests in persons that own or
control such limited partner or similar interests (collectively, non-GP Interests);
provided that such non-GP Interests are associated with GP Interests and are owned by
the owners of GP Interests or their respective affiliates. |
|
|
|
Enterprise GP Holdings will be presumed to desire to acquire the equity securities until
such time as its general partner advises the EPCO Group, Enterprise Products GP and DEP
Holdings that it has abandoned the pursuit of such business opportunity. In the event that
the purchase price of the equity securities is reasonably likely to equal or exceed $100
million, the decision to decline the acquisition will be made by the chief executive
officer of EPE Holdings after consultation with and subject to the approval of the ACG
Committee of EPE Holdings. If the purchase price is reasonably likely to be less than such
threshold amount, the chief executive officer of EPE Holdings may make the determination to
decline the acquisition without consulting the ACG Committee of EPE Holdings.
|
|
|
|
|
In the event that Enterprise GP Holdings abandons the acquisition and so notifies the EPCO
Group, Enterprise Products GP and DEP Holdings, we will have the second right to pursue
such acquisition either for us or, if desired by us in our sole discretion, for the benefit
of Duncan Energy Partners. In the event that we affirmatively direct the opportunity to
Duncan Energy Partners, Duncan Energy Partners may pursue such acquisition. We will be
presumed to desire to acquire the equity securities until such time as Enterprise Products
GP advises the EPCO Group and DEP Holdings that we have abandoned the pursuit of such
acquisition. In determining whether or not to pursue the acquisition, we will follow the
same procedures applicable to Enterprise GP Holdings, as described above but utilizing
Enterprise Products GPs chief executive officer and ACG Committee. In the event we
abandon the acquisition opportunity for the equity securities and so notify the EPCO Group
and DEP Holdings, the EPCO Group may pursue the acquisition or offer the opportunity to
EPCO Holdings or TEPPCO, TEPPCO GP and their controlled affiliates, in either case, without
any further obligation to any other party or offer such opportunity to other affiliates.
|
|
|
§ |
|
If any business opportunity not covered by the preceding bullet point (i.e. not
involving equity securities) is presented to the EPCO Group, Enterprise GP Holdings, EPE
Holdings, Duncan Energy Partners, DEP Holdings, our general partner or us, we will have
the first right to pursue such opportunity either for us or, if desired by us in our sole
discretion, for the benefit of Duncan Energy Partners. We will be presumed to desire to
pursue the business opportunity until such time as Enterprise Products GP advises the EPCO
Group, EPE Holdings and DEP Holdings that we have abandoned the pursuit of such business
opportunity. |
|
|
|
|
In the event the purchase price or cost associated with the business opportunity is
reasonably likely to equal or exceed $100 million, any decision to decline the business
opportunity will be made by the chief executive officer of Enterprise Products GP after
consultation with and subject to the approval of the ACG Committee of Enterprise Products
GP. If the purchase price or cost is reasonably likely to be less than such threshold
amount, the chief executive officer of Enterprise Products GP may make the determination to
decline the business opportunity without consulting Enterprise Products GPs ACG Committee.
In the event that we affirmatively direct the business opportunity to Duncan Energy
Partners, Duncan Energy Partners may pursue such business opportunity. In the event that
we abandon the business opportunity for us and for Duncan Energy |
123
|
|
|
Partners and so notify the EPCO Group, EPE Holdings and DEP Holdings, Enterprise GP
Holdings will have the second right to pursue such business opportunity, and will be
presumed to desire to do so, until such time as EPE Holdings shall have determined to
abandon the pursuit of such opportunity in accordance with the procedures described above,
and shall have advised the EPCO Group that Enterprise GP Holdings has abandoned the pursuit
of such acquisition. |
|
|
|
|
In the event that Enterprise GP Holdings abandons the acquisition and so notifies the EPCO
Group, the EPCO Group may either pursue the business opportunity or offer the business
opportunity to EPCO Holdings or TEPPCO, TEPPCO GP and their controlled affiliates without
any further obligation to any other party or offer such opportunity to other affiliates. |
None of the EPCO Group, Enterprise GP Holdings, EPE Holdings, DEP Holdings, Duncan Energy
Partners or its operating partnership, our general partner or us have any obligation to present
business opportunities to TEPPCO, TEPPCO GP or their controlled affiliates. Likewise, TEPPCO,
TEPPCO GP and their controlled affiliates have no obligation to present business opportunities to
the EPCO Group, Enterprise GP Holdings, EPE Holdings, DEP Holdings, Duncan Energy Partners or its
operating partnership, our general partner or us.
On
February 28, 2007, due to the substantial completion of inquires by the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) into EPCOs acquisition of TEPPCO GP, the parties to the ASA amended it
to remove Exhibit B thereto, which had been adopted to address matters the parties anticipated the
FTC may consider in its inquiry. Exhibit B had set forth certain separateness and screening
policies and procedures among the parties that became unnecessary upon the issuance of the FTCs
order in connection with the inquiry or were already otherwise reflected in applicable FTC, SEC,
NYSE or other laws, standards or governmental regulations.
Relationships with Unconsolidated Affiliates
Many of our unconsolidated affiliates perform supporting or complementary roles to our other
business operations. See Note 16 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for a
discussion of this alignment of commercial interests. Since we and our affiliates hold ownership
interests in these entities and directly or indirectly benefit from our related party transactions
with such entities, they are presented here.
The following information summarizes significant related party transactions with our current
unconsolidated affiliates:
|
§ |
|
We sell natural gas to Evangeline, which, in turn, uses the natural gas to satisfy
supply commitments it has with a major Louisiana utility. Revenues from Evangeline were
$277.7 million, $318.8 million and $233.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2006,
2005 and 2004. In addition, we furnished $1.1 million in letters of credit on behalf
of Evangeline at December 31, 2006. |
|
|
§ |
|
We pay Promix for the transportation, storage and fractionation of NGLs. In addition,
we sell natural gas to Promix for its plant fuel requirements. Expenses with Promix were
$34.9 million, $26.0 million and $23.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005
and 2004. Additionally, revenues from Promix were $21.8 million, $25.8 million and $18.6
million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. |
|
|
§ |
|
We perform management services for certain of our unconsolidated affiliates. These
fees were $8.9 million, $8.3 million and $2.1 million for the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004. |
Relationship with Shell
Historically, Shell was considered a related party because it owned more than 10% of our
limited partner interests and, prior to 2003, held a 30% membership interest in Enterprise Products
GP. As a result of Shell selling a portion of its limited partner interests in us to third
parties, Shell owned less than 10% of our common units at the beginning of 2005. Shell sold its
30% interest in Enterprise Products GP to an affiliate of EPCO in September 2003. As a result of
Shells reduced equity interest in us and its lack of control of Enterprise Products GP, Shell
ceased to be considered a related party in January 2005. At December 31, 2006, Shell owned
26,976,249, or 6.2%, of our common units, all of which have been registered for resale in the open
market by us. At February 1, 2007, Shell owned 19,635,749, or 4.5%, of our common units.
124
For the year ended December 31, 2004, our revenues from Shell primarily reflected the sale of
NGL and certain petrochemical products and the fees we charged for natural gas processing, pipeline
transportation and NGL fractionation services. Our operating costs and expenses with Shell
primarily reflected the payment of energy-related expenses related to the Shell Processing
Agreement and the purchase of NGL products. We also lease from Shell its 45.4% interest in one of
our propylene fractionation facilities located in Mont Belvieu, Texas.
A significant contract affecting our natural gas processing business is the Shell Processing
Agreement, which grants us the right to process Shells (or an assignees) current and future
production within state and federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Shell Processing Agreement
includes a life of lease dedication, which may extend the agreement well beyond its initial 20-year
term ending in 2019.
Review and Approval of Transactions with Related Parties
Our partnership agreement and ACG Committee charter set forth policies and procedures for the
review and approval of certain transactions with persons affiliated with or related to us. As
further described below, our partnership agreement and ACG Committee charter set forth procedures
by which related party transactions and conflicts of interest may be approved or resolved by the
general partner or the ACG Committee. Under our partnership agreement, unless otherwise expressly
provided therein or in the partnership agreements of the Operating Partnership, whenever a
potential conflict of interest exists or arises between our general partner or any of its
affiliates, on the one hand, and us, any of our subsidiaries or any partner, on the other hand, any
resolution or course of action by the general partner or its affiliates in respect of such conflict
of interest is permitted and deemed approved by all of our partners, and will not constitute a
breach of our partnership agreement, the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership or any
agreement contemplated by such agreements, or of any duty stated or implied by law or equity, if
the resolution or course of action is or, by operation of the partnership agreement is deemed to
be, fair and reasonable to us; provided that, any conflict of interest and any resolution of such
conflict of interest will be conclusively deemed fair and reasonable to us if such conflict of
interest or resolution is (i) approved by a majority of the members of our ACG Committee (Special
Approval), as long as the material facts within the actual knowledge of the officers and directors
of the General Partner and EPCO regarding the proposed transaction were disclosed to the committee
at the time it gave its approval, or (ii) on terms objectively demonstrable to be no less favorable
to us than those generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties.
The ACG Committee (in connection with Special Approval) is authorized in connection with its
determination of what is fair and reasonable to the Partnership and in connection with its
resolution of any conflict of interest to consider:
|
§ |
|
the relative interests of any party to such conflict, agreement, transaction or
situation and the benefits and burdens relating to such interest; |
|
|
§ |
|
any customary or accepted industry practices and any customary or historical dealings
with a particular person; |
|
|
§ |
|
any applicable generally accepted accounting practices or principles; and |
|
|
§ |
|
such additional factors as the committee determines in its sole discretion to be
relevant, reasonable or appropriate under the circumstances. |
Our Board of Directors or our general partner may, in their discretion, request that our ACG
Committee review and approve related party transactions. The review and approval process of the
ACG Committee, including factual matters that may be considered in determining whether a
transaction is fair and reasonable, is generally governed by Section 7.9 of our partnership
agreement. As discussed above, the ACG Committees Special Approval is conclusively deemed fair
and reasonable to us under the partnership agreement. The processes followed by our management in
approving or obtaining approval of
125
related party transactions are in accordance with our written management authorization policy,
which has been approved by the Board.
Under our Board-approved management authorization policy, the officers of our general partner
have authorization limits for purchases and sales of assets, capital expenditures,
commercial and financial transactions and legal agreements that ultimately limit the ability of
executives of our general partner to enter into transactions involving capital expenditures in
excess of $100 million without Board approval. This policy covers all transactions, including
transactions with related parties. For example, under this policy, the chairman of our general
partner may approve capital expenditures or the sale or other disposition of our assets up to a
$100 million limit. Furthermore, any two of the chief executive officer and senior executives who
are directors of our general partner may approve capital expenditures or the sale or other
disposition of our assets up to a $100 million limit and individually may approve capital
expenditures or the sale or other disposition of our assets up to $50 million. These senior
executives have also been granted full approval authority for commercial, financial and service
contracts.
In submitting a matter to the ACG Committee, the Board or the general partner may charge the
committee with reviewing the transaction and providing the Board a recommendation, or it may
delegate to the committee the power to approve the matter. When so engaged, the ACG Committee
Charter currently provides that, unless the ACG Committee otherwise determines, the ACG Committee
shall perform the following functions:
|
§ |
|
Review a summary of the proposed transaction(s) that outlines (i) its terms and
conditions (explicit and implicit), (ii) a brief history of the transaction, and (iii) the
impact that the transaction will have on our unitholders and personnel, including earnings
per unit and distributable cash flow. |
|
|
§ |
|
Review due diligence findings by management and make additional due diligence
requests, if necessary. |
|
|
§ |
|
Engage third-party independent advisors, where necessary, to provide committee members
with comparable market values, legal advice and similar services directly related to the
proposed transaction. |
|
|
§ |
|
Conduct interviews regarding the proposed transaction with the most knowledgeable
company officials to ensure that the committee members have all relevant facts before
rendering their judgment. |
In the normal course of business, our management routinely reviews all other related party
transactions, including proposed asset purchases and business combinations and purchases and sales
of product. As a matter of course, management reviews the terms and conditions of the proposed
transactions, performs appropriate levels of due diligence and assesses the impact of the
transaction on our partnership.
The ACG Committee does not separately review transactions covered by our administrative
services agreement with EPCO, which agreement has previously been approved by the ACG Committee
and/or the Board. The administrative services agreement governs numerous day-to-day transactions
between us and our subsidiaries and EPCO and its affiliates, including the provision by EPCO of
administrative and other services to us and our subsidiaries and our reimbursement of costs for
those services. For a description of the administrative services agreement, please read
Relationship with EPCO and affiliates Administrative Services Agreement within this Item 13.
Since the beginning of the last fiscal year of our partnership, the ACG Committee reviewed and
approved the purchase of the Pioneer plant from TEPPCO and Jonah Joint Venture with TEPPCO
referenced under this Item 13. All other transactions with related parties referenced under this
Item 13 were either governed by the administrative services agreement or effected under our written
management authorization policy.
126
Statement of Transactions with EPCO and Affiliates during 2006
The following table presents a detailed statement of amounts we paid to EPCO and affiliates
during 2006 by transaction category (dollars in thousands). All of these transactions were covered
under the review and approval processes of either the ACG Committee or management.
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues: |
|
|
|
|
Sales of NGL products |
|
$ |
98,645 |
|
Other |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues related to EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
98,671 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses: |
|
|
|
|
Purchase of NGL products, including freight and storage |
|
$ |
86,383 |
|
Reimbursement of operating employee costs |
|
|
200,324 |
|
Recognition of non-cash retained lease expense |
|
|
2,109 |
|
Office space lease expense |
|
|
2,168 |
|
Other |
|
|
20,553 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating costs and expenses related to EPCO and affiliates |
|
|
311,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative costs: |
|
|
|
|
Reimbursement of overhead employee costs |
|
|
15,989 |
|
Office space lease expense |
|
|
1,781 |
|
Other |
|
|
23,495 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total general and administrative costs related to EPCO and affiliates |
|
|
41,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses related to EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
352,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash distributions paid to Enterprise Products GP by us |
|
$ |
101,805 |
|
Cash distributions paid by us to our common units beneficially owned by EPCO (see Item 12) |
|
$ |
237,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash expense amount recognized in connection with Employee Partnership equity awards |
|
$ |
2,146 |
|
127
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
We have engaged Deloitte & Touche LLP, the member firms of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, and their
respective affiliates (collectively, Deloitte & Touche) as our principal accountant. The
following table summarizes fees we have paid Deloitte & Touche for independent auditing, tax and
related services for each of the last two fiscal years (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
Audit Fees (1) |
|
$ |
5,563 |
|
|
$ |
4,892 |
|
Audit-Related Fees (2) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Tax Fees (3) |
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
407 |
|
All Other Fees (4) |
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
n/a |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Audit fees represent amounts billed for each of the years presented for
professional services rendered in connection with (i) the audit of our annual
financial statements and internal controls over financial reporting, (ii) the review
of our quarterly financial statements or (iii) those services normally provided in
connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements including comfort
letters, consents and other services related to SEC matters. This information is
presented as of the latest practicable date for this annual report. |
|
(2) |
|
Audit-related fees represent amounts we were billed in each of the years
presented for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the
performance of the annual audit or quarterly reviews. This category primarily
includes services relating to internal control assessments and accounting-related
consulting. |
|
(3) |
|
Tax fees represent amounts we were billed in each of the years presented for
professional services rendered in connection with tax compliance, tax advice, and
tax planning. This category primarily includes services relating to the preparation
of unitholder annual K-1 statements, partnership tax planning and property tax
assistance. |
|
(4) |
|
All other fees represent amounts we were billed in each of the years presented
for services not classifiable under the other categories listed in the table above.
No such services were rendered by Deloitte & Touche during the last two years. |
The ACG Committee of our general partner has approved the use of Deloitte & Touche as our
independent principal accountant. In connection with its oversight responsibilities, the ACG
Committee has adopted a pre-approval policy regarding any services proposed to be performed by
Deloitte & Touche. The pre-approval policy includes four primary service categories: Audit,
Audit-related, Tax and Other.
In general, as services are required, management and Deloitte & Touche submit a detailed
proposal to the ACG Committee discussing the reasons for the request, the scope of work to be
performed, and an estimate of the fee to be charged by Deloitte & Touche for such work. The ACG
Committee discusses the request with management and Deloitte & Touche, and if the work is deemed
necessary and appropriate for Deloitte & Touche to perform, approves the request subject to the fee
amount presented (the initial pre-approved fee amount). As part of these discussions, the ACG
Committee must determine whether or not the proposed services are permitted under the rules and
regulations concerning auditor independence under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as well as rules
of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. If at a later date, it appears that the
initial pre-approved fee amount may be insufficient to complete the work, then management and
Deloitte & Touche must present a request to the ACG Committee to increase the approved amount and
the reasons for the increase.
Under the pre-approval policy, management cannot act upon its own to authorize an expenditure
for services outside of the pre-approved amounts. On a quarterly basis, the ACG Committee is
provided a schedule showing Deloitte & Touches pre-approved amounts compared to actual fees billed
for each of the primary service categories. The ACG Committees pre-approval process helps to
ensure the independence of our principal accountant from management.
In order for Deloitte & Touche to maintain its independence, we are prohibited from using them
to perform general bookkeeping, management or human resource functions, and any other service not
128
permitted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. The ACG Committees pre-approval
policy also precludes Deloitte & Touche from performing any of these services for us.
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.
(a)(1) Financial Statements
Our consolidated financial statements are included under Part II, Item 8 of this annual
report. For a listing of these statements and accompanying footnotes, see Index to Financial
Statements under Item 8 of this annual report.
(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts is included under Item 8 of this annual
report.
All schedules, except the one listed above, have been omitted because they are either not
applicable, not required or the information called for therein appears in the consolidated
financial statements or notes thereto.
(a)(3) Exhibits
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Exhibit* |
|
2.1
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement between Coral Energy, LLC and
Enterprise Products Operating L.P. dated September 22, 2000
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K
filed September 26, 2000). |
2.2
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated January 16, 2002 by and
between Diamond-Koch, L.P. and Diamond-Koch III, L.P. and
Enterprise Products Texas Operating L.P. (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Form 8-K filed February 8,
2002). |
2.3
|
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated January 31, 2002 by and
between D-K Diamond-Koch, L.L.C., Diamond-Koch, L.P. and
Diamond-Koch III, L.P. as Sellers and Enterprise Products
Operating L.P. as Buyer (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to Form 8-K filed February 8, 2002). |
2.4
|
|
Purchase Agreement by and between E-Birchtree, LLC and
Enterprise Products Operating L.P. dated July 31, 2002
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.2 to Form 8-K filed
August 12, 2002). |
2.5
|
|
Purchase Agreement by and between E-Birchtree, LLC and
E-Cypress, LLC dated July 31, 2002 (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Form 8-K filed August 12,
2002). |
2.6
|
|
Merger Agreement, dated as of December 15, 2003, by and
among Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products Management LLC,
GulfTerra Energy Partners, L.P. and GulfTerra Energy
Company, L.L.C. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1
to Form 8-K filed December 15, 2003). |
2.7
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Merger Agreement, dated as of August 31,
2004, by and among Enterprise Products Partners L.P.,
Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products Management
LLC, GulfTerra Energy Partners, L.P. and GulfTerra Energy
Company, L.L.C. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1
to Form 8-K filed September 7, 2004). |
2.8
|
|
Parent Company Agreement, dated as of December 15, 2003, by
and among Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products GTM, LLC, El Paso
Corporation, Sabine River Investors I, L.L.C., Sabine River
Investors II, L.L.C., El Paso EPN Investments, L.L.C. and
GulfTerra GP Holding Company (incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 2.2 to Form 8-K filed December 15, 2003). |
2.9
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Parent Company Agreement, dated as of
April 19, 2004, by and among Enterprise Products Partners
L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products GTM,
LLC, El Paso Corporation, Sabine River Investors I, L.L.C.,
Sabine River Investors II, L.L.C., El Paso EPN Investments,
L.L.C. and GulfTerra GP Holding Company (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Form 8-K filed April 21,
2004). |
129
The total consideration we paid or granted to Lewis in connection with the Encinal acquisition
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Cash payment to Lewis |
|
$ |
145,197 |
|
Fair value of our 7,115,844 common units issued to Lewis |
|
|
181,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total consideration |
|
$ |
326,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with purchase accounting, the value of our common units issued to Lewis was
based on the average closing price of such units immediately prior to and after the transaction was
announced on July 12, 2006. For purposes of this calculation, the average closing price was $25.45
per unit.
Since the closing date of the Encinal acquisition was July 1, 2006, our Statements of
Consolidated Operations do not include any earnings from these assets prior to this date. Given
the relative size of the Encinal acquisition to our other business combination transactions during
2006, the following table presents selected pro forma earnings information for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005 as if the Encinal acquisition had been completed on January 1, 2006 and
2005, respectively, instead of July 1, 2006. This information was prepared based on financial data
available to us and reflects certain estimates and assumptions made by our management. Our pro
forma financial information is not necessarily indicative of what our consolidated financial
results would have been had the Encinal acquisition actually occurred on January 1, 2005. The
amounts shown in the following table are in millions, except per unit amounts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
Pro forma earnings data: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
14,066 |
|
|
$ |
12,408 |
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses |
|
$ |
13,228 |
|
|
$ |
11,758 |
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
$ |
859 |
|
|
$ |
664 |
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
598 |
|
|
$ |
418 |
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per unit (EPU): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units outstanding, as reported |
|
|
414 |
|
|
|
382 |
|
|
|
|
Units outstanding , pro forma |
|
|
422 |
|
|
|
389 |
|
|
|
|
Basic EPU, as reported |
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.91 |
|
|
|
|
Basic EPU, pro forma |
|
$ |
1.19 |
|
|
$ |
0.89 |
|
|
|
|
Diluted EPU: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units outstanding, as reported |
|
|
415 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
|
|
|
Units outstanding , pro forma |
|
|
422 |
|
|
|
390 |
|
|
|
|
Diluted EPU, as reported |
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.91 |
|
|
|
|
Diluted EPU, pro forma |
|
$ |
1.19 |
|
|
$ |
0.89 |
|
|
|
|
Piceance Creek Acquisition. On December 27, 2006, one of our affiliates,
Enterprise Gas Processing, LLC, purchased a 100% interest in Piceance Creek Pipeline, LLC
(Piceance Creek), for cash consideration of $100.0 million. Piceance Creek was wholly owned by
EnCana Oil & Gas (EnCana).
The assets of Piceance Creek consist of a recently constructed 48-mile natural gas gathering
pipeline, the Piceance Creek Gathering System, located in the Piceance Basin of northwestern
Colorado. The Piceance Creek Gathering System has a transportation capacity of 1.6 billion cubic
feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas and extends from a connection with EnCanas Great Divide
Gathering System located near Parachute, Colorado, northward through the heart of the Piceance
Basin to our 1.5 Bcf/d Meeker natural gas treating and processing complex, which is currently under
construction. Connectivity to EnCanas Great Divide Gathering System will provide the Piceance
Creek Gathering System with access to production from the southern portion of the Piceance basin,
including production from EnCanas Mamm Creek field. The Piceance Creek Gathering System was
placed in service in January 2007 and began
F-43
transporting initial volumes of approximately 300 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of
natural gas. We expect natural gas transportation volumes to increase to approximately 625 MMcf/d
by the end of 2007, with a significant portion of these volumes being produced by EnCana, one of
the largest natural gas producers in the region. In conjunction with our acquisition of Piceance
Creek, EnCana signed a long-term, fixed fee gathering agreement with us and dedicated significant
production to the Piceance Creek Gathering System for the life of the associated lease holdings.
Our preliminary allocation of this acquisitions purchase price was as follows: (i) $91.5
million allocated to property, plant and equipment and (ii) $8.5 million to identifiable intangible
assets. See Note 13 for additional information regarding the Piceance Creek intangible assets.
Since this transaction closed at year-end, our preliminary purchase price allocation is based on
estimates and is subject to change when actual values are determined.
Other Transactions. In addition to the Encinal and Piceance Creek acquisitions, our
business combinations during 2006 included the purchase of (i) an additional 8.2% ownership
interest in Dixie for $12.9 million, (ii) all capital stock of an affiliated NGL marketing company
located in Canada from related parties for $17.7 million (see Note 17) and (iii) a storage business
in Flagstaff, Arizona for $0.7 million.
Purchase Price Allocation for 2006 Transactions
Our 2006 business combinations were accounted for using the purchase method of accounting and,
accordingly, their cost has been allocated to assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on
estimated preliminary fair values. Such preliminary values have been developed using recognized
business valuation techniques and are subject to change pending a final valuation analysis. We
expect to finalize the purchase price allocations for these transactions during 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piceance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Encinal |
|
Creek |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition |
|
Acquisition |
|
Other |
|
Total |
|
|
|
Assets acquired in business combination: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets |
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
36,080 |
|
|
$ |
36,298 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
100,310 |
|
|
|
91,540 |
|
|
|
12,369 |
|
|
|
204,219 |
|
Investments in and advances to
unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
132,872 |
|
|
|
8,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141,332 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets acquired |
|
|
233,400 |
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
48,449 |
|
|
|
381,849 |
|
|
|
|
Liabilities assumed in business combination: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities |
|
|
(2,149 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18,836 |
) |
|
|
(20,985 |
) |
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(175 |
) |
|
|
(283 |
) |
Minority interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,865 |
|
|
|
1,865 |
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities assumed |
|
|
(2,257 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,146 |
) |
|
|
(19,403 |
) |
|
|
|
Total assets acquired
less liabilities assumed |
|
|
231,143 |
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
31,303 |
|
|
|
362,446 |
|
Total consideration given |
|
|
326,309 |
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
|
|
31,303 |
|
|
|
457,612 |
|
|
|
|
Goodwill |
|
$ |
95,166 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
95,166 |
|
|
|
|
Of the $326.3 million in consideration we paid or granted to effect the Encinal
acquisition, $95.2 million has been assigned to goodwill. Management attributes this goodwill to
potential future benefits we expect to realize from our other South Texas processing and NGL
businesses as a result of the Encinal acquisition. Specifically, the long-term dedication rights
we acquired in connection with the Encinal acquisition are expected to improve earnings from our
South Texas processing facilities and related NGL businesses due to increased volumes. See Note
13, for additional information regarding our intangible assets and goodwill.
F-44
Note 13. Intangible Assets and Goodwill
Identifiable Intangible Assets
The following table summarizes our intangible assets at the dates indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2006 |
|
At December 31, 2005 |
|
|
Gross |
|
Accum. |
|
Carrying |
|
Gross |
|
Accum. |
|
Carrying |
|
|
|
|
|
Value |
|
Amort. |
|
Value |
|
Value |
|
Amort. |
|
Value |
|
|
|
NGL Pipelines & Services: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shell Processing Agreement |
|
$ |
206,216 |
|
|
$ |
(67,204 |
) |
|
$ |
139,012 |
|
|
$ |
206,216 |
|
|
$ |
(56,157 |
) |
|
$ |
150,059 |
|
Encinal gas processing customer relationship |
|
|
127,119 |
|
|
|
(6,049 |
) |
|
|
121,070 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STMA and GulfTerra NGL Business
customer relationships (1) |
|
|
49,784 |
|
|
|
(12,980 |
) |
|
|
36,804 |
|
|
|
49,784 |
|
|
|
(7,829 |
) |
|
|
41,955 |
|
Pioneer gas processing contracts |
|
|
37,752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,752 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markham NGL storage contracts (1) |
|
|
32,664 |
|
|
|
(9,800 |
) |
|
|
22,864 |
|
|
|
32,664 |
|
|
|
(5,444 |
) |
|
|
27,220 |
|
Toca-Western contracts |
|
|
31,229 |
|
|
|
(7,156 |
) |
|
|
24,073 |
|
|
|
31,229 |
|
|
|
(5,595 |
) |
|
|
25,634 |
|
Piceance Creek customer relationship |
|
|
8,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
35,370 |
|
|
|
(7,455 |
) |
|
|
27,915 |
|
|
|
35,370 |
|
|
|
(4,460 |
) |
|
|
30,910 |
|
|
|
|
Segment total |
|
|
528,594 |
|
|
|
(110,644 |
) |
|
|
417,950 |
|
|
|
355,263 |
|
|
|
(79,485 |
) |
|
|
275,778 |
|
|
|
|
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Juan Gathering System customer relationships (1) |
|
|
331,311 |
|
|
|
(52,318 |
) |
|
|
278,993 |
|
|
|
331,311 |
|
|
|
(30,065 |
) |
|
|
301,246 |
|
Petal & Hattiesburg natural gas storage contracts (1) |
|
|
100,499 |
|
|
|
(19,337 |
) |
|
|
81,162 |
|
|
|
100,499 |
|
|
|
(10,742 |
) |
|
|
89,757 |
|
Other |
|
|
31,741 |
|
|
|
(5,747 |
) |
|
|
25,994 |
|
|
|
25,988 |
|
|
|
(3,148 |
) |
|
|
22,840 |
|
|
|
|
Segment total |
|
|
463,551 |
|
|
|
(77,402 |
) |
|
|
386,149 |
|
|
|
457,798 |
|
|
|
(43,955 |
) |
|
|
413,843 |
|
|
|
|
Offshore Pipelines & Services: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offshore pipeline & platform customer relationships (1) |
|
|
205,845 |
|
|
|
(54,636 |
) |
|
|
151,209 |
|
|
|
205,845 |
|
|
|
(32,480 |
) |
|
|
173,365 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,167 |
|
|
|
1,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,167 |
|
|
|
|
Segment total |
|
|
207,012 |
|
|
|
(54,636 |
) |
|
|
152,376 |
|
|
|
207,012 |
|
|
|
(32,480 |
) |
|
|
174,532 |
|
|
|
|
Petrochemical Services: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mont Belvieu propylene fractionation contracts |
|
|
53,000 |
|
|
|
(7,445 |
) |
|
|
45,555 |
|
|
|
53,000 |
|
|
|
(5,931 |
) |
|
|
47,069 |
|
Other |
|
|
3,674 |
|
|
|
(1,749 |
) |
|
|
1,925 |
|
|
|
3,674 |
|
|
|
(1,270 |
) |
|
|
2,404 |
|
|
|
|
Segment total |
|
|
56,674 |
|
|
|
(9,194 |
) |
|
|
47,480 |
|
|
|
56,674 |
|
|
|
(7,201 |
) |
|
|
49,473 |
|
|
|
|
Total all segments |
|
$ |
1,255,831 |
|
|
$ |
(251,876 |
) |
|
$ |
1,003,955 |
|
|
$ |
1,076,747 |
|
|
$ |
(163,121 |
) |
|
$ |
913,626 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Acquired in connection with the GulfTerra Merger and related transactions in September 2004. |
The following table presents the amortization expense of our intangible assets by segment
for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
NGL Pipelines & Services |
|
$ |
31,159 |
|
|
$ |
26,350 |
|
|
$ |
16,000 |
|
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services |
|
|
33,447 |
|
|
|
35,080 |
|
|
|
8,875 |
|
Offshore Pipelines & Services |
|
|
22,156 |
|
|
|
25,515 |
|
|
|
6,965 |
|
Petrochemical Services |
|
|
1,993 |
|
|
|
1,993 |
|
|
|
1,973 |
|
|
|
|
Total all segments |
|
$ |
88,755 |
|
|
$ |
88,938 |
|
|
$ |
33,813 |
|
|
|
|
Based on information currently available, we estimate that amortization expense
associated with existing intangible assets will approximate $91.6 million in 2007, $88.1 million in
2008, $82.1 million in 2009, $77.3 million in 2010 and $71.6 million in 2011.
In general, our intangible assets fall within two categories contract-based intangible
assets and customer relationships. Contract-based intangible assets represent commercial rights we
acquired in connection with business combinations or asset purchases. Customer relationship
intangible assets represent customer bases that we acquired in connection with business
combinations and asset purchases. The values assigned to intangible assets are amortized to
earnings using either (i) a straight-line approach
F-45
or (ii) other methods that closely resemble the pattern in which the economic benefits of
associated resource bases are estimated to be consumed or otherwise used, as appropriate.
We acquired $141.3 million of intangible assets during the year ended December 31, 2006,
primarily attributable to customer relationships we acquired in connection with the Encinal
acquisition. We acquired $743.3 million of intangible assets during the year ended December 31,
2004 in connection with the GulfTerra Merger and related transactions.
The $132.9 million of intangible assets we acquired in connection with the Encinal acquisition
(see Note 12) represents the value we assigned to customer relationships, particularly the
long-term relationship we now have with Lewis through natural gas processing and gathering
arrangements. We recorded $127.1 million in our NGL Pipelines & Services segment associated with
processing arrangements and $5.8 million in our Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services segment
associated with gathering arrangements. These intangible assets will be amortized to earnings over
a 20-year life using methods that closely resemble the pattern in which we estimate the depletion
of the underlying natural gas resources to occur.
We acquired numerous customer relationship and contract-based intangible assets in connection
with the GulfTerra Merger. The customer relationship intangible assets represent the exploration
and production, natural gas processing and NGL fractionation customer bases served by GulfTerra and
the South Texas midstream assets at the time the merger was completed. The contract-based
intangible assets represent the rights we acquired in connection with discrete contracts to provide
storage services for natural gas and NGLs that GulfTerra had entered into prior to the merger.
The value we assigned to these customer relationships is being amortized to earnings using
methods that closely resemble the pattern in which the economic benefits of the underlying oil and
natural gas resource bases from which the customers produce are estimated to be consumed or
otherwise used. Our estimate of the useful life of each resource base is based on a number of
factors, including third-party reserve estimates, the economic viability of production and
exploration activities and other industry factors. This group of intangible assets primarily
consists of the (i) Offshore Pipelines & Platforms customer relationships; (ii) San Juan Gathering
System customer relationships; (iii) Texas Intrastate pipeline customer relationships; and (iv)
STMA and GulfTerra NGL Business customer relationships.
The contract-based intangible assets we acquired in connection with the GulfTerra Merger are
being amortized over the estimated useful life (or term) of each agreement, which we estimate to
range from two to eighteen years. This group of intangible assets consists of the (i) Petal and
Hattiesburg natural gas storage contracts and (ii) Markham NGL storage contracts.
The Shell Processing Agreement grants us the right to process Shells (or its assignees)
current and future production within the state and federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. We
acquired this intangible asset in connection with our 1999 purchase of certain of Shells midstream
energy assets located along the Gulf Coast. The value of the Shell Processing Agreement is being
amortized on a straight-line basis over the remainder of its initial 20-year contract term through
2019.
F-46
Goodwill
Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price of an acquired business over the amounts
assigned to assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the transaction. Goodwill is not amortized;
however, it is subject to annual impairment testing. The following table summarizes our goodwill
amounts by segment at the dates indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
NGL Pipelines & Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra Merger |
|
$ |
23,854 |
|
|
$ |
23,927 |
|
Acquisition of Indian Springs natural gas processing business |
|
|
13,162 |
|
|
|
13,180 |
|
Encinal acquisition |
|
|
95,166 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
20,413 |
|
|
|
17,853 |
|
Onshore Natural Gas Pipelines & Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra Merger |
|
|
279,956 |
|
|
|
280,812 |
|
Acquisition of Indian Springs natural gas gathering business |
|
|
2,165 |
|
|
|
2,185 |
|
Offshore Pipelines & Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra Merger |
|
|
82,135 |
|
|
|
82,386 |
|
Petrochemical Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of Mont Belvieu propylene fractionation business |
|
|
73,690 |
|
|
|
73,690 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
590,541 |
|
|
$ |
494,033 |
|
|
|
|
Goodwill recorded in connection with the GulfTerra Merger can be attributed to our belief
(at the time the merger was consummated) that the combined partnerships would benefit from the
strategic location of each partnerships assets and the industry relationships that each possessed.
In addition, we expected that various operating synergies could develop (such as reduced general
and administrative costs and interest savings) that would result in improved financial results for
the merged entity. Based on miles of pipelines, GulfTerra was one of the largest natural gas
gathering and transportation companies in the United States, serving producers in the central and
western Gulf of Mexico and onshore in Texas and New Mexico. These regions offer us significant
growth potential through the acquisition and construction of additional pipelines, platforms,
processing and storage facilities and other midstream energy infrastructure.
In 2006, the only significant change in goodwill was the recording of $95.2 million in
connection with our preliminary purchase price allocation for the Encinal acquisition. Management
attributes this goodwill to potential future benefits we may realize from our other south Texas
processing and NGL businesses as a result of acquiring the Encinal business. Specifically, our
acquisition of the long-term dedication rights associated with the Encinal business is expected to
add value to our south Texas processing facilities and related NGL businesses due to increased
volumes. The Encinal goodwill is recorded as part of the NGL Pipelines & Services business segment
due to managements belief that such future benefits will accrue to businesses classified within
this segment.
The remainder of our goodwill amounts are associated with prior acquisitions, principally that
of our purchase of a propylene fractionation business in February 2002 and our acquisition of
indirect ownership interests in the Indian Springs natural gas gathering and processing business in
January 2005.
F-47
Note 14. Debt Obligations
Our consolidated debt obligations consisted of the following at the dates indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
Operating Partnership senior debt obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility, variable rate, due October 2011 (1) |
|
$ |
410,000 |
|
|
$ |
490,000 |
|
Pascagoula MBFC Loan, 8.70% fixed-rate, due March 2010 |
|
|
54,000 |
|
|
|
54,000 |
|
Senior Notes B, 7.50% fixed-rate, due February 2011 |
|
|
450,000 |
|
|
|
450,000 |
|
Senior Notes C, 6.375% fixed-rate, due February 2013 |
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
Senior Notes D, 6.875% fixed-rate, due March 2033 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Senior Notes E, 4.00% fixed-rate, due October 2007 (2) |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Senior Notes F, 4.625% fixed-rate, due October 2009 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Senior Notes G, 5.60% fixed-rate, due October 2014 |
|
|
650,000 |
|
|
|
650,000 |
|
Senior Notes H, 6.65% fixed-rate, due October 2034 |
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
Senior Notes I, 5.00% fixed-rate, due March 2015 |
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
250,000 |
|
Senior Notes J, 5.75% fixed-rate, due March 2035 |
|
|
250,000 |
|
|
|
250,000 |
|
Senior Notes K, 4.950% fixed-rate, due June 2010 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
|
|
500,000 |
|
Dixie Revolving Credit Facility, variable rate, due June 2010 |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
|
17,000 |
|
Other, 8.75% fixed-rate, due June 2010 (3) |
|
|
5,068 |
|
|
|
5,068 |
|
|
|
|
Total principal amount of senior debt obligations |
|
|
4,779,068 |
|
|
|
4,866,068 |
|
Operating Partnership Junior Subordinated Notes A, due August 2066 |
|
|
550,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total principal amount of senior and junior debt obligations |
|
|
5,329,068 |
|
|
|
4,866,068 |
|
Other, including unamortized discounts and premiums and changes in fair value (4) |
|
|
(33,478 |
) |
|
|
(32,287 |
) |
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
$ |
5,295,590 |
|
|
$ |
4,833,781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standby letters of credit outstanding |
|
$ |
49,858 |
|
|
$ |
33,129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In June 2006, the Operating Partnership executed a second amendment (the Second Amendment) to the credit agreement governing its Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. The Second
Amendment, among other things, extends the maturity date of amounts borrowed under the Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility from October 2010 to October 2011 with respect to $1.25 billion of
the commitments. Borrowings with respect to the remaining $48.0 million in commitments mature in October 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
In accordance with SFAS 6, Classification of Short-Term Obligations Expected to be Refinanced, long-term and current maturities of debt reflects the classification of such obligations at
December 31, 2006. With respect to Senior Notes E due in October 2007, the Operating Partnership has the ability to use available credit capacity under its Multi-Year Revolving Credit
Facility to fund the repayment of this debt. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents remaining debt obligations assumed in connection with the GulfTerra Merger. |
|
(4) |
|
The December 31, 2006 amount includes $29.1 million related to fair value hedges and a net $4.4 million in unamortized discounts and premiums. The December 31, 2005 amount includes $19.2
million related to fair value hedges and a net $13.1 million in unamortized discounts and premiums. |
Letters of credit
At December 31, 2006 and 2005, we had $49.9 million and $33.1 million, respectively, in
standby letters of credit outstanding, all of which were issued under the Operating Partnerships
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. As of February 2, 2007, our standby letters of credit
outstanding were reduced to $37.9 million.
Parent-Subsidiary guarantor relationships
We act as guarantor of the debt obligations of our Operating Partnership, with the exception
of the Dixie revolving credit facility and the senior subordinated notes of GulfTerra. If the
Operating Partnership were to default on any debt we guarantee, we would be responsible for full
repayment of that obligation.
Our Operating Partnerships senior indebtedness is structurally subordinated to and ranks
junior in right of payment to the indebtedness of GulfTerra and Dixie. This subordination feature
exists only to the extent that the repayment of debt incurred by GulfTerra and Dixie is dependent
upon the assets and operations of these two entities. The Dixie revolving credit facility is an
unsecured obligation of Dixie (of
F-48
which we own 74.2% of its capital stock). The senior subordinated notes of GulfTerra are
unsecured obligations of GulfTerra (of which we own 100% of its limited and general partnership
interests).
Operating Partnership debt obligations
Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. In August 2004, our Operating Partnership
entered into a five-year multi-year revolving credit agreement in connection with the completion of
the GulfTerra Merger. In October 2005, the borrowing capacity under this credit agreement was
increased from $750 million to $1.25 billion, with the possibility that the borrowing capacity
could be further increased to $1.4 billion (subject to certain conditions). In June 2006, our
Operating Partnership amended the terms of this credit agreement a second time. The second
amendment, among other things, extends the maturity date of the Multi-Year Revolving Credit
Facility from October 2010 to October 2011 with respect to $1.25 billion of the commitments.
Borrowings with respect to $48.0 million in commitments mature in October 2010. The Operating
Partnership may make up to two requests for one-year extensions of the maturity date (subject to
certain conditions). There is no limit on the amount of standby letters of credit that can be
outstanding under the amended facility.
The Operating Partnerships borrowings under this agreement are unsecured general obligations
that are non-recourse to Enterprise Products GP. We have guaranteed repayment of amounts due under
this revolving credit agreement through an unsecured guarantee.
As defined by the credit agreement, variable interest rates charged under this facility
generally bear interest, at our election at the time of each borrowing, at (i) the greater of (a)
the Prime Rate or (b) the Federal Funds Effective Rate plus 1/2% or (ii) a Eurodollar rate plus an
applicable margin or (iii) a Competitive Bid Rate.
This revolving credit agreement contains various covenants related to our ability to incur
certain indebtedness; grant certain liens; enter into certain merger or consolidation transactions;
and make certain investments. The loan agreement also requires us to satisfy certain financial
covenants at the end of each fiscal quarter. The second amendment modified these financial
covenants to, among other things, allow the Operating Partnership to include in the calculation of
its Consolidated EBITDA (as defined in the credit agreement) pro forma adjustments for significant
capital projects. In addition, the second amendment allows for the issuance of hybrid debt
securities, such as the $550.0 million in principal amount of Junior Subordinated Notes A issued by
the Operating Partnership during the third quarter of 2006.
The Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility restricts the Operating Partnerships ability to pay
cash distributions to us if a default or an event of default (as defined in the credit agreement)
has occurred and is continuing at the time such distribution is scheduled to be paid.
In March 2006, we generated net proceeds of $430.0 million in connection with the sale of
18,400,000 of our common units in an underwritten equity offering. In addition, in September 2006,
we generated net proceeds of $320.8 million in connection with the sale of 12,650,000 of our common
units in an underwritten equity offering. Subsequently, these amounts were contributed to the
Operating Partnership, which primarily used such proceeds to temporarily reduce debt outstanding
under its Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. See Note 15 for additional information regarding
our equity offerings during 2006.
Pascagoula MBFC Loan. In connection with the construction of our Pascagoula,
Mississippi natural gas processing plant in 2000, the Operating Partnership entered into a ten-year
fixed-rate loan with the Mississippi Business Finance Corporation (MBFC). This loan is subject
to a make-whole redemption right and is guaranteed by us through an unsecured and unsubordinated
guarantee. The Pascagoula MBFC Loan contains certain covenants including the maintenance of
appropriate levels of insurance on the Pascagoula facility.
The indenture agreement for this loan contains an acceleration clause whereby if the Operating
Partnerships credit rating by Moodys declines below Baa3 in combination with our credit rating at
F-49
Standard & Poors declining below BBB-, the $54 million principal balance of this loan, together
with all accrued and unpaid interest, would become immediately due and payable 120 days following
such event. If such an event occurred, we would have to either redeem the Pascagoula MBFC Loan or
provide an alternative credit agreement to support our obligation under this loan.
Senior Notes B through K. These fixed-rate notes are unsecured obligations of our
Operating Partnership and rank equally with its existing and future unsecured and unsubordinated
indebtedness. They are senior to any future subordinated indebtedness. The Operating
Partnerships borrowings under these notes are non-recourse to Enterprise Products GP. We have
guaranteed repayment of amounts due under these notes through an unsecured and unsubordinated
guarantee. Our guarantee of such notes is non-recourse to Enterprise Products GP.
Senior Notes B through D are subject to make-whole redemption rights and were issued under an
indenture containing certain covenants. These covenants restrict our ability, with certain
exceptions, to incur debt secured by liens and engage in sale and leaseback transactions. The
remainder of the Senior Notes (E through K) are also subject to similar covenants.
Senior Notes E, F, G, and H were issued as private placement debt in September 2004 and
generated an aggregate $2 billion in proceeds, which were used to repay amounts borrowed under an
acquisition-related credit facility. Senior Notes E through H were exchanged for registered debt
securities in March 2005.
Senior Notes I and J were issued as private placement debt in February 2005 and generated an
aggregate $500 million in proceeds, which were used to repay $350 million due under a senior note
obligation that matured in March 2005 and the remainder for general partnership purposes, including
the temporary repayment of amounts then outstanding under the Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility.
Senior Notes I and J were exchanged for registered debt securities in August 2005.
Senior Notes K were issued as registered securities in June 2005 and generated $500 million in
proceeds, which were used for general partnership purposes, including the temporary repayment of
amounts then outstanding under the Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. Senior Notes K were
issued under the $4 billion universal shelf registration statement we filed in March 2005 (see Note
15).
Junior Subordinated Notes A. In the third quarter of 2006, the Operating Partnership
sold $550.0 million in principal amount of fixed/floating, unsecured, long-term subordinated notes
due 2066 (Junior Subordinated Notes A). The Operating Partnership used the proceeds from this
subordinated debt to temporarily reduce borrowings outstanding under its Multi-Year Revolving
Credit Facility and for general partnership purposes. The Operating Partnerships payment
obligations under Junior Subordinated Notes A are subordinated to all of its current and future
senior indebtedness (as defined in the related indenture agreement). We guaranteed the Operating
Partnerships repayment of amounts due under Junior Subordinated Notes A through an unsecured and
subordinated guarantee.
The indenture agreement governing Junior Subordinated Notes A allows the Operating Partnership
to defer interest payments on one or more occasions for up to ten consecutive years, subject to
certain conditions. The indenture agreement also provides that, unless (i) all deferred interest
on Junior Subordinated Notes A has been paid in full as of the most recent interest payment date,
(ii) no event of default under the indenture agreement has occurred and is continuing and (iii) we
are not in default of our obligations under related guarantee agreements, neither we nor the
Operating Partnership cannot declare or make any distributions to any of our respective equity
securities or make any payments on indebtedness or other obligations that rank pari passu with or
are subordinated to the Junior Subordinated Notes A.
The Junior Subordinated Notes A will bear interest at a fixed annual rate of 8.375% from July
2006 to August 2016, payable semi-annually in arrears in February and August of each year,
commencing in February 2007. After August 2016, the Junior Subordinated Notes A will bear variable
rate interest at an annual rate equal to the 3-month LIBOR rate for the related interest period
plus 3.708%, payable quarterly in arrears in February, May, August and November of each year
commencing in November 2016. Interest
F-50
payments may be deferred on a cumulative basis for up to ten consecutive years, subject to the
certain provisions. The Junior Subordinated Notes A mature in August 2066 and are not redeemable
by the Operating Partnership prior to August 2016 without payment of a make-whole premium.
In connection with the issuance of Junior Subordinated Notes A, the Operating Partnership
entered into a Replacement Capital Covenant in favor of the covered debt holders (as defined in the
underlying documents) pursuant to which the Operating Partnership agreed for the benefit of such
debt holders that it would not redeem or repurchase such junior notes unless such redemption or
repurchase is made using proceeds from the of issuance of certain securities.
Dixie Revolving Credit Facility
As a result of acquiring a controlling interest in Dixie in February 2005, we began
consolidating the financial statements of Dixie with those of our own. In accordance with GAAP, we
consolidate the debt of Dixie with that of our own; however we do not have the obligation to make
interest or debt payments with respect to Dixies debt. Dixies debt obligations consist of a
senior, unsecured revolving credit facility having a borrowing capacity of $28.0 million. The
maturity date of this facility was extended from June 2007 to June 2010 in August 2006.
As defined in the Dixie credit agreement, variable interest rates charged under this facility
generally bear interest, at our election at the time of each borrowing, at either (i) a Eurodollar
rate plus an applicable margin or (ii) the greater of (a) the Prime Rate or (b) the Federal Funds
Rate plus 1/2%.
The credit agreement contains various covenants related to Dixies ability to incur certain
indebtedness; grant certain liens; enter into merger transactions; and make certain investments.
The loan agreement also requires Dixie to satisfy a minimum net worth financial covenant. The
revolving credit agreement restricts Dixies ability to pay cash dividends to us and its other
stockholders if a default or an event of default (as defined in the credit agreement) has occurred
and its continuing at the time such dividend is scheduled to be paid.
Covenants
We are in compliance with the covenants of our consolidated debt agreements at December 31,
2006 and 2005.
Information regarding variable interest rates paid
The following table shows the range of interest rates paid and weighted-average interest rate
paid on our consolidated variable-rate debt obligations during the year ended December 31, 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Range of |
|
Weighted-average |
|
|
interest rates |
|
interest rate |
|
|
paid |
|
paid |
|
|
|
Operating Partnerships Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility |
|
4.87% to 8.25% |
|
|
5.66 |
% |
Dixie Revolving Credit Facility |
|
4.67% to 5.79% |
|
|
5.36 |
% |
F-51
Consolidated debt maturity table
The following table presents the scheduled maturities of principal amounts of our debt
obligations for the next five years and in total thereafter.
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
$ |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
500,000 |
|
2010 |
|
|
569,068 |
|
2011 |
|
|
1,360,000 |
|
Thereafter |
|
|
2,900,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total scheduled principal payments |
|
$ |
5,329,068 |
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with SFAS 6, long-term and current maturities of debt reflect the
classification of such obligations at December 31, 2006. With respect to the $500.0 million in
principal due under Senior Notes E in October 2007, the Operating Partnership has the ability to
use available credit capacity under its Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility to fund the repayment
of this debt. The preceding table and our Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2006 reflect
this ability to refinance.
Debt Obligations of Unconsolidated Affiliates
We have three unconsolidated affiliates with long-term debt obligations. The following table
shows (i) our ownership interest in each entity at December 31, 2006, (ii) total debt of each
unconsolidated affiliate at December 31, 2006 (on a 100% basis to the affiliate) and (iii) the
corresponding scheduled maturities of such debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our |
|
|
|
|
|
Scheduled Maturities of Debt |
|
|
Ownership |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After |
|
|
Interest |
|
Total |
|
2007 |
|
2008 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2011 |
|
2011 |
|
|
|
Cameron Highway |
|
|
50 |
% |
|
$ |
415,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
|
$ |
25,000 |
|
|
$ |
50,000 |
|
|
$ |
55,000 |
|
|
$ |
260,000 |
|
Poseidon |
|
|
36 |
% |
|
|
91,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Evangeline |
|
|
49.5 |
% |
|
|
25,650 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
10,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
531,650 |
|
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
|
$ |
30,000 |
|
|
$ |
30,000 |
|
|
$ |
60,650 |
|
|
$ |
146,000 |
|
|
$ |
260,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The credit agreements of our unconsolidated affiliates contain various affirmative and
negative covenants, including financial covenants. These businesses were in compliance with such
covenants at December 31, 2006. The credit agreements of our unconsolidated affiliates restrict
their ability to pay cash dividends if a default or an event of default (as defined in each credit
agreement) has occurred and is continuing at the time such dividend is scheduled to be paid.
The following information summarizes significant terms of the debt obligations of our
unconsolidated affiliates at December 31, 2006:
Cameron Highway. In December 2005, Cameron Highway issued $415.0 million of private
placement, non-recourse senior secured notes due December 2017. The senior secured notes were
issued in two series $365.0 million of Series A notes, which bear interest at a fixed annual rate
of 5.86%, and $50.0 million of Series B notes, which charge variable interest based on a Eurodollar
rate plus 1%. At December 31, 2006, the variable interest rate charged under the Series B notes
was 6.18%.
The Series A and B notes are secured by (i) mortgages on and pledges of substantially all of
the assets of Cameron Highway, (ii) mortgages on and pledges of certain assets of an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of ours that serves as the operator of the Cameron Highway Oil Pipeline,
(iii) pledges by us and our joint venture partner in Cameron Highway of our respective 50%
ownership interests in Cameron Highway, and (iv) letters of credit in an amount of $36.8 million
each issued by our Operating Partnership and an affiliate of our joint venture partner. Except for
the foregoing, the noteholders do not have any recourse against our assets or any of our
subsidiaries under the note purchase agreement.
F-52
In March 2006, Cameron Highway amended the note purchase agreement governing its Series A and
B notes to primarily address the effect of reduced deliveries of crude oil to Cameron Highway
resulting from production delays. In general, this amendment modified certain financial covenants
in light of production forecasts made by management. Also, the amendment specifies that Cameron
Highway cannot make distributions to its partners until the earlier of (i) December 31, 2007 or
(ii) the date on which Cameron Highways debt service coverage ratios are equal to or greater than
1.5 to 1 for three consecutive fiscal quarters. In order for Cameron Highway to resume paying
distributions to its partners, no default or event of default can be present or continuing at the
date Cameron Highway desires to start paying such distributions.
Poseidon. Poseidon has a $150.0 million revolving credit facility that matures in May
2011. Interest rates charged under this revolving credit facility are variable and depend on the
ratio of Poseidons total debt to its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization. This credit agreement is secured by substantially all of Poseidons assets. The
variable interest rates charged on this debt at December 31, 2006 and 2005 were 6.68% and 5.34%,
respectively.
Evangeline. At December 31, 2006, long-term debt for Evangeline consisted of (i)
$18.2 million in principal amount of 9.9% fixed-rate Series B senior secured notes due December
2010 and (ii) a $7.5 million subordinated note payable. The Series B senior secured notes are
collateralized by Evangelines property, plant and equipment; proceeds from a gas sales contract;
and by a debt service reserve requirement. Scheduled principal repayments on the Series B notes
are $5.0 million annually through 2009 with a final repayment in 2010 of approximately $3.2
million. The trust indenture governing the Series B notes contains covenants such as requirements
to maintain certain financial ratios.
Evangeline incurred the subordinated note payable as a result of its acquisition of a
contract-based intangible asset in the 1990s. This note is subject to a subordination agreement
which prevents the repayment of principal and accrued interest on the note until such time as the
Series B noteholders are either fully cash secured through debt service accounts or have been
completely repaid. Variable rate interest accrues on the subordinated note at a Eurodollar rate
plus
1/2%.
The variable interest rates charged on this note at December 31,
2006 and 2005 were 6.08%
and 4.23%, respectively. Accrued interest payable related to the subordinated note was $7.9
million and $7.1 million at December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively.
Note 15. Partners Equity and Distributions
Our common units represent limited partner interests, which give the holders thereof the right
to participate in distributions and to exercise the other rights or privileges available to them
under our Fifth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership (together with all amendments
thereto, the Partnership Agreement). We are managed by our general partner, Enterprise Products
GP.
In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, capital accounts are maintained for our general
partner and limited partners. The capital account provisions of our Partnership Agreement
incorporate principles established for U.S. Federal income tax purposes and are not comparable to
the equity accounts reflected under GAAP in our consolidated financial statements.
Our Partnership Agreement sets forth the calculation to be used in determining the amount and
priority of cash distributions that our limited partners and general partner will receive. The
Partnership Agreement also contains provisions for the allocation of net earnings and losses to our
limited partners and general partner. For purposes of maintaining partner capital accounts, the
Partnership Agreement specifies that items of income and loss shall be allocated among the partners
in accordance with their respective percentage interests. Normal income and loss allocations
according to percentage interests are done only after giving effect to priority earnings
allocations in an amount equal to incentive cash distributions allocated to our general partner.
F-53
In August 2005, we revised our Partnership Agreement to allow Enterprise Products GP, at its
discretion, to elect not to make its proportionate capital contributions to us in connection with
our issuance of limited partner interests, in which case its 2% general partner interest would be
proportionately reduced. At the time of such offerings, Enterprise Products GP has historically
contributed cash to us to maintain its 2% general partner interest. Enterprise Products GP made
such cash contributions to us during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. If Enterprise
Products GP exercises this option in the future, the amount of earnings we allocate to it and the
cash distributions it receives from us will be reduced accordingly. If this occurs, Enterprise
Products GP can, under certain conditions, restore its full 2% general partner interest by making
additional cash contributions to us.
Equity offerings and registration statements
In general, the Partnership Agreement authorizes us to issue an unlimited number of additional
limited partner interests and other equity securities for such consideration and on such terms and
conditions as may be established by Enterprise Products GP in its sole discretion (subject, under
certain circumstances, to the approval of our unitholders).
In March 2005, we filed a universal shelf registration statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) registering the issuance of up to $4.0 billion of additional equity and
debt securities. After taking into account past issuance of securities under this registration
statement, we have the ability to issue approximately $2.1 billion of additional securities under
this registration statement as of December 31, 2006.
During 2003, we instituted a distribution reinvestment plan (DRIP). The DRIP provides
unitholders of record and beneficial owners of our common units a voluntary means by which they can
increase the number of common units they own by reinvesting the quarterly cash distributions they
would otherwise receive into the purchase of additional common units. We have a registration
statement on file with the SEC authorizing the issuance of up to 15,000,000 common units in
connection with the DRIP. A total of 14,179,097 common units have been issued under this
registration statement through December 31, 2006. We expect to file a registration statement in
2007 to increase the number of common units authorized for issuance under this plan.
We also have a registration statement on file related to our employee unit purchase plan,
under which we can issue up to 1,200,000 common units. Under this plan, employees of EPCO can
purchase our common units at a 10% discount through payroll deductions. A total of 362,686 common
units have been issued to employees under this plan through December 31, 2006.
The following table reflects the number of common units issued and the net proceeds received
from underwritten and other common unit offerings completed during the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Proceeds from Sale of Common Units |
|
|
Number of |
|
Contributed |
|
Contributed by |
|
Total |
|
|
common units |
|
by Limited |
|
General |
|
Net |
|
|
issued |
|
Partners |
|
Partner |
|
Proceeds |
|
|
|
Fiscal 2004: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwritten offerings |
|
|
34,500,000 |
|
|
$ |
680,390 |
|
|
$ |
13,886 |
|
|
$ |
694,276 |
|
Other offerings, primarily DRIP |
|
|
5,183,591 |
|
|
|
109,368 |
|
|
|
2,231 |
|
|
|
111,599 |
|
|
|
|
Total 2004 |
|
|
39,683,591 |
|
|
$ |
789,758 |
|
|
$ |
16,117 |
|
|
$ |
805,875 |
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2005: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwritten offerings |
|
|
21,250,000 |
|
|
$ |
544,347 |
|
|
$ |
11,109 |
|
|
$ |
555,456 |
|
Other offerings, primarily DRIP |
|
|
2,729,740 |
|
|
|
68,269 |
|
|
|
1,393 |
|
|
|
69,662 |
|
|
|
|
Total 2005 |
|
|
23,979,740 |
|
|
$ |
612,616 |
|
|
$ |
12,502 |
|
|
$ |
625,118 |
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2006: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underwritten offerings |
|
|
31,050,000 |
|
|
$ |
735,819 |
|
|
$ |
15,003 |
|
|
$ |
750,822 |
|
Other offerings, primarily DRIP |
|
|
3,774,649 |
|
|
|
95,006 |
|
|
|
1,940 |
|
|
|
96,946 |
|
|
|
|
Total 2006 |
|
|
34,824,649 |
|
|
$ |
830,825 |
|
|
$ |
16,943 |
|
|
$ |
847,768 |
|
|
|
|
F-54
Net proceeds received from our underwritten offerings completed during 2004 were
generally used to (i) repay a $225.0 million acquisition credit facility related to the GulfTerra
Merger, (ii) partially fund our payment obligations under the GulfTerra Merger and (iii)
temporarily reduce borrowings outstanding under the Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. Net
proceeds from our other offerings were used for general partnership purposes.
Other offerings primarily represents the issuance of common units under our distribution
reinvestment plan (DRIP). Net proceeds received from our underwritten offerings completed during
2005 were generally used to repay an interim credit facility related to the GulfTerra Merger and to
temporarily reduce borrowings outstanding under the Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility. Net
proceeds from our other offerings were used for general partnership purposes.
Net proceeds received from our underwritten and other offerings completed during 2006 were
used to temporarily reduce borrowings outstanding under the Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility
and for general partnership purposes.
Summary of Changes in Outstanding Units
The following table summarizes changes in our outstanding units since December 31, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted |
|
Class B |
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
Common |
|
Special |
|
Treasury |
|
|
Units |
|
Units |
|
Units |
|
Units |
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2003 |
|
|
213,366,760 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,413,549 |
|
|
|
798,313 |
|
Units issued in connection with underwritten offerings |
|
|
34,500,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with other offerings |
|
|
5,200,078 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with equity-based awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
434,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reissuance of treasury units to satisfy exercise of options |
|
|
371,113 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(371,113 |
) |
Conversion of Class B special units to common units |
|
|
4,413,549 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,413,549 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Units issued
in connection with GulfTerra Merger (see Note 12) |
|
|
104,495,523 |
|
|
|
54,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of Series F2 units to common units |
|
|
1,950,317 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2004 |
|
|
364,297,340 |
|
|
|
488,525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427,200 |
|
Units issued in connection with underwritten offerings |
|
|
21,250,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with other offerings |
|
|
2,729,740 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with equity-based awards |
|
|
826,000 |
|
|
|
362,011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeiture of restricted units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(92,448 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of restricted units to common units |
|
|
6,484 |
|
|
|
(6,484 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cancellation of treasury units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(427,200 |
) |
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2005 |
|
|
389,109,564 |
|
|
|
751,604 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with underwritten offerings |
|
|
31,050,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with other offerings |
|
|
3,774,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with equity-based awards |
|
|
211,000 |
|
|
|
466,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeiture of restricted units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(70,631 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of restricted units to common units |
|
|
42,136 |
|
|
|
(42,136 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Units issued in connection with Encinal acquisition |
|
|
7,115,844 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2006 |
|
|
431,303,193 |
|
|
|
1,105,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-55
Summary of Changes in Limited Partners Equity
The following table details the changes in limited partners equity since December 31, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted |
|
Class B |
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
Common |
|
Special |
|
|
|
|
units |
|
units |
|
units |
|
Total |
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2003 |
|
$ |
1,582,951 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
100,182 |
|
|
$ |
1,683,133 |
|
Net income |
|
|
229,016 |
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
1,995 |
|
|
|
231,153 |
|
Operating leases paid by EPCO |
|
|
7,449 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
7,551 |
|
Cash distributions to partners |
|
|
(390,928 |
) |
|
|
(218 |
) |
|
|
(3,288 |
) |
|
|
(394,434 |
) |
Unit option reimbursements to EPCO |
|
|
(3,813 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,813 |
) |
Net proceeds from sales of common units |
|
|
789,758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
789,758 |
|
Proceeds from conversion of Series F2
convertible units to common units |
|
|
38,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,800 |
|
Proceeds from exercise of unit options |
|
|
398 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
398 |
|
Conversion of Class B special units to common units |
|
|
98,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(98,993 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Value of equity interests granted to complete the
GulfTerra Merger |
|
|
2,851,796 |
|
|
|
2,479 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,854,275 |
|
Other issuance of restricted units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,922 |
|
Treasury units reissued to satisfy unit options |
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
524 |
|
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2004 |
|
|
5,204,940 |
|
|
|
12,327 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,217,267 |
|
Net income |
|
|
347,948 |
|
|
|
564 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
348,512 |
|
Operating leases paid by EPCO |
|
|
2,067 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,070 |
|
Cash distributions to partners |
|
|
(629,629 |
) |
|
|
(931 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(630,560 |
) |
Unit option reimbursements to EPCO |
|
|
(9,199 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,199 |
) |
Net proceeds from sales of common units |
|
|
612,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
612,616 |
|
Proceeds from exercise of unit options |
|
|
21,374 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,374 |
|
Issuance of restricted units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,478 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,478 |
|
Vesting of restricted units |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
(143 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeiture of restricted units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,663 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,663 |
) |
Amortization of equity-based awards |
|
|
1,355 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,358 |
|
Cancellation of treasury units |
|
|
(8,915 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,915 |
) |
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2005 |
|
|
5,542,700 |
|
|
|
18,638 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,561,338 |
|
Net income |
|
|
502,969 |
|
|
|
1,187 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
504,156 |
|
Operating leases paid by EPCO |
|
|
2,062 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,067 |
|
Cash distributions to partners |
|
|
(738,004 |
) |
|
|
(1,628 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(739,632 |
) |
Unit option reimbursements to EPCO |
|
|
(1,818 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,818 |
) |
Net proceeds from sales of common units |
|
|
830,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
830,825 |
|
Common units issued in connection with
Encinal acquisition |
|
|
181,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
181,112 |
|
Proceeds from exercise of unit options |
|
|
5,601 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,601 |
|
Amortization of equity-based awards |
|
|
2,209 |
|
|
|
6,073 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,282 |
|
Change in accounting method for equity
Awards (see Note 5) |
|
|
(896 |
) |
|
|
(14,919 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,815 |
) |
Acquisition-related disbursement of cash |
|
|
(6,183 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,199 |
) |
|
|
|
Balance, December 31, 2006 |
|
$ |
6,320,577 |
|
|
$ |
9,340 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
6,329,917 |
|
|
|
|
In October 2006, we acquired all of the capital stock of an affiliated NGL marketing
company located in Canada from EPCO and Dan L. Duncan for $17.7 million in cash. The amount we
paid for this business exceeded the carrying values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed
from this related party (which is under common control with us) by $6.3 million, of which $6.2
million was allocated to limited partners and $0.1 million to our general partner. The excess of
the acquisition price over the net book value of this business at the time of acquisition is
treated as a deemed distribution to our owners and presented as an Acquisition-related
disbursement of cash in our Statement of Partners Equity for the year ended December 31, 2006.
The total purchase price is a component of Cash used for business combinations as presented in
our Statement of Consolidated Cash Flows for the year ended December 31, 2006 (see Note 12).
F-56
Units issued in connection with the GulfTerra Merger. In conjunction with the GulfTerra Merger
(see Note 12), we issued 1.81 of our common units for each GulfTerra common unit (including
GulfTerras restricted common units) remaining after our purchase of 2,876,620 GulfTerra common
units owned by El Paso. The number of units we issued in connection with this conversion was
calculated as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra units outstanding at September 30, 2004: |
|
|
|
|
Common units, including time-vested restricted common units |
|
|
60,638,989 |
|
Series C units |
|
|
10,937,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total historical units outstanding at September 30, 2004 |
|
|
71,576,489 |
|
Adjustments to GulfTerra historical units outstanding as a result of the GulfTerra Merger: |
|
|
|
|
Purchase of GulfTerra Series C units from El Paso |
|
|
(10,937,500 |
) |
Purchase of GulfTerra common units from El Paso |
|
|
(2,876,620 |
) |
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra common units outstanding subject exchange offer |
|
|
57,762,369 |
|
Conversion ratio (1.81 of our common units for each GulfTerra common unit) |
|
|
1.81 |
|
|
|
|
|
Common units issued to GulfTerra common unitholders
in connection with GulfTerra Merger (adjusted for fractional common units) |
|
|
104,549,823 |
|
Average closing price per unit of our common units immediately prior to and after
proposed GulfTerra Merger was announced on December 15, 2003 |
|
$ |
23.39 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of our common units issued in conversion of remaining GulfTerra common units |
|
$ |
2,445,420 |
|
|
|
|
|
In accordance with purchase accounting, the $2.4 billion value of our common units was
based on the average closing price of our common units immediately prior to and after the proposed
merger was announced on December 15, 2003.
Overall, the fair value of equity interests we issued on September 30, 2004 of the GulfTerra
Merger was approximately $2.9 billion. The following table presents the detail for this
consideration:
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of common units issued in conversion of remaining GulfTerra common units |
|
$ |
2,445,420 |
|
Fair value of equity interests issued to acquire the remaining 50% membership interest in
GulfTerra GP (voting interest) (1) |
|
|
461,347 |
|
Fair value of other equity interests issued for unit awards and Series F2 convertible units |
|
|
4,005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total value of equity interests issued upon closing of GulfTerra Merger |
|
$ |
2,910,772 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
This fair value is based on 50% of an implied $922.7 million total value for GulfTerra GP,
which assumes that the $370.0 million cash payment made by Enterprise Products GP to El Paso
in September 2004 represented consideration for a 40.1% interest in GulfTerra GP. The 40.1%
interest was derived by deducting the 9.9% membership interest in Enterprise Products GP
granted to El Paso in this transaction from the 50% membership interest in GulfTerra GP that
Enterprise Products GP acquired from El Paso. The fair value of $461.3 million assigned to
this voting membership interest in GulfTerra GP compares favorably to the $425.0 million we
paid El Paso in December 2003 to purchase our initial 50% non-voting membership interest in
GulfTerra GP. The contribution of this 50% membership interest to Enterprise Products
Partners is allocated for financial reporting purposes to our limited partners and general
partner based on the respective ownership percentages and the related allocation of profits
and losses of 98% and 2%, respectively, both of which are consistent with the Partnership
Agreement. |
As a result of the GulfTerra Merger, we assumed GulfTerras obligation associated with
its 80 Series F2 convertible units. All Series F2 convertible units outstanding at the merger date
were converted into rights to receive our common units based on the 1.81 exchange ratio. In 2004,
all of the convertible units were exercised and we issued 1,950,317 common units and received net
proceeds of $40.0 million.
Units issued in connection with the Encincal acquisition. In July 2006, we issued 7,115,844
common units as partial consideration for the Encinal acquisition. In August 2006, we filed a
registration statement for the resale of these common units by affiliates of Lewis. In accordance
with purchase accounting, the $181.1 million fair value of these common units was determined using
the average closing price of such units immediately prior to and after the transaction was
announced on July 12, 2006. For purposes of this calculation, the average closing price was $25.45
per unit.
Class B Special Units. In December 2003, we sold 4,413,549 Class B special units to an
affiliate of EPCO for $100.0 million. After receiving the approval of our unitholders, we
converted the Class B special units into an equal number of common units in July 2004.
F-57
Treasury Units. In 2000, we and a consolidated trust (the 1999 Trust) were authorized by
Enterprise Products GP to repurchase up to 2,000,000 publicly-held common units under an announced
buy-back program. The repurchases would be made during periods of temporary market weakness at
price levels that would be accretive to our remaining unitholders. After deducting for repurchases
under the program in prior periods, we and the 1999 Trust could repurchase up to 618,400 common
units at December 31, 2005. Common units repurchased under the program are accounted for in a
manner similar to treasury stock under the cost method of accounting. For the purpose of
calculating both basic and diluted earnings per unit, treasury units are not considered to be
outstanding. We reissued 371,113 units and 30,887 units out of treasury in 2004 and 2003,
respectively, in connection with the exercise of unit options by employees of EPCO. We retired
30,000 treasury units in 2003 and cancelled the remaining 427,200 treasury units in 2005.
Distributions to Partners
The percentage interest of Enterprise Products GP in our quarterly cash distributions is
increased after certain specified target levels of quarterly distribution rates are met. At
current distribution rates, we are in the highest tier of such incentive targets. Enterprise
Products GPs quarterly incentive distribution thresholds are as follows:
|
|
|
2% of quarterly cash distributions up to $0.253 per unit; |
|
|
|
|
15% of quarterly cash distributions from $0.253 per unit up to $0.3085 per unit; and |
|
|
|
|
25% of quarterly cash distributions that exceed $0.3085 per unit. |
We paid incentive distributions of $86.7 million, $63.9 million and $32.4 million to
Enterprise Products GP during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
The following table presents our declared quarterly cash distribution rates per unit since the
first quarter of 2005 and the related record and distribution payment dates. The quarterly cash
distribution rates per unit correspond to the fiscal quarters indicated. Actual cash distributions
are paid within 45 days after the end of such fiscal quarter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution |
|
Record |
|
Payment |
|
|
per Unit(1) |
|
Date |
|
Date |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4100 |
|
|
Apr. 29, 2005 |
|
May 10, 2005 |
2nd Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4200 |
|
|
Jul. 29, 2005 |
|
Aug. 10, 2005 |
3rd Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4300 |
|
|
Oct. 31, 2005 |
|
Nov. 8, 2005 |
4th Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4375 |
|
|
Jan. 31, 2006 |
|
Feb. 9, 2006 |
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1st Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4450 |
|
|
Apr. 28, 2006 |
|
May 10, 2006 |
2nd Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4525 |
|
|
Jul. 31, 2006 |
|
Aug. 10, 2006 |
3rd Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4600 |
|
|
Oct. 31, 2006 |
|
Nov. 8, 2006 |
4th Quarter |
|
$ |
0.4675 |
|
|
Jan. 31, 2007 |
|
Feb. 8, 2007 |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Distributions are paid on common and restricted units, and prior to their conversion to
common units, were also paid on Class B special units. |
Note 16. Business Segments
We have four reportable business segments: NGL Pipelines & Services, Onshore Natural Gas
Pipelines & Services, Offshore Pipelines & Services and Petrochemical Services. Our business
segments are generally organized and managed according to the type of services rendered (or
technologies employed) and products produced and/or sold.
We evaluate segment performance based on the non-GAAP financial measure of gross operating
margin. Gross operating margin (either in total or by individual segment) is an important
performance measure of the core profitability of our operations. This measure forms the basis of
our internal financial
F-58
reporting and is used by senior management in deciding how to allocate capital resources among
business segments. We believe that investors benefit from having access to the same financial
measures that our management uses in evaluating segment results. The GAAP measure most directly
comparable to total segment gross operating margin is operating income. Our non-GAAP financial
measure of total segment gross operating margin should not be considered an alternative to GAAP
operating income.
We define total segment gross operating margin as consolidated operating income before: (i)
depreciation, amortization and accretion expense; (ii) operating lease expenses for which we do not
have the payment obligation; (iii) gains and losses on the sale of assets; and (iv) general and
administrative expenses. Gross operating margin is exclusive of other income and expense
transactions, provision for income taxes, minority interest, extraordinary charges and the
cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles. Gross operating margin by segment is
calculated by subtracting segment operating costs and expenses (net of the adjustments noted above)
from segment revenues, with both segment totals before the elimination of intersegment and
intrasegment transactions.
Segment revenues include intersegment and intrasegment transactions, which are generally based
on transactions made at market-related rates. Our consolidated revenues reflect the elimination of
all material intercompany (both intersegment and intrasegment) transactions.
We include equity earnings from unconsolidated affiliates in our measurement of segment gross
operating margin and operating income. Our equity investments with industry partners are a vital
component of our business strategy. They are a means by which we conduct our operations to align
our interests with those of our customers and/or suppliers. This method of operation enables us to
achieve favorable economies of scale relative to the level of investment and business risk assumed
versus what we could accomplish on a stand-alone basis. Many of these businesses perform
supporting or complementary roles to our other business operations.
Our integrated midstream energy asset system (including the midstream energy assets of our
equity method investees) provides services to producers and consumers of natural gas, NGLs, crude
oil and certain petrochemicals. In general, hydrocarbons enter our asset system in a number of
ways, such as an offshore natural gas or crude oil pipeline, an offshore platform, a natural gas
processing plant, an onshore natural gas gathering pipeline, an NGL fractionator, an NGL storage
facility, or an NGL transportation or distribution pipeline.
Many of our equity investees are included within our integrated midstream asset system. For
example, we have ownership interests in several offshore natural gas and crude oil pipelines.
Other examples include our use of the Promix NGL fractionator to process mixed NGLs extracted by
our gas plants. The fractionated NGLs we receive from Promix can then be sold in our NGL marketing
activities. Given the integral nature of our equity method investees to our operations, we believe
the presentation of earnings from such investees as a component of gross operating margin and
operating income is meaningful and appropriate.
Historically, our consolidated revenues were earned in the United States and derived from a
wide customer base. The majority of our plant-based operations are located in Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, New Mexico and Wyoming. Our natural gas, NGL and crude oil pipelines are located in a
number of regions of the United States including (i) the Gulf of Mexico offshore Texas and
Louisiana; (ii) the south and southeastern United States (primarily in Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama); and (iii) certain regions of the central and western United States,
including the Rocky Mountains. Our marketing activities are headquartered in Houston, Texas and
serve customers in a number of regions of the United States including the Gulf Coast, West Coast
and Mid-Continent areas. Beginning with the fourth quarter of 2006, a small portion of our
revenues were earned in Canada. See Note 12 for information regarding our acquisition of a
Canadian affiliate of EPCO in October 2006.
Consolidated property, plant and equipment and investments in and advances to unconsolidated
affiliates are assigned to each segment on the basis of each assets or investments principal
operations. The principal reconciling difference between consolidated property, plant and
equipment and the total
F-59
value of segment assets is construction-in-progress. Segment assets represent the net book
carrying value of facilities and other assets that contribute to gross operating margin of that
particular segment. Since assets under construction generally do not contribute to segment gross
operating margin, such assets are excluded from segment asset totals until they are placed in
service. Consolidated intangible assets and goodwill are assigned to each segment based on the
classification of the assets to which they relate.
The following table shows our measurement of total segment gross operating margin for the
periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Revenues (1) |
|
$ |
13,990,969 |
|
|
$ |
12,256,959 |
|
|
$ |
8,321,202 |
|
Less: Operating costs and expenses (1) |
|
|
(13,089,091 |
) |
|
|
(11,546,225 |
) |
|
|
(7,904,336 |
) |
Add: Equity in income of unconsolidated affiliates (1) |
|
|
21,565 |
|
|
|
14,548 |
|
|
|
52,787 |
|
Depreciation, amortization and accretion in operating costs and
expenses (2) |
|
|
440,256 |
|
|
|
413,441 |
|
|
|
193,734 |
|
Operating lease expenses paid by EPCO(2) |
|
|
2,109 |
|
|
|
2,112 |
|
|
|
7,705 |
|
Gain on sale of assets in operating costs and expenses (2) |
|
|
(3,359 |
) |
|
|
(4,488 |
) |
|
|
(15,901 |
) |
|
|
|
Total segment gross operating margin |
|
$ |
1,362,449 |
|
|
$ |
1,136,347 |
|
|
$ |
655,191 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
These amounts are taken from our Statements of Consolidated Operations.
|
|
|
|
These non-cash expenses are taken from the operating activities section of our Statements of
Consolidated Cash Flows. |
A reconciliation of our total segment gross operating margin to operating income and
income before provision for income taxes, minority interest and the cumulative effect of changes in
accounting principles follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Total segment gross operating margin |
|
$ |
1,362,449 |
|
|
$ |
1,136,347 |
|
|
$ |
655,191 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile total segment gross operating margin
to operating income: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, amortization and accretion in operating costs and expenses |
|
|
(440,256 |
) |
|
|
(413,441 |
) |
|
|
(193,734 |
) |
Operating lease expense paid by EPCO |
|
|
(2,109 |
) |
|
|
(2,112 |
) |
|
|
(7,705 |
) |
Gain on sale of assets in operating costs and expenses |
|
|
3,359 |
|
|
|
4,488 |
|
|
|
15,901 |
|
General and administrative costs |
|
|
(63,391 |
) |
|
|
(62,266 |
) |
|
|
(46,659 |
) |
|
|
|
Consolidated operating income |
|
|
860,052 |
|
|
|
663,016 |
|
|
|
422,994 |
|
Other expense, net |
|
|
(229,967 |
) |
|
|
(225,178 |
) |
|
|
(153,625 |
) |
|
|
|
Income before provision for income taxes, minority interest
and cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles |
|
$ |
630,085 |
|
|
$ |
437,838 |
|
|
$ |
269,369 |
|
|
|
|
F-60
Information by segment, together with reconciliations to our consolidated totals, is
presented in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reportable Segments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Onshore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Offshore |
|
Natural Gas |
|
NGL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments |
|
|
|
|
Pipelines |
|
Pipelines |
|
Pipelines |
|
Petrochemical |
|
Non-Segmt. |
|
and |
|
Consolidated |
|
|
& Services |
|
& Services |
|
& Services |
|
Services |
|
Other |
|
Eliminations |
|
Totals |
|
|
|
Revenues from third parties: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006 |
|
$ |
144,065 |
|
|
$ |
1,401,486 |
|
|
$ |
10,079,534 |
|
|
$ |
1,956,268 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
13,581,353 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|
110,100 |
|
|
|
1,198,320 |
|
|
|
9,006,730 |
|
|
|
1,587,037 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,902,187 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2004 |
|
|
32,168 |
|
|
|
541,529 |
|
|
|
5,553,895 |
|
|
|
1,389,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,517,052 |
|
Revenues from related parties: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006 |
|
|
1,798 |
|
|
|
297,409 |
|
|
|
110,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
409,616 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|
696 |
|
|
|
337,282 |
|
|
|
16,689 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
354,772 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2004 |
|
|
535 |
|
|
|
253,194 |
|
|
|
534,279 |
|
|
|
16,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
804,150 |
|
Intersegment and intrasegment revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006 |
|
|
1,679 |
|
|
|
113,132 |
|
|
|
4,131,776 |
|
|
|
383,754 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,630,341 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|
1,353 |
|
|
|
41,576 |
|
|
|
3,334,763 |
|
|
|
346,458 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,724,150 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2004 |
|
|
358 |
|
|
|
21,436 |
|
|
|
2,077,871 |
|
|
|
249,758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,349,423 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total revenues: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006 |
|
|
147,542 |
|
|
|
1,812,027 |
|
|
|
14,321,719 |
|
|
|
2,340,022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,630,341 |
) |
|
|
13,990,969 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|
112,149 |
|
|
|
1,577,178 |
|
|
|
12,358,182 |
|
|
|
1,933,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,724,150 |
) |
|
|
12,256,959 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2004 |
|
|
33,061 |
|
|
|
816,159 |
|
|
|
8,166,045 |
|
|
|
1,655,360 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,349,423 |
) |
|
|
8,321,202 |
|
Equity in income of
unconsolidated affiliates: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006 |
|
|
11,909 |
|
|
|
2,872 |
|
|
|
5,715 |
|
|
|
1,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,565 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|
6,125 |
|
|
|
2,384 |
|
|
|
5,553 |
|
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,548 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2004 |
|
|
8,859 |
|
|
|
772 |
|
|
|
9,898 |
|
|
|
1,233 |
|
|
|
32,025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,787 |
|
Gross operating margin by individual
business segment and in total: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31, 2006 |
|
|
103,407 |
|
|
|
333,399 |
|
|
|
752,548 |
|
|
|
173,095 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,362,449 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2005 |
|
|
77,505 |
|
|
|
353,076 |
|
|
|
579,706 |
|
|
|
126,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,136,347 |
|
Year ended December 31, 2004 |
|
|
36,478 |
|
|
|
90,977 |
|
|
|
374,196 |
|
|
|
121,515 |
|
|
|
32,025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
655,191 |
|
Segment assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2006 |
|
|
734,659 |
|
|
|
3,611,974 |
|
|
|
3,249,486 |
|
|
|
502,345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,734,083 |
|
|
|
9,832,547 |
|
At December 31, 2005 |
|
|
632,222 |
|
|
|
3,622,318 |
|
|
|
3,075,048 |
|
|
|
504,841 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
854,595 |
|
|
|
8,689,024 |
|
Investments in and advances to
unconsolidated affiliates (see Note 11): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2006 |
|
|
310,136 |
|
|
|
124,591 |
|
|
|
111,229 |
|
|
|
18,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
564,559 |
|
At December 31, 2005 |
|
|
316,844 |
|
|
|
4,644 |
|
|
|
130,376 |
|
|
|
20,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
471,921 |
|
Intangible Assets (see Note 13): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2006 |
|
|
152,376 |
|
|
|
386,149 |
|
|
|
417,950 |
|
|
|
47,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,003,955 |
|
At December 31, 2005 |
|
|
174,532 |
|
|
|
413,843 |
|
|
|
275,778 |
|
|
|
49,473 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
913,626 |
|
Goodwill (see Note 13): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2006 |
|
|
82,135 |
|
|
|
282,121 |
|
|
|
152,595 |
|
|
|
73,690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
590,541 |
|
At December 31, 2005 |
|
|
82,386 |
|
|
|
282,997 |
|
|
|
54,960 |
|
|
|
73,690 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
494,033 |
|
In general, our historical operating results and/or financial position have been affected
by business combinations and other acquisitions. Our most significant business combination to date
was the GulfTerra Merger in September 2004 (see Note 12). The value of total consideration we paid
or issued to complete the GulfTerra Merger was approximately $4.0 billion. The operating results
of entities and assets we acquire are included in our financial results prospectively from their
purchase dates.
F-61
Note 17. Related Party Transactions
The following table summarizes our related party transactions for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Revenues from consolidated operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
98,671 |
|
|
$ |
311 |
|
|
$ |
2,697 |
|
Shell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
542,912 |
|
Unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
304,559 |
|
|
|
354,461 |
|
|
|
258,541 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
403,230 |
|
|
$ |
354,772 |
|
|
$ |
804,150 |
|
|
|
|
Operating costs and expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
311,537 |
|
|
$ |
293,134 |
|
|
$ |
203,100 |
|
Shell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
725,420 |
|
Unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
31,606 |
|
|
|
23,563 |
|
|
|
37,587 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
343,143 |
|
|
$ |
316,697 |
|
|
$ |
966,107 |
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPCO and affiliates |
|
$ |
41,265 |
|
|
$ |
40,954 |
|
|
$ |
29,307 |
|
|
|
|
Relationship with EPCO and affiliates
We have an extensive and ongoing relationship with EPCO and its affiliates, which include the
following significant entities:
|
§ |
|
EPCO and its private company subsidiaries; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Products GP, our sole general partner; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise GP Holdings, which owns and controls our general partner; |
|
|
§ |
|
Duncan Energy Partners, which is a public company subsidiary of ours; |
|
|
§ |
|
TEPPCO and TEPPCO GP, which are controlled by affiliates of EPCO; and |
|
|
§ |
|
the Employee Partnerships. |
Unless noted otherwise, our agreements with EPCO are not the result of arms length
transactions. As a result, we cannot provide assurance that the terms and provisions of such
agreements are at least as favorable to us as we could have obtained from unaffiliated third
parties.
EPCO is a private company controlled by Dan L. Duncan, who is also a director and Chairman of
Enterprise Products GP, our general partner. At December 31, 2006, EPCO and its affiliates
beneficially owned 146,768,946 (or 33.9%) of our outstanding common units, which includes
13,454,498 of our common units owned by Enterprise GP Holdings. In addition, at December 31, 2006,
EPCO and its affiliates beneficially owned 86.7% of the limited partner interests of Enterprise GP
Holdings and 100% of its general partner, EPE Holdings. Enterprise GP Holdings owns all of the
membership interests of Enterprise Products GP. The principal business activity of Enterprise
Products GP is to act as our managing partner. The executive officers and certain of the directors
of Enterprise Products GP and EPE Holdings are employees of EPCO.
In connection with its general partner interest in us, Enterprise Products GP received cash
distributions of $126.0 million, $76.8 million and $40.4 million from us during the years ended
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. These amounts include incentive distributions of
$86.7 million, $63.9 million and $32.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004, respectively.
We and Enterprise Products GP are both separate legal entities apart from each other and apart
from EPCO, Enterprise GP Holdings and their respective other affiliates, with assets and
liabilities that are separate from those of EPCO, Enterprise GP Holdings and their respective other
affiliates. EPCO and its private company subsidiaries depend on the cash distributions they
receive from us, Enterprise GP Holdings and other investments to fund their other operations and to
meet their debt obligations. EPCO and its affiliates received $306.5 million, $243.9 million and
$189.8 million in cash distributions from us during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004, respectively.
F-62
The ownership interests in us that are owned or controlled by Enterprise GP Holdings are
pledged as security under its credit facility. In addition, the ownership interests in us that are
owned or controlled by EPCO and its affiliates, other than those interests owned by Enterprise GP
Holdings, Dan Duncan LLC and certain trusts affiliated with Dan L. Duncan, are pledged as security
under the credit facility of a private company affiliate of EPCO. This credit facility contains
customary and other events of default relating to EPCO and certain affiliates, including Enterprise
GP Holdings, us and TEPPCO.
We have entered into an agreement with an affiliate of EPCO to provide trucking services to us
for the transportation of NGLs and other products. For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and
2004, we paid this trucking affiliate $20.7 million, $17.6 million and $14.2 million, respectively,
for such services.
We lease office space in various buildings from affiliates of EPCO. The rental rates in these
lease agreements approximate market rates. For the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004,
we paid EPCO $3.0 million, $2.7 million and $1.7 million, respectively, for office space leases.
Historically, we entered into transactions with a Canadian affiliate of EPCO for the purchase
and sell of NGL products in the normal course of business. These transactions were at
market-related prices. We acquired this affiliate in October 2006 and began consolidating its
financial statements with those of our own from the date of acquisition (see Note 15). For the
years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, our revenues from this former affiliate were $0.3 million
and $2.7 million, respectively, and our purchases were $61.0 million and $71.8 million,
respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2006, our revenues from this former
affiliate were $55.8 million and our purchases were $43.4 million.
Relationship with Duncan Energy Partners
In September 2006, we formed a consolidated subsidiary, Duncan Energy Partners, to acquire,
own and operate a diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets. On February 5, 2007, this
subsidiary completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000 common units (including an
overallotment amount of 1,950,000 common units) at $21.00 per unit, which generated net proceeds to
Duncan Energy Partners of $291.3 million. As consideration for assets contributed and
reimbursement for capital expenditures related to these assets, Duncan Energy Partners distributed
$260.6 million of these net proceeds to us along with $198.9 million in borrowings under its credit
facility and a final amount 5,371,571 common units of Duncan Energy Partners. Duncan Energy
Partners used $38.5 million of net proceeds from the overallotment to redeem 1,950,000 of the
7,301,571 common units it had originally issued to Enterprise Products Partners, resulting in the
final amount of 5,371,571 common units beneficially owned by Enterprise Products Partners. We used
the cash received from Duncan Energy Partners to temporarily reduce amounts outstanding under our
Operating Partnerships Multi-Year Revolving Credit Facility.
In summary, we contributed 66% of our equity interests in the following subsidiaries to Duncan
Energy Partners:
|
§ |
|
Mont Belvieu Caverns, LLC (Mont Belvieu Caverns), a recently formed subsidiary, which
owns salt dome storage caverns located in Mont Belvieu, Texas that receive, store and
deliver NGLs and certain petrochemical products for industrial customers located along the
upper Texas Gulf Coast, which has the largest concentration of petrochemical plants and
refineries in the United States; |
|
|
§ |
|
Acadian Gas, LLC (Acadian Gas), which owns an onshore natural gas pipeline system
that gathers, transports, stores and markets natural gas in Louisiana. The Acadian Gas
system links natural gas supplies from onshore and offshore Gulf of Mexico developments
(including offshore pipelines, continental shelf and deepwater production) with local gas
distribution companies, electric generation plants and industrial customers, including
those in the Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Mississippi River corridor. A subsidiary of Acadian
Gas owns our 49.5% equity interest in Evangeline. See Note 11; |
F-63
|
§ |
|
Sabine Propylene Pipeline L.P. (Sabine Propylene), which transports polymer-grade
propylene between Port Arthur, Texas and a pipeline interconnect located in Cameron
Parish, Louisiana; |
|
|
§ |
|
Enterprise Lou-Tex Propylene Pipeline L.P. (Lou-Tex Propylene), which transports
chemical-grade propylene from Sorrento, Louisiana to Mont Belvieu, Texas; and |
|
|
§ |
|
South Texas NGL Pipelines, LLC (South Texas NGL), a recently formed subsidiary, which
began transporting NGLs from Corpus Christi, Texas to Mont Belvieu, Texas in January 2007.
South Texas NGL owns the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. |
In addition to the 34% direct ownership interest we retained in certain subsidiaries of Duncan
Energy Partners, we also own the 2% general partner interest in Duncan Energy Partners and 26.4% of
Duncan Energy Partners outstanding common units. Our Operating Partnership directs the business
operations of Duncan Energy Partners through its ownership and control of the general partner of
Duncan Energy Partners.
The formation of Duncan Energy Partners had no effect on our financial statements at December
31, 2006. For financial reporting purposes, the consolidated financial statements of Duncan Energy
Partners will be consolidated into those of our own. Consequently, the results of operations of
Duncan Energy Partners will be a component of our business segments. Also, due to common control
of the entities by Dan L. Duncan, the initial consolidated balance sheet of Duncan Energy Partners
will reflect our historical carrying basis in each of the subsidiaries contributed to Duncan Energy
Partners.
The public owners of Duncan Energy Partners common units will be presented as a
noncontrolling interest in our consolidated financial statements beginning in February 2007. The
public owners of Duncan Energy Partners have no direct equity interests in us as a result of this
transaction. The borrowings of Duncan Energy Partners will be presented as part of our
consolidated debt; however, we do not have any obligation for the payment of interest or repayment
of borrowings incurred by Duncan Energy Partners.
We have significant involvement with all of the subsidiaries of Duncan Energy Partners,
including the following types of transactions:
|
§ |
|
We utilize storage services provided by Mont Belvieu Caverns to support our Mont
Belvieu fractionation and other businesses; |
|
|
§ |
|
We buy natural gas from and sell natural gas to Acadian Gas in connection with its
normal business activities; and |
|
|
§ |
|
We are the sole shipper on the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System. |
Omnibus Agreement. In connection with the initial public offering of common units by
Duncan Energy Partners, our Operating Partnership also entered into an Omnibus Agreement with
Duncan Energy Partners and certain of its subsidiaries that will govern our relationship with
Duncan Energy Partners on the following matters:
|
§ |
|
indemnification for certain environmental liabilities, tax liabilities and right-of-way defects; |
|
|
§ |
|
reimbursement of certain expenditures for South Texas NGL and Mont Belvieu Caverns; |
|
|
§ |
|
a right of first refusal to the Operating Partnership on the equity interests in the
current and future subsidiaries of Duncan Energy Partners and a right of first refusal on
the material assets of these entities, other than sales of inventory and other assets in
the ordinary course of business; and |
F-64
|
§ |
|
a preemptive right with respect to equity securities issued by certain of Duncan Energy
Partners subsidiaries, other than as consideration in an acquisition or in connection
with a loan or debt financing. |
Indemnification for Environmental and Related Liabilities. Our Operating Partnership
also agreed to indemnify Duncan Energy Partners after the closing of its initial public offering
against certain environmental and related liabilities arising out of or associated with the
operation of the assets before February 5, 2007. These liabilities include both known and unknown
environmental and related liabilities. This indemnification obligation will terminate on February
5, 2010. There is an aggregate cap of $15.0 million on the amount of indemnity coverage. In
addition, Duncan Energy Partners is not entitled to indemnification until the aggregate amounts of
its claims exceed $250.0 thousand. Liabilities resulting from a change of law after February 5,
2007 are excluded from the environmental indemnity provided by the Operating Partnership.
In addition, our Operating Partnership will indemnify Duncan Energy Partners for liabilities
related to:
|
§ |
|
certain defects in the easement rights or fee ownership interests in and to the lands
on which any assets contributed to Duncan Energy Partners on February 5, 2007 are located; |
|
|
§ |
|
failure to obtain certain consents and permits necessary for Duncan Energy Partners to
conduct its business that arise within three years after February 5, 2007; and |
|
|
§ |
|
certain income tax liabilities related to the operation of the assets contributed to
Duncan Energy Partners attributable to periods prior to February 5, 2007. |
We may contribute other equity interests in our subsidiaries to Duncan Energy Partners in the
near term and use the proceeds we receive from Duncan Energy Partners to fund our capital spending
program. We have no obligation or commitment to make such contributions to Duncan Energy Partners.
Reimbursement for Certain Expenditures. Our Operating Partnership has agreed to make
additional contributions to Duncan Energy Partners as reimbursement for its 66% share of excess
construction costs, if any, above (i) the $28.6 million of estimated capital expenditures to
complete planned expansions of the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System and (ii) $14.1 million of
estimated construction costs for additional planned brine production capacity and above-ground
storage reservoir projects at Mont Belvieu, Texas. We estimate the costs to complete the planned
expansion of the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System after the closing of the Duncan Energy
Partners initial public offering would be approximately $28.6 million, of which Duncan Energy
Partners 66% share would be approximately $18.9 million. Duncan Energy Partners retained cash
from the proceeds of its initial public offering in an amount equal to 66% of these estimated
planned expansion costs. The Operating Partnership will make a capital contribution to South Texas
NGL for its 34% share of such planned expansion costs.
Relationship with TEPPCO
TEPPCO became a related party to us in February 2005 in connection with the acquisition of
TEPPCO GP by a private company subsidiary of EPCO.
We received $42.9 million and a nominal amount from TEPPCO during the years ended December 31,
2006 and 2005, respectively, from the sale of hydrocarbon products. We paid TEPPCO $24.0 million
and $17.2 million for NGL pipeline transportation and storage services during the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. We did not sell hydrocarbon products to TEPPCO or
utilize its NGL pipeline transportation and storage services during the year ended December 31,
2004.
Purchase of Pioneer plant from TEPPCO. In March 2006, we paid TEPPCO $38.2 million
for its Pioneer natural gas processing plant located in Opal, Wyoming and certain natural gas
processing rights related to natural gas production from the Jonah and Pinedale fields located in
the Greater Green River
F-65
Basin in Wyoming. After an in-depth consideration of all relevant factors, this transaction
was approved by the Audit and Conflicts Committee of our general partner and the Audit and
Conflicts Committee of the general partner of TEPPCO. In addition, each party received a fairness
opinion rendered by an independent advisor. TEPPCO will have no continued involvement in the
contracts or in the operations of the Pioneer facility.
Jonah Joint Venture with TEPPCO. In August 2006, we announced a joint venture in
which we and TEPPCO will be partners in TEPPCOs Jonah Gas Gathering Company, or Jonah. Jonah owns
the Jonah Gas Gathering System (the Jonah Gathering System), located in the Greater Green River
Basin of southwestern Wyoming. The Jonah Gathering System gathers and transports natural gas
produced from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas processing plants and major
interstate pipelines that deliver natural gas to end-user markets.
Prior to entering into the Jonah joint venture, we managed the construction of the Phase V
expansion and funded the initial construction costs under a letter of intent we signed in February
2006. In connection with the joint venture arrangement, we and TEPPCO will continue the Phase V
expansion, which is expected to increase the capacity of the Jonah Gathering System from 1.5 Bcf/d
to 2.4 Bcf/d. The Phase V expansion is also expected to significantly reduce system operating
pressures, which we anticipate will lead to increased production rates and ultimate reserve
recoveries. The first portion of the expansion, which is expected to increase the system gathering
capacity to 2 Bcf/d, is projected to be completed in the first quarter of 2007 at an estimated cost
of approximately $302.0 million. The second portion of the expansion is expected to cost
approximately $142.0 million and be completed by the end of 2007.
We manage the Phase V construction project. TEPPCO is entitled to all distributions from the
joint venture until specified milestones are achieved, at which point, we will be entitled to
receive 50% of the incremental cash flow from portions of the system placed in service as part of
the expansion. After subsequent milestones are achieved, we and TEPPCO will share distributions
based on a formula that takes into account the respective capital contributions of the parties,
including expenditures by TEPPCO prior to the expansion.
Since August 1, 2006, we and TEPPCO equally share in the construction costs of the Phase V
expansion. During 2006, TEPPCO reimbursed us $109.4 million, which represents 50% of total Phase V
costs incurred through December 31, 2006. We had a receivable of $8.7 million from TEPPCO at
December 31, 2006 for Phase V expansion costs.
Upon completion of the expansion project and based on the formula in the joint venture
partnership agreement, we expect to own an interest in Jonah of approximately 20%, with TEPPCO
owning the remaining 80%. At December 31, 2006, we owned an approximate 14.4% interest in Jonah.
We will operate the Jonah Gathering System.
The Jonah joint venture is governed by a management committee comprised of two representatives
approved by us and two appointed by TEPPCO, each with equal voting power. After an in-depth
consideration of all relevant factors, this transaction was approved by the Audit and Conflicts
Committee of our general partner and the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the general partner of
TEPPCO. The ACG Committee of Enterprise Products GP received a fairness opinion in connection with
this transaction. In our Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2006, we mistakenly
reported that the Audit & Conflicts Committee of TEPPCO GP had also received a fairness opinion in connection
with this transaction; however, they did not. The transaction was reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Audit Committee of TEPPCO GP, with assistance from an independent financial
advisor.
We account for our investment in the Jonah joint venture using the equity method. As a result
of entering into the Jonah joint venture, we reclassified $52.1 million expended on this project
through July 31, 2006 (representing our 50% share at inception of the joint venture) from Other
Assets to Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates on our Consolidated Balance
Sheets (see Note 11). The remaining $52.1 million we spent through this date is included in the
$109.4 million we billed TEPPCO (see above).
F-66
We have agreed to indemnify TEPPCO from any and all losses, claims, demands, suits,
liabilities, costs and expenses arising out of or related to breaches of our representations,
warranties, or covenants related to the Jonah joint venture. A claim for indemnification cannot be
filed until the losses suffered by TEPPCO exceed $1.0 million. The maximum potential amount of
future payments under the indemnity agreement is limited to $100.0 million. All indemnity payments
are net of insurance recoveries that TEPPCO may receive from third-party insurance carriers. We
carry insurance coverage that may offset any payments required under the indemnification.
Purchase of Houston-area pipelines from TEPPCO. In October 2006, we purchased certain
idle pipeline assets in the Houston, Texas area from TEPPCO for $11.7 million in cash (see Note
10). The acquired pipelines will be modified for natural gas service. The purchase of this asset
was in accordance with the Board-approved management authorization policy.
Purchase and lease of pipelines for DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline System from TEPPCO.
In January 2007, we purchased a 10-mile segment of pipeline from TEPPCO located in the Houston area
for $8.0 million that is part of the DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline. In addition, we entered into a
lease with TEPPCO for a 11-mile interconnecting pipeline located in the Houston area. The primary
term of this lease expires in September 2007, and will continue on a month-to-month basis subject
to termination by either party upon 60 days notice. This pipeline is being leased by a subsidiary
of Duncan Energy Partners in connection with operations on its DEP South Texas NGL Pipeline until
construction of a parallel pipeline is completed. These transactions were in accordance with the
Board-approved management authorization policy.
Relationship with Employee Partnerships
EPE Unit I. In connection with the initial public offering of Enterprise GP Holdings,
EPCO formed EPE Unit I to serve as an incentive arrangement for certain employees of EPCO through a
profits interest in EPE Unit I. EPCO serves as the general partner of EPE Unit I. In connection
with the closing of Enterprise GP Holdings initial public offering, EPCO Holdings, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of EPCO, borrowed $51.0 million under its credit facility and contributed the
proceeds to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Duncan Family Interests, Inc. (Duncan Family Interests).
Subsequently, Duncan Family Interests contributed the $51.0 million to EPE Unit I as a capital
contribution and was issued the Class A limited partner interest in EPE Unit I. EPE Unit I used the
contributed funds to purchase 1,821,428 units directly from Enterprise GP Holdings at the initial
public offering price of $28.00 per unit. Certain EPCO employees, including all of Enterprise
Products GPs then current executive officers other than the Chairman, were issued Class B limited
partner interests without any capital contribution and admitted as Class B limited partners of EPE
Unit I.
Unless otherwise agreed to by EPCO, Duncan Family Interests and a majority in interest of
the Class B limited partners of EPE Unit I, EPE Unit I will terminate at the earlier of five years
following the closing of Enterprise GP Holdings initial public offering or a change in control of
Enterprise GP Holdings or its general partner. EPE Unit I has the following material terms
regarding its quarterly cash distribution to partners:
|
§ |
|
Distributions of Cash Flow - Each quarter, 100% of the cash distributions received by
EPE Unit I from Enterprise GP Holdings will be distributed to the Class A limited partner
until Duncan Family Interests has received an amount equal to the Class A preferred return
(as defined below), and any remaining distributions received by EPE Unit I will be
distributed to the Class B limited partners. The Class A preferred return equals 1.5625%
per quarter, or 6.25% per annum, of the Class A limited partners capital base. The Class
A limited partners capital base equals $51 million plus any unpaid Class A preferred
return from prior periods, less any distributions made by EPE Unit I of proceeds from the
sale of Enterprise GP Holdings units owned by EPE Unit I (as described below). |
F-67
|
§ |
|
Liquidating Distributions - Upon liquidation of EPE Unit I, units having a fair market
value equal to the Class A limited partner capital base will be distributed to Duncan
Family Interests, plus any accrued Class A preferred return for the quarter in which
liquidation occurs. Any remaining units will be distributed to the Class B limited
partners. |
|
|
§ |
|
Sale Proceeds - If EPE Unit I sells any of the 1,821,428 Enterprise GP
Holdings units that it owns, the sale proceeds will be distributed to the Class A limited
partner and the Class B limited partners in the same manner as liquidating distributions
described above. |
The Class B limited partner interests in EPE Unit I that are owned by EPCO employees are
subject to forfeiture if the participating employees employment with EPCO and its affiliates is
terminated prior to the fifth anniversary of the closing of Enterprise GP Holdings initial public
offering, with customary exceptions for death, disability and certain retirements. The risk of
forfeiture associated with the Class B limited partner interests in EPE Unit I will also lapse upon
certain change of control events.
Since Enterprise GP Holdings has an indirect interest in us through its ownership of our
general partner, EPE Unit I, including its Class B limited partners, may derive some benefit from
our results of operations. Accordingly, a portion of the fair value of these equity awards is
allocated to us under the EPCO administrative services agreement as a non-cash expense. We,
Enterprise Products GP, Duncan Energy Partners, DEP Holdings and Enterprise GP Holdings will not
reimburse EPCO, EPE Unit I or any of their affiliates or partners, through the administrative
services agreement or otherwise, for any expenses related to EPE Unit I, including the contribution
of $51 million to EPE Unit I by Duncan Family Interests or the purchase of Enterprise GP Holdings
units by EPE Unit I.
For the period that EPE Unit I was in existence during 2005, EPCO accounted for this
equity-based awards using the provisions of APB 25. Under APB 25, the intrinsic value of the Class
B limited partner interests was accounted for in a manner similar to stock appreciation rights
(i.e. variable accounting). Upon our adoption of SFAS 123(R), we began recognizing compensation
expense based upon the estimated grant date fair value of the Class B partnership equity awards.
EPCOs non-cash compensation expense related to this arrangement is allocated to us and other
affiliates of EPCO based on our usage of each employees services. For the years ended December
31, 2006 and 2005, we recorded $2.1 million and $2.0 million, respectively, of non-cash
compensation expense for these awards associated with employees who work on our behalf.
EPE Unit II. In December 2006, EPE Unit II was formed to serve as an incentive
arrangement for an executive officer of our general partner. This officer, who is not a
participant in EPE Unit I, was granted a profits interest in EPE Unit II. EPCO serves as the
general partner of EPE Unit II.
Duncan Family Interests contributed $1.5 million to EPE Unit II as a capital contribution and
was issued the Class A limited partner interest in EPE Unit II. EPE Unit II used these funds to
purchase 40,725 units of Enterprise GP Holdings on the open market at an average price of $36.91
per unit in December 2006. The officer was issued a Class B limited partner interest in EPE Unit
II without any capital contribution. The significant terms of EPE Unit II (e.g. termination
provisions, quarterly distributions of cash flow, liquidating distributions, forfeitures, and
treatment of sale proceeds) are similar to those for EPE Unit I except that the Class A capital
base for Duncan Family Interest is $1.5 million.
As with EPE Unit I, EPCOs non-cash compensation expense related to this arrangement is
allocated to us and other affiliates of EPCO based on our usage of the officers services. In
accordance with SFAS 123(R), we recognize compensation expense associated with EPE Unit II based on
the estimated grant date fair value of the Class B partnership equity award. Since EPE Unit II was
formed in December 2006, we recorded a nominal amount of expense associated with this award during
the year ended December 31, 2006.
See Note 5 for additional information regarding our accounting for equity awards.
F-68
EPCO Administrative Services Agreement. We have no employees. All of our management,
administrative and operating functions are performed by employees of EPCO pursuant to an
administrative services agreement (the ASA). We and our general partner, Enterprise GP Holdings
and its general partner, Duncan Energy Partners and its general partner, and TEPPCO and its general
partner, among other affiliates, are parties to the ASA. The significant terms of the ASA are as
follows:
|
§ |
|
EPCO will provide selling, general and administrative services, and management and
operating services, as may be necessary to manage and operate our business, properties and
assets (in accordance with prudent industry practices). EPCO will employ or otherwise
retain the services of such personnel as may be necessary to provide such services. |
|
|
§ |
|
We are required to reimburse EPCO for its services in an amount equal to the sum of all
costs and expenses incurred by EPCO which are directly or indirectly related to our
business or activities (including expenses reasonably allocated to us by EPCO). In
addition, we have agreed to pay all sales, use, excise, value added or similar taxes, if
any, that may be applicable from time to time in respect of the services provided to us by
EPCO. |
|
|
§ |
|
EPCO will allow us to participate as named insureds in its overall insurance program,
with the associated premiums and other costs being allocated to us. |
Under the ASA, EPCO subleases to us (for $1 per year) certain equipment which it holds
pursuant to operating leases and has assigned to us its purchase option under such leases (the
retained leases). EPCO remains liable for the actual cash lease payments associated with these
agreements. We record the full value of these payments made by EPCO on our behalf as a non-cash
related party operating lease expense, with the offset to partners equity accounted for as a
general contribution to our partnership. At December 31, 2005, the retained leases were for a
cogeneration unit and approximately 100 railcars. Should we decide to exercise the purchase
options associated with the retained leases, $2.3 million would be payable in 2008 and $3.1 million
in 2016.
Our operating costs and expenses for 2006, 2005 and 2004 include reimbursement payments to
EPCO for the costs it incurs to operate our facilities, including compensation of employees. We
reimburse EPCO for actual direct and indirect expenses it incurs related to the operation of our
assets.
Likewise, our general and administrative costs for 2006, 2005 and 2004 include amounts we
reimburse to EPCO for administrative services, including compensation of employees. In general,
our reimbursement to EPCO for administrative services is either (i) on an actual basis for direct
expenses it may incur on our behalf (e.g., the purchase of office supplies) or (ii) based on an
allocation of such charges between the various parties to ASA based on the estimated use of such
services by each party (e.g., the allocation of general legal or accounting salaries based on
estimates of time spent on each entitys business and affairs).
The ASA also addresses potential conflicts that may arise among us and our general partner,
Duncan Energy Partners and its general partner, DEP Holdings, LLC (DEP Holdings) Enterprise GP
Holdings and its general partner, and the EPCO Group, which includes EPCO and its affiliates (but
does not include the aforementioned entities and their controlled affiliates). The administrative
services agreement provides, among other things, that:
|
§ |
|
If a business opportunity to acquire equity securities (as defined) is presented to
the EPCO Group, us and our general partner, Duncan Energy Partners, its general partner,
and its operating partnership, or Enterprise GP Holdings and its general partner, then
Enterprise GP Holdings will have the first right to pursue such opportunity. The term
equity securities is defined to include: |
|
§ |
|
general partner interests (or securities which have characteristics similar to
general partner interests) and incentive distribution rights or similar rights in
publicly traded partnerships or interests in persons that own or control such
general partner or similar interests |
F-69
|
|
|
(collectively, GP Interests) and securities convertible, exercisable, exchangeable or
otherwise representing ownership or control of such GP Interests; and |
|
|
§ |
|
incentive distribution rights and limited partner interests (or securities which
have characteristics similar to incentive distribution rights or limited partner
interests) in publicly traded partnerships or interests in persons that own or
control such limited partner or similar interests (collectively, non-GP Interests);
provided that such non-GP Interests are associated with GP Interests and are owned by
the owners of GP Interests or their respective affiliates. |
|
|
|
Enterprise GP Holdings will be presumed to desire to acquire the equity securities until
such time as its general partner advises the EPCO Group, Enterprise Products GP and DEP
Holdings that it has abandoned the pursuit of such business opportunity. In the event that
the purchase price of the equity securities is reasonably likely to equal or exceed $100
million, the decision to decline the acquisition will be made by the chief executive
officer of EPE Holdings after consultation with and subject to the approval of the ACG
Committee of EPE Holdings. If the purchase price is reasonably likely to be less than such
threshold amount, the chief executive officer of EPE Holdings may make the determination to
decline the acquisition without consulting the ACG Committee of EPE Holdings. |
|
|
|
|
In the event that Enterprise GP Holdings abandons the acquisition and so notifies the EPCO
Group, Enterprise Products GP and DEP Holdings, we will have the second right to pursue
such acquisition either for us or, if desired by us in our sole discretion, for the benefit
of Duncan Energy Partners. In the event that we affirmatively direct the opportunity to
Duncan Energy Partners, Duncan Energy Partners may pursue such acquisition. We will be
presumed to desire to acquire the equity securities until such time as Enterprise Products
GP advises the EPCO Group and DEP Holdings that we have abandoned the pursuit of such
acquisition. In determining whether or not to pursue the acquisition, we will follow the
same procedures applicable to Enterprise GP Holdings, as described above but utilizing
Enterprise Products GPs chief executive officer and ACG Committee. In the event we
abandon the acquisition opportunity for the equity securities and so notify the EPCO Group
and DEP Holdings, the EPCO Group may pursue the acquisition or offer the opportunity to
EPCO Holdings or TEPPCO, TEPPCO GP and their controlled affiliates, in either case, without
any further obligation to any other party or offer such opportunity to other affiliates. |
|
|
§ |
|
If any business opportunity not covered by the preceding bullet point (i.e. not
involving equity securities) is presented to the EPCO Group, Enterprise GP Holdings, EPE
Holdings, Duncan Energy Partners, DEP Holdings, our general partner or us, we will have
the first right to pursue such opportunity either for us or, if desired by us in our sole
discretion, for the benefit of Duncan Energy Partners. We will be presumed to desire to
pursue the business opportunity until such time as Enterprise Products GP advises the EPCO
Group, EPE Holdings and DEP Holdings that we have abandoned the pursuit of such business
opportunity. |
|
|
|
|
In the event the purchase price or cost associated with the business opportunity is
reasonably likely to equal or exceed $100 million, any decision to decline the business
opportunity will be made by the chief executive officer of Enterprise Products GP after
consultation with and subject to the approval of the ACG Committee of Enterprise Products
GP. If the purchase price or cost is reasonably likely to be less than such threshold
amount, the chief executive officer of Enterprise Products GP may make the determination to
decline the business opportunity without consulting Enterprise Products GPs ACG Committee.
In the event that we affirmatively direct the business opportunity to Duncan Energy
Partners, Duncan Energy Partners may pursue such business opportunity. In the event that
we abandon the business opportunity for us and for Duncan Energy Partners and so notify the
EPCO Group, EPE Holdings and DEP Holdings, Enterprise GP Holdings will have the second
right to pursue such business opportunity, and will be presumed to desire to do so, until
such time as EPE Holdings shall have determined to abandon the pursuit of |
F-70
such opportunity in accordance with the procedures described above, and shall have advised
the EPCO Group that Enterprise GP Holdings has abandoned the pursuit of such acquisition.
In the event that Enterprise GP Holdings abandons the acquisition and so notifies the EPCO
Group, the EPCO Group may either pursue the business opportunity or offer the business
opportunity to EPCO Holdings or TEPPCO, TEPPCO GP and their controlled affiliates without
any further obligation to any other party or offer such opportunity to other affiliates.
None of the EPCO Group, Enterprise GP Holdings, EPE Holdings, DEP Holdings, Duncan Energy
Partners or its operating partnership, our general partner or us have any obligation to present
business opportunities to TEPPCO, TEPPCO GP or their controlled affiliates. Likewise, TEPPCO,
TEPPCO GP and their controlled affiliates have no obligation to present business opportunities to
the EPCO Group, Enterprise GP Holdings, EPE Holdings, DEP Holdings, Duncan Energy Partners or its
operating partnership, our general partner or us.
Relationships with Unconsolidated Affiliates
Many of our unconsolidated affiliates perform supporting or complementary roles to our other
business operations. See Note 16 for a discussion of this alignment of commercial interests.
Since we and our affiliates hold ownership interests in these entities and directly or indirectly
benefit from our related party transactions with such entities, they are presented here.
The following information summarizes significant related party transactions with our current
unconsolidated affiliates:
|
§ |
|
We sell natural gas to Evangeline, which, in turn, uses the natural gas to satisfy
supply commitments it has with a major Louisiana utility. Revenues from Evangeline were
$277.7 million, $318.8 million and $233.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2006,
2005 and 2004. In addition, we furnished $1.1 million in letters of credit on behalf
of Evangeline at December 31, 2006. |
|
|
§ |
|
We pay Promix for the transportation, storage and fractionation of NGLs. In addition,
we sell natural gas to Promix for its plant fuel requirements. Expenses with Promix were
$34.9 million, $26.0 million and $23.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005
and 2004. Additionally, revenues from Promix were $21.8 million, $25.8 million and $18.6
million for the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004. |
|
|
§ |
|
We perform management services for certain of our unconsolidated affiliates. These
fees were $8.9 million, $8.3 million and $2.1 million for the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004. |
Review and Approval of Transactions with Related Parties
Our partnership agreement and ACG Committee charter set forth policies and procedures for the
review and approval of certain transactions with persons affiliated with or related to us. As
further described below, our partnership agreement and ACG Committee charter set forth procedures
by which related party transactions and conflicts of interest may be approved or resolved by the
general partner or the ACG Committee. Under our partnership agreement, unless otherwise expressly
provided therein or in the partnership agreements of the Operating Partnership, whenever a
potential conflict of interest exists or arises between our general partner or any of its
affiliates, on the one hand, and us, any of our subsidiaries or any partner, on the other hand, any
resolution or course of action by the general partner or its affiliates in respect of such conflict
of interest is permitted and deemed approved by all of our partners, and will not constitute a
breach of our partnership agreement, the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership or any
agreement contemplated by such agreements, or of any duty stated or implied by law or equity, if
the resolution or course of action is or, by operation of the partnership agreement is deemed to
be, fair and reasonable to us; provided that, any conflict of interest and any resolution of such
conflict of interest will be
F-71
conclusively deemed fair and reasonable to us if such conflict of interest or resolution is (i)
approved by a majority of the members of our ACG Committee (Special Approval), as long as the
material facts within the actual knowledge of the officers and directors of the General Partner and
EPCO regarding the proposed transaction were disclosed to the committee at the time it gave its
approval, or (ii) on terms objectively demonstrable to be no less favorable to us than those
generally being provided to or available from unrelated third parties.
The ACG Committee (in connection with Special Approval) is authorized in connection with its
determination of what is fair and reasonable to the Partnership and in connection with its
resolution of any conflict of interest to consider:
|
§ |
|
the relative interests of any party to such conflict, agreement, transaction or
situation and the benefits and burdens relating to such interest; |
|
|
§ |
|
any customary or accepted industry practices and any customary or historical dealings
with a particular person; |
|
|
§ |
|
any applicable generally accepted accounting practices or principles; and |
|
|
§ |
|
such additional factors as the committee determines in its sole discretion to be
relevant, reasonable or appropriate under the circumstances. |
Our Board of Directors or our general partner may, in their discretion, request that our ACG
Committee review and approve related party transactions. The review and approval process of the
ACG Committee, including factual matters that may be considered in determining whether a
transaction is fair and reasonable, is generally governed by Section 7.9 of our partnership
agreement. As discussed above, the ACG Committees Special Approval is conclusively deemed fair
and reasonable to us under the partnership agreement. The processes followed by our management in
approving or obtaining approval of related party transactions are in accordance with our written
management authorization policy, which has been approved by the Board.
Under our Board-approved management authorization policy,
the officers of our general partner
have authorization limits for purchases and sales of assets, capital expenditures,
commercial and financial transactions and legal agreements that ultimately limit the ability of
executives of our general partner to enter into transactions involving capital expenditures in
excess of $100 million without Board approval. This policy covers all transactions, including
transactions with related parties. For example, under this policy, the chairman of our general
partner may approve capital expenditures or the sale or other disposition of our assets up to a
$100 million limit. Furthermore, any two of the chief executive officer and senior executives who
are directors of our general partner may approve capital expenditures or the sale or other
disposition of our assets up to a $100 million limit and and individually may approve capital
expenditures or the sale or other disposition of our assets up to $50 million. These senior
executives have also been granted full approval authority for commercial, financial and service
contracts.
In submitting a matter to the ACG Committee, the Board or the general partner may charge the
committee with reviewing the transaction and providing the Board a recommendation, or it may
delegate to the committee the power to approve the matter. When so engaged, the ACG Committee
Charter currently provides that, unless the ACG Committee otherwise determines, the ACG Committee
shall perform the following functions:
|
§ |
|
Review a summary of the proposed transaction(s) that outlines (i) its terms and
conditions (explicit and implicit), (ii) a brief history of the transaction, and (iii) the
impact that the transaction will have on our unitholders and personnel, including earnings
per unit and distributable cash flow. |
|
|
§ |
|
Review due diligence findings by management and make additional due diligence
requests, if necessary. |
F-72
|
§ |
|
Engage third-party independent advisors, where necessary, to provide committee members
with comparable market values, legal advice and similar services directly related to the
proposed transaction. |
|
|
§ |
|
Conduct interviews regarding the proposed transaction with the most knowledgeable
company officials to ensure that the committee members have all relevant facts before
rendering their judgment. |
In the normal course of business, our management routinely reviews all other related party
transactions, including proposed asset purchases and business combinations and purchases and sales
of product. As a matter of course, management reviews the terms and conditions of the proposed
transactions, performs appropriate levels of due diligence and assesses the impact of the
transaction on our partnership.
The ACG Committee does not separately review transactions covered by our administrative
services agreement with EPCO, which agreement has previously been approved by the ACG Committee
and/or the Board. The administrative services agreement governs numerous day-to-day transactions
between us and our subsidiaries and EPCO and its affiliates, including the provision by EPCO of
administrative and other services to us and our subsidiaries and our reimbursement of costs for
those services. For a description of the administrative services agreement, please read
"Relationship with EPCO and affiliates Administrative Services Agreement within this Item 13.
Since the beginning of the last fiscal year of our partnership, the ACG Committee reviewed and
approved the purchase of the Pioneer plant from TEPPCO and Jonah Joint Venture with TEPPCO
referenced under this Item 13. All other transactions with related parties referenced under this
Item 13 were either governed by the administrative services agreement or effected under our written
management authorization policy.
Relationship with Shell
Historically, Shell was considered a related party because it owned more than 10% of our
limited partner interests and, prior to 2003, held a 30% membership interest in Enterprise Products
GP. As a result of Shell selling a portion of its limited partner interests in us to third
parties, Shell owned less than 10% of our common units at the beginning of 2005. Shell sold its
30% interest in Enterprise Products GP to an affiliate of EPCO in September 2003. As a result of
Shells reduced equity interest in us and its lack of control of Enterprise Products GP, Shell
ceased to be considered a related party in January 2005. At December 31, 2006, Shell owned
26,976,249, or 6.2%, of our common units, all of which have been registered for resale in the open
market by us. At February 1, 2007, Shell owned 19,635,749 or 4.5% of our common units.
For the year ended December 31, 2004, our revenues from Shell primarily reflected the sale of
NGL and certain petrochemical products and the fees we charged for natural gas processing, pipeline
transportation and NGL fractionation services. Our operating costs and expenses with Shell
primarily reflected the payment of energy-related expenses related to the Shell Processing
Agreement and the purchase of NGL products. We also lease from Shell its 45.4% interest in one of
our propylene fractionation facilities located in Mont Belvieu, Texas.
A significant contract affecting our natural gas processing business is the Shell Processing
Agreement, which grants us the right to process Shells (or an assignees) current and future
production within state and federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Shell Processing Agreement
includes a life of lease dedication, which may extend the agreement well beyond its initial 20-year
term ending in 2019.
F-73
Note 18. Provision for Income Taxes
Our provision for income taxes relates primarily to federal and state income taxes of Seminole
and Dixie, our two largest corporations subject to such income taxes. In addition, with the
enactment of the Texas Margin Tax in 2006, we have become a taxable entity in the state of Texas.
Our federal and state income tax provision is summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Current: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
$ |
7,694 |
|
|
$ |
1,105 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
State |
|
|
1,148 |
|
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
|
Total current |
|
|
8,842 |
|
|
|
1,406 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
|
Deferred: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
|
6,109 |
|
|
|
5,968 |
|
|
|
1,620 |
|
State |
|
|
6,372 |
|
|
|
988 |
|
|
|
1,984 |
|
|
|
|
Total deferred |
|
|
12,481 |
|
|
|
6,956 |
|
|
|
3,604 |
|
|
|
|
Total
provision for
income taxes |
|
$ |
21,323 |
|
|
$ |
8,362 |
|
|
$ |
3,761 |
|
|
|
|
A reconciliation of the provision for income taxes with amounts determined by applying
the statutory U.S. federal income tax rate to income before income taxes is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Taxes computed by applying the federal statutory rate |
|
$ |
13,347 |
|
|
$ |
7,656 |
|
|
$ |
2,308 |
|
State income taxes (net of federal benefit) |
|
|
7,723 |
|
|
|
838 |
|
|
|
1,392 |
|
Taxes charged to cumulative effect of changes
in accounting principle |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other permanent differences |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
|
Provision for income taxes |
|
$ |
21,323 |
|
|
$ |
8,362 |
|
|
$ |
3,761 |
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate |
|
|
56 |
% |
|
|
38 |
% |
|
|
57 |
% |
|
|
|
Significant components of deferred tax liabilities and deferred tax assets as of December
31, 2006 and 2005 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
Deferred Tax Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment Dixie |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
855 |
|
Net operating loss carryforwards |
|
|
19,175 |
|
|
|
17,121 |
|
Credit carryover |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Charitable contribution carryover |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
Employee benefit plans |
|
|
1,990 |
|
|
|
2,403 |
|
Deferred revenue |
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
448 |
|
Equity investment in partnerships |
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligation |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accruals |
|
|
709 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
|
Total Deferred Tax Assets |
|
|
22,506 |
|
|
|
20,943 |
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance |
|
|
(2,994 |
) |
|
|
(2,870 |
) |
|
|
|
Net Deferred Tax Assets |
|
|
19,512 |
|
|
|
18,073 |
|
|
|
|
Deferred Tax Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
30,604 |
|
|
|
13,907 |
|
Other |
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
Total Deferred Tax Liabilities |
|
|
30,682 |
|
|
|
13,913 |
|
|
|
|
Total Net Deferred Tax Assets (Liabilities) |
|
$ |
(11,170 |
) |
|
$ |
4,160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current portion of total net deferred tax assets |
|
$ |
698 |
|
|
$ |
554 |
|
|
|
|
Long-term portion of total net deferred tax assets (liabilities) |
|
$ |
(11,868 |
) |
|
$ |
3,606 |
|
|
|
|
F-74
We had net operating loss carryforwards of $19.2 million and $17.1 million at December
31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. These losses expire in various years between 2007 and 2026 and
are subject to limitations on their utilization. We record a valuation allowance to reduce our
deferred tax assets to the amount of future tax benefit that is more likely than not to be
realized. The valuation allowance was $3.0 million and $2.9 million at December 31, 2006 and 2005,
respectively, and primarily relates to our net operating loss carryforwards.
On May 18, 2006, the State of Texas enacted House Bill 3 which replaced the existing state
franchise tax with a margin tax. In general, legal entities that conduct business in Texas are
subject to the Texas margin tax, including previously non-taxable entities such as limited
partnerships and limited liability partnerships. The tax is assessed on Texas sourced taxable
margin which is defined as the lesser of (i) 70% of total revenue or (ii) total revenue less (a)
cost of goods sold or (b) compensation and benefits.
Although the bill states that the margin tax is not an income tax, it has the characteristics
of an income tax since it is determined by applying a tax rate to a base that considers both
revenues and expenses. Therefore, we have accounted for Texas margin tax as income tax expense in
the period of the laws enactment. We recorded a net deferred tax liability of $6.6 million due to
the enactment of the Texas margin tax. The offsetting net charge of $6.6 million is shown on our
Statement of Consolidated Operations for the year ended December 31, 2006 as a component of
provision for income taxes.
Texas margin tax is effective for returns originally due on or after January 1, 2008. For
calendar year end companies, the margin tax would be applied to 2007 activity.
Note 19. Earnings Per Unit
Basic earnings per unit is computed by dividing net income or loss allocated to limited
partner interests by the weighted-average number of distribution-bearing units outstanding during a
period. Diluted earnings per unit is computed by dividing net income or loss allocated to limited
partner interests by the sum of (i) the weighted-average number of distribution-bearing units
outstanding during a period (as used in determining basic earnings per unit); (ii) the
weighted-average number of performance-based phantom units outstanding during a period; and (iii)
the number of incremental common units resulting from the assumed exercise of dilutive unit options
outstanding during a period (the incremental option units).
The distribution-bearing Class B special units were included in the calculation of basic
earnings per unit prior to their conversion to common units in July 2004.
Treasury units were not considered to be outstanding units; therefore, they were excluded from
the computation of both basic and diluted earnings per unit.
In a period of net operating losses, restricted units, phantom units and incremental option
units are excluded from the calculation of diluted earnings per unit due to their antidilutive
effect. The dilutive incremental option units are calculated using the treasury stock method,
which assumes that proceeds from the exercise of all in-the-money options at the end of each period
are used to repurchase common units at an average market value during the period. The amount of
common units remaining after the proceeds are exhausted represents the potentially dilutive effect
of the securities.
F-75
The amount of net income or loss allocated to limited partner interests is net of our general
partners share of such earnings. The following table presents the allocation of net income to
Enterprise Products GP for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
601,155 |
|
|
$ |
419,508 |
|
|
$ |
268,261 |
|
Less incentive earnings allocations to Enterprise Products GP |
|
|
(86,710 |
) |
|
|
(63,884 |
) |
|
|
(32,391 |
) |
|
|
|
Net income available after incentive earnings allocation |
|
|
514,445 |
|
|
|
355,624 |
|
|
|
235,870 |
|
Multiplied by Enterprise Products GP ownership interest |
|
|
2.0 |
% |
|
|
2.0 |
% |
|
|
2.0 |
% |
|
|
|
Standard earnings allocation to Enterprise Products GP |
|
$ |
10,289 |
|
|
$ |
7,112 |
|
|
$ |
4,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive earnings allocation to Enterprise Products GP |
|
$ |
86,710 |
|
|
$ |
63,884 |
|
|
$ |
32,391 |
|
Standard earnings allocation to Enterprise Products GP |
|
|
10,289 |
|
|
|
7,112 |
|
|
|
4,717 |
|
|
|
|
Enterprise Products GP interest in net income |
|
$ |
96,999 |
|
|
$ |
70,996 |
|
|
$ |
37,108 |
|
|
|
|
F-76
The following table presents our calculation of basic and diluted earnings per unit for
the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Income before changes in accounting principles
and Enterprise Products GP interest |
|
$ |
599,683 |
|
|
$ |
423,716 |
|
|
$ |
257,480 |
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles |
|
|
1,472 |
|
|
|
(4,208 |
) |
|
|
10,781 |
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
|
601,155 |
|
|
|
419,508 |
|
|
|
268,261 |
|
Less Enterprise Products GP interest in net income |
|
|
(96,999 |
) |
|
|
(70,996 |
) |
|
|
(37,108 |
) |
|
|
|
Net income available to limited partners |
|
$ |
504,156 |
|
|
$ |
348,512 |
|
|
$ |
231,153 |
|
|
|
|
BASIC EARNINGS PER UNIT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before changes in accounting principles
and Enterprise Products GP interest |
|
$ |
599,683 |
|
|
$ |
423,716 |
|
|
$ |
257,480 |
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles |
|
|
1,472 |
|
|
|
(4,208 |
) |
|
|
10,781 |
|
Enterprise Products GP interest in net income |
|
|
(96,999 |
) |
|
|
(70,996 |
) |
|
|
(37,108 |
) |
|
|
|
Limited partners interest in net income |
|
$ |
504,156 |
|
|
$ |
348,512 |
|
|
$ |
231,153 |
|
|
|
|
Denominator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common units |
|
|
413,472 |
|
|
|
381,857 |
|
|
|
262,838 |
|
Restricted units |
|
|
970 |
|
|
|
606 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
Class B special units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,532 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
414,442 |
|
|
|
382,463 |
|
|
|
265,511 |
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per unit before changes in accounting principles
and Enterprise Products GP interest |
|
$ |
1.45 |
|
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
|
$ |
0.97 |
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
0.04 |
|
Less Enterprise Products GP interest in net income |
|
|
(0.23 |
) |
|
|
(0.19 |
) |
|
|
(0.14 |
) |
|
|
|
Limited partners interest in net income |
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.91 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
|
|
DILUTED EARNINGS PER UNIT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before changes in accounting principles
and Enterprise Products GP interest |
|
$ |
599,683 |
|
|
$ |
423,716 |
|
|
$ |
257,480 |
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles |
|
|
1,472 |
|
|
|
(4,208 |
) |
|
|
10,781 |
|
Less Enterprise Products GP interest in net income |
|
|
(96,999 |
) |
|
|
(70,996 |
) |
|
|
(37,108 |
) |
|
|
|
Limited partners interest in net income |
|
$ |
504,156 |
|
|
$ |
348,512 |
|
|
$ |
231,153 |
|
|
|
|
Denominator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common units |
|
|
413,472 |
|
|
|
381,857 |
|
|
|
262,838 |
|
Class B special units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,532 |
|
Time-vested restricted units |
|
|
970 |
|
|
|
606 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
Performance-based restricted units |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
Series F2 convertible units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Incremental option units |
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
455 |
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
414,759 |
|
|
|
382,963 |
|
|
|
266,045 |
|
|
|
|
Diluted earnings per unit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per unit before changes in accounting principles
and Enterprise Products GP interest |
|
$ |
1.45 |
|
|
$ |
1.11 |
|
|
$ |
0.97 |
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting principles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
0.04 |
|
Enterprise Products GP interest in net income |
|
|
(0.23 |
) |
|
|
(0.19 |
) |
|
|
(0.14 |
) |
|
|
|
Limited partners interest in net income |
|
$ |
1.22 |
|
|
$ |
0.91 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
|
|
Note 20. Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation
On occasion, we are named as a defendant in litigation relating to our normal business
activities, including regulatory and environmental matters. Although we are insured against
various business risks to
F-77
the extent we believe it is prudent, there is no assurance that the nature and amount of such
insurance will be adequate, in every case, to indemnify us against liabilities arising from future
legal proceedings as a result of our ordinary business activities. We are unaware of any
significant litigation, pending or threatened, that could have a significant adverse effect on our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations.
Several lawsuits have been filed by municipalities and other water suppliers against a number
of manufacturers of reformulated gasoline containing methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). In
general, such suits have not named manufacturers of MTBE as defendants, and there have been no such
lawsuits filed against our subsidiary that owns an octane-additive production facility. It is
possible, however, that former MTBE manufacturers such as our subsidiary could ultimately be added
as defendants in such lawsuits or in new lawsuits.
We acquired additional ownership interests in our Mont Belvieu, Texas octane-additive
production facility from affiliates of Devon Energy Corporation (Devon), which sold us its 33.3%
interest in 2003, and Sunoco, Inc. (Sun), which sold us its 33.3% interest in 2004. As a result
of these acquisitions, we own 100% of the octane-additive production facility. Devon and Sun have
indemnified us for any liabilities (including potential liabilities as described in the preceding
paragraph) that are in respect of periods prior to the date we purchased such interests and linked
to the period of time they held such interests. There are no dollar limits or deductibles
associated with the indemnities we received from Sun and Devon.
On September 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of TEPPCO, filed a complaint
in the Court of Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual capacity,
as a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders of TEPPCO, and derivatively on behalf of
TEPPCO, concerning, among other things, certain transactions involving TEPPCO and us or our
affiliates. The complaint names as defendants (i) TEPPCO, its current and certain former
directors, and certain of its affiliates; (ii) us and certain of our affiliates, including the
parent company of our general partner; (iii) EPCO, Inc.; and (iv) Dan L. Duncan.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants have caused TEPPCO to enter
into certain transactions with us or our affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise unfairly
favored us or our affiliates over TEPPCO. These transactions are alleged to include the joint
venture to further expand the Jonah Gathering System entered into by TEPPCO and one of our
affiliates in August 2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of our affiliates of the Pioneer gas
processing plant in March 2006. The complaint seeks (i) rescission of these transactions or an
award of rescissory damages with respect thereto; (ii) damages for profits and special benefits
allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and (iii)
awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees and expenses of his attorneys and experts.
We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. See Note 17
for additional information regarding our relationship with TEPPCO.
On February 13, 2007, our Operating Partnership received notice from the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) that it was the subject of a criminal investigation related to an ammonia release
in Kingman County, Kansas on October 27, 2004 from a pressurized anhydrous ammonia pipeline owned
by a third party, Magellan Ammonia Pipeline, L.P. (Magellan). Our Operating Partnership is the
operator of this pipeline. On February 14, 2007, our
Operating Partnership received a letter from the Environment and Natural Resources Division
(ENRD) of the DOJ regarding this incident and a previous release of ammonia on September 27, 2004
from the same pipeline. The ENRD has indicated that it may pursue civil damages against our
Operating Partnership and Magellan as a result of these incidents. Based on this correspondence
from the ENRD, the statutory maximum amount of civil fines that could be assessed against our
Operating Partnership and Magellan is up to $17.4 million in the aggregate. Our Operating
Partnership is cooperating with the DOJ and is hopeful that an expeditious resolution acceptable to
all parties will be reached in the near future. Our Operating Partnership is seeking defense and
indemnity under the pipeline operating agreement between it and Magellan. At this time, we do not
believe that a final resolution of either the criminal investigation by the DOJ or the civil claims
by the ENRD will have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.
F-78
On October 25, 2006, a rupture in the Magellan Ammonia Pipeline resulted in the release of
ammonia near Clay Center, Kansas. We and Magellan are in the process of estimating the repair and
remediation costs associated with this release. Environmental remediation efforts continue in and
around the site of the release under the supervision and management of affiliates of Magellan. Our operating agreement with Magellan provides
the Operating Partnership with an indemnity clause for claims arising from such releases. At this time, we do not believe that this incident
will have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.
Contractual Obligations
The following table summarizes our various contractual obligations at December 31, 2006. A
description of each type of contractual obligation follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payment or Settlement due by Period |
Contractual Obligations |
|
Total |
|
2007 |
|
2008 |
|
2009 |
|
2010 |
|
2011 |
|
Thereafter |
|
Scheduled maturities of long-term debt |
|
$ |
5,329,068 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
500,000 |
|
|
$ |
569,068 |
|
|
$ |
1,360,000 |
|
|
$ |
2,900,000 |
|
Operating lease obligations |
|
$ |
274,700 |
|
|
$ |
19,190 |
|
|
$ |
19,877 |
|
|
$ |
16,374 |
|
|
$ |
15,688 |
|
|
$ |
16,263 |
|
|
$ |
187,308 |
|
Purchase obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product purchase commitments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated payment obligations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas |
|
$ |
920,736 |
|
|
$ |
153,316 |
|
|
$ |
153,736 |
|
|
$ |
153,316 |
|
|
$ |
153,316 |
|
|
$ |
153,316 |
|
|
$ |
153,736 |
|
NGLs |
|
$ |
2,902,805 |
|
|
$ |
959,127 |
|
|
$ |
223,570 |
|
|
$ |
213,315 |
|
|
$ |
213,315 |
|
|
$ |
213,315 |
|
|
$ |
1,080,163 |
|
Petrochemicals |
|
$ |
2,656,633 |
|
|
$ |
1,110,957 |
|
|
$ |
448,334 |
|
|
$ |
245,028 |
|
|
$ |
220,037 |
|
|
$ |
119,397 |
|
|
$ |
512,880 |
|
Other |
|
$ |
79,418 |
|
|
$ |
35,183 |
|
|
$ |
27,653 |
|
|
$ |
13,681 |
|
|
$ |
765 |
|
|
$ |
659 |
|
|
$ |
1,477 |
|
Underlying major volume commitments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas (in BBtus) |
|
|
109,600 |
|
|
|
18,250 |
|
|
|
18,300 |
|
|
|
18,250 |
|
|
|
18,250 |
|
|
|
18,250 |
|
|
|
18,300 |
|
NGLs (in MBbls) |
|
|
68,331 |
|
|
|
21,957 |
|
|
|
5,322 |
|
|
|
5,086 |
|
|
|
5,086 |
|
|
|
5,086 |
|
|
|
25,794 |
|
Petrochemicals (in MBbls) |
|
|
45,535 |
|
|
|
19,250 |
|
|
|
7,460 |
|
|
|
4,289 |
|
|
|
3,670 |
|
|
|
2,024 |
|
|
|
8,842 |
|
Service payment commitments |
|
$ |
15,725 |
|
|
$ |
10,413 |
|
|
$ |
3,759 |
|
|
$ |
900 |
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
467 |
|
Capital expenditure commitments |
|
$ |
239,000 |
|
|
$ |
239,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Scheduled Maturities of Long-Term Debt. We have long-term and short-term payment
obligations under debt agreements such as the indentures governing our Operating Partnerships
senior notes and the credit agreement governing our Operating Partnerships Multi-Year Revolving
Credit Facility. Amounts shown in the preceding table represent our scheduled future maturities of
debt principal for the periods indicated. See Note 14 for additional information regarding our
consolidated debt obligations.
Operating Lease Obligations. We lease certain property, plant and equipment under
noncancelable and cancelable operating leases. Amounts shown in the preceding table represent
minimum cash lease payment obligations under our operating leases with terms in excess of one year.
Our significant lease agreements involve (i) the lease of underground caverns for the storage
of natural gas and NGLs, (ii) leased office space with an affiliate of EPCO, and (iii) land held
pursuant to right-of-way agreements. In general, our material lease agreements have original terms
that range from 14 to 20 years and include renewal options that could extend the agreements for up
to an additional 20 years. Our rental payments under these agreements are generally at fixed
rates, as specified in the individual contract, and may be subject to escalation provisions for
inflation or other market-determined factors. With regards to our leases of underground storage
caverns, we may be assessed contingent rental payments when our storage volumes exceed our reserved
capacity.
Lease expense is charged to operating costs and expenses on a straight line basis over the
period of expected economic benefit. Contingent rental payments are expensed as incurred. We are
generally required to perform routine maintenance on the underlying leased assets. In addition,
certain leases give us the option to make leasehold improvements. Maintenance and repairs of
leased assets resulting from our operations are charged to expense as incurred. We did not make
any significant leasehold improvements
F-79
during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 or 2004; however, we did incur $9.3 million of
repair costs associated with our lease of an underground natural gas storage facility in 2006.
The operating lease commitments shown in the preceding table exclude the non-cash, related
party expense associated with equipment leases contributed to us by EPCO at our formation (the
retained leases). EPCO remains liable for the actual cash lease payments associated with these
agreements, which it accounts for as operating leases. At December 31, 2006, the retained leases
were for a cogeneration unit and approximately 100 railcars. EPCOs minimum future rental payments
under these leases are $2.1 million for each of the years 2007 through 2008, $0.7 million for each
of the years 2009 through 2015 and $0.3 million for 2016. We record the full value of these
payments made by EPCO on our behalf as a non-cash related party operating lease expense, with the
offset to partners equity accounted for as a general contribution to our partnership.
The retained lease agreements contain lessee purchase options, which are at prices that
approximate fair value of the underlying leased assets. EPCO has assigned these purchase options
to us. During the year ended December 31, 2004, we exercised our option to purchase an
isomerization unit and related equipment for $17.8 million. Should we decide to exercise the
remaining purchase options, up to an additional $2.3 million would be payable in 2008 and $3.1
million in 2016.
Lease and rental expense included in operating costs and expenses was $39.3 million, $34.9
million and $19.5 million during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Purchase Obligations. We define a purchase obligation as an agreement to purchase
goods or services that is enforceable and legally binding (unconditional) on us that specifies all
significant terms, including: fixed or minimum quantities to be purchased; fixed, minimum or
variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transactions. We have classified our
unconditional purchase obligations into the following categories:
|
§ |
|
We have long and short-term product purchase obligations for NGLs, certain
petrochemicals and natural gas with third-party suppliers. The prices that we are
obligated to pay under these contracts approximate market prices at the time we take
delivery of the volumes. The preceding table shows our volume commitments and estimated
payment obligations under these contracts for the periods indicated. Our estimated future
payment obligations are based on the contractual price under each contract for purchases
made at December 31, 2006 applied to all future volume commitments. Actual future payment
obligations may vary depending on market prices at the time of delivery. At December 31,
2006, we do not have any product purchase commitments with fixed or minimum pricing
provisions with remaining terms in excess of one year. |
|
|
§ |
|
We have long and short-term commitments to pay third-party providers for services such
as equipment maintenance agreements. Our contractual payment obligations vary by
contract. The preceding table shows our future payment obligations under these service
contracts. |
|
|
§ |
|
We have short-term payment obligations relating to our capital projects and those of
our unconsolidated affiliates. These commitments represent unconditional payment
obligations to vendors for services rendered or products purchased. The preceding table
presents our share of such commitments for the periods indicated. |
Commitments under equity compensation plans of EPCO
In accordance with our agreements with EPCO, we reimburse EPCO for our share of its
compensation expense associated with certain employees who perform management, administrative and
operating functions for us (see Note 17). This includes costs associated with unit option awards
granted to these employees to purchase our common units. At December 31, 2006, there were
2,416,000 unit options outstanding for which we were responsible for reimbursing EPCO for the costs
of such awards.
F-80
The weighted-average strike price of unit option awards outstanding at December 31, 2006 was
$23.32 per common unit. At December 31, 2006, 591,000 of these unit options were exercisable. An
additional 785,000 450,000 and 590,000 of these unit options will be exercisable in 2008, 2009 and
2010, respectively. As these options are exercised, we will reimburse EPCO in the form of a
special cash distribution for the difference between the strike price paid by the employee and the
actual purchase price paid for the units awarded to the employee. See Note 5 for additional
information regarding our accounting for equity awards.
Performance Guaranty
In December 2004, a subsidiary of ours entered into the Independence Hub Agreement (the
Agreement) with six oil and natural gas producers. The Agreement, as amended, obligates our
subsidiary to construct the Independence Hub offshore platform and to process 1 Bcf/d of natural
gas and condensate for the producers.
We have guaranteed to the producers the construction-related performance of our subsidiary up
to an amount of $340.8 million. This figure represents the maximum amount we would pay to the
producers in the remote circumstance where they must finish construction of the platform because
our subsidiary failed to do so. This guarantee will remain in place until the earlier of (i) the
date all guaranteed obligations terminate or expire, or have been paid or otherwise performed or
discharged in full, (ii) upon mutual written consent of us, the producers and our joint venture
partner in the platform project or (iii) mechanical completion of the platform. We expect that
mechanical completion of the Independence Hub platform will occur in March 2007; therefore, we
anticipate that our performance guaranty will exist until at least this forecasted date.
In accordance with FIN 45, Guarantors Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees,
Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others, we recorded the fair value of the
performance guaranty using an expected present value approach. Given the remote probability that
we would be required to perform under the guaranty, we have estimated the fair value of the
performance guaranty at approximately $1.2 million, which is a component of other current
liabilities on our Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2006.
Other Claims
As part of our normal business activities with joint venture partners and certain customers
and suppliers, we occasionally make claims against such parties or have claims made against us as a
result of disputes related to contractual agreements or similar arrangements. As of December 31,
2006, our contingent claims against such parties were approximately $2 million and claims against
us were approximately $34 million. These matters are in various stages of assessment and the
ultimate outcome of such disputes cannot be reasonably estimated. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood of a material adverse outcome related to disputes against us is remote. Accordingly,
accruals for loss contingencies related to these matters, if any, that might result from the
resolution of such disputes have not been reflected in our consolidated financial statements.
Other Commitments
We transport and store natural gas, NGLs and certain petrochemicals for third parties under
various processing, storage, transportation and similar agreements. Under the terms of these
agreements, we are generally required to redeliver volumes to the owner on demand. We are insured
against any physical loss of such volumes due to catastrophic events. At December 31, 2006, NGL
and petrochemical volumes aggregating 8.5 million barrels were due to be redelivered to their
owners along with 12,063 BBtus of natural gas.
F-81
Note 21. Significant Risks and Uncertainties
Nature of Operations in Midstream Energy Industry
Our operations are within the midstream energy industry, which includes gathering,
transporting, processing, fractionating and storing natural gas, NGLs, certain petrochemicals and
crude oil. As such, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition may be affected
by changes in the commodity prices of these hydrocarbon products, including changes in the relative
price levels among these products. In general, the prices of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil and
other hydrocarbon products are subject to fluctuations in response to changes in supply, market
uncertainty and a variety of additional factors that are beyond our control.
Our profitability could be impacted by a decline in the volume of hydrocarbon products
transported, gathered or processed at our facilities. A material decrease in natural gas or crude
oil production or crude oil refining for reasons such as depressed commodity prices or a decrease
in exploration and development activities, could result in a decline in the volume of natural gas,
NGLs and crude oil handled by our facilities.
A reduction in demand for NGL products by the petrochemical, refining or heating industries,
whether because of (i) general economic conditions, (ii) reduced demand by consumers for the end
products made using NGLs, (iii) increased competition from petroleum-based products due to pricing
differences, (iv) adverse weather conditions, (v) government regulations affecting energy commodity
prices, production levels of hydrocarbons or the content of motor gasoline or (vi) other reasons,
could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and financial position.
Credit Risk due to Industry Concentrations
A substantial portion of our revenues are derived from companies in the domestic natural gas,
NGL and petrochemical industries. This concentration could affect our overall exposure to credit
risk since these customers may be affected by similar economic or other conditions. We generally
do not require collateral for our accounts receivable; however, we do attempt to negotiate offset,
prepayment, or automatic debit agreements with customers that are deemed to be credit risks in
order to minimize our potential exposure to any defaults.
Our revenues are derived from a wide customer base. During 2006 and 2005, our largest
customer was The Dow Chemical Company and its affiliates, which accounted for 6.1% and 6.8%,
respectively, of our consolidated revenues. During 2004, our largest customer was Shell Oil
Company and its affiliates (Shell), which accounted for 6.5% of our consolidated revenues.
Counterparty Risk with respect to Financial Instruments
Where we are exposed to credit risk in our financial instrument transactions, we analyze the
counterpartys financial condition prior to entering into an agreement, establish credit and/or
margin limits and monitor the appropriateness of these limits on an ongoing basis. We generally do
not require collateral for our financial instrument transactions.
Weather-Related Risks
We participate as named insureds in EPCOs current insurance program, which provides us with
property damage, business interruption and other coverages, which are customary for the nature and
scope of our operations. EPCO attempts to place all insurance coverage with carriers having
ratings of A or higher. However, two carriers associated with the EPCO insurance program were
downgraded to BBB+ by Standard & Poors during 2006. At present, there is no indication that these
carriers would be unable to fulfill any insuring obligation. Furthermore, we currently do not have
any claims which might be affected by these carriers. EPCO continues to monitor these situations.
F-82
We believe EPCO maintains adequate insurance coverage on our behalf; however, insurance will
not cover every type of interruption that might occur. As a result of severe hurricanes such as
Katrina and Rita that occurred in 2005, market conditions for obtaining property damage insurance
coverage have been difficult. Under EPCOs renewed insurance programs, coverage is more
restrictive, including increased physical damage and business interruption deductibles. For
example, our deductible for onshore physical damage increased from $2.5 million to $5.0 million per
event and our deductible period for onshore business interruption claims increased from 30 days to
60 days. Additional restrictions will be applied in connection with damage caused by named
windstorms.
In addition to changes in coverage, the cost of property damage insurance increased
substantially from prior periods. At present, our annualized cost of insurance premiums for all
lines of coverage is approximately $49.2 million, which represents a $28.1 million, or 133%,
increase from our 2005 annualized insurance cost.
If we were to incur a significant liability for which we were not fully insured, it could have
a material impact on our consolidated financial position and results of operations. In addition,
the proceeds of any such insurance may not be paid in a timely manner and may be insufficient to
reimburse us for repair costs or lost income. Any event that interrupts the revenues generated by
our consolidated operations, or which causes us to make significant expenditures not covered by
insurance, could reduce our ability to pay distributions to partners and, accordingly, adversely
affect the market price of our common units.
The following is a discussion of the general status of our insurance claims related to recent
significant storm events. To the extent we include any estimate or range of estimates regarding
the dollar value of damages, please be aware that a change in our estimates may occur as additional
information becomes available.
Hurricane Ivan insurance claims. Our final purchase price allocation related to the
merger of GulfTerra with a wholly owned subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners in September
2004 (the GulfTerra Merger) included a $26.2 million receivable for insurance claims related to
expenditures to repair property damage to certain pre-merger GulfTerra assets caused by Hurricane
Ivan. During 2006, we received cash reimbursements from insurance carriers totaling $24.1 million
related to these property damage claims, and we expect to recover the remaining $2.1 million in
2007. If the final recovery of funds is different than the amount previously expended, we will
recognize an income impact at that time.
In addition, we have submitted business interruption insurance claims for our estimated losses
caused by Hurricane Ivan. During 2006, we received $17.4 million of nonrefundable cash proceeds
from such claims. We are continuing our efforts to collect residual balances and expect to
complete the process during 2007. To the extent we receive nonrefundable cash proceeds from
business interruption insurance claims, they are recorded as a gain in our Statements of
Consolidated Operations in the period of receipt.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita insurance claims. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, both
significant storms, affected certain of our Gulf Coast assets in August and September of 2005,
respectively. The majority of repairs to our facilities are completed; however, certain minor
repairs are ongoing to two offshore pipelines and an onshore gas processing facility. To the extent
that insurance proceeds from property damage claims are not probable of collection or do not cover
our estimated expenditures (in excess of $5.0 million of insurance deductibles we expensed during
2005), such amounts are charged to earnings when realized. With respect to these storms, we have
$78.2 million of estimated property damage claims outstanding at December 31, 2006, that we believe
are probable of collection during the period 2007 through 2009. For the year ended December 31,
2006, we received $10.5 million of physical damage proceeds related to such storms.
In addition, we received $46.5 million of nonrefundable cash proceeds from business
interruption claims during the year ended December 31, 2006. We are aggressively pursuing
collection of our remaining property damage and business interruption claims related to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
F-83
The following table summarizes proceeds we received during 2006 from business interruption and
property damage insurance claims with respect to certain named storms:
|
|
|
|
|
Business interruption proceeds: |
|
|
|
|
Hurricane Ivan |
|
$ |
17,382 |
|
Hurricane Katrina |
|
|
24,500 |
|
Hurricane Rita |
|
|
22,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total proceeds |
|
$ |
63,882 |
|
|
|
|
|
Property damage proceeds: |
|
|
|
|
Hurricane Ivan |
|
$ |
24,104 |
|
Hurricane Katrina |
|
|
7,500 |
|
Hurricane Rita |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total proceeds |
|
$ |
34,604 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total proceeds received during 2006 |
|
$ |
98,486 |
|
|
|
|
|
During 2005, we received $4.8 million of nonrefundable cash proceeds from business
interruption claims.
Note 22. Supplemental Cash Flow Information
The following table provides information regarding (i) the net effect of changes in our
operating assets and liabilities; (ii) cash payments for interest and (iii) cash payments for
federal and state income taxes for the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Decrease (increase) in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable |
|
$ |
155,628 |
|
|
$ |
(363,857 |
) |
|
$ |
(453,904 |
) |
Inventories |
|
|
(66,288 |
) |
|
|
(148,846 |
) |
|
|
(44,202 |
) |
Prepaid and other current assets |
|
|
14,261 |
|
|
|
(51,163 |
) |
|
|
2,726 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
(22,581 |
) |
|
|
58,762 |
|
|
|
(6,073 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
(12,278 |
) |
|
|
45,802 |
|
|
|
110,497 |
|
Accrued gas payable |
|
|
(8,344 |
) |
|
|
349,979 |
|
|
|
286,089 |
|
Accrued expenses |
|
|
(62,963 |
) |
|
|
(161,989 |
) |
|
|
8,800 |
|
Accrued interest |
|
|
19,671 |
|
|
|
858 |
|
|
|
(199 |
) |
Other current liabilities |
|
|
74,206 |
|
|
|
2,274 |
|
|
|
6,534 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
(7,894 |
) |
|
|
1,785 |
|
|
|
(3,993 |
) |
|
|
|
Net effect of changes in operating accounts |
|
$ |
83,418 |
|
|
$ |
(266,395 |
) |
|
$ |
(93,725 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash payments for interest, net of $55,660, $22,046 and
$2,766 capitalized in 2006,
2005 and 2004, respectively |
|
$ |
213,365 |
|
|
$ |
239,088 |
|
|
$ |
135,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash payments for federal and state income taxes |
|
$ |
10,497 |
|
|
$ |
5,160 |
|
|
$ |
182 |
|
|
|
|
F-84
The following table provides supplemental cash flow information regarding business
combinations we completed during the periods indicated. See Note 12, for additional information
regarding our business combination transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Assets acquired |
|
$ |
477,015 |
|
|
$ |
353,176 |
|
|
$ |
5,946,294 |
|
Less liabilities assumed |
|
|
(19,403 |
) |
|
|
(23,940 |
) |
|
|
(2,269,893 |
) |
|
|
|
Net assets acquired |
|
|
457,612 |
|
|
|
329,236 |
|
|
|
3,676,401 |
|
Less equity issued |
|
|
(181,112 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,910,772 |
) |
Less cash acquired |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,634 |
) |
|
|
(40,968 |
) |
|
|
|
Cash used for business
combinations, net of
cash received |
|
$ |
276,500 |
|
|
$ |
326,602 |
|
|
$ |
724,661 |
|
|
|
|
We incurred liabilities for construction in progress that had not been paid at December
31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 of $195.1 million, $130.2 million and $62.4 million, respectively. Such
amounts are not included under the caption Capital expenditures on the Statements of Consolidated
Cash Flows.
Third parties may be obligated to reimburse us for all or a portion of expenditures on certain
of our capital projects. The majority of such arrangements are associated with projects related to
pipeline construction and production well tie-ins. We received $60.5 million, $47.0 million and
$8.9 million as contributions in aid of our construction costs during the years ended December 31,
2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
Net income for the year ended December 31, 2004 includes a gain on sale of assets of $15.1
million resulting from the satisfaction of certain requirements of an asset sale agreement whereby
we sold a 50% ownership interest in Cameron Highway to a third party. Of the $15.1 million gain we
recognized, $5.0 million was realized in December 2004 and the remainder was collected in 2006.
In June 2005, we received $47.5 million in cash from Cameron Highway as a return of
investment. These funds were distributed to us in connection with the refinancing of Cameron
Highways project debt (see Note 14).
F-85
Note 23. Quarterly Financial Information (Unaudited)
The following table presents selected quarterly financial data for the years ended December
31, 2006 and 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First |
|
Second |
|
Third |
|
Fourth |
|
|
Quarter |
|
Quarter |
|
Quarter |
|
Quarter |
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2006: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
3,250,074 |
|
|
$ |
3,517,853 |
|
|
$ |
3,872,525 |
|
|
$ |
3,350,517 |
|
Operating income |
|
|
193,500 |
|
|
|
186,045 |
|
|
|
274,184 |
|
|
|
206,323 |
|
Income before changes in accounting principles |
|
|
132,302 |
|
|
|
126,295 |
|
|
|
208,302 |
|
|
|
132,784 |
|
Net income |
|
|
133,777 |
|
|
|
126,295 |
|
|
|
208,302 |
|
|
|
132,781 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per unit before changes in accounting principles: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.28 |
|
|
$ |
0.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.28 |
|
|
$ |
0.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
Net income per unit: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.28 |
|
|
$ |
0.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.28 |
|
|
$ |
0.26 |
|
|
$ |
0.43 |
|
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2005: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
2,555,522 |
|
|
$ |
2,671,768 |
|
|
$ |
3,249,291 |
|
|
$ |
3,780,378 |
|
Operating income |
|
|
165,464 |
|
|
|
125,506 |
|
|
|
194,397 |
|
|
|
177,649 |
|
Income before changes in accounting principles |
|
|
109,256 |
|
|
|
70,659 |
|
|
|
131,169 |
|
|
|
112,632 |
|
Net income |
|
|
109,256 |
|
|
|
70,659 |
|
|
|
131,169 |
|
|
|
108,424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income per unit before changes in accounting principles: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
$ |
0.24 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
$ |
0.24 |
|
Net income per unit: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
$ |
0.23 |
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.25 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.29 |
|
|
$ |
0.23 |
|
Note 24. Condensed Financial Information of Operating Partnership
The Operating Partnership conducts substantially all of our business. Currently, we have no
independent operations and no material assets outside those of our Operating Partnership.
We guarantee the debt obligations of our Operating Partnership, with the exception of the
Dixie revolving credit facility and the senior subordinated notes assumed from GulfTerra. If the
Operating Partnership were to default on any debt we guarantee, we would be responsible for full
repayment of that obligation. See Note 14 for additional information regarding our consolidated
debt obligations.
The reconciling items between our consolidated financial statements and those of our Operating
Partnership are insignificant.
F-86
The following table presents condensed consolidated balance sheet data for the Operating
Partnership at the dates indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets |
|
$ |
1,915,937 |
|
|
$ |
1,960,015 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
|
9,832,547 |
|
|
|
8,689,024 |
|
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
564,559 |
|
|
|
471,921 |
|
Intangible assets, net |
|
|
1,003,955 |
|
|
|
913,626 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
590,541 |
|
|
|
494,033 |
|
Deferred tax asset |
|
|
1,632 |
|
|
|
3,606 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
74,103 |
|
|
|
39,014 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
13,983,274 |
|
|
$ |
12,571,239 |
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities |
|
$ |
1,986,444 |
|
|
$ |
1,894,227 |
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
5,295,590 |
|
|
|
4,833,781 |
|
Other long-term liabilities |
|
|
99,845 |
|
|
|
84,486 |
|
Minority interest |
|
|
136,249 |
|
|
|
106,159 |
|
Partners equity |
|
|
6,465,146 |
|
|
|
5,652,586 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
13,983,274 |
|
|
$ |
12,571,239 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total principal amount of Operating Partnership
debt obligations guaranteed by us |
|
$ |
5,314,000 |
|
|
$ |
4,844,000 |
|
|
|
|
The following table presents condensed consolidated statements of operations data for the
Operating Partnership for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
13,990,969 |
|
|
$ |
12,256,959 |
|
|
$ |
8,321,202 |
|
Costs and expenses |
|
|
13,148,530 |
|
|
|
11,605,923 |
|
|
|
7,946,816 |
|
Equity in income of unconsolidated affiliates |
|
|
21,565 |
|
|
|
14,548 |
|
|
|
52,787 |
|
|
|
|
Operating income |
|
|
864,004 |
|
|
|
665,584 |
|
|
|
427,173 |
|
Other expense, net |
|
|
(231,876 |
) |
|
|
(226,075 |
) |
|
|
(153,251 |
) |
|
|
|
Income before provision for income taxes, minority
interest and changes in accounting principles |
|
|
632,128 |
|
|
|
439,509 |
|
|
|
273,922 |
|
Provision for income taxes |
|
|
(21,198 |
) |
|
|
(8,362 |
) |
|
|
(3,761 |
) |
|
|
|
Income before minority interest and changes in
accounting principles |
|
|
610,930 |
|
|
|
431,147 |
|
|
|
270,161 |
|
Minority interest |
|
|
(9,190 |
) |
|
|
(5,989 |
) |
|
|
(8,072 |
) |
|
|
|
Income before changes in accounting principles |
|
|
601,740 |
|
|
|
425,158 |
|
|
|
262,089 |
|
Cumulative effect of changes in accounting
principles |
|
|
1,472 |
|
|
|
(4,208 |
) |
|
|
10,781 |
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
$ |
603,212 |
|
|
$ |
420,950 |
|
|
$ |
272,870 |
|
|
|
|
Note 25. Subsequent Events
Initial Public Offering of Duncan Energy Partners
In September 2006, we formed a new subsidiary, Duncan Energy Partners, to acquire, own, and
operate a diversified portfolio of midstream energy assets. On February 5, 2007, this subsidiary
completed its initial public offering of 14,950,000 common units (including an overallotment amount
of 1,950,000 common units) at $21.00 per unit, which generated net proceeds of $291.3 million.
Subsequently, Duncan Energy Partners distributed $260.6 million of these net proceeds to us (along
with $198.9 million in borrowings under its credit facility) as consideration for certain equity
interests we contributed to Duncan Energy Partners at the closing of its initial public offering.
We used the cash received from Duncan Energy
F-87
Partners to temporarily reduce debt outstanding under our Operating Partnerships Multi-Year
Revolving Credit Facility.
We may contribute other equity interests in our subsidiaries of Duncan Energy Partners in the
near term and use the proceeds we receive from Duncan Energy Partners to fund our capital spending
program.
See Note 17 for additional information regarding our relationship with Duncan Energy Partners
and related transactions with TEPPCO.
Investigation regarding Ammonia Release from Magellan Pipeline
On February 13, 2007, the Operating Partnership of Enterprise Products Partners received
notice from the U.S. Department of Justice that it was the subject of a criminal and civil
investigation related to an ammonia release in Kingman County, Kansas on October 27, 2004 from a
pressurized anhydrous ammonia pipeline owned by Magellan Ammonia Pipeline, L.P. The Operating
Partnership is the operator of this pipeline. See Note 20.
SCHEDULE II
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P.
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance At |
|
Charged To |
|
Charged To |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning |
|
Costs And |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance At |
Description |
|
Of Period |
|
Expenses |
|
Accounts |
|
Deductions |
|
End of Period |
Accounts receivable trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006 |
|
$ |
37,329 |
|
|
$ |
473 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(14,396 |
) |
|
$ |
23,406 |
|
2005 |
|
|
32,773 |
|
|
|
5,391 |
|
|
|
5,541 |
|
|
|
(6,376 |
) |
|
|
37,329 |
|
2004 |
|
|
20,423 |
|
|
|
4,840 |
|
|
|
12,621 |
|
|
|
(5,111 |
) |
|
|
32,773 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For additional information regarding our allowance for doubtful accounts, see Note 2. |
F-88
Index to Exhibits
The following exhibits have been filed with this report. The other exhibits required to be
filed with this annual report have been incorporated by reference as indicated in the exhibit
table found under Item 15 of this annual report on Form 10-K.
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description of Exhibit |
|
4.47
|
|
Third Amendment dated January 5, 2007, to Multi-Year Revolving
Credit Agreement dated as of August 25, 2004 among Enterprise
Products Operating L.P., the Lenders party thereto, Wachovia Bank,
National Association, as Administrative Agent, Citibank, N.A. and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Co-Syndication Agents and Mizuho Corporate
Bank, LTD, SunTrust Bank and The Bank of Nova Scotia, as
Co-Documentation Agents. |
10.8
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Fourth Amended and Restated Administrative
Services Agreement dated February 28, 2007. |
10.13
|
|
EPE Unit II, L.P. Agreement of Limited Partnership. |
12.1
|
|
Computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges for each of the
five years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2002. |
21.1
|
|
List of subsidiaries as of February 28, 2007. |
23.1
|
|
Consent of Deloitte & Touche LLP. |
31.1
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of Robert G. Phillips for
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. for the December 31, 2006 annual
report on Form 10-K. |
31.2
|
|
Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 certification of Michael A. Creel for
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. for the December 31, 2006 annual
report on Form 10-K. |
32.1
|
|
Section 1350 certification of Robert G. Phillips for the December
31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K. |
32.2
|
|
Section 1350 certification of Michael A. Creel for the December
31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K. |